Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

more sources[edit]

Resolved

I offer the following sources for critical assessment. Are they reliable sources, qualified sources, or unreliable sources? See Wikipedia:SLR#Classes_of_sources for explanations of what those terms mean Jasy jatere (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Island[edit]

website

  • Like the Daily Mirror. Independent, and a reliable source. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Daily Mirror they are more prone to publish oped pieces by virtually unknowns and there is no gurantee that they have done fact checking. Myself got published beacuse I wrote a critical item about a well known many years ago. When I look back it was not a well written or factually correct article but it got published anyway. It is similar to FOX news in the USA unlike CNN so I will attribute it. Taprobanus (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the op eds are often very biased. What's your opinion on regular articles? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are RS Taprobanus (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read The Island a lot less than DM and DN, so I can make less firm judgments. They appear to be less biased than DN, in my opinion, but their reporting is not up to the standards of DM. I suppose this statement is very similar to Taprobanus' then. However, for attribution, we must decide HOW to attribute. "publishes anything" cannot be used as attribution, but rather calls into question their reliability. Jasy jatere (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oped pieces even if it is from New York times is attributed to the author. If the author has not published before and not a notable person, his/her opinion cannot be used even with attribution. Because any tom, dick and harry can get published (just like I did few times) and then their unchecked opinions become attributed facts in an encylopedic articlse. So in the acse of Island, we use news as is because its RS but its Oped page we use with attribution if the author is notable and has been previously published by a fact checking publisher such as an acdemic publication in the subject matter he/she an expert on. Lorna Dewaraja (?) is an historian who gets a view publshed in Island on historic matters. We can use it by attributing it. But another professor Nalin De Silva is a mathematician who publishes his political views all the time in Island and that is not usable. Both can be argued by pro Tamil groups as Pro Sinhalese authors but one is clearly a subject matter expert and the other is lucky like I was to get a venue to publish but it is his opinion only that is not fact checked at all. Taprobanus (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree with the above ideas. News items are very reliable I think, though somewhat biased towards the government and a little against the opposition and definitely against LTTE. But as in DN, they give the facts, not lies. Chamal talk 14:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Island is a reliable source, with fairly good commentary.Pectoretalk 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the position has to more nuanced than that Taprobanus (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus to treat The Island as RS, excluding editorials, but editorials are not sources anyway. Updating sources list to that effect. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even more sources for assessment[edit]

Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence http://www.defence.lk[edit]

  • My guess is that this is obviously pro-government. Since anybody would guess that, we can simply cite as follows: "According to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence", when there is a possibility of bias. — Sebastian 22:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Chamal talk 05:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as QS Jasy jatere (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.peaceinsrilanka.org[edit]

  • Self declared as "The official Website of the Sri Lankan Government's Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP)". If this is correct (and why shouldn't it?), then it should be cited by name of organization, that is: "According to the Sri Lankan Government's [[Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process]]". If there are more than one references citing this source, first should read "According to the Sri Lankan Government's [[Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process]] (SCOPP)", and consecutive ones "According to SCOPP". — Sebastian 22:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Official website of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP). Along with the MoD website, we could also just say "according to the Sri Lankan government...", because they both represent the government in an official level.snowolfD4 ( talk / @ )`
S/A Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as QS Jasy jatere (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lankanews.lk[edit]

  • Never heard of this before. Just taking a look at it, it doesn't seem t be updated much, and I don't see why we should even be using this on Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore unless self published notable publishes something Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as Unreliable Jasy jatere (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sundaytimes.lk[edit]

  • Reliable I think. A little biased towards the opposition maybe, but AFAIK it is a newspaper that is trusted by the public. I don't think there are any fabrications. Chamal talk 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say relaible, with attribution provided for opinion pieces. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RS Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as RS Jasy jatere (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tamilguardian.com[edit]

note: google says this site distributes malware. Use safe browser!

  • Strongly pro-LTTE. We should have to use this really. TamilNet should suffice--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly biased (or) not, does it have fact checking mechanism? i dont know, unless someone can prove it, keep out Taprobanus (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly biased, NOT ? :) --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 05:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not RS, a Tamil diaspora site hosted in the UK, not cited in Project articles, other sources are available. --Mtd2006 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as Unreliable Jasy jatere (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lankaweb.lk[edit]

  • Strongly anti-LTTE. Again, we shouldn't have to use this. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 23:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not RS Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly biased against is not a criteria we can use, but what we have to find out is do they have a fact checking mechanism. If we dont have that evidence, then it is not RS. Claerl, just like the above case I dont see evidence of that yet. Taprobanus (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as Unreliable Jasy jatere (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights http://www.ohchr.org/[edit]

  • Reliable. --Mtd2006 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. However, occasionally the statements of these organizations are disputed by either the LTTE or government, in which case their responses should be included as well. Chamal talk 14:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as RS Jasy jatere (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Peace, Unity and human Rights in Sri Lanka http://www.spur.asn.au/[edit]

  • Often cited, although sensationalist and anti-LTTE, factual, but not balanced. --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-LTTE, but gives the details of incidents clearly. No deliberate exaggerations or misinfo as far as I could find. I think we can have this as a QS. Chamal talk 01:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not RS Taprobanus (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • QS? If Not RS, what happens to citations in Project articles that use SPUR as a reference? Are the citations removed? One-sided, but not deliberately misleading – not mainstream. --Mtd2006 (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
citations based on QS have to be attributed "according to the anti-LTTE organism/agency/think tank XYZ, this and that happened"Jasy jatere (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I'll check the LTTE article. --Mtd2006 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close as QS unclose Jasy jatere (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about this. SPUR is like Tamil Nation. A place of collection of news, commentary and everything under the sun. How does it pass WP:VERIFY. There are so many commentaries written by who knows whom just like Tamil Nation. One Dr. Raju Selva wrote an article, Who is he, is he real even. We have no idea. So we should be nunaced about these websites. Not cart blanch RS or QS very much qualified as to what can be and what cannot be used. Taprobanus (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike TamilNation, SPUR is notable enough to be given coverage by reliable sources. [1] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verify smell test[edit]

  1. Is it an Academic source ?
  2. Does it have third party scrutiny ?
  3. Is it a respected mainstream publication
  4. It is not a wiki ?/
  5. Is it a Questionable source ?
  6. Is it self published by an expert ? So SPUR becomes a so when an individual who is well known in his/her field publishes itesm that can be resourced for an article. Taprobanus (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Secretariat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam http://www.ltteps.org/[edit]

  • Cited, although sensationalist and anti-SLA, factual, but not balanced. LTTE response to international criticism. --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good for citing info from LTTE's point of view and backing up LTTE claims. Info is definitely biased, so we should be careful about what kind of information we cite from there. Similar to tamilnet, and I think we can put it down as QS. Chamal talk 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not RS, only for LTTE's point of view. See Jaffna hospital massacre. Taprobanus (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • QS, with qualification. Certainly, LTTE point of view, but the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense is also one point of view. To be fair, the LTTE needs a source that's cited when it's appropriate. Rather than third-party news or analysis (so-and-so reported that the LTTE said...), the LTTE itself is the single, best source for their side of an issue. --Mtd2006 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

closed as QS Jasy jatere (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sinhalaya.com[edit]

The website says it is a news agency. I had never heard of it until I spotted this site today, but it seems to be quite reliable. Chamal talk 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again we have no idea what this is even. Please read WP:VERIFY. It fails most accounts. Pretty soon we will be calling Tamikl Nation RS :)) Taprobanus (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to list them all to avoid confusion haven't we? We even have tamilnet.tv in the list :) I didn't go through the site well earlier, but I see you are right now (trout for me, anyone?). Pretty much a blog than anything else. Chamal talk 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


closed as Unreliable Jasy jatere (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

remaining sources to assess[edit]

These sources have not been assessed yet. Any ideas? I propose to classify any of these sources as UnrS if by the first of march no editor has spoken in favour of them. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

asian times[edit]

[2]

delete — Atimes.org - Asia news Resources and Information. This website is for sale! --Mtd2006 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They do have archived material available though. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where can that archived material be accessed?
Google cache for one. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is RS Taprobanus (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, it should be http://www.atimes.com, not .org. That website is still up. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch[edit]

[3]

RS. HRW is independent and unbiased. Publications are academic, researched, references cited, methodology described. --Mtd2006 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often accused by both side, and many others around the world of not being totally truthful. Its notable though, so I'd say QS. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but if they are accused by both sides, how could we qualify them? pro/anti-X? Jasy jatere (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advocay groups are attributed. Such as AI, UTHR and HRW. They are RS but attributed Taprobanus (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant. Attributed source. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am confused. Is AI RS, and if so, why should it be attributed? I am not against this, I just try to grasp the logic. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get what's the matter with you and Taprobanus lately that you're so hell bend on repeating this confusion. Why can't you just look it up at WP:SLR#List of sources and see for yourself? Moreover, I already answered that same question of yours at #new class of sources, but you're just not listening. — Sebastian 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jasy the logic is this
  1. Advocay group is generally relying on allegations not facts
  2. Advocay group's fact checking mechanism is not transparent Taprobanus (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InfoLanka[edit]

[4]

The correct link is http://www.infolanka.com/news/ They don't publish any articles themselves, just link to other websites so this discussion is mute. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scoop[edit]

[5]

RS. An independent news agency based in New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtd2006 (talk • contribs)

also see Scoop (news website)Jasy jatere (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RS Taprobanus (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Monitor[edit]

[6]

I don't think this is reliable. I'd like to see notable sources (news organizations like Reuters, AP etc.) that use their material if there are opposing opinions. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is run by British Refugee Council, and they are an advocacy group just like HRW, AI, UTHR as such information should be used by attributing to them if it is in contradiction to mainstream verifiable facts. If it agrees with mainstream verifiable facts then no need to attribute. But clearly it is RS. Taprobanus (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about this go a long way, see Mirusuvil_massacre#Inaccurate_citations. Taprobanus (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing reliable sources which use Sri Lanka monitor.
And could you show me where on the BRC website they acknowledge that Sri Lanka monitor is affiliated to them? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the Project page. Sri lanka project is develped by British refugee council, the Sri Lanka project publishes the Sri Lanka monitor. :))) Taprobanus (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British Refugee council is ultimately responsible for the content of Sri Lanka monitor. No one can deny that they are a reputable organization albeit an advocacy group. They claim in their website how they approach research. Many reputable mainstream insitituitions relied on Sri Lanka monitor for their information.Taprobanus (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read that right I think. I asked, do you have reliable sources that quote Sri Lanka Monitor, and can you provide a source from the Refugee Council website that says they are affiliated to Sri Lanka Monitor. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we are beating the bush:) look at all the Academic sources that use Sri lanka monitor. I have work to do, really :( Taprobanus (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a source on the BRC's main website you want, this file (the impact report for 03-04), for example, says that the Sri Lanka Monitor is published by the Sri Lanka project of the Refugee Council (see page 21). -- Arvind (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilcanadian[edit]

[7]

Not a RS. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they also archive Northeastern weekly (now defunct) that was run by J. S. Tissainayagam who thankfully not bumped off but arrested and kept in jail for running it. (Really I am glad for his arrest, otherwise he will be dead by now) Again archived material such as Northeastern Herald and weekly which was a regular newspaper for a while should be usable. See this. Taprobanus. (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northeastern weekly isn't a reliable source though. And like TamilNation, it shouldn't even be used as an archive for international media articles. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northeaster Herald was a regular Sri lankan newspaper like the Island with an editor and editorial board. Tamil Candian simply archives it. Taprobanus (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, no it wasn't. It was a fringe pro-Tamil publication. Far from a reliable source. If you disagree, again, sources that quote NorthEastern Herald? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe, pro Tamil ? any sources for that but anyway I have a seperate section for that below. Taprobanus (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Tamil canadian and its quality. If they archive another joinral, that's their business, not ours. The respective merits and flaws of the North Eastern Herald can be discusssed in a section of their own. They do not confer, nor remove, any status to Tamil Canadian

See Snowulfd4 arguments on Sangam. I think Tamil canadian qualifies as such although it is non RS . Taprobanus (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TamilEelam News Service (TNS)[edit]

[8]

Not a RS. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not RS execept to attribute to LTTE or any pro LTTE group statements. Just like LTTE peace secratariat website. Taprobanus (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LTTEPS is their official website. And Tamilnet is considered their mouthpiece and often used by reliable media institutions. TNS falls into neither category. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like simply a collection of news, so let's call it non RS Taprobanus (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nation[edit]

[9]

Totally not reliable. Even things like articles which they attribute to other sources are routinely edited to get rid of material they don't like. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their own commentary is not RS, but archival material of others is usable see [ Sri Lankan Tamil society and politics this amongst countless others. Taprobanus (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, they often carry reports from other media institutions (like the Times of London) but remove parts of the Times article that criticizes the LTTE. That makes it unreliable even as an archive. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verify smell test[edit]

  1. Is it an Academic source ?
  2. Does it have third party scrutiny ?
  3. Is it a respected mainstream publication
  4. It is not a wiki ?
  5. Is it a Questionable source ?
  6. Is it self published by an expert ? So Tamil Nation becomes an source only when a self published expert publishes something that can be used. Taprobanus (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An expert on the subject will publish opinions in reputable magazines, not on something like TamilNation. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An expert can publish his/her opnion even in his/her own blog and as such it is acceptable in Wikipedia. As pointed out above Tamil nation archives whole books(not just portions of it) so such archives becomes reliable for us to use. If they selectively publish a portion of a news item then it is a question of whether that can be verified. Taprobanus (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be verified, we don't need TamilNation. If we really are talking about an "expert", they would be able to publish their findings on reputable media, not a racist website. And if they edit news articles to their benefit, who's to say they don't do the same to books? Simply put, a website that modifies news items from other organizations and posts it on their website is not reliable, for any citation what so ever. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sangam has some unique content that would be hard to find elsewhere. It's more of a gatherer of information rather than a source in itself (Kind of like Wikinews). In that sense, we should be able to quote most sources directly. For example, if we wanted to quote this article [6], we could mention the author of the piece (Gen. Mehta, a retired major general of the Indian army who has served in Sri Lanka), rather than Sangam.org itself.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC) In what way is Tamilnation and Spur are different from Sangam. What qualifies Tamilnation as a racist website, who says so and why not Sangam. Why Spur is not a Sinhala racist website ? Why the Ministry of defence is a Sinhala racist website? just for thoughts. Taprobanus (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

opinion pieces are attributed to their creator no matter where they are published. We are talking about the factual content, non op-eds. Seems that Tamil Nation is not RS for that. It is nice that they archive things, but these archived things can be cited by their true title on their own, there is no need to involve Tamil Nation.Jasy jatere (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but how about WP:EL, for example I have an Tamilnation link in Sri Lankan Tamil people. It has gone through a peer review, ga review and two FA reviews and no one objected that link. I need to make sure that in SLR we dont come up with rule that prevents me from doing it when the wider wikipedia community has no objections to it. I dont use TN for my sources only for additional information in WP:EL. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

westminsterjournal.com[edit]

[10]. Seems to be some anti-Islamist news/opinion-site/blog

See the statement of the founder. I cannot access the website, but maybe this is a temporary problem. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a blog, a news journal whose contributors "include politicians, policy-makers, journalists, intelligence staff and military personnel." --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass the WP:VERIFY smell test. Taprobanus (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://westminsterjournal.com/content/view/6/26/ lists the editorial office. Nothing to be proud of, I would say. This is not a news source, it is a blog. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Herald and its successor Northeastern Monthly (now defunct)[edit]

Northeastern Herald and its successor Northeastern Monthly (now defunct) have an interesting history. It was founded in 1992 but soon collapsed and was reviewed after the peace deal between the LTE and the Sri Lankan government in 2004. It was started with a stated aim of being an independent voice from the Colombo based media elites as well as the LTTE.[11],[12] The co editors were Taraki Sivaram (now assassinated) and J. S. Tissainayagam now under arrest for writing articles in the successor monthly. In its heyday it was quoted by many mainstream newspapers such as The Hindu [13] and journal articles [14] as well as Academic books [15]. Hence in a nut shell, its archived versions are clearly WP:RS as well it enables us to WP:VERIFY it. Taprobanus (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copy of archived discussion[edit]

Sources that were entered in table without discussion[edit]

A number of classifications in this table date back from the time when I was starting the project and have therefore not been discussed in our community yet. I just reset them all to UnclasS. This also includes one item that has been added by someone else later, following my bad example. Let's discuss them here first so we have a clean list. I'm adding my vote to each of them: (Remember: RS means "reliable", UnRS "unreliable" and QS means "qualified source" as explained in WP:SLR#Classification of sources.)

Amnesty International[edit]

BBC[edit]

  • RS. It has been disputed recently, but since we have so few RS, I'd rather keep it in that category for now. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS for Wikipedia it is RS so no point discussing it whether some SL centric wikipedians think otherwise or not because all of us will use it RaveenS 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Internet[edit]

  • RS. Seems neutral at first glance. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RSRaveenS 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Dep't of State[edit]

  • RS. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS no doubt in my mind as far as Sri Lanka is concerned. RaveenS 14:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UTHR[edit]

  • Need more information about this one. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS UTHR was founded by Ranjani Thiranagama and Ranjan Hoole both are notable enough to have articles on Sri Lanka. One was assassinated by the LTTE, others security is provided by the SL government hence the charge that he is beholden to the state of Sri Lanka. But his reporting has been neutral and to the fact from day one and is supported by the grants from European Human Rights commission. It is used extensively as a source by AI, HRW and US state department RaveenS 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RS If that's true, then I agree. It would be cynical to devalue someone for being in danger. — Sebastian 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability question about a Geocite website[edit]

The following website Sinhala place names of tamilized names of cities in Sri Lanka has been used as a WP:RS source in the following articles.

amongst many others ( I have not looked completely)

The stated purpose of the website which is collection is information allegedly from academic sources that are unverifiable by WP:CITE standards is to introduce Sinhala language place names for places in Sri Lanka for names that they claim originally had Sinhala names but are now minority Tamil language dominated places. This aim has to be seen through the prism of the current Sri Lankan civil war which has pitted the majority Sinhalese against the minority Sri Lankan Tamils. It qualifies not only as a self published but also as an extremist source because,

Self published

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5] self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Extreamist organization

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution

Based on my reading on WP:RS as above, I consider it a source not fit for an encylopedic effort because it is a collection of self published information claiming to be from academic sources that are unverifiable and from a biased point of view. The website itself indicates that its aims are racialist that is to regain the lost heritage by renaming place names that are currentkly ouccupied by ethnic minorities. Such efforts were seen in Bulgaria where ethnic minority Turks were asked to Bulgarize their names, in Rumania where ethnic minority Hungarian villages were given Rumanian names. Should Wikipedia be such a WP:BATTLE ground ? We alreday had a go at it here and came up with the solution that it is a non reliable source Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider it reliable unless the original sources are confirmed. --neonwhite user page talk 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline... a first glance the site seems reliable. The website lists who its editors and project coordinators are (near the bottom of the page)... however, I looked up the main coordinator (Dr. Chandre Dharmawardana) and it seems that his noted field of expertese is chemistry not liguistics. On the other hand, the site does list advisors who do seem to be linguistics experts... so, while it is likely to be politically motivated, the information may be reliable, never the less. Over all, I have to agree with Neon white... some corroboration is needed.
On the other issue... the contributers and collaborators to this site seem to all be accademics and scholars. I don't think they are "widely acknowledged as extremist". Sure, they have a definite bias, but that is not the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#1 not consider it reliable unless the original sources are confirmed Just to clarify, this source cannot be used alone unless the original verifiable source from which the information was gathered from is used to cite the information. Am I a correct ?
No... if the underlying citations can be confirmed, we can treat the the site under discussion as reliable (on this score) and should cite where we found the information (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#2 The website claims the follwing as contributers. Profs. Gerald Pieries, J. B. Dissanayake, Michael Roberts as well as one Proff Iyakutti as a Tamil contributer from India. The primary concern is, what assurance do we have that it is true? This is not a peer reviewed journal, conference or even an acadenmic source where we have confidence as to what they say is true. Knowing what we know of the ground situation in Sri Lanka how do we take it for its face value while creating an encylopedia.
Just because someone is Tamil, does not mean they are unreliable. Biased perhaps. Not the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my question. My question is how can we take for face value what the website is claiming as the truth ? Because after all it is not a peer reviewed journal so we cannot WP:VERIFY what they say. Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#3 Prof Micheal Roberts is an athropologists not a linguist. He expertsie is Sinhala nationalism. It is difficult to imgaine that he would contribute to a nationalistic project such as this.
So that is one of the things that need confirming. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will e-mail him to verify.Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#4 Professor Gerald Peiris is also not a linguist but a Geography professor who is fond of contributing to nationalistic causes.
Again... biased perhaps, but not necessarily unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he is not a linguist but a Geography professor just like the cite organizer is a Chemical professor. How do non experts get together and create a website that becomes reliable for an encylopedia ? Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#5 I did a google search on te so called Proff Iyakutti , no luck Is he real or imagined ? Taprobanus (talk)
What about this guy who seem not be traceable at all Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not RS. How can a website from geocities be reliable source ? How do we know that the authors mentioned actually do contribute. There are hundreds of thousands of professors. Their work cannot be used as RS unless they are writing about their specific filed of study. If a professor from Canadian history says something about African history, we will not use it as RS. Especially if such claim is controversial - as is the matter here. There is no know "expert" about Northe/Eastern Sri Lanka who is WP:Notable in this website. Just because someone is a "linguist" it does not mean they can write, reliably, about Northe/Eastern Sri Lanka. It's as improper as claiming a Canadian historian's word can used as reliably on matter of African history. Specially if such claim is controversial. What's next ? A mathematic professor talk about Tensor calculus ? After all from the arguments given here, it seems they can. They both learn numbers !!! This website is non RS unless there is proof, I mean from RS, that can claim that the same people who run this website are experts on the Northern and Eastern part of Sri Lanka. I am only harping on the fact they need to be experts on Northern and Eastern part of Sri Lanka is because those parts of the Country is really like a separate country called Tamil Eelam. Watchdogb (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break down

Here is a clear break down of people who "contribute" to the website. link

Ananda Wijesinghe - a non notable person and is not even an expert as required by wikipedia.
Bodhi Dhanapala - User who adds this stuff to wikipedia. Not notable, in fact this goes directly against wikipedia rules. You cannot quote from a website you run/ edit.
Jinawara - Non notable. Cannot be reliable
Thuradeva - Non notable. Cannot be reliable
Prof. Iyakkutti - As pointed out by Taprobanus, not notable. Even if he is he cannot comment on Sri Lankan. Let alone talk about Tamil Eelam.
Gerald Pieries, J. B. Dissanayake, Michael Roberts - Website claims "have provided us with advise and suggestions". Advise and suggestions can be on anything including the font size. Nothing says these people's field of study is North/Eastern Sri Lanka.
Late Prof. J. K. P. Ariyaratne - Again same problem as above.
Prof. Chandre_Dharma-wardana - link. He is currently working in Institute for Microstructural Sciences . If he is the person, then he can comment on Quantum theory and not about North and Eastern Sri Lanka. On the wikipedia article it claims that he "various aspects of Sri Lanka's antiquarian, historical, toponymic, and development studies" but without specific claim on his expertise on this matter his word cannot be taken.
Channa Lokulianage, Asiri Bandarage , and Dukhinda Jayawardena - Setting up Google Earth in Sinhala. Ok ? So what ? What gives them notability to comment on Tamil Eelam.
This website is not notable. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VERIFY

We are creating an encyclopedia here and our standards for sources has been set in WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. In all respects WP:VERIFY takes precedence. It says

  • In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

What it means that to be used as a reliable source we have to have reasonable assurance that some non involved third party has looked over the contents.

  • As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

It means more assurance we have of that third party review of contents the more reliable the facts that come out of the process.

  • Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

This explains what such most reliable sources are

  • Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

This explains why non academic but mainstream publication sources also respected and acceptable because they still have third party scrutiny. This applies to news papers, news websites magazines such as monthlies and quarterlies. Respected can be demonstrated by other publications which says so about such sources in question.

The classic question will but why did WP:SLR agree that Tamilnet is a qualified source. But Tamilnet which is a news website has at least four academic research papers written by researchers in journalism that say it is a respected source for information. Still because of its alleged bias we use it as an attributed source in Wikipedia.

If we analyze the random website in question

  • Academic source
  • Third party scrutiny
  • Respected mainstream publication

On top of it is a Wiki,

  • Can we quote from a wiki in Wikipedia such as Wikipedia itself

I’ve tried to verify the veracity of the alleged collaborators. Of all the alleged collaborators Professor Michael Roberts is the only one who is an internationally respected professor with publications in peer reviewed journals and academic books. I’ve e-mailed him 2 days ago and I have not received any reply back.

  • Can we verify that the most important and internationally well known contributor really did contribute

Then what it is this source. It is a

Questionable source

  • Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Aiyamperumal, Sinna Aiyamperumal (Giranikke [Killinochchi])

AADIYAMPEERUMA

Hist.: One may ask if this was named after the Chola Perumal from Chitambaram. He had a tiger inscribed on the flag which is called Puliyan; his place in Tamil Nadu was called Pulyannur Read also, the write up on "Aiyakerni" It could also mean the the "bog (vala) filled in olden times". Map

Here some one related to the website has come up with a completely made up Sinhalese name for a clear cut Tamil name. It is clearly a personal opinion with rumors with non existent reliable references. Here if we go with User:Neon white who said that he would not consider it reliable unless the original sources are confirmed, well in this example there no original source except the opinion of webmaster to confirm.

WP:SPS

Self-published sources (online and paper)

  • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

The random website is a self published personal website and claims to be an open wiki.Taprobanus (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the discussion of the very first name on that website is riddled with factual errors. The word "accan" is listed in most Tamil dictionaries, contrary to the site's assertion. Here's the entry in the Madras Tamil Lexicon. And, for the record, the word means "father" in Malayalam too, not "brother" as the site asserts. So it clearly doesn't seem to be checking its facts. -- Arvind (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. The website has since been updated to attempt to adddress some of the comments I made above, as one can see by comparing the present version of the discussion of "achchankulam" with this archived version, though it doesn't quite pull if off. I didn't realise this page was quite that influential. -- Arvind (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website is a pet project of Chandre Dharma-wardana a chemistry professor from Sri Lanka. There are wikipedia user(s) User:Bodhi dhana, User:Michel char, User:Sebastian rajalingam (some are SPA) which are interested in this pet project’s inclusion as a RS source is various Wiki pages as well as the bio about Chandre Dharma-wardana and equating Sri Lankan Tamils with Malabar immigrants from the 15 th century. The dream of this professor is to rename all Sri Lankan place names into Sinhalese[citation needed]. So it is a political research project not an academic research project. I really don’t care about peoples personal beliefs but when they try to impose it on others it creates problems. The website is primarily run by him and all the work is his[citation needed] which is not his expertise to begin with. Professor Michael Roberts very nicely put it in his reply, that he was asked and he does not remember whether he contributed or not and even if he did it is not his are of expertise (that is to say in a nice way he cant be bothered by such silly projects). Given the above User accounts wiki contributions, I am not surprised the corrections have been made based on your observations here. Taprobanus (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Bodhi_dhana[edit]

I have sent these claims by Taprobanus to Prof. Dharma-wardana, Profs. Roberts, Dr. Gerald Peires and others, Professor Dharma-wardana has expressed his surprise, and points out that no where in the website does it say that its objective is to "rename all Sri Lankan place names into Sinhalese", as claimed by taprobanus. In fact, the website says: " The existence of multiple place-names for a given location testifies to the rich culural tapestry of the nation. This centralized list and maps would make it convenient for Sinhala writers, artists, scientists, engineers, politicians - anyone- to use the Sinhala names when ever this is appropriate, in an entirely voluntary manner, thus helping to maintain and revive the cultural heritage of the country". Dr. Roberts clearly refused to be draged into a discussion (a minefield) where what he says may be misconstruded, as we can already see from the twist given to it by Taprobanus.Bodhi dhana (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realibility of Mackenzie institute[edit]

Resolved
 – Added to the List of sources (see diff). Black Falcon (Talk) 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This website is not NPOV website. It is maintained by a person who has come into heavy criticism by many communities including the Tamil community in Canada. The statements made by this websites author was quoted in a newspaper in Toronto to be later withdrawn and the newspaper companies later apologized for quoting this author. As such I propose this website to be anti-Tamil or atleast Anti-LTTE. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a tele chat with a woman from the institute some time back. I too have reservation of the institute and its NPOV status to quote on wikipedia. Teasereds (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't go by individual opinions and anecdotal evidence. To make an informed decision, therefore, we need links; especially if we want to take Watchdogb's points into account. However, they are a think tank, not a news source. According to our article Mackenzie Institute, they are not uncontroversial; so they are obviously not "the most reliable sources", as defined inWikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Unless anyone raises any objection, I would therefore think it is safe to assure that they are QS. And since they are obviously anti-terrorist, the designation "Anti-LTTE" seems very appropriate to me. Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no objection in four days, so feel free to add it to our WP:SLR#Classification of sources as discussed. Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should'nt it be anti-rebel per our agreement Taprobanus (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right, we have used that term for the other sources, too. When you proposed it here, nobody objected, so that's what we used; and since it worked for one source, we used it for other sources, too. But I actually never understood why you felt it is more elegant than "anti-LTTE". There's no need to change it now, but would you care to explain this to me? Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that sticks to my memory Taprobanus (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Human Rights Commission[edit]

Resolved
 – Added to the List of sources (see diff). ◅ Sebastian 12:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.humanrights.asia/

This is a source yet to be classified on SLR, would appreciate constructive users feedback on this. Its founder Basil Fernando has a background in human rights work with the UN. I would class this as a RS similar to other advocacy groups. It is cited by other reliable sources such as Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-myanmar-gangs-idUKBKK30876420070830 Oz346 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with the above. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been shown that it meets at least Criterion 2 and there has been no objection, I'm closing the discussion, adding it to the table. ◅ Sebastian 12:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Times[edit]

https://noolaham.org/wiki/index.php/வலைவாசல்:Tamil_Times?uselang=en

Another source yet to be classified on SLR. A published news magazine of over 25 years comprised of professional journalists and an editorial board with a reputation for fact checking:

"The Tamil Times under the enlightened editorship of Rajanayagam was committed to the fundamental journalistic principle – ‘facts are sacred and opinions are free’."

https://www.ft.lk/columns/Raja-From-Trotskyite-lawyer-to-Tamil-Times-Editor/4-737405

According to multiple newspaper articles regarded as RS, the Tamil Times reflected independence throughout its existence, despite being systematically targeted and pressurised to abandon publication by the LTTE:

http://archives.dailynews.lk/2007/01/23/fea02.asp

The independent Sri Lanka Guardian reported: "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." http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/10/mr-p-rajanayagam-journalist-with.html

The sister of Rajani Thiranagama 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."

https://island.lk/the-man-p-rajanayagam-was-remembered-by-nirmala-rajasingam/

It is also reputable enough to be cited by academics in their scholarly books (search 'Tamil Times' in google books).

I would therefore also class this as a RS. Oz346 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to give my input on this matter. Based on the testimony provided above, I too consider this a RS. But, in any case, couldn't we just say, "According to the Tamil Times"? Anyone who regards the Tamil Times as an RS can privately accept its information, and anyone who does not can privately reject it. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table it's not mandatory for a RS to require explicit attribution. If we do this for Tamil Times, then we need to do the same for say The Island or Daily News which are pro-state but currently require no attribution. There needs to be uniformity of the rules. I think it depends on the context, if there is contradictory information from different reliable sources then it would be reasonable to attribute, but otherwise it is not necessary.
@SebastianHelm: what do you think? Oz346 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts if Tamil Times is a RS given its pro-rebel tone in the earlier days with its owner/editor who was known to support the LTTE. However, we have the Tamilnet that was agreed as a QS, a RS which can be quoted for supporting subjects to only tell one side of the story with explicit attribution.Cossde (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am yet to find a RS describing Tamil Times as mainly pro-rebel, every RS describes it as independent from the outset with a diversity of views. Unlike Tamilnet, I do not think it can remotely be described as only telling one side of the story. It has for example regularly reported on Tamil militant war crimes from the very beginning. The magazine never had a sole owner as you state, it was formed by 6 individuals collectively. That one editor who was overtly pro-rebel in fact left it in 1987 due to disagreements, and the main editor for the vast majority of it existence has been described as critical of the LTTE. It has not been shown once to have poor fact checking unlike other pro-state sources like The Island which have been known to provide false details on occasion (for example, describing massacres of Tamil civilians as killing terrorists in the 1980s. See
https://edepot.wur.nl/138278 pp.165-166)
or the state owned Daily News which has been described by reliable sources as one of the worst newspapers in South Asia with a penchant of character assassination:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-fbwsZCO1gUC&pg=PA47
https://books.google.com/books?id=V6QwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227
Yet both these pro-government and pro-Sinhala nationalist sources are regarded as RS without the need for attribution. So there needs to be consistency in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutral POV. Oz346 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what you meant by "consistency in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutral POV". Cossde (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346 You have raised good points. Even the UTHR(J) stated they had anti-separatism or pro-united Sri Lanka as their ideal. The group was also associated with the underground work of one individual exiled in Colombo, Rajan Hoole, and it was less of an established organization than Tamil Times, yet it's deemed a RS. Either this and all other pro-state Sri Lankan newspapers should have their status be revised, or a consistent criteria should apply across the board and Tamil Times should likewise be recognized as a RS. Like other users, I too would say Tamil Times meets the criteria for a RS. Before the emergence of TamilNet in 1997, Tamil Times was a prominent voice of Tamils in English that was able to bypass Sri Lankan state censorship and continued to be an alternative voice even after the late 90s, therefore it would be a useful resource on the conflict. --- Petextrodon (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, are we discussing the reliability of UTHR(J) and Sri Lankan dailies or are we discussing Tamil Times? Since you brought it up, from what I am reading here you and Oz346, seem to be acting as a Wikipedia:POV warriors, claiming balance out content what you deem as pro-government with antigovernmental content on the pretext of WP:UNDUE. In this case demanding that mainstream publications and other internationally recognized organizations should have their established RS status reviewed so that a magazine with limited publication and in its early years (which are in question) was published from its editors (C. J. T. Thamotheram) own house, can be ranked equally so that WP:Balance can be archived in your POV. Isn't that you have demand and threaten to do here as well? Wouldn't that be creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE? That is a rhetorical question since I am sure your answers would be no. Cossde (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There absolutely needs to be a consistent criteria, yes. I don't know what Tamil Times allegedly being published from a residential property has to do with its reliability. The UTHR(J) was published from the underground. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil Times claims to be a published magazine. Doesn't it not? Cossde (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Rebel ? That was the most neutral but obviously run a by Tamil editor for a long time, unless we describe every Tamil as pro rebel ? Kanatonian (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality of the Tamil Times in its early years is questionable. Especially under its founder C. J. T. Thamotheram, who after leaving the publication went on to form groups that have openly lobbied for the LTTE in the UK. Cossde (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I found was “Thamotheram and International Tamil Foundation opposed LTTE's proscription as a terrorist group in the United Kingdom” I am not sure that can be used to say Tamil Times is not neutral in its editorial policy. Hence I believe it’s RS. Kanatonian (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find evidence to sustain the fact that this was a mainstream publication? And I do remind you that its first edition was published soon after the Burning of Jaffna Public Library and did cover much of it in that edition. Therefore, a publication that was started soon after such a significant incident in its founders home brings into question its purpose. I don't question that its a good source of information from the era as a WP:PRIMARY, however it needs collaboration. Cossde (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was mainstream enough to be cited by scholars, covered by mainstream newspapers, and countered by the Sri Lankan government with its own publication. Enough evidence in that regard has been provided above. The UTHR(J) too was founded during significant events of the war between the IPKF and the LTTE, during which period the LTTE came to exert influence over the Jaffna university faculty which the authors of the UTHR(J) as members of that faculty resented. Shouldn't that also bring into question its purpose? -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked UTHR(J) was not a magazine. Why compare TT to UTHR(J) ? Cossde (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thought. Do you see a reason not to hold sources to the same Criteria, depending on the form of a source? (Allowing, of course, that an individual criterion might not be applicable, as #6 in this case.) ◅ Sebastian 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission also opposed the proscription of the LTTE, on the grounds that it was unfair to sanction just one side of the conflict and that it would lead to an escalation of violence (the government also committed human rights violations, but escaped censure). Oz346 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the SLMM have to do with the TT?Cossde (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasy jatere: if possible your neutral third party opinion would be greatly appreciated on this discussion to help it to reach closure. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion so far, I deem the Criteria as follows:

  1. Academic:
  2. third party scrutiny?
  3. respected mainstream publication? ⌕⌕⌕⌕
  4. not … self-published etc.
  5. questionable: There are some claims in the discussion here, but no source given.
  6. expert: Not applicable here.

In conclusion, I see this as a clear case of a RS, and will enter it in the table as such. ◅ Sebastian 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sebastian for confirming that Tamil Times is a reliable source. Every editor bar one agreed that it was reliable. A lot of time has been wasted here and at Talk:List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces because that editor, despite having edited Wikipedia for 15 years, refuses to acknowledge that reliability and neutrality are two different things, as WP:RS and WP:SLR both make clear.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course war wastes a lot of human time, potential and even life, Obi2canibe. Compared to that huge waste, the little we put in here is hardly worth mentioning. I, for one, am willing to see both sides as victims, and if some people need some extra time for it, I don't think we should blame them. As Kanatonian expressed it in Kanatonians's_hope: “if some one is somewhere on that same long path but has not reached the conclusion yet but still wants to chat to see whether his/her beliefs and doubts can be reconciled that person should be given 1000% chance”. ◅ Sebastian 18:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kanatonian (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do not agree with the outcome of this, I do respect it. However, I don't respect the personal attacks, such as the comments by User:Obi2canibe which consitutes WP:PA. I will continue to call out what I feel as wrong and advocate the use of resouces such as SLR to resovle these. Cossde (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NESOHR book: Massacres of Tamils (1956-2008). Chennai: Manitham Publications. 2009. ISBN 978-81-909737-0-0[edit]

Discussion ended in October

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


https://books.google.com/books?id=z9Cjtngi0UIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another source yet to be classified on SLR. A book created by NESOHR published 7 months after the end of the war by the Indian publisher Manitham. Although NESOHR was originally formed under the patronage of the LTTE in its de facto state in 2004, the members of NESOHR had their origins in citizen committees, and their founding member was a Christian priest who later got assassinated by pro government forces. The organisation maintained a degree of independence, with its formation involving the formalization of pre-existing citizens committees under the existing authority (the LTTE which ran a de facto state in the region at time), although its autonomy was noted to be limited by Amnesty International in 2006:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa37/001/2006/en/

The organisation itself outlived the LTTE which was destroyed in May 2009, and was independent at the time of the book's publication. It principle author N.Malathy, an activist from New Zealand touched on the war crimes committed by the LTTE in her memoirs for example.

The book in question was written by N.Malathy with most of the content being derived from earlier work done by Jaffna university staff and the Statistical Centre for North East. She recounts this in her below book:

https://archive.org/details/fleetingmomentin0000mala

https://books.google.com/books?id=dYpXDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The creation of NESOHR was the result of two independent processes. Prior to the ceasefire, in the absence of any independent authority to deal with complaints by civilians against the Lankan Military and LTTE, voluntary bodies, called "citizens' committees", were formed to listen to people's complaints. Such citizens' committees had existed throughout the war period in many parts of Tamil Eelam. Also, the international peace-brokers of the 2002 ceasefire were keen on creating a human rights body to function in Vanni. The LTTE initially planned for such a body to function within the LTTE Peace Secretariat, which in turn was created to support the Norwegian-brokered 2002 ceasefire. But some leading members of citizens' committees in Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Trincomalee, and Batticaloa, led by Fr. Karunaradnam, got together and put pressure on the LTTE to create a civilian human rights body. NESOHR was the outcome of these two independent processes, and as such NESOHR retained a level of independence from the LTTE." p.56

"Sometime in 2004 an organization, the Statistical Centre for North East (SNE), was formed in Vanni. With the help of Jaffna University staff, it had embarked on a project to collect war-related statistics-on the occupation of Tamil land by the Lankan Military and on the Tamil civilian war casualties. The project was nearly completed but was interrupted by the 2004 tsunami. The data had already been drafted into two excellent documents in Tamil. One was on the land occupation, or in other words the High Security Zones, and the other was on the large scale massacres of Tamils." p.67

"The second report in Tamil produced by the Statistical Centre for North East was the first draft of a report that documented more than one hundred large-scale massacres of Tamils prior to 2002. This too was not published and was in very limited circulation. I began translation work of this report into English and continued even after I left NESOHR in mid-2006. It was released by NESOHR in 2007. I wrote another smaller report for NESOHR in mid-2008, describing the massacres that had taken place after 2002. The Tamil report remained unpublished and it went through many more revisions. It was eventually published on the NESOHR website only in January 2009, under the noise of artillery explosions and flying aerial bombers. It was the last large-scale report released by NESOHR, and it was the result of incessant efforts by Ramanan, who became a very active fulltime co-ordinator of NESOHR following the assassination of Kili- father. By December 2009, Ramanan and I had managed to get out of the island. We started work on combining, polishing, and updating these two reports. Another NESOHR founding member, who had escaped from the island in 2006 following death threats against him, also joined us. Many other Diaspora members also contributed. This combined report was eventually published in December 2009 in India, both in Tamil and English under the title, Massacres of Tamils, 1956-2008, by an organization called Manitham." pp. 68-69

She describes the motives for the documentation process:

"I have since heard directly from many mothers, fathers, wives and siblings about the murder and disappearance of their family members. In the vast majority of cases, these family members were males in their prime, who would have brought income and support to their families. Most of the families were very poor and the economic loss of an earning member was felt deeply. In several cases the disappeared family member would have been the only breadwinner in the family, thus pushing the family to destitution; something I observed while talking to the children in the children's homes and the beneficiaries in the many welfare institutions for women. I also observed that the suffering of the families of the disappeared was unparalleled. Due to the uncertainty of their fate, the family's grieving never ends. I have felt this pain of the families acutely. I would have just loved to spend the rest of my life documenting such traumas of the voiceless people because I had no other power than just that. At that time. I was convinced that my call for then in Vanni was the documentation of the immediate past history of the people." p.67

The book 'Massacre of Tamils' has been cited in other reliable secondary sources such as the following chapter which states "the North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESOHR) has provided a detailed account of massacres of Tamils during different phases of war":

https://dokumen.tips/documents/asia-pacific-between-conflict-and-reconciliation.html?page=6

In addition, another citation states:

"The reason for actualizing the right of self-determination for Tamil speakers was the result of political, social, and economic discrimination, including 171 massacres, well documented by the North-East Secretariat of Human Rights (NESoHR). [NESoHR, Massacres of Tamils 1956–2008 (Chennai: Manitham Publishers, 2009). There is a German edition, which also contains the massacres by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). NESoHR, “Damit wir nicht vergessen …” Massaker an Tamilen 1956–2008. Mit einer Einführung von Professor (em) Dr. Peter Schalk (Heidelberg: Draupadi Verlag, 2012)]."

https://oxfordre.com/religion/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-113

In light of the above, I think that the source would satisfy the status of QS, which would require explicit attribution, similar to other QS such as Tamilnet. I am interested to hear the thoughts of others in this project in order to adequately vet this source Oz346 (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cossde:, @SinhalaLion:, @Petextrodon:, @SebastianHelm: Oz346 (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty International in its report [16] has claimed that NESOHR lacks autonomy. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the Australian Parliament has stated [17] that the LTTE formed the NESOHR to "counter the dominant discourse on LTTE’s human rights record" and it lacks formal recognition or representation in international human rights forums, only functioning as "an intermediary between international human rights organisations and the LTTE" and its primary function is "advocacy on behalf of the rights of Tamils, directed mainly towards non-local actors" and also local advocacy as well as maintaining records of rights violations. Its autonomy has been questioned. the Pro-Rebel website TamilNet has stated [18] that in 2005 NESoHR was given the additional task of " documenting past atrocities against Tamils to its program". By who this task was allocated, TamilNet does not say. It is likely that that it would have been from the LTTE. The TamilNet goes on to say that "NESoHR released two detailed reports on past atrocities and a statistical report on the people who were forcefully evicted from their land." NESoHR has been already used extensively in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, which is questionalable since NESoHR is known as an orgernisation that had been founded and funded by the LTTE, limited to operate in LTTE controled areas and stopped operating after the LTTE was destroyed. There is no profe that the book was writen by Malathy, who had worked in the LTTE Peace Secerataiate and claimed to have worked with the LTTE leadership nor that any formal invovlement of other parties. Its Prefece contains clear anti-government retoric. Cossde (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is proof that she co authored the book and it's mentioned in her later book, I have included the quote above which is from pp.68-69. In addition, the original core work for this book was carried out by Jaffna university staff and members of the Statistical centre of the North East. N.Malathy and other members translated and edited the core work.
Whereas N.Malathy later worked with the LTTE peace Secretariat, she was not a LTTE member, nor does this make NESOHR a part of the LTTE or a LTTE front organisation. It's similar to how the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission was set up by the Sri Lanka government, but is a separate body from the government. Although by working in LTTE areas, its autonomy would have been constrained. However, that was then. NESOHR did not stop operating after the LTTE was destroyed, and this book is proof of it, being published 7 months after the war, when N.Malathy managed to leave the country and reach safety abroad with other members of NESOHR. 3 of NESOHR members were assassinated by pro-government forces including their founder, and there has been a concerted effort to silence them and their work through intimidation. The book has since been translated into German and published years later in 2012 as well.
What anti government rhetoric is present in the preface? Could you please elaborate. Oz346 (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346, Malathy may have been or not been an member of the LTTE, however she has worked with the ltte leadership and her book gives details. No proof has been given so far that the work has been carried out by the Jaffna university staff and members of the Statistical centre of the North East. Please provide proof that Death of NESOHR members was to "concerted effort to silence them and their work through intimidation". What proof is there NESOHR operated after the LTTE was destroyed? Please read the preface. Cossde (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the book itself attributes the work to the statistical centre of the north east (its even shown on the front cover), and Malathy's latest book confirms this (as I have quoted above). The fact that 3 members of NESOHR were assassinated, all of whom were critical of the government, most notably its founder the priest, which NESOHR itself condemned and explicitly blamed on the Sri Lanka government points to the likely source of intimidation: https://sangam.org/2008/04/NESOHR_Chairman.pdf?uid=2879
The proof that NESOHR still existed post war is the fact that they continued to publish books post war in 2009 and 2012, and in the introduction of these books they talk as NESOHR in the present tense: https://books.google.com/books?id=z9Cjtngi0UIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
The preface to this book is written by an American well wisher to the organisation, not a NESOHR member for what it's worth. Oz346 (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide independent confirmation to prove above claims. Your personal opinions can not be taken as facts. The preface goes to show the intent of the book as a propaganda tool. Cossde (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Author N. Malathy was not an LTTE member and the book in question was published after the destruction of the LTTE by an Indian publisher. Could you explain how the Amnesty's 2006 statement you cited about lack of autonomy could apply here? Your issue seems to be that the book was published under the name of NESOHR all because this group was formalized under the LTTE, the governing authority there at the time. NESOHR report is not different from the Sansoni commission reports sponsored and published by the Sri Lankan government and which editors have cited here on articles such as the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom, nor from the reports published by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) established by the Sri Lankan government. In my opinion, all of them can be cited, with explicit attribution where necessary. --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, during its existence NESOHR was linked to the LTTE and international organizations did not recognized it as an serious human rights organization nor its autonomy from the LTTE. After the LTTE was no more, its former members seem to have published a book using its name and its reports. No evidence has been provided to collaborate that this was in fact a NESOHR publication (i.e. press release from NESOHR). Nor evidence that its not since, the book lists its copyrights to NESOHR, which then contradicts what you say that its author is Malathy. Non of this is helped by the fact that its published by a publisher that is not a reputed publishing house. Malathy is known to have worked with the LTTE from 2005 to 2009 and is a known anti-GoSL activist in the post 2009 period. No evidence been provided to collaborate the claim that the content of this book comes from any other source other than NESOHR. Therefore, this book's origins and its content is questionable. Cossde (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, Miliani Sansoni was a former Chief Justice of Sri Lanka are you comparing Sansoni with Malathy? Cossde (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, i was remarking on the biased affiliations of the publishers. Sansoni's objectivity has been called into question by none other than UTHR's Rajan Hoole. Sri Lankan legal system is notoriously discriminatory against Tamils and can hardly be considered as an objective or reliable source. But i'm not for blacklisting it wholesale and it can be used with qualifications where appropriate. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the publishing house, the UTHR was self-published and is considered a RS. Manitham's publication also received coverage on mainstream news source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2009/nov/06/book-to-reveal-lankas-bloody-past-101666.html "Agni Subramaniam, executive director of Manitham said, “North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESoHR) painstakingly compiled all the details with credible field verifications and gave the permission to publish the details in a book in six languages – Tamil, English, French, German, Sinhala and Hindi.” Famous human rights activist from the United States, Dr Ellyn Shander will write the foreword for the book"...Hence, the content was further vetted by third party human rights groups and is qualified to be used on Wiki.--- Petextrodon (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical Centre for North East (SNE) was still active after the war's end. They issued a statement approving the book's publication (hence their logo on its cover), therefore must have affirmed the book's statement that the content was mostly drawn from SNE's work that involved the staff of Jaffna University. There's no valid reason to doubt the statements.
https://sangam.org/2010/02/Tamil_Massacres.php?uid=3824
--- Petextrodon (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, this link is from a known Anti-GoSL website (see Federation_of_Tamil_Sangams_of_North_America#Criticism) that does't prove the validity of the Statistical Centre for North East (SNE) nor its existence. Cossde (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fetna is a union of different sangams. Ilankai Tamil Sangam is not the same. Oz346 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there was this concerted conspiracy between different parties to fabricate the existence of Statistical Centre for North East (SNE)? For what reason exactly, if they were going to publish under NESOHR's name anyway? It was a local Tamil language based group that emerged in Kilinochchi before NESOHR's existence. NESOHR's pre-2009 reports even had SNE's contact details listed. But all of this is beside the point since what ultimately matters here is whether the final publisher NESOHR can be used with qualification or should be blacklisted wholesale. --- Petextrodon (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to discredit the work of citizen committees and other individuals not members of the LTTE simply because they came together to be formalized under the existing authority at the time (LTTE). Besides, the final book was published by an Indian publisher months after the LTTE's destruction. If groups that previously had a biased affiliation aren't allowed to evolve beyond the time of their foundation, many organizations that we today take for granted will stand discredited as well.
NESOHR report is not different from the Sansoni commission reports sponsored and published by the Sri Lankan government and which editors have cited here on articles such as the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom, nor from the reports published by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) established by the Sri Lankan government. In my opinion, they can be cited, with explicit attribution where necessary, and should not be blacklisted. Considering even explicitly pro-state Sri Lankan newspapers that have whitewashed war crimes against Tamil civilians are recognized as RS, it would be one-sided and unfair to apply a different standard to LTTE-affiliated sources, even after the destruction of the LTTE.
But to be objective, all the aforementioned sources are better regarded as QS, so I second @Oz346. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Petextrodon above the books were written after the destruction of the LTTE hence do not see it as a propaganda tool and Dr N. Malathy lived in the then LTTE controlled Vanni for 4 years 2005 till 2009 and worked with a human rights body (NESHOR), a women's organization, and an orphanage .They can be cited, with explicit attribution where necessary.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards, I disagree completely. No substantial evidence have been so far presented in this discussion to prove that NESHOR operated after the destruction of the LTTE other than the publication of these books. Publication of this book by former members of the NESHOR, using NESHOR documentation and the use of the NESHOR name does not prove that it was in fact a publication of NESHOR and NESHOR existed. If NESHOR did exist, what was its legal entity, base of operations and sources of funding. Therefore, it could well be that this a publication by Malathy herself. In fact after the destruction of the LTTE, the Tamil diaspora intensified its anti-GoSL campaign and still do. Furthermore, the publisher is not a reputed publishing house that give substance to this publication to be accepted as an RS or QS. Most importantly, the context of this documents use is an important factor, most of the editors here who are claiming that it is an QS or even a RS, have been heavily using it in articles to attack the Government of Sri Lanka. Hence using a book that has clear anti-GoSL sentiment, which gets its content on an orgernization that does not seem to be accepted by international organizations is not a RS at all. Cossde (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards, Malathy did not mealy "lived in the LTTE controlled Vanni for 4 years 2005 till 2009 and worked with a human rights body (NESHOR)" as you say. Thats a gross simplification. In her book A Fleeting Moment in My Country, Malathy states that she was the first Secretary of the North East Secretariat on Human Rights, working full time in NESHOR for an year from March 2005 and thereafter she left NESHOR to be involved in the LTTE Peace Secretariat, returning to work in the NESHOR after its chairperson Fr Karunaradnam was killed and worked till the NESHOR stopped functioning in 2009. Hence she was a founding member of NESHOR. Cossde (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with QS as well. From what I understand, NESOHR was a partially autonomous entity. However, the "partially" part is the real kicker. Given the iron fist rule the LTTE had in its controlled territories, if NESOHR had to work with the LTTE (in contrast, to say, UTHR), I doubt that NESOHR could deviate far from the LTTE's line (assuming its members had any interest in doing so). I think this is reflected in the fact that despite being the "North East Secretariat," it has only focused on Tamils in the north and east, and almost only focuses on state crimes. The choice of scope per se is not what makes it QS as I've argued in the past that unbiased work is basically impossible to find in Sri Lanka-related literature. It's that there's a risk that there was pressure from the LTTE to confine the scope to what it was.
For what it's worth, I do not think that NESOHR report is comparable to the Sansoni commission report or the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. In the latter cases, there's acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the state towards Tamils or Muslims. The former commissioner of the HRCSL was Ambika Satkunanathan, who has been very critical of the state. However, I'm not (yet) aware of NESOHR ever writing on LTTE crimes against Muslims or Sinhalese, or even the 1956, 1958, or 1977 riots against Sinhalese. SinhalaLion (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: by those comparisons with Sansoni commission and HRCSL reports, I didn't mean to focus on the legitimacy of the content, but the affiliation of the publisher (hardly a neutral source). HRCSL in recent times has improved its rating among international human rights groups but during the wartime it had lower rating and Tamil victims of the state alleged it was "infused with perpetrators from the Sri Lankan government". https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/i-have-been-suicidal-so-many-years-because-my-treatment-here-tamil-asylum-seeker-speaks-out
https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=39598
Its former head was Radhika Coomaraswamy who was awarded by the Chandrika government, which was implicated in bombing Tamil school and church. That didn't prevent her from becoming a respected UN official, yet if you were ever affiliated with the LTTE in any way, you're forever tainted.
As for Sansoni commission, as we've already discussed elsewhere, UTHR's Rajan Hoole criticized the justice for his pro-state bias. No state institution or figures affiliated with the state can be completely objective when it comes to the Tamil issue as it's the very negation of Sri Lankan legal system which they're invested in upholding.
I can't comment on NESOHR's other activities, but the book in question was just a translation of the reports in Tamil compiled by the Jaffna University staff working with the Statistical Centre for North East, so, no less reliable than the UTHR. The only reason why we would demote its status to QS is because the final publisher was formerly affiliated with the LTTE. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No verifiable information has been shared to confirm that Jaffna University staff worked with the Statistical Centre for North East. Cossde (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the publishing house, the UTHR was self-published and is considered a RS. Manitham's publication also received coverage on mainstream news source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2009/nov/06/book-to-reveal-lankas-bloody-past-101666.html "Agni Subramaniam, executive director of Manitham said, “North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESoHR) painstakingly compiled all the details with credible field verifications and gave the permission to publish the details in a book in six languages – Tamil, English, French, German, Sinhala and Hindi.” Famous human rights activist from the United States, Dr Ellyn Shander will write the foreword for the book"...Hence, the content was further vetted by third party human rights groups and is qualified to be used on Wiki. A case could be made that it may even qualify for RS.---Petextrodon (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book was also accepted as part of the affidavits submitted to the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal on Sri Lanka that was headed by a panel of eminent international law experts and scholars: https://www.sangam.org/2010/01/Peoples_Tribunal_Report.pdf (see page 28) --- Petextrodon (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, please refer to a discussion where the indictment filled by Bruce Fein on behalf of Tamils Against Genocide was defined as WP:PRIMARY by WP:RSN. Cossde (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. If you had bothered to read the document, you would have known it's not the actual affidavit itself but mentions that the book was used as such. The point is to highlight the fact that the book has received the attention of relevant scholars in an opinion tribunal examining cases regarding violations of human rights.
I think the main points have been laid out and it's now up to the moderator to come to a decision. --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, can you please Manitham and/or Agni Subramaniam acceptance locally or internationally to be considered as a self-published RS? Cossde (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown and assessment[edit]

Sorry that it took me so long to show up here. This is a lot you guys already wrote up! From the discussion so far, my preliminary assessment of the Criteria is as follows:

  1. Academic: (No reference for the claim that Jaffna University staff worked with the Statistical Centre for North East.)
  2. third party scrutiny? based on the following:
    In this context, I could not verify two claims:
    • Cited by “Asia-Pacific between Conflict and Reconciliation”. Reference: page 6, but that only shows part of the TOC, no mention of ‘NESOHR’.
    • “Amnesty International in its report [20] has claimed that NESOHR lacks autonomy.” There are 7 occurrences of ‘NESOHR’ in that document, but nothing that could back up this claim.
  3. respected mainstream publication? (because it's not a mainstream publication)
  4. not … self-published etc.
  5. no RS calls it “questionable”:
  6. expert:
  7. Although that is of course not one of the Criteria we agreed on, I would also count it as a positive point that the founder (and maybe others) got assasinated. As I wrote when we founded SLR: “The middle ground is always despised by extremists of both sides […]”WP:SLR#Sebastian's dream. Of course, having murderers as enemies is no proof that someone is reliable, but counting it as a positive gives a voice to the victims, and thus gives peace a chance.
  8. I also have a positive prejudice for the creation of NESOHR by "citizens' committees", which to me sounds similar to WP:SLR's purpose.

Some criteria more or less explicitly were not criteria against classification as QS, so I did not count them in the above list:

  • NESoHR originally was created by LTTE. Counterarguments: • It's similar to how the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission was set up by the Sri Lanka government (although that similarity was under discussion around 22:56, 13 October). • Publication was after LTTE was destroyed.
  • it lacks formal recognition or representation in international human rights forums. (Noticeably, the part “but nevertheless functions as an intermediary […]” was omitted from this citation from the Australian Parliament [21], p. 22.)
  • NESoHR has been already used extensively in one of our articles

I also didn't count the following:

  • “Famous human rights activist from the United States, Dr Ellyn Shander [wrote] the foreword for the book.” because we don't have an article about Shander, which sheds doubts on the word “famous” and thus on the significance of the whole claim.

All in all, it looks to me like a clear case of QS. Or did I miss anything? ◅ Sebastian 23:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above assessment that it is a clear case of QS. Oz346 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. @SebastianHelm, thank you for breaking down all the information discussed here. However, this brings up a key question. Who is NESOHR at the point of the publication of this book?
  1. We have an entity called NESOHR formed by the LTTE in 2004 similar to the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission, however lacks recognition it has. It has the mandate form the LTTE to operate within LTTE control areas. The LTTE is destroyed in May 2009, with it all LTTE entities cease to function.
  2. We have this book been published under the NESOHR name after this entity by a Indian publisher called Manitham.
Are these the same? or is some one using the NESOHR after it was formally cease to exist in May 2009? or Did NESOHR survive the LTTE and continue to operate. If it did was it the same organization (i.e. in terms of governance and mandate) or was it a new organization with a new leadership?
So far no evidence has been provided here that NESOHR continued after the demise of the LTTE nor did it have the mandate or legal status to do so. There has been no formal press release nor registered address or legal status for the NESOHR after May 2009.
From the data provided here, it appears that an ex-NESOHR person and others have used NESOHR artifacts to publish this book under its name. Therefore, classifying it as a QS based on assessing pre-May 2009 data points, where as the subject in question the book, is post 2009.Cossde (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're bringing up an interesting philosophical question: That about synechism of an entity, or more specifically, of an institution. This is crucial for a project called “Reconciliation”, and it's one that has deep resonance with me, coming from a country that committed terrible atrocities. It is part of the big work we as a people have to do, which is so connected with us that English even took our word for it: Vergangenheitsbewältigung.
This question is much bigger than a subtopic to the discussion of one particular source, so it should be discussed in its own right. Endeavouring its solution will be a long and arduous path. Maybe it is time to revive all of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation so we can have the forum worthy of this question. Vergangenheitsbewältigung is so immensely hard because there's always something that's connected to something else: Question A depends on question B, which depends on question C, and so on. Moreover this chain typically forms loops, so it can't be solved this way. The only way to achieve Vergangenheitsbewältigung is with humility and grace. We have to start with problems that block the solution of others, and, at least for the moment, try to solve them without getting hung up on the other, yet unsolved issues. That is not to say that we should just forget about those; e.g. we could list them as we did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/LTTE digest#Nuances. So, can we please settle this one issue, so that we can move on? ◅ Sebastian 08:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Cossde.
Scholarly attention to this specific book is present in the post war period:
https://oxfordre.com/religion/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-113
The following citation in the 2016 publication "Asia-Pacific between Conflict and Reconciliation" in the chapter "Is Sri Lanka in a Post-Conflict or Post-War Situation?" can be found here:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=The+North+East+Secretariat+on+Human+Rights+%28NESOHR%29+has+provided+a+detailed+account+of+massacres+of+Tamils+during+different+phases+of+war&btnG=
The scholarly RS all refer to the post war book being produced by NESOHR. Oz346 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is tl;dr. Given that this whole conversation was already 5467 words long, adding another 600-some words is not inviting for others to read on. Moreover, repeating what you already wrote is an insult to anyone who painstakingly already worked their way through the long discussion above. If you want to alert someone to something you think they may have overlooked, there are better ways to do so. Please also correctly indent your message, so people can see what you're replying to. I for one will take this page off my watchlist for now. ◅ Sebastian 11:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you should decide to delete your long message I allow you to delete mine as well. ◅ Sebastian 11:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a third note, it just occurred to me that the indent may have been correct and this is meant as a reply to the previous message. But if that is so, then I feel that my message, into which I put all of my heart, is falling on deaf ears, and still think that it's the best for me to WP:DISENGAGE. ◅ Sebastian 11:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SebastianHelm: I apologise for the long message, I did not realise the conversation had been brought to a conclusion. Thank you for your tireless work in continuing this important project. I can confirm that I replied to Cossde by clicking the 'reply' link under his last comment. Oz346 (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we reached a clear decision here. Some doubts about it have been raised by Cossde, but despite repeated requests (both here and on my talk page) they were never backed up, so it's best to ignore them. Because this discussion has been quiet for several months, I am closing it and will enter NESOR as QS in our table. For the attribution, it has been suggested "similar to other QS such as Tamilnet", which was unopposed, so I will do just that. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International Truth and Justice Project, Sri Lanka[edit]

https://itjpsl.com/about

Another source to be classified. ITJP has been cited regularly in scholarly papers:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10778012221086010

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2017.1360025

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-019-0549-3

As well as the international media:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35249088

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/24/rights-group-seeks-arrest-of-former-sri-lanka-president

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41089396

It is headed by Yasmin Sooka, one of the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka:

"Yasmin Sooka is a well known international human rights lawyer and transitional justice expert who ran the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa for nineteen years. She served on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission for eight years, the Sierra Leone Truth Commission and the UN Independent Review Panel for Central African Republic (CAR) in 2015 looking into Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Foreign Military Forces in the Central African Republic. In 2010, she was appointed by the UN Secretary-General to serve as a member of the three-member Panel of Experts advising the UN Secretary-General on accountability for war crimes committed during the final stages of the war in Sri Lanka (‘the Panel of Experts’). For the last six years she has headed the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan."

Source: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/sooka-paid-a-significant-sum-in-legal-costs-compensation-by-pro-gosl-sinhalese-uk-activist/

The above clearly demonstrates that she is an expert in the field of human rights, and has mainstream acceptance. I would therefore classify ITJP as a RS. I would appreciate if others would give their thoughts. @Cossde:, @SinhalaLion:, @Petextrodon:, @SebastianHelm: thanks. Oz346 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with RS.
I have a somewhat unrelated question, but am not sure where else to bring it up. Do we have to explicitly reference a QS if the information from the source is against its alleged bias? For example, if NESOHR wrote something very indicting of the LTTE and we used it here. We would expect the NESOHR to have, if anything, a pro-LTTE bias, so it's unlikely it would lie about something against (alleged) interests. It's essentially the legal concept of declaration against interest. SinhalaLion (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree ITJP is RS.
This is a straightforward case. The founder's reputation was also upheld by the neutral UK High Court against the slander by the Sri Lankan government. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: I am yet to be convinced. Please find my concerns highlighted in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#International_Truth_and_Justice_Project. Cossde (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the sources used in Tamil genocide[edit]

Some area knowledge would be helpful in the Talk:Tamil genocide#Audit of quoted sources discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources&oldid=1224958821"