Talk:Sarathambal

cause celebre
''A cause célèbre (of which the plural is causes célèbres) is an issue or incident arousing widespread controversy, outside campaigning and/or heated public debate. It is particularly used for famous long-running legal cases''..I don't know what made you to tag every single rape incident as a cause celebre when most of them are certainly not..And also please refrain from giving citations from pro LTTE sites, we already had enough fun reading them.thanks-- Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed to internationally known incident RaveenS 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet consensus and UNDUE and NPOV
Where is the consensus ? in WP:RS ? the only direction from WP:RS is to use WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV when using Tamilnetsee here, also why are we removing UNHCHR citations ? please make your case before I take this to rfc. Thanks Taprobanus 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What consensus. There is a consensus that these lobby groups should not be used. You asked for non Tamil and Sinhalese opinions and you got them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My dear friend, a group of editors who are only active in Karnataka related pages and have never ever commented on Sri Lanka conflict related pages unlike you to a discussion can be considered neutral. It is more like a Cabal activity rather than neutral opinion. All neutral people who commented have said Tamilnet is RS source and we should use it with care keeping in mind NPOV and UNDUE in mind. In this page we are discussing not about whether it is RS or not. It is forgone conclusion in the WP:RS as neutral editor USER:Blueboar suggested. Can you suggest as to why Tamilnet fails NPOV and UNDUE in this page ? Thanks Taprobanus 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the RS talk page, it was adviced that while using Tamilnet what should be kept in mind was UNDUE and NPOV. The use of Tamilnet here does not establish any facts.


 * 1. It is used to eloborate the details of a funeral that establishes that dignitaries from all communities attended it. That is the indignation of the rape and murder was felt by both the communities not just the minority Tamil community.


 * 2. It also calrifies that the protest of her death was felt in her native town, Jaffna and Colombo. Without Tamilnet we cannot establish that the protest took place in Jaffna town.


 * So I would like to know those who keep removing Tamilnet from this article whether UNDUE and NPOV are violated ? Thanks Taprobanus 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like to get the opinions of the other users involved in this dispute. From what I can see, there seems to be no reason for TamilNet to not be included as a reference in this article. Perhaps a mention of the source in the body of the text would be appropriate, but I think TamilNet was just providing facts, and not a biased opinion. I will look into the particular refs later on. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will bring in more neutral people to comment on this ? Taprobanus 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, what is the dispute here? Outside of some vague idea that one side is using a source that the other does think is reliable, I have no idea what you people are arguing over. Please provide diffs from the page history so outsiders (like me) can see what material is under dispute -- not generalized statements or accusations. -- llywrch 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It all began with the removal of Tamilnet as a source from this article. See diff here. We took it to ANI because; it was a pattern of such edits because number of articles were targeted. The ANI discussion was inconclusive although a neutral admin found it not violating RS. Further as ANI is not a tool to resolve conflicts anyway, we carried on the discussion from the ANI to WP:RS talk page where neutral uninvolved editors such as User:Blueboar suggested that what we need to keep in mind while using Tamilnet is not whether it is RS or not (because it is) but to assure not to violate  WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV as it is potentially a biased news source that works within the confines of official censorship in Sri Lanka. Blueboar also suggested that we take the discussion to the concerned talk pages of the articles concerned. This is my attempt to verify whether using Tamilnet in this article violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. We’ve had over 20 reverts in this article by number of editors and 2 edit protect by admins. I want to use the wiki process to resolve this conflict of continious elimination of this source from this article based on view that it fails WP:RS. We also have a consensus here that it is a Qualified Source. See also discussion about qualified sources in WP:RS talk page. Thanks Taprobanus 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was one of the people who said two weeks ago that the discussion on ANI was inconclusive. Since then, we had a discussion on WT:RS which led to a conclusive agreement between all serious editors that Tamilnet can be used as a source, however with attribution such as "pro-rebel". I don't see anything in the discussion of this page that indicates a reason to deviate from that. (By serious editors I mean: Editors who take Wikipedia guidelines and policies and the concerns of other editors seriously, even when they are unfavorable. As far as I'm aware, all arguments against using Tamilnet as a source have been refuted in that discussion.) &mdash; Sebastian 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The first diff was what I was looking for: the two passages where Tamilnet was cited as a source by one editor, however another editor objected to its use.


 * In a way, I'm frustrated about this disagreement. Those two items are, I believe, uncontroversial: in the first Tamilnet was cited for a claim that demonstrations took place in one specific village, & in the second, for the identity of the speakers at this woman's funeral. I can't help feeling that had another source had been used for these two items, but the wording was identical, there would have been no controversy; the controversy's not over the facts, but over the source. However, I can't fault the other side in this disagreement: I suspect that this is only one episode in a long-running disputeover content, & that when people saw the citation of Tamilnet here they looked no further & based their actions on that one name alone. We all get caught up in disputes like this, & sometimes we act before we've thought thru the situation. Yet, if that reading of the situation is wrong, then I'm faced with an even more disapointing conclusion: someone is trying to use the rules of Wikipedia to silence an opposing viewpoint, & make an article less NPOV.


 * The intent of "reliable sources", "unreliable sources", & "qualified sources" is to keep out information that is not only unreliable, but gives undue support to a minority or fringe opinion on a subject. For example, racist propaganda is considered an unreliable source on race for obvious reasons -- except as evidence what specific racists believe. This prevents one side from unfairly citing a dozen sources of marginal importance to offset the information from one well-written & respected source. In this spirit, I believe that "Qualified sources" describe sources that may not be the most desirable in quality, but they are good enough to fit a need. An example would be certain instances of official reports from opposing governments in a war: I've seen some cases where two warring sides will both claim that they inflicted heavy casualties on each other while suffering minimal, if any, themselves. Obviously one -- or both -- sides are lying in this case. Despite this trustworthy intuition, because there are no reasonably objective or impartial sources on this conflict, we are forced to merely cite what is reported, treating them as "qualified sources".


 * And remember, just like a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day, even the most unreliable sources occasionally report the truth. If the matter they report is uncontroversial -- or at least plausible -- does it matter that an article cites them? Despite what some SEOs may believe, a mention by Wikipedia does not in itself indicate approval, let alone respectability. -- llywrch 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may summarize what you have said as a neutral uninvolved third party in any edit conflicts related to Sri Lanka related articles; the addition to what User:Blueboar suggested, i.e we need to be careful about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV while using Tamilnet, you are suggesting that it is can be used to cite facts that are uncontroversal and removing it in this article makes the article violate NPOV. Taprobanus 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

deindent
First, I'm simply lost as to where "serious editors who take Wikipedia guidelines and policies and the concerns of other editors seriously, even when they are unfavorable" archived a consensus that Tamilnet is a reliable source. At AN/I? At WT:RS? I'm sorry but I don't see it. It seems to me a lot of editors are expressing their personal opinions here, so I suggest everyone take a few minutes and go through official Wikipedia policy on which sources we should use. For example, WP:RS states,


 * Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Ask yourself, is Tamilnet considered credible? Are Tamilnet articles considered trustworthy? And I don't mean by a few Wikipedia editors, I mean by general media consensus. The answer? Look at every single major news report which quotes something from Tamilnet. They always identify Tamilnet as "pro-rebel" or "pro-LTTE" or something along the lines. They are news organizations and sometimes have to mention Tamilnet reports. Wikipedia on the other hand is not a news website. We do not give any credit to all forms of crazy opinions and various gosssp. If the LTTE releases a statement to the press saying "yada yada", fine, mention it a related article per WP:NPOV. But Tamilnet is in no way notable enough to have their opinions given mention on Wikipedia. Just cos someone says the Virginia Tech Massacre was organized by the U.S. government to push through gun control laws do we mention that on Wikipedia? And just cos Tamilnet says the Sri Lanka Army personnel had nothing better to do so they shot dead a mentally retarded man do we mention that on Wikipedia?

To further emphasize my points about editors failing to read Wiki policies, check out WP:V


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Again, does Tamilnet have a reputation for accuracy. Is it because they are soooo accurate that Reuters, BBC, Xinhua etc etc include the "pro-rebel" disclaimer before attributing something to them? I certainly don't think so. And I don't think any "serious editors" will dispute that. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't see llywrch's comment before I wrote the above comment, I believe I already covered it. Just to make it clear, the stuff wiki editors will use Tamilnet to cite will almost 99% of the time be about the Sri Lankan Civil War, and that is where the disputes arise. Fortunately, there is increasing coverage of the war in reliable international media like the BBC, Reuters, and now even organizations like Al Jazeera, who have resident correspondents in war zones in Sri Lanka. And, as you mentioned, they almost always give the LTTE's point of view in their articles. For example I was going through this BBC article yesterday. It starts off


 * At least 45 civilians have been killed in eastern Sri Lanka after army shells hit a camp for people displaced by the fighting, Tamil Tiger rebels say.


 * That fact is duly credited to the LTTE and mentioned in the related article.


 * The simple fact is while news organizations obviously do get some points wrong, Tamilnet has been repeatedly proven to falsify news reports. Until recently I don't mind using it in some cases extreme cases, but recently they published a so called "interview" with a senior religious leader, only for the him to release a statement completely denying speaking to Tamilnet. We are not talking about been mislead or fooled, Tamilnet routinely falsifies news reports.


 * Given that, like I said, everything important would be covered by news organizations which I'm sure most of us, there is no need to use Tamilnet even as a "qualified source" simply because it is just not reliable. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus was reached on WT:RS. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote: I did not say the consensus said that Tamilnet is a neutral source; in fact, the I agree with you (and the consensus) that it should be used only with a qualification such as "pro-rebel".


 * However, that consensus was based on the evidence provided by both sides at the time. The bishop's letter you mention is an interesting new piece of evidence. If there is an impartial source for that (or ideally, a web page maintained by the Catholic Church) then it would cast a different light on Tamilnet's reliablility in my view. &mdash; Sebastian 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny that Snowulf would include this incident and not the whole part. Tamilnet NEVER said that it was a direct interview with the Bishop himself. However, the editor's language seems to have implied that. Tamilnet stepped up to the plate and has edited the news and has also said that "It was not a direct interview but a close acquaintance of the bishop has mentioned this". This actually works with Tamilnet and shows it actually thrives to keeps things clean. Watchdogb 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to make just two points that is not all news is international, that is we cannot rely on BBC and CNN to for all details to write an NPOV encyclopedic article. We need local new sources such as Tamilnet to add details. Point two is that this article was nominated for DYK and AFD, even the nominator for AFD did not object the usage of Tamilnet, so why all of a sudden now a change of heart ? Taprobanus 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Way forward
Based on what User:Nishkid64 and User:Llywrch have said (both being nuetral and uninvolved third parties to Sri Lanka conflict related articles) I suggest
 * That in both the locations where Tamlnet is used, to clarify that it is attributed to Tamilnet not as a statement of fact.
 * Remove Tamilnation from the article and replace it with another cite such as UNHCHRTaprobanus 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did it Taprobanus 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories to add
editprotected Please add the following categories: Category:1970 births and Category:1999 deaths. Thanks. Lugnuts 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What additional citations for a case closed rape and murder in Sri Lanka
What additional citations are needed for a person raped and killed in 1999 where the government decides in 2001 that there will not be anymore discussions about it in 2001. Has someone dug her body out and done some DNA analysis after 2005, has the government decided to re open the case in 2007 or has the sun arisen in the West in Sri Lanka. Now what do we want about a historic case that began with the itch of some bloody murderous rapists (still alive and free - most probably) raping and killing this mother and a hopeless attorney general saying "”I am sorry, I cant do anything about it guys”?" I have done the search and there is none. May be when the sun rises in the west in Sri Lanka we can add more citations to this article Taprobanus (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)