Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive 2

message: I started this project because NCSLC did not achieve its goal of neutrality. So much so, that many good editors would have nothing to do with it. Let's sympathetically look at what went wrong so we can learn from it.  [...] — Sebastian 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls? 

message: This article is the Bio of "Colonel Soosai", not Interpol's special page for "Colonel Soosai".SAR23 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you keep posting here? You are not a member of WP:SLR --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This talk page is open for everyone to add comments. — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Colonel Soosai]] 

message: The above long essay by SAR23 is more than just a talk page contribution. It is clearly not what WP:TALK has in mind, since it exceeds the recommended 100 words by far, and employs heavy editing so that it's virtually impossible to write replies without destroying the format. One option would be to move it into a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/LTTE digest, and that's what I'd recommend if SAR23 were a member. So, what should we do with it? — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: What to do with essays in our talk page? 

message: If "Terrorism" tagging continues for LTTE caders, start "State Terrorists" and tag to Sri Lankan Presidents and Military personnel who are responsible for many of the "State Terrorism" directly or indirectly. They are elected or part of a legitimate Government doesn't exempt from the tag. Their status is only either they are still not tried or failed to be tried, but fit for the "State Terrorist" tagging.SAR23 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "State Terrorist" Tagging 

message: References are not enough to call some one as terrorist. On which basis should be clarified.SAR23 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems you are awaiting till LTTE announce Soosai as a terrorist. Isn't it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should ask them.SAR23 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah thank you, thank you very much. Actually I have no idea how can I appreciate for your brilliant advice. Why don't you reconsider my request over here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Terrorist" tagging 

message: US Defense/State Departments are not the  international judicial arms to listen their views and rules. Tamils have the right to question the SLAF bombing. Mostly Sinhala or foreign pilots bombing in the Tamil areas. Sri Lankan government is not a responsible government and it has violated over the decades Tamil rights under the name protecting an ilusive/unaccepatable law, and sovereignty. Targetting a Military base which violated Tamil minority rights with the Sinhala majority dominated "Sri Lankan Government" is not "Terrorism" but "Self-Defense".SAR23 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think that you are in the wrong place ?? those kind of comments are much appreciated at here and here,unless of course you already a contributer to them --Iwazaki 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. This clearly does not meet the criterion "Targeting civilians" of :Category:Terrorists. If that criterion is appropriate or not should be discussed there, but as long as it's there, I don't see how :Category:Terrorists can be appropriate for Captain Miller. — Sebastian 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Captain Miller]] 

message: Since we've had a lot of discussions about tagging individual articles about LTTE members as "Terrorists", I'm wondering what the people who promote this are trying to achieve. WP:CAT defines the point of categories as follows: 
Since :Category:Terrorists currently has over 100 articles, I think it is unlikely that someone would browse through that category in order to find a particular LTTE member such as Captain Miller. I think it's much more likely that someone would search such categories as :Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, :Category:Sri Lankan rebels and :Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. In which scenario would :Category:Terrorists add a benefit to our readers that the other categories don't provide? Are there other ways to help our readers in such a scenario? — Sebastian 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with sebastian on this matter. It is also a matter of POV pushing also since "terrorist" is not a NPOV that wiki tries to achieve. How are we to assume that someone is terrorist ? Remember the LTTE are only banned in 29 countries. Putting them up with people like Osama (world wide terrorist) is not the best way to achieve NPOV. Also what stops some LTTE supporters from not categorizing them as a "Hero" ? They are seen as heros by the pro-LTTE people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 14:55, March 3, 2007
Actually, I didn't mean this so much as a statement of opinion, but as a serious question to those editors who insist on adding the category to a number of articles. I want to reach an understanding of their reason. 
This might be a similar situation as when I discussed with Dutugemunu why he insisted on adding the category :Category:Terrorism to various articles, and after some discussion he convinced me that we needed to change the category structure. If the "taggers" could let us know what they're hoping to achieve then we have a good chance to find a solution that satisfies everybody. — Sebastian 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of Category:Terrorists? 

message: For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective
SAR23 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective 

message: I propose that members of the SLR cease all editing of articles which are being conflicted over cats. Though we cannot extend any influence over other users, namely Iwazaki, Sar23 and Snowolfd4, we can lead by example. This would be taking a step in the Wikipedia guidlines of Conflict Resolution, to simply step back from the conflict, let old discussions die, and then start anew. 
:Note: This is not a vote, but a pledge; and it is of course open to all, not just SLR members. — Sebastian 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pledge: Cease Edit War

message: I just added our banner  to some of the pages on which there has been relevant activity and updated our watchlist to include these pages, as well. Please check it out - there is a lot happening at the moment. Click here to see the changes of the last week. — Sebastian 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the action is 

message: Iwazaki does not believe that tamilcanadian is a RS and has been reverting article with reference to tamilcanadian. I belive that this should be voted upon to find a resolution.  Watchdogb 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up. Are there any arguments for or against the reliability? My hunch is that it may be a QS, but I'd like to hear from others who know more about this. — Sebastian 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked out the site a little bit today and found that their 'news' section is actually a list of collected articles from AFF, Reuters, Tamilnet and other RS and some QS. I checked other articles that are posted there and it seems to have the same message as many many other "tamil" related articles. It maintains a pride in the LTTE victories but then again most of the Tamil dispora do support the rebels. The stories seems pretty reliable and seem to have come from other tamil websites/books. I think this rates somewhere between RS and QS . Thats my input although I am not a member. Watchdogb 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamilcanadian.com

message: Watchdogb claims above that this is anti-rebel. Do others agree? — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is from my point of view more than anti-Rebel it is anti-Tamil in some of its content hence crosses all the threshholds. It equates Tamils = LTTE also it is simply a website with no editorial control and attribution of sources. I can write what ever I want and get it published. It fails WP:RS completely Kanatonian 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds really horrible! I assume you are voting "UnRS". If you can back it up with references I will vote that way, too. — Sebastian 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it back, they have removed most of the of offending articles since i visited it few years ago. But it is still like Tamilnation a website without any editorial control an review hence it can only be used for primary sources not for any news or secondary informationKanatonian 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Most definetly Anti-Rebel, Pro-Government and Anti-Tamil. I will provide references after this coming assesment period for me, but if you have some time to go over it, many articles make broad generalisations like "the Tamils responded..." and classing all Tamils in the same political and ideological camp. Also, articles have obviously been filtered to only show either pro-Goverment or anti-Tamil anti-LTTE infomation. --Sharz 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The site in question is critical of the LTTE. But other allegations against it like anti-tamil appear unfounded. I would be gratefull if  Sharz etc could  provide some cited info from the site was shown which shows that it has anti tamil and pro government info on it, or cites which questions its reliability which can be cross checked. Otherwise it could only be classified as a site which is critical of the LTTE.Kerr avon 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To follow up on Neurolotive's comments.
http://www.spur.asn.au/current.htm
Note that two articles are posted, one speaks of an attack against a person by members of the LTTE (in Melbourne? :S). Not only is no infomation given to verify this, another article is later posted citing the same incident, except it states that the LTTE is attacking members across Australia. I will not deny the fact thatt he LTTE uses unsavoury methods of extracting money from peoples all around the world, something that should be put to stop, however, this Spur article does not prove that using any methodology, facts or sources. 
Not only that, further down the page, there are scathing attacks upon NGOs and also against a Norweigan diplomat which the site describes as a "flamboyant playboy and a rogue" without any real backing to their comments. --Sharz 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: spur.asn.au

message: Hi I've been lurking around reading (and adoring) Wikipedia's approach to dispute resolution.  As an attorney focused in ADR now working for a statewide non-profit in NY, I'm not only interested in helping out the Wikicommunity but also taking your experience out of cyberspace to students and professional mediators.  I'm probably not the first person to have approached you about this, but hey--your doing great work and building a really powerful model.
--I now have a username iceweaselqueen but little experience in the ettiquete or best way to approach others sharing my interest in conflict resolution.
Suggestions?
Iceweaselqueen 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Iceweaselqueen, your experience is very welcome here! The Sri Lanka conflict is one of the toughest in the world, so we would be very happy if you could help us. We're of course not professional here, but it is an interesting new area of conflict resolution, and best of all, much of it is documented, so it should provide some good material for students and professionals. — Sebastian 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't feel entirely confortable with the prospect. --Sharz 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you not feel comfortable with? And why not? — Sebastian 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is a great help to have out here also to take our approach to outside of this arena. Waht ever resolves conflictsKanatonian 12:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecting with DR folks! 

message: I am very unhappy about the current outbreak of hostilities on many articles in our scope, and I would like to start a brain storm about what we in this project can do about it. An example for this is , where the revert warriors don't care about the conversation on the talk page, even when there are honest compromise proposals.    
I think if we just ignore this we're not even worth our name. I posted a question and got some hints what could be done. I think  WP:3O, WP:PR and WP:RFC sound good because they may be paths to an amicable solution. Please, let's brainstorm what we should do. And please remember, no personal attacks or other off-topic chatter on this page. — Sebastian 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we cannot resolve all edit wars all at once. What we can do is pick one at a time to resolve. Let's pick one. Kanatonian 12:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A new one will be begining pretty soon in this State terrorism in Sri Lanka unless pro active measures are taken to resolve it. Thanks Kanatonian 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're proposing to begin with this article? I have no objection. Which proactive measures would you propose? — Sebastian 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit war 

message: Thanks to some links provided by Snowolf  I was made aware that Reuters has a good correspondent on location, as well. I find his newest article  very interesting, and I specifically take Krishnagobal Sivamalar's statement to heart: "Both sides are the problem, both the LTTE and the army". — Sebastian 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good articles from reliable sources 

message: ===Use of WP:HOAX tag===
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of Hoax tag
====Discussion====
I would like to report a potential misuse of WP:HOAX and edit warring using the same tag in Sri Lanka related articles.  The potential misuse began on See diff here) after considerable discussion on the talk page by neutral editors regarding the potential misuse see Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag the article was improved. Then the hoax tag was used on  See diff and diff here again after patient explanation by a neutral Wikipedian editor and discussions on the talk page about how to use hoax tag see here the article was improved  Then it was used by the same editor on see diff here) much to the chagrin of neutral editors see talk page. After that the behavior has escalated (See diff here), (see diff here) and (See  diff here).  I want to find out from SLR members whether my observations are correct or wrong and if there is anything we can do do resolve this issue or do we have to take it to ANI.  Kanatonian 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lexicon for resolving this issue Kanatonian 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in response to your first line, Hitler was cremated infront of the Reichstag, Stalin was buried outside the walls of the Kremlim and Ho Chi Minh has a building in which you can see his body in a glass case, however, Velupillai Prabhakaran is alive, and the Sri Lankan Conflict is very much on-going. If you look at people such as President George W Bush, Osama Bin Laden and any real political or military figure in power currently, there is alot of dispution in their articles accross the board. I really can't think of what can be done to alleviate this. --Sharz 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at George W Bush and Osama bin Laden are they all hen scratched like the above one ? No because reasonable people talk to each other and create a neutral article. Just one tag Totally disputed will do (my opinion) I would like it to take it to village pump also, because this makes wikipedia look bad Kanatonian 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to point out something from the Osama article. "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has taken responsibility for them". If you look at the Prabakaran article it has some section about LTTE's Forced prostitution. Somehow implying that he is behind this. Shouldn't this speak volumes about what the point of the article is Kanatonian ? Former states that even thought he took responsibility he is not indicated. Later however, states that even though there is no indication Prabaharan is somehow responsible. I just can't understand what people try to achieve through this article. Watchdogb 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What it does is, it makes wikipedia looks bad 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on the above comment I no longer support the consensus we reached here that Tamilnet and Asiantribune are not reliable sources and they are qualified sources. The best support I can provide is to say that they are not asssessed as sources. I will change the table after a time period of 48 hours. Thanks Kanatonian 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed as per Traynor Watchdogb 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oppose. I decline to take notice of inappropriate scatological language. Come back with an argument that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and we can talk about it. — Sebastian 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Sebastian, what we decide here has no leg to stand on. We dont make any policy. Everybody who is outside of this will interpret it anyway they want unless we decide once and for all. I belive in the wiki process so I have proposed an admin that we take it all the way to arbitration to decide whether Tamilnet is RS or not see here. Till the wiki community decides whether Tamilnet is RS or not, I will no longer consider it to be a biased source. It is according to my interepretation of WP:RS a reliable source. Thanks Kanatonian 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See ANI first step towards conflict resolution Kanatonian 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose per reasoning of SebastianHelm, as well as wording that suggests that a bias source can be a reliable source, perphaps a bias source can be a valid interpretation?--Sharz 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you say now that ANI has ruled that it does not violated RS, how can we say it is QS Kanatonian 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI has ruled that it has not violated RS?!  :D  Good luck with your lies.  Sarvagnya 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will no longer entertain to answer to a troll like you. Thanks Kanatonian 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion was very clear as far as I am concerned but as I know by elevating it even further all POV pushers will simply vanish. I support your effort. Thanks Kanatonian 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello SLR members a question regarding Tamilnet has been asked as to whether it violated NPOV and UNDUE in the follwing page here Thanks Kanatonian 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict resolution 

message: Problem statement: Dispute over usage of Hoax tag
====Discussion====
I would like to report a potential misuse of WP:HOAX and edit warring using the same tag in Sri Lanka related articles.  The potential misuse began on See diff here) after considerable discussion on the talk page by neutral editors regarding the potential misuse see Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag the article was improved. Then the hoax tag was used on  See diff and diff here again after patient explanation by a neutral Wikipedian editor and discussions on the talk page about how to use hoax tag see here the article was improved  Then it was used by the same editor on see diff here) much to the chagrin of neutral editors see talk page. After that the behavior has escalated (See diff here), (see diff here) and (See  diff here).  I want to find out from SLR members whether my observations are correct or wrong and if there is anything we can do do resolve this issue or do we have to take it to ANI.  Kanatonian 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lexicon for resolving this issue Kanatonian 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of [[WP:HOAX]] tag

message: I would like to report a potential misuse of WP:HOAX and edit warring using the same tag in Sri Lanka related articles.  The potential misuse began on See diff here) after considerable discussion on the talk page by neutral editors regarding the potential misuse see Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag the article was improved. Then the hoax tag was used on  See diff and diff here again after patient explanation by a neutral Wikipedian editor and discussions on the talk page about how to use hoax tag see here the article was improved  Then it was used by the same editor on see diff here) much to the chagrin of neutral editors see talk page. After that the behavior has escalated (See diff here), (see diff here) and (See  diff here).  I want to find out from SLR members whether my observations are correct or wrong and if there is anything we can do do resolve this issue or do we have to take it to ANI.  Kanatonian 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lexicon for resolving this issue Kanatonian 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Problem statement: Dispute over usage of tags in the article
====Discussion====
NPOV,OR,Citecheck, and weasel tags on them. I think if reasonable Wikipedians can create stable articles on Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh etc why is the crowd of primarily Sri Lankan specific editors have to resort to malicious tagging. Anyone who comes to read about this individual will return with a poor reputation about Wikipedia. This is a bloody nose to Wikipedia because editors are unable to suppress their personal feelings about such an obviously divisive person to create a neutral article. I feel strongly that SLR should  look into this before I take it to ANI. My suggestion would be to replace them all with totally disputed tag Kanatonian 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in response to your first line, Hitler was cremated infront of the Reichstag, Stalin was buried outside the walls of the Kremlim and Ho Chi Minh has a building in which you can see his body in a glass case, however, Velupillai Prabhakaran is alive, and the Sri Lankan Conflict is very much on-going. If you look at people such as President George W Bush, Osama Bin Laden and any real political or military figure in power currently, there is alot of dispution in their articles accross the board. I really can't think of what can be done to alleviate this. --Sharz 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at George W Bush and Osama bin Laden are they all hen scratched like the above one ? No because reasonable people talk to each other and create a neutral article. Just one tag Totally disputed will do (my opinion) I would like it to take it to village pump also, because this makes wikipedia look bad Kanatonian 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to point out something from the Osama article. "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has taken responsibility for them". If you look at the Prabakaran article it has some section about LTTE's Forced prostitution. Somehow implying that he is behind this. Shouldn't this speak volumes about what the point of the article is Kanatonian ? Former states that even thought he took responsibility he is not indicated. Later however, states that even though there is no indication Prabaharan is somehow responsible. I just can't understand what people try to achieve through this article. Watchdogb 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What it does is, it makes wikipedia looks bad 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malicious tagging [[Velupillai Prabhakaran]] page

message: NPOV,OR,Citecheck, and weasel tags on them. I think if reasonable Wikipedians can create stable articles on Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh etc why is the crowd of primarily Sri Lankan specific editors have to resort to malicious tagging. Anyone who comes to read about this individual will return with a poor reputation about Wikipedia. This is a bloody nose to Wikipedia because editors are unable to suppress their personal feelings about such an obviously divisive person to create a neutral article. I feel strongly that SLR should  look into this before I take it to ANI. My suggestion would be to replace them all with totally disputed tag Kanatonian 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in response to your first line, Hitler was cremated infront of the Reichstag, Stalin was buried outside the walls of the Kremlim and Ho Chi Minh has a building in which you can see his body in a glass case, however, Velupillai Prabhakaran is alive, and the Sri Lankan Conflict is very much on-going. If you look at people such as President George W Bush, Osama Bin Laden and any real political or military figure in power currently, there is alot of dispution in their articles accross the board. I really can't think of what can be done to alleviate this. --Sharz 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at George W Bush and Osama bin Laden are they all hen scratched like the above one ? No because reasonable people talk to each other and create a neutral article. Just one tag Totally disputed will do (my opinion) I would like it to take it to village pump also, because this makes wikipedia look bad Kanatonian 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to point out something from the Osama article. "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has taken responsibility for them". If you look at the Prabakaran article it has some section about LTTE's Forced prostitution. Somehow implying that he is behind this. Shouldn't this speak volumes about what the point of the article is Kanatonian ? Former states that even thought he took responsibility he is not indicated. Later however, states that even though there is no indication Prabaharan is somehow responsible. I just can't understand what people try to achieve through this article. Watchdogb 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What it does is, it makes wikipedia looks bad 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Problem statement: Dispute over whether this article should be included at Category:Mass graves or at Category:History of Sri Lanka
*Discussion
Moved to [Talk:Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave#Category_inclusion_conflict_at_Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave see here] because people are too scared to reconcile :-) 
*Straw poll [Talk:Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave#Straw_poll here] 12:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category inclusion conflict at [[Duraiappa stadium mass grave]]

message: Comment: Yes.  While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another.  Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count.    RGTraynor  17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above comment I no longer support the consensus we reached here that Tamilnet and Asiantribune are not reliable sources and they are qualified sources. The best support I can provide is to say that they are not asssessed as sources. I will change the table after a time period of 48 hours. Thanks Kanatonian 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed as per Traynor Watchdogb 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oppose. I decline to take notice of inappropriate scatological language. Come back with an argument that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and we can talk about it. — Sebastian 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Sebastian, what we decide here has no leg to stand on. We dont make any policy. Everybody who is outside of this will interpret it anyway they want unless we decide once and for all. I belive in the wiki process so I have proposed an admin that we take it all the way to arbitration to decide whether Tamilnet is RS or not see here. Till the wiki community decides whether Tamilnet is RS or not, I will no longer consider it to be a biased source. It is according to my interepretation of WP:RS a reliable source. Thanks Kanatonian 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See ANI first step towards conflict resolution Kanatonian 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose per reasoning of SebastianHelm, as well as wording that suggests that a bias source can be a reliable source, perphaps a bias source can be a valid interpretation?--Sharz 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you say now that ANI has ruled that it does not violated RS, how can we say it is QS Kanatonian 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI has ruled that it has not violated RS?!  :D  Good luck with your lies.  Sarvagnya 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will no longer entertain to answer to a troll like you. Thanks Kanatonian 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion was very clear as far as I am concerned but as I know by elevating it even further all POV pushers will simply vanish. I support your effort. Thanks Kanatonian 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello SLR members a question regarding Tamilnet has been asked as to whether it violated NPOV and UNDUE in the follwing page here Thanks Kanatonian 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relaibility of Tamilnet and Asian tribune

message: The article Eelam_War_IV cites http://www.defence.lk for casualty counts and updates on the progress of the war.  The article treats this GOSL source uncritically.  For example, the article says "about 30 LTTE cadres were killed" rather than the more accurate and neutral "the Defence Ministry reports that about 30 LTTE cadres were killed."  
I have made an entry on Talk:Eelam_War_IV but this might also be a good forum to discuss the use of GOSL information sources such as defence.lk and the Daily News.  DC Wallah 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of sources