This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tamil Tigress article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
139.163.138.11 ( talk) 06:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Have reverted changes made possibly by author of the book, removed links that don't work, and removed uncited text. Rec006 ( talk) 00:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Have reverted changes made by Vibulanp because link that given as reference doesn't work. Plus the statement added lacks neutrality of language required by Wikipedia standards. The editer is invited to re-insert the text if he/she can provide verifiable evidence - ie a working link. Rec006 ( talk) 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Have made language changes to reflect nutrality instead of the comic relief they were affording. Added text to sumarize the story the external links were trying to tell and failing due to the edit war. Would be nice if editors show some sophistication instead of using phrases like "well respected" as adjectives for people in wikipedia and making naive statements like " though as these criticisms appear not to have concerned the publishers of the book it can be presumed they are without substance". Gettingthere ( talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Changed the reference named iclq. The previous one was merely linking to the ICLQ home page and not to the abstract of relevant article. This one does and also followed the instruction given on that abstract on how to cite the article. As I had taken this reference from Indo-Sri Lanka Accord along with the sentence, have made the same edit to the reference there as well Gettingthere ( talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
Removed the external links given in the second para and inserted inline citations instead which includes these links.Removed about 6 external links from the External Links section beause a)some did not work b) some already given under references. Gettingthere ( talk) 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Made text changes to place the 'Memoir Status' of the book in a more realistic context. Earlier text read "Tamil Tigress is the memoir of Niromi de Soyza (nom de plume), a former child soldier of the deadly guerilla army LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). Niromi de Soyza was also one of the LTTE's first female fighters. This is the first memoir of a Sri Lankan female guerilla soldier to be published in English. The book contains shocking revalations about the brutalities that surrounded the civil war in Sri Lanka, including the brutal practices of the LTTE."
Now the text reads, "Tamil Tigress is marketed as the memoir of Niromi de Soyza (nom de plume), a former child soldier of the deadly guerilla army LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)and one of its first female fighters. This is the first narration of a Sri Lankan female guerilla soldier to be published as a memoir in English. The book contains shocking revalations about the brutalities that surrounded the civil war in Sri Lanka, including the brutal practices of the LTTE." Also made a minor text change to the first sentence of 3rd para to enable a more comparative assesment between Memoir, Autobiography and Faction. Gettingthere ( talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Undid revisions done by IP 150.101.116.203 for lack of neutrality. To say 'so and so exposed this as a fake memoir' is a very subjective statement. "This was further supported by so and so" sounds even more strident and smacks of third graders' squables. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gettingthere ( talk) 08:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Changed 'was a former child soldier' to 'claims to be a former child soldier'. I think it's more realistic considering.... Made some text changes for clarity, inserted some wiki links and corrected one reference (see edit summaries)- Gettingthere ( talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What... more realistic considering it suits your purposes? There's no claims about it... she was in the Tigers. Mrdesoyza ( talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed blatently biased and libelous material. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a platform for propaganda. Theerfore please maintain neutrality of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.163.138.11 ( talk) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
139.163.138.11 was guilty of vandalism. I am going to report both 203.45.18.13 and 139.163.138.11 for biased, non neutral editing done with an agenda. Gettingthere ( talk) 06:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No orgiginal arguments are allowed on Wikipedia - only previously published facts and arguments. The following, I beleive constitutes original arguments; In contrast the blurb [1] of Tamil Tigress announces, “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”
In her Margaret Throsby Interview(between 18.45 and 19.02) [2] Niromi says; “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”
In the same interview(between 35.56 and 36.23), [2] she responds to a question regarding a film, which claims to be a documentary covering the atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Government Forces during the final stages of the Elam War ;
“Were you able to watch the four corners documentary? “
“I watched it. I forced myself to watch it… It distressed the whole time….I couldn’t sleep that night… but at the same time it wasn’t new. This was something that I knew had happened. I mean I had witnessed much of it and I knew when… the Tamil tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen …they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things. It was nothing new.”
There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by by Niromi in her Throsby interview(between 35.21 and 35.54); [2]
“…in 2009 when the war …had ended in Sri Lanka and Tamil refugees were still arriving in Australian Shores by the boat and there was a complete misunderstanding , everyone labeling them as economic refugees because, the war had ended. But I knew different… So I thought somebody has to say something… At that time… the UN panel report wasn’t there…, the four corners documentary hadn’t been shown so I thought I needed to put this story out …despite the fact I didn’t want to...I’d felt there was a need….”
Uthay6505 ( talk) 01:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
1)Usage of primary source material which is referenced in my secondary sources and interpreted in similar fashion 2)Usage of primary source material to make a ‘straightforward, descriptive statement’ Gettingthere ( talk) 15:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere; I disagree. Your quoting from the 'Throsby interview' does not in itself violate guidelines on original research or primary sources Wikipedia:No original research. But your selectively quoting from the interview and then drawing a conclusion in saying "There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by Niromi in her Throsby interview." is definitely in violation of OR guidelines. You are making an original argument (eg "There is thus an attempted projection..."), making an inference (eg "A possible motive..."). By no means are these plain descriptive statements. If you want to revert the changes, first make sure that you address what I have said above. Instead, if you keep simply reverting changes everyubody else makes, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Uthay6505 ( talk) 00:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your reply to Uthay6505 does not address the issue of original research raised by two editors. I stronlgy urge you to look at other Wikepedia pages to familiarise yourself with allowable research and referencing. Also I urge you to refrain from personal attack editors - use language like "You don't seem to understand ... so I am using bold". etc. Rec006 ( talk) 06:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Original research does not apply. Already explained. All quotes referenced in secondary sources. Even named the secondary source; see above. Reverting. 61.245.168.10 ( talk) 09:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Sorry that was me. Forgot to login. Gettingthere ( talk) 09:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Unacceptable, unfair criticism by Rec006. "You don't seem to understand...so I am using bold" was not used at all. Actually said, "...and you seem to have missed it so I will bold it" Missed="missed among the text". Gettingthere ( talk) 09:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere, I apologise if I misread you. Nevertheless your lengthy explanation doesn't answer the question regarding the statement "There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by Niromi in her Throsby interview." is referenced from somewhere, or is it your own? If it is referenced state the source. If it is not then it does constitute an original argument. As it stands it, it certainly appears to be your own, therefore am removing it.
Furthermore, you are presenting extensive arguments (in my opinion original research) as to why the claim that this an autobiography maybe fallacious. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for debate. Only things that are of encyclopaedic interest are (1) a book has been published with the stated claims have been published and (2) the authenticity of the claim has been challenged. If you leave all the arguments in favour of the latter in there, then in the interest of balance, you also have to present all the arguments why one things the narrative is authentic.
Considering all this I think the version of Rosceles has the right balance, hence have reverted to it.
This is an article about a published work and therefore is not covered en bloc by BLP. Since when is a critique of a published work within parameters of its possible genre and factual accuracy a Biography of a living person? "Flagrant violation of BLP" is an emotional statement. Please specify what constitute'flagrant violations' within my edit without using sweeping statements, which in turn are used as excuses for sweeping deletion.
without any stretch.
So reverting. Gettingthere ( talk) 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"Author's apparent ignorence of her combat adversaries" is displayed in the blurb as well as the interview excerpts. Once one establishes the temporalcontext of the claimed fighting tenure, the unique characteristic of which is the IPKF, it becomes a straightforward, descriptive statement, which is the way my secondary source uses it.My ignorence of plicy on the other hand depends on your interpretation of policy as well as your reading of my policy arguements. Yes very soon. But meanwhile I will revert sweeping deletions. Consider specific deletion giving reasons for the specific line or lines you delete without trying to cover them all with one reason. Gettingthere ( talk) 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Loonymonkey I am glad you came. I now realise that the self published source Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter may not be acceptable, but as I told Mato and one other user yesterday while asking for Editor Assistance, this Self published source is not critical to my edit. An expanded and value added version of this self- published article has been published a)ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? in a reputed citizen journalism blog forum in which content is subject to editorial control and discretion. b) Island Part 2 and Island Part 1 in a main stream print Newspaper
So I have posted these non self pub sources on the Reliable sources notice board to get community feed back. I will post on WP:NORN and a few other noticeboards you have suggested later on. But it will save time if I get adequate feed back on all the issues from WP:RSN. Let's hope so. Gettingthere ( talk) 09:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It is appropriate to mention and give brief details of concerns raised in reputable sources about the truth and accuracy of the book. These concerns, however, do need to be of proportionate length. See WP:UNDUE for details. It is also important to give a neutral and sober account of any concerns raised. I have changed the title of the section from Controversy to Authenticity, in order to tone it down a little. However, there does appear to be a fair little wind being blown up about the accuracy of this book by Michael Roberts and Arun Ambalavanar so it might well end up being a controversy. The section needs careful development (and there does seem enough material to expand it a bit more) - always use reliable sources, remain neutral - do not get drawn into the debate and be careful not to present the concerns as a valid argument, keep quotes to a minimum - it is better to summarise neutrally than to use emotive statements, and engage in discussions on this talkpage when in doubt, or if anyone has questioned or challenged an edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody I am going to use the following as reliable sources to expand this aricle with a controversy section. See my new inputs into WP Reliable Sources Notice Board for further information.
Gettingthere ( talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My User Draft, which aims to make it easier for editors to check that the statements in the edit is directly supported by published reliable sources. The section of the particular source that supports each and every statement is given within a box under the relevant statement, labeled by the relevant ref number. This is done specially to avoid tiresome misunderstandings about OR.
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.
original quotations are taken from and cited to the original source being quoted. Gettingthere ( talk) 13:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere. Your expansion of the article has taken away the crucial balance that it previously had. It now lacks neutrality and balance with the overwhelmning portion of the text referring to/promoting Roberts's argument (which looks more like a hypothesis to me) than giving encyclipedic information about the book. Hence I will be reverting it shortly. Uthay6505 ( talk) 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere ( talk) 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere. My relationship with Rec006 is a metter between me and the Wikimedia foundation and/or Wikipedia admin. it has nothing to do with you. Hence I am not interested in getting into a conversation with you on the topic.
Now could we focus on the iseue. Please read the section under 'Balance' in in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples. I will give you some time for you to consider whether your last edit or the prvious one has the right balance, before I change it. Uthay6505 ( talk) 03:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
There is nothing wrong with my interpretation of balance. However lack of balance is not the only problem with your additions, as it has been pointed out by a number of editors already. But since there is an RFC, I will wait for other responses. I hope someone else will be able to explain this in a way that you understand. As already stated not interested in discussing Rec006 with you. Uthay6505 ( talk) 12:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone explain why this section is labelled "Controversy"? Controversy implies some kind of well-publicised, long-held, strong difference of opinion regarding the book, not a couple of people attempting to discredit the author. Mrdesoyza ( talk) 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
References
AA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GV
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).RG
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Is the edit diff which converted the Authenticity section of this aricle into a Controversy section with added material appropriate? Gettingthere ( talk) 07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the comments and the feedback. Closing the RFC. Gettingthere ( talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tamil Tigress article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
139.163.138.11 ( talk) 06:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Have reverted changes made possibly by author of the book, removed links that don't work, and removed uncited text. Rec006 ( talk) 00:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Have reverted changes made by Vibulanp because link that given as reference doesn't work. Plus the statement added lacks neutrality of language required by Wikipedia standards. The editer is invited to re-insert the text if he/she can provide verifiable evidence - ie a working link. Rec006 ( talk) 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Have made language changes to reflect nutrality instead of the comic relief they were affording. Added text to sumarize the story the external links were trying to tell and failing due to the edit war. Would be nice if editors show some sophistication instead of using phrases like "well respected" as adjectives for people in wikipedia and making naive statements like " though as these criticisms appear not to have concerned the publishers of the book it can be presumed they are without substance". Gettingthere ( talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Changed the reference named iclq. The previous one was merely linking to the ICLQ home page and not to the abstract of relevant article. This one does and also followed the instruction given on that abstract on how to cite the article. As I had taken this reference from Indo-Sri Lanka Accord along with the sentence, have made the same edit to the reference there as well Gettingthere ( talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
Removed the external links given in the second para and inserted inline citations instead which includes these links.Removed about 6 external links from the External Links section beause a)some did not work b) some already given under references. Gettingthere ( talk) 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Made text changes to place the 'Memoir Status' of the book in a more realistic context. Earlier text read "Tamil Tigress is the memoir of Niromi de Soyza (nom de plume), a former child soldier of the deadly guerilla army LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). Niromi de Soyza was also one of the LTTE's first female fighters. This is the first memoir of a Sri Lankan female guerilla soldier to be published in English. The book contains shocking revalations about the brutalities that surrounded the civil war in Sri Lanka, including the brutal practices of the LTTE."
Now the text reads, "Tamil Tigress is marketed as the memoir of Niromi de Soyza (nom de plume), a former child soldier of the deadly guerilla army LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)and one of its first female fighters. This is the first narration of a Sri Lankan female guerilla soldier to be published as a memoir in English. The book contains shocking revalations about the brutalities that surrounded the civil war in Sri Lanka, including the brutal practices of the LTTE." Also made a minor text change to the first sentence of 3rd para to enable a more comparative assesment between Memoir, Autobiography and Faction. Gettingthere ( talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Undid revisions done by IP 150.101.116.203 for lack of neutrality. To say 'so and so exposed this as a fake memoir' is a very subjective statement. "This was further supported by so and so" sounds even more strident and smacks of third graders' squables. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gettingthere ( talk) 08:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Changed 'was a former child soldier' to 'claims to be a former child soldier'. I think it's more realistic considering.... Made some text changes for clarity, inserted some wiki links and corrected one reference (see edit summaries)- Gettingthere ( talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What... more realistic considering it suits your purposes? There's no claims about it... she was in the Tigers. Mrdesoyza ( talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed blatently biased and libelous material. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a platform for propaganda. Theerfore please maintain neutrality of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.163.138.11 ( talk) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
139.163.138.11 was guilty of vandalism. I am going to report both 203.45.18.13 and 139.163.138.11 for biased, non neutral editing done with an agenda. Gettingthere ( talk) 06:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No orgiginal arguments are allowed on Wikipedia - only previously published facts and arguments. The following, I beleive constitutes original arguments; In contrast the blurb [1] of Tamil Tigress announces, “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”
In her Margaret Throsby Interview(between 18.45 and 19.02) [2] Niromi says; “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”
In the same interview(between 35.56 and 36.23), [2] she responds to a question regarding a film, which claims to be a documentary covering the atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Government Forces during the final stages of the Elam War ;
“Were you able to watch the four corners documentary? “
“I watched it. I forced myself to watch it… It distressed the whole time….I couldn’t sleep that night… but at the same time it wasn’t new. This was something that I knew had happened. I mean I had witnessed much of it and I knew when… the Tamil tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen …they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things. It was nothing new.”
There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by by Niromi in her Throsby interview(between 35.21 and 35.54); [2]
“…in 2009 when the war …had ended in Sri Lanka and Tamil refugees were still arriving in Australian Shores by the boat and there was a complete misunderstanding , everyone labeling them as economic refugees because, the war had ended. But I knew different… So I thought somebody has to say something… At that time… the UN panel report wasn’t there…, the four corners documentary hadn’t been shown so I thought I needed to put this story out …despite the fact I didn’t want to...I’d felt there was a need….”
Uthay6505 ( talk) 01:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
1)Usage of primary source material which is referenced in my secondary sources and interpreted in similar fashion 2)Usage of primary source material to make a ‘straightforward, descriptive statement’ Gettingthere ( talk) 15:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere; I disagree. Your quoting from the 'Throsby interview' does not in itself violate guidelines on original research or primary sources Wikipedia:No original research. But your selectively quoting from the interview and then drawing a conclusion in saying "There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by Niromi in her Throsby interview." is definitely in violation of OR guidelines. You are making an original argument (eg "There is thus an attempted projection..."), making an inference (eg "A possible motive..."). By no means are these plain descriptive statements. If you want to revert the changes, first make sure that you address what I have said above. Instead, if you keep simply reverting changes everyubody else makes, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Uthay6505 ( talk) 00:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Your reply to Uthay6505 does not address the issue of original research raised by two editors. I stronlgy urge you to look at other Wikepedia pages to familiarise yourself with allowable research and referencing. Also I urge you to refrain from personal attack editors - use language like "You don't seem to understand ... so I am using bold". etc. Rec006 ( talk) 06:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Original research does not apply. Already explained. All quotes referenced in secondary sources. Even named the secondary source; see above. Reverting. 61.245.168.10 ( talk) 09:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Sorry that was me. Forgot to login. Gettingthere ( talk) 09:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Unacceptable, unfair criticism by Rec006. "You don't seem to understand...so I am using bold" was not used at all. Actually said, "...and you seem to have missed it so I will bold it" Missed="missed among the text". Gettingthere ( talk) 09:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere, I apologise if I misread you. Nevertheless your lengthy explanation doesn't answer the question regarding the statement "There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by Niromi in her Throsby interview." is referenced from somewhere, or is it your own? If it is referenced state the source. If it is not then it does constitute an original argument. As it stands it, it certainly appears to be your own, therefore am removing it.
Furthermore, you are presenting extensive arguments (in my opinion original research) as to why the claim that this an autobiography maybe fallacious. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for debate. Only things that are of encyclopaedic interest are (1) a book has been published with the stated claims have been published and (2) the authenticity of the claim has been challenged. If you leave all the arguments in favour of the latter in there, then in the interest of balance, you also have to present all the arguments why one things the narrative is authentic.
Considering all this I think the version of Rosceles has the right balance, hence have reverted to it.
This is an article about a published work and therefore is not covered en bloc by BLP. Since when is a critique of a published work within parameters of its possible genre and factual accuracy a Biography of a living person? "Flagrant violation of BLP" is an emotional statement. Please specify what constitute'flagrant violations' within my edit without using sweeping statements, which in turn are used as excuses for sweeping deletion.
without any stretch.
So reverting. Gettingthere ( talk) 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"Author's apparent ignorence of her combat adversaries" is displayed in the blurb as well as the interview excerpts. Once one establishes the temporalcontext of the claimed fighting tenure, the unique characteristic of which is the IPKF, it becomes a straightforward, descriptive statement, which is the way my secondary source uses it.My ignorence of plicy on the other hand depends on your interpretation of policy as well as your reading of my policy arguements. Yes very soon. But meanwhile I will revert sweeping deletions. Consider specific deletion giving reasons for the specific line or lines you delete without trying to cover them all with one reason. Gettingthere ( talk) 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Loonymonkey I am glad you came. I now realise that the self published source Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter may not be acceptable, but as I told Mato and one other user yesterday while asking for Editor Assistance, this Self published source is not critical to my edit. An expanded and value added version of this self- published article has been published a)ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? in a reputed citizen journalism blog forum in which content is subject to editorial control and discretion. b) Island Part 2 and Island Part 1 in a main stream print Newspaper
So I have posted these non self pub sources on the Reliable sources notice board to get community feed back. I will post on WP:NORN and a few other noticeboards you have suggested later on. But it will save time if I get adequate feed back on all the issues from WP:RSN. Let's hope so. Gettingthere ( talk) 09:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It is appropriate to mention and give brief details of concerns raised in reputable sources about the truth and accuracy of the book. These concerns, however, do need to be of proportionate length. See WP:UNDUE for details. It is also important to give a neutral and sober account of any concerns raised. I have changed the title of the section from Controversy to Authenticity, in order to tone it down a little. However, there does appear to be a fair little wind being blown up about the accuracy of this book by Michael Roberts and Arun Ambalavanar so it might well end up being a controversy. The section needs careful development (and there does seem enough material to expand it a bit more) - always use reliable sources, remain neutral - do not get drawn into the debate and be careful not to present the concerns as a valid argument, keep quotes to a minimum - it is better to summarise neutrally than to use emotive statements, and engage in discussions on this talkpage when in doubt, or if anyone has questioned or challenged an edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody I am going to use the following as reliable sources to expand this aricle with a controversy section. See my new inputs into WP Reliable Sources Notice Board for further information.
Gettingthere ( talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My User Draft, which aims to make it easier for editors to check that the statements in the edit is directly supported by published reliable sources. The section of the particular source that supports each and every statement is given within a box under the relevant statement, labeled by the relevant ref number. This is done specially to avoid tiresome misunderstandings about OR.
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.
original quotations are taken from and cited to the original source being quoted. Gettingthere ( talk) 13:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere. Your expansion of the article has taken away the crucial balance that it previously had. It now lacks neutrality and balance with the overwhelmning portion of the text referring to/promoting Roberts's argument (which looks more like a hypothesis to me) than giving encyclipedic information about the book. Hence I will be reverting it shortly. Uthay6505 ( talk) 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere ( talk) 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Gettingthere. My relationship with Rec006 is a metter between me and the Wikimedia foundation and/or Wikipedia admin. it has nothing to do with you. Hence I am not interested in getting into a conversation with you on the topic.
Now could we focus on the iseue. Please read the section under 'Balance' in in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples. I will give you some time for you to consider whether your last edit or the prvious one has the right balance, before I change it. Uthay6505 ( talk) 03:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
There is nothing wrong with my interpretation of balance. However lack of balance is not the only problem with your additions, as it has been pointed out by a number of editors already. But since there is an RFC, I will wait for other responses. I hope someone else will be able to explain this in a way that you understand. As already stated not interested in discussing Rec006 with you. Uthay6505 ( talk) 12:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone explain why this section is labelled "Controversy"? Controversy implies some kind of well-publicised, long-held, strong difference of opinion regarding the book, not a couple of people attempting to discredit the author. Mrdesoyza ( talk) 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
References
AA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GV
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).RG
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Is the edit diff which converted the Authenticity section of this aricle into a Controversy section with added material appropriate? Gettingthere ( talk) 07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the comments and the feedback. Closing the RFC. Gettingthere ( talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)