Talk:Tamil Tigress

Revert

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)

References

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)

Neutrality

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)

Reference named iclq

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 wellGettingthere (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

External links

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)

Changes

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 by IP

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)

I am going to undo the revisions done by 150.101.116.203. They sound more like hate speech than a wikipedia article. If 150.101.116.203 is one of the reviewers of Tamil Tigress, (it sounds like that in his insistence in inserting the sentence "so and so exposed the memoir as fake". If you are the reviewer or one of his friends, there is a conflict of interest in your editing this. A thing may be fraudulent but rather than shouting it in a shrill and desperate way you can state the facts and let them speak. What you are doing is only undermining the credibility of this article.Gettingthere (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Claims"

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)

Bias

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)

I agree that the revisions done by 203.45.18.13 lack neutrality but using that excuse to delete relevant information is wrong and constitutes vandalism.

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)

Sigh! Same user coming in as 203.45.18.13/150.101.116.203 and now as 202.92.71.104. Off hand I can think of at least three things to report. 1) non neutral pov, 2) vandalism 3) harassment. Please stop. Whatever IP you come from you are the same user and your content will be deleted. Gettingthere (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mato and Taelus for responding to my requests to help maintain neutral POVGettingthere (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is hilarious, considering... Mrdesoyza (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OR

No orgiginal arguments are allowed on Wikipedia - only previously published facts and arguments. The following, I beleive constitutes original arguments; In contrast the blurb 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) 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), 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);

“…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)

I've removed material sourced to the publishers' blurb and to the interview with Throsby. These citations were used in a synthy way to support a blogger's argument against the book's authenticity. They could be used to expand our coverage of the book, hence my leaving them in "External links" for now, but the manner in which they were being cited was inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Uthay6505 You are referring to the Wikipedia:No original research. Specially to the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The material you have removed fall under primary sources. Usage of primary sources is not per se restricted.

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

The book blurb, and the excerpts from the Throsby interview, fall under “primary sources that have been reliably published” and may be used in Wikipedia. It is when it comes to interpretation of primary source material that you need a ‘reliable secondary source for that interpretation’. In other words, “All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”

Please note that I am not interpreting/analyzing/synthesizing claims about the primary-source material. I am merely placing them in the article to make a straight forward, descriptive statement as described in,

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

When I say “There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences..” I am using the primary source material(blurb and the interview) to make a ‘straightforward, descriptive statement that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.’

However ‘the straightforward descriptive statement’ is a moot point anyway because all of my primary source material is referenced in my secondary sources and interpreted in a similar way. So even if my claim about a "straightforward descriptive statement" is not acceptable, I am still following "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."

So I am re-inserting the materials you removed. Authority for insertion comes from two Wikipedia policies.

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)

Rosceles, you have usedOR in a very loose and imprecise context here.

"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists."

The removed material does not constitute original research. The removed material deal with mainly,

1) Conditions prevailing in Sri Lanka due to the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord

2) The contentions against classifying Tamil Tigress as Memoir

All statements are attributable and use inline citations. I also contest your assumption that the removed sections are en-bloc covered by WP:BLP. Because rather than information about a living person, they deal with a published work Tamil Tigress and its temporal context.

You have said in your edit summary, "remove fairly extensive original research; also remove material cited to personal blogs, which are not reliable sources (Michael Roberts may be an expert, but BLP outweighs the SELFPUB exception here"

By BLP, I assume you mean WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject", and by SELFPUB exception you must mean "Self-published material may 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."

But let alone outweighing the exception about self-published material, WP:BLPSPS does not apply here at all, because ref name=MR>Michael Roberts, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter, 21 Aug 2011 is not used as a source of material about the author of Tamil Tigress at all. It merely functions as a source of critical arguements and assesments on the book and the author's reliably published statements.

And I totally fail to understand why you removed ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?, 31 Aug 2011. This reference is not a self-published article and WP:BLPSPS by any stretch of definition. I can only assume good faith and concede you removed it by mistake. It's this article (ref name=GV) which I have used as my reliable secondary source for interpretations of the primary sources(interview and blurb). If interpreting is involved that is. As I said to Uthay6505, I hold primarily that the role of the interview and the blurb is merely 'to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.’

Defintely not correct to use OR to remove material en bloc or to supress verifiable facts and arguements. I intend to revert your edit. But will wait till tomorrow.Gettingthere (talk) 18:43, 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)

"Imagined context", "apparent ignorance of her adversaries in Combat", "attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces in to her fighting experiences" are all straightforward, descriptive statements of the following quotes.

“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…”

“…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”

“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.”

Anyway, as I said that is a moot point. I was merely trying to explain that a wikipedia editor who edited the page only based on the Throsby interview and the blurb would still have a good case. Though an interesting hypothetical debate, there is absolutely no need for us to get bogged down in this. This is not that hypothetical scenario and I am not that hypothetical editor. Original Research does not apply here at all. I am not making an original arguement because as I said before (and you seem to have missed it so I will bold it)

All of these quotes are referenced in my secondary source, ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? which uses them to point out the foundational error in Tamil Tigress.

In your last edit, at 05:18 on 8 Sep. 2011 (removed by Rocelese), I have noticed language usage, which can be construed as attempts to obscure known facts. For example you say;

“From late July 1987 to early 1990, following the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and the consequent arrival of the IPKF Sri Lankan forces largely ceased combat operations against the LTTE.” and

“Sri Lankan forces largely stayed clear of direct combat with the LTTE during this period apart from a few limited operations in the sea by the Navy.”

When you say ‘largely’, you are creating ambiguity, uncertainty and doubt, which is totally unwarranted and contra to the aims of an encyclopedia. There is no ‘largely’ about it. Sri Lankan Forces ceased combat operations against the LTTE. You also say;

“In the period when the LTTE was at war with the IPKF (early October 1987 to end of 1989), there is no evidence of the Sri Lankan forces participating in any joint military operations along with the IPKF. Neither is there any evidence of a joint Sri Lankan command structure being in place.”

I am stunned here. The phrase ‘there is no evidence’ does not belong here. This event happened in 1987 and is part of the living memory of the majority of the adult population in the world today. It was extensively reported on, commented upon and a large body of secondary and tertiary sources exists on it. As an example of the richness of data surrounding this period, let me direct your attention to Shyam Tekwani, "Shyam Tekwani's Camerawork within the LTTE domain in the late 1980s" an Indian photo-journalist, who was embedded with the Tigers during their struggle against the IPKF and earlier when they fought the Sri Lankan forces. He entered Sri Lanka illegally and lived with the tigers as one of them, complete with the cyanide capsule. "Sleeping with the enemy Tekwani lived with the Tigers".

So there is absolutely no need to write about the IPKF period in SL as if you are writing about an incident, which happened in Mars in 2nd century BC. When one is writing about remote temporal contexts, which are data poor, of course one uses words like, ‘largely’ and ‘there is no evidence of’ to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty. Since this forum requires me to assume good faith, I will concede that you are not doing this to deliberately obscure the issue, but because, the IPKF period is personally obscure to you. That is not a good reason however to render it obscure to Wikipedia readers as well.

However you will see that I have made changes to the text to remove the unwarrented assumption of an original research edit. Anyone else would think you are trying to use Wikipedia policy as red tape to supress relevant infor., but I am bound to assum good faith and will concede you are trying to be cautious. I am sure I don't have to remind you of WP:COMMON SENSE, which declares, "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule...The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. "Gettingthere (talk) 06:22, 10 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.

First of all an argument presented in an article doesn’t rest on one sentence alone. There is a lead up. In the edit you removed, It is stated firstly;

"The book's classification as Memoir is challenged on ethnographic grounds as well as on the grounds of a foundational error."

Please note the inline citations, that are there to tell the reader where the book is challenged on ethnographic grounds and where it is challenged on the grounds of a foundational error. Then the reader is told,

"The foundational error consists of the author's apparent ignorance, persisting to date,of the identity of her adversaries in Combat during the fighting tenure(late 1987 to 1988) attributed to herself in Tamil Tigress."

This sentence explains the foundational error. Because the previous sentence already mentions, which source challenges the Memoir status based on a foundational error, when the foundational error is mentioned in this sentence, no inline citation is given to explain where the term 'foundational error' came from. Instead it carries in line citations to explain where the author's apparent ignorence is displayed. Again even though that sentence does not carry inline citations to show where the Wikipedia editor learned about these displays of apparent ignorence, since it's a continuous thread starting from foundational error, the reader understands that the Wikipedia editor learned about these displays from the same source, which introduced the term 'foundational error'. Then the wikipedia editor gives some background information to help the reader understand the identity of Niromi de Soyza's combat adversaries during her claimed fighting tenure(late 1987 to 1988). This background information deals with the Indo Lanka Accord and the time IPKF fought with the LTTE. All the statements in the section giving this background infor is attributed to verifiable sources. Indeed some sentences and their inline citations are taken directly from the wiki entry indo-Sri Lanka Accord.

According to policy,

"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." I cited this same quotation in reply to Rosceles to show why the section about the Indo Lanka Accord is not 'original research'. You seem to have missed it (i.e. not seen/read/noticed). That's probably why you think 'the version of Rosceles has the right balance'. I must say I am getting a bit tired of giving the same quotation over and over again.

Then the wikipedia editor tells the reader; "That the Sri Lankan forces stayed clear of direct combat with the LTTE during this period, apart from the limited operations undertaken at sea by the Sri Lankan Navy, is a basic fact, that would have been known to contemporary Tiger fighters of all ranks."

After that the wikipedia editor tells the reader that in contrast, Tamil Tigrss blurb as well as Niromi's statements in the Throsby interview run contra to this widely known, basic fact. And that the blurb and the Throsby excerpts display "attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces in to Niromi's fighting experiences from which they should in reality have been absent." This is in effect a summarisation of the 'foundational error' as described in the source, ref name=GV. Wikipedia editors are supposed to summarise and write, what's given in their referenced sources in their own words. This is called "article writing" not original research. Therefore I am reverting your edits, which seem to me based on an erronous perception of what 'original research' is. You have told me "I stronlgy urge you to look at other Wikepedia pages to familiarise yourself with allowable research and referencing." However, Wikipedia has policy pages which advice on allowable reserch and referencing. I strongly urge you to read them and familiarise yourself with allowable research and referencing.

Similarly Uthay6505, I have quoted this from WP:SELFPUBLISH for benefit of Rosceles about self published source by an expert, again you seem to have missed it (not seen, overlooked, not read), so here it is again;

"Self-published material may 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."

I am going to alert somebody with admin powers to get help regarding these edits, which to me seems based on wrongly or loosely defined policy and removing material in a large block giving as excuse one sentence without paying attention to the entire lead up or thread.Gettingthere (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you do, because then perhaps someone can explain in a way that you'll understand why your edits are wrong and in flagrant violation of BLP.

• You may not make original arguments and then cite sources to back them up that don't contain these arguments, as you did in writing "This is why the author is wrong or fake" and citing it to an interview with the author which obviously does not contain that argument.
• You may not use someone's blog (or his article on a "citizen journalism" page where it seems that anyone can publish and where the site itself takes no responsibility for any content, ie. a blog) to support contentious statements about a living person. WP:SPS's exemption for material by experts does not stretch that far - such exemptions are rarely recognized even when BLP isn't at issue.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

• You may not try to misrepresent and mix-up primary and secondary sources to claim that I used a primary source (i.e. an interview) as a citation for an arguement. Primary sources do not contain arguments. You may use a primary source however in support of a straight forward, descriptive statement, which an educated, intelligent, non specialist person with access to that source can see is supported by the source and/or you may use an argument advanced in a secondary source in respect of a primary source. This last is what I have done. The fact that I use the primary source itself on the wikipedia article is because the secondary source uses the primary source in quotation form and to summarise clearly my secondary source, I need to use these quotations.
• You may not try to misrepresent Groundviews as a forum, which anyone can publish. The articles as well as the comments are accepted at editorial discretion and subject to editorial control.

• You may not use the word BLP repeatedly to cover contexts, which is clearly not BLP. Repetition will not turn a critical review about a published work into BLP(or contentious statements about a living person) no matter how many times you repeat it. Incantation does not a fact make. A critical review about a published work with special attention to the temporal and spatial context revealed in that work may be covered by "Self-published material may 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."

without any stretch.

• You may not delete material (i.e. the parts, which help to establish who the author's combat adversaries really were,) under cover of 'original research' when they are not such by any stretch of imagination.

So reverting.Gettingthere (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • I'm flattered that you decided to imitate my comment, but it has rather less rhetorical effect since you're demonstrating a total ignorance of policy, rather like when you write in the article text about the author's ignorance and claim that there's no BLP issue. Planning on calling in that admin anytime soon? Or perhaps seeking input from other editors at a noticeboard if you're dissatisfied that everyone here disagrees with you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 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)

No comment about the material, but WP:BLP covers "information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". If you're talking about a living person, it's BLP. If the author of this book is alive, anything mentioning them must meet the BLP requirements. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I came here to see what the BLP issue was, and yes, this material is a clear violation of WP:BLP on many levels. A wordpress blog is the very definition of a self-published source, and thus cannot be used. Self published sources are never acceptable in a BLP unless written by the subject (and even then, only under certain circumstances). Further, there is a serious WP:OR problem, specifically synthesis of material to reach a conclusion that no reliable source has stated. As for the "sweeping deletions," if you feel that there is some useful, non-contentious material in your edit, then maybe try splitting that out and discussing it separately. It's not up to other editors to pick your additions apart and justify removal. It's up to you to achieve consensus for the material before adding or re-adding it. You may feel that you're right and others are wrong, but you'll still get blocked for edit-warring if you continually revert without consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:00, 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)

Controversy section

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.

• A- Michael Roberts (September 2011) Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? The Island Part 1, Part 2 .

• B- Michael Roberts (31 August 2011) Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?, Groundviews

Gettingthere (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the sub-title from Authenticity to Controversy. The points I want to emphasize are;

• Refer WP Reliable Sources Notice Board
• Refer

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.

• In accordance with the guideline given in Quotations

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)

Considering that this article was created by your sockpuppet Rec006 (who was blocked indefinitely) your partisan attitude is not hard to explain. Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples to see which are facts and which are opinions/hypotheses. All the statements I have added in Wikipedia voice are facts (there is a misrepresentation of historical detail) while the reason/explanation for them I have given as Robert's opinion/hypothesis. Since you have a partisan history about this article why don't you do an RFC or get editor assistance or post it on a noticeboard. To avoid a pointless editwar. Gettingthere (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uthay6505/Archive

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)

• Your relationship with Rec006 was relevant to this page and me, as you were using a sockpuppet to create false consensus and put personal pressure on an editor (me) which was why I reported it. See details in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uthay6505/Archive

• I have reason to believe you are really not reading policy pages but just mentioning Policy to intimidate. There's no 'Balance' section in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples.

• However there is a 'Balance' section in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which tells us;

  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.

• If you have a reputable source, which contests the fact that a misrepresentation of historical context is associated with Tamil Tigress or if you have a reputable source which viewes this misrepresentation from a different POV than Roberts, then include it.

• Right now you seem to be interpreting Balance wrongly.

A-As far as I know, no reputable source exists in the world today, which contests that the quoted statements in the book blurb and the author's Throsby interview constitute a misrepresentation of who the author fought in SL during the IPKF period.

B-Also as far as I know no reputable secondary or tertiary source exits in the world today, which asserts that the Tigers faught the IPKF as well as the SL forces between October 1987 and late 1989/early 1990.

I suggest you postpone your revert until you find reputable sources in support of A and B. Otherwise, your efforts will be interpreted as attempts to suppress uncontested facts and viewpoints.Gettingthere (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

On Point A - the blurb sayd Government Forces not Sri Lankan forces - but sometimes different editions/print runs have different things

On Point B - there are a number of sources that support this. Will update shortly.

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

Expanded Controversy Section

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)

• Yes this is all directly relevant to the subject. It needs copyediting and does not need so many quotes, but I see no reason to revert it wholesale. LadyofShalott 13:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• At least some of it needs better referencing. I just removed two citations to Worldcat. It seemed to be an attempt to reference a book, but the Worldcat listing for the book doesn't cut it. LadyofShalott 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Reception" section would be better - The WP neutrality policy would be better served if the section were renamed "Reception" or "Responses" or "Reviews" and it included both positive and negative assessments. The authenticity/controversy could be a subsection within the Reception section. See WP:Criticism essay which touches on "controversy" sections. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a sensible suggestion. I just looked up the The Passing of the Great Race, in my opinion the apotheosis of controversial book and it has a Reception and influence section now. Although I remember that article being more critical of the book a few months back. If that article has evolved and now present an incarnation more in keeping with WP standards than it did, then I see no problem in complying with those.

At the same time, I know that is not a good comparison. To have a Controversy section in The Passing of the Great Race now almost a hundred years since its publication would be to gild the lily. For this book under discussion, only a few months since its publication, Neutrality may be best served by having a controversy sub section under a Reception section. But I have a concern whether Neutrality would be served or subverted by burying a genuine, uncontested controversy raised by a reputable source under an innocuous word 'Authenticity'.Gettingthere (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The book The Bell Curve has a Responses section, and within that a Criticism subsection. That may be a good model for this article. --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I did it.Gettingthere (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! --Noleander (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Well done! Mrdesoyza (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments and the feedback. Closing the RFC.Gettingthere (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)