Talk:2015 Sri Lankan presidential election

Conduct section

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

---

Please check the conduct section for its neutrality and weight as most of the sources cited appear to news article and reflect the opinions of the author. It is advisable for some independent reports to cited from well known organizations. Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also see the similar sections in the 2010 presidential elections, it appears that its the same editor editing both articles. Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a need to restructure the article particularly the conduct section, which provides undue weight of certain aspects of election related violence when there has no definitive findings that they were in fact motivated by the elections or just plain criminal act committed --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The contents of this section have been sourced using reliable sources and therefore fulfil two of the three core content policies - WP:V and WP:NOR. There is no issue with using news sites as long as they are reliable - see WP:NEWSORG. Where the sources are reporting others views/allegations it has been mentioned as per WP:ATT. We can include whatever is reported by reliable sources, we don't have to wait for "official" findings.

The third core content policy is WP:NPOV - if you believe the section misses anything e.g. violence by the opposition, please provide reliable sources and I will add it to the section. Please note that Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror are not reliable sources.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror are well circulated news papers in sri lanka, therefore are a reliable source. Although the same cannot be said about Tamilnet. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TamilNet contains nothing to suggest that it is unreliable, do you have specific rationale and sourcing for your claims of unreliability? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To allow me to understand your criteria for unreliability, can you give reasons why Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror is unreliable? --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have stated in several places that my edit last night removed "well sourced and referenced material". This is wrong. Your various contributions to the article added four small paragraphs:

• The first paragraph (unsourced) simply repeated information about the number of candidates which was contained in the previous paragraph. I have therefore removed the repeated information.
• The second paragraph (sourced from Colombo Gazette) about election monitors being biased has not been removed - I have simply re-worded it and provided two RS (The Island and Business Standard/PTI).
• The third paragraph (sourced from Colombo Gazette) about online polling being misleading has been removed as I did not consider Colombo Gazette to be a RS.
• The fourth paragraph (sourced from The Daily Mirror) about police action on violations has not been removed - I have simply re-worded it and moved it to the beginning of the Conduct section.

You have stated above that Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror are well circulated newspapers in Sri Lanka. This is wrong. They are not newspapers, they are news sites. They are therefore not wholly RS - have a look at WP:NEWSORG. In order to be RS they must have editorial oversight - there is nothing to suggest either sites have this. It is up to you to prove that they are RS. But it would be simpler if you ignored these and used national newspapers (listed here) all of which are providing detailed coverage on the election. So are international news agencies.

Going back to your original complaint, neutrality of the section, my previous comment stands - let me have RS and I will include.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

so are you in agreeable to remove material cited by Tamilnet as it it not a newspaper in circulation? --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws Randeepa. The reliability of TamilNet has been discussed at WP:RSN which has found it to be a WP:RS. It has also been discussed at WP:SLR which has found it to be a WP:RS, albeit biased.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of those discussion indicate that TamilNet is a pro rebel and controversial source, I think it would be best if we find another source that non controversial to represent the facts your citing from TamilNet because the fact is non controversial. Both discussion indicate the need to use "pro rebel website says....", the fact you cited from TamilNet is that HE called an election, it would be unnecessary to "Pro Rebel website says Mahinda Rajapaska called early election" . and as far as Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror concerned it is appears to be classified as reliable source, unless you can show some previous discussion on this topic? 07:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng.M.Bandara (talk • contribs)

TamilNet is a reliable source. You're welcome to find other sources to reference the statements currently attributed to them if you like. I'm not seeing anyone in this discussion say Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror are not reliable sources, but the fact that they're permitted to be circulated where others are not suggests that they're at least slightly pro the incumbents. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"Please note that Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror are not reliable sources.--obi2canibe^{talk " --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)}

Eng.M.Bandara - We are straying far from your original complaint that the Conduct section was not neutral. The discussions which I mentioned in my previous post found TamilNet to be a RS but not neutral when it comes to controversial content relating to the Sri Lankan conflict. As WP:YESPOV states "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice", therefore it is not necessary to state that "Pro Rebel website says Mahinda Rajapaska called early election" because TamilNet is a RS and this is an uncontroversial fact - only the incumbent president may call an early election - read the constitution. If you add "pro Rebel website says" you will only be making a fool of yourself.

Stuartyeates - it is my view that Colombo Gazette and Colombo Mirror are not RS - neither provides information as to who they are, where they're based etc. However, I am no expert on classifying sources, so if WP:RSN find them to be RS I'll accept that.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to start with personal attacks obi2canibe, what I am saying is that because TamilNet is a controversial site using it provide citation for uncontroversial facts may mislead some viewers to thinking the fact is controversial, when in fact it is not. So my suggestion is to find an alternate source to cite the uncontroversial facts. Also there are two issues (1) that the conduct section is not neutral and (2) the conduct section provides undue weight to the overall scope of the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. TamilNet is a RS and so can be used to source uncontroversial facts. You can't re-write Wikipedia rules for your own ends. I have already answered your assertion that this article is not neutral.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the Consensus that has been established on Wikipedia you must use "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." with citation of TamilNet or find another source. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus only applies to contentious facts from the Sri Lankan conflict. Here WP:YESPOV applies.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Have made a RfC since all the arguments have been put down, and now appear to be going in circles with the same arguments. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The above outlines the arguments presented in this dispute. To state simply a there were deeply contested views as to whether TamilNet was a RS after a Consensus it was established to use "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." with citation of TamilNet. obi2canibe states consensus only applies to contentious facts from the Sri Lankan conflict. Here WP:YESPOV applies. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC) 23 December 2014 Also There appears to be an agreement that the article's conduct section is not neutral and provides undue-weight towards a certain POV. Any assistance on by an independent party to completely re-write the conduct section to be neutral to all POV's and provide an appropriate amount of weight to the rest of the article would be appreciated --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The names of the elections results are wrong