Talk:Lies Agreed Upon

Source from the Ministry of Defense

Sri Lankan Defense Ministry is not a reliable source and content should be removed based on the source.Sudar123 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the Lies Agreed Upon, But Whose Lies.Sudar123 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Ministry of Defense has not been tagged as an unreliable source in any of the discussions which have taken place before. But it is obviously a pro-government website, and that's why it is cited in the article with attribution. Please refer to this discussion. And the reference you provided has already been used for the criticism section in the article. So there should be no problem of the neutrality. Astronomyinertia (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Better you take this comment on Dispute Resolution and until that leave tag be there. Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm of GOSL or Ministry of Defense. We need reliable third party citation on this regard.Sudar123 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are asking me to take an issue to the DRN without establishing your case against this article. As I've mentioned, the article attributes all the claims/arguments to the Sri Lanka Ministry of Defense. That's why a large number of citations points to the MoD website. "Contents" section is entirely derived from the documentary itself. Therefore it is not necessary to provide 3rd party references. You can see that it is the same case with the article Sri Lanka's Killing Fields. All other facts are properly cited with relevant 3rd party sources/news articles. Don't start an edit war without properly discussing your case here. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

More than 90% of the content are coming from based on the source Ministry of Defense. Wikipedia is not there for legitimizing the claims of Ministry of Defense which is a highly POV source on the Issue in hand. On the other hand "Sri Lanka Killing Fields" was created by ITN, a third party institution which is supervised by Ofcom, a neutral institution.Sudar123 (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Contents section has recieved the bulk of the weight, as it was in the case with "Sri Lanka Killing Fields". But it is in no way 90%. Plus, there is room for further expansion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Even for a creation by the Ministry of Defense, to support a article for the creation on Wikipedia using the Ministry of Defense as source is too much even for 25% of the content. Then it is something Wikipedia is legitimizing or giving free publicity to those content. Until finding other third party and neutral sources, those content should be removed on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Content section of any of the two articles, Sri Lanka's Killing Fields and Lies Agreed Upon, does not legitimize the facts or figures presented. And your notion that all facts should be referenced by 3rd party sources in invalid, because all the content is specifically attributed to the MoD. Thus the readers are told that it is the MoD's opinion. And your criticism also applies to the article on Sri Lanka's Killing Fields, because none of the facts in its Contents section are cited with 3rd party references. I notice that you are in the opinion that ITN/Channel 4 is a 3rd party because it is not a party to the civil war, but it is not the case when you consider the subject of that article. Sri Lanka's Killing Fields is produced by that media organization. Therefore Channel 4 is the "primary source" for much of its content. Both documentaries are investigatory, thus bulk of their facts are not published anywhere else before. If you believe these investigatory facts of Lies Agreed Upon does not deserve a place in Wikipedia, same applies to the Sri Lanka's Killing Fields. Astronomyinertia (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is under the directive of the Ministry of Defense only the all what is attributed in the "Sri Lanka Killing Field" taken place. ITN/Channel 4 are only documented from various other secondary sources. But in the case of "Lies Agreed Upon" is the creation of Ministry of Defense to deny the facts in the "Sri Lanka Killing Field" where the Ministry of Defense is accused of the War Crime with its functional Armed Forces. Now you can see the difference where your logic fails.Sudar123 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Your comment does not rationalize the addition of "citation needed" tag in places where MoD is referenced. Channel 4 is the primary source for much of the content in the SKF article. Same goes with this one. Bias is not for you to decide. What readers of Wikipedia articles want to see is the facts presented by both sides regarding the issues under srutiny. As long as the facts are attributed to the specific party, Wikipedia retains its neutrality. That had been the usual practice when editing all the Sri Lankan Civil War related articles in the past. By the way, do not cause citation errors and broken links by making edits in a hasty manner. First try to establish a consensus here in the talkpage, without starting an editwar. Astronomyinertia (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you wait until another thirty party news channel document Ministry of Defense claims in a documentary rather than Ministry of Defense itself comes out with its own version. Already in the "Sri Lanka Killing Fileds" there is a Criticism section to counter the "Sri Lanka Killing Fields" and the Wikipedia article is well kept neutral there. "Lied Agreed Upon" is created to deceive the world to escape from the War Crimes.Sudar123 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to evade the fact that SKF article relies heavily on the material presented in the documentary. For that article, Channel 4 is the primary source. So why double standards with "Lies Agreed Upon"? Comment to the point. Besides, it is not fair to include all the crticisms that "Lies Agreed Upon" has on SKF documentary, in SKF article's crticism section because the amount of material warrents the existence if a separate article. Plus, there is a Criticism section in the Lies Agreed Upon article itself, where you can add any opposing views. Astronomyinertia (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sri Lanka Killing Fields" was telecast by Channel 4, a third party institution and created by ITN, another third party institution which is supervised by Ofcom, a neutral institution. Based on the above facts Channel 4 qualifies as source meeting the criteria of WP:RS. But on the other hand Ministry of Defense and its Armed Forces accused of the War Crime. Based on the above facts Ministry of Defense's creation "Lies Agreed Upon" doesn't meet the WP:RS. No double standard here. Better take this issue to Dispute Resolution. We had enough discussion.Sudar123 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't understood my point. ITN/Channel 4 is not a 3rd party when comes to the documentary SKF. It was produced by that media organization, and the documentary they produced has been directly quoted, line-by-line at times, in its Wikipedia article. Thus the "Content" section of the SKF article relies entirely on the primary source. There is no point of taking the issue to the DRN if you cannot clearly differentiate between the "Contents" section of the two articles in this regard. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the documentary, not the claims made in the article. So I don't think it matters if the Sri Lankan armed forces are a reliable source or not. They are the creators of this work and thus can be used as a source for the contents of the work (one could even argue that only they can be the source for the contents). If other articles repeated the claims made in this documentary then we would certainly need other reliable sources in order to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. In my opinion the entire documentary is a work of fiction. But that doesn't preclude it from being included on Wikipedia. A similar article I found is the Leuchter report whose contents fly in the face of mainstream view but has nevertheless been allowed. It has a strong criticism section and this is something Lies Agreed Upon needs.

Having said that, Lies Agreed Upon isn't in the same league as Sri Lanka's Killing Fields. The former is a piece of propaganda produced by an organisation that ought to be investigated for war crimes according to the UN panel, Amnesty, HRW, ICG et al. The latter was made by two highly respected media companies and met the high editorial standards needed to broadcast in the UK. It prompted reactions by foreign governments and international human rights groups. It has also been broadcast in other countries, meeting broadcasting standards in those countries. The two simply can't be compared.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. My argument was the same regarding the Contents section. There, 3rd party sources are not necessary because the section is derived from the documentary itself. Criticism section could be further expanded, pending availability of sources analysing the documentary. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing with you. Either take for Dispute Resolution, or stop your blatant canvassing for those who did the "War Crime".Sudar123 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the above comment proves your inability to discuss a matter in a rational way. You are not throwing sensible arguments to the discussion, thus there is no point of taking the matter to the DRN. Astronomyinertia (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss further on this issue with sensible editors only.Sudar123 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To whom are you referring? The issue here, as Obi2canibe points out, is not the reliability of the primary source. Contents section of the article simply repeats the contents of the documentary attributing all the claims to its producer. You are trying to wipe it out from Wikipedia, citing your preconvinced perceptions. I have twiced ceased edit warring to concentrate on the discussion, but you seem to be treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Your edit summary for this edit ("As per discussion") is misleading because you don't have the support of at least one other established editor to say so. Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to you. Discussing with you will take someone to square one again and again. Simply don't compare a well established news channel Channel 4 as source for its documentary on Wikipedia and the Ministry of Defense as the main source for its documentary on Wikipedia. Better find another third party news channel comes out with its investigative documentary where it could analyse the "Sri Lanka Killing Fields" is LIE or DECEPTION rather than the Ministry of Defense itself for a fully fledged Wikipedia article. Other wise you link the Ministry of Defense's "Lied Agreed Upon" page on Sri Lanka Killing Fields's Wikipedia page or even with "Lied Agreed Upon" Wikipedia page which is created based on the sources of established news channels where Checks and Balances are there. Sudar123 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered the key point raised by me as well as Obi2canibe. This article is about a documentary. Its Contents section includes the contents of that documentary. Thus the issue of bias is not relevant to that section. You have the Criticism section to deal with any bias noticed by observers, which is already in place. If you don't have an answer to this question, you don't have a right to place "Citation needed" tag in the Contents section. Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't bring Obi2canibe to cover your POV. Simply you can't use the Ministry of Defense as the main source for its own documentary, a propaganda piece as Obi2canibe mentioned to create a page on Wikipedia to evade from its War Crime charges. But Channel 4 is a recognised world news media and we can use it as a major source for its own documentary on Wikipedia. If you are still not getting go for a Rfc or Dispute Resolution.Sudar123 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your claims make no sense, as Obi2canibe clearly states that "They [MoD] are the creators of this work and thus can be used as a source for the contents of the work". That's what I too have been saying from the beginning. According to your view, Propaganda films have no place in Wikipedia. But a casual glance of the above article directs you to hundrers of such articles covering various topics (War, health, environment etc.) Thus your point is invalidated! Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You can use [MOD] but not as a main source since MOD itself is the major culprit in the War Crime in Sri Lanka.Sudar123 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MoD reference has been used nowhere else but in places where contents have been described. As I've mentioned, the Contents section has been derived from the documentary itself, so no other reference can be used there. Perhaps using the same reference throughout that section is unnecessary and redundant. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are coming around in a circle in your argument. First of all, MOD's 'Lied Agreed Upon' is propaganda piece to deny its own War Crime charges and can't compare with a reputed news media Channel 4's 'Sri Lanka Killing Field'. You can't use even MOD's documentary for a Wikipedia page on the documentary itself other than a few places since MOD or MOD's documentary are not meeting the WP:RS.Sudar123 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no essence in your argument. Even if the security forces are accused of committing war crimes, that does not disqualify MoD being used as a source for a documentary created by itself. 3rd party sources are necessary if the facts are used in other articles without attribution. You say "You can't use even MOD's documentary for a Wikipedia page on the documentary itself other than a few places..." Can you specifically name these "few places"? It seems like your concern is focused on the number of times MoD reference has been used. It has been used only twice, outside the Contents section, and they too deal with the contents of the documentary. As I've mentioned before, I don't see any particular reason for it to be used all over the section, and therefore can be removed once the edit protection is expired. Astronomyinertia (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Take your explanation to Rfc or Dispute Resolution whether you are right rather than discussing with me. As I have explained enough on my previous explanation on this thread of discussion, I will remove the content which has been sourced based on MOD as a reference source, once the edit protection is expired.Sudar123 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I must warn that such an act might constitute vandalism. There are other mechanisms to deal with vandalism, rather than going for RfCs or to DRN. No established user has complained about the use of MoD as a source for the "Content" section. You have repeatedly failed to provide a valid answer to that point, but keep wandering about war crimes charges, which is not the issue here. Your request from the very beginning, to go for a RfC or to the DRN without discussing with you is rather hilarious, and is a proof of your lack of capability to answer the questions I've raised, and those which you knew I was going to raise. Your last few comments are nothing but a mere repetition of the same words. You have failed to name the "few places" you said MoD can be referenced, and also trying; desparately, to avoid facing Obi2canibe's comment. Now, I find that pathetic. Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment,

There is absolutely no essence in your argument. Even if the security forces are accused of committing war crimes, that does not disqualify MoD being used as a source for a documentary created by itself.

shows your lack capability on this issue.

Please read the following to understand why Ministry of Defense(MOD) of Sri Lanka is not fit to be a reliable source since the Secretary of the MOD Gotabaya Rajapaksa himself is accused of insulting statements.

In the editorial titled A brother out of control (August 16, 2011), The Hindu raised the observation, "President Rajapaksa would be well advised to distance himself swiftly from his brother's stream-of-consciousness on sensitive issues that are not his business. This includes an outrageous comment that because a Tamil woman, an “LTTE cadre” who was a British national, interviewed in the Channel 4 documentary was “so attractive” but had been neither raped nor killed by Sri Lankan soldiers, the allegation of sexual assault by soldiers could not be true. For this statement alone, Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa must be taken to task."Sudar123 (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Obi2canibe has tagged and showed his disapproval of the MOD in the Battle of Puthukkudiyirippu.Sudar123 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your above comment is completely out of context, and does not answer any of the concerns raised here. Gotabaya Rajapaksa's statement, outrageous or whatever, has nothing to do with the contents of this documentary. You must first understand that this is a discussion about your addition of "Citation needed" tag to the "Contents" section of this documentary. Without answering to the point, now you have started inserting statements from other sources, that doesn't directly relate to the context. No one here has said that MoD is impartial. As a government Ministry, it always has the pro-government bias. Therefore without fooling around, you have to start answering the core question, what prevents MoD from being used as a source to the contents of an article about a documentary created by itself? Your comment on Obi2canibe's edit is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Addition of a title to a reference cannot be branded as a disapproval of the source. If that was the case, all references in Wikipedia articles should've been kept as bare URLs to avoid bias. Hilarious! Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then better start in a Blog, a article on "Lies Agreed Upon" quoting MOD as a source in whatever proportion other than on Wikipedia, no one will question you. If you add on Wikipedia MOD as a reference source in large proportion, it is a violation and you are pushing POV of a government on Wikipedia. I have responded you more than enough why I have added "Citation Needed". Better take for a Dispute Resolution or RFC or anywhere you want. I will delete the content once the protection is over. I won't respond to you ANYMORE.Sudar123 (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be an opinion held only by you. You are merely repeating the claim that MoD is not a reliable source because it has been accused of war crimes, and shows a bias towards the government view. But you aren't answering the question that, what prevents it from being used as a source to the contents of an article about a documentary created by itself. Accoring to your view, governmental reports or documentaries have no place in Wikipedia because they all have pro-government bias. For your information, here are some examples for government-made propaganda films & reports:

• US Government anti-communist propaganda films
• US Government World War II propaganda films
• Propaganda films by country
• Reports of the United States government
• Government reports

You can quit if you have no more arguments to present. And you also can delete the content once the protection is lifted. But since you have failed to prove your point, with all due respect, I must say that those edits are not going to stay for long, and will be dealt under WP:VANDAL. Astronomyinertia (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an almost well written article and the dispute arose due to the language used. As most us editors of South Asian origin, English is a second language, so we should support each other in improving the article. If we can make the sentences attribute the so called facts to the sources and use less inflammatory, less peacock like terms, this article will improve. I have done some edits to point the way. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions you've made. Any existing peacock terms should be removed as you mentioned. I'll work though that. Astronomyinertia (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a well written POV articles on Wikipedia without proper attribution to the sources and misleading the readers. Wikipedia can direct to Websites with POV contents rather than duplicating them on mass scale on Wikipedia and misleading the readers.Sudar123 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "without proper attribution"? All the contents in the article is attributed to the MoD through phrases such as The documentary claimed that.., "Lies Agreed Upon" refuted the claim with.., But refuting the Channel 4 claims the government documentary asserted that.., The documentary cited.., The documentary contained a brief description of.. etc. This shows you haven't read the article properly, as you keep adding "fact" tag to the sentences where the content is attributed to the documentary very well. Besides, "duplicating them ["POV contents"] on mass scale on Wikipedia and misleading the readers" is your POV, and is not shared by all editors in Wikipedia. Astronomyinertia (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Channel 4 also is a documentary, you should then specifically mention everywhere you quote as "Lies Agreed Upon" without messing. Then you go for specifically on a RFC whether you could duplicate POV contents on Mass Scale on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no confusion between the documentaries in places where they have been mentioned. No one seemed to be "messed" about the distinction until now. RfCs are for more complex or technical issues rather than this. Here the issue is merely the "fact" tag added by you, in places where the content is specifically attributed to the documentary. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have cited "Lies Agreed Upon" to reduce the confusion as much as possible. But again MOD's documentary, a propaganda piece, is excessively used as a source to create a fully fledged article on Wikipedia as though validating its facts. If any other Wikipedia editors say the MOD's documentary is heavily used, I too will support to delete those content though for the time being, I have added "According to Lies Agreed Upon" or "Lies Agreed Upon claimed".Sudar123 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating articles on propaganda films is not banned in Wikipedia. You seem to have missed all the examples I was providing throughout the discussion. I copy edited the article extensively, to reduce the confusion of sentences created by your aritrary addition of "According to Lies Agreed Upon" phrase. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You can create articles on propaganda films based on third party neutral sources. You can't expand the propaganda articles based on the POV sources or even the propaganda creations themselves as major sources.Sudar123 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule saying the "Content" or "Plot" section of an article about a film, propaganda or not, should be taken from a 3rd party source. In fact it is not possible because even if you quote a 3rd party source, it should be based on the primary source, the film itself. You seem to be not getting that simple point as it appears to me. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Citation

I have added fact tags for content which are solely from Ministry of Defense and pro-Government sites and will delete after 10 days the content if other third party reliable sources are not furnished. If the creator persistent to push POV, I will report at ANI and go for a Rfc.Sudar123 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MOD can be used as a source as long as we say that it is according to MOD, it is just like Tamilnet. Kanatonian (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MOD or its creation can be used on limited level on Wikipedia with the attribution "according to MOD". Every para should follow "according to MOD" or "according to MOD's documentary 'Lies Agreed Upon'. We can't compare Tamilnet or MOD on the same yardstick. MOD is the line Ministry of a Government which was in charge of the War and was accused of War Crime.Sudar123 (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sudar, we had discussed this in detail many years agon in Wikipedia and the community has come to a conclusion so that we can contribute without constant bikkering. Tamilnet was accused of being the mouthpiece of a proscribed terrorist group that itself was accused of commiting war crimes just like MOD and the government of Sri Lanka are accused of war crimes. So the compromise was to use both the sources with attribution. So readers know that its from either Tamilnet's or MOD point of view not necessarily fact checked and reliable. Thanks 15:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Still I dispute with whether Tamilnet or MOD or their creations could be used excessively to create a Wikipedia page.Sudar123 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you should take it to the reliable sources notice board and they will tell you what I just said, Tamilnet is usable, MOD is usable as long as we attribute it properly. We have hundreds of articles in Wikipedia that depend on these sources some times primarily or sometimes in addition to. We have had no issues for years about it. Kanatonian (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not in the dispute of whether MOD or Tamilnet, could be used as reliable sources, but whether they could be used as a major source for an article since they are not NPOV.Sudar123 (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

May be you should be looking into WP:PRIMARY then not WP:NPOV, my opinion Kanatonian (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to Sudar and the FACT tag: The reasons given for placing the FACT tag is not valid since, this article is about a documentry, and not about the content of the documentry, and the tag will be removed if no valid reasons specifying which statements need citations, are given within 7 days. It is your own view that it is propaganda, which might be true, which might not be true. Moreover what you or any of us think about the Ministry of Defence or anything else for that matter is not allowed here. The issue here is that you can't demand citations for the content or dispute the content of the documentry, because this article just says what the documentry is about. The only thing you can dispute and criticize here is, if there is anything written about this documentry which is not true or which is not properly sourced. Since the documentry is also freely available, such sourcing too is not really necessary, since the documentry itself becomes the source in such cases. The actual content of the documentry or its neutrality cannot be disputed here, and demanded removed since the documentry is already made and aired. You can ofcourse include criticism of the documentry. Let me give u an example: If the documentry states that the earth is flat, and present it as a fact, and the article mentions the FACT that the documentry does that, you can't ask a source for that statement about the earth being flat, or dispute that, and demand that, that particular statement must be removed. I hope you understand the point here. Please note that, tagging a well sourced article just because u don't like it or have your own point of view about it is against Wikipedia policies and is disruptive editing. If you have any other points than the ones presented already, please present them within 7 days. Please tag each of the sentences you think are not properly sourced, with citation needed tag (you can use the tag itself to say why u dispute a particular statement or you can number them and place them in talk page). At the end of the 7 days, I will remove the disputed tag if no valid objections are made here. --SriSuren (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Is not balanced, there should be a sentence or two about the critisism of the documentary by its distarctors. Kanatonian (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be expanded with critisism.Sudar123 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added criticism to the lead. Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See it is easy to write controversal articles in Wikipedia as long as one maintains a tight balance so people dontget upset :)Kanatonian (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. And thanks for some vital contributions for the article. Btw, I don't believe it is possible to write controversial articles in a way that no one gets upset, especially the extremist factions which cannot tolerate any opposing view. What we can do at best is to stick to NPOV by adding both sides of an argument. Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say you are doing a very good job of maintaining personal blance while writing a controversal subject matter. Kanatonian (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One Major Single Source & POV

Reference to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120(Defence.lk), I have added the Tags on "Single Source" and "POV".

Any one who wants to remove the above tags or the reliability content on Wikipedia based on the single major source can discuss here.Sudar123 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If I have time, I may come back to this topic later, but immediately what I noticed that rang an alarm bell for me was that the government released this "rebuttal" video one and a half months after the original documentary aired. That's an astoundingly fast critical analysis, fact-checking, writing, production, shooting, release schedule. Almost unbelievably fast, imho...that's not a "fact" of any kind, but I know in my country, it takes the government, months, sometimes years, to respond to major issues that are not directly related to the running of the country today. Just an observation. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 20:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SriSuren: This is the second time Sudar123 has placed these templates in the article, and the n^th time he wants to discuss this matter. Infact, this whole talk page is about this topic of "one source" and all 4 topics in the talk page have been started by Sudar123 on the exact same issue! As it seems all the possible arguments to keep the article taged with these templates have been already discussed. Last time I asked him to specify what he needs citations for (see my post dated 7th April 2012, just above this new section), so that they could be provided. He went completely silent and didn't specify anything he wanted citations for. Then when the templates were removed, he waits another 3 weeks and starts yet another discussion about the same topic. The issue here is not whether the Defence Ministry is a reliable source. It goes without saying that the Defence Ministry is not a realiable source in the issues relating the allegations leveled against them. Defence.lk is the website of the defence ministry and it is not a reliable source either, for claims or counter claims on the issues regarding the civil war, due to the same fact as above, namely that they are a part in this conflict, and it is personell in Defence Ministry and some govt officials who stand accused in the Channel 4 movies. Defence.lk will at any given time state their political views and publish what they think is in the best interest of defending the country. That's their job. The defence ministry is criticized within the country too. But all these issues are irrelevant, since this article is not about the Defence Ministry but about a documentry they have made. We can't add our personal views are about any of this stuff, whether they are for or against the different parties in the conflict.

As for the placing the template "One source" - There can be only one source for a movie or documentry, namely its producers. So like any other documentry or movie made, this documentry too has only one source. There are dirty politicians and there are dirty journalists, and they can make movies and call them documentries and exchange rebuttals endlessly and fill their pockets. But, these issues can't be settled at Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article about a documentry is not about establishing the truth of the facts and "facts" presented in the documentries. As I explained to Sudar123 last time, if the Flat Earth Club makes a documentry about the earth being flat, a Wikipedia article on that documentry cannot take on the task of establishing the truth of the "facts" and facts presented in the documentry. Sudar123 was unable to specify what he want citations for last time, but have placed the same templates again. I do not think we should have articles with these templates indefinitely and keep on discussing the same matter over and again. Therefore what needs citations must be specified and this issue must be discussed and settled once and for all. Sudar123 must start specifying what he needs citations for. Now since many editors/administrators have been invited to the discussion, I hope this issue will be discussed in a neutral way and settled.--SriSuren (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You show who you are by your statement, "Defence.lk will at any given time state their political views and publish what they think is in the best interest of defending the country." Then what about many thousands of Tamils got killed in the last phase of the war mostly by the commands of the same defense ministry? Defence Ministry is voicing only for its Sinhala dominated military. If the Defence.lk is not a reliable source, then the defense ministry's documentary as well. Wikipedia is not a cheap soapbox for keeping a War Crime charged defense ministry's documentary as a fully fledged article. If other editors agree, we can keep a cut and chopped article on "Lies Agreed Upon" on Wikipedia with a lead para stating that the documentary was prepared in record breaking One and Half Months.Sudar123 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how Sri lanka's defense ministry is a reliable source.After all Sri Lankan state and it's armed forces are accused of crimes against humanity on Tamils.Nobody endorsed Sri lanka's self-created documentary about the war.If someone has problems in the way Sri Lanka's Killing Fields article is written or th citations used for that then the appropriate place to deal it is the discussion page of Sri Lanka's killing Fields and it doesn't mean that you have to write a FULL POV article based on a single source or single website run by party of war and a party accused of crimes against humanity(Arun1paladin (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

Back to the same topic. Even from the discussion mentioned, it is evident that "Defence.lk is a reliable source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government". And the article explicitly says that it is the view of the government. Since this is one side of the debate, the templates are unnecessary. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's ok to use it to state their views, but it does not mean it is desirable to have only the views of the Sri-Lankan government. It also does not mean the Sri Lankan government source has the due weight it's given currently. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This documentary is a direct response to Macrae's documentary Sri Lanka's Killing Fields. You may also note that there is another documentary, Sri Lanka's Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished, which is more or less a response to this film. Therefore we have to take the net sum of the articles in determining the due weight. Contents section of the article on first documentary also depends on its primary source, in par with this article. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@ IRWolfie, The only source for the views of the Sri Lankan govt is the govt itself. Therefore the question of due weight does not even arise. Put in another way - the sole weight for the views of the Sri Lankan govt lies on government sources. The tagging of this article with "one source" and "neutrality" templates is just a way to try to keep out information some editors do not like. It is not about sources or neutrality at all. User Sudar123, who invited u to this discussion, has admitted that what he want to do is "cut and chop" this article, if the editors he has invited agree!!! A truly macabre way of stating his intentions. The templates are therefore placed on completely different grounds than what their intended use is. I think if there are no valid objections stated within reasonable time, the templates must be removed (say 14 days ). --SriSuren (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

An article dealing only with Lies Agreed Upon is, almost by definition, not going to be satisfying to people on both sides. A better approach might be to combine the material in Sri Lanka's Killing Fields and Lies Agreed Upon into one article (possibly named "Documentary coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War", or "Journalistic coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War"). This would allow both positions to be seen and understood in a unified context, and perhaps also lessen the temptation to portray one or the other side as "the truth" instead of seeking a balanced and neutral treatment of the issue as a whole. (Disclaimer: I have no ties of any sort to Sri Lanka, and I do not have an opinion as to which, if either, set of combatants in the Sri Lankan civil war were "the good guys".) — Richwales 05:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But I guess we might hear different opinions. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 07:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of one particular editor (Sudar123) repeatedly tagging this article, and not stating exactly what he wants citations for, is not solved by the solutions proposed so far. Also, I do not think combining the articles will solve the issue of editors trying to portray one or the other side as "the truth" and both articles are fairly long as they are, a combined article will be very large, but it is not a bad idea to have an article about the coverage of the civil war in Sri Lanka, so that readers can find their way in the propaganda jungle about Sri Lanka. Also, I do not think satisfying anybody should be the focus of a Wikipedia article. The problem of tagging this article with these templates without any valid reason should be settled as soon as possible and other issues as combining the articles etc should be handled later, because if there are things which need citations or statements/claims which breach Wikipedia neutrality policies in this article, they will still need to be corrected and referenced in a combined article. Therefore Sudar123 must be made to state what he needs citations for and what exactly he means is not neutral. So far he has not specified what they are, even after been requested to do so several times. If he does not specify the issues in the coming 14 days, the templates must be removed. --SriSuren (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Richwales's comment on the discussion whether the defence.lk is reliable source will give a clear picture of "Lies Agreed Upon" as well.

User:Richwales's comment says, "At the very most, I would say that Defence.lk may be a reliable source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government. In a dispute involving Sri Lanka, anything said in Defence.lk is clearly going to reflect one side of the dispute, and thus anything from this source must be used with caution (and probably not just by itself, but only in combination with other sources giving a well-rounded picture of a given situation). If you are asking whether Defence.lk is "reliable" in the sense that a statement from Defence.lk can be used all by itself as an authoritative statement of an objective fact, I would say no, it is not "reliable" in that limited meaning of the word."

Sri Lankan Defense Ministry's documentary "Lies Agreed Upon" in a dispute involving Sri Lanka is not reliable though it is reliable about the training of its personnel or the display of its fire power.

User:Despayre has rightly pointed on this thread above about the "Lies Agreed Upon", ".....immediately what I noticed that rang an alarm bell for me was that the government released this "rebuttal" video one and a half months after the original documentary aired. That's an astoundingly fast critical analysis, fact-checking, writing, production, shooting, release schedule. Almost unbelievably fast, imho...that's not a "fact" of any kind,............"

IRWolfie- also rightly pointed on this thread above about the "Lies Agreed Upon", "....It also does not mean the Sri Lankan government source has the due weight it's given currently."

User:Obi2canibe also rightly observed on the thread on the first discussion of this talk page about the "Lies Agreed Upon", "....Having said that, Lies Agreed Upon isn't in the same league as Sri Lanka's Killing Fields. The former is a piece of propaganda produced by an organisation that ought to be investigated for war crimes according to the UN panel, Amnesty, HRW, ICG et al. The latter was made by two highly respected media companies and met the high editorial standards needed to broadcast in the UK. It prompted reactions by foreign governments and international human rights groups. It has also been broadcast in other countries, meeting broadcasting standards in those countries. The two simply can't be compared."

I agree with what User:Arun1paladin pointed out on this thread above, "....Nobody endorsed Sri lanka's self-created documentary about the war. If someone has problems in the way Sri Lanka's Killing Fields article is written or the citations used for that then the appropriate place to deal it is the discussion page of Sri Lanka's killing Fields and it doesn't mean that you have to write a FULL POV article based on a single source or single website run by party of war and a party accused of crimes against humanity"

Once again my point here is "Sri Lanka Killing Fields" was telecast by Channel 4, a third party institution and created by ITN, another third party institution which is supervised by Ofcom, a neutral institution. Based on the above facts Channel 4 qualifies as source meeting the criteria of WP:RS. But on the other hand Ministry of Defense and its Armed Forces accused of the War Crime. Based on the above facts Ministry of Defense's creation "Lies Agreed Upon" doesn't meet the WP:RS.

Better start in a Blog, an article on "Lies Agreed Upon" quoting MOD's documentary as a source in whatever proportion, no one will question.

I don't think "Lies Agreed Upon" is a qualified candidate for a stand alone article on Wikipedia considering the various facts and comments above.

I will revert removal the tags which is imposed on this POV article which is solely a propaganda piece with sinister motive to avoid international investigation on War Crimes and not comparable with articles of One-Sided Scientifically Ignorant Believes such as Flat Earth which doesn't have any sinister purposes in large against the humanity to hide something other than mere ignorance.

I have high lighted and pointed out enough why the tags should be remained. I will reinstate if they are removed.Sudar123 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sudar123, The so called points u have highligted do not warrant tagging this article with these templates. To tag an article with the {{NPOV}} template there must be specific issues, and these issues must be actionable, i.e correctable. The situation is that you have failed to specify what exactly is violating NPOV policies, but instead u have been just stating your opinions and prejudices about Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Minister, and stating that u want "content removed" (all?) and that u want to "cut and chop" the article, because u think that they should not have a voice, because according to you they are this, that and the other. The result of all this is that the article is tagged for weeks on end, but the discussion is not about correcting the article if there are statements/claims which are violating these policies. Please also note that Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOTCENSORED. As regards to the {{One source}} template – what u are calling "one source" is the subject of the article, namely the documentry itself. Tagging of articles must be the last resort, but u seem to think that u can just tag articles with these templates and discuss your opinions about secondary issues or your political views. This is disruptive editing. WP:TAGGING, WP:NPOVD

From WP:NPOVD :

"The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Neural Point of View, Verifiability, No Original Research and Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort".

As explained earlier, you can only dispute and question the neutrality of the content of an article, you can not dispute the content or the neutrality of a documentry or a book or whatever an article is about. Such critisms and disputes are handled by refering to third party sources, where the critisms are specified. It is done in this article too. So, please understand the difference, between the content of the documentry and the content of the article. Several editors, Astronomyinertia and me and even Obi2Canbe and Kanatonian, who are from the same side as u in the political divide, have tried to explain this to u. But u keep on spilling your biased views about the SL defence ministry and the alleged war crimes etc etc, and state them as arguments to justify placing these templates, instead of understanding this and stating what u want citations for. Please also understand that Wikipedia is not about establishing the truth about documentries or wars or conflicts and also that Wikipedia is not censored. So please:

1. Specify what exactly is violating NPOV policies

2. Specify what you need additional sources for

If you fail to specify the above, we cannot correct them or give u references, and as articles cannot be tagged without valid reasons, the tags will be removed. WP:TAGGING, WP:NPOVD WP:NOTCENSORED--SriSuren (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

For all your questions, the answers are there already from other editors' comments and my one as well. If you remove the tags, simply I will replace them.Sudar123 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there are no answers from anybody to the questions asked and none of the answers fulfill the requirements needed for placing these templates. There must be specific issues to tag articles. None is specified. Please specify them as requested, so that they can be corrected and references added. Failing that the tags will be removed. No other editor has specified what these issues are, while two editors (Obi2Canbe on 5th February and Kanatonian on 15-16th February ) have specifically told u that u can't tag the article. It is evident that you have a problem with the article itself, and u are tagging the article with no valid reason and trying to use these templates as a tool to supress information that you do not like. WP:TAGGING, WP:NPOVD WP:NOTCENSORED --SriSuren (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

After the comments of Kanatonian and Obi2Canbe, there are developments on this issue and number of other editors have come out with their opinions. You can't create a POV article and ask references. The documentary itself doesn't meet WP:RS criteria to support its own article on Wikipedia on various grounds and other editors have pointed out. Please read their comments and rather than dragging Kanatonian and Obi2Canbe who might have missed the point previously. Better you raise the question to other editors who are involved as well. You need their consent as well now. They have already involved in the RfC on defence.lk and well aware of the issue at hand.Sudar123 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not take things out of things out of context. The discussion u are refering to is not about this issue. It was about whether Defence.lk is a realiable source for the statement that Channel 4 is being bribed/funded by the LTTE, a claim an editor has placed right in the lead of the artilce on Channel 4. As it turned out the article in defence.lk does not state any such thing, and even if the defence.lk article has actually said that, it would never be a reliable source for that particular statement, as long as it is not backed by witnesses and evidence, and therefore the claim/statement was quite rightly removed. Back to this article - everything in the documentry "Lies agreed upon" is backed by UN reports (ref. population numbers), and witnesses and none of what you have been stating as arguments are valid reasons for tagging the article. Now finally one editor has specified what is wrong with the article and I strongly urge u to put aside your political agendas and contribute constructively, so that we can end this discussion and dispute and remove the tags. --SriSuren (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is Sri Lankan Government has a Political Agenda in everything. Otherwise why they should go behind Bell Pottinger Group where its editors even involved alterations to Wikipedia entries about its clients in the last year, some of them adding favourable comments and others removing negative comments.

The following is an excerpt from the Criticism section of Bell Pottinger Group;

It was also reported that senior executives at Bell Pottinger told the undercover reporters that they had written a key speech given by the Sri Lankan President to the United Nations, in which he had described military action against Tamil Tiger separatists as "humanitarian". During a meeting with reporters, David Wilson, the chairman of Bell Pottinger Public Relations, had stated that:

We had a team working in the President's office. We wrote the President's speech to the UN last year which was very well received... it went a long way to taking the country where it needed to go,

On 8 December 2011, the UK national newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that some Wikipedia user accounts allegedly linked to Bell Pottinger had been suspended. Its report stated that "Further claims published in the Independent today suggested that the company made hundreds of alterations to Wikipedia entries about its clients in the last year, some of them adding favourable comments and others removing negative comments. Alterations were said to have been made by a user – traced to a Bell Pottinger computer – who used the pseudonym "Biggleswiki". Among the articles edited by "Biggleswiki" was the Wikipedia entry for Dahabshiil, a funds transfer firm. On the same day, The Independent reported that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales had described Bell Pottinger as "ethically blind", after it had admitted altering Wikipedia pages relating to its clients.

Please don't accuse us we have political agenda.Sudar123 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really Sudar123, I cannot understand what all this has to do with you tagging this article, and failing to specify what u mean should be corrected. Now there has ben a positive contribution specifying (some of) what needs to be corrected, so please help identifying what needs to be corrected and improve the article, so that the tags can be removed. --SriSuren (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't understand what all this has to do with tagging, please take for RfC. If I could comment, "A Government which is behind Bell Pottinger which is "ethically blind" can produce ONLY "ethically blind" propaganda piece, "Lies Agreed Upon".

You can't ask to identify what needs to be corrected and improve the article which is based on a documentary which is as User:Despayre pointed out, ".....an astoundingly fast critical analysis, fact-checking, writing, production, shooting, release schedule. Almost unbelievably fast, imho...that's not a "fact" of any kind......"

Please wait other editors(other than User:Richwales) come out with the suggestions how to solve this issue.Sudar123 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The pervasive style and tone of the current Lies Agreed Upon article conveys a clear assumption that the Sri Lankan government position in this documentary is neutral and factual, in contrast to Sri Lanka's Killing Fields being biased / slander / propaganda. So, in my opinion, the POV tag is fully justified. The case for the "one source" tag is weaker, in my view, though I believe it is understandable given the article's bias towards the Sri Lankan government viewpoint conveyed in Lies Agreed Upon. Deal satisfactorily with the POV issue, and I think the single-source concern will take care of itself.

Similar criticisms (in reverse) can, I believe, also be made against Sri Lanka's Killing Fields — which is why I proposed (and still favour) the idea of dealing with the topic as a whole, in a single article, in order to avoid a thinly veiled case of POV-forking (something which, BTW, is prohibited by Wikipedia policy). If others are not willing to agree to a combined article, the existing articles could probably be improved considerably by going through the current texts very carefully, with particular attention to potentially POV expressions such as "allege", "point out facts", and "refute claims". It's OK to say that Lies Agreed Upon strongly disagrees with Sri Lanka's Killing Fields and offers arguments contradicting the latter's claims — but (IMO) it is not acceptable to say that Lies Agreed Upon points out the facts of the situation and refutes the allegations made in the other film. And vice versa — the Sri Lanka's Killing Fields article must not characterize the Channel 4 film either as an impartial exposé or as a pack of lies and propaganda. — Richwales 17:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The justification given for the POV tag upto now has been a long line of diffuse and vague unconnected arguments and verbal attacks on the MoD and the defence minister and trying to discredit editors with statements like "shows what u are...", and attempts to censor information, so this is a much welcome change, where someone actually specifies the problem. But, from where I stand, I fail to recognise the tone and style as pervasively biased - maybe it is due to my own bias. If you can, you should correct it or suggest alternative formulations and maybe Astronomyinertia who has written most of the article can step in and do the corrections, if u point them out. As "Lies agreed upon" attempts to document the other side of the story, it lies implicit in anything pertaining to this documentry, that it refutes the allegations and claims made by the other party/channel 4. Therefore writing about it without using words like "refuted" (2 instances), "pointed out" (1 instance) and other similar words would be hard, but it seems that these expressions have been used very sparsely, and the editor (Astronomyinertia) has made a concious effort to keep it neutral, as indicated by his comments in the talk page too. As for the word "alleged" I would think it is a good word to use since it is neutral, in the sense that anything "alleged" is not proven or factual. I do not think that stating that "the documentry refuted..." is POV/biased since it is not claimed that "it was proven in the documentry". Ofcourse if it says the "Lies agreed Upon points out facts" then it is definitely POV (I see where this is in the article, and it must be corrected). As for content forking - I do not think it is intentional by either party, but that it has come about as a result of when the films were released and when the articles were created. I think that the volume of information in these documentries will be hard to present in a single article, and that at some point "forking" the content will have to be done, but I am not totally against combining the articles, if this and other issues such as how content is to be organized and problems of due weight which is bound to be a majour issue in such a article, can be properly addressed. War related articles with claims and counter claims are not my favourite topics, since these claims are endless, and I have already used too much time on this article than I can spare, but if merging the articles is taken up, I will try to contribute in the discussion and come with suggestions about how to organize the content etc. But before we get there, the POV statements must be corrected and the tags removed. To make this process shorter and easier for all the involved parties and editors, I strongly urge all the editors to stick to Wikipedia policies of neutrality and civility and contribute constructively by either correcting the POV yourselves or by pointing out what needs to be corrected, so that we can end this discussion which has been going on for the last 4 months. --SriSuren (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope people can improve the coverage of this documentary, as well as its opposite number — either as two separate articles, or merged into a single article. I really don't think I, personally, can put in the required time and energy to do this at the present time, and a half-hearted effort on my part would IMO not be helpful. Accordingly, I expect this will be my last comment here for the foreseeable future, and I'm going to drop this and related articles from my watchlist. I wish everyone success in finding ways to cover this highly divisive topic in a balanced fashion. — Richwales 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input. It helped me to see the problem elements in the article which I failed to see earlier. We will correct them and try to tone down some of the formulations, and hopefully we can reach a consensus. If u have the time, please drop by and give your suggestions. It always helps to get comments by uninvolved editors. Regards --SriSuren (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lies Agreed Upon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124032704/http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20110801_LAUvdo to http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20110801_LAUvdo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124032704/http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20110801_LAUvdo to http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20110801_LAUvdo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055103/https://www.defence.lk/news/20110801_Conf.pdf to http://www.defence.lk/news/20110801_Conf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lies Agreed Upon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130223103657/http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/06/15/sri-lanka-confronting-the-killing-fields-2/langswitch_lang/es/ to http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/06/15/sri-lanka-confronting-the-killing-fields-2/langswitch_lang/es/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111108024330/http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20111104_02 to http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20111104_02
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.peaceinsrilanka.org/press-releases-details/press-releases-details/2880
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131192731/http://www.news.lk/news/politics/476-lies-agreed-upon-screened-at-the-british-parliament to http://www.news.lk/news/politics/476-lies-agreed-upon-screened-at-the-british-parliament
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lankasrinews.net/view.php?22mAC0402XlA4ce35BOAda3L5mcad2eYZ4ec3Sm5c040UOJd22eCMcb2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003065654/http://newsnow.lk/top-story/73-top-story/921-nz-1st-with-qlies-agreed-uponq to http://newsnow.lk/top-story/73-top-story/921-nz-1st-with-qlies-agreed-uponq
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ochaonline.un.org/Ochalinkclick.aspx?link=ocha&Docid=1163387
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414194102/http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/08/14/lies-agreed-upon-but-whose-lies to http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/08/14/lies-agreed-upon-but-whose-lies/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119005423/http://colombotelegraph.com/2011/09/17/ministry-of-defence-propaganda-film-%E2%80%9Clies-agreed-upon%E2%80%9D-misses-the-point/ to http://colombotelegraph.com/2011/09/17/ministry-of-defence-propaganda-film-%E2%80%9Clies-agreed-upon%E2%80%9D-misses-the-point/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235440/http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20120208_RuthlessDV to http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20120208_RuthlessDV

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)