Talk:Mass media in Sri Lanka/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mass media in Sri Lanka. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Read WP:UNDUE

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Making half of this article a criticism of the media situation is a woeful violation of this policy.

Also, an opinion article by Thalif Dean is in no way a reliable enough source for such an extraordinary claim. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are so many editors reverting without discussing? The talk page is there to talk, not to ignore it and blindly revert the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In your case, you have completely ignored third party comments on the subject and decided to have version that you like. Not what is factual or for that matter NPOV. Please don't assume, this article is owned by you or other individuals. Sinhala freedom 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Third party comments? Where? I'm the only one who has posted on the talk page. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that there are comments associated with this page on the Sri Lanka page of which you were a party to the conversation with Black Falcon (a third-party admin). Sinhala freedom 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Sri Lanka is related to whether the section should be introduced in the Sri Lanka article, not here. All I see here are a bunch of editors randomly reverting the article without replying to my comment. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this was Black Falcon's reply to your blanking of his edits on this page. You have continually blanked edits you don't like whether its on the Sri Lanka page or now its here:

Firstly, that is a well-sourced and fully attributed paragraph reflecting the views of some of the leading international organisations on the subject; your contention that is little more than an angry rant is completely unfounded. Secondly, country articles should strive to present up-to-date information about the current state of a country, so the comparison with the "History" section is not entirely fitting. Third, I would find your argument regarding summary style and length significantly more convincing if you hadn't reverted my addition of the paragraph (along with an unrelated minor fix) to the Media in Sri Lanka article. When I added the paragraph to that article, I did so with the idea that that could be a compromise of sorts: the information is provided somewhere, but not in the Sri Lanka article itself. If the primary concern is length, I can offer the following further-trimmed version:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel.[43] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.[44]

That version cuts out everything but the bare essentials. Thoughts? – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sinhala freedom 15:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to whether including this whole section here is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Black Falcon hasn't replied to my post on Talk:Sri Lanka either, questioning the accuracy of the section.

In any case, are you merely a revert warrior incapable of building your own opinions? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a case of kettle calling a pot black ? I have repeatedly said the additions that Black Falcon were accurate and well sourced and that is still my position. Sinhala freedom 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

All I see with regard to WP:UNDUE issues are you reverting the article and coping comments from another talk page which have nothing to do with this article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, a few points in response to your comments above:

First, why does the added section create a problem per WP:UNDUE? It is an assessment of the media situation in Sri Lanka, not a criticism of the government's policies. I still don't understand why you consider Deen's article unreliable, but please refer to the additional sources I've added at Talk:Sri Lanka#Media since 2005.

Second, I think the added sources should address your concern regarding accuracy raised at Talk:Sri Lanka. My response was delayed due to the fact that I was on wikibreak.

Third, this edit had nothing to do with the addition or with WP:UNDUE. Please avoid blanket-reverting multiple edits.

In the interest of keeping a related discussion in one place, I propose that we discuss any content-related issues (sourcing, wording, and so on) at Talk:Sri Lanka. Once those are resolved, we can return to this article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is not "assessment of media policies in Sri Lanka since 2005" or whatever you want to call it. It is "Media in Sri Lanka". This, Media of the United States, is a comparative article. It should cover the entire history of media in the country. If you put content like this in such an article, that's fine. But making practically the entire article a one side blog-like rant is exactly what WP:UNDUE is there to prevent.

I don't know how more clearly this could be expressed, "..and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

First, please do not misquote me. I said that the paragraph presents an assesment of the media situation in Sri Lanka. Contrary to what you've stated at least twice (above and in an edit summary), it has nothing to do with governmental policies. This article is "media in Sri Lanka" and that paragraph describes 'media in Sri Lanka since 2005'. If the media situation since 2005 does not happen to be completely rosy, that's just the way it is, and it's not something that you or I can change.

Second, you're right that the article should cover the entire of history of the media in the country, but that's not possible if every addition is removed for not presenting the whole history of the media in Sri Lanka. Comprehensive articles are generally not written in one big edit and it is unreasonable of you to demand that.

Third, the paragraph (I'm referring to the latest versions at Talk:Sri Lanka#Media since 2005) presents information in a concise and neutral manner. Your characterisation of it as a 'rant' is more than slightly insulting.

Fourth, are you really comparing Reporters Without Borders to some run-of-the-mill blog? As far as "prominence" goes, RSF (and the three other media agencies that endorsed the report) is about as prominent as it gets. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media of Sri Lanka. 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:

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) 11:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Media of Sri Lanka. 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:

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) 02:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media of Sri Lanka. 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/20120331021312/http://saarega.net/ to http://saarega.net/

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) 05:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)