This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil Eelam, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tamil EelamWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil EelamTemplate:WikiProject Tamil EelamTamil Eelam articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
I think the usage of template here violates, NPOV because it is an accusation by some sections that the organization is a front of LTTE but the organization or reliable sources do not back it up. I will tag the article and see what happens. Kanatonian (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that dealings of certain members/officials of an organization do not characterize the organization as such. And the third party sources do not back up the claim that CTC is an LTTE front. Hence, the template may not be appropriate here. However, Sabaratnam was the communications director of the CTC when he was arrested by FBI and convicted on abetting terrorism charges. Subsequently, he wrote a letter detailing his involvement in CTC, which makes the whole incident a major scandal in the organization. It is thoroughly backed up by third party neutral sources, and certainly meets the notability criteria. Therefore, I will add the section back. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the above incident from the Canadian Tamil Congress page because the Congress was nothing to do with his personal actions and involvements. There is no evidence or citation to support he was authorized by the Canadian Tamil Congress to execute it.
If the incident has caused a ban on the Canadian Tamil Congress in Canada then there is a reason to quote the incident on the page. But the incident has happened in 2006 and still the Congress is active and for its recent CTC Press Conference and Channel 4's "War Crimes Unpunished" screened at the Canadian Parliament attended by two parliamentarians Rathika Sitsabaiesan and John McCallum.
One of the citation used is from the Sri Lankan Government's Official Media - Sunday Observer and it is a propaganda piece against the institutions who are working against its war crime charges.Sudar123 (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to making substantial changes on an article, you should obtain consensus to do so. You have not discuss the issue before blanking the section, which has already been vandalized 15 times or more. Therefore keep the section as it has been prior to the discussion, and obtain a consensus if you believe something has to be changed.
Your analogy between Sahilal Sabaratnam incident section and WP:OR, is simply put ridiculous, because the section is backed up by third party neutral sources, which adequately verify the facts presented. Sabaratnam incident was a major scandal involving CTC, not only because he was arrested by FBI while acting as an official in the organization, but also he accused the CTC in return, while serving the prison term. Sabaratnam is not notable if not for the incident and his involvement in CTC, which makes a separate page on him unnecessary. Your argument that CTC has nothing to do with Sabaratnam's actions, lacks logic given the position he held during the arms procurement deal and the extent of international media coverage the arrest and prosecution received subsequently. CTC not being banned by Canada is not an excuse to the complete removal of such a major incident from the article. On the Sunday Observer citation: it is okay to use the citation here because it has not been used to refer to an objective claim on the organization. It can also be backed up using other third party sources. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 06:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is because some rubbish is there for a long time, without peer review by editors with substantial Wikipedia experience with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, doesn't mean they can be there for ever.
Your new addition of the FBI release mention nothing about Canadian Tamil Congress, but states, "The defendants were acting at the direction of senior LTTE leadership in Sri Lanka, including Pottu Amman, the LTTE’s chief of in telligence and procurement and the right-hand man to LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakharan.". So the direction has come from LTTE and not from the Canadian Tamil Congress.
If he is not Notable, then try to merge with other Wikipedia pages which may be appropriate. Don't try to synthesize with Canadian Tamil Congress.
The first sentence of your comment proves that you are unfit for an objective discussion on the topic. There is simply no point of discussing such an issue with an editor who shows chronic edit warring behaviour, prepared to edit war to the end. Hence I won't revert your edit, but seek other avenues to resolve the problem if no consensus has been reached in the end of this discussion.
At least 5 editors with substatial wikipedia experience have been involved in reverting vandalism on this article. You missed the point that my addition of FBI press release was to back up the Sunday Observer citation, but not to link Sabaratnam's involvement in CTC. The blanked section was referenced with adequate citations regarding the position he held in CTC during the arms deal. What is the point you are trying to make by saying that Sabaratnam acted on the orders of Prabhakaran, not on orders of CTC? What does CTC has to do with surface-to-air missiles and AK-47 assault rifles? In the end, he was an official of CTC, convicted on abetting terrorism charges, and he himself accused CTC while serving the prison term. Such an important detail needs to be covered in this article. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 08:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My accusation is not directly attributed to anyone but to the situation where an organization is targeted unnecessarily by an individual's personal involvement while in his tenure at the organization. All 5 editors with substantial experience never shown the credentials that they should revert of a libelous claim of that nature of an organization with a remark at the discussion page. FBI press release may support certain points of the Sunday Observer but they both are not supporting particular individual's action are anything to with the Canadian Tamil Congress significantly. If the Canadian Tamil Congress is banned in Canada because of the issue then the incident has substantial significant to be quoted at the Canadian Tamil Congress page. It should be on the Individual's Wikipedia page if he is notable or otherwise on any relevant LTTE related page.
A person's claim while he is imprisoned is only the interest for the judiciary and his claim can be for anything. However he never mentioned Canadian Tamil Congress ordered him to associate with LTTE hierarchy. What he stated there is, "...I solely believe and know for a fact that the so-called well-wishers who had always stood behind the Canadian Tamil Congress are believers of a violent solution..." - Well-wishers who stood behind can be ordinary Canadian Tamils who have been affected by the Sri Lankan Government and Military. Canadian Tamil Congress is nothing to do with the believes of its well-wishers.Sudar123 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment, "All 5 editors with substantial experience never shown the credentials that they should revert of a libelous claim of that nature of an organization with a remark at the discussion page" is purely subjective, and is a blatant misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies. Firstly, you claim that information in this section was "libelous". It would've been libelous if Sabaratnam was subsequently freed from charges against him and the section did not mention that. But we know for a fact that he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and he served as an official of the aforesaid organization when he was arrested. Secondly, you say that those 5 editors were wrong to revert the edits withour leaving a comment on the talkpage. I've seen no such policy in Wikipedia stating that editors should leave a comment when reverting an unexplained section blanking of an article, which amounts to vandalism. Without properly reading the sources, you also say that "FBI press release may support certain points of the Sunday Observer but they both are not supporting particular individual's action are anything to with the Canadian Tamil Congress". Please read the sources again. What is the rationale behind your comment that the incident would've been notable if CTC was banned in Canada as a result? Rather, many people would find that a director of this organization convicted of a $1 million arms procurement deal, more intriguing. I really don't understand why first instance is notable, and second instance, not.
Your example of Robert Hanssen selling information to Russia, actually proves my point that articles on organizations should not exclude information that is deemed to be embarassing. I'm not going to respond to ridiculous comments such as "Canadian Tamil Congress is nothing to do with the believes of its well-wishers". One last point: Wikipedia is not censored; therefore you can't eliminate information that would directly or indirectly be irksome to some people. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 14:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I experienced with you already how you twisted things with another editor at Lies Agreed Upon until other neutral editors put a full stop to your argument on the talk page and the page.
Can you explain further on your statement - purely subjective, and is a blatant misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies. Which Wikipedia policies you are talking about?
I have clearly stated that Sabaratnam's involvement is his personal and nothing to do with the Canadian Tamil Congress though he was a Communication Director there at the time of his arrest. Please provide direct evidence that Canadian Tamil Congress ordered him to do so. Don't synthesis what is said with FBI release and Sunday Observer article, to come out with a content which is no relevance to the Canadian Tamil Congress.
The rationale is, the arrest of Sabaratnam as the Communication Director, might have caused a ban on Canadian Tamil Congress if the Congress is really involved on his arms procurement, but even after 6 years they are active and managed to have their conference in the Canadian parliament and screened the Channel 4's "War Crimes Unpunished" there.
Again he can be a Director of the Congress when he was arrested but his involvement is nothing to do with the Organization. I mean what he has done is not in the mandate of the Director's duty at the Congress. If so, provide the evidence. You can't bring the position of an institution to outweigh an individual's personal involvement.
If his arrest would have caused the ban of the Canadian Tamil Congress, then the incident can be there on the Canadian Tamil Congress page because it has caused the impact on the Congress; just his arrest as the Communication Director doesn't have any impact on the Organization since it is on personal level involvement.
Show me evidence, Sabaratnam's involvement caused any major blow to the Canadian Tamil Congress or its reputation among its membership(I mean Canadian Tamils).
Robert Hanssen's spying caused FBI's credibility and it was suspected, passing of his information might have caused September 11 Attack.
Canadian Tamil Congress is irksome for some people since it is trying to voice the War Crimes of the Sri Lankan Government even within the Canadian Parliament.
If my memory serves me right, it was your attempt to add "fact" tag to all sentences that had been curtailed by neutral editors, on Lies Agreed Upon. Their suggestion was to combine all three articles to one article named "Documentary coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War", to achieve impartiality. Did you ever respond to that suggestion?
I have no intention to repeat what I have clarified in detail on the above comment, since you are constantly by-passing my main argument: even though CTC was not disqualified from operating within Canada, the incident is notable enough to be included in the article. Whether Sabaratnam acted independent to the CTC is what we don't know, but his letter provides evidence very much on the contrary. The position he held within the organization is what links the organization to the incident here. If you are not willing to directly counter my argument, we will have to take dispute resolution procedures. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
