Talk:Burning of Jaffna Public Library

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblioclasm versus ethnic genocide[edit]

This page is discussing and defining general terms that are elsewhere defined in Wikipedia. Wikipedia defines book burning (the link for biblioclasm) as ceremonial burnings. The use here does not conform with Wikipedia's article and link. It does conform with the definition described in the article ethnic genocide. I have moved the term definition here. If this definition is relevant, it should be merged into the discussion of biblioclasm. *^ Term: Biblioclasm, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as the deliberate destruction of books, a cultural offence of the first magnitude. Some of the ancient calamities are destruction of the Alexandria library in Egypt. Well known historic event was the destruction of thousands of books made from the bark of trees and bearing the wisdom of Mayan culture were put in fire and burnt in 1562 in Mexico, because a Spanish friar wanted to "cleanse" the natives of "devilish" thoughts. The late 20th century China's Red Guard wiped out artefacts and books in the takeover of Tibet in the 1960s. Pol Pot destroyed many books in auto genocide of Cambodia in the 1970s. On August 25, 1992, the Serbs extended "ethnic cleansing" to the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, resulting in 1.5 million books and manuscripts being incinerated in one night.[1]
169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not define biblioclasm as ceremonial. It says "often ceremoniously" not always. An example given in the biblioclasm article includes Sarajevo National Library, an almost identical act to the Jaffna library burning. The term citation at the bottom of the Jaffna library article also gives the Oxford English dictionary of the term, which again uses the Sarajevo library as an example of biblioclasm. Biblioclasm is an act of cultural genocide, but the specific term biblioclasm applies here because the case in question is cultural genocide against a library. That is exactly the definition of biblioclasm. Age Happens (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Book burning (a category of biblioclasm, or book destruction) is the practice of destroying, often ceremoniously, one or more copies of a book or other written material. In modern times, other forms of media, such as phonograph records, video tapes, and CDs have also been ceremoniously burned, torched, or shredded. The practice, usually carried out in public, is generally motivated by moral, religious, or political objections to the material." does not describe this situation better than "the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons." The use of term definitions is for the purpose of defining terms specific to a situation, not the term in general. Again, if yu want to change the meaning of biblioclasm, do it there. 169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Often ceremoniously" is not always ceremoniously. You continue to misdefine the term. In addition, you have not followed the guidelines on the tag at the top of both this talk page and the article page. This article is in dispute and subject to final resolution. You may not edit it on the basis of your own POV or opinions. If you revert again, you will be subject to the Three revert rule. If you wish to edit the Burning of Jaffna library article, you may engage in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Sri_Lanka-LTTE_blocks_-_reviewed. Please do not edit this article again until then. Age Happens (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Fragile Guardians of Culture By Nicholas A. Basbanes". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-04-16.

Useful references[edit]

If some of the editors are interested in making this article better see some references

Have fun guys 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No takers only talkers :-)))) I had to do the dirty work again :-(((RaveenS 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I am completely rewriting this article, if any one has any suggestions more than welcomeRaveenS 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Tamilnet[edit]

Please explain why the addition of an article on Tamilnet was called spam and removed. Watchdogb (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was spamming over a video documentary which was created by someone and obviously a biased one or else it's not gonna get a separate page on pro-LTTE tamilnet. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that you ? Who says that Video is a baised one. Arwe you citing review of it in any RS sources Taprobanus (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that Tamilnet is a qualified source and this link is only external link. Watchdogb (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tamilnet is a notable source and is a qualified source. Thought it might be pro-rebel nothing it does not automatically mean that it cannot be added to EL. All that is needed is for the concerned party to add a anti-rebel EL to this and it would be perfectly balanced. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tamilnet is a credible source used by CNN, BBC, Reuters, Fox News, and AFP. Wiki Raja (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. Taprobanus, If anyone here has got a review from a reliable source admiring this yet not released video documentary, then add it back. Watchdogb, Yes usually spam comes as external links and has to be taken much more care since this documentary is not released and this could be an obvious spam attempt. Wiki Raja, So what do you want me to do? Buy all crap that is posted on pro terrorist tamilnut? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to buy anything other than show civility towards other users, and refrain from your racial slurs against Tamils. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see a racial slur here, I agree with the reminder for civilty. You won't improve Wikipedia by using foul language; you need to provide convincing reasons. --Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? You might have crossed wires with Tamil people and Tamilnet which has always been considered a very notorious source among Sri Lankans due to it's scale of posting nonsenses. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from incivility. It looks like attack on media freedom has been exported from Sri Lanka to Wikipedia now. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your only point is that this documentary is not published yet and has not been reviewed and therefore might be "spam". If the documentary is out, then we can add it back ? How about the use of Tamilnet on other External links ? You oppose this ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, there has been no reasonable objection to adding it back. --Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I didn't pull out my objection. I would like to see a reasonable review from a reliable source for this documentary to confirm this video documentary is neutral and related to the topic. I wonder how can we rely over this unreleased video documentary. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like the popular Sri Lankan paper called the Daily Mirror has reviewed it here. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's not really a review. It doesn's say anything about the trustworthiness or particular noteworthiness of the movie. (By "particular noteworthiness" I mean anything that goes beyond a short mention in the newspaper. Or else I would be noteworthy because my picture and name once appeared in a newspaper.) Also, Daily Mirror is not in our list of reliable sources WP:SLR#QS yet. If you feel it should be, please bring it up on WT:SLR. Sebastian (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sebastian. So far, the only information with the most news coverage on Tamil news Northeast of Sri Lanka would be Tamil Net, since the government does not allow other media in there. Further, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have confirmed Sri Lanka's attack on media that does not fall in line with them. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the most credible source for this film would be Tamil Net. Major news agencies use this site as the only reliable source of information on Tamils living Northeast of Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Here are some newspapers which use TamilNet:
CNN
BBC (London)
Reuters
Fox News
AFP
New York Times
Bloomberg
Washington Post
Times Online (London)
The Australian
El Mexicano
Cape Times (South Africa)
China Daily
BTW, I'm not much of a fan of Fox News. lol... Wiki Raja (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little back to the point as to why a link to the documentary shouldn't be added, WP:LINKSPAM may be relevant in this case. Sri Lankan media will give coverage to new documentaries, movies and books etc. they hear about, but every such piece of media is not suitable to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. If it is actually reviewed by a major publication, and is accepted as a authoritative account of the library, then a link could be added to the page. But right now all that is present is advertisements for the documentary, and we have no info about it's neutrality and accuracy. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait till the movie comes out and see what RS sources cover it (we already have 2 but it is prior to release) and incorporate it as part of the maina article at that point. Thanks Wikiraj for your excellent work on finding it in Daily Mirror which obviously is an RS source. Taprobanus (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the External Link.Teasereds (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Teasereds, I have to remove the link since the arguments against it have not been refuted. I do realize that you are new, and you were making an effort to comply with the editing restrictions by reverting yourself. Please take a look at our classification of sources. If there is disagreement about that classification, please let's discuss it on WT:SLR. Sebastian (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Jaffna library was executed by Police, paramilitaries, politicians and other hooligans of Sinhalese origin[edit]

RS clearly supports the claim that Burning of Jaffna library was executed by Police, paramilitaries, politicians and other hooligans of Sinhalese origin.[14][15][16][17].Sudar123 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 3&4 are RS but state allegations and accusations; refs 1&2 are NOT RS therefore questionable. TO state heading with refs 3&4 would be editorializing. Cossde (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why 1&2 are NOT RS? "1" is a website of an NGO based in Colombo itself. "2" is a registered newspapers in Sri Lanka.Sudar123 (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ref: 3, the following is the excerpts[18];
"The takeover of Mrs Nakkunanandan's reading room by Sinhalese squaddies might no doubt be considered a symbol of this. A more potent image was created in 1981, when a Sinhalese mob, allegedly including many policemen, burned to ashes the public library in Jaffna, a battle-scarred peninsula off northern Sri Lanka."
The above para clearly states, it is a "Sinhalese mob" but according to this Ref, it is "allegedly including many policemen".


According to Ref: 4, the following is the excerpts[19];
1981 Sinhala policemen accused of burning the Jaffna Public Library, causing further resentment in Tamil community.
The above para clearly states, "Sinhala policemen accused".
In Sri Lanka, there is a conflict between Sinhlese and Tamils. It is the obvious fact Americans or Russians won't come and put a fire on the Library which is the treasure house for Tamils other than Sinhalese mobs.Sudar123 (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both refs 1&2 are not RS as they have not been proven as RS. If you can it could be accepted. As the editor who entered the content it is your burden.
Exactly, just as you quoted from refs 3&4 they remain as they are allegations and accusations. Allegations and accusations are NOT confirmations as such can not be added to something like the inforbox that contain factual data, but could be mentioned as allegations and accusations in the content of the article. Since neither of the two RS state paramilitaries or politicians they should be removed. Therefore we could list Perpetrators as a "Sinhalese mob" as stated in ref 3. Cossde (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the refs 1&2 can't be RS and should be proven as RS then many of the RS on Wikipedia should be removed. Again how Lakbima can't be a RS, I couldn't understand...that is only your POV.Sudar123 (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my rules its wiki rules that states the burden of prof lies with the editor who enters the refs, as I remember in Talk:Rathika_Sitsabaiesan#.22Censored_photo.22_claim you were very much insistent that I prove a source as a non tabloid. Why the double standard ? Cossde (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did you prove something is non tabloid at Talk:Rathika_Sitsabaiesan#.22Censored_photo.22_claim?Sudar123 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you prove refs 1&2 as RS. Cossde (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Ref 1 & 2 speak for the tragedy of a burning of a Library which is/was treasured by a community. That makes the content is not of a tabloid nature and validates the sources as well they are not tabloid in nature. Again they are; a website of an NGO based in Colombo and other one is from a registered newspapers in Sri Lanka.
But Rathika Sitsabaiesan article is about her cleavage; the amount of importance it has, is meager to the rest of the society and mostly too personal for the subject concerned , and is tabloid in nature.Sudar123 (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It image was relating to her official parliamentary photo. Editing such a important photo shows the underlining policies that people must be aware of. If it was her personal website then it is tabloid in nature. Not in the case of a official parliamentary photo. Cossde (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you troll around further and twisting and messing, I will take you for a ArbCom, consulting with other editors. You have become a terrible POV pusher and a Bully on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait, pls lets take it to ArbCom immediately, so we could sort this issue out as I have much the same to say about you! Cossde (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will take you very soon to ArbCom, trolls like you should be banned on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a threat ? Why not now ? Or are you trying to find supporters to back you up. Why can not you take it direct to ArbCom. Cossde (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting the support of those who have affected by your POV pushing before I go to ArbCom and put a permanent end to the mess.Sudar123 (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so I gather you are gathering your posse to silence me ? Cossde (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not gathering support among the ArbCom members, but from those who are affected by your continuous POV.Sudar123 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are gathering your posse. Cossde (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be protected?[edit]

I have noticed that this article may be vandalized or twisted by unregistered users. Would it be better of this article is given some level of protection? UMDP (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

burnt scrolls - article should state some examples[edit]

A tragedy like this should have some details about the ancient/historical items that were lost in the fire - are there any listings for some of the scrolls that were burnt? HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Jaffna library → Burning of Jaffna Public Library – The Wikipedia article of the ill-fated library is titled "Jaffna Public Library". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Burning of Jaffna Public Library. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning of Jaffna Public Library. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Burning of Jaffna Public Library. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Burning of Jaffna Public Library. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_of_Jaffna_Public_Library&oldid=1218919546"