Talk:Murugappan family asylum claims

Notability and title

@Mattinbgn: I don't see a notability problem. The return of failed asylum seekers is in itself probably run-of-the mill. But this case has been very different because of the massive support from the people of Bioela to keep them in Australia. They've been in the news for a couple of years at least, they've been talked about on current affairs shows on TV, there have been petitions with thousands of signatures, and now it seems they've stopped a plane in its flight, which is going to generate more headlines. I agree the title isn't great but what would be better? Maybe Biloela campaign for asylum seekers as that at least indicate why it is not run-of-the-mill? Dunno. Kerry (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kerry. The name is difficult. The individuals aren't notable so much as the whole process - but what is the process? Will leave as is for now and see if some other ideas come forward. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have redirected "Home to Bilo" here, although that could just as easy be the name for the article. Thoughts? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Map

Biloela

Melbourne

Christmas Island

class=notpageimage|

Locations in the article

I was going to add a map to the article to show how far detention is from "home", but didn't find a suitable background that includes Christmas Island, and this one loses the dot and half the words. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions

I am left with a few key questions by this article (and the answers don't seem to be in the present references). If anyone knows how to find and source answers, I think it would help this article. BLP may be an issue though.

• What nationality(s) do the children hold?
• Did Priya and Nadesalingam know each other before they met in Australia? The references say "The couple came to Australia by boat separately" but are not clear whether they were actually a couple, or just two single people.
• Were Priya's and Nadesalingam's visas granted under the same process? They arrived at different times, but appear to have visas that expired simultaneously.
• Where did they arrive in Australia, and where did they live before the couple moved to Biloela? Were they detained before release to the community?

--Scott Davis ^Talk 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scott. The section at the end of this article answers some of the questions. They met in Australia, Nades's visa was processed separately, the children are not Australian citizens as their parents were "illegal" arrivals by boat. Can't find an answer to the last at this stage. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Also see here. Father arrived at Christmas Island. mother arrived at Cocos Islands. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have integrated info from both references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

names

MOS:NAME says we should use full names and previous names in the first sentence, then just surnames. I'm not familiar with Tamil customs to work out whether we have perpetuated a spelling error, nor whether we are missing a former name. Also we should use surnames in the rest of the article unless ambiguity requires otherwise. At the moment, we appear to be using a shortened form of the first name for the lady, and the full first name for the gentleman, despite many of the references using a short form for his name too. I also note that the second name for her is presently "Nadesalingham" which is his first name with an extra 'h'. I suspect this may be a spelling or transliteration error, but am reluctant to change it as there appear to be references with both spellings, so I don't know which are wrong. Does anyone know which versions are right? I'm pretty sure there are references to support any reasonable solution, so we need to be deliberate in choosing the right one. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Does MOS:NAME really say to use "surname"? I would have thought it more appropriate to use given or common names in the balance of the article. Most Australians know them as Priya and Nades (which probably should be the article name). WWGB (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit further down under Subsequent use:

• After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms.", "Miss", "Mx" (this includes academic or professional prefixes like "Dr.", "Prof.", "Rev.", etc.), or may be referred to by a pronoun.
• Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name.

There are some exceptions including patronymics, and some country-specific explanations that don't include Sri Lanka. I'm not sure if the words in their full names count as given name and surname in that order, or something else. I'm happy to shorten that part of the article title, until we identify a better form. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

When creating the article, I used the names I had available in the sources I could find. If we have more accurate names, we should use them - noting that most sources are using "Priya" and "Nades" and not the full name and not their family names. Those names would be my preference, if we follow the sources. I used the same names when creating the article title. I don't particularly like the title - Priya and Nades are NOT notable in their own right - but I am struggling to find an article title that is descriptive and neutral. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article to the more common "Priya and Nades". We should now wait for the final outcome of the matter before deciding on a permanent name. The current title sounds too much like a biography, omits the roles of the children, and does not hint at the underlying issue. We might eventually settle on something like Deportation of Murugappan family but let's see how it concludes. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a better name before we add it to the events section of {{Asylumaustralia}} which currently has two "affairs", two "SIEV"s and a "disaster". --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

More background material

More background material can be found here including their initial detention on Christmas Island, the nature of their claims for permanent residency and the deemed reasons for refusal. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Refugee polling

The inclusion of general poling about attitudes towards refugees, in a source that does not reference the Murugappan family at at all, is irrelevant here - it's an attempt to make completely unsourced claims about attitudes towards the Murugappan family through synthesis. The drastically different public response in certain quarters to the Murugappan family to refugees in general (including the entire Labor Party) is part of why they're notable in the first place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The polling is highly relevant as the Murugappan Family arrived by boat and have been found not to be genuine refugees. The wording also makes it clear the polling is not specific specific about the Murugappan family, however note The Australian article specifically mentions the Murugappen family and includes their photograph.Ilenart626 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the polling as it is relevant and the academic's claims are also not about the family but were still published by the ABC and added to the article.Bran488 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The polling says absolutely nothing about attitudes towards the Murugappan family: you are trying to use polling on one subject to claim that it represents polling on a different subject. That is the absolute definition of WP:SYNTH and cannot remain on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The reversions being made are disruptive and inconsistent. Only specific content is being reverted and it is not consistent across the article. The content is cited and consistent with the neutrality of the article and various points of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bran488 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:SYNTH. The claims are being removed because their inclusion is against Wikipedia policy: you cannot use sources that say one thing in an attempt to extrapolate and claim something completely different (not in the original source). I repeat: please read that policy. There is nothing "inconsistent" about the same policies that apply to every article and every opinion also applying to this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You are not applying your methodology across the article. You are selectively reverting based on point of view. It is not neutral. It is unconstructive and disruptive.Bran488 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you think is currently in the article that constitutes WP:SYNTH? The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the poll figures do not relate directly to the Murugappan family. There may be a place for the information if we had a Background section that included the history of boat people and Australians' response to the issue. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to their use in that context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Drovers Wife, I have looked at synthesis and believe you are overreaching. In particular I suggest you review Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and in particular:

SYNTH is not explanation

SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis.

SYNTH is not presumed

If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

Drovers Wife, please explain how you believe the two sections on Polling you have reverted in the Summary and Reactions section conflict with synthesis, particularly addressing the two items above.Ilenart626 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No response received so will revert the deletion of the Refugee Polling edits. Note that the main reason I included these edits is NPOV. Currently the article includes support from some residents of Biloela as well as asylum-seeker advocates, however it makes no mention of the large number of Australians who believe asylum-seekers who are not eligible to stay in Australia should be deported, which includes the Murugappan family. Adding the Refugee Polling information and references provides this balance Ilenart626 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the retention of the polling information as it is consistent with the other information that is extended. Many of the recent edits or reversions by advocates have been proven and seen to be politically motivated, hostile, false and deceptive for political purposes. Bran488 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the first to notice the "refugee polling" elements are utterly NPOV and Crystal Bally. My edits were reverted. An opinion poll that has nothing to do with the family in question itself is NPOV even if it comes from a reliable source and suggests an unjustified link between the family and the poll. It should be removed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As already discussed above, the polling is highly relevant to the Murugappan family as multiple court decisons found that they were not genuine refugees. It would be WP:POV pushing to remove this section. Ilenart626 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that links the opinion polling to the court findings. If not your assertion as to relevance is combing to reliably sourced statements to create a link not made in the source. --Find bruce (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The Australian source already referenced makes the poling link to the Murugappan family. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant if the polling doesn't mention the family, which it doesn't. It's just determined edit-warring of your own opinion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

For those Editors that can’t read the article behind the paywall, the first three paragraphs are:

“Most Australians believe that asylum-seekers deemed not to be genuine refugees should be deported regardless of other considerations. A Newspoll survey conducted last week showed 64 per cent of voters believe asylum-seekers who are considered by the courts to not be refugees should be deported, with 24 per cent saying they should be allowed to settle in Australia. Following publicity last week surrounding the case of a Sri Lankan Tamil family facing deportation, the Newspoll survey showed 56 per cent of Labor voters supported deportation of asylum-seekers found to not be refugees, with 31 per cent saying they should be allowed to stay in Australia.”.

Further in the article it also states:

“The couple, who settled in Biloela on bridging visas and whose daughters, Kopika and Tharunicaa, were born in Australia, arrived from Sri Lanka on boats in 2012 and 2013. The High Court dismissed their bids for appeal after being deemed to not be refugees.”

Also note that the article is titled "Majority backs deportations for failed refugees" ie the whole article is written to highlight the poling in the context of the Murugappan family. I believe this is a sufficient link between the poling and the Murugappan family. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The link is complete synthesis on your part - none of the polling backs deportations for this family, given that in the wake of the very prominent public campaign there are some stark differences in attitudes to refugees generally and this family specifically (not least in the policy of the incoming government, which wants to keep the family but not change general policy!). The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Drover’s Wife, again you are making the baseless accusation that I am pushing synth. I have already made a detailed reply above on why the poling is not synth, which I note you never replied to. As per WP:synth and WP:NOTSYNTH you need to address my comments above and explain why “The link is complete synthesis on your part”. ie

If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

Ilenart626 (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The Australian isn't a reliable source. It's a biased propaganda outlet. "Most Australians believe that..." isn't a fact, it's an opinion invented by the writers of the article and shouldn't be included as part of this Wikipedia article. A push poll propaganda piece isn't a referendum and Wikipedia shouldn't put words in the mouth of an entire country. After the recent election where Albanese told the family they could go back home, is that more or less relevant than an old push poll? I'd say that any mention of polling is utterly irrelevant and at best is a minor entry in the bulk of the article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia reliable sources, the clear consensus is that The Australian is reliable, your comments above are WP:POV pushing. Yes the recent election result means that the family will stay, however this is a political decision and does not change the facts outlined in the Australian article. Ilenart626 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

An opinion poll and an opinion hit piece aren't facts. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

An opinion poll is a relevant fact about the subject of its polling, and the family weren't mentioned or even hinted at in that polling. Your point of view is coming through loud clear here: you acknowledge that special treatment for the family by the incoming government is a "political decision", which makes absolutely no sense if attitudes towards the family specifically were the same as the issue more broadly, and try to fall back on the polling that doesn't mention the family as "facts" because it suits the opinion you're desperately trying to insert in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You are overreaching on the definition of syth. I am not relying on the polling, I am relying on the RS which states:

"Following publicity last week surrounding the case of a Sri Lankan Tamil family facing deportation, the Newspoll survey showed 56 per cent of Labor voters supported deportation of asylum-seekers found to not be refugees, with 31 per cent saying they should be allowed to stay in Australia."

The RS is making the connection, not me. As per Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not this is acceptable, in particular the guidelines state "Note that reliable sources used by Wikipedia editors often contain a great deal of synthesis. Wikipedia editors are allowed to use all of this synthesis, since they did not create it but are instead reporting what reliable sources have said." Ilenart626 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

lawyer, Simon Jeans Statement

There are two disputes being discussed in Refugee Polling so to makes this clear I have created this new section and will transfer the discussionIlenart626 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The lawyer's statement on the family is valid and not defamatory as it's based on the factual findings of the court and tribunal hearings.Bran488 (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Some random lawyer, in his personal capacity, has no possible way to have any useful information on the family's circumstances and motivations in the manner quoted. If he's citing a ruling of a court or tribunal, then we can cite the judgment or news reporting of the judgment, rather than some random guy giving his opinion about them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Bran488 (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)It is not a random lawyer. He was in attendance at the court and tribunal hearings. The negative judgements have been ascertained. The lawyer is expressing the findings from the tribunal rather than opinion.

If that's true, then we can cite the actual court judgment, which is a matter of public record. We have no need to bring the random lawyer into it - his opinion isn't what matters, the court's judgment is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC is a sufficient source for matters of public record as it is a government organisation.Bran488 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC also has a legal and factual department so it is sufficient verification.Bran488 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The ABC is not the problem, the random lawyer is. I don't understand why you oppose replacing "this random lawyer claimed" with what the actual court held, if, as you claim, the court held similar views. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a random lawyer. It is a lawyer that was in attendance at the court and tribunal issues. ABC is sufficient verification as they have a legal and factual department and would not be able to publish information pertaining to court and tribunal findings that are incorrect.Bran488 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think remove the entire paragraph, the ABC article cited treats both Kingsley and Jeans with similar weight, but I think neither is particularly relevant to the article. One is a generalised statement by an academic not specifically about the family, whilst the other is a lawyer giving an opinion without having any particular insight into this case beyond a personal interest and understanding of the law. Either keep both or ditch both, I say ditch ‘em. Cavalryman (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

It needs to be clearly established that the facts as to the actual security situation in Sri Lanka are hotly disputed, because that is a key aspect of the dispute, and it may be something worth going into in more detail. I wouldn't object to either disputing views of the situation or the specific findings of Australian courts in this matter, or otherwise better-quality sources for the government's side of the story. I do strongly object to the Jeans quote, because his comments are a mix of badly paraphrasing court findings and making possibly defamatory claims well beyond any professional background or personal knowledge of the parties. There's just no reason to use it when you can a) quote the judges, or b) quote the government, rather than both being vaguely paraphrased by some non-notable random dude with bits of personal opinion. I'm not sure Bran888 has actually worked out that courts publish their judgments, because a lot of his revert-warring edit summaries don't really make sense if one understands that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The difference between the lawyer and the academic is that the academic's claims are not based on the court and tribunal information and is outside of the court system, where as the lawyer's statement is validated by stating findings from the court and tribunal sessions, being in attendance at the court and tribunal hearings and that the ABC would not be able to publish information that has been substantiated by the courts and tribunals if they were incorrect as they have a legal and factual department.Bran488 (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Australian courts are not in any sense of the word a final authority on the actual security situation in Sri Lanka, which is hotly disputed, both in the real world and on Sri Lankan topics on Wikipedia. As for the Jeans quote: Bran488, do you understand that Australian courts publish their judgments? You do not need to cite some random guy vaguely paraphrasing what a judge ruled - you can just quote what the judge ruled. You don't need to go digging through court archives - it's right there online. I find it hard to understand why you'd keep making this argument unless it's something you haven't realised. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not necessary as the ABC has a factual and legal department and the claims would have been verified by the ABC as they would not be able to publish information pertaining to courts and tribunals if they are incorrect. That is all that is sufficient. Bran488 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not sufficient. Simon Jeans has absolutely no professional qualifications or experience in the security situation in Sri Lanka, and we have the option of citing what courts actually held, which there would be absolutely no dispute about as their relevance would be obvious. Why are you so determined to include Simon Jeans in this article, apart from that he generally agrees with your apparent view of the case? He is not the only person who does, and he is certainly not the most reliable source who does. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no dispute with the information from the article either due to that ABC has a factual and legal department and the claims would have been verified by the ABC as they would not be able to publish information pertaining to courts and tribunals if they are incorrect. The claims directly relate to the factual findings from the court and tribunal sessions. The statement is verifiable due to that they are based on actual court findings and would have been verified by the ABC legal and factual department.Bran488 (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Reading the above their are a number of comments on Jean Simmons being a "random lawyer". The following details are from his firm's website at https://www.jeanslaw.com.au explaining his background and experience:

• The Principal Lawyer, Simon Jeans, was appointed by the Governor-General as a Member of the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2015. On 1 July 2015 they merged into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He returned to private practice in August 2015.

• Simon has been a lawyer since 1989 and specialised in immigration law for over 30 years. He has worked as a Legal Consultant with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Indonesia. He has given evidence to a US Congressional Committee for International Relations in Washington DC on Indochinese refugee issues in SE Asia.

• He is recognised by the NSW Law Society as an Accredited Specialist in Immigration Law.

• He has experience working in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, UK, Jordan, Syria and Ukraine.

• Since February 2016, he has been included on the annual list of Best Lawyers in Immigration Law, which is voted for by other practitioners.

• In 2019 and 2020, he was engaged by the College of Law for all 7 intakes as an Assessor or External Moderator for the Capstone Migration Agents Assessment.

Given his background and level of experience I agree with Bran488 that his statement can be relied on, particularly as it is included in the ABC article. Happy to work on consensus here to reach appropriate agreed wording. However would not agree with a wholesale deletion Ilenart626 (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Jeans is eminently qualified to comment on this case. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason given for removal I think is not tenable as the lawyer's statement is not in reference to any claimed situation in Sri Lanka, the statement is specifically in reference to the court and tribunal findings in Australia. Given that it has been published by the ABC and is in reference to the court and tribunal findings, it would be highly unusual and immoderate to remove it. If anything, I think the wording could also include briefly the experience and qualifications of the lawyer in line with the claim of the academic's specialty in international politics, though I'm not fussed about adding qualifications. But it would bring the text into balance and neutrality. Bran488 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above feedback, have modified the statement as follows:

An experienced immigration lawyer, Simon Jeans, described the Murugappan Familys' bid to stay in Australia as a "train wreck", including the family had not been truthful in visa applications and evidence suggested they came to Australia as economic refugees.

References

If we want to add more information about Simon Jeans experience we could add a link to his web page after his name. What do other editors think? Ilenart626 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the suggestion and modification is suitable.Bran488 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t agree with linking to Jeans’ website, it is a primary source. WWGB (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done article updated by Bran488 excluding the link to Simmon Jean's website Ilenart626 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Family name, and other info

This ABC Australian Story article says "The family is often referred to as the Murugappans, but actually goes by Nades’s full first name in accordance with cultural practice. Media scrutiny of the Nadesalingams’ plight has been intense..." - so I think that mention should be made of this, preferably with a mention in the lead, as I see that there is a redirect from that name. The article might also contain other info not already in the article - I haven't read either properly yet. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The redirect from Nadesalingam family asylum claims will take care of uncertainty. There is added confusion as both the father's and mother's names include the word "Nadesalingam". WWGB (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That was the case that the case was referred to as the Nadesalingam claims and the article was previously known as such. It was the media that had altered the naming of the case to the Murugappans. And it is currently referred to as such. The spelling of the daughter's name was also altered from Tharunicaa to Tharnicaa. The information that is referred to is outdated and the current information is in accordance with the media representations of the namings, therefore I believe there is no requirement for alteration or adjustment, unless the media is abiding by any different naming conventions at the current moment, which they are not. It's an issue for the media sources and organisations and it's not to be conflated with the current understanding of the circumstances and article, references and media sources. Bran488 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that the redirect exists, but per MOS:LEAD, etc., redirects should be explained. The reference to cultural practice in the article explains this nicely, in a way that should be included for readers of an encyclopedia, who may be confused by the varying usages in the sources over time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Updated the citation to a link that is from the period in which the media name changes took place, which predates the documentary by some months.Bran488 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Provided secondary news source for the family name usage by the media and courts which predates the current name usage. The other source contained information that is potentially libellous and against Wikipedia policy. Many claims within the previous source were opinion, and either rejected or not tested in the courts due to the validated and verified outcome of the cases. Referring from and sourcing articles for the lead text describing both names usages that refer to the name usages by the court documents of the overall court and tribunal cases. With both sources taking into account the differing name usages.Bran488 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A transcript from Australian Story is neither libellous nor against Wikipedia policy. You really need to tone down these outrageous claims without foundation, which are no more than just your personal opinion. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Many of the claims within are outside of the court system, opinion and have not been substantiated, nor provides substantiated or validated sources for some commentary. The provided sources refer to the official name usages by the courts and tribunal.Bran488 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC) The claims made that are commentary and referring outside of the court and tribunal hearings mentioned were either rejected or not tested in the courts due to the validated and verified outcome of the cases.Bran488 (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

So what? As you have said, many times, the ABC is a reliable source, and Wikipedia is entitled to source its content from that website. WWGB (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(After edit conflict and before wwgb's first response...)

I have no idea which statements might be libellous, but I have not seen a Wikipedia policy that suggests we should avoid sources which contain potentially libellous statements, and why would there be, if we're not repeating such statements? We're not expected to interpret the law, only extract facts from reliable sources, and there is no doubt that the ABC is an RS. The mere fact that there are alternative ways of naming the family cannot be interpreted as risky in any way that I can see, and if there's a wp rule for excluding the Australian Story article as a source of basic facts, I'd like to know about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a more recent source rather than an older one, so long as it is reliable and correctly represents the facts. However this is just fyi, or fmi if there's something I didn't know that you can tell me - I'm really not interested in long discussions or edit-warring about relatively trivial matters. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Refer to [1]. It says "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." "It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." It has been mentioned that there might be potential libel against either the Sri Lankan Government or the Sri Lankan High Commission. Some of the commentary has not been substantiated, nor is there provision of substantiated or validated sources for some commentary. This is just in reference to the Australian Story article and not other articles by the ABC. ABC is under a general consensus to be reliable. I don't deny that. Though the ABC has had libel cases before. Bran488 (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

But the alternative names are not defamatory - end of story. We can report on facts from the article. Have you read WP:OWN? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As for the namings. They are not defamatory as you mentioned. And I have provided sources that address the name changes that are news, and also from the equivalent pubic broadcasting. Though publishing content, such as a source where there there might be potential libel against either the Sri Lankan Government or the Sri Lankan High Commission can possibly be against Wikipedia policy. And according to Wikipedia policy... "It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." and "...to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Bran488 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

By source, I am referring to the aforementioned article and not other articles by the ABC.Bran488 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It is also why the academic's claims are alleged as the claims are beyond the court and tribunal sessions. They may be opinion as there is no substantiated evidence to express whether the commentary is valid or not and I think the aforementioned source from "Australian Story" should not be used unless the commentary is substantiated or backed by secondary sources.Bran488 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"High-profile"

WWGB - it's not just my (and Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo's) opinion that the case is high-profile - it would not be on Wikipedia were it not, surely? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this [2]. We don't need hyperbole in short descriptions. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

But my point is that it's not hyperbole - it would not have been so extensively covered by the media (including social media), and politicians driven to comment on it, were it not high-profile. This is the reason for its existence on Wikipedia, rather than any of the thousands of other claims being processed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Academic's quote

As has been discussed before, the academic's quote is beyond the court findings. The commentary was either rejected or not tested in the courts due to the validated and verified outcome of the cases, therefore the terminology used to describe the quote is appropriate as a reference for the proceeding quotation by the academic as it contradicts the findings of the court and tribunal hearings and the corroborated evidence. It has not been substantiated, nor is there provision of secondary substantiated or validated sources for the commentary. Hence the term "allegedly" has been used due to the potential of libel as it is opinion based. Further corroboration has been provided to ascertain this. It is not part of the quotation. It is based upon the further corroboration that has been ascertained and cited with further citations. I'm of the thought that the article should remain neutral and not politically motivated. This has been discussed already.Bran488 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You have been reverted multiple times and there is no support for your position. Unless you find consensus, the word "allegedly" remains out of that section. Kingsbury is a recognised exert and he is entitled to say that Sri Lanka was still dangerous for some minorities, without you trying to censor those comments. WWGB (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not censoring his quotation, and have not adjusted his quotation in any way at all. There is clear support for the position based on the proceeding text that is based upon substantiated findings.Bran488 (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not editorialising as the findings of allegations have been backed by the subsequent corroborations, in which substantiated findings have been established, unlike the findings of the academic. I find the censoring of my account to be hostile, politically motivated, biased, and unwarranted. Clear and valid explanations have been provided. The claims that I had censored the quotation are completely incorrect and invalid as I have not edited or adjusted the quotation in any way at all. The academic's quotation is potentially libellous based upon the subsequent corroborated and substantiated evidence and citations provided.

User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Damien Kingsbury

@Bran488: has repeatedly inserted "alleged" into the text so that it reads {{Damien Kingsbury, an academic specialising in international politics, said that even though the civil war had ended, Sri Lanka was allegedly still dangerous for some minorities, saying ...}}. This was undone by @WWGB:, reinserted by Bran488 with the edit summary it's not part of the quotation. It's a neutral independent analysis of the statement based upon the further corroboration that has been ascertained and cited, undone by myself and & reinserted by Bran488 with the edit summary that's not part of the quotation in any case. It's based upon the corroboration as had been cited and ascertained by the court findings. As has been discussed in the talk page. The difficulty with this particular edit is that the referenced source is "Although the conflict has ended, Professor Kingsbury said the political situation was still dangerous for some minorities and people with links to the Tamil Tigers. He said people still "disappear" and were tortured." It is a clear statement of opinion by the Kingsbury and properly attributed to him. It is entirely inappropriate to tone down Kingsley's opinion to falsely attribute Kingsley as saying it was ""allegedly dangerous".

Whether a place is dangerous is a matter of opinion & it is entirely normal for people to have a different opinion. The appropriate manner to deal with such disagreement in accordance with WP:NPV is to identify and attribute the other point of view with reliable sources. --Find bruce (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree that people will have their own opinions. The fact remains that the commentary is unsubstantiated and was either rejected or not tested in the courts due to the validated and verified outcome of the cases. This has been established by the corroborated and substantiated findings, as opposed to revision that are unfounded. The reversions are unwarranted and the censoring of the quotation is false as I have not adjusted his quotation in any way at all. It is not a false attribution as it has been substantiated by the further citation from high-level and reputable sources.Bran488 (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Bran488 (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding your personal opinion that an expert commentary is "alleged" or "unsubstantiated" is editorialising and seeks to repudiate the expert opinion. If a different expert says Sri Lanka is safe for minorities, then include that as a counter-opinion. I see you have been blocked from editing the article for a time. I suggest you reflect on your approch, and come back in a more collaborative manner. WWGB (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No secondary or substantiated sources have been provided in regards to the academic's claim which contradicts the substantiated evidence and citations provided, which clearly displays a counter-view to the academic's claim. This contradicts the academic's claims as the claims regarding the safety of deportees has been established, verified and cited by the courts, tribunals and high-level officials that are also experts. I would suggest that the editorialising tag be removed as it is not in correlation with the neutrality of the article, and the academic's commentary may potentially be libellous based upon the substantiated evidence and citations provided, as well as the court and tribunal findings.Bran488 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest responding and acting upon what has been discussed instead of being based on politically motivated actions and the lacking of proper measures and discourse. I have clearly and appropriately discussed this in the talk page.Bran488 (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)