Is it a respected mainstream publication? / - (We should have other sources who call it as such)
Is it not one of the following: self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.? /
Is it a Questionable source ? / -(We should find other sources which claim as such)
Is it self published by an expert? / -(Authors should be acknowledged experts in their fields)
This list is the result of discussions, usually on this page's talk page. To add a new source, please proceed per the
#instructions below.
Explanation of columns:
Name
Usually the title of an article, or a name that would be a suitable title. Redlinks here don't necessarily mean that an article should be created, it only indicates that we don't have one.
URL
Web address of the source.
Class
One of the following: RS: Reliable source QS: Qualified source: A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself. UnRS: Unreliable source UnClassS: Unclassified source (that is, we haven't discussed it enough to reach a conclusion.)
Attribution
displays how we recommend the source should be qualified in the text. For instance, the entry for Tamilnet is "pro-rebel", which means that text from them should be attributed like "according to the pro-rebel Tamilnet". "None" means that a source can be used without the "according ..." part, like most sources in Wikipedia. "Name only", as for Peace Secretariat of the LTTE means that a source should be referred to by its name in the text, as in "according to the Peace Secretariat of the LTTE".
This website is basically an archive. In addition to
SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, archived information should correctly attribute the original author or organization.
archived vote
To add a new source to the table here, proceed as follows:
Start a new topic about that source on the
talk page (Usually, we simply enter the official name as a title for the section, linking it to our pertinent article).
Copy the following text to the end of the table at
List of sources, and replace the green cursive placeholders as appropriate:
|-
| [[Official Name]]
| [http://www.name.org name.org
| Classification such as UnclasS
| attribution such as state owned
| [[link to discussion|Discussion]]
When the discussion reached a conclusion (that is, a decision whether it is RS, QS, or unreliable, and how to attribute it, if it is a QS), then resolve as follows:
Resolve discussion by adding {{resolved|~~~~~}} under the section headline.
Write results of discussion in table.
After at least 7 days, archive as follows:
Move discussion to archive as usual.
Update link in the table to point to archived discussion.
History of this page
This page was created by
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation in 2009. Before that, discussion used to take place on other pages, most commonly
WT:SLR. In 2015, the page got decommissioned, along with the rest of SLR, but in 2023 it got revived.