Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/general 2009

=Stale=

Request for Comment
I have created the category Mass murder of Sri Lankan tamils per this definition. The definition defines mass murder as describing a genocide and types of genocide such as ethnocide, politicide.., and then massacres & pogroms. If so does this definition sufficient enough to describe the Black July, Gal Oya riots,1958 riots in Sri Lanka, 1977 riots in Sri Lanka in Sri lanka ? Kanatonian (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * to quote in full :

Massacres and pogroms are acts of mass murder committed by different types of perpetrators such as state agents, security forces, political extremists and interest groups against vulnerable groups, which have been excluded by mainstream society. Pogroms are usually committed by a mob of incited thugs while massacres can be premeditated and may include state agents or are ordered by political or state leaders


 * So, for each of the listed articles, we have to answer the questions:


 * was there mass murder?
 * were the victims vulnerable and marginal groups
 * were the perpetrators a mob? --> pogrom
 * were the perpetrators state agents --> massacre


 * Note that the page you give can be used to establish pogrom or massacre, but mot mass murder per se, which is part of the definition. The page you give does not give a definition of mass murder. There should be one somewhere else in the book (which I think is definitely RS, by the way)Jasy jatere (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to get the book from a local library. Kanatonian (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the question here whether these incidents are "mass murders", or whether they are "genocide", "massacres" etc? If it is just about "mass murder", is there any doubt that mass murder took place during Black July, for example? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 13:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No questions about Black July, but what about 77, 58 and Gal Oya ? Kanatonian (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they are, so if you have RS calling them "mass murder", I have no objection to such a category been added to the articles. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the book in question says Massacres and pogroms are acts of mass murder committed by different types of perpetrators such as state agents, security forces, political extremists and interest groups against vulnerable groups, which have been excluded by mainstream society. Pogroms are usually committed by a mob of incited thugs while massacres can be premeditated and may include state agents or are ordered by political or state leaders 58 one is called a pogrom and Gal Oya is called a mass massacre. Kanatonian (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you get the book from the library, Kanatonian? &mdash; Sebastian 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there consensus to call Gal Oya massacre and 58 a pogrom then? Jasy jatere (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the question about Category:Mass Murder? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the way I understood it, too. &mdash; Sebastian 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag-war proof 1RR
After I became aware of confusion about 1RR two weeks ago here, I took another look at WP:1RR, and I realized that all we needed in order to prevent tag warring, was a minor change of that rule: Leave out the focus on "your" change. That also squares well with WP:OWN. I propose therefore to add the following to our WP:SLR: ""If someone reverts a change, don't re-revert it. Instead, discuss it on the article talk page or on WT:SLR. On articles under SLDRA, there will be zero tolerance of re-reverts; these will be again reverted to the last version without undiscussed controversial changes, and editors will get warned and in repeat cases blocked.""

How does this sound? Maybe I should replace "will" with "can", because few people actually warned revert warriors recently. Maybe we should change the wording of SLDRA to make this clear to everyone? &mdash; Sebastian 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

new class of sources
I wonder whether we need Attributed Source, next to Reliable Source and Qualified Source. There are some sources, like GoSL, which must be attributed, but a qualification does not seem necessary because it is obvious. The three classes would be used as follows:
 * 1) something happened
 * 2) according to The Attributed Research Institute, something happened
 * 3) according to the pro-Whatever organization The Qualified Weekly, something happened

There seems to be some confusion in the above discussions as to what QS/RS and attribution mean Jasy jatere (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Bullets replaced with numbers for easy reference by Sebastian.


 * I agree with you that we need to distinguish these three cases, but I'm not sure if the difference is big enough to outweigh the cost of making the system more complicated. The main reason why we allow references of class 2 to be cited without a qualification is not that they are better than class 3; it's just simply because they openly state their allegiance. The difference between saying "According to the SL Government's SCOPP" and "According to the pro-government SCOPP" is not that important. I therefore think we should continue to use the term "QS" to include both your class 2 and class 3.


 * If it were only for us then I could be persuaded to the three-class system, but we have to enforce and defend the system to many non-members. Everybody understands that RS are preferable to QS. If we now said that Peace Secretariat of the LTTE is a class above South Asia Terrorism Portal, then we would create, rather than resolve, more disputes. &mdash; Sebastian 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * one could of course have QSa and QSb, or sth like that, where a minor indication is made what kind of attribution is necessary, only by name, or also by allegianceJasy jatere (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, maybe this might make some sense as a shortcut for when we're discussing sources. But I don't see any use in making that distinction in the "Class" column. The difference is already entirely covered by the "Attribution" column. &mdash; Sebastian 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

one could also have a sentence like "If the allegiance of a qualified source is not inherently clear, a qualifier of the form pro/anti-X should be used." Jasy jatere (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We are already saying that the attribution of the "Attribution" column should be used. That completely covers all cases. I don't see any use of adding another similar instruction to that. That would just be instruction creep. &mdash; Sebastian 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that we have unattributed RS (bbc), attributed RS (Amnesty), unattributed QS (defence.lk) and attributed QS (tamilnet)? Or am I missing something? I feel that there is a qualitative difference between amnesty international and tamilnet... Jasy jatere (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that could explain our difference! The short answer is no, we only have two classes. (Amnesty is just as unattributed as BBC is - see the "Attribution" column.)
 * The long answer is: For some sources, we need some flexibility. In these cases, the class defines the default. A good example for this is defence.lk. Since it is QS, the default is attribution. But it would be silly to say "According to the ministry of Defence, G.R. is the minister of defense", so we allow to leave that out when it's uncontroversial. The opposite case is Daily News: Since it is RS, default is no attribution. But all agreed that if Daily News publish an editorial critical of an opposition politician, we should point out that it is state-owned. You can regard these as exceptions, but they only add a little flexibility to the system, without calling for a third class. &mdash; Sebastian 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not read all the arguments but in general we seem to have five classes
 * Reliable sources (Academic sources, BBC, The Hindu, Boston Globe, Daily Mirror ...)
 * Reliable sources but attributed (UTHR, AI, HRW...)
 * Reliable sources, attributed and but needs qualification because of apparent bias (Tamilnet, Ministry of Defence, Asioan Tribune...)
 * Unreliable sources with some reliable content (such as Sangam, Spur, Tamilnation & Tamilcanadian)
 * Unreliable sources (Tamileelam news, Sinhalay news.....)

Kanatonian (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kanatonian, if you don't read what people write, then don't comment on it. "We seem to have five classes" is baloney. We have three classes: RS, QS and UnRS. That was decided in this project - mostly by you and me together after long e-mail conversations - two years ago. We built a large list based on this system, which has worked very well for two years.
 * Of course, you can divide it into 5 classes, too. Reality is a continuum. Anybody can choose to divide that continuum in as many classes as he pleases. But what's the point? There's absolutely no reason to reinvent the wheel now, just because you suddenly realize that you like the number 5 better. If we were now to extend the classification to 5 classes, we would have to rediscuss most of our sources. I certainly won't agree with such a stupid waste of time. The only alternative that we can all agree with is to return to Wikipedia's core policies and strictly follow WP:RS, which has only two classes: RS, or not reliable. All QS would automatically become Questionable sources, which means that we would have to go through all articles and mark most of the QS quotes with Verify credibility tags and eventually remove or replace them. That also would be a waste of time, but at least we would be safe that nobody could question that system anymore out of a whim. &mdash; Sebastian 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * while in an ideal world, we would be able to neatly sort out the sources in the three categories you mention, it happens that current practice in this project seems to be to have the 5 classes that Kanatonian mentions. Just read the discussions on sources above. There is a mismatch between what the policy states and the current discussion on this talk page. In a certain way, Kanatonian's list is an inventory of what we find today. That inventory obviously differs from what you established 2 years ago. Now, there are two ways to deal with this mismatch: either change the guidelines, or change the discussion. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * taking stock of the classes of sources on this talk page, and the representation of those sources in classes on the project page, are different things. We could have an elaborate schema for internal use and discussion, but reduce the complexity to three cases when we present it in a table. The fact that outsiders should be able to understand the classification does not imply that discussions about classes of sources have to be restricted in the same way. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think SLR has always maintained WP:RS and WP:VERIFY very strictly, what we call QS is nothing but a Reliable source, that is attributed and qualified with its apparent bias. We have not contributed to an encyclopedic project that intends to create content with unreliable sources. Further, I have spent over a year at the Reliable sources list where people ask these questions all the time just so that I have better idea as to sourcing. Even in the list there is this distinctions of RS categories. What we have done in SLR is to keep track of these discussions but meanwhile with time consensus will change. What is today an unreliable source with time may become a reliable source but along the way it is going to be qualified, attributed and eventually simply used with no qualifications and attributions. This a journey a source may take with time. That’s probably the reason why the wider wikipedia community does not keep track of all these discussions, but SLR can do it in the short term because it is much smaller and is focused on a conflict. Kanatonian (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let's pause this discussion. I think the three of us painted ourselves in a corner. It seems we're all under stress right now. I was so desperate that I wrote an angry reply. I’m now realizing that my reply of 05:38 yesterday contributed to an escalation - the very thing this project tries to prevent. We all made mistakes, and this dispute doesn’t make any of us look good. Rather than publicly talking about mistakes of people I respect, I would prefer to keep this off wiki. Jasy, can you please let me know your e-mail? Since I don't have your e-mail, and you don't have e-mail enabled, I will send mail only to Kanatonian for now. &mdash; Sebastian 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For now, I would like us to archive the discussion to allow it to cool off. Let’s wait a month until we all have a bit less stress and there are fewer discussions here. Maybe it will be easier for each of us to understand the other by then. If you choose to bring it up again, I ask that you base your argument not on what you feel would be nice, but on real-life problems in our area which can not be resolved with the current system. &mdash; Sebastian 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is Snowuld4 when we need a mediator anyway my final words on it. The wider wikipedai world has been right all along. There are only two classes of sources they are reliable and non reliable, there is nothing in between. But the way we use then depends on each type. An academic book is reliable and HRW is reliable but attributed (I have explained as to why under HRW section), a Tamilnet is reliable, attributed and qualified. Calling this a Qualified Source is an innovation that SLR came up with but keep insisting that is different class all together puts out outside that mainstream of thinking in Wikipedia. I made my opinion clear when some one deleted the QS template at least a year. I agreed with the deletion and did not oppose it.


 * In the end we are creating an encyclopedia and we have to insist on using only reliable sources and portions of reliable sources from obviously unreliable websites. Documenting these different sources about there reliability as a project is open to peril as I have pointed out earlier but in our context we have can do it for a short period of time at least as long as the civil war and its effects linger on. A table with columns for reliable, reliable and attributed, reliable attributed and qualified, un reliable and comments should be a better way to document our sources. Everything so far categorized as qualified sources should go under column three. So we really don’t have discuss all previously discussed sources again. Now I am going back to my real life, and if possible a wikipedia article or two. Kanatonian (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit fight on this page
There has been an edit fight going on between non-members on this page. This page is not censored, and the deletions show no explanation, which is in violation of the notice "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.", which everybody should see when they revert an edit. Moreover, the deletions do not conform with the box on top of this page, which says "Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted" since (a) the deleters are no members and (b) the deleted text was not off topic; in fact, it is a legitimate question to be asked here. &mdash; Sebastian 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion about the blue box: move to editnotice
has brought up an interesting suggestion about the blue box at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. What do our members think of this?  C h a m a l  talk 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a good point, which I can't completely refute. I can only say that my preference would be for it to remain a box for the following reasons:
 * People overlook the editnotice. Just see the above section, where it was overlooked by several people, including a seasoned admin.
 * It shows people that they're not alone; if they see something they don't agree with then maybe the box makes them aware that there are other people who care. I would hope that that has a calming influence already.
 * It is similar to other maintenance templates, such as Expand French, which are put on top of articles despite not serving a majority of readers or editors.
 * It is a bit of an advertising for us.
 * Although it has been around for 15 months, nobody has complained about it so far.
 * &mdash; Sebastian 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it occurs to me that the suggestion may have been meant for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article only. I have to admit, in that article our box doesn't appear to have been very helpful. Is there a way to do this for one article only? We could do that as an experiment and go from there. &mdash; Sebastian 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be decided on a case-by case basis, but come to think of it, it would be nice to it on all bannered pages if there are more than one. Most templates stay on the article to 1) inform readers that there is a problem and 2) to attract editors looking for something to do. This banner does neither and only serves to warn users who are about to edit of the situation and to be careful. Those kinds of messages are usually put in editnotices. For readers it only adds clutter and strongly falls under WP:SRA by pointing at a project-space based dispute. WP:3RR exists to prevent disputes from confusing readers, this banner begs much the same problem.

Blue Box
Seeing above, I noticed that people are making controversial edits to pages marked with blueboxes. We should convert it so that it comes out as both an editnotice and a page notice, like this:

This template also gives you this edit notice IF WE SUBSTITUTE IT: PS If it doesn't show up on your screen, look in the edit box. PPS: Source User:Riotrocket8676/SLRBlueBox. Wow! That was fast- had to edit this a bazillion times to get it right. NOW SEE: User:Riotrocket8676/hidenote -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We are going to mess up the whole article if we use this. Seeing a huge message (whatever it says) is annoying when you go to edit any page. And do you really think that disruptive editors will be discouraged by seeing this? On the contrary, they will be even more eager to vandalize because of this huge notice. Going against the rules is what they want to do, and we are inviting them to vandalize if we say "you're breaking rules". Also, the notice gives an impression of article ownership, which is not what the bluebox is about. We just want to tell people to discuss before making a controversial edit. We do not want to tell them that "you're not allowed to edit this article".  C h a m a l  talk 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that the notice has been fixed, the conveyed idea is not a problem. But the rest of the problems are still there. Also note that this is not something that is generally done in Wikipedia articles, since it is disruptive to all editors and messes up the article. It can even be misunderstood as hidden vandalism by someone who is not aware of the project and this method we are following. Also, templates of this type are usually not substituted, mainly because it then becomes very hard to find the pages that are using it. If we want the editor to see something when editing, the editnotice is there. However, this has been discussed before without coming to a possible solution. I think we should keep it as it is.  C h a m a l  talk 04:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out what I did to revise my idea. Basically, to track which articles this appears on, you add it onto every page with a blue box. Plus, the notice would include a template built into it. Thanks, -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are just side issues. As I said from the start, displaying a huge message on the edit box is disruptive and messes up the article. That is the main issue. This not generally done here, as I have pointed out before. And it's simply not going to work; I have seen this kind of thing before, and I have seen it failing. A vandal is simply not going to be discouraged when he sees a huge message. On the contrary he will be persuaded to vandalise that article by it. I'm strongly against this idea of displaying a message on the edit box. If you think it is essential for the editor to see something we can use the editnotice method as I have mentioned above. It's no use filling up the article with templates when they serve no useful purpose.  C h a m a l  talk 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * anybody? that serves no purpose, because articles tagged with no more links are randomly spammed anyway! We should have SOMETHING in the edit box, not JUST for vandals but for actual editors, like everyone here at SLR. -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and a category for all Edit Restricted pages would be useful as well. -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... you say yourself that it serves no purpose. Are you proposing that we place this message just for fun and decoration, then? Everyone here at SLR (not that there are many left) knows how to edit articles under our scope. If we need to notify others, an edit notice will do. What is your reason for suggesting that we need something in the edit box, that can't be served by a simple edit notice? I might add that the templates like nomorelinks were before it was made possible for editnotices to be used in such a way (but are still in use, of course). Anyway the two templates cannot be more different; this is a huge collection of characters spanning across the entire editbox and will simply annoy or amuse the editor that sees it.  C h a m a l  talk 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Scratch that. But I think a category for articles under editing restrictions would tell us which articles are edit restricted would be a good idea. -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 19:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil page being ruined.
Hi could someone neutral help moderate the following page. A anti-Tamil extremist is making nonsensical and non-factual statements about Sri Lankan Tamils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people

The article was intially great and had been listed as a "Social sciences and society good articles". However, one user called Guyan is repeatedly putting his rubbish in. It is being removed but he is repatedly reverting it back.

Nagadeepa (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * requested page protection. I suspect one or more users have violated the editing restrictions given in the blue box on top of the page. I do not have time to investigate this further now, but I think the involved users should be invited to respect the usual ways of building consensus, i.e. no edit warring, the tweaked 1RR and use of the article talk page or, better, THIS talk page here to suggest potentially controversial edits to the page. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people, History of Jaffna, Jaffna kingdom
There is currently a controversy about related topics concerning these pages. Please use this page as a centralized venue for discussion, as laid out in WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka page, Education section
The Education section contains several errors, of both spelling and grammar. Public editing is turned off due to the civil war. Someone with editing authority, please check and correct errors in the Education section.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.114.128 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Anthony merge
I have merged Charles Anthony (Prabhakaran's son) into Prabhakaran's article. Talk page was 6 "yes" merges and 1(?) 0 (thats a Zero) no. Thanks, -- Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

impartiality
pardon my being so forward, but even to the layman, recent submissions on this and the "Sri Lanka" site are blatantly one-sided. During a time when the Tamil Tiger leadership demise is still being disputed, the site writers have put definitive pen to (web) paper. It's a pity to see wiki taken over so easily as a political tool--on either side. Cannot there be a vetting mechanism? Recent contributors, most obviously not on the Tamil side, have injected emotive venom into some of the language. I understand the desire to craft the words of history, but this is an historic site, not a blog....

Somebody, can we please get a chaparone for this site? Geeesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.145.243 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * you are welcome to collaborate on every article you wish, provided you respect wikipedia policies, of which verifiability is the most important one in this area. A first point to discuss issues is the talk page of an article. If you feel that the issue is controversial, please bring it up on this page and state which passages you find problematic and why. Cheers Jasy jatere (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam
I added this in with reliable sources I found and read online.

Tamil Eelam (தமிழீழம், tamiḻ īḻam, generally rendered outside Tamil-speaking areas as தமிழ் ஈழம ) is the name of a state aspiration in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The name is derived from the ancient Tamil name for island of Sri Lanka: Eelam. The area is home to indigenous Tamil people and some other ethnic groups.

During the Tamil region's history, it has been an independent country, subordinate to different empires and a part of Sri Lanka for a certain amount of time. The independent sovereignty of the medieval Tamil Jaffna kingdom in the north of the island was removed following British colonisation of the island in 1815 and the island was renamed Ceylon. A peaceful struggle for a reconstitution of the autonomous Tamil homeland began shortly after Ceylon gained independence from Britain in 1948. An armed quest of Tamil miltancy led by the LTTE in the 1980s resulted in a de facto state in large parts of the north and east of the island for a short period. The area is now administered by the Government of Sri Lanka.

HISTORY:

Drawings and maps from the time of the Greek explorer Ptolemy, and later from the period when the British came to the island, show how the areas of the Tamils and the Sinhalese were recorded separately from antiquity. Historians have asserted the ancestors of present day Tamils were the original inhabitants of the island. Classical Sangam literature and archaeological inscriptions identify the area as Eelam, its Tamil name. Indigenous Tamil people have lived in the northern and eastern regions of Eelam for over 2500 years, known as the Tamil hereditary area. The 12th century CE saw the emergence of the medieval Jaffna Kingdom and the Vannimai chieftancies in the Tamil-inhabited areas. The appearance and conquests of colonial powers in the 17th century CE, first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and British, saw a recognition of the ancient origins of the separate nations on the island. The island was renamed Ceylon. Upon arrival in June 1799, Sir Hugh Cleghorn, the island's first British colonial secretary wrote to the British government of the traits and antiquity of the Tamil nation on the island in the Cleghorn Minute: “Two different nations from a very ancient period have divided between them the possession of the island. First the Sinhalese, inhabiting the interior in its Southern and Western parts, and secondly the Malabars [another name for Tamils] who possess the Northern and Eastern districts. These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language, and manners.”

It keeps getting removed. It's all reliably referenced so what's the problem? Also the intro should not be about the LTTE. It should be about the region claimed for independence.


 * It keeps getting removed because it's POV. Simple answer: Although it is true that the area is home to indigenous tamil people, historical sources do not indicate that it was a separate independent state. What you have mentioned above also does not say that there were two 'states' although the tamil population was concentrated in the north and east and sinhalese in the south. Archaeological observations and main historical records about the country have shown nothing to indicate that it was a separate country. And that's what we show here in Wikipedia, but what you have given above is a conclusion you have obtained mainly from the fact that the two nationalities' population in the given areas (therefore, original research).  C h a m a l  talk 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pick out the specific line that has not been reliably cited, ask for a reference and it can be surely found. It's not acceptable to remove the entire thing which is reliably cited. This is valuable information on the two nations, a brief history of the Tamil Eelam region which is backed up by reliable sources and therefore should be put back in. Just because some users have a problem with the truth, they can't go around erasing information in mass here. It's not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.227.136 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for opinions. As I already said, the idea of Tamil Eelam being a separate state is mere speculation drawn from other facts. This is unacceptable by WP:OR. In short, the information cannot be kept here. Other parts of you edit, such as the area being home to indigenous tamil people etc (actual facts and not speculation) are already included in the article.  C h a m a l  talk 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've put forward negates what has been said or included. I'd like to hear what all the other users (more neutral) have to say on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.227.136 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't. Don't you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying your referenced facts about differences in population etc are wrong. However, Tamil Eelam being a separate state is speculation on your part, a 'conclusion' drawn from other facts. There's no historical evidence to suggest the claim that it was a separate country, while there's more than enough evidence to the contrary. Read the article fully, which should itself give an idea of what I'm talking about. What I say (about the inclusion of the disputed statements) is based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. BTW, I have not taken part in the editing dispute at Tamil Eelam, if that's what you mean by me being not neutral.  C h a m a l  talk 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further more you claim that the Jaffna Kingdom existed up until 1815 when Sri Lanka came under British rule,


 * "The independent sovereignty of the medieval Tamil Jaffna kingdom in the north of the island was removed following British colonisation of the island in 1815 and the island was renamed Ceylon."


 * this is obviously incorrect and your sources are clearly false because the jaffna Kingdom came into existence after the invasion of Magha in 1215 and existed until 1619 which is almost 200 years before the British arrived on the island. The Jaffna Kingdom was also in constant was with colonial powers and other kingdoms in Sri Lanka so there is no possibility of a Jaffna Kingdom existing after 1619.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued use of the Blue Box
In my opinion, the use of the SLR blue box across the top of numerous articles has outlived its purpose. I'm not questioning the editing restrictions themselves, it’s just that by having that glaring message across every article seems to indicate that there maybe ongoing disputes related to the article, which is not the case 99% of the time. Given that the edit wars that required the editing restrictions have all but ended (along with the actual war itself), that we warn new users of the editing restrictions anyway, and that recent edits show it doesn't look like editors are respecting the editing restrictions just because of the blue box, I think it’s time for it to go.

So I propose we leave the talk page message as it is, and continue to warn new users of the editing restrictions, but remove the blue box from the relevant articles. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And with that consensus shall start removing them.Sinhalaa (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

that does not seem to be consensus yet. Two people and 8 hours is a bit slim for consensus. Furthermore, Sinhalaa has not really participated on this page before. You will have to wait a little bit longer. As for my 2c, the civil war will be over soon, but that does not mean that the conflict is over. Just take a look at Iraq to know that military victory does not mean the end of hostilities. This entails that there will be some edit wars for the times to come on how to treat the Battle of Mullaitivu Lagoon or sth like that. Just recently, the history of Jaffna was subject of an edit war.

Still, I agree that blue boxes on articles on which there seems to be no actual dispute is not necessary. I would suggest that articles with no edits for one month can be released from that restriction "on probation". Leaving only the talk page notice is a bit unfair, because how are users to be aware that there are special restrictions on editing if we do not inform them on the article page? The risk a block without ever having been told about that possibility. Not everybody takes a look at the talk page before editing (why should they?).

To sum up my position, the blue box can be removed from many articles, but not all. It has to be determined on an individual basis, from where it can be removed. Sufficient time has to be given to wikipedia and SLR members to express their opinion on this. Jasy jatere (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I say we leave until the end of the year as we had originally proposed. By then things would have cooled down a lot more. (I hope) Kanatonian (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the concensus I'm fine with that. Just to be clear, you guys understand I'm not proposing we remove the editing restrictions, just the blue box right?. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 12:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood that, no worriesJasy jatere (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any other opinions on this? Personally I think the box really serves no purpose on articles such as Sri Lanka. And to answer your question Jasy, as to whether it'll be unfair to have the restrictions on the articles but not have the template across the main page, we warn new users about the restrictions before taking any actions anyway. Also, the Jaffna related articles are not covered by the editing restrictions since they are not related to the Civil War category.
 * I'll also like to know, are there any admins that are still willing to patrol these articles for violations of the resolution? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think anything that relates to the ethnic conflict could possibly be covered. This is not limited to the civil war. The history of Jaffna is as susceptible to edit wars as the XYZ massacre, and this project exists to prevent edit wars. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It covers everything that belongs to Category:Sri Lankan Civil War, and a few specific articles. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose admins devote their time to the persons who beg the most. At this moment, SLR does not seem to beg them much ... Jasy jatere (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pointing out that a resolution with no admins to carry it out serves no purpose. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 03:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any further comments? I still haven't seen a definite reason to continue to leave the blue box on top of every article. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese people page
Under the section titled "Genetic Studies" I included the 2003 University of Stanford study done on the genetics of South Asia.

It is the most complete study done on this subject to date. The study used mtDNA Analyses, Y-Chromosome Analyses, MX1 Locus, Sequencing and Data Analysis to come to the results.

No other study on south asian genetics has carried out all those methods before or since then. It is the most accurate and reliable study of South Asian genetics to date. Edwards Scholar (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can some please prevent the following passages

''"Overall, the evidence supports the strong possibility that the Sinhalese are largely indigenous to Sri Lanka and adopted the Indo-Aryan language from invaders who in turn showed limited ancestry from some original Indo-Aryan invaders stemming from some Eurasian homeland. Ultimately, the genetic evidence also shows substantial genetic drift that corresponds to geography and in the case of Sri Lanka supports the notion that most Sinhalese stem from very early migrants, rather than later invaders:

''Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan.

FROM BEING DELETED. Someone keeps deleting this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwards Scholar (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Add article
Sinhalese people needs to be added to your project. I just full protected it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kumaran Pathmanadan
There has been increased interest in this article since Pathmanathan was appointed the new leader of the LTTE. I would like to rewrite this article to someting like this. Any comments / objections? Also, is there any consensus on which of his many names we should use on Wikipedia? I'd suggest Selvarasa Pathmanathan as this is the one he and most media organisations are using now. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your version is a great start to reworking our depiction of this individual. I feel we should go with Selvarasa, because its much more common in newspapers and other reliable sources.Pectoretalk 17:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.-Iross1000 (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

I object. His name is Kumaran Pathmanathan. His alias should not be given publicity over his real name. do not attempt to conceal his identity. - --RyanFrancisJnr (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt Ryan is a good faith user, seeing as how his first edits are here and on the KP page. Nobody is concealing his identity (which we arent even sure of). Also he's been arrested so it does not matter what name we use, since he will probably die for the crimes he committed in prison.Pectoretalk 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people
Please review a series of edits with misleading edit summaries such as no references etc. Kanatonian (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel Yogaswami's picture should be replaced by Samual Chelvanayagam's picture who has contributed more to Sri Lankan Tamils than any other.Chelva is known as the "Fahter of the Nation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.63.151 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka page
I refer to the following sentence in the 'Civil War' section

One single strip of orange on the left part of the flag represents the Tamil population, and it is seen by many Tamil as a symbol of their marginalisation

The above sentence gives a biased opinion suggesting marginalisation of a miniority race -- which is totally incorrect. The green strip which is at the outer edge, beside the orange represents the muslims in the country. By the same token I belong to the ethnic muslim minority in Sri Lanka and also personally know hundreds of Tamil and Sinhalese people. The sentence referred to is totally incorrect. I think you have to re-phrase that sentence or remove it altogether.

The next sentence The lion in the national flag is derived from the banner of the last Sinhalese Kingdom, which, to the Sinhalese majority, is... also tends to add a negative bias against the noble Sinhalese people and their rich culture. Please refer to the main article Flag of Sri Lanka The lion in the center stands for bravery of the Sri Lankans as a nation achieving independence from foreign powers including the British. The 4 leaves in the corner stand for the 4 brahma viharas of Metta, Karuna, Muditha and Upekkha which are part of the Buddhist doctrine.

In the aftermath of a near-lethal terrorist 'invasion' it is only natural for the vestigal remnants of such a movement to try and 'dovetail' their nefarious objectives into strong nationalistic and cultural symbols. You, Wikipedia, are one of the foremost authorities on factual representation today. I am sure you would quickly rally around the resources at your disposal to verify the truth of what I have said and make the necessary corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfouwaaz (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Health
Can I write a subsection on health of demographics? Sarcelles (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC) =Resolved=

Blue boxes on articles we don't actually watch are embarrassing
Yesterday’s message about the LTTE article and today’s question about the MPs alerted me of a fundamental problem: While conscientious editors come here to ask before they do any major edits that would improve articles, hasty and reckless editors blatantly ignore the blue box. Just look at the thousands of edits the LTTE article experienced since we put the blue box there! Making it harder to improve articles specifically for those who care defeats the purpose of our WikiProject.

We can not just demand extra steps from others, when we’re not doing our part of the duty. The reason we introduced the blue box was that we wanted to "soft protect" these pages. That requires work. Our work. Back when I was active here, I used our Watchlists and links to bluebox to keep an eye over these articles. I was under the impression that others here were doing the same. But I haven’t been doing this since my semi-retirement, and it seems that nobody else does this anymore, either.

Just a month ago, we voted to keep the, but I now realize that, without an actual recommitment, that was meaningless. Can we recommit to watching these pages, and to enforcing the message we placed on top of them?

So, how can we make sure that all pages we claim to care about are actually watched at least by someone? Obviously, it wouldn't be wise to talk about our watchlists here publicly - there’s a reason why Wikipedia keeps them private. We could exchange lists by mail. If we had a chat room for members, that would be a good place. But all of these solutions are a bit too bureaucratic.

The most natural way to find this out is by actually caring for the articles. My idea is as follows:
 * 1) I will add a parameter "active" to SLR/bluebox. If a blue boxes has "active=yes", it will be displayed as usual. If not, it will not be displayed at all.
 * 2) We look at what links here and links to bluebox, and check if the articles are still OK. If so, we add "active=yes", making the blue box reappear. If these have recently been edited in violation of the SLDR, then the editors will be warned.

Articles none of us watches can be classified as follows:
 * 1) Articles others care about. These are typically articles that bear the template of another WikiProject; we can assume that they watch it. These don't need our blue box displayed. We can just leave it inactive, or remove it.
 * 2) Articles nobody cares about anymore. These are typically articles that were created in the heat of the moment, such as after a certain incident in Sri Lanka, but have been forgotten by now. If, after several months, we still have such articles with inactive blue boxes, I would simply propose them for deletion.

Please let me know what you think about this proposal. &mdash; Sebastian 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * about second number 2, do you mean delete the article or blue box ? Kanatonian (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean to tag them with the template per Proposed deletion. This may sound harsh, but I believe that, if nobody looked at an article during the course of several months (or even years, if you count the time since their creation) then we should reconsider if the article is notable.
 * BTW, it just occurs to me that it may be better not to make the blue box disappear while we're waiting for such articles to be checked. To be transparent, we could instead leave the box, and add something like "It is currently being considered to lift these restrictions. See WP:SLR#SLDRA for details". On WP:SLR#SLDRA, we would write that any signatory of the agreement can reconfirm a certain article by changing the parameter to "active=yes" if they promise to watch it. &mdash; Sebastian 05:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to disagree on proding article that dont have any edits after we place a blue box on it. Let's look at Encylopedia Britanica. It had X number of entries. Do all entries get attention from a critical mass of people all the time? I bet not. Some gets millions of hits yet others few dozen a year but that does not make those pieces of knowledge that much less valuable. What we are making here is an encylopedia not a popular encylopedia. Articles dont get to stay or die because of foot traffic. They stay because they are valuable piece of knowledge provided they meet the rules. Kanatonian (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting observation, after we came up with Blue box protection blatant vandalism has come to a halt. We cannot equate that with less interest in articles. Further many of the new articles of the same genre do not have blue box on them anyway and they still have no vandalism. This is the lasting legacy of the blue box. It drives away blatant vandals or keeps them at bay. See
 * Allaipiddy massacre,
 * 2006 Trincomalee massacre,
 * 2008 Fort Railway Station bombing,
 * Madhu school bus bombing,
 * 2008 Sri Lanka bus bombings


 * 1 & 2 has bbox protection others dont and alsmost all can be argued as created as part of "spur of the moment" and "dont have a lot of activity" but in my view none of them deserved to be deleted from Wikipedia.Kanatonian (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Better too to gauge interest is this, but even that is not grounds for deletion. Kanatonian (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! From your list it seems that the blue box is still working, at least for the less "popular" articles; I'm happy about that! What we experience at the LTTE article is not necessarily the same problem: The problem there is less that nobody watches the article, but rather that we have been too permissive with SLRDA violations.
 * For the less popular articles, let me first clarify a misunderstanding: I did not mean to prod articles that don’t have any more edits to their content. I meant to prod them if none of us cares for them. Editing the “active” parameter just seemed like a convenient way to ensure that at least someone cares for an article. I just felt it was more directly connected to the article  itself than the alternatives I could think of.
 * I completely agree with you that valuable information should just stay, just as in EB. But  our encyclopedia has one deciding difference from EB: Anyone can edit these  articles. Therefore, we need to watch them. I have two concerns: (1) Since we  now have much less time for enforcing SLDRA, we need to be frugal with our time  and concentrate on what’s important. We simply can't assume that every less popular article is still being watched. (2)  How do we make sure that such an article hasn’t been changed a year ago, and  escaped our attention since? Do you know any way to specifically check changes of - or even  find - articles under SLDRA that have last changed more than 30 days ago?  &mdash; Sebastian 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally have them in watch, almost all blue box articles:( but I dont overly interfere in popular articles like LTTE, Sri Lankan civil war etc as at the end, its the responsibility of Wikipedia community not just SLR members to keep them straight. In my opinion, its the obscure but important articles such as Taraki Sivaram, Jaffna lagoon massacre, that needs someone to keep a watch and improve with time. This is how I distribute my time. Keep mostly out of popular but keep an eye on the less popular. But the popular ones do link to many of the less popular ones too through linking. So I make sure even in the popular ones that Vandals dont remove the links to the less popular ones. That's the extend of my "watch". Kanatonian (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful - that resolves this issue for me. As long as you watch them, I'm happy. I realize that the problem with popular articles is very different; since it fits better in the below discussion about the LTTE article, I will reply to that there. &mdash; Sebastian 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

MP info box
I am planning to add MP info boxes to the following politicians who are all part of SLR: Appapillai Amirthalingam, Ariyanayagam Chandra Nehru, Joseph Pararajasingham, Nadarajah Raviraj, Neelan Tiruchelvam, Sarojini Yogeswaran and Vettivelu Yogeswaran. The information in the boxes will be non-controversial (see S. J. V. Chelvanayakam for example) but I thought I'd better check here first to see if this will be a problem?Obi2canibe (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking - that seems like the right thing to do, provided that they are/were all MPs. The first page I checked, Appapillai Amirthalingam, doesn't say so explicitly. Actually, this article does need major changes, as the stub note at the bottom states, which conflicts with the blue box on top. I think you have a track record of good edits, so I see no problem with you making major changes on these pages. &mdash; Sebastian 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for replying. They all held elected office (as MP, mayor etc) at some time in their life. Amirthalingam was an MP for 20 years but, as you say, the article doesn't mention this important fact. This is symptomatic of many articles.Obi2canibe (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Change wording of blue box?
It seems that adding of unsourced information currently constitutes the bulk of what most people here fighting against. If that is so, do you think it should be added to the blue box? Another change to the blue box that might make sense would be to replace “Before making any non-minor changes or before reverting changes” with “Before changing anything that might be controversial”. This wording is shorter, and even though it does not have exactly the same meaning as if I had written “Before making any potentially controversial changes”, I think that it might appeal better to people who feel "this is controversial - I need to change it". To I also don't see a need for the line break before "Please do not remove"; it doesn't happen that often that people remove it, and cutting that saves a whole line. All together, it would look like this:

What do you think? (BTW, I also removed "#Issues", since we don't have that distinction anymore.) &mdash; Sebastian 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * this new version is an improvementJasy jatere (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will implement it, then. &mdash; Sebastian 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

photos
I have a query, in the following website they have mentioned the following.

http://www.tamilnet.com/

“Reproduction of this news item is allowed when used without any alterations to the contents and the source, TamilNet, is mentioned.”

Is this means I can download photos from Tamilnet and upload into Wikipedia articles when necessary ? Is this is an issue for Wikipedia Administrators ? -Iross1000 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Glad you asked, I 've run into problems with this before. It is still not totally free, it still needs attribution. So the best place to approach this problem is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia. Wikimedia admins will be the better guys to help you out with this. Look at this and this, this is the amount of trouble one need to go to get pictures used in wikipedia. This is an upload from Wikimedia. Attribution share alike licence may be simialr waht Tamilnet is saying it is for its pictures.


 * Another is to ask tamilnet editor to release the pictures directly in Wikimedia by themselves. I've had such luck with other Sri Lankan journalists who have released their material in Wikimedia. Kanatonian (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranjan Wijeratne article
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=24227

Bases on that info, is it okay to add more comments to Ranjan Wijeratne article. What I am proposing to add is something like -> In 2008 Tamil Tigers accused that Ranjan Wijeratne tried to kill their leader during the 1990 peace process. -Iross1000 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will withdraw this query as Ranjan Wijeratne article doesn't have any editing restrictions. -Iross1000 (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

Reliability of YouTube and tamilnet.tv
A new user posted links to http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=GjKzcbF2ka4&feature=related and http://www.tamilnet.tv/index.php/ltte-tactical-withdrwal-from-kokavil?blog=1 on the LTTE article. That has been removed by a well-intended person watching that article, but these links are related, so we should discuss how realiable they are, and if it is appropriate to include them somewhere. The YouTube seems to be from France 24. &mdash; Sebastian 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * if the content if from France24, we should link to their site. If it is not to be found on their site, it is likely that it is copyrighted, and should not be linked at all per External_links.

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. '''Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.''' Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist without being whitelisted. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! What about tamilnet.tv? It obviously is not the same as tamilnet.com. &mdash; Sebastian 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * tamilnet.com is much better than .tv as far as journalism is concerned. Read the page you link. It is full of malice, sarcasm and polemics. Nothing against that, but the writer's competence in the English language is not enough for these text genres. Hell, there is even a typo in the link (withdrwal). Definitely not reliable for the textual content. I would rate tamilnet.tv as a personal blog, very much like gwbushsuckx.com or similar things. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a parody site not a RS source Kanatonian (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LTTE "Rise to dominance" paragraph
The former half of this paragraph immediately struck me as biased upon reading it. It does not seem that the LTTE ever "dominated" as the heading would indicate. More importantly, the paragraph itself takes the events of Black July out of context to paint a pro-LTTE picture while failing to cite any sources. Additionally, the grammar is poor. In light of these issues, I propose removing this half of the paragraph. A much better summary of the events and effects of Black July could be procured from its article and the article on the Sri Lankan Civil War respectively.PerryMarkLevin (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking! This headline made more sense originally because it was only the second headline after a "Beginnings" section. Since the section now includes everything from the beginnings, I think the title "Rise to power" would be appropriate. The text you mention was basically added with this anonymous edit and later modified, such as here. Since it has been there for two months without a reference, I agree that it should be removed, with a reference to this section in the edit summary. &mdash; Sebastian 18:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did the change as suggested. However, I can't close this as resolved yet. This section still is much worse than it was two years ago. The version at the end of our mediation described the beginnings, from the beginnings of the TNT. Maybe we should merge the old and the new? &mdash; Sebastian 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we have so many issues right now that it seems now's not the time for that discussion. Let's resolve this issue and keep the general issue separate; I'll add a bullet to the list at WP:SLR/H to remind us of it. &mdash; Sebastian 01:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein and the reliability of tamileelamnews.com
There was an edit war at Bruce Fein about inserting the link http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20080605_12. I think this is noticeable; it doesn't happen very often that an American lawyer gets accused of supporting terrorists by the government of another country. I propose that we add this incident (with correct attribution), along with the reply, which I found at http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_9429.shtml. How reliable is tamileelamnews.com? I could not find a page that represents Mr Fein directly. What would be a fair summary of the rebuttal? &mdash; Sebastian 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because accusing one has to be balanced with his/her rebutal as far as WP:BIO is concerned that too accusation coming from a non reliable source, I would say that if the accusation has to be in the article then we have to attribute to the source and then the rebutal has to be made available and attributed to the source. Kanatonian (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce Fein is currently working for an organization that is currently trying to press Genocidal charges against one american citizen and another green card holder - Sarath Fonseka and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Watchdogb (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone should add parts of this article he wrote to the Wikipedia entry.

The Tamil Tigers seek a secessionist state in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka through terrorism. Characteristic of like organizations, the LTTE undertakes auxiliary activities that strengthen its terrorist torso and sweeten its public face: political organizing and advocacy; diplomacy; social services and humanitarian aid; economic development; establishment of a quasi-government on the Jaffna Peninsula; and, defending Tamils from human rights abuses. Medically assisting the LTTE, however, facilitates terrorist abominations. Its injured members more quickly return to terrorist duties. And the LTTE more readily attracts grass-roots sympathizers, financial contributions and terrorist recruits. The nefarious LTTE terrorist goal of partitioning Sri Lanka into separate Tamil and Sinhalese nations would be closer."
 * A few wads of cash can really change a persons opinions, can't they? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the proof that he is a supporter of LTTE ? Just because he is trying to press charges against officials of the Sri Lankan Government, who are also American citizens, does not make him pro LTTE. People who are in danger of being prosecuted might think so though! How exactly does the above quote fit into his Bio ? Mr. Fein has probably been quoted thousands of time and so are you proposing that turn his article into a quote farm ? If that is the case, then I disagree since this is wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is proven, we have to mention the accusation in the article, right? I believe this is a notable incident. I'd agree with Kanatonian. As for tamileelamnews.com, it looks to me like a suitable site to be used as a source. But it is clearly biased towards the LTTE, and this should be remembered when using it. Maybe something along the lines of tamilnet, or more likely the Asian Tribune. In short, I think it could be included as a QS.  C h a m a l  talk 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the accusation is made by a notable body (the GSL) and is therefore relevant. It is well sourced as well (to the government itself, which should know which positions it defends). We can take defence.lk as a reliable source for the positions of the GSL (although it is not reliable for many other topics). If Fein offers a rebuttal, it can be included, but if he does not, that would be no reason to remove the notable and sourced accusations. If the government of the USA accuses someone of being a terrorist, we include that info as well, even if it is often completely bogus. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I Disagree because the GoSL consist of members who Fein is trying to prosecute. So any such accusation from the government is a accusation from a POV source. Unless we can find the rebuttal from Fein, we cannot add the government claims without violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between saying "John Doe is a terrorist" and "Government X believes that John Doe is a terrorist". The former is POV, the latter is NPOV. So, this is surely not in violation of WP:NPOV. As for WP:BLP, I suppose you are refering to the section "criticism and praise". If this is wrong, please state to which section of WP:BLP you are refering. I quote the relevant passage:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.


 * Could you please detail in what respect the inclusion of the link would be a problem in light of the passage presented above? Jasy jatere (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here, as I mentioned before, is that the Government of Sri Lanka consists of members that this lawyer is trying to prosecute. So any bashing that comes from Sri Lankan Government are going to be in violation of WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * the government of Sri Lanka is a juridical person distinct from Mr Rajapaksa et al. Fein tries to charge Rajapaksa and Fonseka. He does not try to charge Sri Lanka.Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously if he had not decided to prosecute these people he would not have been accused of terrorism and such.Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we add government claims to his article, then by the same token, we should add his claims to the articles of people who he is trying to prosecute.Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I am not totally against including these claims into the relevant articles, for the record I would state that the reasoning is faulty. If A must be mentioned in article B, this does not mean that B must be mentioned in article A.Jasy jatere (talk)
 * Additionally, we will also be forced to add his claims about the people who are bashing him even on his article. Unless we agree to that, then we cannot add government claims to his article. Watchdogb (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we maintain a distinction between the official opinion of states, and the personal opinion of people, which is general practice I presume, there is no need for this. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce Fein's statement is actually archived here. We can use that without any attribution whatsoever. Also, Mr Fien has warned that the Government of Sri Lanka will be sued if they continue to make allegations about him without evidence. I wonder how wikipedia will fair too Watchdogb (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also any addition of such material from GoSL to the BLP, will be met with much addition from this. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * calm down. Wikipedia is not a place for threats. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is making threats ? This is his defense to the said article from GoSL. So obviously there needs to me much addition from his response. That is general wikipedia rules. Also, can you not break up my comments ? Breaking up someone's comment gets confusing and messy and even I was confused about who made the comment. More comments will be made once my comments are put back properly. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, of course both should be there if we include it. That's how we maintain NPOV around here isn't it? We provide both sides of the story without taking any side. Both are verifiable straight from the original publications. Wouldn't it be something like "the gov. has accused bruce fein of x. These allegations were denied by fein, who in turn accused y,z of x."?  C h a m a l  talk 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is similar to what I proposed initially. However, my problem with this is that, while we can assume that a government website represents the opinion of the government, all the statements we have by Bruce Fein are from websites that do not necessarily represent his opinion, and are not reliable per se. Moreover, it is not actually a reply to the GoSL. The Statement of Bruce Fein responding to twenty five questions submitted by the Asian Tribune, is, as the name says, a reply to Asian Tribune. It begins with "The Asian Tribune, a notorious echo chamber of the Rajapaksa brothers reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda on behalf of the Third Reich, ...". I am sure that many would stop reading right there. (See also Godwin's law.) This does not sound like the defense of an American lawyer with 37 years experience in constitutional law against terrorism accusations by a foreign government. Instead, it sounds like a venomous rant. Using such a rant as a "defense" may rather harm than defend Mr Fein. This is why I brought up the question about reliability of sources for his statement right in the first place.


 * But I think we can close this discussion. Jasy found what I feel is a good compromise. The wording "The government of Sri Lanka has taken notice of these activities and expressed its discontent." summarizes very well all noteworthy and reliable facts we currently have about this. If someone finds a real defence, we will add it to the article. &mdash; Sebastian 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sebastian, I agree with what your saying. I also just saw what Jasy has written in compromise. I must say that this was a Great Job on Jasy's part.


 * Just an FYI, this is Mr Fien's exact words. This is archived under "Tamil's for Justice" which is the organization Mr. Fein is representing. Watchdogb (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

SLDR Violation of Tamil Eelam
has violated SLDR by removing cited material, without consensus, on an article that is currently protected by SLDR. This use has already been warned for violating SLDR - 1RR- and this is the second such incident. I believe this merits a block, but any remedy to stop any more such violation is welcome. Watchdogb (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the interest of focusing on content, not on editors, it would be better if you provided the actual link to the content that has been changed. I looked at Kerr's last two edits to, here and here and I don't see any removal of cited material there. Kerr is one of our oldest members. Like most here, he generally tries to do the right thing, but makes occasional errors. So maybe this is just an error or misunderstanding. Have you tried talking to him? &mdash; Sebastian 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have provided the link even before under "Materual" I was not explicit enough. The link is here. I did not talk to him because I do not feel it will ratify into anything useful. My earlier conversations with him ended in just more violation of BLP's and such. Watchdogb (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that really was an SLDR violation, and a warning would be appropriate. An experienced editor like him should really know better. However, his edit was not completely without reason. The recent events have led other, more considerate, people to ask if such sections in our articles should be deleted. Luckily, one of them asked about it at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
 * Until now, we just didn't have a good way to cope with this situation. People are too excited to find the time and the nerves to actually rewrite whole sections, particularly when they feel these sections have become irrelevant, so all they can think of is deleting them. I wish Kerr had come here to ask about it instead of following that urge. I could have helped him. For this situation, I specifically created the template Current-anytext, which can be applied on top of the section as follows:
 * That resolved the issue then, and I am confident that it will also resolve the issue in the Tamil Eelam article. &mdash; Sebastian 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That resolved the issue then, and I am confident that it will also resolve the issue in the Tamil Eelam article. &mdash; Sebastian 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the warning to Kerr though, I ask you not to warn him this time, for the following two reasons: (1) When I checked Kerr's warning of last August, I felt bad for him; I found that the handling of the incidence back then actually did not follow what I had in mind when I wrote Clarification of what 1RR means to us (S3). I regret that I left that section in such a complicated, inconclusive state. (2) The Tamil Eelam incident actually was not a deletion; it was a replacement, as can be seen from the next edit to the article. While that still is a major change that he should have discussed, one can at least see some justification for the replacement. &mdash; Sebastian 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving interval
(This was originally a reply to Jasy jatere's proposal of 11:30, 12 January 2009 to resolve the above discussion.)

Sorry, but not everyone can edit Wikipedia 24/7. School's starting so I've been pretty busy. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is required to edit Wikipedia 24/7. I think, five days are appropriate for a topic like this. It rarely happens that it takes longer for an objection to appear. AN/I archives its discussions after 24 hours. How about if we agree to wait a week from the first post before we archive a topic? &mdash; Sebastian 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean 7 days after the first post, or 7 days after the last reply? I would think the latter is reasonable. Also AN/I is the admins noticeboard. They would be expected to check Wikipedia more often. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 06:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ANI is not only read by admins, but also by many normal editors, and it affects non-admin editors often more directly. That said, a case can be made for taking more time, which is why we give ourselves seven times as much time.
 * Yes, I mean 7 days after the first post. If the discussion has been going on for a week, then of course we don't just perfunctorily archive it when time's up. Instead, we've always done it this way: We wait a bit (usually at least a day) before someone adds a tag, and then usually at least another day until it gets archived. I'm not proposing any change; it was a mere clarification of what we've already been doing. Even in the case that triggered this, it worked just fine - you saw it, and replied. &mdash; Sebastian 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, I couldn't reply for 3 days after the last post, so by these standards, the thread will have been closed as "resolved", which it obviously is not. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Snowolf, we're not here to indulge in your filibuster. The way this WikiProject handles its procedures is decided by its members. You have been invited several times to join. If you decide to remain outside, it is a logical consequence that you have no say in such decisions. &mdash; Sebastian 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Sebastian, I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to delay anything. I was just saying I won't be able to reply to every question within 24 hours. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, it is good we are talking but we are all volunteers here, we simply cannot stick to a rule when someone in good faith asks it to be opened. I am johnny come late here. What seem to be the problem ? Lankadissent (by the way which is not RS) or the 5 day rule. Kanatonian (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification, Snowolf. This is a modest wish. I think we can solve this unbureaucratically. When you are in this situation, just write something like "Please hold this for 3 days", and we will wait for you before we mark it as resolved. (We will have to figure out how to do that when we switch to archiving by bot. Any ideas?) &mdash; Sebastian 02:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After I just realized yesterday how confusing it is to archive resolved issues while making sure that they have been resolved at least a day earlier, I will from now on add a timestamp like this: &mdash; Sebastian 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

source quality of sangam.org
is this source reliable/partisan? It is used in some articles for LTTE military personnel. I think that the names given etc are factually correct, but I have no idea about the general quality of this site. Comments? Jasy jatere (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I Yahoo'ed for the name, and found the following:
 * "Association of Tamils and Eelam & Sri Lanka in the US"
 * "The Association of Tamils of Eelam and Sri Lanka in the US - This site provides a range of information on Sri Lanka including links to various United Nations reports such as the Report of the UN Rapporteur on Torture (Feb 2000) and links to a range of United States government reports."
 * "Indian students' association at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston."
 * &mdash; Sebastian 08:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It has to be attributed when used at the very minimum, if it contradicts an RS source then it cannot be used as we dont have assurance of third party counter checking of facts.Kanatonian (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, is it a QS or an unreliable source? &mdash; Sebastian 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on the material used. Sangam archives material from other sources such as government publications etc, then one may use it as a url provided they have copy right to the material or the material is copy right free. But directly quoting from Sangam is clearly not acceptable in most cases, unless the subject matter is uncontested such as Eugene John Hebert, if there is even an iota of conflict then Sangam cannot be used. I dont use it at all. 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanatonian (talk • contribs)


 * I just removed the tag, because this is only resolved when it is entered correctly in the . I was about to enter it, but this discussion has not reached a clear conclusion what should be entered there. From Kanatonian's reply, I seem to understand that he favors entering as a QS, with the attribution "pro-Rebel". Do I understand this correctly? Are there any objections? &mdash; Sebastian 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that sangam is reliable in the sense that they do not alter the information they archive. So if they, for example, this material can be directly attributed to TNA. Can we agree that it is reliable in it's archives - basically that we recognize that their archives are as is and has not been altered by sangam.org ? Watchdogb (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Sebsatian. If we use them as source of material that theu have copy right for is copy right free (such as the TNA press release) we simply use. For everything else unless the article is written by a previously published author, it is not RS. Like Blueboar would say everything depends on the context. Kanatonian (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sangam has some unique content that would be hard to find elsewhere. It's more of a gatherer of information rather than a source in itself (Kind of like Wikinews). In that sense, we should be able to quote most sources directly. For example, if we wanted to quote this article, we could mention the author of the piece (Gen. Mehta, a retired major general of the Indian army who has served in Sri Lanka), rather than Sangam.org itself.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then this can be resolved then ? Kanatonian (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Crimesofwar
I believe that this website is not reliable. It does not cited any of it's claims and it has not been used, to my knowledge and a quick google search, by any journal, news websites or any other reliable sources. Watchdogb (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearly reliable. See this. It is run by individuals who have been published by other mainstream publications which are known for fact checking such as Boston Globe. This will be covered under the self published portion of RS and verfiability. Kanatonian (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can this be resolved then ?Kanatonian (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

quality of sources: http://www.lankadissent.com
I find this site quite well-written and neutral in tone. Seems quite critical of Rajapaksa, but not necessarily pro-LTTE. I would find it difficult to find a good attribution for it. On the other hand, I also do not know, whether it is reliable, but I have not come across any gross misrepresentations of facts. Any ideas? Jasy jatere (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SL centric editors may no longer be as as free as before with their views because of the clear danger to them or their relatives. Also in Wikipedia people indulge in outing peoples identity so it is that much difficult to deal with these issues. Following are some write ups about the site 1, 2. So it is clear that it has an edior thus third part review of information that passes through hence can be argued that it is RS but QS at the very minimum. Kanatonian (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people think it's run by Mangala Samaraweera, who is strongly opposed to the President. They've denied it, but they've had reliability problems in the past, including a big conflict with the Daily Mirror so I don't really think we can call it reliable. Maybe if they do have an article with outsdanding information that isn't available elsewhere, we can say "according to the website Lankadissent.com ..."
 * well, being run by someone who is opposed to the president does not necessarily make it unreliable. Le Monde is surely opposed to the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, but that does not mean it is unreliable. As for "according to", that should be taken care of by . We could use attribution like "according to the pro/anti-XYZ website", but the question is what XYZ might be. Anti-Rajapaksa? Jasy jatere (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being run by a person simply "opposed" to the President may not make it unreliable, but a website that's run by a political party is hard to be classified as a reliable source. Le Monde is not run by a French politician.
 * tags take care of attribution? Really? The why do we use this QS thing? Why don't we just quote Tamilnet and just place ref tags at the end? If someone sees a paragraph and a ref tag at the end they're going to assume its factually accurate. Very few are going to check where it's sourced from. That's why attribution is required for non-reliable sources.
 * it takes care of attribution in standard cases, and replaces "according to XYZ". If there is a need to qualify XYZ, should be complemented by such a qualificatoin. What I was saying is that "according to XYZ" is redundant to, but "according to the pro-ABC medium XYZ" is not. I myself would not know how to qualify the editorial stance of Lankadissent, this is why I started this thread. WHy don't you make a suggestsion as to what ABC might be? 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talk • contribs)
 * Right now, I can show you multiple sources that questiont the accuracy of Lanka Dissent.      I haven't seen anything presented here that calls it a reliable source. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * to discuss your links in order of appearance
 * 1) does not have enough context. Daily mirror denies some allegations probably made by LS, but for an outsider it is impossible to evaluate what this is all about. DM is clearly upset about LD, but the article is so short that I would not count it as a source for any statement.
 * 2) Daily News reports that the ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Order is unhappy with some coverage of LD. Given that ministry's attitude to media, that article surely cannot be used against the reliablity of LD
 * 3) refutes a claim made by LD that Indian High Comission had stopped a raid. The IHC states that this was not so. While this is a factual inaccuracy by LD, it does seem to me that the issue is rather minor, as similar misreports about smaller incidents are found in many newspapers. It does not seem to be a huge distortion of the truth to gain political advantage.
 * 4) defence.lk says that some report by LD is wrong. The original source for link 2. Now, it is quite common for ministries to say that reporters are wrong, even more in the Sri Lanka context. This link proves that the government does not like LD, but it does not prove that LD is factually wrong (the fact that LD was down quite often in the last months would rather suggest that there was an air of truth to it).
 * 5) this is again a government website, which should not be used to judge media in Sri Lanka. I must say I have a hard time in trying to understand what this website wants to say. Could you explain in a bit more detail how LD is biased in its reporting as emerges from the website?
 * IPS = Inter Press Service. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 06:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, I do not get you. As far as this is concerned, the only thing I learn is that "LD is a popular news site"Jasy jatere (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how IPS is a "government website"? Which government are we talking about?
 * Sorry, I got the link wrong for IPS. IPS is not a government website, but it does not provide sufficient evidence for your claims of inaccuracy. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, since you seem unable to read the article, it says "‘Lanka Dissent’, associated with an influential minister in the present regime...". That would be Mangala. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * please remain civil. I am able to read the article, I can assure you. Being associated with a minister is not a reason for questioning accuracy. You have provided the link to IPS to "show multiple sources that questiont the accuracy". As of now, all the links you give are either from the government, or do not call into question the accuracy in a fundamental way. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) is the same as 5)
 * to sum up, the last four links are government-owned and can certainly not be used. The first one could be used to establish dubious practices, but it does not provide enough context. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I haven't seen anything presented here that calls it a reliable source. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC) -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [Off topic discussion deleted] Unfortunately, all the pages you give are either biased (defence.lk) or do not contain allegations of major inaccuracies. I think that point is clear now. There is a process for arriving at what sources are reliable at SLR. WP:BURDEN is for inline citations in articles. These things are different Jasy jatere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, looks like they've closed down now? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed. Is there any List of most media shutdowns in one week? Jasy jatere (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: The citation you give does not really shed light on the "big conflict". Is there more info available? Jasy jatere (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Google is your friend -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 06:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, your onus to prove that such info exists, not mine that it does not exist. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the Daily Mirror has an article about it, so it obviously does exist. Or are you suggesting they made up the whole story? I provided a link where they question the accuracy of a lankadissent.com article, which is all that I intended to do. If you want further backgroud, GOOGLE IT. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This site looks to be noteworthy, I only looked at it ysterday for the first time when Jasy jatere mentioned it. I agree with Jasy's comment on the reliability. However today the site only showing one message. -Iross1000 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
 * If it is shut down then that means the editor does not want to find himself like Lasantha Wickramatunga and Taraki Sivaram and many others. But like jasy says I am open to some description about the cite such as anti-XXX Kanatonian (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no more comments proposing what pro-X/anti-X attribution could be used, I propose to add lankadissent as RS. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving towards a conclusion
I think the passages above contain all the necessary evidence to judge whether lankadissent is a reliable source or not. Further discussion is unlikely to unearth new arguments. It appears to me that among project members, there is a consensus to treat lankadissent as a reliable source, although many also could live with an attribution of some kind. The only dissenting voice comes from snowolf, who has rejected WP:SLR. I propose to close this discussion as "Lankadissent is RS", unless a good attribution (Anti-Rajapaksa, Pro-UNP, Anti-Buddhist, what-have-you) is proposed and accepted within the next 7 days. In that case, the discussion should be closed as "Lankadissent is QS", with the consequences that entails Jasy jatere (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: The link to which Jasy points, is a rejection of SLDRA, not of SLR. Nobody has to join SLR to be taken seriously on matters regarding the SL conflict. &mdash; Sebastian 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like how you try to achieve "consensus" here. Happily Wikipedia doesn't work this way.
 * As for the above paragraphs containing "all the necessary evidence", despite me asking twice, I'm yet to see a single reliable source that calls lankadissent.com reliable. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia works this way. In SL conflict related articles, it only works this way. SLDRA was a motion brought forward by some of Wikipedia's best respected administrators (some of which have been elected as arbitrators). For us, this is as binding as an ARBCOM decision. &mdash; Sebastian 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you saying, that Jasy can simply decide LD is a reliable source, not provide a single source to back his claim, and ignore everything I said because I "rejected" this resolution? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [EC] You are right. So far, we have neither proof for its reliability, nor for its unreliability. We need to look into the criteria of WP:RS. In addition to the criteria ("caveats") listed at WP:RS, we usually discuss such questions as whether it has an editorial board. This hasn't been done yet. &mdash; Sebastian 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think anyone says who reads WP:RS and WP:Verifiability would say that it is a realible source. At the very least it is QS and we need to assure that when ever we use it and we should use it only when other clearly RS are not availble to attribute it such as according to Lankadissent... I hope this stops this discussion here. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, now the criteria become clearer. Above, Kanatonian has stated that LD has an editor, but now he seems to withdraw this assertion? Just curious... As far as the attribution goes, and I might be lacking some information here, in my opinion, explicit attribution only makes sense if we qualify the attribution. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Classes_of_sources, all the RS have attribution "none", while all the QS have some attribution "pro/anti-rebel". Should we add LD to RS, QS-anti, QS-pro, or UnrS? I could be convinced of any of the first three possibilities. Jasy jatere (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because other than having an editor and vague references to a group that is dedicated to truth, I did not find any references that it is more than a single man operation. Infact it may be fact checking but we have no evidence of it in others writing about it. In a way it is similar to Tamilnet but in the case of Tamilnet, we have an academic professor who wrote an article about it in an academic journal describing how it works and how it fact checks. That is what is missing from Lankadissent. So sorry, it is not RS and should be used very sparingly if at all used. Kanatonian (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowolf has suggested here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasy_jatere#Re:_Lanka_Dissent to use the attribution "anti-government". This is fine with me. Any comments on adding LD as QS with that attribution? Jasy jatere (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mirror
website
 * From LexisNexus
 * Mirror's independent editorial stand and its reliable and balanced presentation of the news have over the years, won for it the serious attention and regard of the people who matter in Sri Lanka and abroad
 * So I'd say it's a reliable source.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Kanatonian (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * this is also my impression Jasy jatere (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely RS, I think. IMHO, the best of the three in neutrality and reporting.  C h a m a l  talk 14:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Daily News
website
 * State controlled, but I think it can be used to cite most things. Their reporting is often biased, but they don't make up fake news. I think classifying it should depend on the context. For example if they're reporting that xyz won an election in Sri Lanka, they can be used as a reliable source. However if they publish an editorial critical of an opposition politician, we should say "the state-owned Daily News publication alleged in an editorial".-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Kanatonian (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * very good reasoning Jasy jatere (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I too, agree with Snowolfd4. Daily News is biased towards the government (being a government newspaper, of course) but they don't give false information.  C h a m a l  talk 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military
Well this SLR article is being edited in a somewhat of a hot headed manner. People are giving 24 hours to source after removing some questionable sources. I think the tone of editing needs to calm down but I have removed the questionable sources and left a Fact tag on them. I have also added under construction as I intened to now add more. People should let sleeping dog be :))))Kanatonian (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to remove a ref saying that it doesn't count because no page number is given? I'm confused about this - after all, page number is an optional field in Cite book. It is possible to remove uncited material of course, but is it possible to remove material that is cited by at least a source like this?  C h a m a l  talk 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the normal Wikipedia way to deal with this is to add either of the following:
 * Failed verification - if you looked in the book and couldn't find it. (Obviously, you're not expected to read a whole book. I feel it should be enough to look for a keyword in the index and for the topic in the TOC.) In that case, I'd say we can remove it after 48 hours.
 * Verify source - if you want someone else to look for it. In that case I would give it two months before removing it.
 * If a statement is potentially harmful, it can be removed faster. (Details at the links for the templates above.) &mdash; Sebastian 04:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again the damn edit war starts because of lack of proper citations. When writing such controversal articles one should keep in mind Snowuld4's favorite WP:REDFLAGKanatonian (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Akkaraipattu massacre
I created this many years ago. It depends on one single Guardian article soure that is urled from Tamil Nation. I am pretty sure it happened except I am not sure it needs a seperate entry. Untill someone can find others RS sources as well as the Micrfish of the Guardian source, Can I redirect it to the list and add one line reference to the Guardian article ?Kanatonian (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I found another source this Kanatonian (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can this be resolved, then? &mdash; Sebastian 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist
Aren't we using this anymore? No articles have been added since 2007, but there are new articles that have been created within the scope of this project.  C h a m a l  talk 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good observation, the articles created within the same genre but not protected by the blue box still enjoy the advantages of blue box protection. Because would be vandals know that the moment a revert war begins, one party or the other will bring it here and boom we have a blue box on it. I rather leave it as is (i.e 2007 list) and not add anything unless specific actions by persistant vandals require it. Kanatonian (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this resolved, or should we move this to our householding discussion? &mdash; Sebastian 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Householding discussion ? Kanatonian (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I meant "housekeeping" - WT:SLR/H. &mdash; Sebastian 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

more sources
moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources

Changing SLRDA
While SLRDA has generally been a great success, there has always been confusion about what exactly is meant by its 1RR clause. At first we tried to go with WP:1RR but there were huge confusions (partly because WP:1RR was in constant flux) which almost got some of our members blocked. To remedy this, Black Falcon and I proposed a number of different wordings at Clarification of what 1RR means to us, but none was entirely satisfactory. A month ago, triggered by some new confusion, I proposed above. That was much simpler, and since there were no objections, I was just about to add it to our project page, when the above case happened. Since Kanatonian got it on a good, safe track of discussion now, I think I'm not harming progress there if I use that case as an example. The person who did the reversion-like edit may have acted within the limits of the usual 1RR rule, but it was not what we intend with SLDRA. We want people to discuss instead.

This gave me an idea: How about if we specified WP:BRD as a minimum standard? The request of the blue box "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." is still a valid and good guideline, but it's not enforceable, since people will disagree on what "might be controversial". But if we added something like "Edits that do not meet WP:BRD will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal", then we would rule out situations as the above. The reversion-like edit would have led to a warning.

I also think this may be a good chance to iron out another point of confusion: While we host SLRDA, it is an agreement of a set of people that is different from our member list. We could now ask all signatories if they agreed for us to take ownership of the agreement by (1) updating the text at Agreement and (2) deleting the obsolete list at Signatories. That would change the agreement to a policy of our WikiProject, and would make it easier for such adjustments in the future.

Does this sound feasible? &mdash; Sebastian 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After writing below how important it is to have a justification for each added sentence, I realize that my proposal suffers from the same problem. I'm less sure now if the added sentence really pulls its weight. &mdash; Sebastian 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this would be too harsh (or weird). I'm OK with the present system. IMHO, before the first revert is made (or after) the editor who made the earlier change should be notified and their opinions taken into account. This explanation could be done on the talk page if it is something big, or else even on the edit summary. If the other editor has a disagreement, then they can express their ideas on the talk page. If they revert without discussion, they should be notified/reminded of the policy, and then it should be discussed with them before we set ourselves on fire. Sounds simple to me :) But if we are thinking of implementing this new thing, do we have any examples where BRD was used successfully?  C h a m a l  talk 13:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though you say you're OK with the present system, I read below that you agree with one of my two big concerns. I don't think you actually disagree with me that we keep having trouble with the 1RR rule as it is.
 * BRD has been used by many well intended editors, but it also has been misused; I'm just not aware of any statistics. I also admit that it has not been used for something like this before, so it is unusual - which I think you mean by "weird". But so is the whole blue box! It's completely natural that new ways to solve problems may do something unusual. What do you find it harsh about it? What do you mean by "before we set ourselves on fire"?
 * I don't disagree with your statement after "IMHO" - but I think part of it is so watered down that it's not helpful, and the other can not be enforced. Typical scenario: Someone removes a change with the summary "rm unsourced text". Now, that is a notification, but it doesn't take the opinion into account.  &mdash; Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:BRD is a technique, while WP:1RR is a policy-like thing. These are thus different things, and cannot substitute each other. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD defines itself as "a proactive method for reaching consensus". That's exactly what we need. WP:1RR is not a policy. It is a WP:PLEDGE or a rule for individual editors. It has no way to handle some of our biggest problems, such as tag warring or the "who was first" question you describe in the next paragraph. Because its repeated failures we need something that does what we need. &mdash; Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate clarification that 1RR not only refers to reverts, but also to insertions. So, if editor A adds content to the consensus version, editor B removes it, and then this repeats, I think the first person to fall under 1RR should be the "inserter" and not the "remover". Otherwise, there is an advantage to people inserting contentious content. For instance, someone could enter "Rajapaksa is supported by Nepal", and that could not be removed. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right! One of the biggest problems of WP:1RR is that it answers the "who was first" question exactly opposite to what would make sense! That was the main reason why I wanted to go away from WP:1RR. I am concerned that if we still call it "1RR", people will experience some unpleasant surprises. If you feel it still can be called "1RR" without creating too much confusion, then I'm for it. The one difference to my proposal is that your definition presupposes the existence of a "consensus version". That doesn't seem very practical to me, as any editor who changes a version naturally does not regard that version as a "consensus version".
 * consensus does not have to be absolute. BTW, I borrowed that term from "what 1RR means to us"Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point! The short answer is: I changed my mind, because it didn't fly. I think the reason for the lack of endorsement was that it was too complicated. It only works if you also supply the definition of "consensus version". I suppose that was too complicated for our members already; let alone newbies. &mdash; Sebastian 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that my original proposal actually didn't explicitly express my other main concern, about tag warring: I would like us to focus on edits, not on editors. Take this together with the "consensus version" change discussed in the previous paragraph, and I end up with this wording: "If content A is added without prior consensus, and is subsequently removed, then it is not allowed to readd A without consensus." Can we agree on this? How can we call this for short? "1RR V 2.0"? &mdash; Sebastian 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose to change "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." to ''"If your edit is reverted, it is probably controversial. Please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation before adding it again." '' This takes away the speculative nature implied by "might" and gives a clear guideline what to do.Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This introduces one additional sentence. The longer the message gets, the less likely people will read it. More importantly, please keep in mind that the blue box occupies the top place of each article - we need to have a very strong justification for each sentence we add.
 * I am not sure whether longer messages are less likely to be read. I would actually presume the opposite. I have developped a kind of "template-blindness", under which the blue box falls, too. My "subconscience" classifies it as "just another wiki template", and I really do not read them. If the box was a bit longer, that would disrupt the pattern. This is not a plea to make the box very very long, but I do not see the problem if it gets a bit longer.Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there is value in taking away the speculative nature, but I think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water: You simply take away any and all controversial edits, except for re-reverts. This encourages people to just throw dirt at articles and see if it sticks. &mdash; Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that logic escapes me, sorry. Under the assumption that we all watchlist the blue box articles, none of the dirt should stick. And if we do not watchlist them, then the whole exercise is pointless anyway.Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to change "Do not insert unreferenced text" to "WP:RS is enforced on this page. All unsourced content may be removed". This is a stronger wording, and makes a clearer case. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence does not only inflate the blue box (see above for why that's bad), but it actually can backfire: It sounds as if we want people to act as WP:EDITNINJAS. Let's keep it simple - there's just no clearer message than "Don't!" &mdash; Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no shorter message than "Don't", but I think what we want here is "Don't; and we MEAN IT". There are many "don'ts" in wikipedia, and it is normally safe to ignore them until someone catches you. I think that the SLDRA "Don't" should be a notch stronger than the casual run-of-the-mill wikipedia "Don't"Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, that kind of "don't" is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia on the basis that it is intimidating to newcomers or trying to own articles etc.  C h a m a l  talk 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would look very OWNy. But if the SLDRA has the power to put the blue box on articles, that is some kind of de-facto ownership. I joined this project after its creation, so I do not know very well how this blue box thing came about, but there seems to be some power vested in SLDRA to "claim" articles. While this does not mean that SLDRA should behave like described in WP:OWN, I do not think that adding more explicit wording to the bluebox would aggravate the structural issue of OWN within the project. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I think a guideline suggesting that people use clear edit summaries when removing content would be helpful. Then the inserter knows where the problem lies. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean, beyond just writing "rm POV"? I'd support that as a guideline for our members. Please start a new section with a proposed wording, and we can add it to our project page. &mdash; Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too think using a good edit summary would be the key to avoiding unnecessary complications. It's not exactly hard to type in an explanatory edit summary, and if it helps someone to think like "hey, this guy has a point" and urges him to discuss it instead of simply reverting it as POV or vandalism.
 * Now that I've followed the discussion between Jasy and Sebastian and reading through the page more carefully, I admit that BRD does seem like a sensible (but not perfect) method, and not "bad" as I thought before. However, I still think that what we really need is to refine the current methods a bit instead of introducing a new one. I agree with Jasy on most of his suggestions. But first shall we decide if we are going to adopt this new method or refine the old method, and then build our discussion upon that to make the necessary changes to whatever we use?  C h a m a l  talk 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your discussion here. There's a sad irony: I've been waiting so long for such a discussion to take place, and now that it's taking place, I don't have the time it deserves. I am very sorry about that. Since the two of you largely agree, I am retracting my opposition. I think we're not that far apart, anyway. We agree that there are problems with the current 1RR rule, and I hope we can agree on the goals of what needs to be changed: I will support any solution that addresses these goals. &mdash; Sebastian 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Change the "who was first" question to the opposite of the current 1RR rule;
 * 2) Prevent tag warring;
 * 3) Make it clear enough so that we can write it in the blue box and even newbies understand it;


 * I think we really need to do something about the edit summary rule. Take a look at the history of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on 14 February. A load of reverts, and nobody knows what has been reverted for what reason.  C h a m a l  talk 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this discussion has been resolved by the following subsection. &mdash; Sebastian 06:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple version: Don't re-revert!
After replying to the two cases below, I think I found an easy solution. We can simply call the rule "Don't re-revert!" and keep the details in its own page. I'll start at WP:SLR/Don't re-revert!; please, project members, edit that page as you see fit. &mdash; Sebastian 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds excellent to me. It will leave very little chance for edit warring with re-reverting not allowed. I don't think any changes are necessary. Revert wars might go on while the discussion is on, but this is likely to be very rare and we can get the page semi protected if it gets out of hand. Looks like a clean approach to me.  C h a m a l  talk 12:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point about protection. Actually, this rule would dovetail nicely with full protection, too. Full protection can work well in edit conflicts; see e.g. the mediation at talk:Chola dynasty, where the page was fully protected by another administrator before I was asked to mediate. In that case, I created a compromise version as a basis for the mediation. That is working well because editors who want the change are motivated to provide good reasons (in particular reliable sources) for it. However, creating the compromise version took several hours, and most admins don't have that time. The Don't re-revert rule solves that problem: It implicitly specifies which version should be protected (thus addressing the WP:WRONG problem). I added this to User:SebastianHelm/MedAd. Maybe we could also add it explicitly to the rule, so other admins know what to do when someone asks for protection at ANI. &mdash; Sebastian 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No objections, only agreement, so I will put it on our project page as a rule. We haven't explicitly talked about it here, but I will also add it to the blue box. I hope this is OK with everyone. &mdash; Sebastian 06:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding "Don't re-revert!" to blue box
I realize that I forgot something: The previous section isn't quite complete without also adding a reference to Don't re-revert to the blue box. I would propose to replace the text as follows:

This is just a suggestion; as per WT:SLR/H, I give preference to the opinion of other project members in such matters from now on. &mdash; Sebastian 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

List of attacks attributed ....
List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military has been shrunk by Gira2be (talk)  and the links I have created to the same article on Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Police, Special Task Force, Sri  Lanka Navy, Sri Lanka Air Force, Government of Sri Lanka etc articles have been removed by the same person. - 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iross1000 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for reporting this here. Gira2be wrote in most of summaries "not a RS as per SLR".  The right thing, as recommended at WP:SLR, would have been to add a Verify credibility template. It would have been good if Gira2be had done that instead of deleting, but it would also have been good for you to do that when you reinserted the text. Better yet, replace the reference with a reference to a reliable source.


 * In this context, I need to add that I am not sure why we have these sources as "unclassified" in our table. People have been adding sources there in a haphazard way, without a link to their discussion, or even without any discussion. I specifically wrote instructions for adding new sources, but nobody seems to be reading that. To be honest, I am fed up with this mentality, where people treat this project page as if it were a public restroom about which they don't care, and never clean up after themselves. &mdash; Sebastian 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * people are lazy. I think the process of adding sources should become easier. RIght now, one has to follow the link to find a multi-step instruction. I think this is too difficult (yes, I am very pessimistic about the cognitive abilities and commitment of people). I would prefer for people to simple add a line to the table if they have found a source. I volunteer to do all the remaining work (start discussion here, close discussion if consensus is reached, archive). Help by others would still be appreciated. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Iross1000, I see you have reverted the edits of that you mentioned above. I think it would be best if you dropped a not on Gira2be's talk page mentioning this, so that we can avoid any unnecessary revert warring.  C h a m a l  talk 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read it! I think I did it right. How is the source list table updated? I see discussion but the results never appear in the table.


 * I believe the underlying problem with adding the "list of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military" to the LTTE article is that it's not about the LTTE. The Sri Lankan military is nowhere mentioned in the LTTE article, except that the LTTE has attacked their forces and the army has attacked the LTTE. The list would support a new section in the LTTE article along the lines of "reasons for LTTE tactics", but the article doesn't have that yet. We need to hear from Gira2be. --Mtd2006 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do apologias for my mistake. However the revts I did was based on the notion that Iross1000 was engaged in biased editing that lead me to believe that Iross1000 was have some other motive than sharing of knowledge. This is due to the edits by Iross1000 on the following articles on the 13;


 * 1) Genocides in history ‎ (→Sri Lankan Tamils:  - Added a link.)
 * 2) War in Darfur ‎ (→See also: Added Lanka)
 * 3) Genocide ‎ (→See also: - Added Lanka)
 * 4) The Killing Fields ‎ (→Related topics: Added Lanka)
 * 5) Rwandan Genocide ‎ (→See also: - Adde Lanka)
 * 6) Armenian Genocide ‎ (→See also: - Added Lanka.) (top)
 * 7) Riots and pogroms in Sri Lanka ‎ (→See also)
 * 8) Allegations of state terrorism by the United States ‎ (→See also: - Adde Lanka) (top)
 * 9) War crime ‎ (→See also: Added Sri Lanka)
 * 10) List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military ‎ (→See also)
 * 11) 1987 Mass Suicide of Tamil Tigers ‎ (→See also)
 * 12) Politics of Sri Lanka ‎ (→See also)
 * 13) My Lai Massacre ‎ (→See also: - Added 1989)


 * Therefore the resent edits by Iross1000 must be checked.


 * As per the article List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military, the listed attacks of which is claimed by RSs, indicate that this were allegedly or claimed to have been carried out by individual members of the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. However it does not state that it was the Sri Lanka Armed Forces carried out these as policy. Several of the incidents were result of aerial bombing at the US it self states as collateral damage. Therefor this article it self is both misleading and offensive, providing a biased out look unfit for wiki.


 * Some of the attacks listed here are stated in the RSs that it has been claimed by the LTTE that the Sri Lankan military was responsible. Listing these will in fact, give authenticity to rebel claims. That is why I removed some.


 * Also two redirects leading to this article also created by Iross1000 are non natural.


 * Sri Lankan Army massacres (should be deleted)
 * List of civilian attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military (should be deleted)


 * Therefor I suggest that this article be renamed as Notable attacks on civilian in the Sri Lankan Civi war much like List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and claimed perpetrator listed along side the attack.


 * Finally I will remove from see also this link to this article from Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Police, Special Task Force, Sri  Lanka Navy and Sri Lanka Air Force. Since no mention of these are found on the article it self. But leave Sri Lanka Armed Forces and Government of Sri Lanka. I will re-add the link to the article List of attacks attributed to the LTTE since a similar link exists there and to Sri Lankan Civil War. I am also removing the link to  this page from the LTTE article too.

Gira2be (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the case List of attacks attributed to the LTTE article should be also revisited as most of the attacks in that article are not claimed by LTTE as they carried out the attacks, but accused by Sri Lankan Government. Notable attacks on civilian in the Sri Lankan Civi war may be created and joined by most of the lines from List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military. Only those should be left in [[List of attacks attributed to the LTTE are the ones claimed by LTTE that they carried out the attacks. Having said all that we don't want in a hurry go about deleting and merging until it is agreed by number of members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Let's stop the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, guys. That won't get us anywhere. The article List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military lists attacks that the military was accused of having carried out (as the name says). As far as the information included there is verifiable, it should stay. In a war, nobody accepts things they have done unless admitting it would help them to achieve their objectives. This is why victories are given a lot of publicity and losses suppressed. It is too much to expect if we think either the LTTE or military would say, "yeah, we attacked a non-military target at location x at time y, and it is totally our own responsibility and has nothing to do with the other side". As Iross1000 says, most of LTTE's attacks have not been accepted by them as something they have done. However well we know that they were done by the LTTE, they are still "attributed". Same with military's attacks, whether they were done by them or not, if it has been attributed to them by an independent and trusted third party, it should be included. If the attribution is only done by the opposing side, then this should also be mentioned.  C h a m a l  talk 13:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual I am in total agreement with Chmal_N. It is attributed and verifiable. Just to avoid these edit wars, I had informed Iross many weeks ago that he needs to only add items to the list that have at least two RS sources if not more. I prefer 4, but that might be asking for too much. There are many more to be added to that list fot what ever it is worth before this war is over. So let us all relax not violate anymore policies and guidelines including WP:STALK. The list should also include an area for comment. Kanatonian (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, you might want to actually read WP:STALK. It seems to have been changed since the last time I saw it. And I agree that the article should not have been added to all the articles listed above.
 * About the article itself, a problem I can see is our the names given for the incidents actually used by reputable sources, or are they made up by Wiki editors? I think we need citations for the names themselves as well, rather than just saying xx people were killed in y place. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is no names for an incident ( which may be the case for a massacre carried out by a country's military which is controlled by that country's government, the government controls the media and the incident info is supressed and possibly no name for it), is it not appropriate to give a name by a wiki editor provided there are neutral links exist supporting the incident but no incident name already ? All the articles listed in list of attacks....military.. does have valid supporting links. In any case a wiki editor will need an article name to write a major incident. -Iross1000 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC).


 * No, you cannot just make up a name for an incident. If there are no citations for the sources, the list heading should be changed to "location", and the articles should be suitably renamed.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK.

One other query, I still think list of ...military.. should have a link in Sri lankan army navy, air force STF etc articles as these units are part of military and there are incidents attributed to these mentioned divisions. (But I won't add them anymore) -Iross1000 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC).
 * It can be added to Sri Lankan Army, STF and pages like that just like attacks attributed to LTTe can be added to LTTe related articles. Kanatonian (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries
As pointed out in the sections above, the lack of edit summaries makes things very difficult to follow. Blank ES are not necessarily edit warring, they are just annoying to people who patrol the pages. I briefly thought about sth like "edits without summaries will be reverted", but this is obviously against the spirit of wp, where anybody should be able to contribute. It would be nicer to have some way to encourage people to use edit summaries. Can someone bring about a template one can leave on user pages, saying "Dear XYZ, we have noted blabla, of course you are a nice guy blabla, please do use edit summaries? "Jasy jatere (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up! I'm all for clear edit summaries! I've been nagging many a new member here about just that. I would support having this as a project policy, or encouraged pledge for our members. But maybe that's not worth it, as most of our members are doing that already. You are asking about a template for all users; such a template already exists: Uw-editsummary. &mdash; Sebastian 08:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

outsource list of sources?
The list of sources is becoming quite long. Would it be worthwhile to create a subpage for this? Jasy jatere (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good idea. Add a link near the top of the Project page. --Mtd2006 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, too. But one question: Do we want to just move the List of sources or the whole chapter Classification of sources? If the latter, then we could have two links to it: One in section Subpages, and one in Classification of sources, which then would only contain one sentence like: "See WP:SLR/Sources for recommendations for which sources should be used in Sri Lanka conflict related articles, and how to deal with biased sources." &mdash; Sebastian 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and BTW, we could also move the discussions about sources from this page to the sources talk page, instead of archiving them. From then on, we just wouldn't archive the sources talk page, which would mean that we would have no more broken links due to archiving. &mdash; Sebastian 08:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * this seems like an extremely sensible idea to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

moved discussion of sources to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources

Does this count as 1RR

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st Revert
 * 2nd Revert

It is 2 clear reverts of an article under the DRP. If this doesn't qualify, then we probably need to get rid of that section of the DRP. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The information is valid. Why are you deleting it? Remember snowolfD4, wikipedia is a NEUTRAL source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good example for why I tried to get us to agree on clear 1RR rule above. This would be a clear violation of any of the versions I proposed. Let me show this using the WP:BRD test I proposed:
 * Bold addition of text: - allowed per BRD
 * Revert:  - allowed per BRD
 * Bold readdition of text:  - not allowed per BRD ❌. Instead of readdition, Discussion should take place.
 * I am not sure how the people who disagreed with me would see this; I find their proposed rules rather unclear for cases like this. &mdash; Sebastian 06:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mahinda Rajapaksa
Some edit warring going on there. Might need a blue box. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Page:
 * User:

This user continously deletes valid information from valid sources like Amnesty International if they are seen as "anti srilankan army" or "anti sri lankan government" by him. This shows a disregard for the neutrality of wikipedia and possible an attempt at censoring information. Importantly, he's shown a disgregard for the policus of the WP:SLR interests in reconciling the difference. Second, he continously uses WP:BLP to justify removing genocide allegation information on the mahinda and gotabaya page, despite the fact that WP:BLP allows the writing of these allegations since they are widespread, recognized by the US, and the fact that Mahinda and Gotabaya are public figures and therefore allegations against them are allowed according to WP:BLP. I'd also like to point out that this use seems incapable of understanding the intricrite nature of wording certain sources. He takes allegations and words them as certain facts, as he's done in his article on the 2009 bombing in colombo. Further, he claims to "know" intentions of LTTE by comparing the bombing to 9/11, which was unwarranted and a blatant attempt to appeal to the victims of 9/11 despite the obvious difference between the events. Can we address this issue as a community looking for accurate reliable reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.241.78 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009


 * Please note that the above was written by by a biased Anon IP who was being edit warring, possibly a alias for another disruptive editor user:Marinecore88 whose edits show a similar edit content. The only solution IMHO is to semi protect mahinda's and gotabhayas articles for say one month, and ban [user:Marinecore88] .Kerr avon (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note here: I don't see how accusations made by anyone against his government, military or his brother are relevant to Mahinda Rajapaksa's biography article. These allegations could be included in the articles about the war and the Sri Lankan government. Only thing that is needed in the bio is just a mention of these under a section on his ruling of the country, and no details are necessary there since it is something not directly related to him. The details should be included in the articles mentioned above, with suitable RSs. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and we don't need to pile up articles with unnecessary stuff (whether POV or not) when there is a lot more relevant info that can be added.  C h a m a l  talk 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am Marinecore88, And I added valid information which complies with all the rules. I refute the request of a ban, Kerr avon has been doing the same thing as snowwolf4d. I did recent accidentally remove information by accident on "the allegations of state terrorism by srilanka page", however it was because i misinterepeted the previous user edit as having deleted the content, which he didn't (you can read my reason of the edit and put it together). I apologize for that mistake but It was a mistake. Further, I am not a disruptive editor. I gave reason on the talk pages for ever edit I made, against what seems to me as a misinterpretation of facts by editors. Snowolfd4 has conceded his arguement on the "sri lankan army" page to me by not replying to me on the talk page. He has NOT REPLIED to the talk page disccusions where I have proven my point, which is why i must revert the page rather than have a discussion on it. And My reply to chama, accusations against a president's administration do have a place in his page provided they are widely acknowledged and in a major publication (both true), not a detailed paragraph but a mention of it is vital to the nature. And please Kerr on and Snowolfd4, please stop citing WP:BLP and actually read the page please. You will releazie allegations of PUBLIC FIGURES ARE VALID if they are notable. Also these are ALLEGATIONS and have been worded as such. consider my arguements for my case rather than this name calling nonsense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 (talk • contribs)


 * Marinecore88, can you please provide diffs, as snowolfD4 did above? This makes is much easier for us to assess the situation. &mdash; Sebastian 06:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't so hard this time: It's the same situation as above:
 * Bold addition of text: - allowed per BRD
 * Revert:  - allowed per BRD
 * Bold readdition of text:  - not allowed per BRD ❌. Instead of  readdition, Discussion should take place. &mdash; Sebastian 06:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversial info has been re-added once more by. First, please note that just mentioning on the talk page and then re-reverting cannot be considered as consensus achieved through discussion. Before this readdition, it would have been best if you waited to see what others think about this, and then arrived at a suitable wording that is agreeable to everyone and then added it to the article. Otherwise, everyone can simply make a comment on the talk page and revert saying "your argument is invalid. please see my reply on talk page". Also, I've added the article to SLR since it was not included earlier (and therefore not under our guidelines/agreements?). Is it necessary to add the blue box as well, since the edit war seems to be still ongoing?  C h a m a l  talk 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Marinecore88 here again, thanks for the replies, My arguement is that it is not really an edit war, but me trying to revert what seems to me like vandalism, since the sources were valid (ICRC, Amnesty international, BBC), relevant and did not violate WP:fringe, WP:BLP, or anything else kerr avon and snowolf4d stated as i explained on the talk pages. However each time both users revert the entries rather than discuss them as I have asked. I had interpreted this as vandalism and again tried to revert to the valid verions but they just keep reverting it back. Further more snowolf4d i believe said that the gotabaya;s genocide allegations have no place on Mahinda's page, therefore I reworded the phrasing to refer to "a member mahinda's administration" as outlined in the sources and moved the other allegations to gotobaya's page. But now snowolf4d/kerravon still removed it from gotabayo's page. This was uncalled for. On the 2009 colombo attacks article i removed what seemed like a misinterpretation of sources (which may have been due to English ability-note this is not an attack but i'm trying to defend his mistake as an honest one) as I have argued on the page. Again Both kerr avon and snowolfd4 did not repond to the talk page and directly started reverting pages. Again kerr avon has recenty labelled the LTTE a "terrorist organization" despite the WP:terrorist which by no doubt we are all familiar with. He's also suggested banning me and suggesting I am a disruptive editor. I believe these two guys should be banned and have their contributions removed or reviewed with possibility of being bias (other users have voiced this opinion before about snowolfd4 before as well). I think i've made my case. thanks --Marinecore88 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest you stop reverting and try to discuss with these two editors. Shooting first and asking questions later never work; it should be the other way round. Until someone stops reverting and begins a proper discussion, everyone is going to keep reverting back to the version they prefer. Everyone sees the other as a POV pusher and reverts, thinking to minimize the damage and POV content added to the article. However, the other sees this as an attempt at POV pushing and reverts again. The never ending cycle of life? We don't need that here. There is no vandalism by anyone here, I believe everyone involved has just the honest intention of improving the article. But different POV of each person makes the meaning of "improvement" different to them. This again comes to the fact that we should discuss and come to a suitable conclusion that suits both parties. Go ahead and start it; if everyone waits for the other to start, it will never happen and the edit war will continue.
 * There is no need to ban anyone here. Nobody has disrupted Wikipedia in bad faith, and people are not banned for making a honest mistake. All the edits mentioned above have taken place because each person sees the other as a POV pusher and thinks that his editing damages the article. This in turn, is because of lack of discussion. Just try to keep calm and comment on the edits, not the editor. A constructive discussion cannot take place if no one assumes good faith.  C h a m a l  talk 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

militants and terrorists
P.S:I replaced several instances of "terrorist" with the neutral "millitant" on the LTTE article.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, that is interesting. The box currently reads "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." Did you overlook that? Or do you honestly believe that nobydy would see the change from "terrorist" to "militant" in more than ten instances as controversial? &mdash; Sebastian 07:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would be controversial, I thought the words were left over from the previous arguement that had yet to be fixed. The talk page says not to use "terrorist" and so does WP:AVOID. I will not reinstitue the change if it is questioned. I thought that not using "terrorist" was standard operating procedure. I do not condone the group,m but that's not for us to say. "Terrorist" is an anti POV in mamy cases, "freedom fighter" is a pro POV in many cases, "militant" is a perfectly neutral term AFAIK.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

as far as I can see, the change is in line with wp policy, cited by Ipatrol. Relevant passages in relevant articles should mention that the LTTE are proscribed as terrorist groups by many countries. As a standard term to identify them, I think "terrorist" should be avoided, in line with WP:TERRORIST.Jasy jatere (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein
This is a lawyer who might file charges against the GoSL. Some edit warring is going on in that article about whether this should be mentioned, and how extensively this should be covered. I was wondering whether a blue box would be necessary. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support making it part of the resolution. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. More precisely, all we need is a protection of that section. I just edited the blue box so we can do that using . That said, we need to bring that up at the article talk page.  &mdash; Sebastian 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the section: it has just been removed in an act of desperation. I would not want to reinsert the last version, since it contains the headline "Genocide of Tamil ethnic group in Sri Lanka", the connection of which with Mr Fein is not immediately apparent, and invites off-topic additions. Before reinserting it, I also want to strip that section of all off-topic content. &mdash; Sebastian 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa
Why the following should be deleted on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. RS supports the following content. Melienas (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

===US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities===

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge, filed with the US Justice Department by former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Fein. The 1000-page, 3 volume case has been submitted and is currently under review by the US Justice Department for 12 counts of genocide against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.


 * To answer your question: Please take a look at the edit summaries, which provide some reasons. To my other fellow members: This, too, is a case of an edit fight that would be much easier to solve if we had our in place. I urge you to take a look at it and provide your input and feedback. &mdash; Sebastian 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned text does not appear to be in violation of WP:BLP. —  C M B J   05:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to User:CMBJ and User:SoWhy's explanations, I have reverted User:Kerr avon's revert.Sobberrs (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a SPA, probbaly one of the banned sock puppets coming under a new name!. The aforementioned text is violating the BLP, because 1. It is described as "US allegations" which implies that it is the US government that is making the allegations, whereas in reality it is only bruce fein (who is on the payroll of the LTTE). That is why for example, every court case filed against the president of the USA is not included in his BIO. So the fact that this is just a isolated case filed by a single individual makes it not notable to be included in his bio.Kerr avon (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also to be mentioned that Bruce Fein is not affliated currently to the government and hence this is simply a case filed by a private lawyer on behalf of some interested parties (the ltte terrorist sympathisers). Hence it is not worthy. If the US Government were to take some action based on this report then it would be noteworthy. More about this bruce fein can be found here "According to our sources, a US based LTTE front organization that operates under a typical misleading name used by such outfits - "Tamils for Justice" has hired Mr. Fein to carry out character assassination campaigns against Sri Lanka's Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Army Chief Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka".Kerr avon (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Banned by whom? Come to the point. We can discuss here if we want to change the title. Washington Times on Gotabhabaya Rajapakse and US Senate Hearing on Sri Lanka Government Genocide *SHOCKING* will give more idea about him. If Bruce Fein is in the pay list of LTTE, why he was contacted by Senator Robert Casey's office (D. Pa.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia?Sobberrs (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all the cite that you used in gothabayas bio, is bruce feins own article hence it cant be used as a cite as it is not a WP:RS. Now lets take your cites, first of all, the sibernews based cite is misleading it is not "washington times on gotabhaya" but "Bruce Fein on gotabhaya" who *again* has written it. Also sibernews is a LTTE front end anyway hence the attempt at misleading the public. Hencce it fails WP:RS on several accounts. Youtube is not a RS. The last cite is a blog posting which is not a RS. Please find a reliable source to substantiate genocidal allegations against Gotabhaya instead of trying to propogate your POV of defaming a living person with wrong information.Kerr avon (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, here the FEIN: A genocide inquiry? on The Washington Times.Sobberrs (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again that is *feins own views*. And Fein has been shown below to be biased as he is been payed by the Tamils for Justice which is a LTTE front.Kerr avon (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted once more User:Kerr avon's revert. His (Bruce Fein) own article is used as reference is immaterial, because his work is recognised by Senator Robert Casey's office (D. Pa.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia. No more my comments or edits hereafter. I'm leaving it for others to comment. Sobberrs (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More about the "tamils for justice" which had hired fein . Please note "Pro LTTE groups such as Tamils for Justice" and "the Late Pararajasingam's son Subakath has now admitted to T4J that he registered the Thamils For Justice domain with the approval of Bruce Fein while he was in Toronto,".
 * Well i think that this settles the credibility of bruce fein and company, and shows that their is no justification to including the defamatory evidence against gotabhaya in his bio.Kerr avon (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you tell us the world should not trust or rely on the work of Bruce Fein who once served in the US Attorney General's Department, but the article of "SL to counter US Resolutions" by Mendaka Abeysekera, a Sinhala Buddist? Sobberrs (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

 * 1) The text cites an op-ed. WP:RS says: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." An op-ed can therefore not be used as a source for a statement such as "[the subject of this article] has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge".
 * 2) The op-ed does not say that "Gotabaya Rajapaksahad has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge". It only says that Mr. Fein delivered a model for such a charge to Mr. Holder. That is a huge difference. It is now up to Mr. Holder to indict Mr. Rajapaksahad. When that actually happens, we will surely hear about it in reliable sources, which we will include in the article.
 * 3) Since the model was delivered on behalf of Tamils Against Genocide, and since the op-ed reflects that opinion, it can be used both in the Tamils Against Genocide and in the Bruce Fein article.
 * 4) The statement "Tamils for Justice is a LTTE front" is untenable. The only source given for this is the SL department of defense, which is obviously on the side of the minister of defense and therefore not neutral in this case. The source itself only says "According to our sources", which is something we can't verify and therefore does not meet our standards of verifiability. &mdash; Sebastian 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I agree with User:SebastianHelm, I like to know the verification whether the following facts based on the article by Bruce Fein on Boston Globe are Bruce Fein's Own Opinion or he has only compiled various facts and figures on his charge against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa:


 * (Please check the wikipedia definition for Genocide.)


 * 1. .............genocide indictment against Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka charging violations of the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007. Derived from affidavits, court documents, and contemporaneous media reporting..........


 * 2. ............Rajapaksa and Fonseka assumed their current offices in December 2005. They exercise command responsibility over Sri Lanka's mono-ethnic Sinhalese security forces..............the creation of punishing conditions of life, including starvation, withholding medicines and hospital care, humanitarian aid embargoes, bombing and artillery shelling of schools, hospitals, churches, temples; and the displacements.........


 * 3. ............During the past month, a virtual reenactment of the Bosnian Srebrenica genocide of more than 7,000 Muslims has unfolded. Sri Lanka's armed forces employed indiscriminate bombing and shelling to herd 350,000 Tamil civilians into a government-prescribed "safety zone,"..................There, more than 1,000 have been slaughtered and more than 2,500 have been injured by continued bombing and shelling.


 * 4..............As a preliminary to the horror, roads and medical aid were blocked, and humanitarian workers and all media were expelled. During a BBC radio interview on Feb. 2, Rajapaksa declared that outside the "safety zone" nothing should "exist." Accordingly, a hospital has been repeatedly bombed, killing scores of patients. Rajapaksa further proclaimed that in Sri Lanka, any person not involved in fighting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is a terrorist.


 * 5.............The predictable defense of counter-terrorism will not wash. Not a single Tamil victim identified in the model indictment was involved in the war between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The lame excuse of defeating terrorism was advanced by Sudanese President Omar Bashir to a genocide arrest warrant over Darfur issued by chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo of the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor retorted that although Bashir's pretense was counterterrorism, his intent was genocide.


 * 6.............The State Department lists Sri Lanka as an investigatory target in the Office of War Crimes. The New York-based Genocide Prevention Project last December labeled Sri Lanka as a country of "highest concern."


 * Please check once more the wikipedia definition for Genocide.Cheares (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, since we only have this op-ed, these have to count all as his own opinion. If you could find any reliable sources for them, then you could add them. But it would probably be safer if you to stayed clear of the G.R. article for the moment; there are many other articles that need help., e.g. we have still one article remaining in our list at SLR/H. (Sorry that there's only the toughest remaining, the easy ones have all been taken.) &mdash; Sebastian 03:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

input for archiving bot
I think this needs more input from members. It is about an archiving bot for our project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Bot.2C_again


 * asked for bot to be set up Jasy jatere (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * bot set up and running Jasy jatere (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Usurper
There are recent TV programs (NatGeo, Discovery) that dispute incidents and figures like The Exodus, Noah's Ark,  David,  Goliath and Abraham and many more Bible stories and figures happened or existed. These science based programs mention that there are no other evidence apart from the Bible.

Similarly apart from Mahavamsa, is there any other item that indicate that Elara (monarch) is a foreign king ? He may have been born and brought up in Sri Lanka. In fact everything that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa should be checked and verified as it is written by few people possibly to promote their own political and religious interest.

I guess as times passes, the technology develops, Sri Lanka and India become richer, people become wiser and not-narrow minded, it is possible that one day truth will come out on all that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa.

Can a comment be added to wikipedia article on the basis that is in Mahavamsa ?

-Iross1000 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC).


 * I daresay Indian records are there. However, in every country history is mostly found and learned through ancient records. It's the same with all religions; Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, whatever. The only 'proof' we have are the records kept in those times. This is something accepted all over the world. All scholarly sources on these subjects are based on these records (unless it's through archaeological research, but you can't find everything through that). If some people believe this is inaccurate, that is their own POV. What else can we do to find what happened, go back in time? Anyway, please keep your POVs to yourselves guys. As you very well know, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums to hold casual conversation about anything.  C h a m a l  talk 02:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to bear in mind that wikipedia is not the place for wp:original research. There are other venues for that. And I can assure you that there are researchers who critically address what is said in the Mahavamsa and the Culavamsa. It is possible to report their findings. You can start here, if you have some timeJasy jatere (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

archiving bot again
User:Dycedarg, who could run an archiving bot for us, asks whether we want to stick to the archiving scheme we are using right now. I would suggest that we give up the thematic split into "general", "issues", "incidents". I propose that we use only a "general" archive for every year, which is split when it becomes to large (basically what we did in 2007). Any comments?Jasy jatere (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. The project is almost inactive right now, and only a few of us are editing right now. There's not much editing in the articles within our scope either. I don't think we are likely to get a large amount of discussions here, so this should be fine.  C h a m a l  talk 07:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

no opposition, hence I will ask the bot to take up his work. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * bot set up and running Jasy jatere (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute resolution
There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"crimes" of the LTTE
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam on how to phrase the involvement of the LTTE in violent acts. Additional contributors would be most welcome. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaffna kingdom
There is some edit warring going on there, I suspect that a blue box would be good there. Take a look. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Riots and pogroms article is currently biased
Why haven't the pogrom acts of LTTE and their supporters been included (expulsions and murders of Sinhalese, Muslims, even Tamils and others)? Minimally, there should at least be a link to the list of attacks attributed to the LTTE.

Can someone take the task of fixing that NPOV failure in a neutral manner.

It is extremely biased, untruthful, misleading, and incendiary to have such a one sided article against Sri Lanka. Johansosa (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not really sure which article you are referring to. Could you state that? There is List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE, which should include some of the info you are looking for, as is Expulsion_of_Muslims_from_the_Northern_province_by_LTTE. Sri_Lankan_Civil_War is not silent on that matter either. As a sidenote, pogrom is probably the wrong word for the acts perpetrated by the LTTE Jasy jatere (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Johansosa is referring to Riots and pogroms in Sri Lanka. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means add riots and pogoram that were instigated by the LTTE as long as we have RS sources calling them riots and pogroms.Kanatonian (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

LTTE article intro

 * OK gents what would be a better write up in the lead ?. Issues to keep in mind here is WP:PEACOCK, WP:LEAD and neutral language when even describing a violent organization. Kanatonian (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

for the record, the blue box states "do not insert unreferenced text". What I removed the second time was only unreferenced text. You cannot insert unref text (with a minor edit, I might add) and then call for 1RR when it is removed. First, you should not add any content at all with a minor edit. Second, you should not add unref content at all. But I think that Kanatonian is right that we should move forward. So, my edit explained:
 * "violent" is redundant, no need for that word
 * "wage a campaign", I thought it was a weird formulation, so I changed it, but google shows that it is used, so it can stay AFAIAC
 * "against Sri Lanka" One cannot secede 'against' sth, only 'from' sth. Furhtermore, the country is mentioned again later in the same sentence, which is poor style.
 * "longest running conflict in Asia" this is not so important and characterizing for the organization. No need for it to be in the WP:LEAD as far as I can see, but I do not have very strong feelings about that.
 * "Due to the tactics ... " This is an interpretation of why the LTTE are proscribed. This needs sourcing, otherwise it is POV. There is no source, hence removal. Even if sources are provided, I think this is background info and does not belong in the lead.Jasy jatere (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree about "violent"
 * "against Sri Lanka" is poor English
 * "longest running.." no opinion
 * "Due to the tactics..." procribing organizations is a political decision, not based on tactics alone. Mormon church is considred a cult in Germany (officially)  where is in the US it is a major religion. So simply state that they have been proscribed by so and so. Why is something readers have to figure out. Kanatonian (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we discuss all the changes, instead of a select few, and then decide what to do.


 * When talking about a independence movement, discribing the LTTE as violent is not is not redundant.
 * Its important to say who they are fighting against. How is "against Sri Lanka" poor English? The later mention can be changed to "north and east of the country".
 * One of the most used descriptions of the conflict is that it is "Asia's longest running civil war".
 * Why are they banned as a terrorist organization? It's important to explain that, rather than saying simply that they are banned. If readers have to "figure it out", then why do we have a Wikipedia entry at all?
 * One of the trademarks of the LTTE are the attacks it has launched.
 * It is important to talk about the future of the organization "i.e. that there are prediction that they are about to be defeated", however much people may try to ignore the fact.
 * The last part of the final paragraph was a direct quote from the statement issued by the US, EU etc. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * violent: I agree, there's obviously value in contrasting this with nonviolent struggles. I'd keep this.
 * against SL: Obviously, this is not just about language quality. But "Sri Lanka" can also refer to the Island. Maybe this could be worded along the lines of Confederate States of America: "secession from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka"?
 * longest running: "One of" is weasel language. This statement contains no additional information over the more exact "since the 1970s", which is given already in the text and in the sidebar. Given that the lead is already quite long, I'd leave it out.
 * why banned: Readers don't have to "figure it out". Just a look at the table of contents provides many reasons already, and there is a section for "Proscription as a terrorist group" that describes the reasons of individual countries. No need to add original analysis to the lead.
 * I'm not sure what is contentious about the remaining three bullets. &mdash; Sebastian 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "Sri Lanka", I think it's commonly understood that you mean Sri Lanka. Just like, if you Australia, you mean the country, not the land mass, continent, movie etc. We could say "government of Sri Lanka", but they aren't just fighting the government, they're fighting the people as well.


 * I understand the point about the peacock aspect of the workding, but most news organizations constanly use that phrase. eg: "President Rajapaksa said Wednesday that it would be just days before the Tamil Tigers were defeated, promising an end to one of the world’s longest-running civil wars" . That said, I wouldn't mind removing it, although I think it helps improve understanding of the scale of the conflict.


 * Understood. But I would prefer some sort of explaination, maybe "due to the tactics it has used, the Tamil Tigers are..."?


 * The last 3 points relate to parts of text that were removed from the intro. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment the fact that LTTE is fighting to regain independence lost when the British Colonials unfied the Sinhala Kingdoms and Tamil kingdom together in 1833. LTTE is not and never was a 1 man show. The founding of the LTTE was asked for by the TULF, Chelvanyagam. 1972. It was Chelvanyagam that democratically 1977 (Vaddukoddai resolution) asked for a seperate state and was not the idea of the LTTE but given to the LTTE.Pretheepan (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether this is true or not, we need reliable sources to include this information in the article. We can't just take your word for it, since articles need to be verifiable and neutral. If you can provide such sources, then please discuss about the addition of this info on the article talk page or here.  C h a m a l  talk 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest these goals for consensus; an intro that: 1) is immune to current events edits, 2) describes the LTTE as an attempt to secede from Sri Lanka by civil war, 3) explains leadership, goals, and history in summary. The idea is to give readers just enough about LTTE so that they'll want to read the article. I'm the guilty party; I tagged the intro as too long.

I support:
 * Yes, neutral language is important! I hope we can remove some of the passionate rhetoric.
 * hot-button terms like violent and terrorist organization (see below).
 * in the intro, a cold-hard-facts approach.
 * using Confederate States of America (CSA) as an example of a good intro for this type of article.
 * Strike "longest running...", etc. These points can be make in the article.
 * Strike "wage a campaign". The LTTE campaign began the Sri Lankan Civil War — simple and concise. Like "the CSA firing on Fort Sumter began the American Civil War".
 * avoid future events discussion in the intro.

The intro has detailed and redundant information. Child soldiers, terrorist organization, territory under LTTE control are mentioned too often. Can we pare down the intro to a description of the LTTE, its leadership, goals and —in the general sense! — its tactics? Yes! The Confederate States of America is a good example as it also describes a secessionist movement and civil war. Here's what I'd like to remove.
 * current events — should not be in the intro, reason: every new atrocity, peace gesture, territorial gain/loss, and statement by a government/international organization, etc., reopens the intro for revision. Current events also attract a collection of wikilinks and news citations that don't belong in an intro.
 * terrorist organization — two words that draw the most vandalism in the entire article are these in the intro. Can we make the point but avoid this hot-button term? LTTE can be called a secessionist movement that uses terror as a tactic (although, this assertion might be too strong for the intro).
 * violent — I would strike violent. Here's why. It's a hot-button for LTTE supporters. Moreover, a civil war is violence by definition and often targeted at civilians. The rest of the article makes this point. When the intro says the LTTE campaign began the civil war, violence is implied.
 * militant — like violent, it's not neutral language. It implies extremism and confrontational methods. The article makes a case for these assertions, but shouldn't the intro let the reader decide?
 * land area in km2 — too detailed and subject to current events. What's important for LTTE is the territory they're fighting to win, i.e., their goal is to control the Tamil-majority parts of Sri Lanka.
 * peace talks — someone always wants to end a civil war peaceably. The on-again off-again details belong in the article.

Copy editing would help to shorten the intro.
 * strike the second paragraph: these details are more fully discussed and better referenced in the article.
 * wordiness: for example, "from the Sri Lankan state" to "from Sri Lanka", "has developed into" to "began", "in order to create" to "to form", strike expressions like "over the course of the conflict" and "due to the tactics employed by the". It's sufficient to say LTTE has employed assassination and has targeted the civilian population if this allegation is essential for the intro. The article expands on this almost too much.
 * "secede from Sri Lanka" is clear since a civil war implies separation from the civil authority of a country.
 * strike or revise the fourth paragraph: currents events, slightly speculative.
 * in the intro, we should use either LTTE or Tamil Tigers. I prefer LTTE (300+ uses) versus Tamil Tigers (24 uses) throughout the article.

If we can agree on some goals like those I mentioned, that would be a good start! --Mtd2006 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the LTTE are widely known as a terrorist organization, and the intro should reflect that. It is not the purpose of wp to please everybody. If there are sourced facts which some people do not like, the solution cannot be to remove them. One could claim that terrorism is only a minor aspect and does not belong into the lead. I think that this does not hold up to scrutiny, it is one of the main things the LTTE are known for (one might think that this is the fault of Western media, but this is not to be judged by us). Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * agree about the removal of violent and militant Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * agree to remove km2 per mtd
 * Sri Lankan state is there to make clear that we are not dealing with the Sri Lankan island. Every time I read that passage, I get the idea that the LTTE want to create a separate island... Agree on the rest of changes Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete 4th paragraph, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * having both LTTE and Tamil Tigers makes for a more varied reading experience, and avoids repetitiveness.Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. This is exactly what I need. I volunteer to write a new intro for review if there's agreement on what's needed. --Mtd2006 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you got the basic idea of the intro wrong there. We aren't trying to sell a book or a newspaper. The intro is supposed to give a summery of information included in the article. There've been countless times where I've only read the intro of an article to get an idea of the topic. The intro isn't supposed to tease a person with information and make them have to read the rest of the article to find out what they wanted to know.
 * So the question becomes, if someone Googles "LTTE" and comes upon the Wikipedia article, what are they looking to find about the organization? I think they would want to know who the LTTE are, how they operate, and what their current status is.
 * I don't think "being immune to current events" is a requirement of the intro. Such a guideline is not stated anywhere in WP:LEAD. In fact, is says "...should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist'' (present tense) The current status of the LTTE is one of the most important points of the article.
 * Sure if you describe a group which ceased to exist in 1865 it will be largely immune to change. But the LTTE is a . And the current phase of the conflict could well decide their ultimate fate. If the LTTE are defeated, 20 years from now a significant part of the intro will be devoted to covering what happened during the 2006-09 offensive. Back to the CSA article, paragraph 3 is solely about its ultimate fate. The intro of an article about a say Lehman Brothers describes who they are and then details what happened to them. The latter part changed significantly during mid-2008 as they went through the phases of bankruptcy.
 * About the rest of the intro, the LTTE is involved in a violent struggle, and they are a militant organization. They don't want to achive their goals through peaceful protests. Those aren't assertions, they are facts. That's like saying person X pointed a gun at person Y and fired. Y died due to gunshot injuries. So we should leave it up to the reader to decide whether X killed Y. That's not the case.
 * There hasn't been continuous fighting throughout the last 25 years, and that's pointed out in many articles arbout the conflict. And no, not every conflict has seen unsuccessful peace talks to end it.
 * Saying stuff like "longest running" help establish notability of the subject.
 * And if the concensus is to not include the specific area under their control, we could of say something like "they have lost control of 98% of the territory they control", because that is an important aspect of who they are now. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 12:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snowolf that the lead should summarize the article, and give concise answer to the questions who, where, what, why, and maybe some others. Maybe a wholesale rewrite is a better approach then piecemeal editing, which will be reverted anyay. So, if mtd wants to draft an intro privately and then offer it for discussion, he has my support. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we also need to add why they are fighting. i.e. they feel they've been discriminated against... -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MORALIZE and WP:TERRORIST, we do not need to assert that the Tamil Tigers are a militant terrorist organization. It is thoroughly implied by facts (e.g. terrorist status in 32 countries, suicide attacks, child soldiers) alone. Despite the fact that Al-Qaeda is often viewed as an epitome of terrorist organizations, its intro does not contain a similar POV assertion. —  C M B J   07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it is the LTTE which is the epitome of a terrorist organisation which pionered suicide bombing, developed the first air wing of a terrorist organisation etc. Al-qeda etc learned it form them. The intro mentioning that it is a terrorist organisation is valid as most unbiased people and countries have classified it as such.Kerr avon (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparable articles including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, and PKK do not use the descriptor terrorist. While I understand that this is a controversial and sensitive subject, we are obligated to maintain an unbiased viewpoint. The neutral presentation of facts alone has an unprecedented ability to convey the true character of any individual or organization. Additionally, unless this article intends to ironically secede from relevant NPOV policies such as WP:MORALIZE and WP:TERRORIST, there must be a unique rationale to justify the use of a potentially biased term.


 * Pursuant to the the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, I have performed a single revert on the aforementioned text, and would like to recommend seeking NPOV/N or RfC should any discrepancies remain. —  C M B J   02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

 * The LTTE is rarely described as a "paramilitary" organization. They are much more frequently known as rebels, militants or terrorists. So while discussion on whether to call them "terrorist" or not can continue, I changing the text to refer to them as a "militant, Tamil Nationalist" organization.
 * Also, when quoting Wiki policy, such as WP:TERRORIST, you might want to read the policy in full first. In this case, for example, Al Qaeda is called "extremist", which is mentioned as been similar to "terrorist". Also, "militant" is said to be an acceptable term. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Irregardless of whether or not the majority of biased sources refer to them as terrorists, those who support them likely view them as freedom fighters. We can't call our view neutral if we pick sides. If it is any consolation, you don't even need to call them terrorists, as it is blatantly obvious that they fit that description from the majority viewpoint. See WP:ENEMY and WP:MORALIZE for some positive insight.


 * It still is notable that the LTTE maintains a paramilitary force, as described elsewhere in the article. Also, use of the peacock term "violent" may be interpreted as a negative narrative tone, and is redundant if militant is kept.


 * All things aside, Tamil Nationalist is a worthy descriptor that fits in perfectly. Cheers. —  C M B J   22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well first, can you please read the discussion above about why it is suggested that some specific terms are included in the intro. I've explained, for example why I think we need to include the word "violent" in the intro. "Violent" incidentally is not a peacock term,. Again, WP:PEACOCK if you need an explanation of the policy.
 * The sources provided to cite the "terrorist" wording are not biased, unless PBS somehow became the propaganda arm of the Sri Lankan government. I'm doubtful that you can find similar highly reliable sources that directly call them freedom fighters.
 * The LTTE are not referred to as a "resistance" movement by exceptional reliable sources.
 * And about the Tamil text, could you please provide a policy that says we need to add local languages and their IPA translations into articles on the en wiki? I honestly don't think we do. Anyone who wants can scroll down to the other languages link. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Peacock terms are generally flamboyant and/or sensational. WP:PEACOCK focuses mostly on positive terms, but the same logic could presumably be applied to similar but contentious terms. Since it does not directly deal with the subject, it may have been an imperfect citation on my part, so I do apologize for the misunderstanding.


 * PBS routinely displays an exemplary level of neutrality, but nonetheless, pejorative use of the word terrorist may constitute a potentially compromised viewpoint from an absolutely neutral encyclopedic perspective. It is my understanding that there is a widely established consensus that we should avoid using words that could be interpreted as having negative connotations when at all possible.  Substantiation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.


 * Regarding the translations, I'm not entirely certain that they are (or aren't) within the scope of any active policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), a proposed guideline, may be the most closely related manual of style. —  C M B J   05:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation needed?
Since we have half a dozen different issues here, it might require mediation. Since I have off-Wiki obligations, I'd be very happy if you could resolve this among yourselves. But if you feel you'd like to have a mediator, then I'd be happy to support anyone who wants to step up to the task. If nobody can be found, then I would be able to make some time for this. Here's the deal: I'll help you with this, if you guys take over the chores that I have done in the past - see WT:SLR/H. &mdash; Sebastian 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that the discussion is going on well and does not seem to come to a standstill with hardened fronts. Will see whether we will get to a point where things really heat up, and mediation would be required. As I see it, there is still some margin, but thanks for your offer ;-)

Jasy jatere (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in the Geography section
Change to "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (7 °F) to 7 °C (13 °F). " From "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (39 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)."

Reason: Temperature variances are not absolute temperatures, they are a plus or minus from the norm.

Atlcarl69 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Poverty
About 40 % of the population live of less than US$ 2 a day. Source http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf This fact should be entered into Sri Lanka article. Sarcelles (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to enter this into the introduction. Sarcelles (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

re-revert by snowolf
Snowolfd4 did a controversial edit to the LTTE article. I reverted this and Snowolf undid my reversion. This is a clear breach of the 1RR rule  in the interpretation of SLR, which applies to the LTTE article as the blue box shows. Removal of references is not good style either.

As an unrelated complaint, I would really appreciate if Snowolf adhered to WP:MINOR instead of marking deletions like this one as minor. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's controversial about that edit? I'll like to know. You reverted back to an outdated version that has large scale errors ("...limiting the Tigers to a 1.5 km2 area in the Mullaithivu District."... that's from 2 month's ago), bad grammar and duplicate sentences.
 * Also, if you want to play the "omg he violated 1RR" game, it means don't make more than 1 revert. I made a set of changes, and a revert. You made two reverts. You violated 1RR, not me.
 * But seriously, if you have nothing better to do than mess with other people's editing, please go somewhere else. The intro was outdated and no one bothered to fix it since I don't know I long. I update it, and you revert without any explanation. Please, please find something more constructive to do on wiki. If you want to make real changes, by all means go ahead, but don't revert just for the sake of it.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't people learn to get along? Snow made changes w/o discussion, you rv'd, he rv'd, you rv'd again. Does the 1RR in SLR policy allow for rv'ing by you here more than once, to restore back to a discussed version?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but hopefully we can start discussing the lead section, and the flurry of reverts has stopped. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we hold the discussion about the lead section here? Would it be ok to start discussing whether the LTTE should be described using the present or past tense? PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather discussion takes place here. Not everyone watching the LTTE article watches this page.
 * Also, present tense. They still exist as an organization. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to discuss this here. This is a centralized place for discussion. The results will affect a number of articles.Jasy jatere (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, the SLR-1RR-rule is exactly thought to cover these issues. It is the onus of the "changer" to discuss things, not of the "restorer". The blue box says "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation". My main objection was the removal of the Tamil name of the LTTE, which I could not undo (and which was marked as minor). The removal of "excessive references" should probably also be discussed beforehand. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider removing references which are no longer used "controversial". As for the Tamil text, I'd like to see a policy that says foreign text is required for organizations with English names. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the LTTE logo, it very much appears to me that this organization does have a Tamil name, next to the English name. In that case, one should mention that name, and transliterate it for readers who do not know Tamil script. Comparable cases are CPSU or PASOK. It might not be a must-have for the article, but there is certainly no reason to remove it. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you have any links to specific policy? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the basic purpose of an encyclopaedia to provide knowledge. There are some pieces which are not included in an encyclopaedia, like libelous statements, or irrelevant facts. The name of the organization is relevant by any standards, and should therefore be included. I cannot see any reason to not include it. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the page you are quoting? It refers to deletion discussions, which is not what we are dealing with here. There are still some bits which are interesting, especially OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I have shown, there is a precedent in usage for PASOK, CPSU, or even Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna to take a geographically closer party. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You know very well what I meant by linking to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, have you tried reading the discussion above? Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna is a Sinhalese name. The Indian National Congress is an example of a organization with an English name.
 * None of this really matters though, unless you can show me a guideline which says names from other languages should be added to Wikipedia.
 * In any case, since no one has brought up any other objections, I'm going to keep the Tamil text, and move to the updated intro. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you mean with the refs. I was mislead by "excessive", which I interpreted as "too many". The intended reading was "obsolete" of course.Jasy jatere (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. You didn't bother to look over the changes before reverting. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replaced 'terrorist' with 'separitist', in accordance with WP:TERRORIST, and numerous discussions on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you had enough time to object to the use of the word in the proposed intro. You now made a "controversial" change to the article, without discussion, which is not permitted by the SLR resolution. If you have a problem, bring it up here. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought you were talking about updates. Since you prefer the discussion to be on the article talk page, I'll post there. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'll rather keep the discussion in one place. In the future, I suggest we have discussion about particular articles in the article talk page, and discussion that affect more than one article here at SLR talk. In either case, we should leave a link at the other location pointing to the discussion. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion - List of commanders of the LTTE
Please vote.

Articles for deletion/List of commanders of the LTTE.-Iross1000 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC).