Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/incidents 1

Edit warring, I have got it fully protected for 2 weeks, now we can talk abaout it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version was really the WP:WRONG version! It transcluded a page in a user space,, rendering the protection worthless. While I admire the ingenuity of this idea, it is obviously gaming the system. I reverted the page and issued a warning on the user's talk page. I will also add that warning to our list WP:SLR. &mdash; Sebastian 07:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No amount of admin action is going to resolve this issue of flags. Only way out is, discussion, discussion and discussion and if it fails then mediation and if it fails then arbcom. I hope the aprties are ready for a long haul on this issue. It is because both the positions using no flags and or using both the flags are wiki legit. Taprobanus (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE
Renaming from Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been proposed here. &mdash; Sebastian 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed Taprobanus (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose to rename the article to Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Tamil Tigers. The LTTE is widely known as Tamil Tigers now. Supermod (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With categories, the general convention is that the title should match the main article (see Naming conventions (categories)). Also, while "Tamil Tigers" is a widely-used alternate name for the LTTE, "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" is still the official name. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of questionable edits in conflict related articles
here,here and here
 * Removal of cited material

here in Black July article
 * Adding non cited personal opinion

Before it becomes a problem, I would want some admins to rule on it and inform the newbie or the oldie:))Taprobanus (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this user has been around for a year. Were eir previous edits all OK? I wrote a warning on eir talk page, though. &mdash; Sebastian 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Artile Human Rights in Sri Lanka does not display a warning as saying it's protected under this project. So i dont think i'm violating anything (1RR) related to this project on that particular article. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Oh, yes, you're right. Sorry about that. &mdash; Sebastian 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above user has removed material backed by RS here and twists what RS claims here. Watchdogb (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please let's not beat a dead horse. The user has been warned, and has stopped doing it. The changes you cite have already been reverted. It's time now to focus on content. This is already happening in the discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka and other sections. We can therefore close this incident as resolved. &mdash; Sebastian 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about an edit
Please see this where contrary to WP:LEAD, summary information has been removed but the edit summary says misleadingly that information has been added. SLR has already warned this editor previously. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would consider blocking, but I have never blocked anyone, and I don't want to do that in a rush - I need to go to work now. And it's a bit of a special case, anyway, because we don't have an entry for this editor in our list of warnings. Last week, I was just starting to add the editor to the list when ey made me aware that I made a mistake in my warning. Therefore, it is appropriate to just give em another warning for now. Could you do this, please, this time? And please enter the editor in the warnings list. &mdash; Sebastian 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅Taprobanus (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with newbies
Newbies ususlly get involved in conflict related articles. Please see User_talk:Pumaaa123. I would like to bring to attention the interactions of editors keeping in mind WP:BITE. Are we being helpful or hounding the guy out of Wikipedia ? Also do |preceeding four edits qualify as WP:VANDALISM to be able to use anti-vandal bot? Also his edits |1, |2 edits have been summarily removed. Agian, is this the way to deal with conflict realted articles, can we just remove the citation if it fails WP:RS or move it to talk page as per convention ? thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question! This is indeed a dilemma: While we don't want to bite newbies, we need to care about the integrity of our articles, too. If we make it too easy for newbies, we will encourage people to push their POV by disguising as newbies. I'm not sure if that's the case for the editor you mention, but I would like us to keep that dilemma in mind.


 * Regarding the specific case you mention: There was not just the revert of four edits, but also one of three edits before that. Those three edits were clearly not vandalism. After that first revert, the user committed real vandalism, such as removing the blue box. This may have been a knee-jerk reaction to inappropriately being called a vandal the first time. We don't want such escalations here; maybe we should officially warn both participants of that escalation. Pumaaa123 has already been warned appropriately. Normally, I would say both warnings should be entered in our list, but since Pumaaa123 was not listed, we can make an exception and give both a rain check for now. &mdash; Sebastian 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at edit patterns, you may see that there seems to be no clarity as to when to use anti-vandal bot as couple of more instances of potential misuse can be noted. What ever is happened is past, but what is more important is that such biting of newbies does not take place in the future along with potential misues of anti-vandal bot. Hopefully we can reiterate it it in SLR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:BITE does not apply here. What fueled the escalation was the abuse of the anti-vandal tool on Lahiru's part, and the subsequent actual vandalism on Pumaaa123's part (as if wanted to prove that Lahiru was right!). WP:BITE is only a guideline, not a policy. Of course it does not and can not forbid using the anti-vandal tool just because an editor is new - that would rule out most vandals! A much better rule to go by is the rule for the tool itself, which says it can only be used for vandalism - and we have a clear definition for that. Nobody ever claimed that Lahiru has a pattern of biting newcomers, but, as you just said, he may have a pattern of abusing the tool. If that’s the case, we need to do address that. Therefore, can you please explain which instances you meant? &mdash; Sebastian 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When I first saw Puma's edits, I went through his talkpage plus his contribs and noticed that he was warned by me 14 November 2007 for removing the word "militant" from the Tamil Eelam page (this type of edits are typical and I have seen more than 500 similar edits from IPs and from fresh accounts replacing "rebels/militants" with "freedom fighters" as well as with "terrorists"...).


 * Along with his 3 edits on Black July page I have reverted two more edits from this user on Pandara Vannian and on List of rulers of Sri Lanka which can clearly be taken as typical vandalism by anons and freshmen as I said above. When taking his 1st 3 edits on "Black July" INDIVIDUALLY it can be clearly identified that it is pushing of bias and hatred towards the Sinhalese people and Sri Lankan Government which is a clear violation of WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and of course WP:VANDALISM. So I revert his all edits ("Pandara Vannian" and "Black July" within a minute and "List of rulers of Sri Lanka" two mins later) and also gave ONE Level-2 warning.


 * On the three reverts I have properly explained the policies which are getting violated by User:Pumaaa123 in my edit summaries and gave a Level-1 notice to him to get an idea about our policy on external links. Also I recommend Taprobanus to have WP:TW on his monobook just to get an understanding about this troublesome tool without making any further fusses.


 * I am an anti vandal since December, 2006 and i have a fairly good knowledge about identifying and reverting vandalism as well as about the procedure of issuing warnings to the users (levels and templates). Also this WP:TW is just another java script (it's not a bot) on reverting edits and there are many tools which are more powerful than this one. For example VandalProof which I use sometimes. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record: I had replied to Lahiru by e-mail, basically saying that these are just excuses. The facts are clear and simple: Lahiru used an anti-vandalism tool for actions that were not the reversal of vandalism. I had hoped Lahiru would simply acknowledge that he made a mistake, which would have allowed us to move on. Sadly, instead of responding, Lahiru chose to come here for this. I only can take this as a sign that Lahiru is not willing to use the tools he has responsibly. It is therefore my sad duty to officially warn Lahiru. &mdash; Sebastian 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE
This article was merged to Attacks attributed to LTTE and now someone decided to move it. Can an admin please move it back to the version that was achieved after discussion. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? There are no logs for that redlink. &mdash; Sebastian 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I meant List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. This is now leading to List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE because someone moved it. However, months of discussion lead to the merge to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. Watchdogb (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. That was clearly against the agreement, since the moving editor did not bring it up here. However, I'd like to better understand the situation. I don't see "months of discussion". Moreover, it seems the discussion last year ended with an agreement to keep two articles. Am I misunderstanding that? Usually, I would say the moving editor deserves a warning, but since I'm confused myself, I'm assuming good faith by assuming that the moving editor was confused, too. &mdash; Sebastian 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By months I was counting instances of all argument about the move/merge of the article. Though the discussion last year ended with a different result than the one achieved, it still counts as discussion nevertheless. Furthermore, please do not misunderstand situations. The fact of the matter is that we did discuss about this article a month ago. There it was decided to merge the article and even a users move of the page was reverted and commented by an admin. I could not provide a link for this as all these moves has seemingly lost the talk page of the article Terrorist attacks attributed to LTTE. On a side note, I do not think a warning is necessary but a friendly note on the user's talk page could save us time in the future. Watchdogb (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Same user has moved the page again. Can an admin take care of this mess ? I was opposed to a warning to this user but now it seems that it is time for a stern warning. Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I decided to make the move myself. However, I request a warning for any such action by the user on the basis of revert consensus version to non-consensus version. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course! I'm sorry, I overlooked your reply here. I agree completely, if I hadn't overlooked your reply I would have done exactly as you said. It's not so easy in Wikipedia to see why a page was moved, so there is a chance that Dutugemunu just didn't see the move summary and this discussion. I will write a warning on User talk:Dutugemunu now. Next time, please feel free to write a warning in such cases. &mdash; Sebastian 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think your message is more appropriate than a warning. Warning might get emotions going whereas a friendly note will only make people understand. Watchdogb (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your understanding! I know others who would have said "this is already the second occurrence, now it's time for some action!". I'm not making this up, there was one person who left the project because I was too lenient for in a similar case. I now feel sorry that I did not give you that same courtesy of a friendly note, when you had a bad day. Moreover, I am moved by how you took care not to make this a personal issue, but just reported the content related facts, for instance by avoiding the name of the moving editor altogether. You really incorporate what we wrote into our name: Reconciliation. Thank you for that! &mdash; Sebastian 07:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A barnstar ? :))))Taprobanus (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He has really improved since that bad day, but it's maybe too soon for a full flower. I therefore just created the Sri Lanka Hope Award as a sign of appreciation like our flower, but also as a sign of hope. Every member can present it without having to get approval from the whole project. If he is consistent with this good spirit, then we should present him the full grown flower. For now, I will be happy to present the first tea bud to Watchdogb. &mdash; Sebastian 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent Taprobanus (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Tamils (Indian origin)
In the above mentioned article I reverted this [version] because the entire section such as on Malabar Tamils (Synonym for Sri Lankan Tamils) have been added without any RS sources and its is WP:OR to begin with as the Sri Lankan Tamils article does not even mention anything like that. The editor writes that Malabr Tamils were brought to Sri Lanka as indentured workers, which is untrue and it is commonly held view of extreamists in Sri Lanka given the civil war. It is not the view of mainstream acadmemics such K. M De Silva and K. Indrapala amongst others who have written well researched academic books on this very subject. I have reverted such OR as well as what I think is off topic material per WP:TOPIC, because the article is about Indian Tamils in Sri lanka not about the justification of removing their voting rights. That should be dealt under a seperate article on Ceylon citizenship act I have also removed a non RS source per SLR consensus (see here}.It claerly fails WP:RS.Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Malabar Tamils
 * Sri Labkan citizenship act
 * Non RS website source removal

New article
A question about this article, TamilNet.tv, It is somebody's personal pet project and a blog. It fails WP:NOR and sure will not have any WP:RS sources. I suggest it to be speedily deleted per CSD. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up problem
Once the Tamilnet.tv article was speedily deleted, the author has gone on to vandalize Tamilnet article by replacing the legitimate URL address with the url address of the blog site. See here. Need to edit protect the article and warn the user. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This contains two requests:
 * Warning the user. Any user can warn other users. The only difference here at SLR is that we keep track of such warnings in the table on the project page. Any member can do that. The case you're bringing up obviously deserves a warning, so just go ahead!
 * Including the article in SLDRA. This is an important change for anybody who wants to edit the article, especially now that we extended SLDRA to 12 months. Therefore, we need to alert editors on the article's talk page, as I did here. Then I would wait at least a week to see if there are any objections. We will check if there are any objections, and if edit warring resumes during that time, and then add the blue box accordingly. Sounds good? &mdash; Sebastian 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. If this action continues, I would kindly ask an admin to provide another warning. Watchdogb (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sebastian, can you please provide a soft edit protection on Tamilnet. By soft I mean that IP's cannot edit this article. Taking a look [here] the article has been vandalized too many times from IP address. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you seem to be asking for semiprotection, rather than for what I call "soft protection" - our WP:SLR/bluebox. Unfortunately, it really seems like we need semiprotection. I will protect the page for two weeks, after which time we can change it to the blue box. Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see here. You have to hard protect the article and deal with the editor. We need Admin help to resolve it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem continues.
 * User has been blocked. Sebastian (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1RR violation
A user has violated 1RR on the following article Alfred Duraiappah, 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs, C.V. Gunaratne. Can an admin please take care of this. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reminders posted at User talk:Nitraven ( diff ) and User talk:Watchdogb ( diff ). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Row erupts over Tamil rebel film
news may be A GOOD SOURCE to write about LTTE sympathy/support in tamilnadu India

A Sinhala-language movie about Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels has provoked a row between Indian Tamil activists and the film's director. , .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayalalitha definitely must be angry ! Watchdogb (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for a scholarly, historical view on Tamilnadu's support for the Ceylon Tamils, Palanithurai & Mohanasundaram's Dynamics of Tamil Nadu Poltics in Sri Lankan Ethnicity is a good source. Are there any particular articles where you have in mind? -- Arvind (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the IPKF article needs some clean up along with article such as LTTE (which is going to go through some more major editorial strengthening soon). Watchdogb (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, in that case one really needs to refer to Maj. Gen. Harkirat Singh's recently published book, Intervention in Sri Lanka which challenges some of the conventional wisdom on what India did. I ordered a copy some time ago, but it'll take a few weeks longer before it gets here. -- Arvind (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome ! When I first read about this book I wanted my hands on it. As time passed by I forgot about this book. Thank you very much for reminding me about this. Watchdogb (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As part of this project we should start a list of RS sources for Sri Lankan conflict Taprobanus (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy edit warring and sock puppetry
Could the participants of this project please watchlist and help improve the following articles which have been the subject of heavy edit warring and sock puppetry: Thank you. Jehochman Talk 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mudaliar
 * Sengunthar
 * Devadasi


 * good work Jehochman i was searching the history for the caste system's nonexistence in historic times, these articles proves that the so called caste discrimination or diversion wasn't found during those times and came with those divide and rule policy , will try to improve it --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these are Indian related articles with very little Sri Lanka conflict realted issues Taprobanus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection needed
The article Tamilnet is currently under heavy anon attack. Need to protect it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Over the past two weeks, the article has been vandalised eight times by four IP accounts. That level of vandalism is generally not enough to justify semi-protection unless there are BLP issues involved. In lieu of semi-protection, I will add the article to my watchlist (another set of eyes never hurts) and will also request that tamilnet.tv be blacklisted revertlisted. Semi-protection can always be reconsidered if this recent spate of IP vandalism does not pass on its own. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The request can be found at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always Taprobanus (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute over Sri Lankan conflict articles
There has been a couple of content dispute going on in Sri Lankan Conflict areas. The first article is Battle of the Forward Defence Lines where a couple of users are not discussing the problem but rather revert any changes made at the article. For example, I have added some content to the article after a revert here but even this cited information has been removed by another revert here. For a more detail of the problem please refer to the discussion page of that article. Another article with content dispute is Sri Lankan Civil War. This article is currently locked but it needs some comments from WP:SLR members. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On Sri Lankan Civil War, both Watchdogb and the other side (User:Top Gun and User:TheFEARgod) violated the in spirit and letter. I therefore had to notify resp. warn these three users. Should we also put Battle of the Forward Defence Lines under SLDRA?  --&mdash; Sebastian 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do so. This article should be included as it is another one of those articles that are controversial. Furthermore, the request by me to add this to the article has not been opposed. So it would be better if this article is also included in SLDR. Watchdogb (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no objections for the request on the article talk page. Furthermore, the initial SLDR was to cover all conflict related article. This article is directly conflict related and I believe that it should be protected by SLDR. I wanted to do it myself but decided against it for personal reasons. Watchdogb (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --&mdash; Sebastian 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle
Can be closed unless accusations are backed up with relevant links.

Your comments are welcome here. Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to canvas for support please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary and this diff, in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.

I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.

When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dont accuse me of being a sockpuppet, 135 million people live in Japan, just because I live there and use the phrase "care to" does not make me a sockpuppet. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This accusation is completely irrelevant. It is already irrelevant for Wikipedia as a whole, because Iwazaki hasn't been editing for a while. And for us, it wouldn't even matter if both had been editing at the same time - see above. Do I have to put that in a red frame so people read it?
 * That said, this section is not very helpful for us. Please read, in particular: "Provide clear links that show what you mean." (which I just added) and "When criticising particular edits, comment on the content and not identity of the contributor.".
 * Until any of the people accusing each other the necessary links, there's no need to do anything about this section. --&mdash; Sebastian 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be closed but intersting stuff :)))Taprobanus (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * End note. the account of Dhirrosses has be indef blocked for being a sockpuppet. That account was made shortly after Bermudatriange was blocked for 24hrs due to the 3RR report that I made, the only edits that Dhirrosses made were to attack me and accuse me of being a sockpuppet (irony++)  you can draw your own conclusions as to who made the Dhirrosses account, and why they did so.  And yes, this is all interesting stuff, nothing like a quick inter-drama to make your day a little more interesting. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time I won't bring anything here. It is very interesting relating me indirectly with the account Dhirrosses. Dhirrosses is bit too aggresive to attack Sennen goroshi. I too agree with Sebastian, "...And for us, it wouldn't even matter if both had been editing at the same time." Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You write "Next time I won't bring anything here". If you write this to express disappointment, then maybe you came here with unrealistic expectations. Please join me in taking a look at your initial post. You gave the readers of this page no information whatsoever why anyone should be interested. Even on second glance, it seemed to be only some name calling between editors who (as far as I'm aware) are completely unknown here, without mentioning any connection to the content that interests us. Can you see why nobody here was interested? So it's not surprising that the first replies only came from involved editors. Do you expect them not to show up here? Do you expect us to forbid them to speak up here? We could have used our house rule, which allows members to delete off-topic conversations and personal accusations, but why should we? While Sennen goroshi's reply did not exhibit a reconciliatory spirit, it was at least certainly on topic. It mentioned concrete, verifyiable events, albeit still without links, despite my request. So it was at least a borderline case, and I don't think it was a mistake to let it stand. I hope I convinced you that the result your post achieved was quite a natural outcome. &mdash; Sebastian 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the ANI board is becoming rather busy, I thought I would put this here for an opinion, and I always think it is important to get the opinions of your peers.


 * personal attack


 * Am I right in thinking that Bermudatriangle saying shows your total stupidity and arrogance. directed towards myself is a blatant personal attack, in violation of civility rules and worthy of a block? Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Smells like a sock? ah I don't know...
 * Anyways fyi I g4'ed his article (Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That article (Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace was created by Sennen goroshi, not by me.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

SLDR extended to Sri Lankan place name etymology
I have extended the SLDR to Sri Lankan place name etymology as this topic is also politically charged. I did not follow the standard procedures (asking for objection on article talk page) because I feel that the original SLDR agreement's scope is extended to this article. In general Place name etymology is usually not controversial, however, in the Sri Lankan case even this is a politically charged topic (Almost as politically charged as the Civil War). If someone has any objections to this addition please discuss at WT:SLR or Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Taprobanus (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As a project, we need to be reliable and trustworthy. Thefore, it is important that we handle such procedures consistently. I don't see a strong enough case for making an exception in this case. I will therefore revert the addition and add a note in the talk page. Sebastian (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: While everyone agreed that that article belongs under the SL Dispute Resolution Agreement, the revert war went on, against the intent and purpose of that Agreement. I therefore had to intervene and protect the page. Because of the unclear status of the article with regard to the Agreement, I based my actions only on WP:PROTECT. (I'm not happy about that, see WT:PROTECT).
 * Unfortunately, we have not reached a resolution yet on . If we had agreed on any of the proposed rules, then this revert war would have been quickly defused: This reversion would have counted as an 1RR violation since "We will look at reverts, not at who did them, so check what others did before you!". The proposed rules - especially S3 - would have encourage both parties to only revert what is obviously wrong, thereby gradually reaching a better version, instead of just continuing the same brainless back-and-forth between two never changing versions. I would like us to cool off for a while (maybe a week or so), and eventually I'd like to rekindle the discussion on and reach a conclusion there. &mdash; Sebastian 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism
This article is currently up for WP:DYK, and a user has expressed the view that it may be POV. I am not really familiar enough with this topic to have a firm opinion, so I'm asking for input for those more familiar with this conflict. Is this article suitable for DYK? If not, why not, and can the issues be fixed reasonably quickly? Please comment. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm if there are any POV issues in this statement. If NOT, are there any Reliable and verifiable Sources ?? --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ... that Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism originated as defensive measures from Hindu revivalists against Protestant missionaries?


 * Hi Tinu, It is from the following book


 * from page # 108. The statement is cited in the main body of the article not in the lead.It is PhD thesis from an Australian University by the author which was later published. It is just a matter of fact not a POV statement. It is ironic how a Nationalism's start. The reaction to Protestant missionary activity was the spark but it took its own trajectory over 200 years later. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For general convenience: The exact link to the DYK discussion is here: Template talk:Did you know.
 * That article hasn't seen any revert wars - but it is too early to tell if "the article doesn't contain any contentious statements" (as Gatoclass expressed the concern) since it only has been created a week ago and presumably has not been exposed to scrutiny from all sides yet. It might be safer to refer to the article Arumuka Navalar, which has been around for much longer, has been quite stable and, best of all, actually covers the statement of the hook ("(alt hook)... that Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism originated from Hindu revivalists as defensive measures against Protestant missionaries?") in more depth. -- Sebastian (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Templating a regular based on supposed BLP violations
User:Snowolfd4 has templated me warning that I will be blocked for creating an article called Senan Padai that had some BLP violations. Now that it has been deleted, I dont even know whether I created it or even if I did create it, it had BLP violations. I need to know first did I created It ? and if I did, what was the BLP violations and was it warranted him issuing a template threatening to block me. Taprobanus (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-added your message on User talk:Snowolfd4.Teasereds (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This user account is a clear violation of the 6th point of Final resolution and would like to see necessary actions asap as it says. Thanks. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have come and gone previously here.Teasereds (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Going back to the substantive issue here, I did a search on Senan Padai and this is what I found out. They are (Quote - the murder of the TNA MP Joseph Pararajasingham was claimed by the Senan Padai, which. many see as a cover for the Karuna Group), the other source from Morning Leader newspaper that is an RS source  (Quote - Senan padai issued notices in support of the TMVP). Other Qualified source are from Asian Tribune  Which has details about their hand bills that came in support of TMVP that is also known as the Karuna group. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The page in question is Sennan Padai and you created it in November 2006 as a redirect to Karuna Group. Two months later, the page was retargeted to TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal by a bot account responsible for fixing double-redirects. With regard to the question of the validity of the redirect, I think the most relevant guidance is located at Redirect:
 * "If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Verifiability), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term."
 * The issue becomes, then, whether Sennan Padai is likely to be used by searchers and, if so, toward which article it should be targeted. My impression is that Sennan Padai is a plausible search term (Google results), and one possible target is List of Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, where the group could be briefly mentioned. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect solution, So now that I kave some citatiosn I will update that article with a blip about them and just a follw up question was it justified in templating me for WP:BLP violations when the question was about a redirect ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What it should really be redirected is Paramilitary groups of Sri Lanka which is yet to be created. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The template used by Snowolfd4 is a general notice for attack pages (see Db-attack-notice). Although often used to delete WP:BLP violations, the scope of speedy deletion criterion G10 is not limited to biographies of living persons, and it does apply to redirects. That said, I'm not sure to what degree being redirected to "Karuna Group" can be clearly classified as an attack intended to disparage the subject. All in all, I think the templating, even if done in the best of faith, was ill-advised; a short one-sentence notice tailored to this specific situation would, in my opinion, have been more informative, less confusing, and more friendly. However, I personally don't believe that the issue is worth pursuing to any substantial degree. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. One, as to why I classified the redirect as an "attack", Sennan Padai is a group which claimed responsibility for killing Members of Parliament. Redirecting the page to the TMVP article is in-effect saying they are both the same, which is not true and an attack on the TMVP.
 * Second, when you use the tabs above an article to CSD it, the CSD notice template is automatically added to the talk page of the user who created the article. In this case it was the standard G10 notice. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and so it's clear, I will delete all forms of threats from my talk page. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'll acknowledge that my comment recommending a non-templated notice is an opinion only. WP:DTTR is just an essay, and many editors disagree with its advice. I know that the code for the warning notice is automatically generated by the CSD template, but I think a tailored notice could potentially have avoided some confusion in this case (of course, that's not to say that I endorse this comment). Anyway, the issue's moot now... (By the way, I'm happy to see that you decided to resume editing.) Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Hope Award for Snowolfd4
Watchdogb (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I am happy to award the Sri Lanka Hope Award to user:Snowolfd4 with the following words: This is indeed a great sign of hope, even more so since this has been pointed out to me by a Tamil editor, who agreed with the award. Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I herewith present you this Sri Lanka specific award as a sign of hope, in order to honor your effort to keep a neutral point of view when you created the article Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan.
 * I consider myself a Canadian Wikipedian, the article in question is not entirely neutral. Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan is accused of being a War lord who as the ring leader of  Para military group that kidnapped hundreds of Sri Lankans for Ransom and killed many who did not pay up. Canada has recently given refuge to number of Sri lankan civilians who ran away from his groups activities. Please read Dostum, an Afghan war loard cum politician, at least that article get's into both sides of the coin without violating BLP. Personally I dont care about the status of that article because the wider Wikipedia community should care one day and as this is an Encylopedia not a News cite and as such articles with time will reflect what they really should be. So it is not real neutral article but a good start may be. Taprobanus (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I do not disagree with Sebastian's hope award. We all need hope Taprobanus (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War
Removed the images - no need personalities of one side on an article which speaks of ethnic conflict of two communities / Lakshman Kadirgamar is not the only victim in the ethnic conflict.Teasereds (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anton Balasingham article
A user has been removing the Anti-rebel subscript from Asian Tribune. After being pointed to the Classifications of sources at WP:SLR the user has reverted again. This user is well aware of classification of sources. Watchdogb (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we had similar discussions before. See below. Sebastian (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed the poster, no encyclopedia importance, the poster is cited on Anti-Rebel website, the poster with no background that it has taken in London.Teasereds (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SLR Project page Edit protection requested
The project page is undergoing active edit warring. See this. I request edit protection till we resolve all conflicts. Taprobanus (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
I have listed Sri Lankan Tamil people article for peer review, hence I have removed the Blue box from the article page but left the SLR agreement in the talk page less people are intimidated by the blue box restriction. It is not meant to remove SLR agreement from the article. Just informing the project members. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Two articles with exact same information
A user has created an article called List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (since 2005) with the exact same information (copy paste) from an article that already exist called List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. No new information was presented and serves no purpose to have it as a different article. Can an admin please merge these two articles or delete the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (since 2005) since it is just a copy paste from other article. Watchdogb (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it was a bad copy paste move, and wasn't linked anywhere else, I've deleted it as requested.  MBisanz  talk 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of sock puppetry
Please see here and here. This looks to me like a violation of WP:NPA and according to the SLR agreement-section 6 there is Zero Tolerance for such violations and we have already issued a warning to the above user. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should take this to ANI next time?Teasereds (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No Teasereds, we should wait for the admins here to comment, thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I write anything, could someone please clarify what "elalan" means in the context of this diff? (I've notified Iwazaki of this thread.) Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "elalan" was a user who was active in Sri Lankan related articles before he was blocked for violation WP:SOCK. Watchdogb (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are as follows: An accusation of sock puppetry is not a direct personal attack per se. However, any such accusation–whether or not it is warranted–involves a lack of AGF, and should not be made without evidence. In general, accusations of sock puppetry should be accompanied by some formal or informal action (e.g. WP:SSP, WP:AN/I, WP:RFCU) or should not be made at all. Once an accusation is made, as is the case here, it should be substantiated or retracted.

I note that Iwazaki has already been warned for making "direct, unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of a user in good standing". While I do not consider an accusation of sock puppetry to be a direct personal attack, it is an "attack on the integrity of a user". At the moment, I think we should wait a while for Iwazaki to provide a response, either explaining his comments or retracting them. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How long do we wait or do we give him another warning and archive it ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam
Due to the controversial nature of the concept of Tamil Eelam, I believe that it falls under the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. The current article is a result of the recent editing carried out by a single editor and as such, due to the controversial nature of both Tamil Eelam and this article I believe it should be reevaluated by an member of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation specially the references, wording and POVs given here. Thankyou Nitraven (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Controversial nature of an article does not mean that the article is biased. The current article is well cited and almost all aspect of the article is made with care as not to violate WP:NPOV. On a side note, saying that an article is biased because one editor has edited the article is totally unacceptable per WP:NPA. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Watchdogb (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember the tags are only added to help improve the article. So if you feel something is pov or controversial about this article, then say what the concern is so that it can be taken care of. 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor wishes to bring to the notice of the editing that has been carried out in the article Tamil Eelam by a certain editor and has grave questions about the WP:NPOV of the article, all attempts by this editor to highlight or change the WP:NPOV status of the article has been blocked by this editor in question and no consensus could be archive there. If intervention by this group is not made on this article then I'm believe that this would end up becoming a propaganda blog like so many out there.Nitraven (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take that as a violation on WP:NPA commenting on the author and their intention rather than a comment on the article. I shall report this to relevant admins. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, this article was overlooked and was not included in the original SLDR covered article. Since the subject of this article is clearly one of the aspirations for the civil war this article should have been included in the original SLDR. Does anyone object this ? Watchdogb (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should be part of the SLR project and have its tags placed on it. Nitraven, provide some solid diffs to support your claims or you will be in violation of NPA. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Development

At first, the concept of Tamil Eelam conceived by the Federal party was state within united Sri Lanka, but in time the concept developed into complete self-determination. The concept of Tamil Eelam always implied the notion of freedom and self-government for the Tamil people. The demand for a separate statehood of Tamil Eelam is believed to have grown as a result of job opportunities and university admissions being severely curtailed for Tamils because of discriminatory government quotas; and continuing decline of economic opportunities. As a result the people began to believe that a separate state would win back their opportunities and the concept of Tamil Eelam was welcomed enthusiastically throughout Tamil areas. In addition to the economical and social basis for separate state there is also a more fundamental basis for support for a separate statehood - safety. In 1977, after the parliamentary election campaign by the TULF which was on a platform of separate state, a riot engulfed the island in which about 300 Tamil civilians were killed. Likewise in 1983, another anti-Tamil riot engulfed the island as a result of an IED attack on group of Sri Lankan Soldiers by LTTE rebels. The riot, know as Black July, killed between 1,000 and 3,000. The call for Tamil Eelam increased as a result of these communal violance against the Tamil minority perpetrated by the Sinhalese majority. Furthermore, allegations of state terrorism and genocide by the Sri Lankan government have led to solidification of demand for separate state for minority Tamils. To add to the Tamil people's separatist sentiments, acts of mass violence, rape, extrajudicial executions, whole scale round ups, force detention, torture and other forms of inhuman treatement by members of Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan security forces within the North and East provinces have further created communal tensions among the Tamil people . The mistrust in the Sinhala dominated armed forces and the perceived discrimination faced by the Tamil population lead the Tamil people to believe that only Eelam could provide long term safety and came to believe that their very survival was possible only through formation of a separate Tamil state on the island.


 * I have extracted the above section as a whole, its current statues is the result of the editing by the said editor . Please note the bolded  text, the naturally these climes are very serious, the editor as written them in as if these are means used as suppression where are independent incidents. Genocide by the Sri Lankan government what proof has been established for this claime ? Is this wikipedia ? Can a article claim that there is genocide in Sri Lanka by a single ref !!!!!! I don't contest much of the other contents of this section, since refs are given, however the tone of the section is what I question. I would recommend that this article  be compared with the one in question for perspective.


 * First off you need to read the sentence on the Genocide. It is pointless to get angry and accuse editors of propaganda without reading the whole sentence. The sentence on Genocide and state terrorism reads:

"Furthermore, allegations of state terrorism and genocide by the Sri Lankan government have led to solidification of demand for separate state for minority Tamils"


 * There is not one reference for this claim but three. These sources are WP:RS and I can use them to cite what they say. The emphasis was added in the quote because the sentence does not say that there is Genocide or State terrorism and it does not disprove it either - it merely claims that there is ongoing allegation on Genocide and State terrorism in Sri Lanka and the demand for Tamil Eelam has solidified as a result of this. Since the sentence does not agree or disagree with the allegations, it is up to the reader to decide and do further research (if necessary) to find out if these allegations are true or false. Watchdogb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The other claims of mass round-ups and extra judicial was not added by me and it was done as a copy edit by another user. Watchdogb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no justification for the claim that the "tone" of this article is POV. A user cannot just say "I dispute the tone" without giving any justification for it (aside from some reason that is made in haste because some people cannot even stand the fact that a ethnic population is making claims of Genocide and State terrorism). Watchdogb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Still there has not been one evidence given against allegations of propaganda and POV edit against me. Watchdogb (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore I would request any editor/admin to look at the discussions, , &

Nitraven (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen the thread is too confusing for people to follow, really can you please figure out a way to summarize the points of contention. Also I would ask Watchdog to give us a time frame by which he/she will complete the reconstruction. At that point Nitraven can intervene and discuss his/her objections. It becomes very difficult when two different people are actively trying to undo each others work at the same time. So let’s be patient allow one party to complete and then each differences of opinion can be summarized and dealt with section by section.Taprobanus (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, or at least the alleged problem, is that Nitravan thinks that the "development" section of the Tamil Eelam article violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, he claims that this article is soon becoming a propaganda blog because a single editor has significantly contributed to the article's rewrite. This is in direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF as Nitravan is commenting on the particular edit based on the editor, rather than commenting on the edit not the editor. Since Nitravan has not given any tangible evidence, or at least anything that would help address his concern, I request that a warning be issued to the user in order to prevent such accusation on other editors. As far as the time line is concerned, I would say that the article is almost complete now. Watchdogb (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would expect an admin to deal with WP:NPA and WP:AGF but looks like the difference of opinuion is over tone, so what is the suggestion about rewording and what sentences ? Taprobanus (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I have been blatantly accused of WP:NPA by Watchdogb I will refrain from editing the said article until I am judge by an admin. However I believe that the allegations of genocide by the Sri Lankan military should be discussed here in this project prior to be added to the article, due to the serious nature of the allegation. As to the part "acts of mass violence, rape, extrajudicial executions, whole scale round ups, force detention, torture and other forms of inhuman treatement by members of Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan security forces within the North and East provinces have further created communal tensions among the Tamil people" it should be rewritten as to mean that incidents of this kind have occurred, which have been carried out by cretin members of the Military of Sri Lanka in separate incidents and not to mean that these are random acts carried out as a policy by the military. Furthermore the article explains in detail the origins of the concept of tamil eelam and goes on to link the ltte control areas as tamil eelam, when in fact as Arvind says the declaration of independence of eelam by EPRLF in 1990 isnt recognized by the ltte and nether has they decelerated it them selves. Also the tamil Militancy (the mentions of tamil militant groups that fought for eelam and now turn to politics was removed), the eelam wars are not mention, which in fact should be added to the development part, since these lead to the ltte gaining control of land (which is implied to be the current state of tamil eelam at the end of the article). Finally about the status of the area controlled by the ltte, Watchdogb is adamant in his stance that it is a de-facto state based on his refs and states that it has a government, but conveniently levels out the fact that if it is coincided a government it is a Dictatorship. However is this article about the land controlled by the ltte or is it on tamil eelam. So far no link as not been proven. So shouldnt this article by classified as a proposed state. Also there is the question as to if the ltte control area is to be considered a state, de-facto or not, due to its populace electing MPs to the Sri Lankan Parliament (mostly from the Tamil National Alliance) in the 2004 election, who to this day serve. Therefore I think we should get the help of editors who are experts on the subject to formulate this article. Nitraven (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I removed nonsense from the article like how many groups fought for Tamil Eelam simply because there is no citation. The article was tagged (requesting citation) many months ago and no one has stepped up to back up those claims. If there is no citation, then I will remove it from the article as I am developing the article. Moreover, this point was discussed on the talk page of the article to which I said that I will add these groups as soon as I find citations to it. I know in Sri Lanka when a sinhalese says something it becomes fact, however, this is Wikipedia and here only citations are considered. So if someone can find WP:RS that has information on the gourps, then anyone can add it to the article. Second, Eelam wars article are currently a joke - something I explained in the talk page of Tamil Eelam and if I am asked to add Eelam wars, then I will only do so after I find proper references for the wars. If someone, other than myself, wants to add Eelam wars to Tamil Eelam then it needs two things; proper reference for claim and summary of the war rather than a whole section. These are two things are basic rules of wikipedia as you need to cite all claims that are controversial and must summarize a topic if there is already an article that exist on this topic. Third, allegations of genocide and state terrorism is not a exceptional claim. I have given 3 mainstream sources that back my claim. Since I have already replied all other comments, I will leave it to Nitravan to go and check the talk page rather than to beat a dead horse. Watchdogb (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to bring to the notice of this group the resent editing on the article on Tamil Eelam by user Mnmazur. All additions have been made without any citations. Nitraven (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is because the user did not add anything new to the article. The user had just edited some template. Nothing requires a user to add citation when replacing template. Watchdogb (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not the template that is in question but its content that requires citation.Nitraven (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such content addition and therefore no required citation. Watchdogb (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1 RR violation
User:Nitraven has violated 1RR in a number of articles protected by SLDR. See Captain Miller( revert here and here), Colonel Soosai (see here and here) and Pottu Amman(see here and here) by re adding the Terrorist cats. He has already been warned for his violation ( see here). An appropriate action is needed to stop this behavior. Watchdogb (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about the 1 RR rule in my effort to undo what I believed to be vandalism, Therefore I will undo my reverts immediately. Nitraven (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This user has not reverted all of his edits. Pottu Amman article still has Sri Lankan Terrorist tags. Watchdogb (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Didnt see that its reverted.Nitraven (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I believe that this was a technical oversight only. It seems to me that Nitraven attempted to self-revert, but reverted the wrong edit (this one instead of this one). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that my comment was obsolete by three minutes. :) –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation in "terrorist" and "terrorism" categories
I do however request that some one from the Project look into the articles Captain Miller, Colonel Soosai, Pottu Amman, Velupillai Prabhakaran & Kumaran Pathmanadan and consider the edits made by User:Teasereds, who had removed cats, that has RSs justify them. The cats in question are
 * Category:Sri Lankan terrorists
 * Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka
 * Category:Fugitives wanted by India
 * Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges
 * Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges
 * Category:Fugitives wanted on arms smuggling charges
 * Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers

The editor User:Teasereds removed the cats from the relevant articles claiming that there are no RSs to justify them, when in fact there are.Nitraven (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that categorisation in "terrorist" and "terrorism" categories seems to be a recurring focus of disagreement, I'd like to suggest starting a discussion (in a separate section) to define specific inclusion criteria for such contentious categories. (It may be prudent to wait until the conclusion of the CFD discussion mentioned below.) Even if we are unable to reach agreement on many individual cases, perhaps we can at least establish some basic inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thoughts?

Also, with regard to Nitraven's comment above, I'd like to note the following: –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The category description at Category:Mass murderers indicates that individuals who are categorised as terrorists should not also be categorised as mass murderers, and vice versa.
 * Category:Sri Lankan terrorists recently survived a deletion discussion (as part of a massive group nomination of all "terrorism"/"terrorist" categories. The category has been nominated for deletion again, this time individually, here.


 * International organizations such as Interpol is not a law enforcement authority to list persons as terrorists, due to their activities. Again Interpol is a inter-governmental organization, its declarations or statement can't be used on wikiproject as "Categories". It should be noted most of the freedom movement leaders branded as terrorists and later they were accepted legendary leaders of the world. A good example is Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela had to fight against the illegal European invaders who occupied his country for a long time and discriminated his own community and the natives as slaves branding him and his colleagues as "Terrorists". The same mistake can't be repeated in the real world once more as well as on  wikipedia.Teasereds (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Members of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation should take these to consideration.
 * Captain Miller, Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers was listed in the article was't due to the link to terrorism, but due to the simple fact that he was a "LTTE Black Tiger suicide bomber, driving a small truck laden with explosives into a Sri Lanka Army camp in Nelliady Madhya Maha Vidyalayam, Jaffna peninsula, on 5 July 1987, killing himself and 39 Sri Lankan soldiers" as said so in the article it self with the RS [ & . Also I believe that this article should include Category:Sri Lankan terrorists since he is a suicide bomber, just as the London train bombers.


 * Thenmuli Rajaratnam, Category:Sri Lankan assassinsRS, Category:Sri Lankan female murderersRS, Category:Sri Lankan mass murderersRS and Category:Sri Lankan terrorists since she is a suicide bomber, just as the London train bombers.


 * Velupillai Prabhakaran, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka RS RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by India RS RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges RS RS should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.


 * Pottu Amman‎, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by India RS RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges RS, should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.


 * Colonel Soosai‎, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges RS, should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.


 * Kumaran Pathmanadan‎, Category:Fugitives wanted by IndiaRS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism chargesRS, Category:Fugitives wanted on arms smuggling chargesRS, should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.

Nitraven (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, I don't think the fact that an individual was a suicide bomber automatically justifies categorising them as a terrorist. The context of the attack, the identity of the target, and the purpose of the attack often matter just as much or more than the type of attack. Consider this hypothetical example: during a battle of World War II, a Soviet soldier picks up a satchel of explosives and throws himself under a German tank where he detonates the explosives, killing himself; the soldier is a suicide bomber, yet he is not a terrorist due to the fact that he attacked a military target in a time of war. On the other end of a spectrum, a suicide bomber who targets civilians in a time of peace also may not be a terrorist if s/he had no political motives. Thus, I don't think that inclusion in Category:Suicide bombers automatically justifies inclusion in Category:Terrorists (or its subcategories).
 * Here's what I think about the six articles listed above:
 * Captain Miller - Inclusion in Category:Suicide bombers is definitely warranted; however, the article should not simultaneously be in both Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers per the notice at Category:Mass murderers, and it should not be in Category:Sri Lankan terrorists solely for the reason that he was a suicide bomber (additional justification is needed, imo). What is the legal definition of "mass murder" in Sri Lanka? In the United States, for example, an event is classified as "mass murder" only when four or more people are killed at the same location at (approximately) the same time. Does Sri Lanka have a similar definition?
 * Thenmuli Rajaratnam - As above, the article should not simultaneously be in both Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers per the notice at Category:Mass murderers. It also should not be in Category:Sri Lankan terrorists solely for the reason that she was a suicide bomber, although I think the case for inclusion is much stronger here than in the case of Captain Miller (who attacked a military target). Whether Category:Sri Lankan assassins belongs depends on whether Gandhi's killing was an "assassination"; given the content and sources at Rajiv Gandhi assassination, I think the category is justified.
 * Since civilans were killed in this Suicide bombing, couldnt the cats Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers be added on that. Targeting the former PM, who him self a civilian at the time, amidst civilian could be concidered a act of terrorism.Nitraven (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Velupillai Prabhakaran - The Interpol source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Category:Fugitives wanted by India, and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges. I'm unclear about Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges since "murder" is not among the charges listed by Interpol and this source does not clearly indicate whether Prabhakaran is actually wanted on murder charges or is just a suspect. (He is wanted for the Central Bank bomb case, but is that a terrorism charge or a murder charge? Or perhaps both?) Per Teasered's comment above, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists may require more detailed discussion.


 * these sources state that he was sentenced for intention to cause death and committing murder, destruction of state property by attacking the central bank, and provoking violence. Also I think Category:Fugitives wanted on organized crime based on Interpol and Category:Fugitives wanted for murder and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers  should be added in my point of view .Nitraven (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pottu Amman - The Interpol source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Category:Fugitives wanted by India, and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges. As with Prabhakaran, I'm unclear about Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges, and Category:Sri Lankan terrorists may require more discussion (for the same reasons as above).
 * Colonel Soosai‎ - The Interpol source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges. Category:Sri Lankan terrorists may require more discussion.
 * Kumaran Pathmanadan‎ - The source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by India and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges, and possibly justifies Category:Fugitives wanted on arms smuggling charges. (I write "possibly" only because I'm not familiar with the Indian Explosive Act.)
 * The "Fugitives wanted by..." and "Fugitives wanted on..." categories seem to be the least problematic, as they are the ones that are the least value-laden and the most descriptive, and the validity of Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers depends, in my opinion, largely on the legal definition of "mass murder" in Sri Lanka.
 * Category:Sri Lankan terrorists is the most controversial due to the fact that the definition of what constitutes a terrorist act is unclear. Naturally, this problem is not unique to the Sri Lankan conflict. I believe that this is where we should focus our attention, in order to try to define certain inclusion criteria (and non-criteria), or to try to identify an alternate means of categorisation. Whichever path we try to take, we should of course seek to avoid original research and rely on sources.
 * However, before we continue (or while we continue), I'd like to ask whether there is any objection to using Interpol's notices to justify "Fugitives wanted by [country]" and "Fugitives wanted on [charges]" categories. Such categorisation would not classify individuals as terrorists, but would rather simply indicate the fact that an individual is currently wanted by one or more countries on one or more charges. Does anyone object? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Wanted by [country][year]" and "Wanted on [charges][year]" can be considered. Still we want to consider whether their counter parts could be considered as "Criticized by [Organization] for [charges][year]".Teasereds (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont understand what Teasereds means here & I dont think there are cats as to "Wanted by [country][year]" but the ref could be added with the cat. Since there are no objections I will add the relevant cats.Nitraven (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Objection: If there are no cats as to "Wanted by [country][year]", then don't add the cats: Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Fugitives wanted by India, and Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges.
 * They are rebels not Fugitives. And terrorism charges are only alleged and POV.
 * If we really want those cats, we can consider to create new cats, something like;
 * Rebels wanted by India or Rebels wanted on alleged terrorism charges.Teasereds (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One can very well be fugitive and rebel at the same time, like one can be fugitive and regular soldier at the same time, or fugitive and policeman at the same time etc. I do not understand this objection.Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "fugitive" is a neutral term, meaning "someone who does not appear before the authority charging him with some crime". This seems to be the case for the gentlemen mentioned above, and RS for the fact that the charges exist and the gentlemen do not appear can be found.  The term "rebel" seems to pose problems of POV (who defines who is a rebel/terrorist) and RS (what RS can be used to categorize one of the gentleman above as a person who is wanted by India for charges of rebellion).Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I think that the Indian law does not contain the charge of "Rebellion", so that the Category "Wanted by India for Rebellion" is inherently meaningless, whereas "Wanted by India for Murder" makes sense, because Indian law incriminates murder.Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, there is no POV-problem with "Charged for terrorism". We do not state that someone is a terrorist, which would be POV, but we state that some notable body (e.g. India) suspects that someone might be a terrorist and wants to conduct a trial to find out whether this suspicion is indeed correct or rather not. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Objection: A fugitive is a person who is fleeing from custody. How this could be applicable to a person in the dense jungle of Sri Lanka directing a civil war or else where with the same agenda. So the right term is Rebel.Teasereds (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A fugitive is a person who is fleeing from the law. The geographical conditions of the place where the fugitive remains hidden have nothing to do with this definition. In order to qualify as a fugitive, we have to ask a) is the person persecuted by law and b) is he evading this persecution. Both questions are easy to answer and do not involve debate. Your objection is void. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't justify not naming them fugitive. Furthermore these so called Rebels "in the dense jungle of Sri Lanka directing a civil war or else where with the same agenda" are responsible for directing terrorist attacks ref according to the Jane's Information Group, hence they are terrorist. Nitraven (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * the fact that these persons are responsible or not for terrorist attacks according to some source has no bearing on their being fugitives or not. Please stay on topic. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you search some more on the net, you will come to know the worst atrocities, rape, mass murders by the Sri  Lankan Government Troops to Tamil Civilian which cause the  LTTE to rebel.Teasereds (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that some other persons than the rebels commit rape and mass murders has also no bearing on the issue at hand. Please stay on topic and respect the WP:Talk page guidelines. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no factual evidence has been provided to counter the arguments in favor of adding the cats in question to the articles, I will re-add them in 24 hrs time. If they are removed relevant action will be taken in accordance to the SLDR guidelines. Nitraven (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still can understand what Teasereds is trying to say here! He has reverted the additions I have made to the said articles! and now asking to creating new cats ! We are having problems using the cats we have now (not to mention people trying delete them repeatedly). RSs have been provided for the relevant cats clearly and members of this project say that they are justified. If I am not mistaken Teasereds removed cats such as Category:Sri Lankan terrorists, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Category:Fugitives wanted by India, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges from articles pertaining to the LTTE asking for RSs, now he/she is removing them again claiming something else after RSs are provided for each and every one of them. I have concerns about the intentions of this editor as to whether they are Disruptive Editing. And isnt it POV to say "They are rebels not Fugitives. And terrorism charges are only alleged and POV ". I personally believe that there is no need to change the cats as they are perfectly accurate to what the RSs state. Also do not delete any part of my comments here after'. Nitraven (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organization in 32 countries, including Sri Lanka, hence a leader or a member can be regraded as terrorist in those countries that proscribed it as a terrorist organization, including Sri Lanka. Therefore the person can be added to the cat Category:Sri Lankan terrorists. Just as a leader or a member of a rebel group or organization be called a rebel or as a leader or a member of a militant group or organization be called a militant. Furthermore if RSs could be provided of convictions could this person be added to the cat Category:Sri Lankan criminals ?Nitraven (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the LTTE is proscribed in 32 countries on Terrorism charges, then under those countries government enforcement limits only  LTTE is a "Terrorist Organization", even those countries Legal institutions can have different views of the  LTTE including the citizens of those countries. So even within those countries their "Terrorism Status" is not absolute. Further  LTTE is banned in India but Tamil  Nadu is an active supporter for the  LTTE's cause.  LTTE is banned in  Sri Lanka where  Sri  Lankan Tamils in North-East and the diaspora  Sri Lankan Tamils are active supporters for the  LTTE's cause. A member of an organization which has been proscribed in those countries can't be regarded as "Terrorist", then most of the members of the then Serbian government might be wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Further  LTTE is proscribed only by 32 countries, that is not an absolute majority.Teasereds (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats why they don't fall to the cat International Terrorist or Terrorist but Sri Lankan Terrorist. Where as " Sri Lankan Tamils in North-East and the diaspora  Sri Lankan Tamils are active supporters for the  LTTE's cause" and "Tamil  Nadu is an active supporter for the  LTTE's cause" is inaccurate since not all are supports, only certain people are, and in the case of Tamil  Nadu its not the state just some people it it. Nitraven (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any way, particular Governments' proscription can't brand the LTTE for a wider "Sri  Lankan Terrorist" Cat or else if a certain group of people or an ethnic group still like or admire them as "Liberation Fighters".Teasereds (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is about putting a article of a person in a cat based on the acts they have carried out. Not putting in cats that certain people think or "like or admire", that's POV. At this point I can't say that I don't believe your intentions are very bias and that you are trying to whitewash the LTTE here. Nitraven (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would ask you to leave out the category "SL terrorist" and "SL mass murderer" for the moment. No problem with the insertion of "Fugitive wanted by X" and "Fugitive wanted for Y". Membership in these categories can easily be established and should be uncontroversial under a standard definition of "fugitive" as the one I have given above. For "terrorist", I think WP:TERRORIST applies. As for "mass murderer", as long as the person has not claimed responsibility for assassinations or is convicted by a court for murder, I can imagine that adding this category could be perceived as libelous and against WP:BLP. Better err on the side of caution here. (Disclaimer: the people mentioned above may or may not have committed crimes. I do not endorse either view) Jasy jatere (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "fugitive" is a descriptive term about legal status within a particular jurisdiction, and does not necessarily carry any automatic negative connotations (see fugitive). Moreover, Category:Fugitives is an established category scheme, so Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges are valid as long as Category:Fugitives is considered by consensus to be valid.

Regarding the two proposals made so far: –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Category:Criticized by [Organization] for [charges]" contradicts our categorisation standards. In general, categories should reflect concrete actions (such as a "conviction" or "issuance of a warrant") rather than things that may be nothing more than verbal statements (such as "criticism").
 * 2) "Category:Rebels wanted by [Country]" would be unnecessarily confusing. A person who is "wanted by [Country]" is a fugitive by definition (again, there need be no negative connotations associated with this status); their status as a rebel is often only coincidental.


 * I think we have overlooked the article Thenmuli Rajaratnam for the Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS due to the fact that she was a suicide bomber and she killed civilians including a former PM, then a civilian. Any comments Nitraven (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently this writer claims ref Thenmuli Rajaratnam a case of female suicide terrorism.Nitraven (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * These reports I found are very interesting to read   . Nitraven (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting read or not, none really claims that she is a terrorist. There is a reason why sources stop short of calling someone a Terrorist and this is the reason that we are requested to find sources that say someone is a terrorist to categorize them as such. Watchdogb (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [The NYT] treats her as a suicide terrorist, that should be enough.

In a similar vein, my research showed that women were much more likely than men to be used for single-target assassination suicide attacks. Perhaps the most famous of these was the 1991 assassination of India’s prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, by Thenmuli Rajaratnam, a Tamil Tiger. Although women make up roughly 15 percent of the suicide bombers within the groups that employ females, they were responsible for an overwhelming 65 percent of assassinations; one in every five women who committed a suicide attack did so with the purpose of assassinating a specific individual, compared with one in every 25 for the male attackers.

Yes, many female suicide terrorists are motivated by revenge for close family members or friends killed by occupation forces. But so too are males. Indeed, there are so many known instances of personal revenge driving both sexes to strike, and so much missing data about the friendship and extended family circles of suicide attackers, that it is simply impossible to say one sex cares more about others.


 * The bold faced text must necessarily include Thenmuli Rajaratnam for reasons of Coherence_(linguistics)/Cohesion_(linguistics), which we can assume for the NYT.Jasy jatere (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein, [this seminar] of the University of Maryland uses her as a case study for the motivations of terrorists.Jasy jatere (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only commented on RS. other criteria for the inclusion of her in the category may or may not apply Jasy jatere (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. One article is from Lindsey O’Rourke, a doctoral student in political science at the University of Chicago and the other one is a Case Study. Both are not authoritative RS to use a Cat of that nature.Teasereds (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing that the NYT fails WP:RS? Please, Teasereds, you can't be serious on that one. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NYT might be worthy of using as a RS for article content but when it comes for a highly controversial CAT of this nature, the author also matters a lot.Teasereds (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be your opinion, but it is not a policy that for certain topics RS could be not RS because of an an author. By the way, I fail to see why doctoral studies in political studies should be problematic? Just in comparison to, say, Ann Coulter?Jasy jatere (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you can't use for the sensitive Cats, the RS sources as you want. If there is no policy that for certain topics RS could be not RS because of an an author, then in this Cat case, consider Ignore all rules. Otherwise no one will believe in the coming years wikipedia itself a serious source for information.Teasereds (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so we agree that the rules in their present state endorse the interpretation I gave above, but you would prefer that the rules do not apply in this case. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The available wikipedia rules are not sufficient to guide what and what could be used or not as RS sources. So when you say "OK, so we agree that the rules in their present state endorse the interpretation I gave above" is only applicable to you not to me because I believe they are insufficient. And you could take it, "the rules do not apply in this case" as well because they are insufficient.Teasereds (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No more my comments here, a couple of Admins interpretations will be fine. Regards.Teasereds (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesty, I disagree. Just because some case study at a seminar about terrorist uses a person as an example it does not satisfy the requirement of the category. As I have said below the category clearly asks that a RS call someone a terrorist explicitly. As for the NYT article, no where in the article does it explicitly say that that she was a terrorist. Instead, it takes much the same path as the seminar and uses her as a case study. So we would have to refer to the other 4 definitions that needs to be fulfilled to call her a terrorist. Criteria 2 is not fulfilled as she was not targeting civilians but instead she assassinated a person. Criteria 3 is also not satisfied because there actually was a state of war (Civil war) in Sri Lanka and before the assassination there was a war between the IPKF and LTTE. Criteria 4 is also not satisfied because this attack was not to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, but instead this was a assassination - motivation for which is still a subject of controversy. Anyways, the argument about "london bombing" and any other type of terrorist attack is not an argument at all. London bombing and other bombing and the perpetrators have clearly fulfilled the 4 criteria and references can be found that explicitly call them terrorist but this case is unique in that it was an assassination and as we know assassination are not necessarily terrorist attacks. Watchdogb (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Watchdogb, seems to have a over looked facts;

"There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following elements defining individuals on this list:"


 * 1) Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.: That goes without saying.
 * 2) Targeting civilians.: Rajiv Gandhi was a civilian, coz he was the former PM and the 14 others killed were civilians. If assassination was the aim then she could have used a gun, knife or any traditional means of assassination, which would kill only the target and not 14 others.
 * 3) Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.: LTTE is no state.
 * 4) Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.: The IPKF had left Sri Lanka at the time of the bombing, hence LTTE was fighting only Sri Lanka not India (Rajiv Gandhi was Indian and the bombing was in India). Therefore no state of war between India and the LTTE at the time of the bombing,Absence of a state of war (We dont see the Japan bombing the US now do we?).
 * 5) Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.: Rajiv Gandhi was stating of sending a new IPKF to sri lanka if elected,"India, stay out of Sri Lank" was the message. If assassination was the aim then she could have used a gun, knife or any traditional means of assassination, which would kill only the target and not 14 others. The suicide bombing which killed 15 persons was more frighting that a assassination of one person.Since an LTTE links has been proven then it excludes organized crime performed for personal gain.

Furthermore "Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required'" the given RSs proves these, hence Thenmuli Rajaratnam should be added to the cat Category:Sri Lankan terrorists. Nitraven (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First and foremost the reason for the assassination of Rajiv Gandi was a political assassination. You cannot say that someone is a civilian because they are not prime minister of a country, in fact Rajiv, at the time of assassination, was a front runner and a candidate to become a prime minister and therefore is not some random person. Another wrong assumption made by Nitraven is that assassination does not define certain weapons to be used. A person can be assassinated in many ways which also include Suicide bombing. The assassination of Rajiv Ghandi was not to send a message to anyone, but it was to assassinate Rajiv Ghandi, who wanted to send the IPKF to Sri Lanka if he was to be elected. As I said above there is no WP:RS that explicitly call the person under question a terrorist and, in addition, the attack by the person does not satisfy Criteria 2 and 3 are not satisfied. Consequently she cannot be categorized to be a terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Watchdogb
First let me comment only on the issue of Terrorist Category as it is the biggest issue at the moment. Sri Lankan rebels were categorized as “Sri Lankan Terrorists” in wikipedia for a period of time. I feel that this category is in direct violation of a couple of wikipedia rules. The first issue is that this category violates WP:NPOV; “terrorist” is a POV word that is normally used to describe someone enemy or opponent. We, in wikipedia, are not allowed to call someone a “Terrorist” without WP:RS that specifically claim that they are terrorists. If we do have WP:RS to claim that someone is a terrorist, then editors are allowed to add that to an article but only in the format “X says Y is a terrorist” or “X alleges that Y is a terrorist”. This is the only way we can say that some is a terrorist. Our case, however, is unique in that when we categorize someone a terrorist, we cannot follow “X says Y” as it’s a category. I think the best way to resolve this issue is to take a look at the recent mass CFD involving all ‘’Terrorist’’ category, which resulted on a keep. The closing admin rationalised that definition on Category:Terrorism, if used properly, will take care of most concerns with the Terrorist categories.

The definitions are as follows:
 * Use of violence or the threat of violence.
 * Targeting civilians.
 * Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
 * Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.

In addition, it also specifically says “If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate.” So to categorize someone, the four definitions should be satisfied as well as the latter, and probably most important, part. Definition 3 serves as one of the most important part to not include some of the LTTE members. Sri Lanka is one of the countries that is plagued with Civil war – A state of war and crimes committed under state of war, while may be defined as terrorism, cannot make the perpetrator a Terrorist. Another thing that is missing in most of the so called “Sri Lankan Terrorist” article is reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist. Nitraven claims that Interpol is enough to categorize someone a terrorist but that is incorrect. All that Interpol states is that these individuals are wanted on Terrorism charges, but it does not categorize them as Terrorist explicitly. We cannot say that because someone is wanted on terrorism charges that they are terrorists because this is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In addition to violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that claim is also false. A wanted person is not automatically a criminal because they have not been convicted in a court of law. To this point we should enforce that all categorization of a person as “Sri Lankan Terrorist” must be backed by mainstream WP:RS that explicitly say that the person is a Terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Captain Miller - should not be included in the terrorist category as he fails the Terrorist definition. He did not target civilians and there is no WP:RS that says he is a terrorist.
 * Colonel Soosai - should not be included in terrorist category as the interpol website only says that he is wanted to on Terrorism charges but it does not explicitly say that he is a terrorist. As I said earlier if he is brought to a court of law and trailed he may or may not be charged with the crime. As no such trial has taken place he cannot be categorized to be terrorist
 * Velupillai Prabhakaran - Again given interpol source only says that he is wanted on those charges. It cannot be used to categorize the person as a terrorist because, as stated before, someone who is wanted is not necessarily the perpetrator of the crime- something that is decided in a court of law with the accused having a chance to defend themselves.
 * Kumaran Pathmanadan - Same as above.
 * Pottu Amman - Same as above.
 * Thenmuli Rajaratnam - Again while she may or may not have indulged on terrorist activities, it is vital for editors not to violate WP:OR. If there is no reference that clearly calls her "terrorist", she cannot be categorized a terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument about the organizations is actually obsolete for two reasons: 1) It is in violation to Category:Terrorism definition of Terrorist - which is supposed to be used to categorize someone a terrorist. 2) Currently LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka (to my knowledge) and as such they are not a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka itself. Watchdogb (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Balraj
I have also listed Balraj as article protected by SLDR. In it the user User:Teasereds is in a revert war claiming that Brigadier is a rank of the LTTE and Brigadier Balraj is a not the nom de guerre or alias of Balasegaram Kandiah. Nitraven (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide RS to prove that the LTTE has a formal rank structure similar to that of a formal military, describing it with the relevant insignia. If no RS is given within 24 Hours the use of Brigadier as a rank is in this article will be removed.Nitraven (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nitravan, please, remember that all there needs to be done is to find reference that Balraj was a Brigadier in the ranks of the LTTE. Your request goes beyond the simple WP:V and asks that reference should include more that what is needed. Let me also add that we do not need WP:RS - all we need is a LTTE reference that says that Balraj was in the ranks of Brigadier. Still, you seem to have missed this reference! Watchdogb (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, you are missing the point here. You have added Brigadier as a rank and not Brigadier Balraj as a nom de guerre. There is a difference. You can call your self Brigadier Watchdogb as a nom de guerre but you cann't claim to hold the rank of Brigadier in wikipedia coz there is no official rank structure or the rank of Brigadier in wikipedia. So it is inaccurate to claim that he held the rank of Brigadier in the LTTE rank & file coz you haven't established fact that there is a LTTE rank & file or if the LTTE can legally use Brigadier as a rank since it is not a legitimate military. As a encyclopedic article only facts should be added. The refs you have given is alright to state that Brigadier Balraj is the nom de guerre of Balasegaram Kandiah, it will not do to state that his Occupation = Brigadier (LTTE rank and file). And if Im not mistaken the LTTE started calling him Brigadier Balraj after his death, hence how can a dead man's Occupation be Brigadier (LTTE rank and file), Occupation should be what he did before he died. Nitraven (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read that the organization only gicves ranks after they are dead. That is the ranks are secret before they die but the information is made public only after death. I hope this helps Taprobanus (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The purpose of having proper ranks is to identify individuals in a proper command structure. you haven't given any RSs to prove what you said or to prove the LTTE has a proper rank structure. For what you say these are not ranks but just titles given after death. But then again, Soosai‎ is nt dead but uses the title Colonel, that contradicts what you just said. Nitraven (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no rule in wikipedia that requests we need to provide more than WP:V from WP:RS to add a claim or rank. LTTE has clearly bestowed Balraj with Brigadier ranks within their organization. You have not provided a single WP:RS that says that only a state Army can use the rank Brigadier. The fact of the matter here is that LTTE does use military ranking and it has, as proved by sources, placed Balraj in it's Brigadier ranks. All that needs to be done is to show that LTTE has placed Balraj as a Brigadier within their ranks -- this has been done . Furthermore, it is noted that Balraj is a rank Brigadier under LTTE and not under any other military, thus making your argument of a legitimate military obsolete. On a side note: Word are not covered in legal system; anyone and everyone can use words unless, of course, there is a trademark and currently Brigadier is not under any trademark and thus anyone, including the LTTE, can use the word as their ranks. Watchdogb (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are beating around the bush here, the LTTE started calling Balraj, Brigadier Balraj after his death the refs you gave prove it, Im not questioning that or saying that he shouldn't be refereed to as Brigadier Balraj. But what I am saying is that simply stating that his occupation (before death) was the Brigadier rank in the LTTE is inaccurate. So before adding this, provided an RS to establish Brigadier is part of the official rank structure of the LTTE or if the LTTE in fact as an official rank structure with information as to how people are promoted. Any one can add anything to his or her name or any organization can give or add any thing to a persons name, but that doesn't prove that they have a official rank structure with fixed ranks coz no one else may recognize it, so it means nothing out side that  organization. Adding Brigadier as his rank in the LTTE in this article will give the impression that the LTTE has a proper rank structure, which it doesn't, since no RS is given to prove it. An RS is needed because, even if the LTTE claims it self a legitimate military and has a rank structure to go with it, yet no country in the world excepts it, why should it be legitimate on wikipedia. Nitraven (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that whether the LTTE actually has a "Brigadier" rank is more relevant than whether it is a legitimate organisation. The Mafia, for instance, is not a legitimate organisation, but it has a recognised rank structure (see Category:Organized crime members by role). So, for example, one could reasonably list as a person's occupation: "caporegime for Cosa Nostra". As long as "Brigadier" is a valid rank/title within the LTTE (is it?), I think that it would be valid to describe Balraj as a "LTTE brigadier". As long as we don't link to the article Brigadier, we are technically not suggesting that "LTTE brigadier" is a legitimate military rank (that's mostly a matter of personal opinion, and so it is probably best to avoid the issue altogether). Would that be an acceptable compromise? –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You do have a point, but there are no refs stating that the a recognized rank structure. I am asking for a RS to prove that it, the rank structure is recognized. Therefore until such time that is established we cant describe Balraj as a "LTTE brigadier". But we can call him Brigadier Balraj for the sack of nom de guerre. But I do agree if it is established by a RS that the LTTE has a  recognised rank structure we could call him a "LTTE brigadier", without linking to the article Brigadier. But in such a case what do we list has his Occupation ? brigadier or not its not a Occupation is it ? Nitraven (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Black Falcon, you are absolutely correct and this is exactly what I am trying to show. Now all there remains is to show that Brigadier is a valid rank/title within the LTTE and that can be see here which clearly says that another person also head the rank. Watchdogb (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That ref doesn't say that the LTTE has a a recognized rank structure, as Black Falcon said, the Mafia has a recognized rank structure (see Category:Organized crime members by role). And if I remember right (ref) his case is similar to that of Balraj coz the ltte started calling him a Brigadier after his death too. And how does this fit in to his Occupation coz they both were named Brigadier posthumously? That contradicts the ref Watchdogb provided, and questions its accuracy.Nitraven (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But at this point could I say that we are in agreement that "LTTE brigadier" is not a legitimate military rank and that it can not be linked to the article Brigadier.Nitraven (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read what Black Falcon says again. All that remained was to show that LTTE had a rank and that was showed. Watchdogb (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A rank makes no meaning alone, besides ur RS is not accurate hence can not be considered a RS.Nitraven (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also an important point rank and title are two different things. A rank maybe used as a title, but not the other way around since rank as a hierarchy, a title may not. As such brigadier maybe given as a title in the LTTE but not as a rank (yet to be proven). However it is not a legitimate military rank as Black Falcon says. Nitraven (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even Salvation Army had a Brigadier rank. See these references.Teasereds (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point from Teasereds, yes the Salvation Army does have a recognized rank structure, which includes a Brigadier rank, which it uses in all the countries it operates in. This rank structure is published by both the Salvation Army and RSs. However this rank structure is not a legitimate military ranks and as such is not used out side the organization. The rank of a person is mentioned only in Salvation Army publications and other publications when it is made about the organization. When the person is refereed to individually or biographical articles the rank is no mentioned as a title but referred to (eg: Shaw Clifton (born September 21, 1945 in Belfast, Northern Ireland) is the General of The Salvation Army ). In respect to the article on Balraj we can base it on that of Shaw Clifton or any of the Generals of The Salvation Army which is a post in the Salvation Army. But then again he is a living person, hence can list Occupation as General of The Salvation Army, coz he is currently holding it, were as Balraj was referred to as a Brigadier only after his death. Nitraven (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still it can go like Brigadier(posthumously)(LTTE rank and file)
 * or Brigadier(LTTE rank and file), posthumously
 * or Posthumously Brigadier(LTTE rank and file)Teasereds (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it is more accurate to state that his Occupation was either in the article we can state when RS is given that
 * 1) senior commander of the LTTE or
 * 2) Militant leader of LTTE,
 * 1) "he was given the title Brigadier by the LTTE posthumously" or
 * 2) "he is referred to as Brigadier Balraj by the LTTE since his death" (the current refs are ok for this). Besides can any one in their right mind list Brigadier(LTTE rank and file), posthumously as a persons occupation ? come on an occupation is something a person did before he/she died, so what did Balraj do before he die. Nitraven (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Black Falcon has commented in detail. I think the right way how he could be addressed is Brigadier(posthumously)(LTTE rank and file).Teasereds (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er Black Falcon do you have any thing to say about this ? Nitraven (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems Teasereds has been making changes to the article without the consensus of the members of this discussion. Will some one please revert them. Teasereds just because you want something to be the way you want it to be it wont be.Nitraven (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus of this discussion will ultimately determine how the article appears, I don't think we should be too concerned with its current content/appearance. I think Teasereds' edit was an interesting approach (using another infobox to replace "occupation" with "rank"), but it introduces a new dimension to the issue (see #1 below). Before I offer a specific comment, I would like to request clarification on two points:
 * Do we want to indicate Balraj's rank or his occupation? If we're indicating occupation, using "posthumous" doesn't really work.
 * Was Balraj a "LTTE brigadier" prior to his death or was he posthumously promoted? My impression is that Balraj was a LTTE brigadier prior to his death, but that the LTTE did not announce this until after he had died. Is that correct?
 * Also, since the purpose of an infobox is to provide a concise overview of non-controversial information about a subject, we could simply leave blank the "occupation" or "rank" field in the infobox. The article is currently just two sentences long, so a method of providing a "concise overview" is not really essential. (I'm not suggesting that we do this now, but it may be an option worth considering if we are unable to reach agreement.) Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Balraj was a brigadier before he died, but it was announced only after his death. This discussion actually has a bigger manifestation because if we leave the infobox out, then I am inclined to add that he was ranked a Brigadier within the LTTE. So the conversation is not about just adding text to the infobox but instead being able to say what rank he held within the LTTE. So, I agree with Black Falcon in that it is not really essential and would accept Black Falcon's comment but seeing that this discussion is about a bigger picture, I firmly believe that I have shown what is needed to be shown, with WP:RS, that Balraj was indeed the rank of Brigadier and that LTTE does have a rank system. Watchdogb (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Watchdogb, you have nether established that the LTTE have a rank system or neither have you given any RS to this matter (the ref you claim to be a RS is yet to be excepted by persons in this discussion and has seen to be inaccurate, therefore I dont see it as a RS). Furthermore reports indicate that the LTTE started calling him a Brigadier only after his death here they were calling him a Colonel before that (this does not mean that they had a recognized rank structure). No RS has been given stating that the LTTE has a recognized rank structure indicating what they (ranks) are or their  (ranks) order of seniority. What there is, is that the LTTE is going around referring to dead carders with military ranks (eg Brigadier, Colonel, etc) this is by no means proof that the LTTE has a recognized rank structure and that they had ranks when they were alive. An attempt to show in Wiki that LTTE carders have ranks will be inaccurate and false. How can we in wiki state that the LTTE has a recognized rank structure a when they them selves haven't neither published it (list of ranks) nor acknowledged it. So until such time that a RS is provided to prove that the has a recognized rank structure and provides details on what it is (the ranks listed in it) I say we refrain from referring to a rank in articles on LTTE carders, but their nom de guerre or alias could be used.Nitraven (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nitraven brings in more WP:OR. There is no WP:RS that claims that Balraj was posthumously promoted to Brigadier. In fact, S.P TamilSelvan was promoted posthumously to Brigadier and there are sources that claim this, but Balraj was not promoted at all, instead he was already called Brigadier when LTTE announced his death. Anyways, there is not argument here about his ranking when he died, as I said before this is a part of a larger scale of discussion regardless of the infobox . I have provided WP:RS by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that clearly refers to LTTE rank and in doing so I have not only provided what is needed but I have also provided more information that I will use to create another section under LTTE called "ranks". Good work Nitraven. BTW are you intending that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not WP:RS ? If BBC is reliable, then the Canadian counterpart must also be WP:RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please create a section under LTTE called "ranks" (with ref ofcoz), I am very interested to see what rank system you claim that the LTTE has when they them selves are yet to publish one. As oppose the posthumously beening called Brigadier, ref ref. As pre your logic, If BBC is reliable, then the Sri Lankan counterpart (Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation) must also be WP:RS too. Nitraven (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason the Sri Lankan Broadcasting is not WP:RS is because they are government owned like Rupawakani which is a one side of the ethnic conflict. On the other hand, CBC is in Canada where LTTE is banned and thus any news would be more lenient against them. As I keep on repeating it does not matter if he was promoted posthumously or not because even if he was promoted posthumously I can add that to the article saying that he was bestowed the Brigadier rank within the LTTE force. Watchdogb (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, do you also contest this source as being non RS ? If not, then it is clear that LTTE actually has a rank within their organization and that Brigadier is the highest rank. Watchdogb (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Watchdogb, your earlier comments on BBC's Canadian counterpart goes to show who your logic and your concept of reasoning is. I only could say that it is nonacademic for if I tell the truth, you'l have me reported to some admin for violating some wiki law. Alas wiki is not free a forum as one expects. As per The Hindu do you consider it RS? That article is quit interesting thanks for sharing it. Yes it describes "rank of “Brigadier,” highest rank in the organisation", then we go back to the ranks of Salvation Army. As Black Falcon said this means it is a "LTTE brigadier" and is not a legitimate military rank and that it can not be linked to the article Brigadier, this is proven by the article it self when it starts out as "Five self-styled officers of the LTTE" this casts doubts on the LTTE rank and file to begin with. Due to this Im having some difficulty in excepting this article due to its contradictions, Black Falcon, Jasy jatere what do you make of it? Nitraven (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As per my WP:OR, your entitled to your opinion. Others can judge for them selves if its WP:OR and I think the same applies to your points given.Nitraven (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a look at these articles too this, here. Nitraven (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sri Lankan Military Officers have got the ranks of Majors, Brigadiers, Generals...etc. I wonder how they have earned those ranks, by fighting with "self-styled?" Colonels and Brigadiers or with any other "Conventional Military" in the region. If  Balaraj is not entitled to use the rank as Brigadier then how those who fought with him and his Military Organization are eligible to use those ranks?
 * Sam Manekshaw also a Field Marshal which we could rightfully use on wikipedia as he met number of wars. But Idi  Amin who self-conferred the Field Marshal rank also used for his page on  wikipedia. We can't pin point things on  wikipedia, then most of the information on  wikipedia are illogical though they have the RS.Teasereds (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all the Sri Lankan Military is a formal Military of a sovereign state, therefor I don't think I need to explain that such a Military has a formal and recognized rank structure, in place in both war and peace, included in constitution of Sri Lanka is the system of promotion and appointment of the ranks. It also notes the powers and responsibilities of the holders of the ranks. Therefor the officers and men of the Sri Lankan Military as any other legitimate Military, doesn't need to fight any one to be promotion. I am sorry that Teasereds don't understand this fact. In the case of Idi Amin he gave himself the rank (hence its refereed to as "Amin titled himself as" in the wiki article about him) but the rank was that of the Uganda Army (a legitimate Military). Its not just him all Kings of Europe including British hold the highest rank in their Militarys, technically self appointed, (eg Harald V of Norway). Hope that answers your question. Nitraven (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such rules that the "Brigadier" can be used by a formal Military of a sovereign state. Again a country in Civil War can't claim an absolute sovereignty of its territories.Teasereds (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that whether the LTTE is a legitimate organisation is the most important issue in this case; it may be relevant in whether we link to the article brigadier, but even illegitimate organisations can have formal rank structures. At least two sources (CBC, The Hindu) confirm that "brigadier" is a formal rank within the LTTE; this does not necessarily mean that it is the equivalent of the "Brigadier" rank in formal militaries, but it is a formal rank nonetheless.

The remaining sources fail to paint an entirely clear picture. The South Asia Monitor claims that Balraj was "posthumously conferred by the rebel leadership the self-style rank of a Brigadier". This claim is supported by The Nation, which further suggests that "Brigadier Balraj" was Kandiah Balasegaran's alias. The Sunday Times, however, uses "Brigadier Balraj" without any additional qualifications, and Siber News (is this article a copy of an article in TamilNet?) states: "Brigadier Balraj was the first commander of the LTTE's conventional fighting formation, Charles Antony Brigade, established in 1991".

Rather than attempting to come up with the precise combination of 2-5 words (e.g. "LTTE brigadier", "LTTE brigadier (posthumously), "Brigadier (LTTE rank and file)") that most accurately reflects this complex situation, I suggest that we instead add a sentence or two to the article that discusses his formal rank (or lack thereof), in a manner that conforms to WP:NPOV (e.g. "According to [source], ..."). Hopefully that will make the situation clearer and we can (if desired) discuss the infobox then. Thoughts? –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming articles
I believe the following articles should be renamed as following;
 * Colonel Soosai as either Soosai or Thillaiyampalam Sivanesan (real name)
 * Colonel Karuna as either Karuna Amman or Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan (real name)
 * Captain Miller as either Miller or Vallipuram Vasanthan (real name)

It is inaccurate to use military ranks with their names since none of them have been granted these ranks from a formal military. Nitraven (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should follw WP:NAME in maning articles, does to fulfill it it ? Taprobanus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NAME states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". Whether a person is actually of the rank the public uses in her name is not relevant. Note that WP:NAME does not say "use the real name", but this applies only to the title. Within the body of the article Manual_of_Style_(biographies) applies,

''While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version.''
 * I think this is very clear and unequivocal. No need to move Jasy jatere (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * k Nitraven (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1 RR violation
The user User:Watchdogb has has iolated 1RR in the of article Balraj protected by SLDR. here. Nitraven (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The two most recent reverts were made on 20:13, August 11, 2008 (UTC) and 14:48, August 13, 2008 (UTC), which is more than 24 hours apart. Also, since the intervening four edits by Thamil Priyan and myself (see diff) did not affect the disputed text, the "we will look at reverts, not at who did them" provision of 1RR (for clarification, see definition "S2" at ) does not seem to apply. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of watchdog
Is the recent block of watchdog an incident under WP:SLR, or not? Not sure myself ... Jasy jatere (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not an article covered by SLR, it was edit warring that got him blocked for 72 hours. Taprobanus (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * should that article then be covered by SLR agreement in the future? Jasy jatere (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think all conflict related articles about SL should be covered by this agreement. Taprobanus (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Extending the Blue box protection
I would like to extend the box protection by another 6 months considering the trajectory of the Sri Lankan civil war that is not showing any end in sight, thus provoking people to indulge in proxy war in Wikipedia ? Taprobanus (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been a very successful measure, and as far as I am aware there has been no complaint for a year now. Why not extend it by another year? &mdash; Sebastian 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont mind but I would like others to chime in as well. Thanks for coming back from leave to comment on this. Taprobanus (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK for me, since it helps to prevent edit wars. However, we should try to update the membership list. Lahiru has not edited since june, so I wonder whether he is still active Jasy jatere (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After the blue box protection the edit wars have been reduced substantially and 4 articles, all related to Sri Lanka, has been made into Good articles! I agree to extend the protection. Watchdogb (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef Block of Iross1000
The indef block on surprises me.He/she was a new user and sadly new users editing in conflict areas are attacked and blocked whereas they would not be done in other areas.If he/She is not a sock then that block is highly unjustified as he/she was clearly insufficiently warned. Feel that Good Faith was lacking in the block.I would greatly obliged if any one can look into this block.Surely we cannot drive away new users.Please I am not supporting his edits but indef blocking users for there POV is wrong. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * blocked as SPA and POV-pushing. The account was definitely centered on Sri Lanka, but not SPA as far as I can see. There are edits to Chankanai, Pandathiruppu and Sandilipay which are NPOV (and very short, but that's not the issue here) and do not serve any 'single purpose'. Furthermore, the user has added loads of categories to many articles. I have not looked at them in detail, but it does not seem particularly disruptive, at least it is not explained on his talk page. User also works in sourcing, which (quality of sources notwithstanding) rather points towards constructive editing. All in all, if there are issues with this user, I think they could be addressed on talk pages, and nothing in his behaviour seems to call for an indefinite block. Who asked for that block in the first place, and why? Jasy jatere (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was tryiing to mentor the guy through his newbie status. He/She was responding to the mentoring. He/She was not given the opportunity to change, he/she was not given proper warning by admins. Just suddenly blocked for ever. Even in arbcom cases people are given 1 year sentences, very rarely are they blocked for life. I would like to figure out how to proceed further?Taprobanus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Block_of_Iross1000 (Sandstein was the admin who declined the unblock) Jasy jatere (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've invited the blocking admin to participate here as a step 1. 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked and I am not aware of a reason for an indefinite block. I invited the blocking admin,  on  talk page again to explain this here. If we have no explanation within a reasonable time, then I will revert the block. &mdash; Sebastian 20:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User unblocked. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils
I have created the category Mass murder of Sri Lankan tamils per this definition. There seem to be some point of conflict or misundersatning about the term mass murder. I am opening it up here to discuss this in one location. Taprobanus (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All I really want to say is that if there is a clear definition by a reliable source, then we can use that definition to categorize articles provided the article fits, of course with RS, the definition. There is also another, much simpler, way of categorizing an article - giving RS that itself categorizes the article. Watchdogb (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the talk page of the user this seems to focus on.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Example 1
But no explanation given about the Talk page discussion Taprobanus (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * original removal
 * addition based on this
 * reverted again

Example 2
But no explanation given about the Talk page discussion Taprobanus (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * original removal
 * addition based on this
 * reverted again
 * This and the above case are synthesis/OR. No source is given at all, Taprobanus quotes a book, which he says tells us that riot = mass murder, but the book page doesn't mention rioting at all. I think this is a clear case of making things up and simply writing whatever one wants.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote Taprobanus quotes a book, which he says tells us that riot = mass murder. Please indicate where I wrote that. If not I expect you to take it back. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I refuse to play games with you. You say on the talk page that mass murder includes riots. You're saying that riots are murder.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have quoted the book that very clearly said mass murder includes genocide, massacre, pogoram. It did not say anything about riots. You said that I wrote it. Please be careful when throwing accusations around. Again, please show where I wrote riot=mass murder ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk)
 * Right on the talk page, you said that the book is a grounds for classifying riots as mass murder. I am not stupid. I do not worry too much if a bystander reads this and believes your fallacy. I do not choose what I do on Wikipedia based on popularity ratings. I don't think you do either.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if it is a Pogoram not just any riots. In that case I have to find sources that say they are pogorams. For 1958 riots, I have a cite, for 1977 I will produce a cite. Thanks again for keeping the discussion to the point. Taprobanus (talk)
 * From my understanding, you have to get it directly, otherwise one can get a legal definition and do theoretical judgments on people, which is still synthesis.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a difference of opinion as to how to interpret WP:SYNTH here. Understandable, may be we should get a bunch of others to comment on that, because Mass murder includes Genocide, Massacre, Democide, Politicide, Pogoram as well as individual mass murder by criminals. It has two distinct meanings, one is criminal justice level and the other is at international political level.Taprobanus (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Other articles
Other articles where such edits are happening are


 * 1) Navaly church bombing revert war going on (see discussion Talk:Navaly_church_bombing)
 * 2) St. Philip Neri Church shelling (no discussion)
 * 3) Nagerkovil school bombing (no discussion)
 * 4) 1974 Tamil conference incident
 * 5) Vaharai bombing (see discussion Talk:Vaharai_Bombing)


 * Murder means deliberate intent. Unless a source indicating deliberate intent to kill is shown, or a proper reference is given, then it can't go in there. You are adding things without a source.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Murder means deliberate intent. Unless a source indicating deliberate intent to kill is shown, or a proper reference is given, then it can't go in there Good point, based on your observation, follwing is my analysis
 * Agree it is WP:SYNTH
 * Agree it is WP:SYNTH
 * Thus far no RS sources
 * 
 * ,


 * That means for item 4 and 5, we should add the category back on Taprobanus (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From my reading, the conference incident says that the police charged into the crowd, and in the ensuing chaos people were killed. That is not sufficient to conclude murder, otherwise any police action that precedes a stampede will count as mass murder. Synthesis again. The fifth one again doesn't say murder either. It says the LTTE took some children to their bases and then it got bombed and it says that LTTE propaganda convicted the army, not that the army knew they were not conscripts and decided to attack them anyway.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the 4th one In the confusion, in which tear gas and live ammunition were fired, overhead electric wires were dislodged and seven civilians died of electrocution. Live ammunition was fired into the crowd. That is intent to kill.Taprobanus (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It did not say that they fired at the crowd.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Yellow monkey, you lost on on the 5th one, the cit says Father Harry Miller, an American Jesuit Priest who has been based in the region since 1948, says that the military fired artillery at the civilians to force them out of the region. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To scare them, or to kill them? You can't force people out of the area if they are dead.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We in wikipedia really cannot get into the mind of the people on the ground. All what I citing (not OR) is that Vaharai shelling or bombing was a deliberate act. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes the eyewitness a reliable source? Why didn't the journalist simply state that it was deliberate. Obviously in any physical confrontation, the people present will say what different things depending on their opinion.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the eye witness is neither Tamil nor Sinhalese, the chairman of the local Citizens council and an American jesuit and a vocal opponent of the LTTE.Taprobanus (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not sufficient, especially the police one, because for instance, in some real legal cases, a hotel bouncer has tried to intervene in an incident and sometimes the situation gets out of control, eg David Hookes. In that case, the bouncer was charged with manslaughter (but was acquitted) because there wasn't a belief that he took physical action to kill the person. There are other cases where security guards attacked robbers and sometimes the robbers ended up dying from a punch.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 04:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that casee simply have to find additional citationsTaprobanus (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Navaly church bombing
I have reinstated the cats. A discussion here could be beneficial.Teasereds (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is YellowMonkey in violation of the Wikipedia :WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation one-revert rule?Teasereds (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Teasereds has been banned for running a sockfarm.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you are behind the ban, but some of the accounts, which have been blocked are really not mine. I am forwarding a detail statement (via e-mail) to Jimbo Wales, other  ArbCom Members, Bureaucrats and Check Users to verify whether you are a neutral editor or even worth enough to be an Administrator or an ArbCom Member on  wikipedia.124.43.219.139 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ( I am leaving my  IP address visible to show only how fools you and your team are, in dealing sensitive issues which are more privacy concerned on  Sri  Lanka Conflict).

Notwithstanding the disregard for SLR conventions, we have to deal with citations and facts. If there is clear citation that says it was a massacre then the category applies. About the war crimes, it is a legal term. So we can argue both ways. About mass murder which is a neutral term as you can find as this describes all kinds of activities. I have cited why that category should be retained. Let’s see whether he wants to discuss it or not. Step at a time, you know Navaly Church Bombing happened may years ago. We are not going to resolve anything by editiong in an emotional tone or by trying provoke people by misleading edit summaries. At the end the facts will speak for themselves. Taprobanus (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of who is blocked and who is not, this article's categories are cited. Following source is reliable and covers the category, specially war crime. Watchdogb (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary on LTTE article
Also would like to understand this edit summary considering the edit had nothing to do with the edit summary ?Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended to all articles
Since there has been a heated debate over the categorization of articles, we need to resolve this issue for all articles that are related to WP:SLR. From above discussion it seems that the following can be drawn from discussion


 * A Reliable source must be provided in order to categorize an article.
 * Any POV source, including the two parties to the conflict, cannot be used to categorize an article.

Is there consensus on these issues ? If not please address your concerns. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree on this consensus. Sri Lankan articles are of special case and has been the battleground many times before. By this criteria for categorization we can avoide WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and possibly any further edit war relating to this issue. Watchdogb (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your edits violate WP:POINT. I only removed some categories where there is ambiguity between deliberate targeting and collateral damage or riots getting out of control. Planting a bomb in someone's house is not an accident. I have not removed the category for people who were lined up and shot in the back of the head, or hacked with machetes, because there is no doubt that whoever did them deliberately killed the people. In your case you are blanking out bombs planted in trains and planes, which cannot be compared to riots and disputed collateral damage.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is your argument, do you think the Category:War crimes in Sri  Lanka and Category:Civilian massacres in  Sri  Lanka don't belong to Navaly church bombing. You are blanking all the time. Don't try to be a "Proxy Warrior" as usual. Go and troll some less sensitive conflicts elsewhere in the world.124.43.194.119 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please maintain civility all the time. Let's try to understand what Yellow monkey is saying. These categories need wide consensus to survive a 100 years. Not just now Taprobanus (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hallo, Taprobanus, I agree with you. But a person, who is narrowly escaped in the Navaly church bombing and then visited the area after the bombing and then by my own hands removed the human debris especially the long hairs of women with fractured skulls, doesn't seem, I am violating any such "Civility" if there is something which is always valued by all the humans.124.43.194.119 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, can we assume that the above definition claimed by Taprobanus should be the criteria to categorize article? I agree with that since this will reduce a lot of edit wars in the future. Can we resolve this issue ? Watchdogb (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has objected to this since last October, I conclude that the definition is agreed, and I added the two bullets, with an explanatory sentence, to the project page. &mdash; Sebastian 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)