When citing or reporting alleged violations of policy, please keep the following in mind:

• Avoid speculating about the intent of editors and try to assume good faith. The latter part of a sentence that starts with "His/her additions violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV because ..." should explain how the additions violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, not why you believe the editor made a policy-violating addition.

• Do not make allegations of harassment (including stalking) unless you have fairly strong proof of such.

• Before making accusations that an editor has violated a certain policy or guideline, be sure that you are familiar with the policy or guideline, and are aware of how particular terms are defined and applied. If you have doubts, please contact another editor or an admin for clarification.

• When you describe an edit as "vandalism", you are implying that it was made with the intent to harm Wikipedia (see the definition at WP:VAND). If the purpose of or intent behind an edit is unclear, be wary of applying the label "vandalism".

• When criticising particular edits, comment on the content and not identity of the contributor. Aside from the fact that attempting to challenge a particular argument by challenging the person who offered the argument constitutes a logical fallacy, it is likely to be a violation of WP:NPA.

• Editors are free to criticise the quality of the contributions of others as long as those criticisms are intended to be constructive and made in good faith. Avoid using adjectives such as "ridiculous". Something that seems ridiculous to you may simply be the result of poor communication or a genuine mistake.

• Blocks are intended to discourage or stop disruption; they are not intended to be punitive. If you make a comment which you later recognise to be inappropriate, the best thing you can do is to retract it and offer your apologies. While the incident may not be forgotten, it will generally be forgiven.

Editors who repeatedly violate these principles, especially if they've been previously cautioned for doing so, will be blocked. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

This is a good summary, and I will copy it on the project page under WP:SLR#Guidelines. Thank you very much, also for your replies to yesterday's discussion, which helped calm the waters. To reduce the risk of further heated wars on that page, I will add the blue box on Alagakkonara. — Sebastian 22:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing calm to the situation, the article is back to being a neutral one with all points of views brought out just like it was before the flurry of activities in the last 48 hours. But I am alarmed at the tone of this comment

'I've found a slew of such articles with the same nonsense POV, which I'll start going theought when I get the time. First up would be stuff like Jaffna Kingdom (lol), Arya Chakravarti etc.)

[1]

indicates that these articles also require the blue box protection like so many other Sri Lanka related articles, so that we can edit and improve them using the Wikipedia rules including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:STALK, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanatonian, as the headline of this section is "A general note on the citing and reporting ...", I need to remind you to always back up citations with links. We need to be adamant about that. Please provide a link to where Snowolfd4 said the above.

That said, we need to address the concern, which is reasonable due to the fact that Snowolfd4 did not apologize for his mistakes. Therefore, let's watch these articles for now. We can always put the blue box there if conflict flares up. — Sebastian 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I'll go back to contributing to the project. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a weakness of the warning system - editors can just post them without providing a diff that shows actual edit the warning is about. If it is beyond SLT to resolve it then what should we do next ? Take it to Village Pump ? Kanatonian (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate place to discuss this is WP:UW. I'm a (currently inactive) member in that WikiProject, so I could offer to bring it there. Do you have an idea for wording it? — Sebastian 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can base the argument on at least the following two grounds:

• WP:NPA says: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." I would argue that "justification" generally means "back up your claim with WP:DIFF".
• It is simply a hassle for everyone who reads the note to find what it refers to, especially in articles that change quickly, or for editors that do many edits.

Please feel free to provide more arguments! BTW, in February I created Template:Vand3 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which implements a parameter for a diff. — Sebastian 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a trench lever contributor all what I know is that there is a problem when some one gets templated, incessantly by the same person. Given that there are millions of Wikipedia editors and the level to what some users go to harass each other, this scenario cannot be an usual occurrence. (I read today that someone has been stalked since 1999 and 6 sock puppets were attacking the same person over year and the person finally quiet Wikipedia today!). So if there is no clear provision yet in Wikipedia to minimize such actions ( I doubt it that’s’ why I wanted to know whether Village pump may have a better answers) then we should acknowledge it and eventually create a mechanism to minimize it. In way I want to make sure that if warnings are not given without proper diffs then it should be considered type of harassment.Kanatonian (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I would prefer for all warnings to be accompanied by diffs, your bolded goal is not practical. Aside from the fact that most user warning templates lack an easy-to-use diff parameter (probably an argument in favour of WP:DTTR), harassment has a specific definition on Wikipedia. The mere failure to provide diffs in warnings, which could be caused by convention, inattention, or laziness, does not meet that definition. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we make DTTR stronger such as a policy instead of a guide line ? Kanatonian (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can try the Village Pump or the talk page of DTTR, but you should be aware that there is substantial opposition to its principles and even more to its elevation to the status of guideline (it's currently an essay only, not a guideline). In fact, there was quite a bit of discussion about this in September (see Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars#Guideline or essay? and Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars#Consensus to be a guideline) and, in the end, it was decided to let it remain an essay. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that since it is not a policy or a guideline a person who templates you can be warned back. I would go about this with WP:NPA and say leave it at that. Watchdogb (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Sorry, Watchdogb, you seem to be missing the point. I tried to explain (at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/archive_4#User:Snowolfd4) that we can’t call it a personal attack unless we know that the recipient didn’t deserve the templates. It’s a loophole in the system. As long as there is no general Wikipedia policy against that, we need to assume good faith also for the person who posts the messages. Which means, we need to acknowledge that it is possible that there are actually instances that deserve the templates. The same holds for what Kanatonian calls “some one gets templated, incessantly by the same person”. As it was in the Snowolfd4 case, it is really hard to find out if these were justified. I am really loath to spending a lot of time here just because the warning system has a loophole. I would much rather spend the energy to fix that loophole.

Kanatonian, I agree with Black Falcon on your bolded statement: That way, we would accuse hundreds of well-intended vandal fighters of harassment. Obviously, we can’t do that. Now, if we already had proof that a particular user had used templates inappropriately, we could warn that user specifically not to use warnings with diffs anymore. But that proof is hard to get – neither you nor Wiki Raja provided any proof for that.

Kanatonian: I would really not want to make DTTR any stronger. To the contrary: DTTR is in direct contradiction to WP:BITE, which clearly says that we should treat new users rather with more patience than existing users. In my view it’s insidious, because, instead of fixing the current warning system, it creates a two-class society, so the group of people who applies it never feels the pains of its flaws themselves. Thus, DTTR is preventing the current warning system from actually improving. While I was not part of the discussion Black Falcon cites, I welcome its outcome.

Black Falcon, maybe we should really start adding a diff parameter to each template. I’d estimate that that can be done in about 2 hours. If we share the work among 6 people, it would be 20 minutes for each of us. That’s certainly not an argument for DTTR! — Sebastian 08:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what you are saying is there is a loop hole so we really have to find the clear cut abusers of this loop hole to make the community act. Well that means we just have to wait patiently so that the abusers manifest themselves to the community by their own actions so this loop hole can be fixed. It is a matter of time, meanwhile I'll take it up with village pump also. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to lose track of who we warned for what. Is the following correct and complete? Is my understanding correct that these users can be blocked immediately without discussion here if the same behavior reoccurs?

• Iwazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Direct, unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of a user in good standing on 15:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC) ("extremely pro-LTTE behaviour", "they would anything to cover up LTTE activities" [2])[reply]
• Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Abuse of automated tools to revert good-faith edits here on 07:08, November 27, 2007 (I think we should not include his block per ne bis in idem)

I think we agreed not to warn Watchdogb for the 1RR incident on the grounds that we didn’t have a clear definition of what we meant by 1RR - it would be ex post facto.

Should I post that list on the project page? — Sebastian 08:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead Kanatonian (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I moved it into the new chapter Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. I also moved the sections that are not talk sections from this chapter there. — Sebastian 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF has closed the proposal, which is now in effect. This talk page is the primary discussion point for concerns. You also contact one of the admins. I am currently in the process of tagging affected articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things...

1. I don't know about the other admins, but I feel I can be more neutral if I don't have a watch set on the affected articles, so leave a note here, where I do have a watch set or contact myself or another admin.
2. Two more admins have agreed to help, User:Jehochman and User:LessHeard vanU. This is in addition to myself, User:Chaser, User:Haemo, and User:FayssalF.

• Here's to a successful effort by all. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• HooEH! (The Canadian version of Hooah)Watchdogb 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have our first unhappy camper, IP is from Brampton, Ontario, Canada. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a very short block on this IP to prevent further disruption. More likely than not, this was a breaching experiment. If anybody thinks that blanking two Sri Lanka related pages was just a random action by a clueless newbie, feel free to revert my block, but I think the chance of this being a newbie are very low. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lone skirmisher. This time i'd call the soldiers camped at WP:MILHIST. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Jehochman. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandalism's such as this in Sri Lanka related articles have been regularly reverted by many wikipedians including User:Utcursch who seem to have a watch list, such deeds indeed go a long way in keeping nuisances editors and newbies at bay but what we need help is with entrenched editors who know what they are doing.Kanatonian 12:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring attention to the plight on Sri Lanka. There are well sourced references quite strongly (factually) disputing what is written in the current talk page I have made repeated attempts to discuss this and got Black Falcon to look at it and he concurred with me on most points. Everytime I added the well referenced stuff snowolfd4 would revert it. I ask for another admin to look at it. Yet in this discussion the other party has been quite frankly delaying the process. Take for example one of the sentences "Sri Lanka has enjoyed a stable democracy[4] and continuous economic progress,[5][6] despite the ongoing conflict with a separatist militant group known as the Tamil Tigers in northeastern parts of the country." I was definitely sure calling Sri Lanka a stable democracy is off the mark.

This is what Black Falcon wrote:

WP:NPOV defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". If so, the claim that Sri Lanka is a "stable democracy" cannot be classified as a fact. Since there is real-world dispute regarding the matter (the US Department of State classifies Sri Lanka as a "stable democracy"[2], but the World Bank and Asian Development Bank classify it as "one of the world's most politically unstable countries",[3] and The Economist labels it a "flawed democracy".[4]), I think the best course of action is to present both major views.

I said, ok lets even have a minority opinion of a state dept country report from 2005 (which incidently could be subject to political interference), but we need the majority opinion to mentioned, but also with some prominence. Things have been stalled. I would ideally like another admin to weigh on this as well, so that we can move the process along. Also, there is a whole list of points that should be in the article, but the other user (snowolfd4) has been unwilling to budge in my opinion, particularly even in the face of third party opinion. Sinhala freedom 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is diff of one of the revert from the version I had proposed then to snowolfd4s version [3] (before the agreement). There were a whole series of reverts between these two versions on thearticle history Sinhala freedom 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sme Diff's please ? Thanks Kanatonian —Preceding comment was added at 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the US Department of State, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and The Economist all classify it as you say and you have refs for each statement, given that these four entities are all reputable organizations, presenting these in the article would certainly be a legit entry that should stay and aid in making the article balanced with an NPOV view. As for the reverts, as Kanatonian says, please provide diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can dispute that these organizations said these things, so just add the statements with attribution and let the reader decide what they want to believe. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments over the statements made by the above mentioned reputable organizations. But I think we can nicely re-write the Black Falcon's version. Something like,

Sri Lanka was classified as a country with "a stable democracy" by the US Department of State, but due to its 25 years of long running conflict has made it to be one of the politically unstable countries with flawed democracy.

Any thoughts? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like...

Sri Lanka was classified by the US Department of State as a country with a "stable democracy". but its 25 year long running conflict caused it to be classified as xxx by yyy, www by ppp, etc.

— Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka was classified by the US Department of State as a country with a "stable democracy".^[1] But its 25 years of long running conflict caused it to be classified as one of the politically unstable countries with flawed democracy by the ADB and by The Economist.^[2]

How is it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put the references where they say that and it will be fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done but I couldn't find the ref to the ADB. Anyway still one question remaining in my head. Do we really need to say that Sri Lanka is a unstable country with flawed democracy? I'm asking this because in the ref (The Economist which is cited above), SL is not alone there with other developing countries. SL is right middle of the list by keeping the developed nations such as South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Estonia, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, from on top of it and by keeping Hong Kong and Malaysia from its bottom.

So is that really needed to state? Isn't it violating WP:UNDUE? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One ref is just a table. The other doesn't say "unstable" or "flawed". It'd best to phrase similarly to the refs you use. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything WP:UNDUE about the negative rankings for Sri Lanka, since they are from a number of very reliable sources in the field. However the article in its present state , there is a strong case for failing WP:UNDUE. Calling Sri Lanka a "stable democracy", by making a generic extrapolation of the situation from a 2005 state department is misrepresentation of facts. At the very least if the statement needs to be there, it can't be as prominent as the other sources since there is more of them having an alternate view points and it needs to be a qualified description that it was from 2005 (during the midst of a ceasefire agreement). Whatever is the ratings for other countries doesn't pertain to the Sri Lanka article. Sinhala freedom 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that new sentences suggested has a problem as well. It would be a case of WP:OR, without a strong undisputed set of references. There needs to be reference to show the civil war was what has caused Sri Lanka to have a flawed democracy and unstable political system. Although such a connection is plausible, I don't think its an undisputed view. So I think the civil war bit should be saved for another sentence and as Rlevse and Jehochman suggested we directly attribute the different views to the different sources. Sinhala freedom 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that SR has been in a near-constant military conflict for a quarter century is a strong case for it not being a "stable democracy". — Rlevse • Talk • 17:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the 2005 reference to being called a stable democracy was during the 3 year ceasefire. Sinhala freedom 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So taking all this into account, here is my suggestion:

Sri Lanka is considered one of the "world's most politically unstable countries" by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank [4]. The Economist labels Sri Lanka a "flawed democracy" in its 2006 rankings [5] and Foreign Policy ranks Sri Lanka 25th (Alert Category) in its Failed States Index [6]. Sri Lanka however at times has been stable and according to the US State Department in 2005, was classified a "stable democracy" amidst a ceasefire period of the the long running civil war [7].

Sinhala freedom 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see is that "flawed democracy" seems to not be in that ref. Where is it? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka is within the section "flawed democracies" on page 3 of the The Economist link. Sinhala freedom 00:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sure is, then I think your proposed paragraph is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sentence. Sinhala freedom 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is the most ridiculous decision I have ever seen. Full of OR and lies. And also FSI which was once kicked out from the Template:Infobox_Country[8] but now it's back to the stage through the article body. 2006 has been mentioned as 2005 and don't know whether its was a human error or whatsoever. Thast "flawed democracy" thing should be removed asap coz it's totally ridiculous and clearly violating WP:UNDUE as I previously mentioned.

Sri Lanka is considered one of the "world's most politically unstable countries" by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank[9]. Sri Lanka however according to the US State Department in 2006, was classified as a "country with fully functioning, stable democracy".[10]

I admire the views of administrators than the views of the other users. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I admire everyones opinion and don't try to distinguish from whom its from. But where its well sourced facts, there can't be much arguments about it whether I may like or not. So I don't think its "most ridiculous decision I have ever seen. Full of OR and lies", its the Economist rankings, not mine. The state department comment although published in the year 2006, covers the status in 2005. Whether other countries are listed in the flawed democracy list doesn't mean much for Sri Lanka. Also the Failed State Ranking is also from the respected Foreign Policy magazine, not my own words. Please explain in detail why you think its WP:UNDUE, what you had earlier claimed was WP:UNDUE is misinterpretation of the rule. Sinhala freedom 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to add the SF's version. It is very well cited and in accordance with all wikipedia rules. I think we can reword this following paragraph Sri Lanka however at times has been stable and according to the US State Department in 2005, was classified a "stable democracy" amidst a ceasefire period of the the long running civil war [11] into However, Sri Lanka, according to the US State Department in 2005, was classified a "stable democracy" amidst a ceasefire period of the the long running civil war [12] Watchdogb 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FEI, I have added the GDP stats and other current affairs back into the lead section. Sinhala freedom 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the main page for Reconciliation, do we stick to the Source classifications that was achieved before ? I personally think we should but what are the thoughts of others ? Watchdogb 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by source classifications? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We constantly have quarrels about what source can be uses and what not so we came up with this, it is not 100%. We should complete the task. Thanks Kanatonian 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revlse, I am talking about [13]. Recently some users who has no clue about anything but have a grudge against Tamil People seem to try to find ways to discredit citations like UTHR. If uses like this continue to abuse power and are not willing to see what is happening (IE this meditation effort) I am not sure how we can all continue to edit wikipedia assuming good faith. So my real question is, do we stick to what was establised at the ANI threat (That is, use this page to discuss issues and abide by what has already been established) or do we let knee jerk editors dictate, without discussion here, and without any wikipedia rules to back up their claims what we accomplish in this talk page. Watchdogb 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Response:[reply]

1. if the citation table has been effective in the past, I'd say keep using it.
2. as this peace effort is community based and the articles are under edit restrictions, everyone is subject to them. All users get 1RR daily and get one warning and should discuss potential controversial edits first. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much. The table of Citation classification was used before until things fell apart because of people not willing to discuss. Now that we have another formal peace effort we can use the table again. Watchdogb 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a lot of Sri Lanka specific articles get into endless edit wars, I would like to request a sub section on Human Rights. Sri Lanka just like Sudan has an ongoing issue with Human Rights. Not to mention that in a main article is in my view not appropriate. See the sub section in Sudan here. There is no major conflicts in that article over it, just a nice introductory into Human Rights in Sudan. Looking for commentsKanatonian 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am for adding a comprehensive yet compact human rights section. It is a sad fact that Sri Lanka is comparable to the present day chaos in the Sudan. Sinhala freedom 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you should state that, IN YOUR BLOG. Or I know very good places where those kinds of comments are mostly welcome.Should I direct you there ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article Human Rights in Sri Lanka. Given this is an overview article, we don't have subsections about every other thing.

I also think it's really sad there are people without a real country of their own. A country where the natives of the country actually think they belong there, rather than consider them unwanted refugees. Maybe we should mention that too, but I guess there isn't enough space to mention things which are pretty irrelevant to Sri Lanka nowadays. Maybe it should go in Demographics of Sri Lanka, in more detail. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for a small section. Nothing too specific but just an overview. Link with HR in Sri Lanka article. Watchdogb 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great input Snowolf, I have read similar comments by a famous Japanese Psychiatric.Where I think he said unwanted refugees tend to grow up hating each and everything thing. Some of them would even adopt names of the people whom they hate, purely for mental pleasure, according to him. Should we include this part also in the human right section ? Well, I can easily WP:RS that part ,machan. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate how, what you have just mentioned would relate to the human rights section, I am interested in knowing that ? Also, can you please specifically mention what group relevant to Sri Lanka you are talking about when you meant somehow this pertains to "unwanted refugees tend to grow up hating each and everything thing" ? Any reliable citations to go with this theory you have just presented in the Sri Lankan context or is it your feelings on this ? That would be much appreciated. Sinhala freedom 23:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like pretty healthy dose of endorsement to add a new section, let me think of something later. Maenwhile If you guys have any inputs please go ahed. Thanks Kanatonian 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I don't see a "pretty healthy dose of endorsement". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per SL article restrictions we will be opening a new discussion section in SLR, if you are interested you can join there with your points as to why you dont want a section on HR. Thanks Kanatonian 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that there should be section of HR on the Sri Lankan page. Folks, we need to keep in mind that this article is in wikipedia. As such we cannot censor information. Sri Lanka is one of the countries with the worst HR recored thus it does deserver a part in the article. Watchdogb 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Human Rights situation in Sri Lanka has come under criticism by human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch,^[14] as well as the United States Department of State^[3] and the European Union,^[4] have expressed concern about the state of human rights in Sri Lanka. Both the government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are accused of violating human rights. Amnesty International stated in 2003 that there was a considerable improvement in the human rights situation attributed to the peaceful context of a ceasefire and peace talks between the government and the LTTE.^[5] In its 2007 report, however, they stated that "escalating political killings, child recruitment, abductions and armed clashes created a climate of fear in the east, spreading to the north by the end of the year", whilst also outlining concerns with violence against women, the death penalty and "numerous reports of torture in police custody". However, the report also stated that the ceasefire between government and LTTE remained in place despite numerous violations.^[6]Kanatonian 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened in 2003 is now passe (not relevant) in my opinion. I am not sure if it should be mentioned who the perpetrators of child recruitment, enforced disappearances and political killings are. Sinhala freedom 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you word it then ? Kanatonian 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, remove the 2003 statement and I think the rest everyone (in my opinion) can live with. I realize now, it might just be more controversial if we pinpoint the perpetrators. Sinhala freedom 19:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no strong feelings against the paragraph suggested by Kanatonian, I will add with the changes I suggested. Sinhala freedom 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly expanded the scope to cover the edit war on Batticaloa, a Sri Lankan city. Hoepfully, this ends it. --Haemo 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Watch as people are removing your notification. Thanks Kanatonian 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in this page we are discussing about 10 disputes. Eleven days have passed since we get into this resolution process but still we have been able to resolve only 3 issues. How about taking one issue at a time and discussing it and finishing it before moving into the next dispute? As I see this will help to save time to getting the issues resolved. Any thoughts? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 12:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would only slow things down. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have never been fast on resolving either. For all these 11 days we resolved only one content dispute dispute. Issue on Kattankudy Massacre got a temporary solution. Sockpuppet resolved as a user issue. Still 10 disputes are pending for answers. I think getting together all users into one point will make resolving the issue very swift. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 13:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this in parallel is a lot faster than doing things one by one and I would oppose any imposed "rule" to do that. Sinhala freedom 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have done a lot her including having civil conversations in user pages about conflicts like here. Thanks Kanatonian 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the 11th but silent issue. It is on History of Eastern Tamils. This article has been mass tagged by number of editors repeatedly ever since it was originally creatd by a newbie without any effort at improving it and contributing to the project. I have just finnished cleaning it up, but left the WP:OR tag that my friendly Iwazaki tagged it as soon as he found out that I was working to clean it on. I need the neutral perspective of other SLR members before I remove it. Thanks Kanatonian 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This the version. Who knows by the time someone from SLR looks at it, it might have been reduced to nothing :(Kanatonian 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and requesting for an appeal on http://satp.org . satp.org is a very notable organisation on terrorism and currently been categorized by the #Classification of sources as anti rebel. SATP's research papers have been even used by the UNHCR for their documents.[15] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it s a biased source just like Tamilnet. Thanks Kanatonian 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what i am saying is that it should still be attributed that it is coming from SATP not written up as an undisputed fact from an RS source. Can we update it similar to that please ? Thanks Kanatonian 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kanatonian. Satp is a biased source and thus needs to be explicitly attributed. Watchdogb (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "unresolved" tag the other day, but on second glance, it appears that this is resolved: There never was a real disagreement. We never had classified satp.org in the first place, so there's no need to appeal. It seems there is agreement that it is a reliable source and that it can be used with explicit attribution. Therefore, I will classify it as QS in WP:SLR#List of sources and I would like to change the tag to "resolved". — Sebastian 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to confirm whether this section violates WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN and WP:NOT#NEWS. As per 8th and 9th points I hereby requesting admin's attention on this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All are referenced to impeccable sources such as the Washington post and the BBC. Could it be a case of WP:DONTLIKE ? Sinhala freedom 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have what ever we want here. It doesn't matter whether it was well cited with RS. WP:NOT#BLOG, so anyone can have anything they want in their own blog cited with the RS but not in here. Yeah DONTLIKE it coz I have never seen such cruft in Wikipedia before. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it is blog material ? Please do not try to censor wikipedia. These are relevant information about the Sri Lankan Army. You didn't like the HR violations there and now you don't like the Controversy section there. You do not own this article. Bring wikipedia rules that actually apply to this case. Do not bring things that has absolutely no connection to the addition. Watchdogb 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your just too funny. Point out the exact sentence in the rule set that says that addition of well cited (and non synthesized) information violates rules. Watchdogb 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common I am waiting. It should not take too long to point out what is wrong because you must already know it since you quote it so flawlessly. Watchdogb 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather create another article that points out these problems ? HR violations and such ? Wouldn't that be POVfork ? This is exactly why these are the addition to this article and not a creation of new article.Watchdogb 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section sure reads like a blog and far from NPOV. It picks some isolated incidents and rather 'matter of factly' passes them as routine fact. It also passes accusations as fact. And what is with comparing soldier's pay with politicians?! That is as silly as it can get. What next? Comparing soldiers' pay packets with cricketers and film stars? All the content of the section is entirely UNDUE and should go. If these isolated incidents are really so notable, create articles about them and then let us see how to import a summary of those into this article. Sarvagnya 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are main points of controversy for the Sri Lanka army. Notability is covered by well sourced references, namely washingtonpost and bbc. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "undue weight" with notability the same as Lahiru_k. Undue weight implies, when there is competing point of views or an event, you don't give undue prominence to that point. If its "silly" and isolated as you impatiently claim, why would WP:RS sources such as BBC and Washington Post 'waste' their time covering it ? Sinhala freedom 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that this problem could be fixed through collective editing. Or would you rather want to engage in edit war and start removing stuff. Violating the peace process ? What will it be ? I want the former but seem like you want the Latter. Watchdogb 19:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section as it stands now will go. This is a summary article and you cant simply pull any random stuff from anywhere and dump it in the article. You are free to work on it in your sandbox and come up with something that is reasonably non-UNDUE and non-POV and we can take it from there. Like I suggested you can start creating stubs/articles for these incidents so that we can see them for what they really are. Many of these incidents need more nuanced treatment and you cant simply dump a two line POV summary in this article. Sarvagnya 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to justify why it needs a "nuanced treatment". Just saying so doesn't justify it. Sinhala freedom 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead back it up with Wikipedia rules and not your rules. If there is rules please can you specifically point to wikipedia rules, then we can all work with that specific rule in our mind. This was no problem will arise and your concerns will be taken care of. So go ahead and show wikipedia rules and quote specific rules and not just name rules that has nothing to do with this. Watchdogb 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:POV. The section fails all of them and maybe more. The first part of the section is entirely based on the words of an acknowledged international terrorist. A well known international terrorist as he is, nay, was, his words are certainly newsworthy. Why, everytime Osama sneezes it is news. But everything newsworthy is not encyclopedia-worthy and words of a two-bit terrorist frothing at his opponents isnt what an encyclopedia is about. We have Wikinews for trash like this. Take it there. Sarvagnya 17:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki says "Controversy - First I didn't know carrying dead bodies away is the most important in a war. secondly I didn't know there are people who belive what LTTE say!!"

I am not so sure the sentence claims carrying bodies from the battle field is the most important thing, rather its intentional abandonment or claims thereof is a controversial issue. I would be more than happy to hear an elaboration from Iwazaki, maybe his point is not clear from the edit summary. Sinhala freedom 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lahiru you have reverted to Iwazaki's version but haven't bothered to explain anything. This is very troubling and appears to be a return to "old ways." The sentence doesn't address what Iwazaki mentions, we can't just make up a non existent issue. Sinhala freedom 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this issue even notable? Armies, as a matter of preference, usually try to recover the bodies of their dead, if circumstances permit. Circumstances don't always permit. I don't know what article this sentence is in, but it sounds like potential POV. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in the Sri Lanka Army controversies section. This issue was covered by BBC and other major news sources. Sinhala freedom 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. This thread is mistitled as the section is not about abandonment of dead soldiers, but rather criticism of the army's handling of remains, notification to their families, and meager recompense for those lamed. I'm going to edit the section header in that article to something more descriptive; meanwhile, I'd recommend editors try to find sources describing the government's and military's responses to these criticisms, for better balance. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this paragraph regarding abandonment of bodies and complaints by relatives, [16]. Thanks for helping to sort it out. I'll try to find SL Army responses. Sinhala freedom 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Since Sinhala freedom has been kind enough to provide me a link to the more controversial paragraph which wasn’t in the version I had read,[17] I would like to deconstruct it as a way to offer guidance on formulating NPOV presentations of controversial material. While the accusation is relevant from an encyclopedic perspective (primarily because of the related issue of complaints by dead or missing servicemen’s bodies and not the simple fact of unrecovered bodies), as written it is not NPOV. If one reads the source article, several things can be noted.

First, it is not made clear that a Tamil political leader made the accusation; it is in Mr. Thamilselvan’s best interest to portray the Sri Lankan army and government in the worst possible light, so this needs to be taken into account. He speaks of requesting the Red Cross to aid in turning over nearly 1000 bodies, but does not say what conditions were laid on the other side to access the bodies or their condition. Mr. Thamilselvan himself noted that hundreds were in a minefield and might have required that the army remove the mines – or refused to permit them to do so. There are always negotiations over such arrangements and the article does not make us privy to the terms and conditions. Moreover, rotting bodies can be a serious health problem and dealing with large numbers can be difficult without adequate mortuary services at hand. In either case, statements by a Red Cross official are notably lacking and would be more neutral (and thus more preferred) than those of either side.

A second problem is a factual error: the paragraph says that the Tigers buried the “abandoned” dead, but the article actually says that the army did (according to Mr. Thamilselvan himself).

A third problem with the paragraph is that it does not include the Sri Lankan Army’s response – despite the fact that the source article does. Just as the BBC reporter gives assertions from both sides, so should a Wikipedia article. Without doing so, we cannot claim to have a balanced representation of a controversial circumstance. With that in mind – and by way of example – please let me offer below one possible presentation of the material provided in a more NPOV vein:

In August 2001, Mr. Thamilselvan, the leader of the political wing of the Tamil Tigers, accused the Sri Lankan Army of intentionally abandoning the bodies of nearly a thousand soldiers on the battlefields since May,[18] despite the Tamils’ request that the Red Cross act as an intermediate. He told visiting relatives of missing servicemen that the military had only accepted 55 bodies to return to their families, while burying the rest with full military honours on the spot. Mr. Thamilselvan did not offer a reason for the army’s refusal, but did note that several hundred decomposing bodies remained in a minefield due to the danger of extracting them. A Sri Lankan military spokesman, Brigadier Sanath Karunaratne, acknowledged that the army cannot always retrieve a body because it might cost more lives, but denied the Tamil accusations, saying they were propaganda aimed at demoralising the parents of the missing soldiers.

Note that I have left out reference to the statement in the original paragraph that “Many of these soldiers are noted as missing in action, which doesn't entitle the relative of the soldiers to any benefits.” This would be very relevant and would provide an adequate contextual segue to the following paragraphs, but is not in the sole article cited and would need its own separate citation. Again, this is just one way to render the information in a balanced way, but I believe it worth the exercise to serve as a template for handling the issues that arise so frequently in these contentious articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question is do we really need such section? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort on writing an encyclopedia, not a collaborative effort on writing news bulletins about abandoning the dead bodies of fallen comrades. This is a single incident(or few incidents) of a 30 year old conflict which was cleared the path for more than 80,000 people for rest in peace. Right now I have the Sri Lanka Army's roll of honor list which is contain 10,688 names of fallen members since October 15, 1981 to June 30, 1999 excluding the number of missing in action. As I said before there is no need at all for mention such issues in an encyclopedia article and such abandoning the dead bodies incidents have even reported in countless times where the developed world armies have been involved. So this matter is obviously subject to the WP:Notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do maintain the events are notable since it does have coverage from major news sources. Its very rare there is coverage on sri lanka at all, and the very few times it is for notable reasons. What is being blanked is a case of a person not liking what is there. All sort of unrelated wikipedia rules are stated, hoping something will stick. So I don't buy this censorship. This censorship is going on other articles as well and it is politically motivated towards supporting the ruling Rajapakse regime. Sinhala freedom 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any notability about these facts unless someone else's POV and bias which is mixed with some mere references from the google and remixed it to meet the encyclopedic writing style. I am well aware of the wikipedia policies what I'm talking in this page and only thing that I can see from your comment is you are misusing my assume good faith and attacking me and my nonexistent politics while keeping violating WP:POINT. I have no resistant at the moment towards the Peacekeeping scandal section which at least has the current event advantage and the notability. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to resolve the issue's notability. As I pointed out above, most times the fact that an army has not been able to recover all of its casualties is not notable in of itself. The only aspect that potentially makes this notable here is due to its apparently being an issue in Sri Lanka itself – and that is something you and more knowledgeable editors will need to resolve. My purpose was more to demonstrate how to handle the write-up of a contentious issue. You'll note that I have not added it myself to the article in question simply because I don't know whether it should be there or not. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that you read the above discussion regarding the Sri Lanka Army#Controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families section before you make your vote here. Please sign below with # ~~~~ and make sure to keep a small note to backup your vote.

Everybody is invited to contribute constructively to the discussion. However, to avoid spamming and canvassing, we will only count votes from users who signed the final resolution.

• Note: I just changed the above wording to make it more straightforward and logical. This includes removing the special clause for admins. It is everybody's prerogative to sign the resolution. I appreciate that the admins were instrumental in creating the resolution, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't want to sign it, too. — Sebastian 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should remain in the article

1. --Kanatonian 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Watchdogb 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Sinhala freedom (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should not remain in the article

1. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bodhi dhana 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC) See my statement further down.[reply]
3. This is clearly a piece of work for the propaganda of the LTTE. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of writing. I agree with Lahiru_k that this should be removed from the article. Supermod 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements

• Wikipedia is a collaborative effort on writing an encyclopedia, not a collaborative effort on writing news bulletins about abandoning the dead bodies of fallen comrades. This is a single incident (or a few incidents) of a 30 year old conflict which cleared the path for more than 80,000 people to rest in peace. Right now I have the Sri Lanka Army's roll of honor list which contains 10,688 names of fallen members since October 15, 1981 to June 30, 1999 excluding the number of missing in action. As I said before there is no need at all to mention such issues in an encyclopedia article and such abandoning the dead bodies incidents have been even reported in countless times where the developed world armies have been involved. So this matter is obviously subject to the WP:Notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Compromise ideas moved to next subsection)

Note: The following was intended as a vote; however, the voter has chosen to not sign the list of participants. While everybody is welcome to participate in the discussion, it would not be fair to count this as a vote. I am therefore moving this down here to the Statements section. Iwazaki, you are still invited to join as a participant! — Sebastian 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 10:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Per Lahiru_K,Bodhi dhana,supermod. The whole thing looks nothing but pure LTTE propaganda. Regardless of this straw poll, this should be promptly removed.[reply]
  • "LTTE Propaganda" is not true. However, it is true and notable (Per Askari) and should be mentioned. Watchdogb 11:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the poll is at a stalemate, I would like to look for a compromise. The following two have been proposed some time ago and nobody has objected to them. — Sebastian 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave links

I think Askari Mark has hit the nail on the head with: "most times the fact that an army has not been able to recover all of its casualties is not notable in of itself." Perhaps all that is needed is a link to the Washington Post or BBC article. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and articles are not supposed to be mongraphs on a topic. So, remove this section or just leave a couple of links to the RS. Bodhi dhana 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sri Lankan Civil War

I don’t think the issue of notability in this particular case revolves around the issue of “abandonment” so much as it does the novelty of families of missing soldiers making a religious pilgrimage into enemy-held territory to specifically ask for the other side’s assistance in resolving the status of their missing sons. This would be the reason the BBC and other Western press made a rare presentation of it. That said, though, in my personal opinion, to the degree that the subject matter is notable, it would be more appropriately placed in an article on the civil war and not in an article on the Sri Lankan Army itself. That may suggest a constructive, non-deletionist compromise. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference/paraphrase from source verbatim

Since the source is notable and no one has argued that. Why not paraphrase from the sources directly. While its an encyclopedia, we can't be selectively choosing to reduce coverage of issues to links, when the pro-Rajapakse regime says so. Sinhala freedom (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference/paraphrase is already part of the outcome of the discussion below. How much in depth we want to describe the issue is another question. I do respect your opinion that you want it to be longer, but that is not a compromise idea. — Sebastian 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion of the following compromise idea:

Move to Sri Lankan Civil War

I don’t think the issue of notability in this particular case revolves around the issue of “abandonment” so much as it does the novelty of families of missing soldiers making a religious pilgrimage into enemy-held territory to specifically ask for the other side’s assistance in resolving the status of their missing sons. This would be the reason the BBC and other Western press made a rare presentation of it. That said, though, in my personal opinion, to the degree that the subject matter is notable, it would be more appropriately placed in an article on the civil war and not in an article on the Sri Lankan Army itself. That may suggest a constructive, non-deletionist compromise. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In which section of Sri Lankan Civil War would you propose to put this? The article currently is arranged chronologically, and this section covers several events. Would it make sense to move it to Human rights in Sri Lanka instead? — Sebastian 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really looked through the wealth of material on this conflict to look for a proper home for it, so I've just done some further perusal. It really doesn’t fit in the Human rights in Sri Lanka article at all. As for the Sri Lankan Civil War, timewise it would seem to fit in the Eelam War III section, possibly under the Early peace efforts subsection. The conflicts of 2001 are barely addressed in passing and it may be that only passing mention should be made of this issue here, if at all. Where it probably belongs is in the separate article Eelam War III – which is just a stub. If nothing else, it could be added there in toto awaiting fuller development of that article. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea to move it to Eelam War III. I could do this right now, seeing how the remove faction has been really patient with the article being in the WP:WRONG version for a week. Should we link to that from the SLA article? We could just leave one sentence in the Sri_Lanka_Army#Personnel section like this "During the Eelam War III there has been some controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families." Does that sound like a fair compromise? — Sebastian 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] It does, and I think it goes along with Bodhi dhana's suggestion as well. I’ve taken a closer look at the full section and its sources (and found the third paragraph has mistakes not supported in its sources), and here’s what I would like to suggest:

First, replace the entire current 3-paragraph subsection 3.2 with the following:

Complaints over survivors’ benefits

The Organisation for Disabled Soldiers has complained that compensation paid for war victims is inadequate. In August 2007, a spokesman for the organisation pointed out that the compensation paid to the families of soldiers killed during the war has remained flat for 23 years at Rs. 150,000, which has dwindled in value to the equivalent of US$1500. This amount is the same for all ranks, including generals. In contrast, however, the families of politicians are much more highly compensated; the family of the late Minister Mr. M. H. M. Ashroff was awarded Rs. 5 million (US$50,000) following his death in a helicopter crash. Furthermore, the families of soldiers killed before completing 12 years of service are unable to claim any pension.[19] There have also been criticisms of the manner in which the Army recovers and disposes of the remains of its dead soldiers.[20]

Second, move the 1st and (a rewritten) 3rd para. to Eelam War III as a new Section 3:

Controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families

In August 2001, S. P. Thamilselvan, the leader of the political wing of the Tamil Tigers, accused the Sri Lankan Army of intentionally abandoning the bodies of nearly a thousand soldiers on the battlefields since May, despite the Tamils’ request that the Red Cross act as an intermediate.[21] He told visiting relatives of missing servicemen that the military had only accepted 55 bodies to return to their families, while burying the rest with full military honors on the spot. Thamilselvan did not offer a reason for the army’s refusal, but did note that several hundred decomposing bodies remained in a minefield due to the danger of extracting them. A Sri Lankan military spokesman, Brigadier Sanath Karunaratne, acknowledged that the army cannot always retrieve a body because it might cost more lives, but denied the Tamil accusations, saying they were propaganda aimed at demoralizing the parents of the missing soldiers.

However, this was not the first time issues had arisen over reclamation of soldiers’ remains and the Army’s responsiveness to the requests of families of missing soldiers for information regarding their fate. In April 2003, a group of parents of some of the 619 soldiers reported missing from a battle fought 27 September 1998 obtained permission from the LTTE to travel to the battle site. The families’ previous inquiries at the Defense Ministry, the Sri Lankan Army, and the International Committee of the Red Cross for information on their sons’ fates had been fruitless. At the battlefield they learned that some 500 bodies had been piled together, doused with kerosene, and burnt on the spot by the Sri Lankan Army. Upon their return, a lawsuit was filed on the families’ behalf requesting a mass funeral and DNA testing so Buddhist, Muslim and Christian families could collect their sons’ remains and give them proper burials. The Ministry of Defence organized funeral in 2006, but declined to perform the requested DNA testing.[22]

I don’t believe this should remain as a section in the long run, but the article is so poorly developed, there’s no clear place to subordinate it to. Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is clearly an improvement on several counts. I also have a few changes.

• Most importantly, you're right that the compensation for war victims can be separated from the burial issues. Generally, payment belongs here, since it is an important issue for any organization, and I think it is defendable for the text on compensation for war victims to take about one tenth of the description of equipment. I wouldn't object to it being shortened a bit more, though. (E.g., I'm not sure if the addition of "The Organisation for Disabled Soldiers" is really an improvement. The organisation itself doesn't have an article, and the important information is that this issue exists, not that it is a veterans' organization that brought it up.
• The wording of the last sentence sounds like disposal of garbage. Why not avoid weasel language and quote the source verbatim?: "There have also been several hundred cases in which the military was not recovering soldiers' bodies." I think to keep one sentence is a fair compromise.)
• I would like to have some link to Eelam War III or to the section. I'm assuming it was just an oversight; but if there is a reason why you left this out, feel free to remove it.
• The third paragraph is a clear improvement - well done!
• You are raising a good question if that should remain a separate section. However, I think we can postpone that till when the Eelam War III gets reworked.

In conclusion, I will implement the changes for now. We can discuss the details tomorrow, and if there is no objection I would mark the issue as resolved. — Sebastian 03:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are fine with me.

• I added the Organisation for Disabled Soldiers because that is the organization quoted in the source as making the complaint. I do not know how notable that organization is nor how many other veteran issues organizations are active in Sri Lanka. Given that I can’t say “several veteran organisations have complained”, I’ve left it at the one I know that did so – and it makes clear that this is an indigenous complaint rather than, say, LTTE propaganda. I have to leave that to editors more knowledgeable about Sri Lankan political culture than I.
• Having lived my entire life around military personnel, I have tended to pick up their euphemisms. In such usage, “disposal” is more in line with “a process of proper and responsible treatment” and encompasses location, recovery, and either the burial or cremation (specific forms of “disposition”) of their remains in situ or else (if practical) returned to their families for same. It’s not a term I’d quibble over in any case – and I would never believe anything I submitted to be “unimprovable”.
• It had been my original intent to have such a link; I lost track of it due to other distractions.
• Thanks – I hope both sides will find it an agreeable rendering.
• Well, actually it’s a default case since there’s so little in the article in the first place. As is, I don’t believe Eelam War III could survive an AfD.

FYI, I will be on a Wikibreak for about a week beginning Tuesday, since Thursday is our Thanksgiving which is always full of family gatherings. (In fact, this may well be my last post beforehand, considering what all needs to be done in the time remaining.) It’s a time for us to remember to be thankful for whatever we have been blessed with and to be mindful that God and his provenance are greater than we are or the things that threaten us. Happy Thanksgiving Day! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful and nice words. You have done good work here and you deserve a rest. I will miss your military expertise, but I can hold the position till you're back. — Sebastian 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, the images on the Kattankudy massacre article [23] had questionable copyright from before (there is no evidence to show since the old image was deleted - maybe an admin can see what was deleted) Kanatonian can testify to this as well. The uploader then deleted the original files and instead uploaded it to flicker, where it doesn't say its legal or not and now its referenced in wikipedia. I think that move should be investigated for copyright legitimacy. I fear this may become a repeat ocurance for other controversial images that have questionable copyright. Sinhala freedom (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I refer you to WT:C? My personal impression is that flicker does not agree with the copyright we would need, so we can't generally use a flicker picture. But I'm no copyright expert, don't quote me on that. — Sebastian 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can all please take a look at this and comment. Thanks Watchdogb 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as odd to have an infobox on an organization that lists its crimes. Having said that, these things--terrorist bombings, children in war-, etc are crimes. The other thing wrong with these links is that they are mostly internal wiki links. I think this section of the info box be removed and the links put into "See also" OR made into a summary style section with links to the main articles on these crimes. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that we use the same infobox that has been used on other proscribed organizations. Thought ? comments ? BTW Thanks Rlevse for being active and helpful . Your time is appreciated. Watchdogb 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly believe LTTE has committed these horrible acts, there needs to be some token comment or room for something from the LTTE side. Otherwise it looses credibility and won't be believable. Thats the sad reality. If we break wikipedia rules to get the message across from one side (even though its nice to read), I just think the article gets to be in perpetual chaos in the long run and so we must prevent that. This is bringing collective shame to Sri lanka based editors when articles we write are deeply distrusted. Sinhala freedom 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SF is correct, both sides need to be presented. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been settled. Any objection to closing this? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously resolved, since this has remained stable for over two weeks now. — Sebastian 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Previous discussion.

The above-named image - Image:LTTE child soldier.jpg - is labelled on its description page as being a picture of an LTTE child soldier, and is used in the article on Military use of children in Sri Lanka to illustrate the use of child soldiers by the LTTE. Whilst the LTTE has indeed used child soldiers - and very possibly still does - according to this piece in the Sri Lankan newspaper "The Nation on Sunday", the girl in this particular picture is actually not a child soldier, but the daughter of the person being buried, dressed up in military fatigues for the funeral. As such, it seems to me that its present use may be somewhat misleading.

I'm bringing this here because the article says it's subject to editing restrictions, and I'm not sure where else to take it - apologies if it's in the wrong place. -- Arvind (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is true regardless if the Nation on Sunday is right. As long as we have no reliable source saying that this is proof for child soldiers being used, we can't WP:SYNTHesise such a statement from this one picture. Moreover, the picture is probably not fair use, but I'm not a copyright specialist. — Sebastian 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copyright, the image may fail non-free content criteria #1, which states:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

In theory, a free photo of an LTTE child soldier, and one in which the subject is more prominent displayed in the photo, could be produced. Of course, there is also the fact that an attempt to take an image of an LTTE child soldier could endanger the life of the photographer, which strengthens the fair use claim (if the image is to be kept, that should probably be added, as the current wording of the fair use rationale seems insufficient).

In addition to copyright and original research concerns (I won't comment on the latter as I can't access the source that claims that the image depicts a child soldier), we should also consider conformance to the BLP policy. The image depicts a living person, and the label "child soldier" should be applied only if it can be reliably sourced.

At the moment, given the information presented so far, I am leaning toward deletion of the image, possibly with the option to re-upload (under a different name, per WP:BLP) for use in the article S. P. Thamilselvan, to illustrate Thamilselvan's funeral. (Caveat: Unless more content is added to the section in that article currently titled "Death", use of the image in that article could be considered to serve a decorative purpose only, in violation of WP:NFCC #8). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know whether this girl is a child soldier or just dressed as a soldier? Is there proof either way? Does it say this in the original newspaper article? Until we know, it should be removed from the wiki article and it could very well indeed fail FU rationale. The article on the person in the coffin is a better place, with no mention of the girl being a soldier. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rlevse, the picture will be removed from the article. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the image for deletion per CSD I5 (orphaned non-free image) and CSD I7 (invalid non-free use rationale). Although a possibly valid non-free use rationale could be written for use of the image in the article S. P. Thamilselvan, the image would need to be re-uploaded under a different title (a "move" function does not exist for images). Tagging might seem overly cautious in light of the fact that this discussion effectively justifies an immediate deletion, I want to make sure that Lahiru k is aware of this discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rlevse,

1. LTTE is widely notorious for using child soldiers, so there is no need to hesitate reagrding that matter.

2. Yes, this picture made a great fuss in Sri Lankan community (news papers and web sites including blogs) just after it was first published in http://www.sankathi.com. As I heard few hours later they removed the child from the picture after they realised the fatal mistake done by them. Then afterwards they re-uploaded the picture and it was available when I discussed the matter on my talkpage with Kanatonian and now it is deleted from the sankathi.com.[24] However Daily Mirror still have the sankathi.com's modified picture and it clearly shows the child's shoulder.[25]

3. Actually it was mentioned in lots of published sources such as these web sites as I said above.[26][27][28][29]

Summary,

• LTTE is widely notorious for using child soldiers.
• sankathi.com accepts that they have done a fatal mistake by uploading the picture with out removing the kid, hence they accept the kid as a child soldier.
• If she is the daughter of the deceased person, her mom must have got wire crossed with a fancy dress parade and her husband's funeral to dress her up in the LTTE uniform.

Reply to Black Falcon,

1. I agree to re-upload the image with a different file name.

2. Actually this image does not violate WP:NFCC#1 because there is no free or equivalent media available in the cyberspace at this moment. I tried to find such a thing but failed to do so. Hence I moved to The Island's e-paper. If you are interested I will try to find a copy from a hard copy.

3. Also you made a point as this image could be a fake one. I don't like to accept your point at once because that argument was widely raised by many Lankan reliable published sources like The Sunday Island and Daily Mirror[30] excluding the blogs.[31][32] Also as I said above Daily Mirror still have the sankathi.com's modified picture and it clearly shows the child's shoulder.[33]

4. I choose {{Non-free newspaper image}} as my FU rationale because I took The Island as my source. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised you are an avid reader of the pro-LTTE sankathi.com :P. The claim of fatal mistake for cropping the image may well have been a privacy issue. Unless if you can provide some reliable source to indicate this, then your claim is an obvious case of original research. Also you can't just takes images from newspapers and claim the need for fair use, when the images are copyrighted. Just because lankanewspapers or other sri lankan blogs does it, doesn't mean we are also allowed to break copyright.

If the child is holding a combat weapon, then I think thats a solid case to claim child soldier. The problem is that there are parents and relatives who do dress up there kids in GI Joe uniforms or costumes and so wearing camo alone doesn't mean much (consider ROTC, cadets) ? Are we going to claim they are child soldiers as well ? So I think this tangential extrapolation and original research abound.Sinhala freedom (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Lahiru k

The current wording of WP:NFCC#1 requires not only the current absence of a free equivalent, but also that a free equivalent could not be (reasonably) created. This is a matter of substantial dispute, but the current wording seems to reflect the prevailing consensus. It's technically possible to take a free image of a LTTE child soldier; the question is whether it's reasonable to expect that a free image could be created, since attempting to photograph a child soldier could be a risky endeavour. This, combined with the sourcing issue (see below), suggests that this photo may not be a good choice to illustrate the subject of child soldiers in Sri Lanka.

Use of the image (or the cropped version here) to illustrate Thamilselvan's funeral would be more defensible per fair use, as the event (the funeral) is not reproducible. Of course, WP:NFCC#8 also requires that the image not serve a purely decorative purpose, and that it illustrate information or ideas in the text of the article S. P. Thamilselvan.

As for your third point, I'm not questioning the authenticity of the image, but only suggesting that the label "child soldier" must be reliably sourced (per WP:NOR / WP:V and WP:BLP). The mere fact that the child is wearing guerilla fatigues is not proof that she's a child soldier; the choice of dress may be a symbolic act. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this looks resolved, but since I already made a wrong call on this before, I need to be sure. Any objections to considering this resolved? — Sebastian 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been deleted, so I think we can safely consider this particular issue resolved. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An entire section properly sighted has been removed twice now. Further the anti-vandalism tool is misused by the user who has a history of uncivil behaviour and has been blocked number of times as well as being warned number of times by admins. The section in question is Photo controversy. The user in question is User:Snowolfd4He has misused the anti-vandalism tool number of times over the last one year and has been warned at least one before not to misuse it. I can provide the diffs if requested by any admins. Resolution I am looking for from SLR is

• 1. Thorough discussion of the section as to whether it should stay or not.
• 2. Debar User:Snowolfd4 from using such powerful tools (Anti-Vandalism) to actually stalk users and vandalize articles. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned not to do it again. Next time any admin can take away the tool right away. — Sebastian 03:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the issue are as follows:

• 1. Given the sources currently used in the section, I do not feel that it should exist. Although titled "Photo controversy", the section is primarily about the state of the victims; however, these details are already stated in the second paragraph of the Incident section. Also, although the massacre seems to have sparked general outrage, or at least expressions of such, I could find little to indicate that the publication of the photos was itself a source of controversy. If the act of publication was not itself a source of controversy, then perhaps it would suffice to note that graphic photos of the victims were published by TamilNet and republished in other media (the Reactions section seems most suited, at the moment, to contain such information).
• 2. Even though I essentially agree with the removal of the section, I think the use of the term "vandalism" in the automated summary was inappropriate and unnecessarily inflammatory. I don't use automated anti-vandalism tools, so I don't know how easy or difficult it is to use a different summary, but I do know that it's possible. At minimum, the "undo" button in the "Revision history" page can give a more neutral edit summary. As a general rule, I'd say it's advisable to avoid the words "vandalise" and "vandalism" to describe actions taken as part of a content dispute (this applies equally both to the characterisation of the section's removal and of its restoration), and urge editors involved with Sri Lankan conflict-related articles to remember that the label of "vandalism" is appropriate only in the presence of intent to compromise the quality of an article (see WP:VAND), and thus to avoid using them to describe content disputes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: There were more changes in 2006 Mannar massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) than what Kanatonian reverted. — Sebastian 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowolfd4 has not yet violated our 1RR as the photo section cuts were 2 days apart. However, they were not "poison" nor "vandalism" as his edit summaries claim. They have valid citations. Hence, this is disruptive behavior, incivil, inaccurate and edit warring. A warning has already been issued to Snowolfd4. However, any further such actions by him on this article or any other edit restricted Sri Lanka article should draw a block of at least 72 hours, as that was the length of his last block. I also agree with Black Falcon that this paragraph is redundant and ask BF to merge it into the second paragraph of the incident section, merging anything not already mentioned and the refs. I'm advising Snowolfd4 to read this thread. 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and merge the non-redundant parts of the section and will post a note here once I've finished. In the spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS, I'll give preference to wording that describes what was done (e.g. "tortured", "beaten") over wording that describes the state of the bodies as depicted in the photographs (e.g. "intestines ... are seen protruding"). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is merged, so unless there are substantial objections, I think that we can consider this particular issue resolved. As a side note, I discovered that the article had copyright problems (specifically, numerous unattributed quotes from sources) and so performed a series of modifications in addition to merging the "Photo controversy" section (see diff). Since my main focus during the course of these edits was to quickly bring the article in line with Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use of text and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable text, I fairly liberally removed significant portions of unattributed text. I will re-review (for coherence, grammar, neutrality, proper attribution, and so on) the article and my edits in about 12 hours (after I've had an opportunity to rest) and will also attempt to expand it again at that time, using sources currently provided in the article and others that I can find online.

I will post an updated diff here once I have finished. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon--excellent job. Exactly what we working toward, neutral, sourced and well formed and written articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias team, Wikipedia should follow SLR model to resolve all its problems, really how do we get others to understand what is going on here ? Kanatonian (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the updated diff I had promised. I also ask interested editors to take a look at Talk:2006 Mannar massacre#Proposed pagemove to Vankalai massacre (or, we can move the discussion here ...). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any objection or further comment to this section, I have tagged this issue as {{resolved}}. Further discussion, if needed, can be held on the article's talk page, with the option to reopen the issue here (in this section or another ...) if a need arises. Please let me know if you feel that this is premature. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the POV heading and sentence[34].Lustead 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, some POV content was added to the article from November 28 through 30. I did a wholesale revert of the additions by the IP user and the newly-created account to the November 20 version. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had stayed out of this article, but now that even the main opposition claim Sri Lanka is practicing state terror, I think its controversial to keep the tag. The article was tagged a while back and no effort was made to justify that. Therefore I am removing it and adding RW quote on the subject. Ranil Wickremasinghe is the head of the opposition in the Sri Lankan parliament. Lahiru_k removed this section [35]

Here is lahiru_k's response to this:

"Undid revision 173130084 by Sinhala freedom (talk) nice. did the opposition party told you that this article is NPOV"

"rm section. www.lankaenews.com is the official news site of the Free Media Movement, which is a known biased source when commenting on government." [36]

Where is it said that www.lankaenews is the official site of the Free Media Movement ? Where is mentioned that FMM is a biased source ? I am deeply concerned, unsupported statements like these are being used to censor articles. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala freedom did have a ref for this. Does someone have a ref for the opposing view? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently nobody does, so can we regard this as resolved? — Sebastian 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is just starting apparently it is over a source . Please see here. It is clear indication of mirepresenting WP:RS and WP:OR. The book in case is a Phd thesis from University of Sydney in Australia that was published in 1999. It is

• Gunasingam, Murugar (1999). Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism. Sydney: MV. p. 238. ISBN 0-646-38106-7.

The book is available in all major libraries in the world and is verfiable. Just because a bunch of people dont know who the author it cannot become non reliable. Thanks Kanatonian 06:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I have updated it like this

The details of the origins of this kingdom are obscure and still the subject of controversy. There is a school of thought which believes that there was an independant kingdom in Uttaradesa or the northern part of Sri Lanka during the classical Sinhalese kingdom period.^[7][8][9]This is hotly contested by various Sri Lankan authors.^[10]What most mainstream historians agree about the history of what eventually became the Kingdom of Aryacakravarti began with the devastating invasion of an previously unknown Chieftain called Magha (1215 - 55), from Kalinga in India.^[11][12][13] The article still has the OR tag ? Kanatonian 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through various edit summaries and the discussions on the talk page, I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what the focus of the disagreement is. Could one or more of the involved editors please clarify? Is the issue the reliability or accuracy of a particular source, the manner in which one or more sources are being used, or something else? Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (I've posted a link to this discussion at Talk:Jaffna Kingdom)[reply]

People come up with very imaginative ways to object to what I write so I am kind of lost too here. This article used to have Hoax tag once upon a time. Anyway My question is when every controversal statement is cited with RS sources how can an OR tag be placed on the article ? secondly I think the objection was over sentence 1

There is a school of thought which believes that there was an independant kingdom in Uttaradesa or the northern part of Sri Lanka during the classical Sinhalese kingdom period.[1][2][3]This is hotly contested by various Sri Lankan authors.[4]

I used to have only one cite that was Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism by Gunasingam. The objection was because Gunasingam fails WP:NOTABLE his work is not WP:RS:))) But his work is a PhD thesis from University of Sydney, that was published and that book is available in all major libraries across the world, it is also WP:VERIFIABLE. Since then I have added 2 more cites to that sentence and very soon will add 2 more to that particular sentence (I know it will be over kill). (I am waiting for one book to be shipped out of Sri Lanka other one I already have) so how can OR tag be placed on that section when the sentence in question (I assume) is properly cited ?Thanks Kanatonian 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want edit restriction placed on the article as it falls under the Sri Lanka conflict related issues. Who ever puts the edit restriction can remove the under construction tag off. Thanks Kanatonian 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well cited as shown by Kanatonian. The question that arose about the citation has been taken care of. The article does not need an OR tag. Watchdogb 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's title is of concern. The whole article is about attacks that are attributed to LTTE. However, there is no reliable source that claims that all (or most) of these attacks are Terrorist attacks. This is in direct violation of wikipedia rules and the naming convention. Furthermore, some of these citations claim that the Sri Lankan Military/ Sri Lankan Defence ministry or the Sri Lankan Police accuse the LTTE. As only one side of the story (or suspicion) is given this article also violates WP:NPOV. I have tried , in the past, to explicitly attribute some allegations of a POV party but that has just ended up in edit wars. Last, this article also violates POV fork. To take care of these problems I agree with User:Black Falcon and think that this article should be merged. I feel that this article should be merged to Human rights in Sri Lanka with Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka also being merged into it. Please comment on this situation. Thanks Watchdogb 07:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This is an archived discussion regarding this issue. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the contents of this article be merged to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE for the following reasons:

First, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality". For instance, an "article might cover the same material but with less emotive words". The word 'terrorist' is undoubtedly emotive and moreso than terms such as 'separatist', 'rebel', 'insurgent', and so on.

Second, the adjective "terrorist" has no clear definition. I personally do not dispute that the Aranthalawa Massacre, for instance, is a terrorist act; however, we should not label these acts as 'terrorist' in the article without a reliable source to support that contention (even then, it would technically be a "list of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist"). Otherwise, we delve into original research.

Third, this article and the article List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE currently make a distinction between attacks on civilians and "military and guerrilla style attacks". However, it's not always easy to distinguish between the two. For instance, the 28 May 2007 Rathmalana attack was carried out against a military target (a truck carrying STF personnel) but killed civilians. Merging the two lists would eliminate the need to try to make this distinction.

Any thoughts? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon has stated things well, but let me point out a few things. List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE currently redirects to List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE. In addition, per the WP:MOS lists should not have "notable" in them. The reason is that by definition the events must meet notability or not be included in a wiki list. I agree that terrorist is POV. In these types of conflicts, who is or isn't a terrorist depends on what side of the conflict you are on. For example, if Americans lost the War of Independence, imagine how different the history books would view those who fought it. I basically agree with Black Falcon except I think the new title should be List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. If we use Watchdogb's merge plan, the final article will be huge. So I propose that Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka have a summary paragraph of each additional article on this topic with a {{main}} link to it. This is standard procedure on wiki when a topic is big enough to warrant its own article. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose a name change ? That sounds like a solution. Also how do you feel about explicit attribute to POV statements ? Many RS say things like The Sri Lankan Military/The defence ministry blame the tigers for this attack. As a part of the warring party it is POV to just say LTTE did [attack]]. In accordance with wikipedia rules can I add the explicit attribution to allegations made by a POV party ? Watchdogb 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A POV should have a reliable source ref, as should any controversial statement. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement have RS but the RS state that the Sri Lankan Military is the ones who blame the Tigers. So I think we should have explicit attribute such as X suspect y in this case. What do you think ? Watchdogb 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article's title properly (attributed part is there). So there is no need to state as X suspect LTTE. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it does. Attributed by who ? Unless you want to rename the article to Attributed, by the Sri Lankan Military, terrorist attacks by the LTTE. Just because something says attributed it does not mean that you can have only one side of the story. Attributed is ambitious because no one knows who it is attributed by. We need to stick to wikipedia rules and explicitly attribute to who claims what (if the people who are making the claim is a POV party- as it the case). Watchdogb 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read this one. See, most of the incidents in this list were reported by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, not by the SLGOV. Also we do not need to carry all the info on the article title. Attributed means somebody have attributed the incident to the LTTE. If our readers wants to know who did this accusation, they will find it by following the reference. We have given neutral citations which are accusing the LTTE or says X accused. If you wish to have the other side of the story then you can find and hang refs saying LTTE denied the involvement. We are Wikipedians, not investigation officers. If someone is accused, then we do the reporting. If someone says that LTTE has no involvement, we will remove those. But since someone is being accused we can't simply remove those. If you don't like the article, then you have to change it's title first. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want attribute to the UNHCR or any other HR organizations and RS. I only want explicit attribution to the citation that themselves have explicit attributions. This is in accord to say what the RS says and not to violate wikipedia rules. Watchdogb 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you to read the article again. There is no violation of Wikipedia policies here and nor X and Y confusions. The sources explicitly state the accusations are attributed to LTTE. Please go through the sources to find out who the X and Y are (We have properly attributed the suspected party in the article). References are there to refer. We cannot put the complete content of the references inside an article. That's the procedure. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you to read what I wrote. When Sri Lankan Military claims something, then we should explicitly attribute them. This is because they are part of the warring party and therefore only represent one side of the story. This is why even the RS citations given claim that "X blames Y". We should also do so for 2 reasons. 1) To stick to NPOV and 2) keeping our claims with only what the RS says and not violate WP:SYNTHWatchdogb 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean by explicit attribution. Watchdogb 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, I agree with you about the title being List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, without use of the self-referential term "notable". I'm not entirely clear on what Watchdogb's merge plan entials (out of 4 articles, do we end up with two or one?), and I should note that a previous proposal made by me to merge Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka into Human rights in Sri Lanka essentially stalled after a few days of discussion. Anyway, I am ready/willing to perform the merge (a straightforward merge of List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE and List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, without adding or removing any content or sources) if the discussion so far is deemed adequate and there is no significant opposition to it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this list should not be merged with the list of notable attacks because, we were careful in choosing the incidents to the list that go with the definitions of the terrorism. Simply, we took only the incidents with the civilian causalities. By going through the list anyone will notice that in all the incidents with security forces causalities, there is at least a single civilian causality. In other sides this list is the most comprehensive and the well referenced list regarding the attacks of LTTE which is an invaluable source for terrorism and other researchers in the whole world. We all used all the NPOV sources with LTTE attacks(lists), available in the cyberspace and even from 2007 we started to use 3-5 neutral sources to each incident. As we all know, more than 1000 civilian causalities and series of bomb attacks attributed to the LTTE reported within this year, but we chose the most notable incidents only. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to get the point. This is wikipedia and as editors we cannot say what is Terrorist attack and what is not. We need citation to make such exceptional claim (Terrorist attack). It does not matter how many sources have been used for the claim (to verify an attack) but unless the sources say that this is a Terrorist attack we cannot claim that this is a terrorist attack. Some of the claim are directly from the Sri Lankan Defence ministry or the Sri Lankan Military. This is a simple case of POV and either they should be explicitly attributed, as done in the actual citations, or they need to be take off entirely until a RS claims that LTTE is the ones who are responsible. Watchdogb 15:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Watchdog here, we need to be clear and everything per WP:REDFLAG has to be properly cited or removed. Thanks Kanatonian 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is well-sourced, the problem is that there is no single, accepted definition of terrorism (the article Definitions of terrorism lists many). Some definitions focus on the method of attack, some on the identity of the attacker, some on the identify of the target, some on the intent of the attacker, and some on a combination of these and other factors. Simply limiting the list to incidents that caused civilian casualties is not enough since: (1) an incident may cause civilian casualties and not be generally considered a terrorist attack (e.g. "collateral damage"), and (2) an incident that is generally considered a terrorist attack may not cause any civilian casualties (e.g. attacks against infrastructure).

The sources provided in the article mostly verify that the incident happened, and attribute the incident to the LTTE, but there are still two problems. First, not all sources explicitly apply the label "terrorist" to these attacks. Second, even if all sources did do this, the list would still be a "List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist" rather than an actual "List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE".

Finally, while the list may be among the most comprehensive and well-referenced of its kind, merging it will not change that, as virtually all content will be preserved. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of attacks of one sort or another and human rights can't be done since its incompatible. I am not so sure its the same subject. One is about rights, the other would be considered acts of war. So I would oppose attempts at merger, till better justifications are given. Sinhala freedom 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling things "terrorist" attacks is hard; I edit 9/11, and it's contentious even there. The best thing to do is to either source everything, completely, or change the name to something less divisive. "Terrorist" is a word to avoid in general, but it can be used accurately, however, the previous comments make a good point about the blurry distinction between civilian and military targets. You might be able to write a better article about the two subjects combined. --Haemo 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to settle this, vote what you think should happen here, with no more than one line of comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To sum up my comments above: for now, I think we ought to do a straightforward merge List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE and List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE; issues of sourcing, inclusion standards, and other merges can be addressed later. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Black Falcon. Watchdogb (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Falcon. Kanatonian (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Falcon. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Falcon. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree with Black Falcon. The title List of attacks attributed to the LTTE is not reflective of the page content as the title is so generalized, it can refer to attacks by the LTTE on demonstrators or attacks by its hockey team on the Sri Lankan football team, therefore I suggest combinign the title of the merged articles to better reflect its content Dutugemunu (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: This page is only an archive and should not be edited anymore. This particular discussion was archived on December 20, 2007. If you want to restart the discussion, please post it as a new issue on WT:SLR. Thank you. — Sebastian 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears settled. Who is going to implement the merge? — Sebastian 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are dissenters who won't vote here, or can't, the consensus is to merge these articles per Black Falcon, so I've page protected the article pending the merge. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I'm the user who has edited the article the most, and I didn't even know that such a discussion was going on. Just so that editors know, decisions such as deleting/merging articles cannot be taken on a Wikiproject where users are "banned" from contributing, and where other users votes are not welcome. There has already been a number of AFDs and extensive move/merge requests related to this article, and you can't bypass all those discussions and have users from one side of the argument decide what to do with an article. If someone wants to rename/merge/delete the article, I suggest it be brought up on the article TALK PAGE (which hasn't even been notified that such a discussion is ongoing), WP:AFD or WP:RM. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolf, please! Who are you trying to fool?

1. You know very well that the box below is on the articles.
2. You know very well that, as part of the agreement, discussions are to be held on this page.
3. You have been involved in the discussions on this page since the agreement is in place.
4. And nobody ever banned you from participating here. To the contrary - you have been blocked for revert warring while not participating here.[37] — Sebastian 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me,but could you please scroll up and see whats written after snowolfs name here ? Doesnt is explicitly says, hes been banned from editing for disruptive behaviour??!! So how do expect him to engage in any discussion here, when such insult remain in-front of his name, even now ?? And, regardless of the box, you should at least try to inform editors who are involved in the article. Especially, when you are trying to merge these kind of article. for which I strongly oppose. Most of the issues raised by black falcon and others have been already answered at the talk page, and I found nothing news to add to the relevant talk page. There is a general consensus about using the word ,terrorist and I see absolutely no problem having that in the title,because every single incident can be attributed(like the bombing near my home town ,yesterday killing many innocent civilians) as terrorist incidents. I just went through the discussion here ,and found absolutely nothing new about it. most of them was raised and have been answered already at the talk page, even the reason to have 2 separate articles. So I am against any move to remove word, terrorist from the article. To add to this, I am finding it actually extremely amusing about this whole move, esp when we have more worse titles ,such as non-existing extremely bias/false/ridiculed article, state terrorism sri lanka. Sri Lankan is a democratic country, and had many states, so even to keep article in this title, is like calling Germany a terrorist state but giving conditions under Nazis! If you guys make any new points, I would more than happy to reply, but judging from whats written here, its the same old story and do not even slightly justify the action to merge the article.ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what his comment does or does not explicitly state, he was not banned from editing, nor was he banned from this page; he was temporarily blocked for removing dispute resolution tags. Also, your claim as to the discussion on the talk page is inaccurate, as no response was given to any comment made after 18:00 UTC on 12 October. Moreover, pointing out the existence of other problematic articles and questioning my motives for not addressing them first – especially after I had previously stated my support for merging/disbanding the "Allegations of ..." article – does not in any way address the problems of the lists under discussion. If you oppose the merge, then please address the reasons why it was proposed in the first place, keeping in mind that the title of this list is not List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked ages ago, and the reason to keep reminding everyone about this block by having its written in front of name is absolutely useless and only prevent people with any dignity from joining this forum. If I were him, I would never ever join this, because simply I believe whats written is insulting and damaging.

The reason for not making comments at the talk page is described already. I didnt see any new points other than the ones already been addressed. I don't know whether I' missed any new ones, but from what I read I thought issues have already been addressed.

There are policies in wikipedia about the sizes of articles. And we all know articles shouldn't be too long.And if it's very long must be broken up. And we also know, LTTE never stop killing, never stop suicide bombings, never stop political assassinations. So, its practically impossible to have one article to cover all these things. Actually initially we had only one article, and even this was extracted from the main LTTE article(to my knowledge ,sorry if am mistaken here). SO there is absolutely no need to go back to ONE single article.Esp, considering the amount of killing carried out by the LTTE, one article will eat up a huge wiki space and I am sure it will not look good.

Most of these incidents, have in fact described as terrorist incidents. LTTE is a terrorist organization and when they cold bloodedly massacre people, just like they did at Anuradhapura few days ago, its a terrorist act. Expert of terrorist activities, Mr Rohan GUnaratne has explained in his books, most of the earlier massacres of LTTE and has called them terrorist activities. I don't mind taking civilian massacres, and naming it List civilians massacres carried out by the LTTE. Picking up their suicide bombings and making, List of suicide bombings carried out by LTTE, etc. But to put all these things to the article you stated , make no sense to me.

If you insisting changing name, why don't we have several articles, covering LTTE's civilian massacres, Suicide bombings etc. Since they have carried out countless number of those acts, I am sure we can have few nice articles on these.

I reiterate putting everything into one article would only make it unnecessarily large and would lose its scholarly value.Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, you're referring to the section on this page titled #Here's the list of participants. Well, that would be changed the moment he discontinues his rejection of this dispute resolution process.

As I stated above, pointing out another problematic article does not in any way address the issues that had been raised.

Guidelines about article size do not trump policies regarding original research and neutral point of view. Additionally, the list can be split in ways that doesn't raise OR and NPOV problems, such as by decade or by type of attack (as you suggest). Also, you wrote that "Most of these incidents, have in fact described as terrorist incidents", so I want to point out once again that the title of the list is not List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist incidents.

I think the idea of creating separate lists by type of attack (e.g. List of civilian massacres attribued to the LTTE and List of suicide bombings attributed to the LTTE) definitely deserves consideration, but it's something that can be discussed and done after the merge has been performed (in fact, it will probably be easier to do when the information is all in one place).

On the whole, I think your worries about article length are a bit excessive. List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE is a 67 KB list and List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE is 18 KB long. The combined article length would be about 80 KB (after redundant parts, such as the introductions, are trimmed), which is long, but is not too great an increase over the current length. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.There are certain facts that you have ignored in your reply.And there are certain things I am not quite getting from your reply too.Could you please tell me(sorry if you have already), why do you find the word Terrorist unnecessary?? By merging we are losing this term, which I think is the best word fit for this article.

About the size, 80 KB is still big. But more importantly judging the way LTTE behaving the article, if merged would soon cross 100KB mark. And please be noted, that many suicide bombings/massacres/political-civilian killings are not in the article and in the future we might see people coming and adding those missing things.SO, here we are expecting an article of 120 KB in size, and even this is a less approximation.From what I have read from wikipedian policies on article size, I am not sure whether article of this size is tolerable.

You have agreed with the splitting this to more sections, then how about doing it before the merge. Because the merge would only unnecessary expand the article and would definitely make bit difficult to split. While, in the present article we do cover most of the civilian massacres and isn't it easy to put them to a one, as I mentioned in my previous reply ?

And Why would you think the term, attributed is better ? When we have evidences and non-denials ,which proves beyond doubt that these were carried out by the LTTE? Could you please name one civilian massacre in the article, which you think LTTE was not involved?? To my knowledge LTTE is proud of these killings and have not even bothered to deny its involvement.

I won't be able to reply you for few days. I ll be back on friday with my reply. till then, cheersIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "terrorist" is unnecessary and inappropriate because there is no clear definition for it. I personally consider most of the incidents on the list to be terrorist acts, but I'm using a personal definition which others may not share. We should not label these acts as 'terrorist' in the article without a reliable source to support that contention (even then, it would technically be a "list of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist"). Otherwise, we delve into original research.

You're right that the size of the list will grow; however, as noted, it can be split on less problemtic lines (such as by decade or by type of attack). More importantly at this point, guidelines on article size are subordinate to policies on neutrality and original research.

So why not split right now? The short answer is that there's been little discussion about splitting, and there is therefore no consensus for it. We can discuss splitting after the information is consolidated into one place: it's always easier to split one article than to simultaneously split and merge two.

The use of "attributed" is necessary because the participation of the LTTE has not been proven in most cases. Yes, the LTTE hasn't denied involvement, but it also hasn't accepted responsibility. Yes, the GOSL has blamed the LTTE, but they're a biased source on these matteres. Although I personally believe that most or all of the incidents in the article were carried out by the LTTE, our personal opinions as editors should not be reflected in the article. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add three technical points, in addition to those noted by Sebastian:

1. AFD requests resulting in "no consensus" and/or "keep" do not preclude merging if a consensus to do so develops at some time in the future. Also, although AFDs can and do often result in "merge" outcomes, AFD is not the appropriate venue to propose that articles or lists be merged. The first sentence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted."
2. WP:RM is oriented toward pagemoves, so it too isn't the best venue to discuss merging.
3. Although no notification was posted to Talk:List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE regarding the initiation of this particular discussion, it's important to keep in mind that the original discussion at the talk page was never resolved. Specifically, no response was offered for comments/arguments presented after 18:45 UTC on 12 October. Also, as Sebastian notes above, it's not unreasonable to assume that all editors involved with the article were and are aware of the ongoing dispute resolution. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points by Sebastian and Black Falcon. Totally agree. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And most of his points have already been addressed at the talk page, from reason to have 2 separate articles to the use of word , terrorist. Sorry, I dont see any god valid reason for the merge and as long as I don't see them, honestly i can never support this move. And I think its erroneous even to think, there is a consensus among editors, when we have editors who have actually contribute a lot for this ,remain oppose to this move. And also, why do we have to keep that wording in-front of snowlfs name? You blocked them for 72 Hrs, and thats it. Do you have to keep telling every one loud and clear like this, esp in the place where you expect us to engage in meaningful discussions?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, it seems that you do not understand wikipedia rules. To make a claim of "Terrorist attack by x" needs citation in the article. To name an article "Terrorist attack attributed to x" needs not only have a RS citation for EACH attack (calling it terrorist attack) but the name is in direct violation of the wikipedia naming, which requires article name to be NPOV (and the article too :) ). Watchdogb (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that it is better, in situations like SLC articles, to have neutral editors to voice opinion. Please explain why you think that page merge is not good. Please point to wikipedia rules and also please answer my concerns above. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also when majority of the people are of the opinion to merge and most of them are neutral how can few filibuster it. Are they going to keep reverting it ? Just curious? Thanks Kanatonian 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is resolved. The detractors chose not to sign the agreement, therefore they chose not to have a right to vote. I could say more, but I'm too tired now. — Sebastian 09:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, this is far from over.I don't think you can force anyone to join a certain group, I chose not to join and that is my freedom. But If you read my posts I have shown both here and at the article's talk page why this merger fails in many areas and why should we avoid this.I am sorry to say this, I see only 5 votes for merger, and 3 of it can be easily ignored, due to their extremely pro-LTTE behaviour, and having experienced their edits, I would say they would anything to cover up LTTE activities. And other than black_falcon none has given any reason for name change.And as you can see here, I am showing him why he is wrong in this occasion. Thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki says I see only 5 votes for merger, and 3 of it can be easily ignored, due to their extremely pro-LTTE behaviour, which is a direct attack on my intergrity personally. He has a habbit of following my edits, has been blocked twice for calling me a racist and now he says my vote should be ignored (that is I am a no body) because I am a pro terrorist organization. I have never ever said I support LTTE and this repeated violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL has to be taken care of. Thanks Kanatonian 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, although no one can force you to join this dispute resolution process (incidentally, what reason is there not to?), please keep in mind the following: For many months (perhaps even a few years), Sri Lanka-related articles have been in a state of almost constant dispute. During the course of these disputes, there have been quite literally hundreds of violations of numerous content and behavioural policies and guidelines (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:PRIVACY, and others) by many editors. You may consider this dispute resolution process to be externally imposed, and to a certain extent it is; but it is implemented in lieu of a wide-ranging series of blocks. As for your arguments against merging the lists, please see my responses further above. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, every user is entitled to express his opinion by voting. They can not be discounted because you disagree with them or you feel they are part of a certain movement. To imply so is very un-wiki and against consensus building. If you can not learn to accept that, you may want to consider an endeavor that does not rely on consensus building and NPOV, which is what wikipedia is all about. Kanatonian is absolutely correct here; that statement was very against WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Black Falcon is correct in that there has been way too much of this. These reasons are part of why this peace effort was started. You may want to look at WP:Stalking too. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, Iwazaki has chosen to ignore these rules because his talk page is litered with people literally begging him to be civil and not attack for the last one year. How long can Wikipedia put up wit this ? Kanatonian 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, every user is entitled to express his opinion by voting.

Normally, on Wikipedia, yes. On this project, NO. That pretty much makes the above vote invalid. While I have no opposition to discussing the article here, you can't just take a vote and let only a select few people vote on it. Which is why I suggested any valid discussions should be done on the article talk page or other Wikipedia areas where anyone is allowed to express their opinions. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah and I missed this too.

...therefore they chose not to have a right to vote.

Not sure who to follow here. Looks like you guys don't even agree what's going on here. I certainly won't vote just in case someone decides to block me for voting.

Also, apologies, my statement above is not correct. I am not the most frequent editor of this article. Lahiru is. And 6 of the 8 users who have the most edits to the article haven't signed the above "resolution" and therefore cannot "vote". So again, the above poll cannot be taken as consensus to do whatever to the article.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you provide was in the context of an actual straw poll for an unrelated issue. There is no such poll for this issue, and this whole thread is a long series of discussions, not a formal vote. If this thread been a strict vote and had been treated as such, I would not have postponed merging – for which I had previously volunteered (see the bottom of #Comment by User:Rlevse) – following the comments made by yourself and Iwazaki on 28-30 November. Instead of trying to find procedural objections to discussion at this venue, please just comment on the issue at hand (if you'd like to add, that is). The talk page of a WikiProject is a normal venue for discussing articles that fall in the scope of the project, and there is no problem of interested editors being unaware of the discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've been pretty busy these days. Final coming up next week :( I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolfd4, for someone opposed to the peace effort, you sure do edit here a lot. I strongly urge to learn to work with the others here and cooperate more. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring editors who apparently lack the ability to be civil. Weren't they ever taught how to be nice? lol

Black Falcon, to be honest I haven't read every single word said above, I really don't have much time to do so, so please point out if I missed anything. From what I can see, there are 2 main reasons given to merge the two articles. One would be the use of the word "terrorist" in the title of one article, the other would be the fact that some content of the two articles overlap.

First, the use of the word "terrorist" in the title. There is already ample precedent established on Wikipedia that it is acceptable to use the word "terrorist" in referring to various incidents in articles (including in article titles, see List of terrorist incidents, Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War, Terrorism in the United States, April 2005 terrorist attacks in Cairo, List of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia for instance). Selectively getting rid of one article would be plain violations of, among others, WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV on the part of editors, which I'm sure is not the case. The other objection I see, is that every incident should have a citation using the word "terrorist". For one, most incidents are cited from a report by the Sri Lankan government, which directly refers to them as "terrorist" (remember attribution is what is required). Also, practically all the recent incidents can be cited from websites which refer to them as terrorist, or carried out by terrorists (e.g. report on today's bombing, "LTTE terrorists attack civilian bus"). If you insist, I can go through the article and find citations using the word "terrorist/terrorism" for most of the incidents, but I think it will be a waste of time. And in any case, if a few incidents are not cited as terrorist, then they should be removed from the article following discussion, not be used as cause for merging the article.

The second argument, that content of the two articles overlap, isn't I beleive that much of an issue. The terrorist attacks article clearly states it contains attacks against civilians and other non-combatants. The military attacks article, as the title implies :) contains attacks against military targets. Some attacks, as pointed out could fall into both categories, so should be added to both articles. Is that a problem? I wouldn't think so. I'm willing to bet there's tons of instances where seperate articles have overlapping content (taking some from the above articles I mentioned, there's a lot of content in the List of terrorist incidents article that is also there in the other aticles, sometimes word for word). --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolfd, both issues are actually tied to problems of original research ...

With regard to the first issue (the use of the "terrorist" in the title). The issue is not attribution, as the title of the page is not List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist attacks. For instance, the GOSL labels virtually every action of the LTTE a "terrorist act" or an "act by terrorists" and the LTTE does much the same vis-a-vis the GOSL. Again, I personally do not contest the application of the label "terrorist" to most of these attacks, but I'm using just one definition out of dozens. Despite, its title, this is really a list of attacks by the LTTE that caused civilian casualties. When we use the adjective "terrorist" to describe "attacks", we are making an original argument, since no clear, agreed-on definition of 'terrorism' exists.

The second issue is not overlap, but rather original research of a different nature. How do we distinguish between attacks against "civilians and other non-combatants" and "attacks against military targets"? When the LTTE detonates a landmine just as a military truck passes nearby, but the bomb kills two civilian bystanders, is this a military attack? When the LTTE attacks members of the Sri Lanka Police Service – which is technically a civilian force – is this a military attack? When the LTTE kills a civilian contractor working with the military, is this a military attack? When the LTTE blows up a strategically important bridge used by SLA, but the bombing kills only civilians, is this a military attack? In all of these cases, a military objective is involved, but the victims are not members of the armed forces. More importantly, how do we make a determination without engaging in original research?

As for the other articles, the mere fact of their existence does not imply that they do not suffer from similar problems. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the first bit there. Wikipedia is built around verifiability of the facts included in it. Every act here can be verified to been described as a terrorist attack. It's an original argument on your part whether they agree on whatever definitions of terrorism exist. We don't critique our sources, we merely quote from them. In this instance, if a reliable source calls it terrorism, we can use the word terrorism citing the source.

How can we distinguish between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets? Hmm lets see. If civilians are killed, it's an attack against civilians. If the military is targeted, it's an attack against the military. If civilians and members of the military are killed, and it's agreed overlap isn't an issue, it's both. Simple.

As for the other articles, the fact that so many exist, and that the community is strongly in favor of keeping them, says a lot. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built around verifiability, but the list that you describe would be titled List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist. Per WP:NPOV, we should not give undue weight to a particular point of view or a particular definition of terrorism. Moreover, in cases of controversy or potential bias, claims must be attributed explicitly. Either we must fix this list by removing the need to make such judgments and attributions, or we must represent other significant views and turn this list into an unusable "according to X, according to Y" mess.

If civilians are killed, it's an attack against civilians? Says who? If a rocket hits a military base and kills only the civilian spouse of one of the soldiers there, that's an attack against civilians? To determine the target of an attack, it is necessary to know a little about the intent of the attack; simply knowing who was killed or injured is not enough.

A desire to keep the content of an article does not imply an endorsement of the manner in which it is presented. If someone nominated List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE for deletion, I'd argue for keeping the content. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reply in 4 days. Has this issue been resolved? — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, we cant wait for ever Kanatonian (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, the objections against the merge have been addressed for one week without any further questions or objections. So, who will do the merge, as laid out above, now? — Sebastian 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Absolutely no content was lost in the merge, as of the revision dated 00:01, December 15, 2007. I will go over the list over the next hour or so and eliminate any redundancies. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I have finals this weeks and can't respond to such post quickly. If editors here don't have the decency to wait for replies that isn't my problem, and frankly I no longer care for discussions here. If you want to merge or move this article, bring it up on the talk page or take it to requested moves. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merge certainly can be reversed, if the consensus changes, so do offer your comments when you have time. Note, however, that this issue has been open 1-2 months. As for the procedural issues you raise, you've been informed before that they're inapplicable: discussion doesn't have to take place on the talk page, especially when a notice is placed on the talk page and all relevant editors are well aware of the discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apology for moving the page without discussion. I reverted myself. I am still lost here. We have clearly got a consensus having 4 people agreeing to merge along with comment of Hoemo (who also claimed to work with both the articles combined). So we have 5 people who say to merge and 2 people who want to keep the article as it is. Also as people have pointed out the article not only violates the naming of wikipedia. The article also violates WP:OR and all of that good things. I am not sure why one user has this authoritarian powers over admin . Watchdogb (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still concerned about the state of the article. I believe that there needs to be explicit attribution to the article. Some attacks are blamed on the LTTE by the Sri Lankan Forces or the Sri Lankan Government. As an involved warring party in the War the SL government/ Sri Lankan military ect are POV sources. I feel that these should be explicitly attributed. Watchdogb (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an easy one: Just proceed according to WP:SLR#Classification of sources. — Sebastian 01:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. While the citations used in the articles may be classified my problem is of another sort. Some incidents are referenced to RS. However, the RS citations them self say something along these lines: "The Sri Lankan military claim that the LTTE did the attacks". In the article the "Sri Lankan Military claims the LTTE" part is left out. Since even the RS have explicit attribution and we , in wikipedia, are supposed to say ONLY what the citations say I believe that "Sri Lankan Military claims the LTTE" should also be added. Otherwise there is a misinterpretation on the article and the reference. Which might be confusing because readers might think that the given citation actually claim that the LTTE did the attack. Watchdogb (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sure, if the sources say so, by all means, include it! — Sebastian 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do thanks. Watchdogb (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated one revert rule restrictions imposed by the above proposals on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, which is subject to editing restrictions.

• Previous version reverted to: 22:57, November 29, 2007
• 1st revert: 13:40, November 30, 2007
• 2rd revert: 13:42, November 30, 2007
• 3nd revert: 14:05, November 30, 2007

User knows about the restrictions, yet continued to edit war on the article.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a violation of our 1RR agreement. Watchdogb is blocked for 72 hours. 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC) forgot to sign.... — Rlevse • Talk • 11:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. I agree with the block. — Sebastian 09:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated one revert rule restrictions imposed by the above proposals on the same article within 24 hours after his recent block.

• Previous version reverted to: 19:08, November 30, 2007
• 1st revert: 04:14, December 4, 2007
• 2rd revert: 19:48, December 4, 2007 --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Only one revert and One edit. Lahiru, stop trying to game this system. If I can assume good faith about your sock puppetry and let you edit without ever pointing it out, then you can assume good faith not to game the system. I reworded once and you reverted it. Then I reworded again so that it may satisfy you and, at the same time, stick to wikipedia rules and state ONLY what RS state. Likewise I changed the following "Some of the major attacks resulting in dozens of" into this "Some of the attacks resulting in civilian deaths include the". As you can clearly see the term "Major" is a peacock term that is not backed by RS. As it is not backed by RS I have the right to clean it up and remove it. Furthermore, the wording "resulting in dozens of death" is redundant as the exact number of death is given beside each attack. Watchdogb (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First keep in your mind WP:NPA. I'm talking about the intro of ==Human rights and terrorism issues==. I can guarantee that you didn't change a single letter on above mentioned section in both reverts.(Try Show improved diff version) Also I would like to suggest you to use the Show preview function and the page in a nutshell of WP:3RR --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about ? Can you show that I did not change a SINGLE word ? Watchdogb (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as anyone can see one of the diff you showed is an EDIT. The other is a REVERT. Thus there is only one Revert which is in compliance with the rule I agreed to. Watchdogb (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you didn't changed a single letter in the subjected section. So it's not an edit (just a revert). Also check this comparison with the section you removed.[38] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what your trying to say. I edited once and reverted once. That is in compliance with wikipedia policy. The so called "Previous version reverted to " is not what I edited to. I removed the entire section because it was WP:OR but since some people did not want that removed I , instead of removing the paragraph that violates OR, edited the section in compliance to wikipedia rules. Watchdogb (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lahiru, enough with you trying to fool people. this is what you say I "reverted to". However, taking a look people can clearly see that I removed the section under ==Human rights and terrorism issues== because it violates WP:OR. Someone reverted my edit and added it back. I came back on December 4 and EDITED the section and not remove it here. This is what you called my first revert. Clearly I edited it and not remove whole section. That is what is called clean up. You reverted it after and then I reverted it. Which means I actually only reverted ONCE. Watchdogb (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always keep WP:NPA in you mind and this is the 2nd time for today I request this from you.

• 1st revert 04:14, December 4, 2007 | Edit before your revert 17:13, December 3, 2007
• 2nd revert 19:48, December 4, 2007 | Edit before your revert 19:45, December 4, 2007

• This is a comparison of multiple edits before your 1st edit (17:02, December 3, 2007 to 19:45, December 4, 2007) By checking this link we can clearly see that you never edit the intro but you just revert/remove the whole section.

Read the nutshell of WP:3RR, Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was Rlevse who said that our 1RR is different from the regular 3RR. In the regular 3RR a person is not allowed to revert more than 3 times either the same material or other material. However, Rlevse said that for our 1RR we can revert different material but cannot revert the same material more than 1 time. Please refrain from WP:NPA as you did in your above comment and please be civil. This is the third time I have asked you to stop. ThanksWatchdogb (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if 3RR is the same with the 1RR I have only edited once and reverted once. You keep showing my edit as a revert. Clearly it is an edit and not a revert. Watchdogb (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The following talk has been moved here from another section)

In the "previous version reverted to", Watchdogb took off the link to the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article from the "Human Rights and Terrorism issues" section and deleted most of the section. It was subsequently readded to the section. In the two diffs provided above, showing edits taking place less that 24 hours apart, he reverted the page to a version without the said link. That is a violation of 1RR.

In addition, these edits took about a day after his previous block expired, and a look at the history of the article shows how completely uncivil Watchdogb was, mocking other editors and making a fool of Wikipedia with his edit summaries. Per above resolutions, which the user has signed

There will be zero tolerance of violations of WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT and WP:BATTLE. Listed users are subject to 1RR per day (not counting rv standard 3RR exceptions). Violations will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal.

Watchdogb has clearly violated 2 parts of the resolution, and if above admins want to ensure the faith of these proposals amongst other users, action will have to be taken. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and check the see also link at the bottom of the LTTE page where the "Terrorist attack attributed to LTTE" is actually mentioned. How many times are you going to add that ? Redundant wording can be removed. Also look here where I actually added back the "Terrorist attack attributed to LTTE" even before this is brought here. So I am not too sure what your going on about Watchdogb (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The preceding talk has been moved here from another section)

Please let's avoid escalating the situation. An issue was presented and an explanation/response offered, and it seems that everything that can be said regarding this issue already has been said at least once ... please allow time for the issue to be considered. Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone calm down. Three admins are working all this, it takes time. I'll try hard to work more on this tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at this here's what I see, Lahiru makes what he obviously feels is a valid report and I can see why too. I do not feel he was trying to game the system as Watchdogb states. However, I do agree with Watchdogb that this is one edit and one revert in a 24-hour period, so I feel it is not a 1RR violation. Note that if users repeatedly do this over several days, they'll get blocked anyway for gaming the system and edit warring. Watchdogb is also sternly warned about remaining civil and no npa's, this includes his edit summaries--I will not give him more warnings on that, simply block. I have page protected the article for 1 week to have a cool down period. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Keep on warning only me and I keep on making articles better. Either way in the end only the truth will come out :). Cheers Watchdogb (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was a remarkably calm reply, given the heated discussion. I appreciate your gracious promise. (It would have been better without the word "only", though - you know very well that we have given warnings to both sides.)

I need to clarify one ambiguity: Unfortunately WP:1RR is unclear on what constitutes a revert. Rlevse apparently takes the policy literally, which means that the deletion of a whole paragraph can become OK if there are some other edits in the same change. I, on the other hand, have always interpreted it in the way Lahiru interprets it, which I feel is more in the spirit of the essay. Since that was unclear, we can not treat it as a violation for now, but I believe we should do so in the future. (We probably should create a new section to discuss this.)

Interestingly, WP:1RR is very clear about one thing both Watchdogb and Lahiru missed: "When reverting changes implemented with no discussion, use neutral edit summaries". This can be seen as an argument to support Rlevse's warning. However, Lahiru's edit wasn't exactly civil, either. I think Lahiru deserves a warning, too. Maybe we can wink at it for now, since it's the first offence. — Sebastian 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I am still lost about our 1RR. I initially thought that 1RR really meant WP:1RR. Which clearly says that "If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them". However, this was not followed. Rlevse claimed that only reverts of the same material counted. Unlike what this policy claims. I was obedient to this rule until I was told otherwise by Rlevse (that only revert of the same material counts in the violations) . So I decided to not follow that WP:1RR. Please someone clarify what 1RR we are following ? It would help me stay out of these trouble. I think I might have misunderstood what Rlevse said.Watchdogb (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before this thread is archived, how about the opinion of other admins.

Previous version reverted to, without the terrorist attacks link and deleting the content

1st revert, removing the link and the content

2rd revert, removing the link and the content again

Is that a violation of 1RR?--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the confusion apparent in the discussion above, I do not believe that this particular case should be treated and acted on as a violation of 1RR. However, for future cases, I propose that we use the following definition:

Disputed text should generally not be restored or removed more than once in a 24-hour period if an editor wishes to avoid violating 1RR. If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.

Comments? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked this question. I think that's generally the right approach. I find it can be worded a bit better by avoiding weasel words such as "should".

I would like to archive this section as far as the incident is concerned, and I will restart a new section to discuss how to word our 1RR policy. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good Sebastian Watchdogb (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Alagakkonara there are number personal attacks against editors by User:Snowolfd4. In the article he says of my edits racist Tamil propaganda and noncence in violation WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He also removed cited material in violation of WP:NPOV and has used very sarcastic tone throughout the edit summary. I will list them here

Violation of WP:NPA

• He calls my edits racist and propaganda and removes cited material see here

Violation of WP:CIVIL

• See where cited material is removed .i t was cited from de Silva, A History of Sri Lanka, p.138 at the bottom of the paragraph.

Violation WP:NPOV

• When contradictory citations are available we need to able to bring two sides of the argument but only one side is given prominence see here
• Again de silva says Vanchipura on p86 and clearly says Kanchipuram in p.138 but it is selectively cited see here

Violation pf WP:DTTR & WP:STALK

DTTR

• here
• here
• here
• here

All seem to be against User:Wiki Raja, it for me looks like WP:STALK violation also. Now how long should Wikipedia project be putting up with this many violations. He has been warned and blocked prior due to CIVIL violations.Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These all all just false accusations by User:Kanatonian to prevent editors from correcting his POV articles.

Violation of WP:NPA?

This? How is calling a myth propagated by racist Tamil authors of the past 50 years a racist Tamil myth a violation of WP:NPA? NPA stanjds for "No Personal Attacks". A myth isn't a "person" or a wikiepdia editor.

this is exactly what Snowulfd4 says Wikipedia is not some playground people can try to spread blatant propoganda. This article contained so many factual inaccuracies, intended to shore up racist Tamil myths, it's just ridiculous. [...]My opinion, people who introduce such ridiculous errors into articles shouldn't be allowed to edit similar articles. But anyway, history lesson: Very clearly racist myth and the person who introduced it (that is me) is personally attacked here saying I should not be allowed to edit Wikipidia because I cited material of an an opinion of an author who questions the date of the inscriptions that Snowuld4 personally considers to be racist and myth. I did not invent that statement it was cited from this scroll down to page 364 and 365. Further in the edit summary he calls my edits noncence again an uncivil statement to make. Kanatonian (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:CIVIL?

Where cited material is removed? I removed cited material? Is that what it looks like? I removed uncited factual inaccuracies and replaced it with the correct facts and a reliable citation. I don't see why that is not clear.

This is what Snowulfd4 says in edit summary(haha Tamils want to claim so many people as their own. If that was the case, half the world would be Tamil) That is a ridicule and uncivil edit summary then he removes what de Silva says in page 138 that Alagakonar family came from Kanchipuram where as he says in a previous page Vanchipura. There is no such city called Vanchipura (see here) nor does he mention anywhere in his book that this city is in Kerala. But given that both are cited at the most what should stay is both not one at the expence of the other and in the process write up a very uncivil edit summaryKanatonian (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He removed cited material from de Silva, A History of Sri Lanka, p.138 at the bottom of the paragraph. See here. The cited material that he removed "The family originated as merchants from Kanchipuram in present day Tamil Nadu state in India" is from page 138 of de Silva.Kanatonian (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation WP:NPOV?

There are no contradictory statements here. De Silva says on page 86 they were from Vancipura. Page 138 covers a completely different era. I can scan the book and post copies of the pages for other editors to see. Introducing fake citations into Wikipedia is a form of vandalism.

That would be great, infact I can e-mail anyone the entire chapter not just those two pages so people can see very clearly that de Silva mentions the same family in both the pages and can add Wikilawyering to the list of violations Kanatonian (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have e-mailed the pages to whoever I thought should have it Kanatonian (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation pf WP:DTTR & WP:STALK?

WP:DTTR is an essay, not a strict policy guideline. Wikiraja vandalizes a page I'm watching, I revert and warn him. Simple as that. The above warnings were given after,

• He vandalized my userbox
• He blatantly vandalizing a template and lied about it in the edit summery
• He vandalized the same template in the same manner one and a half months later
• He removed maintainence templates from an article with a ridiculous edit summery completely ignoring the talk page.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever brought him to any admin before but instead you decide to violate DTTR again and again Kanatonian (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you heard what snowolfd4 said, WP:DTTR is an essay, not a strict policy guideline. Try-out your self, just click here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So harass people as much as you like ? How will yiou like it if every time you make an edit I dont like, I template you ? I think it is a calculated ploy to get a reaction from Wikiraja 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear when it says In such situations, telling them "did you know we had a rule against this" tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be misconstrued as being patronising and uncivil. Considering the serial violation of WP:CIVIL by Snowulfd4 (I will list the number warnings he had received from admins here later) this should be taken as part of his uncivil behaviour towards Wikiraja Kanatonian (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment reflects my personal evaluation of the circumstances noted and discussed above. At this time, I will make no judgment as to what type of administrative action may be required or whether any such action is required.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:NPA: This comment does not constitute a direct personal attack; however, its tone is excessively hostile. It accuses the editor of the article of "try[ing] to spread blatant propoganda" and alleges that the article contained "factual inaccuracies intended to shore up racist Tamil myths". While calling certain Tamil myths racist is not a personal attack, neither of the quoted comments assume good faith.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:CIVIL: I will not comment on the content dispute, but this edit summary ("haha Tamils want to claim so many people as their own") is not civil; indeed, it could even be construed as racist.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:NPOV: I will not comment on this here, as this is content issue rather than a behavioural issue. Content disputes merit consideration in a context independent of discussion about the civility or other behaviour of individual editors.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:STALK: The allegation is not substantiated by the four diffs that are provided. Most editors listed at #Here's the list of participants edit only or primarily articles about Sri Lanka, so it is inevitable that they will watchlist and edit many of the same articles and talk pages. A valid claim of stalking would need to be supported by multiple diffs that reveal a systematic pattern of following another editor with the intent of distressing the editor being followed. For clarification, please review the the definition of wikistalking provided at WP:STALK.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:DTTR: DTTR is an essay, so violations of it cannot prompt any administrative action unless they qualify as "harassment" or "disruption" of another type; I have alrady offered my thoughts on these issues.

Please also see #A general note on the citing and reporting of violations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Black Falcon's analysis and am considering what admin actions should be taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment: As explained above, Snowolfd4 has had a tendency to stalk me with illegitimate warnings. Below is a list of times this user has stalked me.

• 29 September 2007
• 7 October 2007
• 10 October 2007
• 11 October 2007
• 27 October 2007
• 9 December 2007

Wiki Raja (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is a weakness of the warning system - editors can just post them without providing a diff that shows actual edit the warning is about. Without this knowledge, we can't say if you actually did something that merited the warnings. We could ask Snowolfd4, but that still won't provide any proof that Snowolfd4 was stalking you. Without any evidence it might just as well have been the other way round. It therefore does not provide the proof required by #A general note on the citing and reporting of violations. In summary, it would require a detailed investigation, and I, for one, don't want to spend my time going through this mess. I want to do what's good for Wikipedia, and that means to focus on content as much as possible. — Sebastian 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this and the following incident as resolved? — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received from SLR all what it can do without blocks. The article is blue boxed, it is back to being neutral. There has been an acknowledgement of implicit threats of future edit warring, and all incivility from all parties including what could be constructed as racist commentary has been acknowledged. An opportunity to apologize and retract commentary has been offered. Hence whether this escalates to the point of perm blocks or not depends on future actins of concerned personal. I am satisfied with the resolution . Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this matter of incivility from users (including myself) is under close watch of admins I believe that this issue is resolved. Further attacks and edit warring will result in undesired outcome for violators. So I guess in that sense we can close this as resolved. Go ahead and Archive this. Watchdogb (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanatonian (talk · contribs) has created a host of inaccurate articles on Wikipedia which satisfy his POV. He also repeateddly violates WP:NPA by accusing other editors of various violations they didn't commit and .

Violating WP:NPOV and adding factual inaccuracies into articles. For example

Here replacing cited text with his own POV version.

That is not POV when we have citations which say that he is from Kanchipuram (that is not in Kerala where Malayalees come from) from an important historian such as de Silva whose work is current as opposed what you have cited who died long ago then according WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV we should leave a neutral statement in not your POV from an old source Kanatonian (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here adding his version of events when the source says nothing as such (click the link and read the source)

Again a untruth, I had linked two cites one for the inscription itself that is very clear there is no date attached to it othe rone is Mudalaiyar Rasanayam's Ancient Jaffna with a page number, infact that is also available in the internet and I will link it here. It is from Ancient Jaffna citation that I wrote what I wrote. Kanatonian (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking my edits. For example

Here stalking my edits and removing the warning I gave User:Wiki Raja

Wikiraja is on my watch list (he is part of the SLT reconciliation effort) and I felt the 5 or 6 DTTR was abosolutely over the limit Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For example

Here saying "othrwise peole (sic) are happy eating kavun and doing nothing." That is an ethnic slur against Sinhalese, see [39]

Well it was retracted as soon as it was written so It is of no point of discussion Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this further the article cited is OR and is supposedly a self depricating comment that too without any references so I did not make any racial comments. Kanatonian (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here saying "eastern Tamils did not show up in Sri Lanka yesterday and going to die off tomorrow (although some Wikipedian would like to see that happen)", implying other editors want to have eastern Tamils killed

This issue has been resolved Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here asking an editor to "stop hyperventilating"

Again this part of the resolved issues brought back here because there is nothing else Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here calling me "obsessive"

Because DTTR ing someone more than 5 times is obcessive Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly accusing other editors of violating policies, especially WP:STALK when they have not done so. For example

Here accusing me of violating WP:STALK when I reverted an edit on a page on my watchlist which I have significantly edited before.

Here accusing Iwazaki of stalking his edits, without backing up his claims.

Iwazaki has been blocked for attacking me twice, do I have to say more Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serially Undoing other users edits without providing an explaination. For example

Here, here, here and here

--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel very happy that few people's entire world revolves around what I do in my spare time Wikipedia. Happy to be of some use for their focussed energies.:)) Kanatonian (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment reflects my personal evaluation of the circumstances noted and discussed above. At this time, I will make no judgment as to what type of administrative action may be required or whether any such action is required.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:NPOV: I will not comment on this here, as this is content issue rather than a behavioural issue. Content disputes merit consideration in a context independent of discussion about the civility or other behaviour of individual editors.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:STALK: The allegation is not substantiated by the diffs provided. Most editors listed at #Here's the list of participants edit only or primarily articles about Sri Lanka, so it is inevitable that they will watchlist and edit many of the same articles and talk pages. A valid claim of stalking would need to be supported by multiple diffs that reveal a systematic pattern of following another editor with the intent of distressing the editor being followed. For clarification, please review the the definition of wikistalking provided at WP:STALK.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:NPA: The incident sparked by pthis edit has been handled: Kanatonian retracted the comment, apologised, and was warned against making future such comments. I admit that I do not entirely understand the claimed insult in this diff. Although the article Sri Lankan Tamil slang provides some explanation, the relevant entry is brief and unsourced, and I'm hesitant to make a judgment based on unverified information. Still, it seems that the comment should not have been made in the first place, but the fact that it was quickly retracted is a factor that should be considered.

Regarding the alleged violation of WP:CIVIL: The "hyperventilating" comment in this diff has already been addressed, as noted above. The "obsessive" comment in this diff is not civil.

OK I stand corrected because Wikiraja has been templated soooo manytimes by the same editor, I felt my "obsessive" comment was warranted but if that is unacceptable I will retract it (although it cannot be done because it is an edit summary) and undertake not to use that comment in the future Kanatonian (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the alleged false accusations: Allegations of stalking should not be made lightly, so this diff is not appropriate in the absence of proof of actual stalking. This is an incident from more than 6 months ago, so I will not discuss it here; something that old is more suited to the context of an RfC/U, which this page is not.

Regarding the alleged serial undoing of edits without explanation: I think this behaviour is unfortunately too common in SL-related articles, but it's not accurate to single out one editor only. Also, it is difficult to make a judgment about the edits without considering their context (i.e. was explanation offered in a previous edit summary or on a talk page?)

Please also see #A general note on the citing and reporting of violations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Black Falcon's analysis and am considering what admin actions should be taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this and the preceding incident as resolved? — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I somewhat agree with Black Falcon I am not completely with Black Falcon on this matter. It all goes back to something called a "tipping point". In nature there is an occurrence called a "Tipping point" after which the state of normality or acceptability starts to rapidly decline. It can be applied beautifully to this matter. Kanatonian is usually collective and calm and manages to repulse personal attacks without breaching any rules. However, he has endured many personal attacks that I am surprised he did not lash out earlier. Specially when his contributions are hunted down and attacked. Sometimes these attacks have nothing to do with the topic at hand but with the user's ethnicity. I do hope that admins take this into consideration before any real characteristic misjudgments on Kanatonian. If you want to see how many times Kanatonian has been attacked please just ask me via email. I will be more than happy to point it out by email because I do not want to imply anyone is doing anything wrong on wikipedia . With that being said I think we can close this as resolved after my detailed comment is read by all interested parties. Watchdogb (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly unprotect Sri Lankan Tamils articles and blue box it instead

? Beacuse of the edit warring, it was protected but it prevents people from

editing it normally. A blue box will prevent it becoming an edit warring article.

It has been in protection for a looooong time. Thanks

Kanatonian (talk) 14:18, 14

December 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Sebastian 19:13, 14 December

2007 (UTC)

Another one.

Thanks Kanatonian (talk)

23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, too. I created a new template for this: Wikipedia:SLR/bluebox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think we

can speedily use it in cases like the above two, when we remove a

protection. For the other direction, adding it to on articles that are not

protected yet, let's discuss it here first. —

Sebastian 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like people are gaming the system . I think we should be nuanced in such situations as how we apply our sledge hammer. Iwazaki just a few days ago attacked me AGAIN against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, he should have been hard blocked for a long time because of his repeated uncivil behavior but the admins although agreeing about his repeated violation let him go thinking he will reform himself. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of Iwazaki and Watchdogb are two different incidents about two different types of disruption. Hence Iwazaki's issue is vary from this issue and please try to open a separate thread if you want to discuss about User:Iwazaki. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may be all what I am saying is we have to be nuanced in these situations. If it comes to that I will open up a thread on Iwazaki. I was assuming good faith in the admins decisions and was leaving it alone unless of course you want me to make it an issue, do you want me to open up a separate thread ? Kanatonian (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Intermittend off-topic has been moved here to section above)

Then Iwasaki should also be blocked for attacking me against WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA as mentioned above Kanatonian (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're working this, I'll be able to do more tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not in any hurry, what you guys are doing is voluntary service, so am I and so are millions of other Wikipedians. All what we expect in return is be able to work in peace without getting interrupted by those who violate established rules. I did not want to precipitate anything beyond repair and don’t want to assume bad faith asking you to do something beyond your time considerations. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All, please don't mix issues. See above thread on Lahiru/Watchdogb case. For this case, Iwazaki is gone right now, til Friday and Sebastian is going to talk to him. Since he's gone, a block on Iwazaki would serve no purpose at this point. I'm letting SebastianHelm and Black Falcon handle this one first and if they ask me to step in, I will. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent mail to Iwazaki some 15 hours ago. I feel somewhat responsible for this incident, since Iwazaki replied to my message, and it could be that he reacted so angry because he was angry at the message. I would regret that since the last thing I want to do here is start an escalation. That's the reason why I wanted to send him private mail. I am curious for his reply - I can learn from this, too. — Sebastian 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like he is not active currently (we all have real lives too) but we should keep this thread open until he reatracts the comment he made about terrorists about fellow wikipedians for at least 3 months. IMHO. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to keep the whole thread open for that long. How about if we just kept a list of disruptive users that have been warned and can be blocked without further discussion right on the next transgression? The list would then contain links to the archive. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has he be warned not to call ohers Terrorists ? Kanatonian (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not explicitly and publicly. How about if I will write the following warning on his user talk page: "Official warning: You have been found to issue direct, unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of a user in good standing on 15:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC) [link]. This is a warning that any administrator can block you without further discussion if such an incident should reoccur in the next x months." Question to other admins: What would be an appropriate time for x? — Sebastian 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop with if such an incident should reoccur, no time frame to it and then archive this section. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning toward agreement with Kanatonian on this issue. Targeted personal attacks are disruptive regardless of when they are made, and are covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. However, if we want to set a specific time time, I think X should be at least 3 months and, preferably, 6-12 months. Also, a technical clarification: Iwazaki did not label any editor a terrorist in his posts on this page; the "direct, unsubstantiated attack" in question is "I would say they would [do] anything to cover up LTTE activities". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Kanatonian. Personal attacks are really not helpful and does disrupt the normal wikipedia editing. I do not believe there should be such a time frame. As Iwazaki has been given many warnings by multiple admins I believe that we should just ask him to refrain from personal attack for an undefined amount of time. Watchdogb (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the message on Iwazaki's talk page, which resolves this issue. — Sebastian 05:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]