![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I started this project because NCSLC did not achieve its goal of neutrality. So much so, that many good editors would have nothing to do with it. Let's sympathetically look at what went wrong so we can learn from it. [...] — Sebastian 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I archived the above discussion at WT:SLR/archive#How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls? because I didn't get my concern across. But I'd really be happy if someone could contribute ideas. Therefore, I'm keeping this little section here as a reminder. — Sebastian 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is the Bio of "Colonel Soosai", not Interpol's special page for "Colonel Soosai". SAR23 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Kanatonian requested to comment. SAR23 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
SAR I think that the terrorist part could be in the article. Although it is not needed in his bio it does give the reader the information. The article gives proper reference to interpool. I think that should be allowed but other comments like "Amonst other things" are POV pushing and should not be included in wiki. Watchdogb 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The above long essay by SAR23 is more than just a talk page contribution. It is clearly not what WP:TALK has in mind, since it exceeds the recommended 100 words by far, and employs heavy editing so that it's virtually impossible to write replies without destroying the format. One option would be to move it into a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/LTTE digest, and that's what I'd recommend if SAR23 were a member. So, what should we do with it? — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, seeing that he posted the same in 12 different pages I will go ahead and userfy it now before people start replying to it. — Sebastian 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This is regarding Thileepan, Tamilchelvam etc, first of all just because a person is a member of a political wing of a terrorist organisation does not exclude him from being labeled as a terrorist. Regarding Thileepan he appears to have been part of the armed struggle as it says "He was injured in military operations with the LTTE", which shows that he was a millitant and would qualify him to be listed as a terrorist.
It is to be noted that Tamilselvam is a prominent leader of the LTTE which is listed as a terrorist organisation. As such it is hard not to categorise him as a terrorist. Imagine him saying "I am from the LTTE's political wing so therefore I am not a terrorist", it looks very odd logic indeed. Regarding labelling him as a sri lankan politician is wrong too as the LTTE to my knowledge is not registered as a legitimate political party in sri lanka.
I would value differing opinions regarding this issue. Kerr avon 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If "Terrorism" tagging continues for LTTE caders, start "State Terrorists" and tag to Sri Lankan Presidents and Military personnel who are responsible for many of the "State Terrorism" directly or indirectly. They are elected or part of a legitimate Government doesn't exempt from the tag. Their status is only either they are still not tried or failed to be tried, but fit for the "State Terrorist" tagging. SAR23 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
References are not enough to call some one as terrorist. On which basis should be clarified. SAR23 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For your absurd question that is the answer. Ask Mangala Samaraweera, he will tell the new list of Sri Lankan State Terrorists and their extra-judicial killings rather tagging LTTe fellows. SAR23 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
US Defense/State Departments are not the international judicial arms to listen their views and rules. Tamils have the right to question the SLAF bombing. Mostly Sinhala or foreign pilots bombing in the Tamil areas. Sri Lankan government is not a responsible government and it has violated over the decades Tamil rights under the name protecting an ilusive/unaccepatable law, and sovereignty. Targetting a Military base which violated Tamil minority rights with the Sinhala majority dominated "Sri Lankan Government" is not "Terrorism" but "Self-Defense". SAR23 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes It is a wrong place. Asking something here where the die-heart mouthpieces of 99.9% Sinhala dominated army - controlled by 90% Sinhala dominated Governement are preaching law and order. SAR23 13:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
He became suicide bomber for the self-defense of his community SAR23 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
your writing style reminds me someone I met over here, at wikipedia, someone who brought real time humour..Coming back to the point, LTTE's first murder victim came from their own community,they have been basically killing all the community members who oppose them..have you ever thought why?? -- Iwazaki 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Iwazaki relax. Its not like you really belong to wikipedia more than anyone else. I am sorry but please refrain from your personal attacks on people. Especially those who do not see you way. That being said I do agree that this is not a place to make such an argument. Sar23 please take a look at the wiki rules. Please take up specific problems related to articles on the discussion page. Thanks Watchdogb 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your arguements are ridiculous, Sar23, cite Wikipedia protocol, not your own arguements to justify your changes. Iwazaki, what does the alledged murder of people within the Tamil community by the LTTE have to do with Captain Miller? Absolutely nothing. Captain Miller drove a truck full of explosives and incinerated a camp of Sri Lankan Army personal. It's called warefare, terrorism is an entirely different concept that the Sri Lankan government manipulates unsuccessfully to gain support for their war against the Tamil Tiger Sepratists. -- Sharz 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sharz and Kanatonian are confronting. Sharz at Captain Miller and Kanatonian on this talk page. Beacause of that my view is not minority. SAR23 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction: Sharz and Kanatonian are objecting to tag. SAR23 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Since we've had a lot of discussions about tagging individual articles about LTTE members as "Terrorists", I'm wondering what the people who promote this are trying to achieve. WP:CAT defines the point of categories as follows:
Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called.
Since Category:Terrorists currently has over 100 articles, I think it is unlikely that someone would browse through that category in order to find a particular LTTE member such as Captain Miller. I think it's much more likely that someone would search such categories as Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Category:Sri Lankan rebels and Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. In which scenario would Category:Terrorists add a benefit to our readers that the other categories don't provide? Are there other ways to help our readers in such a scenario? — Sebastian 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't mean this so much as a statement of opinion, but as a serious question to those editors who insist on adding the category to a number of articles. I want to reach an understanding of their reason.
This might be a similar situation as when I discussed with Dutugemunu why he insisted on adding the category Category:Terrorism to various articles, and after some discussion he convinced me that we needed to change the category structure. If the "taggers" could let us know what they're hoping to achieve then we have a good chance to find a solution that satisfies everybody. — Sebastian 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective
SAR23 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose that members of the SLR cease all editing of articles which are being conflicted over cats. Though we cannot extend any influence over other users, namely Iwazaki, Sar23 and Snowolfd4, we can lead by example. This would be taking a step in the Wikipedia guidlines of Conflict Resolution, to simply step back from the conflict, let old discussions die, and then start anew. — Sharz 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
I just added our banner {{ Banner WPSLR}} to some of the pages on which there has been relevant activity and updated our watchlist to include these pages, as well. Please check it out - there is a lot happening at the moment. Click here to see the changes of the last week. — Sebastian 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the discussion for WP:SLR#Classification of sources. For old discussions, see /archive#Guideline: Classification of sources.
Any proposal that has not been disputed for 48 hours is considered to have found consensus and can be moved into the table by any member.
Iwazaki does not believe that tamilcanadian is a RS and has been reverting article with reference to tamilcanadian. I belive that this should be voted upon to find a resolution. Watchdogb 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this site does not have a NPOV. It's obviously not an arm on the Sri lanka but as I see it's articles seem a little bias. Please take a look. Watchdogb 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well some of the articles have come from www.spur.asn.au which is a anti-LTTE website. Also under the heading it has something like Srilanka>Terrorist group > LTTE. Which seems to side with the Srilankan government. Also reading through the article it seems to oppose the rebels. I also can't find the reference of that site, I think that a discussion would be best though. Thanks - Watchdogb 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
article in satp.org | source (exact link) | comment |
---|---|---|
row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |
Watchdogb 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Since only the first of these examples contains a link I will only look at that one. I don't see that the texts match. The fact that they describe the same incident in different words can hardly be seen as an argument against their credibility. However, this source is in my opinion not reliable since it does not cite its sources. Classifying it as anti-rebel is probably a good compromise. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right sabastian... The text doesn't match and it shouldn't because otherwise it could be considred plagiarized from one another especially becuase satp does not cite. I just wanted to point out that they seem to have come from either the same source or mabe one just reworded the same article. I hope you understand. Watchdogb 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please vote here: (Choices are: "RS", "UnRS" and "QS (qualification)".)
Please vote here - we have to consider this a provisional decision if only one member voted. — Sebastian 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Watchdogb claims above that this is anti-rebel. Do others agree? — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please vote here: (Choices are: "RS", "UnRS" and "QS (qualification)" (example: "QS (anti-Tamil)").)
If nobody votes here we'll have to close this as "no decision". — Sebastian 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. After spending what seems years of going through their material, I have the distinct impression that SPUR would never ever publish anything that was not either anti-tamil or anti-LTTE. I don't have a problem understanding where their loyalties lie, but what bugs me is whether they should be classified QS (anti-rebel) (given that they source some of their articles to clearly to QS (see: http://www.spur.asn.au/LTTE_Suicide_Attack_20061015_Navy_Buses_Habarana.htm (section referring to Asian Tribune)) or UnRS. At the end of the day (literally), I vote UnRS, based on the following:
http://www.spur.asn.au/LTTE_Suicide_Attack_20061015_Navy_Buses_Habarana.htm (title) Claim that these Navy Personell where unarmed, a factually incorrect description as there were photos from the bomb site published were weapons were being gathered in large piles.
So a (weak) UnRS from me. NeuralOlive 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.spur.asn.au/current.htm Note that two articles are posted, one speaks of an attack against a person by members of the LTTE (in Melbourne? :S). Not only is no infomation given to verify this, another article is later posted citing the same incident, except it states that the LTTE is attacking members across Australia. I will not deny the fact thatt he LTTE uses unsavoury methods of extracting money from peoples all around the world, something that should be put to stop, however, this Spur article does not prove that using any methodology, facts or sources.
Not only that, further down the page, there are scathing attacks upon NGOs and also against a Norweigan diplomat which the site describes as a "flamboyant playboy and a rogue" without any real backing to their comments. -- Sharz 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi I've been lurking around reading (and adoring) Wikipedia's approach to dispute resolution. As an attorney focused in ADR now working for a statewide non-profit in NY, I'm not only interested in helping out the Wikicommunity but also taking your experience out of cyberspace to students and professional mediators. I'm probably not the first person to have approached you about this, but hey--your doing great work and building a really powerful model. --I now have a username iceweaselqueen but little experience in the ettiquete or best way to approach others sharing my interest in conflict resolution. Suggestions? Iceweaselqueen 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very unhappy about the current outbreak of hostilities on many articles in our scope, and I would like to start a brain storm about what we in this project can do about it. An example for this is Sri Lanka Army ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the revert warriors don't care about the conversation on the talk page, even when there are honest compromise proposals.
I think if we just ignore this we're not even worth our name. I posted a question and got some hints what could be done. I think WP:3O, WP:PR and WP:RFC sound good because they may be paths to an amicable solution. Please, let's brainstorm what we should do. And please remember, no personal attacks or other off-topic chatter on this page. — Sebastian 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to some links provided by Snowolf [2] I was made aware that Reuters has a good correspondent on location, as well. I find his newest article [3] very interesting, and I specifically take Krishnagobal Sivamalar's statement to heart: "Both sides are the problem, both the LTTE and the army". — Sebastian 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So far, I have been the only one who did such chores as
(For completeness: Other chore that others did, too:
In the future, I would like these chores to be
I see worth in them, but if the majority doesn't then we'll abolish them.
I will create a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Chores and start listing what I did there. We can continue the discussion either here or on that page's talk page. — Sebastian 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Chore | Value for | Signup | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seb. | Lahiru | Kanatonian | Kerr | Sharz | Neuralolive | Krankman | Total | ||
1.1 Manual archiving | 2 | closed | 2 | vote closed | 2 | 6 | |||
Agree with using bot (See request) | Yes | closed | Yes | vote closed | Yes | Yes (no objection) | |||
1.2 Updating What's New | 4 | 2 | (x) | 2 | 8 | ||||
1.3 Adding our banner | 3 | 7 | (x) | 6 | 16 | ||||
1.4 updating our watchlist | 6 | 8 | (x) | 8 | 22 | ||||
1.5 Welcoming new users | 5 | 5 | (x) | 6 | 16 | ||||
2.1 When a member applied | 7 | 7 | (x) | 7 | 21 | ||||
2.2 listing and welcoming new members | 10 | 10 | (x) | 10 | 30 | ||||
3.1 closing votes | 8 | 7 | (x) | 6 | 21 | ||||
3.2 adding voting results to WP:SLR | 8 | 8 | (x) | 8 | 24 |
I added explanations in the chores subpage for each of the chores that explain why they're needed, and what it means if we don't do them. I also added links to each section from the corresponding row in the table. Now, fellow members, please vote in the table! — Sebastian 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: If you guys don't see value in them, they will not be done. — Sebastian 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, more than 48 hours passed. In fact, it's almost 100 hours since I posted this list, and only 2 people beside me voted at all. To me, it's an indication that most members take the project less seriously than I do. I will consequently reduce my commitment. I want to come to closure regarding the archiving since I said I'd get back to MiszaBot today. The other issues can remain open; they just don't get done unless they get sufficient support. It's up to each member to decide what's sufficient. I personally am not signing up for any task since no task even reaches 50% of all possible points. — Sebastian 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian - please don't take 48 or even 100 ours of inaction as lack of interest - it is sometimes difficult to access the web when the governement has cut all means of communication. Meanwhile, in Batticaloa, it has been a tough work week. (Oh, and I don't understand how to vote in these tables - don't say I didn't warn everyone) NeuralOlive 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there!
I tried to remove a picture from the article because in my opinion it
There are hundreds of pictures like that, and both sides have committed similar acts of cruelty. I feel it's biased: Either we would have to put in a picture of a Sinhala atrocity as well--which I am against because fotos of this kind are just not necessary to illustrate anything in a serious article-- or we should get rid of it. I sincerely hope you agree with me.
I know that there has been a discussion on picture censorship ( here) which turned out inconclusive. But since almost every single country has laws about these things and people generally feel it's the right thing to protect people from traumatizing stuff like that, shouldn't we try the same here at WP?
I suppose one should concentrate on the aspect of protection of minors rather than mentioning the political aspect, because that way the discussion should hopefully be less emotionally (politically) charged, right? Cheers, Krankman 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of Hoax tag
I would like to report a potential misuse of WP:HOAX and edit warring using the same tag in Sri Lanka related articles. The potential misuse began on See diff here) after considerable discussion on the talk page by neutral editors regarding the potential misuse see Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag the article was improved. Then the hoax tag was used on See diff and diff here again after patient explanation by a neutral Wikipedian editor and discussions on the talk page about how to use hoax tag see here the article was improved Then it was used by the same editor on see diff here) much to the chagrin of neutral editors see talk page. After that the behavior has escalated (See diff here), (see diff here) and (See diff here). I want to find out from SLR members whether my observations are correct or wrong and if there is anything we can do do resolve this issue or do we have to take it to ANI. Kanatonian 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of tags in the article
NPOV,OR,Citecheck, and weasel tags on them. I think if reasonable Wikipedians can create stable articles on Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh etc why is the crowd of primarily Sri Lankan specific editors have to resort to malicious tagging. Anyone who comes to read about this individual will return with a poor reputation about Wikipedia. This is a bloody nose to Wikipedia because editors are unable to suppress their personal feelings about such an obviously divisive person to create a neutral article. I feel strongly that SLR should look into this before I take it to ANI. My suggestion would be to replace them all with totally disputed tag Kanatonian 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of gory images in the article
Problem statement: Dispute over, is it a massacre or not
Problem statement: Dispute over is it a mass grave or not
Problem statement: Dispute pver whether this article should be merged with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War
Problem statement: Dispute over neutrality of the article, should neutrality tag be used or not
Problem statement: Dispute over whether this article should be included at Category:Mass graves or at Category:History of Sri Lanka
Moved to [Talk:Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave#Category_inclusion_conflict_at_Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave see here] because people are too scared to reconcile :-)
Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count. RGTraynor 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
(From the ANI, relevant section copied)I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:
:::::I will no longer entertain to answer to a troll like you. Thanks
Kanatonian
15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the discussion on ANI has gotten very long and is so far inconclusive, I proposed there to move the discussion to WT:RS. Since not everybody respects consensus decisions reached here, I think that an official guideline page is the most appropriate place for this discussion. — Sebastian 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The article Eelam_War_IV cites http://www.defence.lk for casualty counts and updates on the progress of the war. The article treats this GOSL source uncritically. For example, the article says "about 30 LTTE cadres were killed" rather than the more accurate and neutral "the Defence Ministry reports that about 30 LTTE cadres were killed."
I have made an entry on Talk:Eelam_War_IV but this might also be a good forum to discuss the use of GOSL information sources such as defence.lk and the Daily News. DC Wallah 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on edits, only way to resolve, Request Arbitration. Lustead 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I started this project because NCSLC did not achieve its goal of neutrality. So much so, that many good editors would have nothing to do with it. Let's sympathetically look at what went wrong so we can learn from it. [...] — Sebastian 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I archived the above discussion at WT:SLR/archive#How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls? because I didn't get my concern across. But I'd really be happy if someone could contribute ideas. Therefore, I'm keeping this little section here as a reminder. — Sebastian 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is the Bio of "Colonel Soosai", not Interpol's special page for "Colonel Soosai". SAR23 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Kanatonian requested to comment. SAR23 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
SAR I think that the terrorist part could be in the article. Although it is not needed in his bio it does give the reader the information. The article gives proper reference to interpool. I think that should be allowed but other comments like "Amonst other things" are POV pushing and should not be included in wiki. Watchdogb 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The above long essay by SAR23 is more than just a talk page contribution. It is clearly not what WP:TALK has in mind, since it exceeds the recommended 100 words by far, and employs heavy editing so that it's virtually impossible to write replies without destroying the format. One option would be to move it into a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/LTTE digest, and that's what I'd recommend if SAR23 were a member. So, what should we do with it? — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, seeing that he posted the same in 12 different pages I will go ahead and userfy it now before people start replying to it. — Sebastian 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This is regarding Thileepan, Tamilchelvam etc, first of all just because a person is a member of a political wing of a terrorist organisation does not exclude him from being labeled as a terrorist. Regarding Thileepan he appears to have been part of the armed struggle as it says "He was injured in military operations with the LTTE", which shows that he was a millitant and would qualify him to be listed as a terrorist.
It is to be noted that Tamilselvam is a prominent leader of the LTTE which is listed as a terrorist organisation. As such it is hard not to categorise him as a terrorist. Imagine him saying "I am from the LTTE's political wing so therefore I am not a terrorist", it looks very odd logic indeed. Regarding labelling him as a sri lankan politician is wrong too as the LTTE to my knowledge is not registered as a legitimate political party in sri lanka.
I would value differing opinions regarding this issue. Kerr avon 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If "Terrorism" tagging continues for LTTE caders, start "State Terrorists" and tag to Sri Lankan Presidents and Military personnel who are responsible for many of the "State Terrorism" directly or indirectly. They are elected or part of a legitimate Government doesn't exempt from the tag. Their status is only either they are still not tried or failed to be tried, but fit for the "State Terrorist" tagging. SAR23 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
References are not enough to call some one as terrorist. On which basis should be clarified. SAR23 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For your absurd question that is the answer. Ask Mangala Samaraweera, he will tell the new list of Sri Lankan State Terrorists and their extra-judicial killings rather tagging LTTe fellows. SAR23 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
US Defense/State Departments are not the international judicial arms to listen their views and rules. Tamils have the right to question the SLAF bombing. Mostly Sinhala or foreign pilots bombing in the Tamil areas. Sri Lankan government is not a responsible government and it has violated over the decades Tamil rights under the name protecting an ilusive/unaccepatable law, and sovereignty. Targetting a Military base which violated Tamil minority rights with the Sinhala majority dominated "Sri Lankan Government" is not "Terrorism" but "Self-Defense". SAR23 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes It is a wrong place. Asking something here where the die-heart mouthpieces of 99.9% Sinhala dominated army - controlled by 90% Sinhala dominated Governement are preaching law and order. SAR23 13:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
He became suicide bomber for the self-defense of his community SAR23 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
your writing style reminds me someone I met over here, at wikipedia, someone who brought real time humour..Coming back to the point, LTTE's first murder victim came from their own community,they have been basically killing all the community members who oppose them..have you ever thought why?? -- Iwazaki 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Iwazaki relax. Its not like you really belong to wikipedia more than anyone else. I am sorry but please refrain from your personal attacks on people. Especially those who do not see you way. That being said I do agree that this is not a place to make such an argument. Sar23 please take a look at the wiki rules. Please take up specific problems related to articles on the discussion page. Thanks Watchdogb 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your arguements are ridiculous, Sar23, cite Wikipedia protocol, not your own arguements to justify your changes. Iwazaki, what does the alledged murder of people within the Tamil community by the LTTE have to do with Captain Miller? Absolutely nothing. Captain Miller drove a truck full of explosives and incinerated a camp of Sri Lankan Army personal. It's called warefare, terrorism is an entirely different concept that the Sri Lankan government manipulates unsuccessfully to gain support for their war against the Tamil Tiger Sepratists. -- Sharz 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sharz and Kanatonian are confronting. Sharz at Captain Miller and Kanatonian on this talk page. Beacause of that my view is not minority. SAR23 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction: Sharz and Kanatonian are objecting to tag. SAR23 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Since we've had a lot of discussions about tagging individual articles about LTTE members as "Terrorists", I'm wondering what the people who promote this are trying to achieve. WP:CAT defines the point of categories as follows:
Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called.
Since Category:Terrorists currently has over 100 articles, I think it is unlikely that someone would browse through that category in order to find a particular LTTE member such as Captain Miller. I think it's much more likely that someone would search such categories as Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Category:Sri Lankan rebels and Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. In which scenario would Category:Terrorists add a benefit to our readers that the other categories don't provide? Are there other ways to help our readers in such a scenario? — Sebastian 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't mean this so much as a statement of opinion, but as a serious question to those editors who insist on adding the category to a number of articles. I want to reach an understanding of their reason.
This might be a similar situation as when I discussed with Dutugemunu why he insisted on adding the category Category:Terrorism to various articles, and after some discussion he convinced me that we needed to change the category structure. If the "taggers" could let us know what they're hoping to achieve then we have a good chance to find a solution that satisfies everybody. — Sebastian 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective
SAR23 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose that members of the SLR cease all editing of articles which are being conflicted over cats. Though we cannot extend any influence over other users, namely Iwazaki, Sar23 and Snowolfd4, we can lead by example. This would be taking a step in the Wikipedia guidlines of Conflict Resolution, to simply step back from the conflict, let old discussions die, and then start anew. — Sharz 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
I just added our banner {{ Banner WPSLR}} to some of the pages on which there has been relevant activity and updated our watchlist to include these pages, as well. Please check it out - there is a lot happening at the moment. Click here to see the changes of the last week. — Sebastian 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the discussion for WP:SLR#Classification of sources. For old discussions, see /archive#Guideline: Classification of sources.
Any proposal that has not been disputed for 48 hours is considered to have found consensus and can be moved into the table by any member.
Iwazaki does not believe that tamilcanadian is a RS and has been reverting article with reference to tamilcanadian. I belive that this should be voted upon to find a resolution. Watchdogb 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this site does not have a NPOV. It's obviously not an arm on the Sri lanka but as I see it's articles seem a little bias. Please take a look. Watchdogb 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well some of the articles have come from www.spur.asn.au which is a anti-LTTE website. Also under the heading it has something like Srilanka>Terrorist group > LTTE. Which seems to side with the Srilankan government. Also reading through the article it seems to oppose the rebels. I also can't find the reference of that site, I think that a discussion would be best though. Thanks - Watchdogb 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
article in satp.org | source (exact link) | comment |
---|---|---|
row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |
Watchdogb 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Since only the first of these examples contains a link I will only look at that one. I don't see that the texts match. The fact that they describe the same incident in different words can hardly be seen as an argument against their credibility. However, this source is in my opinion not reliable since it does not cite its sources. Classifying it as anti-rebel is probably a good compromise. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right sabastian... The text doesn't match and it shouldn't because otherwise it could be considred plagiarized from one another especially becuase satp does not cite. I just wanted to point out that they seem to have come from either the same source or mabe one just reworded the same article. I hope you understand. Watchdogb 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please vote here: (Choices are: "RS", "UnRS" and "QS (qualification)".)
Please vote here - we have to consider this a provisional decision if only one member voted. — Sebastian 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Watchdogb claims above that this is anti-rebel. Do others agree? — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please vote here: (Choices are: "RS", "UnRS" and "QS (qualification)" (example: "QS (anti-Tamil)").)
If nobody votes here we'll have to close this as "no decision". — Sebastian 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. After spending what seems years of going through their material, I have the distinct impression that SPUR would never ever publish anything that was not either anti-tamil or anti-LTTE. I don't have a problem understanding where their loyalties lie, but what bugs me is whether they should be classified QS (anti-rebel) (given that they source some of their articles to clearly to QS (see: http://www.spur.asn.au/LTTE_Suicide_Attack_20061015_Navy_Buses_Habarana.htm (section referring to Asian Tribune)) or UnRS. At the end of the day (literally), I vote UnRS, based on the following:
http://www.spur.asn.au/LTTE_Suicide_Attack_20061015_Navy_Buses_Habarana.htm (title) Claim that these Navy Personell where unarmed, a factually incorrect description as there were photos from the bomb site published were weapons were being gathered in large piles.
So a (weak) UnRS from me. NeuralOlive 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.spur.asn.au/current.htm Note that two articles are posted, one speaks of an attack against a person by members of the LTTE (in Melbourne? :S). Not only is no infomation given to verify this, another article is later posted citing the same incident, except it states that the LTTE is attacking members across Australia. I will not deny the fact thatt he LTTE uses unsavoury methods of extracting money from peoples all around the world, something that should be put to stop, however, this Spur article does not prove that using any methodology, facts or sources.
Not only that, further down the page, there are scathing attacks upon NGOs and also against a Norweigan diplomat which the site describes as a "flamboyant playboy and a rogue" without any real backing to their comments. -- Sharz 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi I've been lurking around reading (and adoring) Wikipedia's approach to dispute resolution. As an attorney focused in ADR now working for a statewide non-profit in NY, I'm not only interested in helping out the Wikicommunity but also taking your experience out of cyberspace to students and professional mediators. I'm probably not the first person to have approached you about this, but hey--your doing great work and building a really powerful model. --I now have a username iceweaselqueen but little experience in the ettiquete or best way to approach others sharing my interest in conflict resolution. Suggestions? Iceweaselqueen 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very unhappy about the current outbreak of hostilities on many articles in our scope, and I would like to start a brain storm about what we in this project can do about it. An example for this is Sri Lanka Army ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the revert warriors don't care about the conversation on the talk page, even when there are honest compromise proposals.
I think if we just ignore this we're not even worth our name. I posted a question and got some hints what could be done. I think WP:3O, WP:PR and WP:RFC sound good because they may be paths to an amicable solution. Please, let's brainstorm what we should do. And please remember, no personal attacks or other off-topic chatter on this page. — Sebastian 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to some links provided by Snowolf [2] I was made aware that Reuters has a good correspondent on location, as well. I find his newest article [3] very interesting, and I specifically take Krishnagobal Sivamalar's statement to heart: "Both sides are the problem, both the LTTE and the army". — Sebastian 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So far, I have been the only one who did such chores as
(For completeness: Other chore that others did, too:
In the future, I would like these chores to be
I see worth in them, but if the majority doesn't then we'll abolish them.
I will create a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Chores and start listing what I did there. We can continue the discussion either here or on that page's talk page. — Sebastian 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Chore | Value for | Signup | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seb. | Lahiru | Kanatonian | Kerr | Sharz | Neuralolive | Krankman | Total | ||
1.1 Manual archiving | 2 | closed | 2 | vote closed | 2 | 6 | |||
Agree with using bot (See request) | Yes | closed | Yes | vote closed | Yes | Yes (no objection) | |||
1.2 Updating What's New | 4 | 2 | (x) | 2 | 8 | ||||
1.3 Adding our banner | 3 | 7 | (x) | 6 | 16 | ||||
1.4 updating our watchlist | 6 | 8 | (x) | 8 | 22 | ||||
1.5 Welcoming new users | 5 | 5 | (x) | 6 | 16 | ||||
2.1 When a member applied | 7 | 7 | (x) | 7 | 21 | ||||
2.2 listing and welcoming new members | 10 | 10 | (x) | 10 | 30 | ||||
3.1 closing votes | 8 | 7 | (x) | 6 | 21 | ||||
3.2 adding voting results to WP:SLR | 8 | 8 | (x) | 8 | 24 |
I added explanations in the chores subpage for each of the chores that explain why they're needed, and what it means if we don't do them. I also added links to each section from the corresponding row in the table. Now, fellow members, please vote in the table! — Sebastian 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: If you guys don't see value in them, they will not be done. — Sebastian 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, more than 48 hours passed. In fact, it's almost 100 hours since I posted this list, and only 2 people beside me voted at all. To me, it's an indication that most members take the project less seriously than I do. I will consequently reduce my commitment. I want to come to closure regarding the archiving since I said I'd get back to MiszaBot today. The other issues can remain open; they just don't get done unless they get sufficient support. It's up to each member to decide what's sufficient. I personally am not signing up for any task since no task even reaches 50% of all possible points. — Sebastian 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian - please don't take 48 or even 100 ours of inaction as lack of interest - it is sometimes difficult to access the web when the governement has cut all means of communication. Meanwhile, in Batticaloa, it has been a tough work week. (Oh, and I don't understand how to vote in these tables - don't say I didn't warn everyone) NeuralOlive 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there!
I tried to remove a picture from the article because in my opinion it
There are hundreds of pictures like that, and both sides have committed similar acts of cruelty. I feel it's biased: Either we would have to put in a picture of a Sinhala atrocity as well--which I am against because fotos of this kind are just not necessary to illustrate anything in a serious article-- or we should get rid of it. I sincerely hope you agree with me.
I know that there has been a discussion on picture censorship ( here) which turned out inconclusive. But since almost every single country has laws about these things and people generally feel it's the right thing to protect people from traumatizing stuff like that, shouldn't we try the same here at WP?
I suppose one should concentrate on the aspect of protection of minors rather than mentioning the political aspect, because that way the discussion should hopefully be less emotionally (politically) charged, right? Cheers, Krankman 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of Hoax tag
I would like to report a potential misuse of WP:HOAX and edit warring using the same tag in Sri Lanka related articles. The potential misuse began on See diff here) after considerable discussion on the talk page by neutral editors regarding the potential misuse see Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag the article was improved. Then the hoax tag was used on See diff and diff here again after patient explanation by a neutral Wikipedian editor and discussions on the talk page about how to use hoax tag see here the article was improved Then it was used by the same editor on see diff here) much to the chagrin of neutral editors see talk page. After that the behavior has escalated (See diff here), (see diff here) and (See diff here). I want to find out from SLR members whether my observations are correct or wrong and if there is anything we can do do resolve this issue or do we have to take it to ANI. Kanatonian 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of tags in the article
NPOV,OR,Citecheck, and weasel tags on them. I think if reasonable Wikipedians can create stable articles on Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh etc why is the crowd of primarily Sri Lankan specific editors have to resort to malicious tagging. Anyone who comes to read about this individual will return with a poor reputation about Wikipedia. This is a bloody nose to Wikipedia because editors are unable to suppress their personal feelings about such an obviously divisive person to create a neutral article. I feel strongly that SLR should look into this before I take it to ANI. My suggestion would be to replace them all with totally disputed tag Kanatonian 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem statement: Dispute over usage of gory images in the article
Problem statement: Dispute over, is it a massacre or not
Problem statement: Dispute over is it a mass grave or not
Problem statement: Dispute pver whether this article should be merged with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War
Problem statement: Dispute over neutrality of the article, should neutrality tag be used or not
Problem statement: Dispute over whether this article should be included at Category:Mass graves or at Category:History of Sri Lanka
Moved to [Talk:Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave#Category_inclusion_conflict_at_Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave see here] because people are too scared to reconcile :-)
Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count. RGTraynor 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
(From the ANI, relevant section copied)I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:
:::::I will no longer entertain to answer to a troll like you. Thanks
Kanatonian
15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the discussion on ANI has gotten very long and is so far inconclusive, I proposed there to move the discussion to WT:RS. Since not everybody respects consensus decisions reached here, I think that an official guideline page is the most appropriate place for this discussion. — Sebastian 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The article Eelam_War_IV cites http://www.defence.lk for casualty counts and updates on the progress of the war. The article treats this GOSL source uncritically. For example, the article says "about 30 LTTE cadres were killed" rather than the more accurate and neutral "the Defence Ministry reports that about 30 LTTE cadres were killed."
I have made an entry on Talk:Eelam_War_IV but this might also be a good forum to discuss the use of GOSL information sources such as defence.lk and the Daily News. DC Wallah 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on edits, only way to resolve, Request Arbitration. Lustead 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)