I have created the category Mass murder of Sri Lankan tamils per this definition. The definition defines mass murder as describing a genocide and types of genocide such as ethnocide, politicide.., and then massacres & pogroms. If so does this definition sufficient enough to describe the Black July, Gal Oya riots, 1958 riots in Sri Lanka, 1977 riots in Sri Lanka in Sri lanka ? Kanatonian ( talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Massacres and pogroms are acts of mass murder committed by different types of perpetrators such as state agents, security forces, political extremists and interest groups against vulnerable groups, which have been excluded by mainstream society. Pogroms are usually committed by a mob of incited thugs while massacres can be premeditated and may include state agents or are ordered by political or state leaders
Did you get the book from the library, Kanatonian? — Sebastian 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
After I became aware of confusion about 1RR two weeks ago here, I took another look at WP:1RR, and I realized that all we needed in order to prevent tag warring, was a minor change of that rule: Leave out the focus on "your" change. That also squares well with WP:OWN. I propose therefore to add the following to our WP:SLR#Guidelines:
"If someone reverts a change, don't re-revert it. Instead, discuss it on the article talk page or on WT:SLR. On articles under SLDRA, there will be zero tolerance of re-reverts; these will be again reverted to the last version without undiscussed controversial changes, and editors will get warned and in repeat cases blocked."
How does this sound? Maybe I should replace "will" with "can", because few people actually warned revert warriors recently. Maybe we should change the wording of SLDRA to make this clear to everyone? — Sebastian 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether we need Attributed Source, next to Reliable Source and Qualified Source. There are some sources, like GoSL, which must be attributed, but a qualification does not seem necessary because it is obvious. The three classes would be used as follows:
There seems to be some confusion in the above discussions as to what QS/RS and attribution mean Jasy jatere ( talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Bullets replaced with numbers for easy reference by Sebastian.
one could also have a sentence like "If the allegiance of a qualified source is not inherently clear, a qualifier of the form pro/anti-X should be used." Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand it correctly that we have unattributed RS (bbc), attributed RS (Amnesty), unattributed QS (defence.lk) and attributed QS (tamilnet)? Or am I missing something? I feel that there is a qualitative difference between amnesty international and tamilnet... Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Kanatonian ( talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please let's pause this discussion. I think the three of us painted ourselves in a corner. It seems we're all under stress right now. I was so desperate that I wrote an angry reply. I’m now realizing that my reply of 05:38 yesterday contributed to an escalation - the very thing this project tries to prevent. We all made mistakes, and this dispute doesn’t make any of us look good. Rather than publicly talking about mistakes of people I respect, I would prefer to keep this off wiki. Jasy, can you please let me know your e-mail? Since I don't have your e-mail, and you don't have e-mail enabled, I will send mail only to Kanatonian for now. — Sebastian 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
For now, I would like us to archive the discussion to allow it to cool off. Let’s wait a month until we all have a bit less stress and there are fewer discussions here. Maybe it will be easier for each of us to understand the other by then. If you choose to bring it up again, I ask that you base your argument not on what you feel would be nice, but on real-life problems in our area which can not be resolved with the current system. — Sebastian 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been an edit fight going on between non-members on this page. This page is not censored, and the deletions show no explanation, which is in violation of the notice "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.", which everybody should see when they revert an edit. Moreover, the deletions do not conform with the box on top of this page, which says "Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted" since (a) the deleters are no members and (b) the deleted text was not off topic; in fact, it is a legitimate question to be asked here. — Sebastian 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ipatrol ( talk · contribs) has brought up an interesting suggestion about the blue box at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. What do our members think of this? Chamal talk 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Can the editing restrictions banner be moved to an editnotice? What does it serve non-editing readers or editors looking for something to do?-- Ipatrol ( talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Anything can be decided on a case-by case basis, but come to think of it, it would be nice to it on all bannered pages if there are more than one. Most templates stay on the article to 1) inform readers that there is a problem and 2) to attract editors looking for something to do. This banner does neither and only serves to warn users who are about to edit of the situation and to be careful. Those kinds of messages are usually put in editnotices. For readers it only adds clutter and strongly falls under
WP:SRA by pointing at a project-space based dispute.
WP:3RR exists to prevent disputes from confusing readers, this banner begs much the same problem.
Seeing above, I noticed that people are making controversial edits to pages marked with blueboxes. We should convert it so that it comes out as both an editnotice and a page notice, like this:
![]() | This article is currently subject to
editing restrictions, following a
dispute resolution consensus. Do not insert unreferenced text. Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed. |
This template also gives you this edit notice IF WE SUBSTITUTE IT: PS If it doesn't show up on your screen, look in the edit box. PPS: Source User:Riotrocket8676/SLRBlueBox. {{subst:WP:SLREditnote}} Wow! That was fast- had to edit this a bazillion times to get it right. NOW SEE: User:Riotrocket8676/hidenote -- Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Check out what I did to revise my idea. Basically, to track which articles this appears on, you add it onto every page with a blue box. Plus, the notice would include a template built into it. Thanks, --
Riotrocket8676
You gotta problem with that? 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Scratch that. But I think a category for articles under editing restrictions would tell us which articles are edit restricted would be a good idea. -- Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 19:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi could someone neutral help moderate the following page. A anti-Tamil extremist is making nonsensical and non-factual statements about Sri Lankan Tamils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people
The article was intially great and had been listed as a "Social sciences and society good articles". However, one user called Guyan is repeatedly putting his rubbish in. It is being removed but he is repatedly reverting it back.
Nagadeepa ( talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a controversy about related topics concerning these pages. Please use this page as a centralized venue for discussion, as laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_Dispute_Resolution_Agreement. Jasy jatere ( talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The Education section contains several errors, of both spelling and grammar. Public editing is turned off due to the civil war. Someone with editing authority, please check and correct errors in the Education section.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.114.128 ( talk) 17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have merged Charles Anthony (Prabhakaran's son) into Prabhakaran's article. Talk page was 6 "yes" merges and 1(?) 0 (thats a Zero) no. Thanks, --
Riotrocket8676
You gotta problem with that? 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
pardon my being so forward, but even to the layman, recent submissions on this and the "Sri Lanka" site are blatantly one-sided. During a time when the Tamil Tiger leadership demise is still being disputed, the site writers have put definitive pen to (web) paper. It's a pity to see wiki taken over so easily as a political tool--on either side. Cannot there be a vetting mechanism? Recent contributors, most obviously not on the Tamil side, have injected emotive venom into some of the language. I understand the desire to craft the words of history, but this is an historic site, not a blog....
Somebody, can we please get a chaparone for this site? Geeesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.145.243 ( talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this in with reliable sources I found and read online.
Tamil Eelam ([தமிழீழம், tamiḻ īḻam] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup ( help), generally rendered outside Tamil-speaking areas as தமிழ் ஈழம [1]) is the name of a state aspiration in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The name is derived from the ancient Tamil name for island of Sri Lanka: Eelam. The area is home to indigenous Tamil people and some other ethnic groups.
During the Tamil region's history, it has been an independent country, subordinate to different empires and a part of Sri Lanka for a certain amount of time. The independent sovereignty of the medieval Tamil Jaffna kingdom in the north of the island was removed following British colonisation of the island in 1815 and the island was renamed Ceylon. A peaceful struggle for a reconstitution of the autonomous Tamil homeland began shortly after Ceylon gained independence from Britain in 1948. An armed quest of Tamil miltancy led by the LTTE in the 1980s resulted in a de facto state in large parts of the north and east of the island for a short period. The area is now administered by the Government of Sri Lanka.
HISTORY:
Drawings and maps from the time of the Greek explorer Ptolemy, and later from the period when the British came to the island, show how the areas of the Tamils and the Sinhalese were recorded separately from antiquity. [2] Historians have asserted the ancestors of present day Tamils were the original inhabitants of the island. [3] Classical Sangam literature and archaeological inscriptions identify the area as Eelam, its Tamil name. [4] Indigenous Tamil people have lived in the northern and eastern regions of Eelam for over 2500 years, known as the Tamil hereditary area. [5] [6] The 12th century CE saw the emergence of the medieval Jaffna Kingdom and the Vannimai chieftancies in the Tamil-inhabited areas. The appearance and conquests of colonial powers in the 17th century CE, first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and British, saw a recognition of the ancient origins of the separate nations on the island. The island was renamed Ceylon. Upon arrival in June 1799, Sir Hugh Cleghorn, the island's first British colonial secretary wrote to the British government of the traits and antiquity of the Tamil nation on the island in the Cleghorn Minute: “Two different nations from a very ancient period have divided between them the possession of the island. First the Sinhalese, inhabiting the interior in its Southern and Western parts, and secondly the Malabars [another name for Tamils] who possess the Northern and Eastern districts. These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language, and manners.” [5] [7]
It keeps getting removed. It's all reliably referenced so what's the problem? Also the intro should not be about the LTTE. It should be about the region claimed for independence.
In my opinion, the use of the SLR blue box across the top of numerous articles has outlived its purpose. I'm not questioning the editing restrictions themselves, it’s just that by having that glaring message across every article seems to indicate that there maybe ongoing disputes related to the article, which is not the case 99% of the time. Given that the edit wars that required the editing restrictions have all but ended (along with the actual war itself), that we warn new users of the editing restrictions anyway, and that recent edits show it doesn't look like editors are respecting the editing restrictions just because of the blue box, I think it’s time for it to go.
So I propose we leave the talk page message as it is, and continue to warn new users of the editing restrictions, but remove the blue box from the relevant articles. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
that does not seem to be consensus yet. Two people and 8 hours is a bit slim for consensus. Furthermore, Sinhalaa has not really participated on this page before. You will have to wait a little bit longer.
As for my 2c, the civil war will be over soon, but that does not mean that the conflict is over. Just take a look at Iraq to know that military victory does not mean the end of hostilities. This entails that there will be some edit wars for the times to come on how to treat the
Battle of Mullaitivu Lagoon or sth like that. Just recently, the history of Jaffna was subject of an edit war.
Still, I agree that blue boxes on articles on which there seems to be no actual dispute is not necessary. I would suggest that articles with no edits for one month can be released from that restriction "on probation". Leaving only the talk page notice is a bit unfair, because how are users to be aware that there are special restrictions on editing if we do not inform them on the article page? The risk a block without ever having been told about that possibility. Not everybody takes a look at the talk page before editing (why should they?).
To sum up my position, the blue box can be removed from many articles, but not all. It has to be determined on an individual basis, from where it can be removed. Sufficient time has to be given to wikipedia and SLR members to express their opinion on this.
Jasy jatere (
talk) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Under the section titled "Genetic Studies" I included the 2003 University of Stanford study done on the genetics of South Asia.
It is the most complete study done on this subject to date. The study used mtDNA Analyses, Y-Chromosome Analyses, MX1 Locus, Sequencing and Data Analysis to come to the results.
No other study on south asian genetics has carried out all those methods before or since then. It is the most accurate and reliable study of South Asian genetics to date. Edwards Scholar ( talk) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Overall, the evidence supports the strong possibility that the Sinhalese are largely indigenous to Sri Lanka and adopted the Indo-Aryan language from invaders who in turn showed limited ancestry from some original Indo-Aryan invaders stemming from some Eurasian homeland. Ultimately, the genetic evidence also shows substantial genetic drift that corresponds to geography and in the case of Sri Lanka supports the notion that most Sinhalese stem from very early migrants, rather than later invaders:
Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan.''
FROM BEING DELETED. Someone keeps deleting this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwards Scholar ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sinhalese people needs to be added to your project. I just full protected it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been increased interest in this article since Pathmanathan was appointed the new leader of the LTTE. I would like to rewrite this article to someting like this. Any comments / objections? Also, is there any consensus on which of his many names we should use on Wikipedia? I'd suggest Selvarasa Pathmanathan as this is the one he and most media organisations are using now. Obi2canibe ( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Go for it.- Iross1000 ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
I object. His name is Kumaran Pathmanathan. His alias should not be given publicity over his real name. do not attempt to conceal his identity. - -- RyanFrancisJnr ( talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review a series of edits with misleading edit summaries such as no references etc. Kanatonian ( talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel Yogaswami's picture should be replaced by Samual Chelvanayagam's picture who has contributed more to Sri Lankan Tamils than any other.Chelva is known as the "Fahter of the Nation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.63.151 ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I refer to the following sentence in the 'Civil War' section
One single strip of orange on the left part of the flag represents the Tamil population, and it is seen by many Tamil as a symbol of their marginalisation
The above sentence gives a biased opinion suggesting marginalisation of a miniority race -- which is totally incorrect. The green strip which is at the outer edge, beside the orange represents the muslims in the country. By the same token I belong to the ethnic muslim minority in Sri Lanka and also personally know hundreds of Tamil and Sinhalese people. The sentence referred to is totally incorrect. I think you have to re-phrase that sentence or remove it altogether.
The next sentence The lion in the national flag is derived from the banner of the last Sinhalese Kingdom, which, to the Sinhalese majority, is... also tends to add a negative bias against the noble Sinhalese people and their rich culture. Please refer to the main article Flag of Sri Lanka The lion in the center stands for bravery of the Sri Lankans as a nation achieving independence from foreign powers including the British. The 4 leaves in the corner stand for the 4 brahma viharas of Metta, Karuna, Muditha and Upekkha which are part of the Buddhist doctrine.
In the aftermath of a near-lethal terrorist 'invasion' it is only natural for the vestigal remnants of such a movement to try and 'dovetail' their nefarious objectives into strong nationalistic and cultural symbols. You, Wikipedia, are one of the foremost authorities on factual representation today. I am sure you would quickly rally around the resources at your disposal to verify the truth of what I have said and make the necessary corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfouwaaz ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I write a subsection on health of demographics? Sarcelles ( talk) 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday’s message about the LTTE article and today’s question about the MPs alerted me of a fundamental problem: While conscientious editors come here to ask before they do any major edits that would improve articles, hasty and reckless editors blatantly ignore the blue box. Just look at the thousands of edits the LTTE article experienced since we put the blue box there! Making it harder to improve articles specifically for those who care defeats the purpose of our WikiProject.
We can not just demand extra steps from others, when we’re not doing our part of the duty. The reason we introduced the blue box was that we wanted to "soft protect" these pages. That requires work. Our work. Back when I was active here, I used our Watchlists and links to bluebox to keep an eye over these articles. I was under the impression that others here were doing the same. But I haven’t been doing this since my semi-retirement, and it seems that nobody else does this anymore, either.
Just a month ago, we voted to keep the § Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, but I now realize that, without an actual recommitment, that was meaningless. Can we recommit to watching these pages, and to enforcing the message we placed on top of them?
So, how can we make sure that all pages we claim to care about are actually watched at least by someone? Obviously, it wouldn't be wise to talk about our watchlists here publicly - there’s a reason why Wikipedia keeps them private. We could exchange lists by mail. If we had a chat room for members, that would be a good place. But all of these solutions are a bit too bureaucratic.
The most natural way to find this out is by actually caring for the articles. My idea is as follows:
Articles none of us watches can be classified as follows:
Please let me know what you think about this proposal. — Sebastian 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I am planning to add MP info boxes to the following politicians who are all part of SLR: Appapillai Amirthalingam, Ariyanayagam Chandra Nehru, Joseph Pararajasingham, Nadarajah Raviraj, Neelan Tiruchelvam, Sarojini Yogeswaran and Vettivelu Yogeswaran. The information in the boxes will be non-controversial (see S. J. V. Chelvanayakam for example) but I thought I'd better check here first to see if this will be a problem? Obi2canibe ( talk) 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that adding of unsourced information currently constitutes the bulk of what most people here fighting against. If that is so, do you think it should be added to the blue box? Another change to the blue box that might make sense would be to replace “Before making any non-minor changes or before reverting changes” with “Before changing anything that might be controversial”. This wording is shorter, and even though it does not have exactly the same meaning as if I had written “Before making any potentially controversial changes”, I think that it might appeal better to people who feel "this is controversial - I need to change it". To I also don't see a need for the line break before "Please do not remove"; it doesn't happen that often that people remove it, and cutting that saves a whole line. All together, it would look like this:
This article is currently subject to
editing restrictions, following a
dispute resolution consensus. Do not insert unreferenced text. Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed. |
What do you think? (BTW, I also removed "#Issues", since we don't have that distinction anymore.) — Sebastian 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a query, in the following website they have mentioned the following.
“Reproduction of this news item is allowed when used without any alterations to the contents and the source, TamilNet, is mentioned.”
Is this means I can download photos from Tamilnet and upload into Wikipedia articles when necessary ? Is this is an issue for Wikipedia Administrators ? -
Iross1000 (
talk) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=24227
Bases on that info, is it okay to add more comments to Ranjan Wijeratne article. What I am proposing to add is something like -> In 2008 Tamil Tigers accused that Ranjan Wijeratne tried to kill their leader during the 1990 peace process. - Iross1000 ( talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A new user posted links to http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=GjKzcbF2ka4&feature=related and http://www.tamilnet.tv/index.php/ltte-tactical-withdrwal-from-kokavil?blog=1 on the LTTE article. That has been removed by a well-intended person watching that article, but these links are related, so we should discuss how realiable they are, and if it is appropriate to include them somewhere. The YouTube seems to be from France 24. — Sebastian 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist without being whitelisted. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links.
Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The former half of this paragraph immediately struck me as biased upon reading it. It does not seem that the LTTE ever "dominated" as the heading would indicate. More importantly, the paragraph itself takes the events of Black July out of context to paint a pro-LTTE picture while failing to cite any sources. Additionally, the grammar is poor. In light of these issues, I propose removing this half of the paragraph. A much better summary of the events and effects of Black July could be procured from its article and the article on the Sri Lankan Civil War respectively. PerryMarkLevin ( talk) 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There was an edit war at Bruce Fein about inserting the link http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20080605_12. I think this is noticeable; it doesn't happen very often that an American lawyer gets accused of supporting terrorists by the government of another country. I propose that we add this incident (with correct attribution), along with the reply, which I found at http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_9429.shtml. How reliable is tamileelamnews.com? I could not find a page that represents Mr Fein directly. What would be a fair summary of the rebuttal? — Sebastian 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | The Tamil Tigers seek a secessionist state in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka through terrorism. Characteristic of like organizations, the LTTE undertakes auxiliary activities that strengthen its terrorist torso and sweeten its public face: political organizing and advocacy; diplomacy; social services and humanitarian aid; economic development; establishment of a quasi-government on the Jaffna Peninsula; and, defending Tamils from human rights abuses. | ” |
“ | Medically assisting the LTTE, however, facilitates terrorist abominations. Its injured members more quickly return to terrorist duties. And the LTTE more readily attracts grass-roots sympathizers, financial contributions and terrorist recruits. The nefarious LTTE terrorist goal of partitioning Sri Lanka into separate Tamil and Sinhalese nations would be closer." | ” |
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Kerr avon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated SLDR by removing cited material, without consensus, on an article that is currently protected by SLDR. This use has already been warned for violating SLDR - 1RR- and this is the second such incident. I believe this merits a block, but any remedy to stop any more such violation is welcome. Watchdogb ( talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
{{Current-anytext|'''This section describes the situation of 2008 or earlier''' and may not be up to date due to [[Portal:Current events|current events]].}}
(This was originally a reply to Jasy jatere's proposal of 11:30, 12 January 2009 to resolve the above discussion.)
Sorry, but not everyone can edit Wikipedia 24/7. School's starting so I've been pretty busy. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
is this source reliable/partisan? It is used in some articles for LTTE military personnel. I think that the names given etc are factually correct, but I have no idea about the general quality of this site. Comments? Jasy jatere ( talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this website is not reliable. It does not cited any of it's claims and it has not been used, to my knowledge and a quick google search, by any journal, news websites or any other reliable sources. Watchdogb ( talk) 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I find this site quite well-written and neutral in tone. Seems quite critical of Rajapaksa, but not necessarily pro-LTTE. I would find it difficult to find a good attribution for it. On the other hand, I also do not know, whether it is reliable, but I have not come across any gross misrepresentations of facts. Any ideas? Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Since there are no more comments proposing what pro-X/anti-X attribution could be used, I propose to add lankadissent as RS. Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the passages above contain all the necessary evidence to judge whether lankadissent is a reliable source or not. Further discussion is unlikely to unearth new arguments. It appears to me that among project members, there is a consensus to treat lankadissent as a reliable source, although many also could live with an attribution of some kind. The only dissenting voice comes from snowolf, who has rejected WP:SLR. I propose to close this discussion as "Lankadissent is RS", unless a good attribution (Anti-Rajapaksa, Pro-UNP, Anti-Buddhist, what-have-you) is proposed and accepted within the next 7 days. In that case, the discussion should be closed as "Lankadissent is QS", with the consequences that entails Jasy jatere ( talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, now the criteria become clearer. Above, Kanatonian has stated that LD has an editor, but now he seems to withdraw this assertion? Just curious... As far as the attribution goes, and I might be lacking some information here, in my opinion, explicit attribution only makes sense if we qualify the attribution. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Classes_of_sources, all the RS have attribution "none", while all the QS have some attribution "pro/anti-rebel". Should we add LD to RS, QS-anti, QS-pro, or UnrS? I could be convinced of any of the first three possibilities. Jasy jatere ( talk) 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Snowolf has suggested here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasy_jatere#Re:_Lanka_Dissent to use the attribution "anti-government". This is fine with me. Any comments on adding LD as QS with that attribution? Jasy jatere ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well this SLR article is being edited in a somewhat of a hot headed manner. People are giving 24 hours to source after removing some questionable sources. I think the tone of editing needs to calm down but I have removed the questionable sources and left a Fact tag on them. I have also added under construction as I intened to now add more. People should let sleeping dog be :)))) Kanatonian ( talk) 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I created this many years ago. It depends on one single Guardian article soure that is urled from Tamil Nation. I am pretty sure it happened except I am not sure it needs a seperate entry. Untill someone can find others RS sources as well as the Micrfish of the Guardian source, Can I redirect it to the list and add one line reference to the Guardian article ? Kanatonian ( talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Aren't we using this anymore? No articles have been added since 2007, but there are new articles that have been created within the scope of this project. Chamal talk 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources
While SLRDA has generally been a great success, there has always been confusion about what exactly is meant by its 1RR clause. At first we tried to go with WP:1RR but there were huge confusions (partly because WP:1RR was in constant flux) which almost got some of our members blocked. To remedy this, Black Falcon and I proposed a number of different wordings at Clarification of what 1RR means to us, but none was entirely satisfactory. A month ago, triggered by some new confusion, I proposed #Tag-war proof 1RR above. That was much simpler, and since there were no objections, I was just about to add it to our project page, when the above case #1RR happened. Since Kanatonian got it on a good, safe track of discussion now, I think I'm not harming progress there if I use that case as an example. The person who did the reversion-like edit may have acted within the limits of the usual 1RR rule, but it was not what we intend with SLDRA. We want people to discuss instead.
This gave me an idea: How about if we specified WP:BRD as a minimum standard? The request of the blue box "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." is still a valid and good guideline, but it's not enforceable, since people will disagree on what "might be controversial". But if we added something like "Edits that do not meet WP:BRD will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal", then we would rule out situations as the above #1RR. The reversion-like edit would have led to a warning.
I also think this may be a good chance to iron out another point of confusion: While we host SLRDA, it is an agreement of a set of people that is different from our member list. We could now ask all signatories if they agreed for us to take ownership of the agreement by (1) updating the text at Agreement and (2) deleting the obsolete list at Signatories. That would change the agreement to a policy of our WikiProject, and would make it easier for such adjustments in the future.
Does this sound feasible? — Sebastian 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:BRD is a technique, while WP:1RR is a policy-like thing. These are thus different things, and cannot substitute each other. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate clarification that 1RR not only refers to reverts, but also to insertions. So, if editor A adds content to the consensus version, editor B removes it, and then this repeats, I think the first person to fall under 1RR should be the "inserter" and not the "remover". Otherwise, there is an advantage to people inserting contentious content. For instance, someone could enter "Rajapaksa is supported by Nepal", and that could not be removed. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose to change "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." to "If your edit is reverted, it is probably controversial. Please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation before adding it again." This takes away the speculative nature implied by "might" and gives a clear guideline what to do. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to change "Do not insert unreferenced text" to "WP:RS is enforced on this page. All unsourced content may be removed". This is a stronger wording, and makes a clearer case. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally, I think a guideline suggesting that people use clear edit summaries when removing content would be helpful. Then the inserter knows where the problem lies. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your discussion here. There's a sad irony: I've been waiting so long for such a discussion to take place, and now that it's taking place, I don't have the time it deserves. I am very sorry about that. Since the two of you largely agree, I am retracting my opposition. I think we're not that far apart, anyway. We agree that there are problems with the current 1RR rule, and I hope we can agree on the goals of what needs to be changed:
I will support any solution that addresses these goals. — Sebastian 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe this discussion has been resolved by the following subsection. — Sebastian 06:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
After replying to the two cases below ( #Does this count as 1RR, #Mahinda Rajapaksa), I think I found an easy solution. We can simply call the rule "Don't re-revert!" and keep the details in its own page. I'll start at WP:SLR/Don't re-revert!; please, project members, edit that page as you see fit. — Sebastian 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I realize that I forgot something: The previous section #Simple version: Don't re-revert! isn't quite complete without also adding a reference to Don't re-revert to the blue box. I would propose to replace the text as follows:
This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, following a dispute resolution consensus.
Do not insert unreferenced text. Don't re-revert, but instead report any problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed.
This is just a suggestion; as per WT:SLR/H#wikibreak, I give preference to the opinion of other project members in such matters from now on. — Sebastian 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military has been shrunk by Gira2be ( talk) and the links I have created to the same article on Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Police, Special Task Force, Sri Lanka Navy, Sri Lanka Air Force, Government of Sri Lanka etc articles have been removed by the same person. - 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iross1000 ( talk • contribs)
Gira2be ( talk) 10:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
One other query, I still think list of ...military.. should have a link in Sri lankan army navy, air force STF etc articles as these units are part of military and there are incidents attributed to these mentioned divisions. (But I won't add them anymore) - Iross1000 ( talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC).
As pointed out in the sections above, the lack of edit summaries makes things very difficult to follow. Blank ES are not necessarily edit warring, they are just annoying to people who patrol the pages. I briefly thought about sth like "edits without summaries will be reverted", but this is obviously against the spirit of wp, where anybody should be able to contribute. It would be nicer to have some way to encourage people to use edit summaries. Can someone bring about a template one can leave on user pages, saying "Dear XYZ, we have noted blabla, of course you are a nice guy blabla, please do use edit summaries? " Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The list of sources is becoming quite long. Would it be worthwhile to create a subpage for this? Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
moved discussion of sources to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources
It is 2 clear reverts of an article under the DRP. If this doesn't qualify, then we probably need to get rid of that section of the DRP. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The information is valid. Why are you deleting it? Remember snowolfD4, wikipedia is a NEUTRAL source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Some edit warring going on there. Might need a blue box. Jasy jatere ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This user continously deletes valid information from valid sources like Amnesty International if they are seen as "anti srilankan army" or "anti sri lankan government" by him. This shows a disregard for the neutrality of wikipedia and possible an attempt at censoring information. Importantly, he's shown a disgregard for the policus of the WP:SLR interests in reconciling the difference. Second, he continously uses WP:BLP to justify removing genocide allegation information on the mahinda and gotabaya page, despite the fact that WP:BLP allows the writing of these allegations since they are widespread, recognized by the US, and the fact that Mahinda and Gotabaya are public figures and therefore allegations against them are allowed according to WP:BLP. I'd also like to point out that this use seems incapable of understanding the intricrite nature of wording certain sources. He takes allegations and words them as certain facts, as he's done in his article on the 2009 bombing in colombo. Further, he claims to "know" intentions of LTTE by comparing the bombing to 9/11, which was unwarranted and a blatant attempt to appeal to the victims of 9/11 despite the obvious difference between the events. Can we address this issue as a community looking for accurate reliable reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.241.78 ( talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009
I am Marinecore88, And I added valid information which complies with all the rules. I refute the request of a ban, Kerr avon has been doing the same thing as snowwolf4d. I did recent accidentally remove information by accident on "the allegations of state terrorism by srilanka page", however it was because i misinterepeted the previous user edit as having deleted the content, which he didn't (you can read my reason of the edit and put it together). I apologize for that mistake but It was a mistake. Further, I am not a disruptive editor. I gave reason on the talk pages for ever edit I made, against what seems to me as a misinterpretation of facts by editors. Snowolfd4 has conceded his arguement on the "sri lankan army" page to me by not replying to me on the talk page. He has NOT REPLIED to the talk page disccusions where I have proven my point, which is why i must revert the page rather than have a discussion on it. And My reply to chama, accusations against a president's administration do have a place in his page provided they are widely acknowledged and in a major publication (both true), not a detailed paragraph but a mention of it is vital to the nature. And please Kerr on and Snowolfd4, please stop citing WP:BLP and actually read the page please. You will releazie allegations of PUBLIC FIGURES ARE VALID if they are notable. Also these are ALLEGATIONS and have been worded as such. consider my arguements for my case rather than this name calling nonsense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 ( talk • contribs)
The controversial info has been re-added once more by 99.254.241.78 ( talk · contribs). First, please note that just mentioning on the talk page and then re-reverting cannot be considered as consensus achieved through discussion. Before this readdition, it would have been best if you waited to see what others think about this, and then arrived at a suitable wording that is agreeable to everyone and then added it to the article. Otherwise, everyone can simply make a comment on the talk page and revert saying "your argument is invalid. please see my reply on talk page". Also, I've added the article to SLR since it was not included earlier (and therefore not under our guidelines/agreements?). Is it necessary to add the blue box as well, since the edit war seems to be still ongoing? Chamal talk 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Marinecore88 here again, thanks for the replies, My arguement is that it is not really an edit war, but me trying to revert what seems to me like vandalism, since the sources were valid (ICRC, Amnesty international, BBC), relevant and did not violate WP:fringe, WP:BLP, or anything else kerr avon and snowolf4d stated as i explained on the talk pages. However each time both users revert the entries rather than discuss them as I have asked. I had interpreted this as vandalism and again tried to revert to the valid verions but they just keep reverting it back. Further more snowolf4d i believe said that the gotabaya;s genocide allegations have no place on Mahinda's page, therefore I reworded the phrasing to refer to "a member mahinda's administration" as outlined in the sources and moved the other allegations to gotobaya's page. But now snowolf4d/kerravon still removed it from gotabayo's page. This was uncalled for. On the 2009 colombo attacks article i removed what seemed like a misinterpretation of sources (which may have been due to English ability-note this is not an attack but i'm trying to defend his mistake as an honest one) as I have argued on the page. Again Both kerr avon and snowolfd4 did not repond to the talk page and directly started reverting pages. Again kerr avon has recenty labelled the LTTE a "terrorist organization" despite the WP:terrorist which by no doubt we are all familiar with. He's also suggested banning me and suggesting I am a disruptive editor. I believe these two guys should be banned and have their contributions removed or reviewed with possibility of being bias (other users have voiced this opinion before about snowolfd4 before as well). I think i've made my case. thanks -- Marinecore88 ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S:I replaced several instances of "terrorist" with the neutral "millitant" on the LTTE article.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
as far as I can see, the change is in line with wp policy, cited by Ipatrol. Relevant passages in relevant articles should mention that the LTTE are proscribed as terrorist groups by many countries. As a standard term to identify them, I think "terrorist" should be avoided, in line with WP:TERRORIST. Jasy jatere ( talk) 09:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a lawyer who might file charges against the GoSL. Some edit warring is going on in that article about whether this should be mentioned, and how extensively this should be covered. I was wondering whether a blue box would be necessary. Jasy jatere ( talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why the following should be deleted on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. RS supports the following content. Melienas ( talk) 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
===US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities===
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge, filed with the US Justice Department by former Associate Deputy Attorney General, [[Bruce Fein]]<ref>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/15/genocide_in_sri_lanka/</ref>. The 1000-page, 3 volume case has been submitted and is currently under review by the [[US Justice Department]] for 12 counts of genocide against [[Gotabhaya Rajapaksa]]. <ref>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/15/genocide_in_sri_lanka/</ref>
I think this needs more input from members. It is about an archiving bot for our project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Bot.2C_again
There are recent TV programs (NatGeo, Discovery) that dispute incidents and figures like The Exodus, Noah's Ark, David, Goliath and Abraham and many more Bible stories and figures happened or existed. These science based programs mention that there are no other evidence apart from the Bible.
Similarly apart from Mahavamsa, is there any other item that indicate that Elara (monarch) is a foreign king ? He may have been born and brought up in Sri Lanka. In fact everything that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa should be checked and verified as it is written by few people possibly to promote their own political and religious interest.
I guess as times passes, the technology develops, Sri Lanka and India become richer, people become wiser and not-narrow minded, it is possible that one day truth will come out on all that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa.
Can a comment be added to wikipedia article on the basis that is in Mahavamsa ?
- Iross1000 ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
I think we have to bear in mind that wikipedia is not the place for wp:original research. There are other venues for that. And I can assure you that there are researchers who critically address what is said in the Mahavamsa and the Culavamsa. It is possible to report their findings. You can start here, if you have some time Jasy jatere ( talk) 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Dycedarg, who could run an archiving bot for us, asks whether we want to stick to the archiving scheme we are using right now. I would suggest that we give up the thematic split into "general", "issues", "incidents". I propose that we use only a "general" archive for every year, which is split when it becomes to large (basically what we did in 2007). Any comments? Jasy jatere ( talk) 07:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
no opposition, hence I will ask the bot to take up his work. Jasy jatere ( talk) 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam on how to phrase the involvement of the LTTE in violent acts. Additional contributors would be most welcome. Jasy jatere ( talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is some edit warring going on there, I suspect that a blue box would be good there. Take a look. Jasy jatere ( talk) 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why haven't the pogrom acts of LTTE and their supporters been included (expulsions and murders of Sinhalese, Muslims, even Tamils and others)? Minimally, there should at least be a link to the list of attacks attributed to the LTTE.
Can someone take the task of fixing that NPOV failure in a neutral manner.
It is extremely biased, untruthful, misleading, and incendiary to have such a one sided article against Sri Lanka. Johansosa ( talk) 17:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
for the record, the blue box states "do not insert unreferenced text". What I removed the second time was only unreferenced text. You cannot insert unref text (with a minor edit, I might add) and then call for 1RR when it is removed. First, you should not add any content at all with a minor edit. Second, you should not add unref content at all. But I think that Kanatonian is right that we should move forward. So, my edit explained:
How about we discuss all the changes, instead of a select few, and then decide what to do.
I would like to comment the fact that LTTE is fighting to regain independence lost when the British Colonials unfied the Sinhala Kingdoms and Tamil kingdom together in 1833. LTTE is not and never was a 1 man show. The founding of the LTTE was asked for by the TULF , Chelvanyagam. 1972. It was Chelvanyagam that democratically 1977 (Vaddukoddai resolution) asked for a seperate state and was not the idea of the LTTE but given to the LTTE. Pretheepan ( talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest these goals for consensus; an intro that: 1) is immune to current events edits, 2) describes the LTTE as an attempt to secede from Sri Lanka by civil war, 3) explains leadership, goals, and history in summary. The idea is to give readers just enough about LTTE so that they'll want to read the article. I'm the guilty party; I tagged the intro as too long.
I support:
The intro has detailed and redundant information. Child soldiers, terrorist organization, territory under LTTE control are mentioned too often. Can we pare down the intro to a description of the LTTE, its leadership, goals and —in the general sense! — its tactics? Yes! The Confederate States of America is a good example as it also describes a secessionist movement and civil war. Here's what I'd like to remove.
Copy editing would help to shorten the intro.
If we can agree on some goals like those I mentioned, that would be a good start! -- Mtd2006 ( talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we have half a dozen different issues here, it might require mediation. Since I have off-Wiki obligations, I'd be very happy if you could resolve this among yourselves. But if you feel you'd like to have a mediator, then I'd be happy to support anyone who wants to step up to the task. If nobody can be found, then I would be able to make some time for this. Here's the deal: I'll help you with this, if you guys take over the chores that I have done in the past - see WT:SLR/H#Chores. — Sebastian 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Change to "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (7 °F) to 7 °C (13 °F). " From "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (39 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)."
Reason: Temperature variances are not absolute temperatures, they are a plus or minus from the norm.
Atlcarl69 ( talk) 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
About 40 % of the population live of less than US$ 2 a day. Source http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf This fact should be entered into Sri Lanka article. Sarcelles ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Snowolfd4 did a controversial edit to the LTTE article [34]. I reverted this [35] and Snowolf undid my reversion [36]. This is a clear breach of the 1RR rule [37] in the interpretation of SLR [38], which applies to the LTTE article as the blue box shows. Removal of references [39] is not good style either.
As an unrelated complaint, I would really appreciate if Snowolf adhered to WP:MINOR instead of marking deletions like this one [40] as minor. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Why can't people learn to get along? Snow made changes w/o discussion, you rv'd, he rv'd, you rv'd again. Does the 1RR in SLR policy allow for rv'ing by you here more than once, to restore back to a discussed version? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we hold the discussion about the lead section here? Would it be ok to start discussing whether the LTTE should be described using the present or past tense? PhilKnight ( talk) 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be good to discuss this here. This is a centralized place for discussion. The results will affect a number of articles. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
yes, the SLR-1RR-rule is exactly thought to cover these issues. It is the onus of the "changer" to discuss things, not of the "restorer". The blue box says "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation". My main objection was the removal of the Tamil name of the LTTE, which I could not undo (and which was marked as minor). The removal of "excessive references" should probably also be discussed beforehand. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please vote.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commanders of the LTTE.- Iross1000 ( talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
Stokke2000
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McConnell2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I have created the category Mass murder of Sri Lankan tamils per this definition. The definition defines mass murder as describing a genocide and types of genocide such as ethnocide, politicide.., and then massacres & pogroms. If so does this definition sufficient enough to describe the Black July, Gal Oya riots, 1958 riots in Sri Lanka, 1977 riots in Sri Lanka in Sri lanka ? Kanatonian ( talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Massacres and pogroms are acts of mass murder committed by different types of perpetrators such as state agents, security forces, political extremists and interest groups against vulnerable groups, which have been excluded by mainstream society. Pogroms are usually committed by a mob of incited thugs while massacres can be premeditated and may include state agents or are ordered by political or state leaders
Did you get the book from the library, Kanatonian? — Sebastian 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
After I became aware of confusion about 1RR two weeks ago here, I took another look at WP:1RR, and I realized that all we needed in order to prevent tag warring, was a minor change of that rule: Leave out the focus on "your" change. That also squares well with WP:OWN. I propose therefore to add the following to our WP:SLR#Guidelines:
"If someone reverts a change, don't re-revert it. Instead, discuss it on the article talk page or on WT:SLR. On articles under SLDRA, there will be zero tolerance of re-reverts; these will be again reverted to the last version without undiscussed controversial changes, and editors will get warned and in repeat cases blocked."
How does this sound? Maybe I should replace "will" with "can", because few people actually warned revert warriors recently. Maybe we should change the wording of SLDRA to make this clear to everyone? — Sebastian 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether we need Attributed Source, next to Reliable Source and Qualified Source. There are some sources, like GoSL, which must be attributed, but a qualification does not seem necessary because it is obvious. The three classes would be used as follows:
There seems to be some confusion in the above discussions as to what QS/RS and attribution mean Jasy jatere ( talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Bullets replaced with numbers for easy reference by Sebastian.
one could also have a sentence like "If the allegiance of a qualified source is not inherently clear, a qualifier of the form pro/anti-X should be used." Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Do I understand it correctly that we have unattributed RS (bbc), attributed RS (Amnesty), unattributed QS (defence.lk) and attributed QS (tamilnet)? Or am I missing something? I feel that there is a qualitative difference between amnesty international and tamilnet... Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Kanatonian ( talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please let's pause this discussion. I think the three of us painted ourselves in a corner. It seems we're all under stress right now. I was so desperate that I wrote an angry reply. I’m now realizing that my reply of 05:38 yesterday contributed to an escalation - the very thing this project tries to prevent. We all made mistakes, and this dispute doesn’t make any of us look good. Rather than publicly talking about mistakes of people I respect, I would prefer to keep this off wiki. Jasy, can you please let me know your e-mail? Since I don't have your e-mail, and you don't have e-mail enabled, I will send mail only to Kanatonian for now. — Sebastian 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
For now, I would like us to archive the discussion to allow it to cool off. Let’s wait a month until we all have a bit less stress and there are fewer discussions here. Maybe it will be easier for each of us to understand the other by then. If you choose to bring it up again, I ask that you base your argument not on what you feel would be nice, but on real-life problems in our area which can not be resolved with the current system. — Sebastian 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been an edit fight going on between non-members on this page. This page is not censored, and the deletions show no explanation, which is in violation of the notice "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.", which everybody should see when they revert an edit. Moreover, the deletions do not conform with the box on top of this page, which says "Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted" since (a) the deleters are no members and (b) the deleted text was not off topic; in fact, it is a legitimate question to be asked here. — Sebastian 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ipatrol ( talk · contribs) has brought up an interesting suggestion about the blue box at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. What do our members think of this? Chamal talk 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Can the editing restrictions banner be moved to an editnotice? What does it serve non-editing readers or editors looking for something to do?-- Ipatrol ( talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Anything can be decided on a case-by case basis, but come to think of it, it would be nice to it on all bannered pages if there are more than one. Most templates stay on the article to 1) inform readers that there is a problem and 2) to attract editors looking for something to do. This banner does neither and only serves to warn users who are about to edit of the situation and to be careful. Those kinds of messages are usually put in editnotices. For readers it only adds clutter and strongly falls under
WP:SRA by pointing at a project-space based dispute.
WP:3RR exists to prevent disputes from confusing readers, this banner begs much the same problem.
Seeing above, I noticed that people are making controversial edits to pages marked with blueboxes. We should convert it so that it comes out as both an editnotice and a page notice, like this:
![]() | This article is currently subject to
editing restrictions, following a
dispute resolution consensus. Do not insert unreferenced text. Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed. |
This template also gives you this edit notice IF WE SUBSTITUTE IT: PS If it doesn't show up on your screen, look in the edit box. PPS: Source User:Riotrocket8676/SLRBlueBox. {{subst:WP:SLREditnote}} Wow! That was fast- had to edit this a bazillion times to get it right. NOW SEE: User:Riotrocket8676/hidenote -- Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Check out what I did to revise my idea. Basically, to track which articles this appears on, you add it onto every page with a blue box. Plus, the notice would include a template built into it. Thanks, --
Riotrocket8676
You gotta problem with that? 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Scratch that. But I think a category for articles under editing restrictions would tell us which articles are edit restricted would be a good idea. -- Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 19:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi could someone neutral help moderate the following page. A anti-Tamil extremist is making nonsensical and non-factual statements about Sri Lankan Tamils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people
The article was intially great and had been listed as a "Social sciences and society good articles". However, one user called Guyan is repeatedly putting his rubbish in. It is being removed but he is repatedly reverting it back.
Nagadeepa ( talk) 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a controversy about related topics concerning these pages. Please use this page as a centralized venue for discussion, as laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_Dispute_Resolution_Agreement. Jasy jatere ( talk) 12:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The Education section contains several errors, of both spelling and grammar. Public editing is turned off due to the civil war. Someone with editing authority, please check and correct errors in the Education section.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.114.128 ( talk) 17:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have merged Charles Anthony (Prabhakaran's son) into Prabhakaran's article. Talk page was 6 "yes" merges and 1(?) 0 (thats a Zero) no. Thanks, --
Riotrocket8676
You gotta problem with that? 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
pardon my being so forward, but even to the layman, recent submissions on this and the "Sri Lanka" site are blatantly one-sided. During a time when the Tamil Tiger leadership demise is still being disputed, the site writers have put definitive pen to (web) paper. It's a pity to see wiki taken over so easily as a political tool--on either side. Cannot there be a vetting mechanism? Recent contributors, most obviously not on the Tamil side, have injected emotive venom into some of the language. I understand the desire to craft the words of history, but this is an historic site, not a blog....
Somebody, can we please get a chaparone for this site? Geeesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.145.243 ( talk) 02:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this in with reliable sources I found and read online.
Tamil Eelam ([தமிழீழம், tamiḻ īḻam] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup ( help), generally rendered outside Tamil-speaking areas as தமிழ் ஈழம [1]) is the name of a state aspiration in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The name is derived from the ancient Tamil name for island of Sri Lanka: Eelam. The area is home to indigenous Tamil people and some other ethnic groups.
During the Tamil region's history, it has been an independent country, subordinate to different empires and a part of Sri Lanka for a certain amount of time. The independent sovereignty of the medieval Tamil Jaffna kingdom in the north of the island was removed following British colonisation of the island in 1815 and the island was renamed Ceylon. A peaceful struggle for a reconstitution of the autonomous Tamil homeland began shortly after Ceylon gained independence from Britain in 1948. An armed quest of Tamil miltancy led by the LTTE in the 1980s resulted in a de facto state in large parts of the north and east of the island for a short period. The area is now administered by the Government of Sri Lanka.
HISTORY:
Drawings and maps from the time of the Greek explorer Ptolemy, and later from the period when the British came to the island, show how the areas of the Tamils and the Sinhalese were recorded separately from antiquity. [2] Historians have asserted the ancestors of present day Tamils were the original inhabitants of the island. [3] Classical Sangam literature and archaeological inscriptions identify the area as Eelam, its Tamil name. [4] Indigenous Tamil people have lived in the northern and eastern regions of Eelam for over 2500 years, known as the Tamil hereditary area. [5] [6] The 12th century CE saw the emergence of the medieval Jaffna Kingdom and the Vannimai chieftancies in the Tamil-inhabited areas. The appearance and conquests of colonial powers in the 17th century CE, first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and British, saw a recognition of the ancient origins of the separate nations on the island. The island was renamed Ceylon. Upon arrival in June 1799, Sir Hugh Cleghorn, the island's first British colonial secretary wrote to the British government of the traits and antiquity of the Tamil nation on the island in the Cleghorn Minute: “Two different nations from a very ancient period have divided between them the possession of the island. First the Sinhalese, inhabiting the interior in its Southern and Western parts, and secondly the Malabars [another name for Tamils] who possess the Northern and Eastern districts. These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language, and manners.” [5] [7]
It keeps getting removed. It's all reliably referenced so what's the problem? Also the intro should not be about the LTTE. It should be about the region claimed for independence.
In my opinion, the use of the SLR blue box across the top of numerous articles has outlived its purpose. I'm not questioning the editing restrictions themselves, it’s just that by having that glaring message across every article seems to indicate that there maybe ongoing disputes related to the article, which is not the case 99% of the time. Given that the edit wars that required the editing restrictions have all but ended (along with the actual war itself), that we warn new users of the editing restrictions anyway, and that recent edits show it doesn't look like editors are respecting the editing restrictions just because of the blue box, I think it’s time for it to go.
So I propose we leave the talk page message as it is, and continue to warn new users of the editing restrictions, but remove the blue box from the relevant articles. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
that does not seem to be consensus yet. Two people and 8 hours is a bit slim for consensus. Furthermore, Sinhalaa has not really participated on this page before. You will have to wait a little bit longer.
As for my 2c, the civil war will be over soon, but that does not mean that the conflict is over. Just take a look at Iraq to know that military victory does not mean the end of hostilities. This entails that there will be some edit wars for the times to come on how to treat the
Battle of Mullaitivu Lagoon or sth like that. Just recently, the history of Jaffna was subject of an edit war.
Still, I agree that blue boxes on articles on which there seems to be no actual dispute is not necessary. I would suggest that articles with no edits for one month can be released from that restriction "on probation". Leaving only the talk page notice is a bit unfair, because how are users to be aware that there are special restrictions on editing if we do not inform them on the article page? The risk a block without ever having been told about that possibility. Not everybody takes a look at the talk page before editing (why should they?).
To sum up my position, the blue box can be removed from many articles, but not all. It has to be determined on an individual basis, from where it can be removed. Sufficient time has to be given to wikipedia and SLR members to express their opinion on this.
Jasy jatere (
talk) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Under the section titled "Genetic Studies" I included the 2003 University of Stanford study done on the genetics of South Asia.
It is the most complete study done on this subject to date. The study used mtDNA Analyses, Y-Chromosome Analyses, MX1 Locus, Sequencing and Data Analysis to come to the results.
No other study on south asian genetics has carried out all those methods before or since then. It is the most accurate and reliable study of South Asian genetics to date. Edwards Scholar ( talk) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Overall, the evidence supports the strong possibility that the Sinhalese are largely indigenous to Sri Lanka and adopted the Indo-Aryan language from invaders who in turn showed limited ancestry from some original Indo-Aryan invaders stemming from some Eurasian homeland. Ultimately, the genetic evidence also shows substantial genetic drift that corresponds to geography and in the case of Sri Lanka supports the notion that most Sinhalese stem from very early migrants, rather than later invaders:
Modern Pakistani, Indian, and Sinhalese donors, examined for combinations of mini- and microsatellite loci, along with a number of Y chromosome and mtDNA markers (24), show varying degrees of diversity, which is expected from their geographic position and ability to receive waves of migrants pulsing from Africa and West Asia at different times. DYS287 or Y chromosome Alu insertion polymorphism also clearly demonstrate the gradual decline in insert-positive Y chromosomes from Africa to East Asia, reaching a transition point from polymorphic levels (1 to 5%) to private polymorphism in Pakistan.''
FROM BEING DELETED. Someone keeps deleting this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwards Scholar ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sinhalese people needs to be added to your project. I just full protected it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been increased interest in this article since Pathmanathan was appointed the new leader of the LTTE. I would like to rewrite this article to someting like this. Any comments / objections? Also, is there any consensus on which of his many names we should use on Wikipedia? I'd suggest Selvarasa Pathmanathan as this is the one he and most media organisations are using now. Obi2canibe ( talk) 16:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Go for it.- Iross1000 ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
I object. His name is Kumaran Pathmanathan. His alias should not be given publicity over his real name. do not attempt to conceal his identity. - -- RyanFrancisJnr ( talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review a series of edits with misleading edit summaries such as no references etc. Kanatonian ( talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel Yogaswami's picture should be replaced by Samual Chelvanayagam's picture who has contributed more to Sri Lankan Tamils than any other.Chelva is known as the "Fahter of the Nation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.63.151 ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I refer to the following sentence in the 'Civil War' section
One single strip of orange on the left part of the flag represents the Tamil population, and it is seen by many Tamil as a symbol of their marginalisation
The above sentence gives a biased opinion suggesting marginalisation of a miniority race -- which is totally incorrect. The green strip which is at the outer edge, beside the orange represents the muslims in the country. By the same token I belong to the ethnic muslim minority in Sri Lanka and also personally know hundreds of Tamil and Sinhalese people. The sentence referred to is totally incorrect. I think you have to re-phrase that sentence or remove it altogether.
The next sentence The lion in the national flag is derived from the banner of the last Sinhalese Kingdom, which, to the Sinhalese majority, is... also tends to add a negative bias against the noble Sinhalese people and their rich culture. Please refer to the main article Flag of Sri Lanka The lion in the center stands for bravery of the Sri Lankans as a nation achieving independence from foreign powers including the British. The 4 leaves in the corner stand for the 4 brahma viharas of Metta, Karuna, Muditha and Upekkha which are part of the Buddhist doctrine.
In the aftermath of a near-lethal terrorist 'invasion' it is only natural for the vestigal remnants of such a movement to try and 'dovetail' their nefarious objectives into strong nationalistic and cultural symbols. You, Wikipedia, are one of the foremost authorities on factual representation today. I am sure you would quickly rally around the resources at your disposal to verify the truth of what I have said and make the necessary corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfouwaaz ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I write a subsection on health of demographics? Sarcelles ( talk) 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday’s message about the LTTE article and today’s question about the MPs alerted me of a fundamental problem: While conscientious editors come here to ask before they do any major edits that would improve articles, hasty and reckless editors blatantly ignore the blue box. Just look at the thousands of edits the LTTE article experienced since we put the blue box there! Making it harder to improve articles specifically for those who care defeats the purpose of our WikiProject.
We can not just demand extra steps from others, when we’re not doing our part of the duty. The reason we introduced the blue box was that we wanted to "soft protect" these pages. That requires work. Our work. Back when I was active here, I used our Watchlists and links to bluebox to keep an eye over these articles. I was under the impression that others here were doing the same. But I haven’t been doing this since my semi-retirement, and it seems that nobody else does this anymore, either.
Just a month ago, we voted to keep the § Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, but I now realize that, without an actual recommitment, that was meaningless. Can we recommit to watching these pages, and to enforcing the message we placed on top of them?
So, how can we make sure that all pages we claim to care about are actually watched at least by someone? Obviously, it wouldn't be wise to talk about our watchlists here publicly - there’s a reason why Wikipedia keeps them private. We could exchange lists by mail. If we had a chat room for members, that would be a good place. But all of these solutions are a bit too bureaucratic.
The most natural way to find this out is by actually caring for the articles. My idea is as follows:
Articles none of us watches can be classified as follows:
Please let me know what you think about this proposal. — Sebastian 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I am planning to add MP info boxes to the following politicians who are all part of SLR: Appapillai Amirthalingam, Ariyanayagam Chandra Nehru, Joseph Pararajasingham, Nadarajah Raviraj, Neelan Tiruchelvam, Sarojini Yogeswaran and Vettivelu Yogeswaran. The information in the boxes will be non-controversial (see S. J. V. Chelvanayakam for example) but I thought I'd better check here first to see if this will be a problem? Obi2canibe ( talk) 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that adding of unsourced information currently constitutes the bulk of what most people here fighting against. If that is so, do you think it should be added to the blue box? Another change to the blue box that might make sense would be to replace “Before making any non-minor changes or before reverting changes” with “Before changing anything that might be controversial”. This wording is shorter, and even though it does not have exactly the same meaning as if I had written “Before making any potentially controversial changes”, I think that it might appeal better to people who feel "this is controversial - I need to change it". To I also don't see a need for the line break before "Please do not remove"; it doesn't happen that often that people remove it, and cutting that saves a whole line. All together, it would look like this:
This article is currently subject to
editing restrictions, following a
dispute resolution consensus. Do not insert unreferenced text. Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed. |
What do you think? (BTW, I also removed "#Issues", since we don't have that distinction anymore.) — Sebastian 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a query, in the following website they have mentioned the following.
“Reproduction of this news item is allowed when used without any alterations to the contents and the source, TamilNet, is mentioned.”
Is this means I can download photos from Tamilnet and upload into Wikipedia articles when necessary ? Is this is an issue for Wikipedia Administrators ? -
Iross1000 (
talk) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=24227
Bases on that info, is it okay to add more comments to Ranjan Wijeratne article. What I am proposing to add is something like -> In 2008 Tamil Tigers accused that Ranjan Wijeratne tried to kill their leader during the 1990 peace process. - Iross1000 ( talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A new user posted links to http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=GjKzcbF2ka4&feature=related and http://www.tamilnet.tv/index.php/ltte-tactical-withdrwal-from-kokavil?blog=1 on the LTTE article. That has been removed by a well-intended person watching that article, but these links are related, so we should discuss how realiable they are, and if it is appropriate to include them somewhere. The YouTube seems to be from France 24. — Sebastian 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist without being whitelisted. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links.
Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The former half of this paragraph immediately struck me as biased upon reading it. It does not seem that the LTTE ever "dominated" as the heading would indicate. More importantly, the paragraph itself takes the events of Black July out of context to paint a pro-LTTE picture while failing to cite any sources. Additionally, the grammar is poor. In light of these issues, I propose removing this half of the paragraph. A much better summary of the events and effects of Black July could be procured from its article and the article on the Sri Lankan Civil War respectively. PerryMarkLevin ( talk) 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There was an edit war at Bruce Fein about inserting the link http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20080605_12. I think this is noticeable; it doesn't happen very often that an American lawyer gets accused of supporting terrorists by the government of another country. I propose that we add this incident (with correct attribution), along with the reply, which I found at http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_9429.shtml. How reliable is tamileelamnews.com? I could not find a page that represents Mr Fein directly. What would be a fair summary of the rebuttal? — Sebastian 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | The Tamil Tigers seek a secessionist state in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka through terrorism. Characteristic of like organizations, the LTTE undertakes auxiliary activities that strengthen its terrorist torso and sweeten its public face: political organizing and advocacy; diplomacy; social services and humanitarian aid; economic development; establishment of a quasi-government on the Jaffna Peninsula; and, defending Tamils from human rights abuses. | ” |
“ | Medically assisting the LTTE, however, facilitates terrorist abominations. Its injured members more quickly return to terrorist duties. And the LTTE more readily attracts grass-roots sympathizers, financial contributions and terrorist recruits. The nefarious LTTE terrorist goal of partitioning Sri Lanka into separate Tamil and Sinhalese nations would be closer." | ” |
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Kerr avon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated SLDR by removing cited material, without consensus, on an article that is currently protected by SLDR. This use has already been warned for violating SLDR - 1RR- and this is the second such incident. I believe this merits a block, but any remedy to stop any more such violation is welcome. Watchdogb ( talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
{{Current-anytext|'''This section describes the situation of 2008 or earlier''' and may not be up to date due to [[Portal:Current events|current events]].}}
(This was originally a reply to Jasy jatere's proposal of 11:30, 12 January 2009 to resolve the above discussion.)
Sorry, but not everyone can edit Wikipedia 24/7. School's starting so I've been pretty busy. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
is this source reliable/partisan? It is used in some articles for LTTE military personnel. I think that the names given etc are factually correct, but I have no idea about the general quality of this site. Comments? Jasy jatere ( talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this website is not reliable. It does not cited any of it's claims and it has not been used, to my knowledge and a quick google search, by any journal, news websites or any other reliable sources. Watchdogb ( talk) 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I find this site quite well-written and neutral in tone. Seems quite critical of Rajapaksa, but not necessarily pro-LTTE. I would find it difficult to find a good attribution for it. On the other hand, I also do not know, whether it is reliable, but I have not come across any gross misrepresentations of facts. Any ideas? Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Since there are no more comments proposing what pro-X/anti-X attribution could be used, I propose to add lankadissent as RS. Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the passages above contain all the necessary evidence to judge whether lankadissent is a reliable source or not. Further discussion is unlikely to unearth new arguments. It appears to me that among project members, there is a consensus to treat lankadissent as a reliable source, although many also could live with an attribution of some kind. The only dissenting voice comes from snowolf, who has rejected WP:SLR. I propose to close this discussion as "Lankadissent is RS", unless a good attribution (Anti-Rajapaksa, Pro-UNP, Anti-Buddhist, what-have-you) is proposed and accepted within the next 7 days. In that case, the discussion should be closed as "Lankadissent is QS", with the consequences that entails Jasy jatere ( talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, now the criteria become clearer. Above, Kanatonian has stated that LD has an editor, but now he seems to withdraw this assertion? Just curious... As far as the attribution goes, and I might be lacking some information here, in my opinion, explicit attribution only makes sense if we qualify the attribution. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Classes_of_sources, all the RS have attribution "none", while all the QS have some attribution "pro/anti-rebel". Should we add LD to RS, QS-anti, QS-pro, or UnrS? I could be convinced of any of the first three possibilities. Jasy jatere ( talk) 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Snowolf has suggested here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasy_jatere#Re:_Lanka_Dissent to use the attribution "anti-government". This is fine with me. Any comments on adding LD as QS with that attribution? Jasy jatere ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well this SLR article is being edited in a somewhat of a hot headed manner. People are giving 24 hours to source after removing some questionable sources. I think the tone of editing needs to calm down but I have removed the questionable sources and left a Fact tag on them. I have also added under construction as I intened to now add more. People should let sleeping dog be :)))) Kanatonian ( talk) 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I created this many years ago. It depends on one single Guardian article soure that is urled from Tamil Nation. I am pretty sure it happened except I am not sure it needs a seperate entry. Untill someone can find others RS sources as well as the Micrfish of the Guardian source, Can I redirect it to the list and add one line reference to the Guardian article ? Kanatonian ( talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Aren't we using this anymore? No articles have been added since 2007, but there are new articles that have been created within the scope of this project. Chamal talk 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources
While SLRDA has generally been a great success, there has always been confusion about what exactly is meant by its 1RR clause. At first we tried to go with WP:1RR but there were huge confusions (partly because WP:1RR was in constant flux) which almost got some of our members blocked. To remedy this, Black Falcon and I proposed a number of different wordings at Clarification of what 1RR means to us, but none was entirely satisfactory. A month ago, triggered by some new confusion, I proposed #Tag-war proof 1RR above. That was much simpler, and since there were no objections, I was just about to add it to our project page, when the above case #1RR happened. Since Kanatonian got it on a good, safe track of discussion now, I think I'm not harming progress there if I use that case as an example. The person who did the reversion-like edit may have acted within the limits of the usual 1RR rule, but it was not what we intend with SLDRA. We want people to discuss instead.
This gave me an idea: How about if we specified WP:BRD as a minimum standard? The request of the blue box "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." is still a valid and good guideline, but it's not enforceable, since people will disagree on what "might be controversial". But if we added something like "Edits that do not meet WP:BRD will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal", then we would rule out situations as the above #1RR. The reversion-like edit would have led to a warning.
I also think this may be a good chance to iron out another point of confusion: While we host SLRDA, it is an agreement of a set of people that is different from our member list. We could now ask all signatories if they agreed for us to take ownership of the agreement by (1) updating the text at Agreement and (2) deleting the obsolete list at Signatories. That would change the agreement to a policy of our WikiProject, and would make it easier for such adjustments in the future.
Does this sound feasible? — Sebastian 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:BRD is a technique, while WP:1RR is a policy-like thing. These are thus different things, and cannot substitute each other. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate clarification that 1RR not only refers to reverts, but also to insertions. So, if editor A adds content to the consensus version, editor B removes it, and then this repeats, I think the first person to fall under 1RR should be the "inserter" and not the "remover". Otherwise, there is an advantage to people inserting contentious content. For instance, someone could enter "Rajapaksa is supported by Nepal", and that could not be removed. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose to change "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." to "If your edit is reverted, it is probably controversial. Please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation before adding it again." This takes away the speculative nature implied by "might" and gives a clear guideline what to do. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to change "Do not insert unreferenced text" to "WP:RS is enforced on this page. All unsourced content may be removed". This is a stronger wording, and makes a clearer case. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally, I think a guideline suggesting that people use clear edit summaries when removing content would be helpful. Then the inserter knows where the problem lies. Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your discussion here. There's a sad irony: I've been waiting so long for such a discussion to take place, and now that it's taking place, I don't have the time it deserves. I am very sorry about that. Since the two of you largely agree, I am retracting my opposition. I think we're not that far apart, anyway. We agree that there are problems with the current 1RR rule, and I hope we can agree on the goals of what needs to be changed:
I will support any solution that addresses these goals. — Sebastian 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe this discussion has been resolved by the following subsection. — Sebastian 06:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
After replying to the two cases below ( #Does this count as 1RR, #Mahinda Rajapaksa), I think I found an easy solution. We can simply call the rule "Don't re-revert!" and keep the details in its own page. I'll start at WP:SLR/Don't re-revert!; please, project members, edit that page as you see fit. — Sebastian 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I realize that I forgot something: The previous section #Simple version: Don't re-revert! isn't quite complete without also adding a reference to Don't re-revert to the blue box. I would propose to replace the text as follows:
This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, following a dispute resolution consensus.
Do not insert unreferenced text. Don't re-revert, but instead report any problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed.
This is just a suggestion; as per WT:SLR/H#wikibreak, I give preference to the opinion of other project members in such matters from now on. — Sebastian 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military has been shrunk by Gira2be ( talk) and the links I have created to the same article on Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Police, Special Task Force, Sri Lanka Navy, Sri Lanka Air Force, Government of Sri Lanka etc articles have been removed by the same person. - 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iross1000 ( talk • contribs)
Gira2be ( talk) 10:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
One other query, I still think list of ...military.. should have a link in Sri lankan army navy, air force STF etc articles as these units are part of military and there are incidents attributed to these mentioned divisions. (But I won't add them anymore) - Iross1000 ( talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC).
As pointed out in the sections above, the lack of edit summaries makes things very difficult to follow. Blank ES are not necessarily edit warring, they are just annoying to people who patrol the pages. I briefly thought about sth like "edits without summaries will be reverted", but this is obviously against the spirit of wp, where anybody should be able to contribute. It would be nicer to have some way to encourage people to use edit summaries. Can someone bring about a template one can leave on user pages, saying "Dear XYZ, we have noted blabla, of course you are a nice guy blabla, please do use edit summaries? " Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The list of sources is becoming quite long. Would it be worthwhile to create a subpage for this? Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
moved discussion of sources to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources
It is 2 clear reverts of an article under the DRP. If this doesn't qualify, then we probably need to get rid of that section of the DRP. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The information is valid. Why are you deleting it? Remember snowolfD4, wikipedia is a NEUTRAL source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Some edit warring going on there. Might need a blue box. Jasy jatere ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This user continously deletes valid information from valid sources like Amnesty International if they are seen as "anti srilankan army" or "anti sri lankan government" by him. This shows a disregard for the neutrality of wikipedia and possible an attempt at censoring information. Importantly, he's shown a disgregard for the policus of the WP:SLR interests in reconciling the difference. Second, he continously uses WP:BLP to justify removing genocide allegation information on the mahinda and gotabaya page, despite the fact that WP:BLP allows the writing of these allegations since they are widespread, recognized by the US, and the fact that Mahinda and Gotabaya are public figures and therefore allegations against them are allowed according to WP:BLP. I'd also like to point out that this use seems incapable of understanding the intricrite nature of wording certain sources. He takes allegations and words them as certain facts, as he's done in his article on the 2009 bombing in colombo. Further, he claims to "know" intentions of LTTE by comparing the bombing to 9/11, which was unwarranted and a blatant attempt to appeal to the victims of 9/11 despite the obvious difference between the events. Can we address this issue as a community looking for accurate reliable reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.241.78 ( talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009
I am Marinecore88, And I added valid information which complies with all the rules. I refute the request of a ban, Kerr avon has been doing the same thing as snowwolf4d. I did recent accidentally remove information by accident on "the allegations of state terrorism by srilanka page", however it was because i misinterepeted the previous user edit as having deleted the content, which he didn't (you can read my reason of the edit and put it together). I apologize for that mistake but It was a mistake. Further, I am not a disruptive editor. I gave reason on the talk pages for ever edit I made, against what seems to me as a misinterpretation of facts by editors. Snowolfd4 has conceded his arguement on the "sri lankan army" page to me by not replying to me on the talk page. He has NOT REPLIED to the talk page disccusions where I have proven my point, which is why i must revert the page rather than have a discussion on it. And My reply to chama, accusations against a president's administration do have a place in his page provided they are widely acknowledged and in a major publication (both true), not a detailed paragraph but a mention of it is vital to the nature. And please Kerr on and Snowolfd4, please stop citing WP:BLP and actually read the page please. You will releazie allegations of PUBLIC FIGURES ARE VALID if they are notable. Also these are ALLEGATIONS and have been worded as such. consider my arguements for my case rather than this name calling nonsense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 ( talk • contribs)
The controversial info has been re-added once more by 99.254.241.78 ( talk · contribs). First, please note that just mentioning on the talk page and then re-reverting cannot be considered as consensus achieved through discussion. Before this readdition, it would have been best if you waited to see what others think about this, and then arrived at a suitable wording that is agreeable to everyone and then added it to the article. Otherwise, everyone can simply make a comment on the talk page and revert saying "your argument is invalid. please see my reply on talk page". Also, I've added the article to SLR since it was not included earlier (and therefore not under our guidelines/agreements?). Is it necessary to add the blue box as well, since the edit war seems to be still ongoing? Chamal talk 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Marinecore88 here again, thanks for the replies, My arguement is that it is not really an edit war, but me trying to revert what seems to me like vandalism, since the sources were valid (ICRC, Amnesty international, BBC), relevant and did not violate WP:fringe, WP:BLP, or anything else kerr avon and snowolf4d stated as i explained on the talk pages. However each time both users revert the entries rather than discuss them as I have asked. I had interpreted this as vandalism and again tried to revert to the valid verions but they just keep reverting it back. Further more snowolf4d i believe said that the gotabaya;s genocide allegations have no place on Mahinda's page, therefore I reworded the phrasing to refer to "a member mahinda's administration" as outlined in the sources and moved the other allegations to gotobaya's page. But now snowolf4d/kerravon still removed it from gotabayo's page. This was uncalled for. On the 2009 colombo attacks article i removed what seemed like a misinterpretation of sources (which may have been due to English ability-note this is not an attack but i'm trying to defend his mistake as an honest one) as I have argued on the page. Again Both kerr avon and snowolfd4 did not repond to the talk page and directly started reverting pages. Again kerr avon has recenty labelled the LTTE a "terrorist organization" despite the WP:terrorist which by no doubt we are all familiar with. He's also suggested banning me and suggesting I am a disruptive editor. I believe these two guys should be banned and have their contributions removed or reviewed with possibility of being bias (other users have voiced this opinion before about snowolfd4 before as well). I think i've made my case. thanks -- Marinecore88 ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S:I replaced several instances of "terrorist" with the neutral "millitant" on the LTTE article.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
as far as I can see, the change is in line with wp policy, cited by Ipatrol. Relevant passages in relevant articles should mention that the LTTE are proscribed as terrorist groups by many countries. As a standard term to identify them, I think "terrorist" should be avoided, in line with WP:TERRORIST. Jasy jatere ( talk) 09:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a lawyer who might file charges against the GoSL. Some edit warring is going on in that article about whether this should be mentioned, and how extensively this should be covered. I was wondering whether a blue box would be necessary. Jasy jatere ( talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why the following should be deleted on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. RS supports the following content. Melienas ( talk) 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
===US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities===
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge, filed with the US Justice Department by former Associate Deputy Attorney General, [[Bruce Fein]]<ref>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/15/genocide_in_sri_lanka/</ref>. The 1000-page, 3 volume case has been submitted and is currently under review by the [[US Justice Department]] for 12 counts of genocide against [[Gotabhaya Rajapaksa]]. <ref>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/15/genocide_in_sri_lanka/</ref>
I think this needs more input from members. It is about an archiving bot for our project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Bot.2C_again
There are recent TV programs (NatGeo, Discovery) that dispute incidents and figures like The Exodus, Noah's Ark, David, Goliath and Abraham and many more Bible stories and figures happened or existed. These science based programs mention that there are no other evidence apart from the Bible.
Similarly apart from Mahavamsa, is there any other item that indicate that Elara (monarch) is a foreign king ? He may have been born and brought up in Sri Lanka. In fact everything that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa should be checked and verified as it is written by few people possibly to promote their own political and religious interest.
I guess as times passes, the technology develops, Sri Lanka and India become richer, people become wiser and not-narrow minded, it is possible that one day truth will come out on all that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa.
Can a comment be added to wikipedia article on the basis that is in Mahavamsa ?
- Iross1000 ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC).
I think we have to bear in mind that wikipedia is not the place for wp:original research. There are other venues for that. And I can assure you that there are researchers who critically address what is said in the Mahavamsa and the Culavamsa. It is possible to report their findings. You can start here, if you have some time Jasy jatere ( talk) 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Dycedarg, who could run an archiving bot for us, asks whether we want to stick to the archiving scheme we are using right now. I would suggest that we give up the thematic split into "general", "issues", "incidents". I propose that we use only a "general" archive for every year, which is split when it becomes to large (basically what we did in 2007). Any comments? Jasy jatere ( talk) 07:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
no opposition, hence I will ask the bot to take up his work. Jasy jatere ( talk) 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam on how to phrase the involvement of the LTTE in violent acts. Additional contributors would be most welcome. Jasy jatere ( talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is some edit warring going on there, I suspect that a blue box would be good there. Take a look. Jasy jatere ( talk) 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why haven't the pogrom acts of LTTE and their supporters been included (expulsions and murders of Sinhalese, Muslims, even Tamils and others)? Minimally, there should at least be a link to the list of attacks attributed to the LTTE.
Can someone take the task of fixing that NPOV failure in a neutral manner.
It is extremely biased, untruthful, misleading, and incendiary to have such a one sided article against Sri Lanka. Johansosa ( talk) 17:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
for the record, the blue box states "do not insert unreferenced text". What I removed the second time was only unreferenced text. You cannot insert unref text (with a minor edit, I might add) and then call for 1RR when it is removed. First, you should not add any content at all with a minor edit. Second, you should not add unref content at all. But I think that Kanatonian is right that we should move forward. So, my edit explained:
How about we discuss all the changes, instead of a select few, and then decide what to do.
I would like to comment the fact that LTTE is fighting to regain independence lost when the British Colonials unfied the Sinhala Kingdoms and Tamil kingdom together in 1833. LTTE is not and never was a 1 man show. The founding of the LTTE was asked for by the TULF , Chelvanyagam. 1972. It was Chelvanyagam that democratically 1977 (Vaddukoddai resolution) asked for a seperate state and was not the idea of the LTTE but given to the LTTE. Pretheepan ( talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest these goals for consensus; an intro that: 1) is immune to current events edits, 2) describes the LTTE as an attempt to secede from Sri Lanka by civil war, 3) explains leadership, goals, and history in summary. The idea is to give readers just enough about LTTE so that they'll want to read the article. I'm the guilty party; I tagged the intro as too long.
I support:
The intro has detailed and redundant information. Child soldiers, terrorist organization, territory under LTTE control are mentioned too often. Can we pare down the intro to a description of the LTTE, its leadership, goals and —in the general sense! — its tactics? Yes! The Confederate States of America is a good example as it also describes a secessionist movement and civil war. Here's what I'd like to remove.
Copy editing would help to shorten the intro.
If we can agree on some goals like those I mentioned, that would be a good start! -- Mtd2006 ( talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we have half a dozen different issues here, it might require mediation. Since I have off-Wiki obligations, I'd be very happy if you could resolve this among yourselves. But if you feel you'd like to have a mediator, then I'd be happy to support anyone who wants to step up to the task. If nobody can be found, then I would be able to make some time for this. Here's the deal: I'll help you with this, if you guys take over the chores that I have done in the past - see WT:SLR/H#Chores. — Sebastian 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Jasy jatere ( talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Change to "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (7 °F) to 7 °C (13 °F). " From "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (39 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)."
Reason: Temperature variances are not absolute temperatures, they are a plus or minus from the norm.
Atlcarl69 ( talk) 14:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
About 40 % of the population live of less than US$ 2 a day. Source http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf This fact should be entered into Sri Lanka article. Sarcelles ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Snowolfd4 did a controversial edit to the LTTE article [34]. I reverted this [35] and Snowolf undid my reversion [36]. This is a clear breach of the 1RR rule [37] in the interpretation of SLR [38], which applies to the LTTE article as the blue box shows. Removal of references [39] is not good style either.
As an unrelated complaint, I would really appreciate if Snowolf adhered to WP:MINOR instead of marking deletions like this one [40] as minor. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Why can't people learn to get along? Snow made changes w/o discussion, you rv'd, he rv'd, you rv'd again. Does the 1RR in SLR policy allow for rv'ing by you here more than once, to restore back to a discussed version? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we hold the discussion about the lead section here? Would it be ok to start discussing whether the LTTE should be described using the present or past tense? PhilKnight ( talk) 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be good to discuss this here. This is a centralized place for discussion. The results will affect a number of articles. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
yes, the SLR-1RR-rule is exactly thought to cover these issues. It is the onus of the "changer" to discuss things, not of the "restorer". The blue box says "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation". My main objection was the removal of the Tamil name of the LTTE, which I could not undo (and which was marked as minor). The removal of "excessive references" should probably also be discussed beforehand. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please vote.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commanders of the LTTE.- Iross1000 ( talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
Stokke2000
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McConnell2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).