There is a problem on this page in regards to users Lahiru_k and Nitraven removing my additions in the paramilitary section here which can be seen here. The additional paramilitary groups of the Sri Lankan military has been backed up and sources given from both the U.S. State Department and the World Factbook. Furthermore, in the edit summary of my post, I have stated to see talk page where I have commented on their removal here only to receive a reply from Nitraven with this message. Wiki Raja ( talk) 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is EditWar on the page. Teasereds ( talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check out the lead section of S. P. Thamilselvan. The spelling "Thamilchelvan" has been there for over a month. Was it vandalism, and if so, who did it? — Sebastian 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A number of articles on attacks and massacres by the LTTE contain a "Related incidents" section that lists the major attacks by the LTTE. While such content is often fine, I think that the content of these sections should be standardised per Wikipedia:Layout to appear under a "See also" heading. Not only is "Related incidents" a non-standard section heading for what is essentially a "See also" section, but in many cases it implies a degree of relationship that verges on an original synthesis. For instance, aside from the identity of the perpetrators, how are the Anuradhapura massacre and the Central Bank Bombing related?
More generally, I would like to propose that "See also" sections that list other attacks limit the list to attacks that took place in the same vicinity and/or time period (or that share some other unique connection). In most cases, there is no reason for a link to an article about an attack that took place in 1990 in Colombo to appear in the "See also" section of an article about an attack that took place in 2007 in Jaffna. (Note: I'm using hypothetical locations and dates to present an clear example.) – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I think we ought to consider the need and appropriateness of this category in the context of the Sri Lankan conflict.
The term " war crime" has a particular and complex definition, and its application to particular incidents or people is usually highly controversial. Its definition is not the same as "atrocity". When it comes to articles about incidents in the Sri Lankan conflict, this type of categorisation is too problematic to justify, in my opinion.
Let's look at the first three articles in the category:
Though a sample of three articles is small, these three are representative of the type of incident that currently appears in the category. In virtually all cases, the identity of the attackers and/or victims is disputed; sometimes the very existence of a human rights violation is disputed. I am not aware of any case where an independent inquiry concluded that any of these incidents constitute war crimes. Thus, for all of these reasons, I think that the classification of articles into this category necessarily requires original research on the part of editors.
Also: 30 of the 31 articles in this category also appear in Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, so Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Mostly-overlapping categories is applicable.
Although the above text could be used for a CFD nomination, I felt it would be best to raise the issue here first. If there is consensus to disband the category, a CFD nomination may even be unnecessary. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the time to respond. Of the 32 incidents covered in the category, only two mention the phrase " war crime": 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and Vaharai Bombing. The article Padahuthurai bombing mentions " crime against humanity", but that's a different concept. While it's likely that a few other incidents have been alleged to be war crimes, we currently have a category populated by articles whose inclusion in the category is: in two cases, based on contested allegations, and in 30 cases, unsupported by reliable sources. So, at minimum, we would need to rename the category to Categor:Alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka and remove all but two entries (at least for now), but that's not a good solution since "alleged" categories are inherently problematic and there is quite strong consensus against them (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). So, due to these issues and the fact that this category duplicates Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, I believe straightforward deletion is the best option. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This [2] has been used by the author of the website across Wikipedia to add his personal commentary. I have no problems with the commentary but the source fails all WP:RS requirements. It has no oversight, no one peer reviews the views and does not back it up with academic sources. It is original research that too with a very partisn point of view. What do we do ? Do I take to the RS sources discussion site or resolve it here ? Kanatonian ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Velupillai_Prabhakaran&oldid=198483304#Article_name I made a move of Velupillai Prabhakaran to Velupillai Pirapakaran because I learned that the proper way to spell the Tamil name is with the latter name. It comes to my attention that this move is in violation of WP:NAME because the former is more popularly used. The discussion is taking place on the article's talk page. Please comment when time opens up Watchdogb ( talk) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this person notable among Sri Lankan Tamils? Quior ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been some inclusion of Sri Lanka in this article. Namely the current Civil war is used in this article as "War on Terrorism" and "Counter terrorism". The citation that are given to back these statements do not represent these views. The first appearance of Sri Lanka is here. This sentence is highly POV. This sentence claim that the current war in Sri Lanka is a anti terrorism activity. The Sri Lanka part was removed because of the lack of citation for that claim. A citation was added and Sri Lanka was re-added. The problem is that the citation given does not claim that this is a war on Terrorism and not a civil war. While the citation claimed that the Tamil groups terrorized civilians it does not claim that the war in Sri Lanka is a anti terror actions. The article does not even claim that these groups were terrorists. So addition of Sri Lanka in the Anti-terrorism versus Counter-Terrorism section is a direct violation of WP:SYNT. Again can admins take steps in this matter. Watchdogb ( talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Government should not, however, interpret the widespread proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist organization as an endorsement of its own record. Indeed, it is an enduring scandal that convictions of government officials for killing Tamils are virtually non-existent, and many Tamils doubt that the rule of law will protect their lives.
A resolution of this conflict that would merit the international community's endorsement will require the Government, the LTTE, or both, to demonstrate genuine respect for human rights. The strategic importance of achieving and maintaining international legitimacy grounded in respect for human rights is not completely lost on either the Government or the LTTE. Indeed, the discourse of human rights is central to the parties' own understandings of the conflict's origins and conduct. However, by using proxies, the subversion of accountability mechanisms, and disinformation, both parties have been able to commit deniable human rights abuses. Effective monitoring would foreclose the possibility of employing a strategy of deniability, pressuring the Government and the LTTE to seek legitimacy through actual rather than simulated respect for human rights.
For the sake of keeping the discussion in one place, and since the article Counter-terrorism is not exactly within the scope of the SLR agreement, I would like to propose that all (or at least most) discussion regarding this issue be held at Talk:Counter-terrorism. Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing to remove some parts of the Child Soldier section. I am proposing the removal of several sentences and remove old material. For example, there are claim on the how many Child soldier LTTE had in 2001 and many claims from the past. However, it is clear that LTTE has reduced it's child recruits drastically since then. I , therefore, propose we change the current revision to the following :
The LTTE has recruited and used Child Soldiers in it's fight against the Sri Lankan Army [1] [2] [3]. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001. [4] [5]. However, since 2007 LTTE has pleaded that it will release all of the recruits under the age of 18 before the end of the year. As a result, on 18 June 2007, the LTTE released 135 children under the age of 18. UNICEF claims that only 506 child recruits remain under the LTTE. UNICEF and the United States note that there has been a significant drop in LTTE recruitment of children [6]. Furthermore, a report released by the LTTE's Child Protection Authority (CPA) in 2008 reported that only less than 40 child soldiers, under the age of 18, still remain in their forces. [7]
The LTTE argues that instances of child recruitment occurred mostly in the east, under the purview of former LTTE regional commander Colonel Karuna. After leaving the LTTE and forming the TMVP, it is alleged Karuna continues to forcibly kidnap and induct child soldiers. [8] Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens. citation needed It says that its official policy is now that it will not accept child soldiers. It also says that some underage youth lie about their age and are therefore allowed to join, but are sent back home to their parents as soon as they are discovered to be underage. citation needed
I feel that having extended coverage of the past on this matter is not WP:NPOV. This is because the LTTE has decided to stop the inclusion of Children in it's rank and therefore we need to focus on the current situation rather than the past. However, I did include some facts from the past so that the reader can get the necessary insight into this matter. Watchdogb ( talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Watchdogb ( talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A user has been adding material that is not given in the citation. Please see the addition here. The used added words in the quote that is not backed by the given citation. Can an admin please take much necessary action. Thanks Watchdogb ( talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Black Falcon on his earlier suggestion. However I believe an admin should take in consideration several other points of disagreements in this article.
1. "With the escalation of the Sri Lankan civil war local villagers affected by it were formed into localized Militia to protect their families & homes." - here I believe affected by it should be added. It is justified by this reference [3]
2."In 2008 the government called for the formation of civil defence committees on the village level for additional protection in all parts of the country, how ever this not a armed militia". here I believe this part of the line must be added which has been removed. It is justified by this reference [4], [5]
3. "During 2004 local villagers of Tamil Eelam were formed and trained by the LTTE and are called "Auxiliary force". LTTE's head of Police claimed that the if need arise the Auxiliary force will be used to battle the Sri Lankan Military." In this line "local villagers" is inaccurate since there is no mention of it in the references provided and therefor should be removed. Since there is no recognized state such as Tamil Eelam, I should recommend to the admin that this line should be changed to "During 2004 men and women from LTTE controlled parts of Sri Lanka had been formed and trained by the LTTE to form a "Auxiliary force"". Further more I would like to know if this paragraph should be listed under Militia or rather be under Paramilitary groups of Sri Lanka due to the more military nature of this unit and the 6 month long training (Militia units normally receive a lesser amount of training). Could an admin please look in to these points, thank you. Nitraven ( talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
During 2004, the LTTE recruited and trained "citizens of Tamil Eelam" into a "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". The LTTE's head of police claimed that, if the need arose, the auxiliary force would be used to battle the Sri Lankan military. However, he also noted that the forces would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force" which, according to the LTTE's head of police, would be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose. However, he also noted that the forces would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". According to the LTTE's head of police, the force would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture, but would also be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". LTTE claimed that the voluntaries have to be "Citizen of Tamil Eelam". According to the LTTE's head of police, the force would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture, but would also be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force", with men and women from LTTE controlled areas in the North and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka.
I have attempted a rewriting of the two paragraphs in question. Please offer your thoughts... Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"With the escalation of the Sri Lankan Civil War, local villagers under threat of attack were formed into localized militia to protect their families and homes. These militias were formed according to the Sri Lankan Military, after "massacres done by the LTTE" and in the early 1990s they were reformed as the Sri Lankan Home Guard. In 2007 the Home Guard became the Sri Lanka Civil Defence Force. In 2008, the government called for the formation of nearly 15,000 civil defence committees at the village level for additional protection."
I think Watchdogb could be ok with this since the "The defense force was made..." part has been removed. Nitraven ( talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We have achieved a new system in WP:SLR about citations. We have branded citations as RS and Anti-rebel and Pro-Rebel. Problem arises when the anti-rebel/ Pro-rebel citations are used for categorization purposes. I would oppose this as these citations quickly categorizes attacks as Terrorist attack (State Terrorist attack included) or Ethnic cleansing without proper fact checking and only do so to stir up emotions. I propose that to categorize an article we only use RS and not QS. Watchdogb ( talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."
Revert war going on based on an unreliable website as a source that was deemed as non reliable in WP:SLR see this. Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the article from a neutral point of viw with WP:RS sources. See Sri Lankan place name etymology. Any copy editing will be appreciated. Also I would want it to be covered by the SLR agreement. The blue box protection. Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He wrote back saying that he was asked to contribute but has no recollection as to whether he contributed or not and says that he is not an expert in the subject matter as well as it is a minefield. Kanatonian ( talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Etymologocial_sources
[..]Online Etymology Dictionary is questionable... it is a personal web-project run by an accademic. The reliability would thus depend on the reputation of the author. I would say that to use it, you would have to establish that the site has been reviewed or cited by reliable third parties, and that they found it to be accurate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently has the following text within:
"The Black Tigers are believed to be the most idiotic, stupendous mentally ill unit of its kind in the world, as with the rest of the LTTE, it is also demonic. Till date, the Black Tigers have carried out 1-2 missions. The Black Tigers operate in three distinct ways: conventional combat (running in circles and skinny dipping together), guerrilla attacks (humping each other like gorillas), and targeted assassinations or bombings."
-under the section Black Tigers today. Seems like pure vandalism to me and I suggest it be reverted. Ulflarsen ( talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether we could remove the blue box from Sri Lankan place name etymology. There have been no major edits since late August, and the initial dispute seems to be resolved. Jasy jatere ( talk) 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Synthesis? to discuss what to do with the article. I'm posting here so that all editors involved in the SLR effort are aware of it. Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We have to discuss all options as listed here not just one. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed (on WT:SLR) to rename the article to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka" to match such articles as Terrorism in India and to make it easier to write it as a neutral article. This seems very reasonable to me. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
How about rename to "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". As for the Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja ( talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject
My strong objection. Above mentioned article is a collection of allegations. For example have a look on the TOC. Renaming as this makes nothing but poisoning the whole situation. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree for merging the whole subjected article. If it's happen so, I would like to expand the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#State terrorism during the Second JVP insurrection by 10 times from the current size. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not the only rule we use in Wikipedia. We also use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE, NPOV cannot be used as excuse even to AFD an article, it just mean we need to find information that balances given one. State terrorim by Sri Lanka is widely dicussed in academic circles and is in published secondary sources that are acceptable in Wikipedia. We can write an article using those sources. We dont have to prove or disprove anything in Wikipedia. We simply repewat after repuitable sources without own own commentary which is called WP:OR Kanatonian ( talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that a few reasons for and against some of the options have been presented, let's start summarizing them in a table like this. I will start with what I see; please feel free to add short keywords to this table after full text explanations in the sections above. Please also correct me if I misrepresented your reasons. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Option | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
Keep | ||
#Rename to Terrorism in Sri Lanka | ||
#Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism | Topic is ST and not allegations | ST is disputed term |
#Rename to List of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka | ||
#Rename to State terrorism in Sri Lanka | ST is disputed term | |
Merge to HR in SL#Abuses by the government | different levels |
I would like to offer that we try to move toward a resolution of this issue, based on the discussion above and comments on the talk page. This particular thread has been open for two months, and the issue itself has been debated for much longer. (By the way, I apologise for starting a thread on the issue and then disappearing -- initially I was forced to take a month-long extended break due to various personal circumstances, which then continued for a further 3 weeks as part of recovery from wikistress.) Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish to bring to the attention of an admin edits made by the user Watchdogb on the article Lakshman Algama and in the same respects the Ranjan Wijeratne. This user has removed them from cretin categories;
As for reasons he state in the case of Ranjan Wijeratne "fact tag added. Reworded and added citation. Removed all "terrorist" cats. This person was a minister of Defence. Thus attack on him are legitimate military attacks" and in the case of Lakshman Algama "rm pov cats. Attacks on a Military figure is not a Terrorist attack". It should be noted that these persons here were retired or resigned Military Officers, hence they both where civilians & also politicians at the time of death.
I also wish to bring to the attention of an admin the removal of given references by Watchdogb on the basis that they are not Reliable sources. Pls tell me why Full military honours for Lucky Algama is not a Reliable source. Thank you Nitraven ( talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
From the perspective of categorisation guidelines, I think that the Terrorist attacks and Terrorist incidents categories should not appear on these two biographical articles. Note #9 of Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines:
Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)".
So, while Algama may be a terrorism victim, he can't really be classified as a terrorist incident or attack.
I would be happy to offer a perspective on the issue of reliability of sourcing, or to help to try to find such sources, but must ask for some more clarification, as I'm not entirely sure which of the eight sources in the article is at issue. Also, if you do not object, I would like to suggest that the two articles be discussed separately (though not necessarily in separate sections), so that the individual circumstances of each case can be taken into account. Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There are some problems with sources in this article. The article uses janes as a source. The problem here is that I cannot find anything relating to this article on the citation. Furthermore, I have a problem with this article's "Terrorist" categorization. There is no mention that this is a terrorist attack in any of the sources used in this article. Watchdogb ( talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of suicide operations: battlefield and off the battlefield. In battlefield operations, suicide bombers are integrated into the attacking groups. Most off-the-battlefield operations have involved single suicide bombers. In the case of the LTTE and Hamas, there have been multiple suicide bombers. The targets have been static and mobile, against infrastructure and humans. Suicide bombers have destroyed military, political, economic and cultural infrastructure. They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings. Suicide bombers have also assassinated political and military VIPs.
Ranjan Wijeratne it was on a main road during rush hour both crowded places, therefore I believe the two bombings comes under the "They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings.". Hence both these can be considered terrorist attacks and victims of terrorists. Since there are no individual articles on each attack they can be added to the Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam until such time these are created once it is done it can be removed. Nitraven ( talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In the same respects I think the article C.V. Gunaratne falls under this reasoning too. Nitraven ( talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but fact remains,
1. [10] States that "In March 1991, the LTTE returned to urban terrorism with the car-bomb assassination of Deputy Defense Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in Colombo. Scores of innocent bystanders were killed or injured. "
Therefore the article Ranjan Wijeratne can be categorized as Category:Terrorism victims, Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 and Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
2. The suicide bombings of Lakshman Algama and C.V. Gunaratne can be considered as terrorist acts since, [11] " In the case of the LTTE and Hamas, there have been multiple suicide bombers. The targets have been static and mobile, against infrastructure and humans. Suicide bombers have destroyed military, political, economic and cultural infrastructure. They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings. Suicide bombers have also assassinated political and military VIPs. "
Therefore both articles can be categorized as Category:Terrorism victims and Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 since the bombings occurred in crowded places with civilians being killed.
This is not "putting words into their mouth" but simply implying what they said. Nitraven ( talk) 04:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Slow revert-wars seem to be taking place on both of the articles ( [12] [13]), with numerous edits in the past two weeks being reverts only. Although it does not seem that 1RR has been passed on either article, I would like to ask you both (Nitraven and Watchdogb) whether you would voluntarily agree to temporarily not edit either article to add or remove the categories in question until the issue can be resolved here. Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For both articles, the inclusion of Category:Terrorism victims is contingent on the designation of the incidents in which Algama and Wijeratne were killed as terrorist attacks. With that in mind:
Is this an accurate summary of the circumstances? Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 1991, the LTTE returned to urban terrorism with the car-bomb assassination of Deputy Defense Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in Colombo. (emphasis added)
Given the complexities of the situation, I have asked User:Hcberkowitz to share his thoughts regarding this case; the full content of my request is here. If I've omitted any significant information, please indicate this. Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A new edit war has started out here. Watchdogb is claiming "cats removed per Comment made by a neutral admin at WT:SLR on this case" & reverting. Could some one please tell me where the comments were made and who this admin is? Nitraven ( talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There is currently some discussion on Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology about the value of several sources on Lankan history (books, articles, websites, etc). It might be interesting for the project to keep track of the outcomes of these discussions, since they will be relevant for other articles as well, especially those where demographic history or etymology are contested. I am thinking of sth akin to the "Classification of sources" section we have on the project page, but then for historiographic sources. The current section with bbcsinhala.com, tamilnet, asiantribune etc is only for current political events. The new section would be used to cover topics predating the war.
Because of the different period covered, the setup would have to be a bit different, but I think that reliable source, qualified source and unreliable source could still be used. What do other editors think? Jasy jatere ( talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody seems to be watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/housekeeping anymore. There's one application there; please take a look.
That page was created by me in the hot phase of the SL Agreement, when housekeeping issues were drowned out by the discussion on this talk page. Please, valuable active project members, either watch that page or decommision it. For decomisioninging, I would think it is necessary to change all links to that page that specifically ask people to go there in order to apply for membership. (That would be a couple of links from WP:SLR and one from the box on top of this page.) Sebastian ( talk) 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The placement of all controversial cats should be discussed here in detail before they are reinstated. Wikipedia is not a propagandapedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teasereds ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been nominated for FA review. Kanatonian ( talk) 12:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem on this page in regards to users Lahiru_k and Nitraven removing my additions in the paramilitary section here which can be seen here. The additional paramilitary groups of the Sri Lankan military has been backed up and sources given from both the U.S. State Department and the World Factbook. Furthermore, in the edit summary of my post, I have stated to see talk page where I have commented on their removal here only to receive a reply from Nitraven with this message. Wiki Raja ( talk) 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is EditWar on the page. Teasereds ( talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check out the lead section of S. P. Thamilselvan. The spelling "Thamilchelvan" has been there for over a month. Was it vandalism, and if so, who did it? — Sebastian 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A number of articles on attacks and massacres by the LTTE contain a "Related incidents" section that lists the major attacks by the LTTE. While such content is often fine, I think that the content of these sections should be standardised per Wikipedia:Layout to appear under a "See also" heading. Not only is "Related incidents" a non-standard section heading for what is essentially a "See also" section, but in many cases it implies a degree of relationship that verges on an original synthesis. For instance, aside from the identity of the perpetrators, how are the Anuradhapura massacre and the Central Bank Bombing related?
More generally, I would like to propose that "See also" sections that list other attacks limit the list to attacks that took place in the same vicinity and/or time period (or that share some other unique connection). In most cases, there is no reason for a link to an article about an attack that took place in 1990 in Colombo to appear in the "See also" section of an article about an attack that took place in 2007 in Jaffna. (Note: I'm using hypothetical locations and dates to present an clear example.) – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I think we ought to consider the need and appropriateness of this category in the context of the Sri Lankan conflict.
The term " war crime" has a particular and complex definition, and its application to particular incidents or people is usually highly controversial. Its definition is not the same as "atrocity". When it comes to articles about incidents in the Sri Lankan conflict, this type of categorisation is too problematic to justify, in my opinion.
Let's look at the first three articles in the category:
Though a sample of three articles is small, these three are representative of the type of incident that currently appears in the category. In virtually all cases, the identity of the attackers and/or victims is disputed; sometimes the very existence of a human rights violation is disputed. I am not aware of any case where an independent inquiry concluded that any of these incidents constitute war crimes. Thus, for all of these reasons, I think that the classification of articles into this category necessarily requires original research on the part of editors.
Also: 30 of the 31 articles in this category also appear in Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, so Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Mostly-overlapping categories is applicable.
Although the above text could be used for a CFD nomination, I felt it would be best to raise the issue here first. If there is consensus to disband the category, a CFD nomination may even be unnecessary. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the time to respond. Of the 32 incidents covered in the category, only two mention the phrase " war crime": 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and Vaharai Bombing. The article Padahuthurai bombing mentions " crime against humanity", but that's a different concept. While it's likely that a few other incidents have been alleged to be war crimes, we currently have a category populated by articles whose inclusion in the category is: in two cases, based on contested allegations, and in 30 cases, unsupported by reliable sources. So, at minimum, we would need to rename the category to Categor:Alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka and remove all but two entries (at least for now), but that's not a good solution since "alleged" categories are inherently problematic and there is quite strong consensus against them (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). So, due to these issues and the fact that this category duplicates Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, I believe straightforward deletion is the best option. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This [2] has been used by the author of the website across Wikipedia to add his personal commentary. I have no problems with the commentary but the source fails all WP:RS requirements. It has no oversight, no one peer reviews the views and does not back it up with academic sources. It is original research that too with a very partisn point of view. What do we do ? Do I take to the RS sources discussion site or resolve it here ? Kanatonian ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Velupillai_Prabhakaran&oldid=198483304#Article_name I made a move of Velupillai Prabhakaran to Velupillai Pirapakaran because I learned that the proper way to spell the Tamil name is with the latter name. It comes to my attention that this move is in violation of WP:NAME because the former is more popularly used. The discussion is taking place on the article's talk page. Please comment when time opens up Watchdogb ( talk) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this person notable among Sri Lankan Tamils? Quior ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been some inclusion of Sri Lanka in this article. Namely the current Civil war is used in this article as "War on Terrorism" and "Counter terrorism". The citation that are given to back these statements do not represent these views. The first appearance of Sri Lanka is here. This sentence is highly POV. This sentence claim that the current war in Sri Lanka is a anti terrorism activity. The Sri Lanka part was removed because of the lack of citation for that claim. A citation was added and Sri Lanka was re-added. The problem is that the citation given does not claim that this is a war on Terrorism and not a civil war. While the citation claimed that the Tamil groups terrorized civilians it does not claim that the war in Sri Lanka is a anti terror actions. The article does not even claim that these groups were terrorists. So addition of Sri Lanka in the Anti-terrorism versus Counter-Terrorism section is a direct violation of WP:SYNT. Again can admins take steps in this matter. Watchdogb ( talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Government should not, however, interpret the widespread proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist organization as an endorsement of its own record. Indeed, it is an enduring scandal that convictions of government officials for killing Tamils are virtually non-existent, and many Tamils doubt that the rule of law will protect their lives.
A resolution of this conflict that would merit the international community's endorsement will require the Government, the LTTE, or both, to demonstrate genuine respect for human rights. The strategic importance of achieving and maintaining international legitimacy grounded in respect for human rights is not completely lost on either the Government or the LTTE. Indeed, the discourse of human rights is central to the parties' own understandings of the conflict's origins and conduct. However, by using proxies, the subversion of accountability mechanisms, and disinformation, both parties have been able to commit deniable human rights abuses. Effective monitoring would foreclose the possibility of employing a strategy of deniability, pressuring the Government and the LTTE to seek legitimacy through actual rather than simulated respect for human rights.
For the sake of keeping the discussion in one place, and since the article Counter-terrorism is not exactly within the scope of the SLR agreement, I would like to propose that all (or at least most) discussion regarding this issue be held at Talk:Counter-terrorism. Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing to remove some parts of the Child Soldier section. I am proposing the removal of several sentences and remove old material. For example, there are claim on the how many Child soldier LTTE had in 2001 and many claims from the past. However, it is clear that LTTE has reduced it's child recruits drastically since then. I , therefore, propose we change the current revision to the following :
The LTTE has recruited and used Child Soldiers in it's fight against the Sri Lankan Army [1] [2] [3]. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001. [4] [5]. However, since 2007 LTTE has pleaded that it will release all of the recruits under the age of 18 before the end of the year. As a result, on 18 June 2007, the LTTE released 135 children under the age of 18. UNICEF claims that only 506 child recruits remain under the LTTE. UNICEF and the United States note that there has been a significant drop in LTTE recruitment of children [6]. Furthermore, a report released by the LTTE's Child Protection Authority (CPA) in 2008 reported that only less than 40 child soldiers, under the age of 18, still remain in their forces. [7]
The LTTE argues that instances of child recruitment occurred mostly in the east, under the purview of former LTTE regional commander Colonel Karuna. After leaving the LTTE and forming the TMVP, it is alleged Karuna continues to forcibly kidnap and induct child soldiers. [8] Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens. citation needed It says that its official policy is now that it will not accept child soldiers. It also says that some underage youth lie about their age and are therefore allowed to join, but are sent back home to their parents as soon as they are discovered to be underage. citation needed
I feel that having extended coverage of the past on this matter is not WP:NPOV. This is because the LTTE has decided to stop the inclusion of Children in it's rank and therefore we need to focus on the current situation rather than the past. However, I did include some facts from the past so that the reader can get the necessary insight into this matter. Watchdogb ( talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Watchdogb ( talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A user has been adding material that is not given in the citation. Please see the addition here. The used added words in the quote that is not backed by the given citation. Can an admin please take much necessary action. Thanks Watchdogb ( talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Black Falcon on his earlier suggestion. However I believe an admin should take in consideration several other points of disagreements in this article.
1. "With the escalation of the Sri Lankan civil war local villagers affected by it were formed into localized Militia to protect their families & homes." - here I believe affected by it should be added. It is justified by this reference [3]
2."In 2008 the government called for the formation of civil defence committees on the village level for additional protection in all parts of the country, how ever this not a armed militia". here I believe this part of the line must be added which has been removed. It is justified by this reference [4], [5]
3. "During 2004 local villagers of Tamil Eelam were formed and trained by the LTTE and are called "Auxiliary force". LTTE's head of Police claimed that the if need arise the Auxiliary force will be used to battle the Sri Lankan Military." In this line "local villagers" is inaccurate since there is no mention of it in the references provided and therefor should be removed. Since there is no recognized state such as Tamil Eelam, I should recommend to the admin that this line should be changed to "During 2004 men and women from LTTE controlled parts of Sri Lanka had been formed and trained by the LTTE to form a "Auxiliary force"". Further more I would like to know if this paragraph should be listed under Militia or rather be under Paramilitary groups of Sri Lanka due to the more military nature of this unit and the 6 month long training (Militia units normally receive a lesser amount of training). Could an admin please look in to these points, thank you. Nitraven ( talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
During 2004, the LTTE recruited and trained "citizens of Tamil Eelam" into a "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". The LTTE's head of police claimed that, if the need arose, the auxiliary force would be used to battle the Sri Lankan military. However, he also noted that the forces would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force" which, according to the LTTE's head of police, would be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose. However, he also noted that the forces would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". According to the LTTE's head of police, the force would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture, but would also be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". LTTE claimed that the voluntaries have to be "Citizen of Tamil Eelam". According to the LTTE's head of police, the force would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture, but would also be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose.
In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force", with men and women from LTTE controlled areas in the North and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka.
I have attempted a rewriting of the two paragraphs in question. Please offer your thoughts... Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"With the escalation of the Sri Lankan Civil War, local villagers under threat of attack were formed into localized militia to protect their families and homes. These militias were formed according to the Sri Lankan Military, after "massacres done by the LTTE" and in the early 1990s they were reformed as the Sri Lankan Home Guard. In 2007 the Home Guard became the Sri Lanka Civil Defence Force. In 2008, the government called for the formation of nearly 15,000 civil defence committees at the village level for additional protection."
I think Watchdogb could be ok with this since the "The defense force was made..." part has been removed. Nitraven ( talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We have achieved a new system in WP:SLR about citations. We have branded citations as RS and Anti-rebel and Pro-Rebel. Problem arises when the anti-rebel/ Pro-rebel citations are used for categorization purposes. I would oppose this as these citations quickly categorizes attacks as Terrorist attack (State Terrorist attack included) or Ethnic cleansing without proper fact checking and only do so to stir up emotions. I propose that to categorize an article we only use RS and not QS. Watchdogb ( talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."
Revert war going on based on an unreliable website as a source that was deemed as non reliable in WP:SLR see this. Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the article from a neutral point of viw with WP:RS sources. See Sri Lankan place name etymology. Any copy editing will be appreciated. Also I would want it to be covered by the SLR agreement. The blue box protection. Thanks Kanatonian ( talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He wrote back saying that he was asked to contribute but has no recollection as to whether he contributed or not and says that he is not an expert in the subject matter as well as it is a minefield. Kanatonian ( talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Etymologocial_sources
[..]Online Etymology Dictionary is questionable... it is a personal web-project run by an accademic. The reliability would thus depend on the reputation of the author. I would say that to use it, you would have to establish that the site has been reviewed or cited by reliable third parties, and that they found it to be accurate and reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently has the following text within:
"The Black Tigers are believed to be the most idiotic, stupendous mentally ill unit of its kind in the world, as with the rest of the LTTE, it is also demonic. Till date, the Black Tigers have carried out 1-2 missions. The Black Tigers operate in three distinct ways: conventional combat (running in circles and skinny dipping together), guerrilla attacks (humping each other like gorillas), and targeted assassinations or bombings."
-under the section Black Tigers today. Seems like pure vandalism to me and I suggest it be reverted. Ulflarsen ( talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether we could remove the blue box from Sri Lankan place name etymology. There have been no major edits since late August, and the initial dispute seems to be resolved. Jasy jatere ( talk) 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Synthesis? to discuss what to do with the article. I'm posting here so that all editors involved in the SLR effort are aware of it. Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We have to discuss all options as listed here not just one. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed (on WT:SLR) to rename the article to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka" to match such articles as Terrorism in India and to make it easier to write it as a neutral article. This seems very reasonable to me. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
How about rename to "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". As for the Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja ( talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject
My strong objection. Above mentioned article is a collection of allegations. For example have a look on the TOC. Renaming as this makes nothing but poisoning the whole situation. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree for merging the whole subjected article. If it's happen so, I would like to expand the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#State terrorism during the Second JVP insurrection by 10 times from the current size. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not the only rule we use in Wikipedia. We also use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE, NPOV cannot be used as excuse even to AFD an article, it just mean we need to find information that balances given one. State terrorim by Sri Lanka is widely dicussed in academic circles and is in published secondary sources that are acceptable in Wikipedia. We can write an article using those sources. We dont have to prove or disprove anything in Wikipedia. We simply repewat after repuitable sources without own own commentary which is called WP:OR Kanatonian ( talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that a few reasons for and against some of the options have been presented, let's start summarizing them in a table like this. I will start with what I see; please feel free to add short keywords to this table after full text explanations in the sections above. Please also correct me if I misrepresented your reasons. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Option | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
Keep | ||
#Rename to Terrorism in Sri Lanka | ||
#Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism | Topic is ST and not allegations | ST is disputed term |
#Rename to List of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka | ||
#Rename to State terrorism in Sri Lanka | ST is disputed term | |
Merge to HR in SL#Abuses by the government | different levels |
I would like to offer that we try to move toward a resolution of this issue, based on the discussion above and comments on the talk page. This particular thread has been open for two months, and the issue itself has been debated for much longer. (By the way, I apologise for starting a thread on the issue and then disappearing -- initially I was forced to take a month-long extended break due to various personal circumstances, which then continued for a further 3 weeks as part of recovery from wikistress.) Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish to bring to the attention of an admin edits made by the user Watchdogb on the article Lakshman Algama and in the same respects the Ranjan Wijeratne. This user has removed them from cretin categories;
As for reasons he state in the case of Ranjan Wijeratne "fact tag added. Reworded and added citation. Removed all "terrorist" cats. This person was a minister of Defence. Thus attack on him are legitimate military attacks" and in the case of Lakshman Algama "rm pov cats. Attacks on a Military figure is not a Terrorist attack". It should be noted that these persons here were retired or resigned Military Officers, hence they both where civilians & also politicians at the time of death.
I also wish to bring to the attention of an admin the removal of given references by Watchdogb on the basis that they are not Reliable sources. Pls tell me why Full military honours for Lucky Algama is not a Reliable source. Thank you Nitraven ( talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
From the perspective of categorisation guidelines, I think that the Terrorist attacks and Terrorist incidents categories should not appear on these two biographical articles. Note #9 of Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines:
Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)".
So, while Algama may be a terrorism victim, he can't really be classified as a terrorist incident or attack.
I would be happy to offer a perspective on the issue of reliability of sourcing, or to help to try to find such sources, but must ask for some more clarification, as I'm not entirely sure which of the eight sources in the article is at issue. Also, if you do not object, I would like to suggest that the two articles be discussed separately (though not necessarily in separate sections), so that the individual circumstances of each case can be taken into account. Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There are some problems with sources in this article. The article uses janes as a source. The problem here is that I cannot find anything relating to this article on the citation. Furthermore, I have a problem with this article's "Terrorist" categorization. There is no mention that this is a terrorist attack in any of the sources used in this article. Watchdogb ( talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two types of suicide operations: battlefield and off the battlefield. In battlefield operations, suicide bombers are integrated into the attacking groups. Most off-the-battlefield operations have involved single suicide bombers. In the case of the LTTE and Hamas, there have been multiple suicide bombers. The targets have been static and mobile, against infrastructure and humans. Suicide bombers have destroyed military, political, economic and cultural infrastructure. They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings. Suicide bombers have also assassinated political and military VIPs.
Ranjan Wijeratne it was on a main road during rush hour both crowded places, therefore I believe the two bombings comes under the "They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings.". Hence both these can be considered terrorist attacks and victims of terrorists. Since there are no individual articles on each attack they can be added to the Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam until such time these are created once it is done it can be removed. Nitraven ( talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In the same respects I think the article C.V. Gunaratne falls under this reasoning too. Nitraven ( talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but fact remains,
1. [10] States that "In March 1991, the LTTE returned to urban terrorism with the car-bomb assassination of Deputy Defense Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in Colombo. Scores of innocent bystanders were killed or injured. "
Therefore the article Ranjan Wijeratne can be categorized as Category:Terrorism victims, Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 and Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
2. The suicide bombings of Lakshman Algama and C.V. Gunaratne can be considered as terrorist acts since, [11] " In the case of the LTTE and Hamas, there have been multiple suicide bombers. The targets have been static and mobile, against infrastructure and humans. Suicide bombers have destroyed military, political, economic and cultural infrastructure. They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings. Suicide bombers have also assassinated political and military VIPs. "
Therefore both articles can be categorized as Category:Terrorism victims and Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 since the bombings occurred in crowded places with civilians being killed.
This is not "putting words into their mouth" but simply implying what they said. Nitraven ( talk) 04:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Slow revert-wars seem to be taking place on both of the articles ( [12] [13]), with numerous edits in the past two weeks being reverts only. Although it does not seem that 1RR has been passed on either article, I would like to ask you both (Nitraven and Watchdogb) whether you would voluntarily agree to temporarily not edit either article to add or remove the categories in question until the issue can be resolved here. Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For both articles, the inclusion of Category:Terrorism victims is contingent on the designation of the incidents in which Algama and Wijeratne were killed as terrorist attacks. With that in mind:
Is this an accurate summary of the circumstances? Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In March 1991, the LTTE returned to urban terrorism with the car-bomb assassination of Deputy Defense Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in Colombo. (emphasis added)
Given the complexities of the situation, I have asked User:Hcberkowitz to share his thoughts regarding this case; the full content of my request is here. If I've omitted any significant information, please indicate this. Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A new edit war has started out here. Watchdogb is claiming "cats removed per Comment made by a neutral admin at WT:SLR on this case" & reverting. Could some one please tell me where the comments were made and who this admin is? Nitraven ( talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
There is currently some discussion on Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology about the value of several sources on Lankan history (books, articles, websites, etc). It might be interesting for the project to keep track of the outcomes of these discussions, since they will be relevant for other articles as well, especially those where demographic history or etymology are contested. I am thinking of sth akin to the "Classification of sources" section we have on the project page, but then for historiographic sources. The current section with bbcsinhala.com, tamilnet, asiantribune etc is only for current political events. The new section would be used to cover topics predating the war.
Because of the different period covered, the setup would have to be a bit different, but I think that reliable source, qualified source and unreliable source could still be used. What do other editors think? Jasy jatere ( talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody seems to be watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/housekeeping anymore. There's one application there; please take a look.
That page was created by me in the hot phase of the SL Agreement, when housekeeping issues were drowned out by the discussion on this talk page. Please, valuable active project members, either watch that page or decommision it. For decomisioninging, I would think it is necessary to change all links to that page that specifically ask people to go there in order to apply for membership. (That would be a couple of links from WP:SLR and one from the box on top of this page.) Sebastian ( talk) 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The placement of all controversial cats should be discussed here in detail before they are reinstated. Wikipedia is not a propagandapedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teasereds ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been nominated for FA review. Kanatonian ( talk) 12:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)