Talk:Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Inclusions based on consensus

I have inserted some consensus made even I am highly disagree with these facts as major reasons I have included ceylon citizenship act and policy of standardisation. Since I am inserting and I don't like to get a blame for these kind of odd reasons I am linking the consensus. I haven't included how many sinhalese killed when kalinga magha invaded rajarata or how many families became homeless. But peole only want to see result of the final war for the sake of neautrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent contributions aren't about achieving consensus. They have not resolved the neutrality issue, they have exacerbated it. You may have added sections on the issues I mentioned in my comment of 3 February 2013 but you have written them in a heavily biased way. The following are examples of biased statements that you have added:

"Sri Lankan Tamils express that Northern and Eastern provinces are traditional Tamil home lands which belongs only to Sri Lankan Tamils. Even though any Tamil heritages hasn't been found yet, Tamils firmly express that there are undiscovered Tamil heritages out side of Sinhalese kingdoms in Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Tamils highly resists any Sinhalese settlements in Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka."
"But majority of the Indian Tamils liked to live in Sri Lanka even without citizenship."
"hill country Tamils who affected by this act didn't fight back with government or didn't support Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam."
"But Sri Lankan Tamil people who didn't affected on this act claims that Ceylon Citizenship Act was a major reason to resorting to militancy. Also surprisingly, most of the Sri Lankan Tamils in the UNP or Tamil Congress (was the major Tamil party in Sri Lanka) either voted or didn't opposed to the second bill in 1949."
"Latest official result shows that standardization policy (based on district,merits,..) is very much a disadvantage to Sinhalese students. It shows that Tamil students are eligible to universities by a lower cutoff mark than Sinhalese students. But Sri Lankan Tamil people express standardization as a major reason resorting to militancy."

All you have done is given your opinion on the issues.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Above are not my opinion. It is your opinion. I wrote it in neutral way. After addressing other concerns I am going to remove the neutrality tag. So it is better you can clarify how it is going to exacerbated neutrality.

1) it was clearly mentioned in the consensus. You tell the word 'colonization'. It is no secreat Tamils still highly restricting Sinhalse or Muslims colonies. google traditional tamil home lands you will found thousands of hits. Hill countries tell there are undiscovered heritages. Now what are you telling ??????

2) Even all of them given Indian citizenship in 1974 they didn't go to India. Why ????

3) If they supported they will be in jail. LTTE is terrorist organization in SL. But hill country tamils didn't jailed or joined to the war.

4) what's the problem in that ? You told I inserted. And I also inserted something you didn't know sake of neutrality. Did you know SLTs voted for 1949 bill to reject citizenship of nearly 1Mn hill country tamils and do you want me to hide it ?

5) what's problem in that ? see the bottom of the list. Tamils can selected with small GPA. --Himesh84 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you believe additions were neutral there is no hope for you. Neutrality is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - all additions must be neutral irrespective why they were added to Wikipedia. Me asking you to add those topics isn't an excuse for you to add such biased content. If it not your opinion you should be able to add reliable sources, which you haven't. Your continued gibberish bleating about why your always right and everyone else is wrong is a clear sign that you will never write in a neutral way, respect consensus or accept criticism.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality comes with consensus. I am including your thoughts. It is written in well neutralized way to represent both parties. Have I missed any of your thoughts ? If no you can't say it is not neutralized

What are the bias content ? Please clarify. No bias. I have included vision of both parties. --Himesh84 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Standardization was abandoned in 1977. Results of non-standardization that seek to give opportunity to areas without proper educational facilities (such as Mullaitivu) that you cite here does not then support that Standardization was a disadvantage to Sinhalese students. SinhaYugaya (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't. That's why we still have standardization formulas and different z-scores for different districts. You can't say standardization is abandon when SL doesn't public single z-score for whole Island. What was abandon is using language to Standardization. But due to some reasons we don't call current process is standardization.

Sinhalese in top 4 districts has to score big z-score while Tamils in districts of northern province are eligible to universities very low z-score. A Sinhalese who scored 2.16 in medicine can't eligible to medicine. But Tamil who scored 1.4795 in Mullaitive can eligible to medicine. Present standardization is not a disadvantage to Sinhalese because it is right thing to promote education in low facilities areas. I should have been prefixed 'according to same logic make by SLTs' for the sentence. I will correct it. Thanks for feedback --Himesh84 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You say this article has "no bias". I say it is very biased. Where is the consensus? Neutrality comes from adding all points of view. It does not come from adding all topics and writing them in a very biased way. And why don't you provide the Z scores when standardisation was introduced. Why are you using today's scores, 40 years later? It seems to me you are trying to make a point.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have that data. If you told me I could insert them. If you know let me know. I will insert. But if some one reads whole section it is clearly understandable for any rational reader. I have mentioned it saying jaffna and western opportunities were distributed among others due to district quota. It is clear Tamils (Muslims and Indian Tamils and tamils in eastern province) in other districts qualified to universities in low marks than jaffna tamils.

But those are different. 40 years earlier Jaffna Tamils opportunities didn't comes to the hand of Sinhalese. They were distributed among other Tamils (Muslims and Indian Tamils and tamils in eastern province). If you know CC act correctly from 1972 to 1973 number of opportunities for Tamils or Sinhalese in universities didn't changed. It was proportional to number of people sit in that language. But latest trend is different. No guarantee about number of Tamils\Sinhalese.

Anyway language based standardization was abandon in 1977. It affected only 1972-1977 but when war was started the latest system had run same number of years. So you better present me cutoff marks in early 80's for sake of neutrality. Otherwise people will laugh at you for fighting for system that existed only in history. But anyway finally it is your call. What do you want ? 1980 or 1973?

I wrote consensus according to neutral structure. That is background, how it viewed by Tamils, how it viewed by Sinhalese. So you didn't mentioned about cutoff marks at that time.

As I said before I don't think CC act , standardization was problems for the war. short term standardization was a bad for Tamils but long term it is good for them. I see only one reason for this conflict. That is land dispute. All other factors are faced by all the minorities in all countries. In USA(united states), England, Canada can you get your language as official language ? No.you have to adjust to the language of that country. Surprisingly Germans are the majority in USA but they has to speak in English because it was the first language.

You don't know anything about discrimination. Discrimination doesn't mean 7% of population should secure 30-40% Engineering, Doctor, other good job opportunities in the country. If some one made some system which permanently restrict they from enjoying bellow 7% of opportunities that is a discrimination. Never heard this kind of funny discrimination. --Himesh84 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reported you to the admin who imposed ban on me. Still you are doing wrong thing. You talking about neutrality but inserting wrong tag. Still I haven't removed neutrality tag. --Himesh84 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are deliberately ignoring how Wikipedia works. My, your or anyone else's opinions about the topic is not relevant and should not be included. Only facts backed up by RS should be included. You may consider CCA, standardisation etc to be good for the Tamils but this is just your opinion. To include this in the article is nothing other than editorialising. If you couldn't find the data relating to Z why did you even contemplate adding content related to it? Adding data from forty years later is deliberately misleading - perhaps this was what you were intending. The facts, backed up by RS, are given in Policy of standardization - read it and learn how it should be done. And go and read the meaning of discrimination.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WP works on consensus.

I am 28 years old. I don't know data in 40 years. The facts in the other wikipage is unreferenced. If you can comment these are the marks I can at least linked to your comment.

Other thing is what we are talking is policy of standardization. Not about result of just few years. Admit that Tamils didn't had enough brain power to understand long term beneficiary to them by the standardization policy. Only thing they had to enjoy big amount of the university opportunities is they had sound English knowledge and Sinhalese didn't. Sinhalese didn't want it as they rejected to be slaves of English. So someone else took that opportunity. But after independence (before 1970) Sinhalese results were increasing. At the time policy of standardization introduced Tamils enjoyed 40% of Engineers/Doctor posts but just before standardization they able to grab 27% of the university opportunities. 13% (40-27) difference clearly shows Sinhalese results were on exponential increase and Tamils unable to keep the momentum.

Most important thing is the policy of standardization is the most stupid reason presented as reason resorting to war. Sri Lanka provide education free to all the people in SL. This is the only country Tamils gets free education. No restriction for 13 years in school. But when taking students to universities from school's final exam results, students are picked according to university seats. But still anyone can go to England, USA, France, Tamil nadu in India, Australia and do studies.

Every person of the Island paying taxes to give free education to students in SL. So it is every ones right. 7% of people who contributed 7% to GDP can't say they need something which assured 27% of free university opportunities. So people who contributed to 65% (except N & W provinces) of free educational funding has to go with 5% opportunities. Is that the correct thing as you say ? --Himesh84 (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't know about a thing that happened 40 years ago but you know all about things going back to 1215? This is just a hollow excuse to omit facts which contradict the point you are trying to make. And please keep you racist views ("Admit that Tamils didn't had enough brain power to understand") to your self.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know marks. Simply you can put neutrality tag. If you know let me know in at least in talk page.

I can understand the reasons are stupid. So I can't keep them for myself. Also the Ceylon citizenship act which was un relevant to Sri Lankan Tamil people. how the earth unrelated act can made some one to wear arms ? --Himesh84 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual issues

Removed all the concerns which made by obi** , even I am not agreeing to his points and even I have provided sources. I can't think why administrators believe obi** words (without references) and doesn't believe my sentences with references. Anyhow I have fulfill obi** to satisfy him and administrators since I am able to provide sources but unable to provide votes. Only few sinhalese editing wikipedia. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not removed all the factual errors I identified. The article still intimates that Jaffna peninsula was under the control of the Kingdom of Kandy. The article still states that the majority of Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula before 1936. And I have stated right from the beginning I have only picked up on things that I know, there is quite a lot on this article I don't know much about. I can't be confident it's correct given that you have not provided references for most of your contributions and because of your proven record of adding false information. On this note, you have had plenty of time to add references which you have not. If this situation remains by the end of this month I will remove ALL unreferenced content.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

But don't touch to CC act, Land dispute, standardization since they were included on your request. I don't have references. You don't have right to remove them.

Also first you should watch other pages. Jaffna kingdom, SL Tamils before removing unreferenced materials here. This page is far better than other pages.

> majority of Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula before 1936

corrected.

Jaffna peninsula was under the control of the Kingdom of Kandy.

there is no such thing. If there please remove. But there it is referenced that Senerath hold power for some time. I don't think you wanted me to remove referenced materials.

If you are don't know rest of the things are correct then study them. then let me know --Himesh84 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have every right to remove unreferenced material. I have given you plenty of notice that this article needs references. You don't have references because they are your biased opinions, not fact. The article still says "But after few years Kandy lost the control of the Jaffna" - this means Jaffna/Jaffna District/Jaffna Peninsula/Northern Province was under the control of the Kingdom of Kandy, which it wasn't.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

About kandy lost power of Jaffna. I don't know what does Jaffna means. Most probable area senerat captured several years before. Ask it from the editor who wrote the article. The facts are in the article see article ( steps sons of Senerat married to princess in Jaffna).

Remove them but don't touch hand to points made in consensus. I have included all of your reasons. You shouted for it now you have it. But to neutralize it I added description, sinhalese idea to your idea. So it is well neutralized.

You can't give me time and delete unreferenced materials. I haven't given any assignment by WP. Anyone can edit this page. If you don't have/ will lost permissions let me know. You should give open call and should wait 2 months. --Himesh84 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing the factual accuracy tag. I have found another bit of false information you have added recently: "In 1658 Dutch invaded Jaffna which belonged to king Wimaladharmasuria I of Senkadagala" (unreferenced).

A History of Sri Lanka by K. M. de Silva (p.121) "It took the Dutch two more years to eliminate the Portuguese presence from the island; their capture of Jaffna, the last Portuguese stronghold on the island, in 1658 gave the coup de grace."
A History of Ceylon For Schools 1505-1796 by S. G. Perera (p141) "The fall of Jaffna...Then, after a siege of three and half months, the luckless Portuguese surrendered..."
History of Ceilao by P. E. Pieris (pp.383-388) "How the hollanders captured the island of Manar and laid siege to the Fort of Jafanapatao, which they captured...On the 24th June 1658 our [Portuguese] men marched out in terms of the capitulation to the number of one hundred and forty."
A Short History of Ceylon by H. W. Codrington (p.134) "The year 1657 was spent in the blockade of Goa, and it was only in 1658 that Tuticorin and Mannar fell into hands of the Dutch. These captures were completed by the surrender of Jaffna on June 24, 1658, after a siege of three months, and by the consequent expulsion of the Portuguese from the Island."

This is clear evidence you are deliberately adding false information in order to make a point. We cannot trust any of your contributions - they could all be lies.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Double check. It is referenced. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's odd that you are using the same reference for this false information as that you used for the false fact that Jaffna was a part of the Kandyan kingdom in 1815. Who is S. B. Karalliyadda? Is he related to you? His false version of history is contradicted by well known historians such as de Silva, Codrington, Perera and Pieris.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

He is not my relative. What ever it is referenced. Contradicted matters should be tagged with neutrality tag. not with factual accuracy tag. But anyway your editors talk about Jaffna fort - "How the hollanders captured the island of Manar and laid siege to the Fort of Jafanapatao, which they captured". It is very small area considering to Jaffna peninsular. So it is not contradicted. Anyway I removed it. You can't put tags unless you have a good reason. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the factual accuracy tag - please don't remove until resolved. Not all the false information I have identified on this talk page has been removed. In addition a lot of information has been added since then without references. Given Himesh84's propensity to add false information these could also be false. Until reliable sources have added for all the factual information on this article, the tag should remain.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed them as it was resolved. All had been removed. If not tell me I will remove those. To address no references there is seperate tag "This article needs additional citations for verification.". Factual issue tag is different. --Himesh84 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are more factual errors I have found:

"Even though any Tamil heritages hasn't been found yet"
"Sinhalese express that Sinhalese had a golden civilizations of Anuradhapura and Pollonnaruwa for more than 15 centuries in northern Sri Lanka before they were expelled forcefully from northern Sri Lanka by Sri Lankan Tamils."
"They also express that there are no Tamil heritages bellow to Jaffna peninsula."
"Approximately 1/3 of Colombo urban population consist with Sri Lankan Tamils."
"The Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948 required that anyone wishing to obtain citizenship had to prove that their father is a Ceylon citizen."
"Also surprisingly, most of the Sri Lankan Tamils in the UNP or Tamil Congress...either voted or didn't opposed to the second bill in 1949"
"In 1628 king Senerat of Kandy invaded Jaffna to terminate Portuguese administration in Jaffna. But after few years Kandy lost the control of the Jaffna"
"Most of the administration positions in the government were filled by the Tamils since most of the Sinhalese people didn't like to serve under British rule."

Tag re-inserted.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

They are not factual errors. You can't just say your opinion. According to WP you should challenged the factual accuracy with reliable sources. If you listed some I can't consider them as factual errors until you comes with reliable sources. If no reliable sources your post will just be an opinion --Himesh84 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the above claims are well referenced and they are straight forward. I'll give one about CC act (that you urged to include) since I feel it is interesting.

* > Mr. G. G. Ponnampalam, the leader of the Tamil Congress, opposed the first bill and voted for the second, having become a member of the cabinet.

* > What was surprising, however, was that almost all of the Tamil elite representing the Ceylon Tamils through both Mr. Senanayake's United National Party and the Tamil Congress, either voted for the bills or were not serious about opposing them.

Tamil politicians loudly spoke about Hill country Tamils to fuel Tamil nationalism and get Tamil votes. When it comes to decisive occasions they act controversial way. CC bill second part is the best example for that. --Himesh84 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this article

Potentially reliable sources that can help build this article:

Sri Lanka: History and Roots of Conflict, ed. Jonathan Spencer. Routledge, 1990.

Not a single source; a collection of articles. Published by a reputable academic press. Edited by a social anthropology professor at the University of Edinburgh who specializes in Sri Lankan conflict and other aspects of Sri Lanka. There are many reviews of this collection in various journals, and they offer various perspectives as well.

The Break-Up of Sri Lanka: The Sinhalese-Tamil Conflict, A. Jeyaratnam Wilson. Hawaii University press, 1988.

Published by a reputable academic press. Professor at University of New Brunswick (Canada) who specialized in Sri Lankan conflict and other aspects of Sri Lanka. There are many reviews of this book in various journals, and they offer various perspectives as well. From the 1991 Ziring review: "Without question, this small volume is the most important work in print on the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict and its consequence."

The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, ethnicity, political economy, Asoka Bandarage. Routledge, 2009.

Published by a reputable academic press. Lecturer in sociology at American University (Washington, DC) who specializes in international development.

"Sri Lanka: Protracted Rebellion", chapter 6 in Jesse and Williams (eds.), Ethnic Conflict: A Systematic Approach to Cases of Conflict (CQ/SAGE, 2010), pp. 233—268. Published by a reputable academic press. Kristen Williams is professor political science at Clark University specializing in the role of women in war. Neal Jesse is associate professor of political science at Bowling Green State University specializing in ethnic conflict.

Comments

I've found a few sources which may be useful for building this article. I'm not going to sign my name after the list, because I think people should add to it with their own sources and also responsd to sources listed with any relevant criticism. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I refactored things a bit, I hope you don't mind. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Thank you. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Spencer volume has some particularly useful essays. The Wilson book has lots nitty-gritty about recent political history. I haven't looked at Bandarage yet. For potential editors wanting an overview of the issues, this short summary from the World Bank is very handy, and gives a good feel for what the lineaments of the WP article should look like. Johncoz (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging comments about this article from AFDs

Some of the people commenting in here comment the article like total mess. Merging supportive views.

Keep: The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has broader origins than the civil war and remains a major case study in contemporary texts (e.g., Jesse and Williams 2011; Cordell and Wolff 2010).--Jsorens (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Keep This is a very important article talking about the ROOTS to all present day problems between Sinhalese and Tamils hence this article should NOT delete under any circumstances,Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.37.73 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep This article contains early historical facts that opened the doors for a 30 years old massive ethnic conflict among the two ethnic groups in SL,deleting an article such as this is an imprudent act Shu-sai-chong (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The article depicting the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is slated to be deleted :(......My question is "Why is such a important piece of history been deleted and to suit whom ? isn't history one for all and all of history for one ? history has never been known to side with anyone hence keep this important history so that generations will be aware of dark but historically important decades in Sri Lanka,this has shed light on the "root causes" pertaining to this conflict.Why the haste to remove and for whom ? MediaJet (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. We should keep articles which give interesting information about countries. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

--Himesh84 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84, it is entirely inappropriate to selectively copy other people's comments in this way - and they are of no relevance anyway, as we are proposing to correct the numerous flaws in the article, not delete it. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Why it is inappropriate ? It is simple copy and paste. No editing by myself.

They are relevant. This article is not a mess. Don't hide counter arguments. Its content backs by users. Don't take only the word 'keep'. See the reasons.

* This article contains early historical facts that opened the doors for a 30 years ..

* article with interesting information about countries

* very important article talking about the ROOTS to all present day problems --Himesh84 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"This article is not a mess"? Really? If you seriously believe that, I would have to suggest that you lack the level of skills in the English language necessary to be a contributor to this Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't come up with non relevant counter arguments. Article's context and English are different. English is only an issue. not a major issue.

Under which WP policy does WP restrict users who is not fluent with English ? WP values users with contextual knowledge because it is their core asset. Not perfect English. Errors in English are correcting by lot of users(thankfully). see the history. There are lot of contributions. I suggest you to effectively use your time to improve english rather wasting your time to repeatively highlighting the using non fluent english of the page.

I am not talking about my opinion. What important is opinion of users like ACEOREVIVED,MediaJet,Shu-sai-chong,... Himesh84 (talk)

It is a requirement that we are able to communicate with you. The core problem in the article is not the poor english, it's the fact we cannot correct the english because we have no idea what you had in mind when you wrote it. I have no easy framework to weed this information out of you. We can go over the intro line by line if you think your english skills are up to the task of explaining the conflict to me. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the current version of the article is required

This is to show how important the current contents of the article is neutral and show both sides. Also its sentences are referenced.

This is possible conversation between European and Canadian Tamil.

Before this article

obi - we are facing lot of problem in SL. We are heavily discriminated in SL.

Europian - what are the problems.

obi - Main problem is Sinhalese steeling our home lands. Sinhalese doing government sponsored colonization in our lands. (ref)

Europion - Thats too bad

obi - Thats not the only problem. Sinhalese introduced Citizenship act to decline our citizenship. Also they introduced standardization to reduced tamils selected to universities. Tamils in jaffna enjoyed 27% dropped to 7%. (ref)

Europian - Very bad. Please come to our country. Also we will give support ( money, weapons) to you.

obi - Thank you

After this article

obi - we are facing lot of problem in SL. We are heavily discriminated in SL.

Europian - what are the problems.

obi - Main problem is Sinhalese steeling our home lands. Sinhalese doing government sponsored colonization in our lands .

Europion - Is that your home lands ? I heard that Sinhalese lived in North part of SL during Rajarata period. Then they are expelled by Tamils during 1215 (ref - Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka By Chelvadurai Manogaran page25 ) ? Is that wrong ?

obi - Thats not the only problem. Sinhalese introduced Citizenship act to decline our citizenship. Also they introduced standardization to reduced tamils selected to universities. Tamils in jaffna enjoyed 27% dropped to 7% .

Europian - How many Sri Lankan Tamils lost their citizenship due to this act ?

obi - I don't remember. But it is a big number. If not do we resorting arms ?

Euro - But due to the nature of the act , it won't apply to SLTs (ref). Do you know any Sri Lankan Tamil who lost citizenship

obi - no.

Euro - I think it is none(ref). If you found any name let me know.

Euro - Also I heard the opportunities lost by Jaffna tamils goes to other Tamils speaking people in different part of the country. Act says district quota is count within a language (ref) ?

obi - It may go to Tamils lived in other areas. But jaffna Tamils lost it's portion.

Euro - ok ok. you said Jaffna Tamils enjoyed 27% of the university opportunities. How much did Jaffna Tamils contributed to free education funding ?

obi - we are 7% of the total population. So we contributes only about 7% of funding.

Euro- You need 27% of opportunities for 7% of funding ?

obi - yes.

Euro - ok.

obi - You see how much we are discriminated in SL. we need money, arms to get our right.

Euro- We need to think. I think you are tired at the moment. After having some break write a letter listing all the reason and affection with reasons. I can show it to my leaders.

--Himesh84 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Johncoz

To the Johncoz (CD ?) the super master mind of next version. This is just to test your contextual knowledge for this task.

What is the wrong with Kingdom of Rajarata article ?
How many SL related articles have you contributed ? --Himesh84 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

His time would be better spent writing a version of the article for us to review, rather than answering your irrelevant queries. See also WP:TPG, your demands are not appropriate, we discuss edits here, not editors. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Who the hell is this TippyGoompa ? Is he out of his mind ? Mental doctor is badly needed. Johncoz has stated there are lot of issues in Kingdom of Rajarata article. What is irrelevant to query issues ? Shut the stupid mouth close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.168.27 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is related. I have queries one of his claims about content of article.

Also we can raise relevance of users when they have never contributed to SL articles and suddenly grouped to correct an article that highly required contextual knowledge. I have seen lot of users asking the it from administrators. But since administrators doesn't participates to push contextual things they have stated they only care about wiki policies over conflicts. In here we can raise it --Himesh84 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate way to respond to Himesh84 here is to ignore this section entirely. Contributors are not excluded from articles on the basis that another contributor thinks that they are unqualified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Johncoz must answer to the first question. That is what is the problem with kingdom of rajarata article. It is purely about context. don't come to save him by proposing to ignore whole section. --Himesh84 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with rewriting things. But current contents must be presented in his version. Current version has a structure. If he going to change single contextual thing then I have a problem with his eligibility.

1. Disputed areas 2. History related to disputes

  * Historical records about Sinhalese ( How they were divided into tribes like Raksha, Yaksha, Naga,Sinha,.. and how they united as Sinhalese)
  * Ownership of the lands from first known date ( 35000 BC).
  * Records about Tamil invasions and drawing back to India after Sinhalese counter attacks.
  * Historical records about Sri Lankan Tamils since their first permanent establishment in 1215

3. Political tensions since British period to present day   --Himesh84 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84, if you persist in trying to control article content in this way, you are liable to end up being blocked, or banned from editing. Is that really what you want? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, you are not an administrator. Also I know administrators working on this area. They are fair. They have ban me and remove ban on me. Now I am free man. If some want to change content related thing it's un-necessity must be proved with reliable sources. Thats the Wikipolicy (challenge and remove). To remove things it should be challenged first. Still I am wondering how suddenly related , non contextual crowd gathered in here to fix content in SL related article. --Himesh84 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This article will be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policy, whether you approve of changes or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lets see --Himesh84 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To JohnCoz

You said there are lot of issues with Kingdom of Rajarata article. Then you have a problem with this article. But it had been developed by lot of contextual users over very long time period. If you don't know basic contextual data related to Sri Lanka I suspect your knowledge to handle highly contextual issue. I hope you will only help to restructuring things. But not to change contents --Himesh84 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Does this article comply with Wikipedia's core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna have to provide more context to get a meaningful discussion out of this. Is there any reason to think it doesn't? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is my belief it doesn't - please see the above discussions between myself and User:Himesh84, particularly Multiple issues, Removal of tags and Neutrality tag. These discussions have been going on since August and we haven't reached any agreement. Couple of other editors have tried to help but to no avail. As most of the discussion has been between Himesh84 and myself, I would like comments from other members of the Wikipedia community.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is a total mess. It is written in broken English that frequently verges on incoherence. The best thing to do would probably be to delete the lot and start again. As for neutrality, any article that has phrases like "In the 20th century, the minority Tamils demands became excessive and unfair..." in it cannot be considered even remotely neutral: we simply don't editorialise in that way in articles. I'll not comment on verifiability or original research, since I see no point in wasting time on a lost cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you both for clarifying. I attempted to correct the english and remove the editorializing but quickly gave up. Someone with knowledge of the conflict needs to rewrite everything. WP:DYNAMITE time? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What a nightmare! A big part of the problem is that the history of the conflict has itself become politicised, including in the Sri Lankan education system, so most of the "sources" are themselves just agitprop. We would probably be better off with no article at all than this. Johncoz (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two afd's recently. Those opposing deletion were doing so under the grounds "this is an important topic" rather than "this article doesn't suck". Deleting it outright might be a problem... TippyGoomba (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree it would better if we didn't have this article. Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war, Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism and Sri Lankan Tamil people deal with many of the issues in this article. The latter two are Good Articles. So it is possible to write articles on this topic which comply with the core content policies, but only if the contributors are minded to do so. The main contributor to this article isn't.

Getting a deletion through Afd will be a problem. Unfortunately most of those who supported keeping this article in the two previous Afd haven't made any contributions to this article. As a result we are left with this mess in the main namespace.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Last time you made your opinion about factual issues. Then you bought me to administrators board here for not accepting your opinion. Somehow even you didn't provided reliable source to back your opinion administrators thought you as are a truthful person and banned me from removing tags. Then I inserted your unreferenced opinion even I didn't agree with you. Then I informed it to the administrators. They realized you were wrong and remove the ban on me without asking,getting clarifying anything from me. See, now I can remove tags. Try to understand that they not believe you anymore unless you come with sources. So you can't say I am not cooperative. I am always like constructive criticisms backed with reliable source. Also I inserted Ceylon Citizenship Acts, Standardization in university selection exams due to your and administrators push. Anyhow those sections looks like a joke. But fortunately I have linked the two discussion to save me from troubles. You have stopped giving constructive criticisms. Your only purpose is not to improve the article but to introduce tags as many you can to stop others from reading the article. It is clear when referring the history of your involvements.

Most of your feedback are inserted into the article.

5 reasons listed as major reason for the conflict. You also agreed about first 3 in here ( Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonisation; Standardization). There is no secret about other 2 factors. [Indian_intervention_in_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War | This ] article clearly clarify the support (training, interventions,..) given to LTTE by Tamil Nadu. Dravida nadu is not a secret concept. If was popular topic in political stages for decades. Also at present Tamil nadu fueling the conflict. Sri Lankans are beaten in Tamil nadu (there are videos in internet)as a result of that. You are trying to mislead contextualize readers. But I have only inserted things all the contextual persons knows.

In your profile you say you proud to be an Ealam tamil ( Ealam is the name for new country after Sri Lanka was divided in to two). So how can I get your feedback as neutral ? First try to criticized constructively with reliable sources. --Himesh84 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we can't delete it, I suppose we'll have to fix it. I've started accumulating reliable sources but it will take me a while to chew through the material. So I'm willing to have an initial crack at this, assuming some support from others here as appalled as I am by the current article. Johncoz (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup - if you are willing to take it on, you have my support, certainly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not currently neutral at all. Rampant editorializing and POV wording. Very supportive of improvement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I agree with the above comments, this article is rotten to the core with biased opinions & non-neutral language..the standard of written English is also dreadfully poor. It's not worth trying to fix piecemeal, better to start afresh in an agreed sandbox & build it up until the current mess can be replaced in one fell swoop rgds 188.221.138.13 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, its quite clear from this talk page that the current awful state of the article is the work of one editor, is there no discretionary sanctions that can be applied? 188.221.138.13 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to participate to this discussion until people comes with valid tangible points. Yes, English may be not good in this article but any one can fixed it because some people understand what is wrong. This is wikipedia and anyone can fix things like poor English rather deleting the page. Without fixing issue they blame the authors. This article was nominated to delete twice but rejected on both occasion. Let me know whats wrong (unreferenced, factual issues) with verifiable facts. If someone wants to challenge the content it should be done in fair way. Thats mean they have to prove with source. Otherwise no point of this discussion.

> "In the 20th century, the minority Tamils demands became excessive and unfair.. This point have clearly clarified. See the clarification in Dravida Nadu section. Tamils demanded separate country. Dravida nadu is well known concept. Are you saying it is fair demand ? I suggest you to refrain commenting if you are out of the context.

Most of the comments in above doesn't pin point the issues specifically. They gives general opinion like article is total mess, nightmare. So they can't consider as constructive criticism and can't answer to such unspecific concerns. --Himesh84 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are under no obligation to participate in this discussion. The article needs major work, by common consent. As for my opinions regarding demands made by Tamils, they are no more relevant than yours. Articles are intended to be written in neutral encyclopaedic language, and based on reliable published sources, not on the opinions of contributors. And as for references, I suggest that you start by looking for some that support the position that ethnic conflict in present-day Sri Lanka has anything to do with what happened 34,000 years ago. Or in 1215. Or indeed in any other historical period where a source is currently lacking which directly asserts its relevance to the subject of the article. Without such sources, the material will have to be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

demands made by Tamils was unfair - That is very clear from the referenced materials. There are referenced materials to back up some of the Tamils demands. They asked to restrict Sinhalese parliment representation only to a maximum of 50% when Sinhalese are 75% of total population. They demand a separate country called Tamil Ealam from North and East provinces of Sri Lanka. Those are well referenced. Do you say those are fair ? Give us direct answer. Yes or no. If the answer is 'no' there is no point of discussing it any more.

Yes. There are relevant since the major issue for the conflict is land conflict. Tamils called it as 'Tamil home lands' sinhalese called them as 'rajarata'. You can see the how it has been clarified by obi2canibe in the administrator noticeboard. I don't know why you can't understand the relevant of it. In sri Lankan legacy system when there is a conflict for ownership of lands they looking up whole history of that land. I think that's happen in every legacy systems including your country. If you don't know the context you are advised to refrain from adding your opinions. At least read following articles - Tamil_Eelam , Sri_Lankan_state_sponsored_colonisation_schemes. Those articles are contributed by people commenting in here. That is very funny.

Other thing is some of the conclusions - CC act, standardization are included as a consensus made in administrator noticeboard with active involvement of (bannig,... ) of several administrators. If you discussed it here it won't do anything. So get it to the administrator noticeboard directly. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am starting to get a grip on the source material, and several things are becoming abundantly clear:

1. Though the existing article is in clear violation of WP:NPOV and other core content policies, it is an accurate reflection of the beliefs/myths/positions of Sinhalese ultra-nationalists.

2. From a practical standpoint, the current article is unsalvageable. I propose a wholesale replacement, which I will begin drafting over the weekend. I will provide a link to the sandbox, once I have some text, so other editors can contribute.

3. This is not the only article affected — see for instance Kingdom of Rajarata. So proper clean-up will be a substantial job.

Please feel free to comment further, particularly if you have alternative or additional proposals for how to proceed. Johncoz (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Johncoz, What is the wrong with Kingdom of Rajarata article ? You are welcomed to fixed any errors if any but not welcomed to do wholesale replacements. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to remove ( that's what you means by wholesale replacement) sections, you needs to prove factual errors of those section with reliable sources. That's the WP way of challenging and removing.

You are not good to do this work as you are totally uncontexual. I will prove when you answered to my question about Rajarata kingdom --Himesh84 (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is unnecessary. As Obi mentioned there's several articles aleady covering this topic. The best thing to do would be to put this up for AFD again and deleting it for being a wholesale violation of NPOV. SinhaYugaya (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that another attempt at AfD will also fail. Johncoz (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84, the problems are fundamental and the engross the entire article, practically every single sentence after the first. The english is poor, the sourcing is poor, statements lack context, and it's written with a troublesome level of editorialization. This combination of issues make the article as a whole completely unintelligible.

Moving forward, I suggest someone write a new intro. (Johncoz might be willing?) Or we can can rewrite the existing intro line by line. Personally, I have no idea what to write without someone answering a few dozen questions regarding what this article is supposed to be about. Maybe that's something Himesh84 can help us with. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is very simple. First it address the conflicting areas of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims. Then relavant history is there to understand it.

For an example take land (North and East provinces) issue. First it listed as under major conflicted area. Then there is historical record about ownership of lands from earliest history , during the era of ancient kingdoms (before Rajarata, Rajarata,Dambadeniya,yapahuwa,jaffna, Kandy) to today.

The major reasons were made as consensus on Administrator board with involvement of some administrators. So better to discuss this issue it in AFD directly. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound simple at all. Pretend that I have no idea what continent you're talking about when you describe such things. I find your statement completely incoherent. You also appear to be suggesting we do another WP:AFD, do you know what that means? TippyGoomba (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not AFD. Discussion in administrator board like we did in here.

Are you talking about whole article or introduction section. I was commenting about article.

About introduction section - we need who is involved in conflicts in SL, start point/date of the conflict (using major disputed areas we already agreed), summarize rises and falls of conflicts in history with reasons.

From 1215-Europian rule main conflicting area was agricultural lands.

During British rule , main conflicting area was power in parliament.

After independence, main conflicting area was land (separate country called Tamil Ealam). --Himesh84 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84, the fact is that every editor who has commented, excepting yourself, believes the current article is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:NPOV. Therefore, the article will be changing. Johncoz (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. NP. But any factual errors needs to prove first before removing them. I have merge supportive comments (about content) from AFDs. See the reasons for voting them keep

This article has been rejected twice in AFDs. So you are not allowed to do bulk replacing. Bulk replacing means deleting page and recreating it again with your version. That will not be allowed. --Himesh84 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Discussion in administrator board like we did in here"? That was a discussion regarding behaviour (yours as it happens) - ANI discussions do not determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

At least read that one. Behaviour based on quality of the content (tags). Yes. It has discussed the content. See the initial comment by Obi2canibe. Its (land,Citizenship act, standadisation) pure content. Here we didn't discussed anything.

Thank you to all those who have commented so far, particularly those who have volunteered to try and improve this article. I suspect that the improved article will be very similar to Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been working on the article's grammar, syntax and punctuation. We cannot say that the Tamils' position is "unfair." I changed that to say that they have increased their demands. We could conceivably say that the Sinhalese believe the Tamils' position is unfair if we cite a reliable source. This article has major NPOV programs and reads like hard-line Sinhalese propaganda. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that User:Himesh84 is banned, I think this article can begin to move forward constructively. I would recommended deleting this article and starting anew in the incubator. I would also suggest dumping all the journalism sources because of inherent bias and using academic sources like Journal of Asian Studies and Asian Survey instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)