Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/issues 1

Military of Sri Lanka#paramilitary

Resolved

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)

I hope we can discuss this as a content issue, not as a personal issue. Therefore, I moved this from "Incidents" to "Issues" and changed the title. — Sebastian 06:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a content issue Kanatonian (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is EditWar on the page.Teasereds (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This page is currently not protected with WP:SLR/bluebox. Should it be? Discussion of this issue is taking place at Talk:Military of Sri Lanka#RE: Paramilitaries. — Sebastian 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be blueboxed. The WP:SLR tag appears on the talk page and the article is even linked from Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Sebastian 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A solution has been proposed at Talk:Military of Sri Lanka#Possible solution. — Sebastian 06:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been some replies here; however, since the bulk of the discussion is taking place at Talk:Military of Sri Lanka, and most of it was duplicated on both pages anyway, I'm moving the remaining two replies there. I propose we keep this section for general notices and summaries of the discussion there. — Sebastian 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion of the proposal for a new article "Sri Lankan paramilitary groups" to Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, as it is closely related to the discussion about renaming that article. — Sebastian 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian should get involved other Admins rather asking Lahiru to give warning on Wiki Raja. And there should be a separate article on "Paramilitaries Aided by Military of Sri Lanka".Teasereds (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This [1] could be added to the article, if the Military of Sri Lanka is added with, how the LTTE is calling that. Teasereds (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thamilselvan or Thamilchelvan?

Resolved

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)

It's not vandalism, since both "Thamilselvan" and "Thamilchelvan" are used by reliable sources. However, I'm not sure in what context the different spellings should be presentend and at what title the article should be located. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not really matter which one is used. It is in the way people spell the individual Tamil letters and different dialects of Tamil. I would go with S. P. Thamilselvan because I do not believe that the "Ch" can be properly written/Spelled in Tamil. Watchdogb (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it, and added a redirect page for Thamilchelvan, but then I realized that the initial "T" can be both aspirated or unaspirated. The aspirated version is a bit more common in Google - is that the correct one? — Sebastian 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Related incidents sections

Resolved

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)

I agree with that. Another thing of concern right now is that both sides have committed massacres and civilian killings but only one sides atrocities are given. Going with Black Falcon's idea we can solve the NPOV problem too.Watchdogb (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka

Resolved

 – keep, but include only articles backed up by RS

Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka (edit | 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:

• 2006 Trincomalee massacre - GOSL is accused of extrajudicial killing, GOSL claims the dead were LTTE members preparing to attack government troops
• Akkaraipattu massacre - ca. 80 people killed, GOSL accused
• Allaipiddy massacre - 13 people killed; locals blame the Navy, LTTE blames the GOSL, GOSL blames the LTTE

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)

I'd say get rid of both cats and put all applicable articles in Category:Atrocities in Sri Lanka. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Though the technical/academic definition of "atrocity" is tied to the political or ethnical motivations for a civilian massacre and Category:Atrocities in Sri Lanka is much more accurate than Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka, I worry that there may be confusion with the more common usage of the term "atrocity" to describe any incident that is (subjectively) deemed to be horrible. Also, Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka fits into the Category:Massacres by country scheme. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia there is still an open discussion at to what should be in a category called War crimes. One is that if someone callas an act a Warcrime (from an RS source) then it should be categorized as such. The other is that only those that are prnounced as a warcrime in an international court should be in the category. This is not settled yet. I am of the view that the category should include those acts which are described as a war crime. In that respect, I will leave the category alone and remove any act that has no description of wracrime from an RS source Kanatonian 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fairly well-established precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion against "alleged" categories such as "Incidents alleged to be war crimes". Also, what if RSs disagree about whether an act is a war crime (not an uncommon occurrence, given how controversial the label really is)? Categories are not capable of reflecting such case-specific details. ... Still, I'd be interested to know what would remain of the category once that standard (allegation by at least one RS) is applied; none of the articles I've looked at mention the term "war crime". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers, Padahuthurai bombing for starters, I am sure some of atrocities attributed to the LTTE may also fit that category Kanatonian 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An article on Sri Lankan war criminals, also there is a chance Karuna Amman will be charged in the UK with war crimes Kanatonian 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me the time to review more of the articles in the category, as well as those articles to which you linked, and I will develop a response. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, as you know I am not in any hurry for anything :))Kanatonian (talk) 20:02, 5 December 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)

Agreed! Watchdogb (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I need time to respond. ThanksKanatonian (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! Take all the time you need... :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

War crimes in Sri Lanka is a sub category of main War crimes category created under the umbrella of War crimes by countries to clean up the main category. There are many such clerical categories by several countries. (at least was, last time I checked it) Hence the discussion has to be do these articles belong under War crimes category (it is irrelevant whether they are by so called nation states or not) By Wikipedia consensus an article can be categorized under War crimes as long as an RS sources claims an event as a war crime ( at least that is my consensus ) So all articles that don’t have an RS source that claims the act is a war crime should be removed from the War crimes in Sri Lanka category and the category itself should be left alone with those articles that fit it. Even if only one article is in it, it should stay otherwise they will clutter the main War crimes category. Also you may want to involve User:Cgingold as he was very active regarding these categories. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is OK, I can do the leg work of -CatsKanatonian (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, this sounds like a great solution to me! — Sebastian 18:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 DoneKanatonian (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about a source

Resolved

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)

By all means, let's decide this here! We have built up all of WP:SLR#QS by discussing it here, and it became a cornerstone of our success. There's no reason to change that, just because we had so many other discussions here in the mean time. I only forget what our process was back then (and I'm too lazy to look it up). I think we gave it two days, and if no objection was raised, it was decided. So I gather you are proposing it should be classified as an unreliable source, rather than as QS. Correct? — Sebastian 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly a website maintained by individuals so it fails even QS, yes Kanatonian (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Any feed back on this or can we archive it as a non reputable source ? because for those who are dealing with this matter, there are number of WP:RS books on this matter. Kanatonian (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two days are long passed - just feel free to go ahead and add it to the list. That's the way we've always done it, and it worked. Any member can do that. — Sebastian 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Velupillai Pirapakaran

Resolved

 – The page was moved back to Velupillai Prabhakaran with the consent of all participants in the talk page discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

K. S. Balachandran

Resolved

 – Article deleted (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran) without prejudice to recreation of a sourced version. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this person notable among Sri Lankan Tamils?Quior (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to WT:WikiProject Sri Lanka#K. S. Balachandran. Sebastian (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Counter-terrorism

Resolved

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)

Watchdogb is complaining about my edits there, and I have made several efforts to be responsive, variously by removing US sources in favor of UN, Human Rights Watch, and European legal scholars, since there was an objection to the Bush Administration phrase "War on Terror". I agree "War on Terror" is meaningless. I invite anyone to show where I have used the term "War on Terror", rather than deleting it.

I made sure to include, so as not to be taking sides about the use of terrorism by either side, the statement of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston,

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.

Terrorism is a tactic. Whether it is part of a civil war, anarchy, or separatism is irrelevant. I disagree with Watchdogb's argument that there being a civil war is remotely relevant to the counterterrorism discussion.

The article in question is not specific to Sri Lanka. Indeed, I find it interesting that Watchdogb has not raised complaints about the mention of counterterror/antiterror with respect to any of the other countries cited. I would welcome mediation or arbitration.

I removed a massive inclusion of the text of Wikipedia policies from the body of the article, which simply don't belong there verbatim -- they can be linked if relevant. Regretfully, I am hearing a great deal of wikilawyering about Sri Lanka in a non-country-specific article.

Again, third party input is welcome. Watchdogb and I are at an impasse, and I feel as if I have been reverted at least twice while offering more explanation and sourcing each time. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that my first edit was reverted with only an edit summary. Eventually, the matter did move to the counterterrorism talk page. May I make it quite clear that I have no particular POV about Sri Lanka, but have encountered what appears to be sensitivity about referring to it in a more general discussion? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

That's absolutely fine with me; I simply happened to see a link that indicated Watchdogb was bringing the article over here. In my edits on counterterrorism, in no way was I focusing the discussion on Sri Lanka. My only intention in mentioning it was to balance the cliche that terrorism is synonymous with radical Islam.

If anyone from here would like to try mediating on the CT talk page, I'd certainly welcome it. In no way am I trying to refocus a general discussion of CT into a debate on Sri Lanka. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Black Falcon. My only reason to comment on here is to let the concerned parties know about the current content dispute relating to Sri Lanka. Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

LTTE article

Resolved

Watchdogb (talk)

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. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001.. 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 . 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.

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. Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens. 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.

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)

WP:NPOV would dictate that the article present a fair overview of the general history of the LTTE's use of child soldiers, which means that the current situation should be clearly specified (in particular, the subsection titled "2007" should be incorporated into the remainder of the section). Perhaps the sentence starting with "Amid international pressure, ..." could also be kept for historical context, though modified to fit into the revised paragraph.

This proposal has been posted here without objection for almost 10 days, so I think it could be implemented at this time, subject (of course) to subsequent discussion and revision. (If nothing else, pasting it into the article may prompt others to comment.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to tag this section as being {{resolved}}, but then noticed that the wording of the current 'Child soldiers' section does not seem to match the wording above. Has the text been modified since it was inserted or has the change been completely removed/reverted? If it has been reverted, perhaps we could discuss the reasons here... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct the two versions do not match. I had added some text into the version proposed because you had asked that "Amid international pressure, ..." could also be kept for historical context, though modified to fit into the revised paragraph. Therefore I added your request into the article. Watchdogb (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it's safe to tag this issue as resolved? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no objection here or at the LTTE talk page. Go ahead and tag it as resolved. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Militia

Resolved

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)

While the text of quotations should not be changed, I think we can reasonably assume that this was an honest mistake and that Nitraven simply forgot to remove the quotation marks. With regard to the content of the sentence in question, the text of the source ("The concept of the home guard force was originated in 1985 with the deadly massacres done by the LTTE terrorists in villages.") does not exactly support the use of the term "several", but it does not definitively rule it out either. Given the ambiguity, I think it would be best to preserve the plural "massacres" without adding any qualifier (e.g. few, several, many). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous comment, I do not think any admin action is called for, but I've left a comment on Nitraven's talk page to notify him of this thread, partly so that he can comment here if he wishes and partly as a reminder to exercise caution with direct quotes. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I called for admin action not to block but perhaps a step-in-word by an admin. Thanks for your swift action. Watchdogb (talk) 22:18, 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.

"Affected by"

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]

Adding "affected by it" is a redundant word. Since later in the sentence there is a direct quote from a Sri Lankan official that claims that this unit was set up after "deadly massacres by the LTTE". So if you want you can include the affected by it comment but then I would ask to remove the "deadly massacre by the LTTE". You see when a "deadly massacres" takes place it will definitely affect the people in the villages who are later made into civil defensive forces. So, to avoid redundancy, and other POV problems, only one should remain. Even your citation comes from Sri Lankan Military. To add the affected by it wording we will have to quote that reference and claim that the wording came from the Sri Lankan Military. This is counter productive and ends up making the small sentence look bad. Watchdogb (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The home guard was formed after "deadly massacre by the LTTE" but not just in those villages or localities that the massacres took place, but in other villages to prevent "deadly massacre by the LTTE". That is what I am trying to imply by adding the "affected by it" to mention that home guards were formed in villages that where under threat of possible attack in order to prevent them, thus ensuring self defense.Nitraven (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Under threat of attack is not "affected" by attacks. There is not point in adding the "affected" part because it is neither backed by RS or necessary. Watchdogb (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine I shall change "affected" to "under threat of attack"Nitraven (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Watchdogb (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not an armed militia"

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]

Both given citations here do not back up the how ever this not a armed militia. Furthermore, the claim "all parts of the country" is a false one unless you recognize that Tamil Eelam is a separate country. How can a civil defense committee be formed in areas controlled by the LTTE ? Indeed if you believe that Tamil Eelam is also part of the country, then you cannot set up a civil defensive force in the LTTE controlled areas of Sri Lanka ! Watchdogb (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is because they (citations) never state that they are armed as apposed to the home guard who are state as armed. Regarding Tamil Eelam I have mentioned below. But I do agree that these were formed in areas other than LTTE controlled areas, therefore it could be stated as ."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 other than LTTE controlled areas, how ever this not a armed militia" Nitraven (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree with your new sentence also. The burden lies on you to claim to show that they are not armed militia as the other reference, one given by the news website, clearly claim that they are soldiers. Unless you can provide reference to claim that they are not armed, you cannot add such claim. Watchdogb (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the first issue (regarding "in all parts of the country") be resolved through use of alternate wording, such as "In 2008, the government called for the formation of nearly 15,000 civil defence committees at the village level for additional protection." That sentence reflects the content of this source and makes no explicit claim regarding the distribution of the CDCs in Sri Lanka, but I think that most readers will infer that the range of territorial coverage is broad, since the program includes 15000 villages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with what you propose. Watchdogb (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with it.Nitraven (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've gone ahead and modified the sentence. I cannot access the island.lk source, and so can't really comment on the second issue (regarding "not an armed militia"). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Local villagers of Tamil Eelam"

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)

The citation clearly claim that LTTE formed a Militia. My claim is backed by RS and it complies with the WP:Topic- Militia. "Since there is no recognized state such as Tamil Eelam". What are you talking about ? I don't need to say much except for the fact that the Tamil Eelam Auxiliary force claim comes under the hierarchy of Sri Lanka. This clearly means that this is under Sri Lanka and not a separate country (yet anyways). Your concern would be correct if I had created a new entry and called it Tamil Eelam. I did not do that! Watchdogb (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant, which I see talk haven't understood is there is currently no country, province, or part of Sri Lanka that is recognized to be Tamil Eelam, although it "is the name given by Tamils in Sri Lanka to the state which they aspire to create in the Northern and Eastern portions of Sri Lanka". The LTTE may claim the area under its control Tamil Eelam, this is not recognized by any other government. Therefore referring to Tamil Eelam is referring to something that physically does not exist. "During 2004 local villagers of Tamil Eelam were formed and trained by the LTTE...." is very inaccurate due to the above mention reseason. Nitraven (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation claim that the LTTE called upon citizens of Tamil Eelam to join the Auxiliary forces. My claim is backed by RS to some extend. My claim is not exactly what is said on the citations but it is a rule in wikipedia not to do so. I cannot just cut and past the exact claim on the citation. Again, if I had created a new section and called it Tamil Eelam or made a subsection under sri Lanka and named it Tamil Eelam, then your argument has merit but I have not. Tamil Eelam is the part of Sri Lanka that is traditional homeland of Tamils. The translation of Tamil Eelam is actually Tamil place. Even Sri Lanka is called Eelam by Sri Lankan patriotic Tamils! Please do not let these new definition given by the warring parties confuse you! Watchdogb (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to fix the sentence. This is as far as I am willing to compromise on this sentence as this sentence is well backed by RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, however the reference to Tamil Eelam is a reference to something that does not exist. However for the movement I dont think it is an issue since it is linked to the main article on Tamil Eelam, which provides a more detailed description about it. But still I kindly request a admin to look in to this.Nitraven (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the three sources ([6][7][8]) given for the paragraph, I was unable to find a reference to "local villagers". Although it is virtually a given that most of the recruits to the auxiliary force are villagers from LTTE-controlled areas, the sources do not seem to suggest that the force is exclusively composed of residents of rural areas. The LTTE recruitment process was aimed at "citizens of Tamil Eelam", which could conceivably include people in urban areas.

Since this article notes the presence of a "thorough screening to establish whether [applicants] were 'citizens of Thamil Eelam'" and since all three sources directly quote the phrase, perhaps we should as well? For example:

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.

Does placing the phrase in quotation marks address the concern regarding misrepresentation of the status of Tamil Eelam? Another possible variant, which makes no mention of the composition of the auxiliary force (except to note that it is a voluntary force) is:

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.

Is either of those an acceptable revision, or does either version contain certain elements that are an improvement of the current text? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain why I added the local village which is not included on the citation. I did not want to get into copy right violation by making the sentence too similar to the citation and I, therefore, had to find a way to make the two sound different. So I added the village part. Anyways, I would agree to have the first part that you proposed. Looks neutral and nice Watchdogb (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of the comments below, what are your thoughts on the second or third versions? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think can agree with the second part, simply because 'citizens of Thamil Eelam' is misleading and inaccurate since there is no state called the Thamil Eelam, so how can there be citizens of it. It will be like saying "In 2002 the Bundeswehr which is made up of citizens of the Third Reich, were deployed in Afghanistan." There is no Third Reich in 2002, but a Federal Republic of Germany. - Nitraven (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of quoting the text was to address the concern regarding potentially-misleading wording, but I can understand how even that could possibly be confusing for readers. Also, another possible variation on the above:

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.

This version changes the ordering of the information so as not to unduly emphasise that the auxiliary force may be used for combat, but to equally note both possible stated (by the LTTE's head of police) functions of the force. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Im ok with the new version.Nitraven (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I still stick to the First one. The citation given, by more of an anti-LTTE, websites quoted the citizen of "Tamil Eelam". So I have citation to back my side of the story. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Nitraven's concern with the first version (please correct me if I'm mistaken) lies in the fact that two sentences cannot provide as much context as a full-length newspaper article. (Although all three sources use the quote, they are all also able to provide some context for it.) Thus, and in light of the disputed status of Tamil Eelam as a political entity (it is not a recognised state), the inclusion of the quote without additional context such as is provided here may cause confusion or misunderstanding. That said, I think we should also consider the fact that the term "citizenship" is not limited only to state-level citizenship (see, for instance, subnational citizenship).

Perhaps we can approach the issue from another angle: is the information relevant enough to the topic of militias to justify inclusion in the article? It would certainly merit mention in an article about the auxiliary force itself, but does it deserve to be noted in the article Militia, which is itself not primarily about Sri Lanka? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

does it deserve to be noted in the article Militia, which is itself not primarily about Sri Lanka?. I think it does. There is some antagonizing of LTTE in the article which is about Militia. As the entry of Sri Lanka is highly one sided towards the Sri Lankan view and a reader who read the section will be left with the impression of the Sri Lankan Government. Which is not only false but it hides an important side of the story. Those rapes, murder, disappearances and regular attack that the Sri Lankan state imposes on the Tamil civilians almost go without any notice. So in short the answer is yes the sentence is relevant. The sentence is as relevant as the addition of sentence that antagonizes LTTE. If it can be agreed to take off reference to LTTE and one sided claims such as "deadly massacre by the LTTE" and such, then I think there will be no problem to take off the Tamil Eelam entry from the article. Watchdogb (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the entire paragraph about the auxiliary force, but just the portion regarding "citizens of Tamil Eelam"... Is that specific bit of information relevant to the article Militia? Also, would your concern about unequal coverage be addressed by removing the sentence starting with "The defense force was made..." (the rationale being that interested users can read more about the history of the defence force by clicking on the wikilink to Department of Civil Defence (Sri Lanka))? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what black falcon means. I think that the "citizens of Tamil Eelam" might not be something needed in the militia article. Furthermore, my concern of unequal coverage will be addressed if the "The defense force was made..." part is removed. Watchdogb (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitraven's concern: Tamil Eelam might not be officially recognized by any state but that is no problem here. I think a better version would be:

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.

This directly quotes that LTTE claim the Citizen of Tamil Eelam part. Watchdogb (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I may prefer the third version, instead of quoting the LTTE and then the head of the LTTE's so called Police. Wouldnt it be easier to just say that

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.

Nitraven (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Black Falcon does it again. I agree to the version that is written by Black falcon. Watchdogb (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Off topic admiration: I've been using examples, such as this, and citing this project on Iran-Iraq War as a standard of dispute resolution to which I'd hope other conflicts aspire. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I cant agree with the version of Black falcon. Coz it leaves out the reason behind the formation of local militias in the first place. Perhaps if we rephrase it like this;

"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)

That looks very good. I can agree to this also. I am deducing that LTTE's defense force paragraph will be there too ?Watchdogb (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Category using citations

Resolved

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)

I think we can follow the guidance of Wikipedia:Categorization in these situations, specifically:

"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."

Of course, there can be disagreement about whether an article "adequately" shows that it belongs in a certain category, and this may need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration given both to the nature of the source(s) and the types of claim being made by the categorisation.

Could you provide an example of an article that would be affected by your proposal? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One example would be Jeyaraj Fernandopulle. He was killed on April 06 2008 and it was alleged by the Government of Sri Lanka that his was the LTTE suicide bombing. A source that is classified as (QS) Anti-rebel at WP:SLR#List_of_sources was used to call this terrorist attack. However, these are claims by one party of the war and as such will be biased. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question! We had a discussion about categorization last year, but I'm afraid the solution there won't help us much here. We don't have a general solution for cases in which we only have QS to back up the categorization. Fortunately, though, in the case of the article Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, the problem has been solved already because we have, with BBC and (indirectly) AI, two RS that agree with the categorization. --Sebastian (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please specify where BBC and AI claim that this was a terrorist attack ? Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "terrorist" is highly controversial in itself. I would go along with how our article Terrorism currently defines it: as "violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear." The article clearly describes this as an "attack against civilians". It is always hard to other people's motives, so not even the most reliable source in the world can give us ultimate clarity about that part. However, for our purposes, I think we can safely rely on the last part of the definition: "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants". That's indeed what the article says it was. --Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Place names in North and East of Sri Lanka

Resolved

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)

Rewrote the article from a neutral point of view

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)

Reply from Professor Micheal Roberts

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)

Related to this issue

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)

LTTE Black Tiger

Resolved

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)

SL place name etymology

Resolved

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 no issues with it. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been posted here for 3 days without any objection, so I'll just go ahead and remove it. — Sebastian 13:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Resolved

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)

I am currently a little too busy for wikipedia. However, I will reply to this in a 8-10 days if that is at all acceptable. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about another option, Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the likes of Terrorism in India it can be a neutral article Kanatonian (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll mention it on Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Rename to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". I think it makes more sense to keep the discussion there. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not rename to "Sri Lankan state terrorism". As for the so called Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep that discussion in one place. — Sebastian 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Text which was moved from Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

This is not a vote! People have started writing bold support tags, which is pointless and conterconstructive. This is not a vote, and there is a reason why Wikipedia tries to use votes only when there was sufficient discussion. At this point, it would be too soon to cement opinions with bold statements. — Sebastian 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because people ignored this note and kept adding such "votes", I just removed the bold vote texts without affecting the meaning of people's messages. — Sebastian 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We have to discuss all options as listed here not just one. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks for pointing that out! I had read Black Falcon's great list of proposals before, but had forgotten about it when the discussion moved here. I wonder if people are just more willing to discuss this in a traditional section like this because they don't want to interfere with what he wrote. Maybe we could add {{partofcomment}} to each of his subsections so it will be more inviting for people to respond in place? — Sebastian 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Terrorism in Sri Lanka

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)

support this renaming as "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". It would make a neutral article.We can have a sub-heading there as a "list of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" or some thing.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: wil this article have two sections then ? one for terrorism by the LTTE and the other by the government ? will it then mirror the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article ? Kanatonian (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be one option. Another would be the example of Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War‎. — Sebastian 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes that would be one option. but the problem would be the topic "terrorism by Sri Lankan govt" is a POV. another option is to name as like "allegations of State terrorism". --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing prevents us from starting and developing this article right now. Those who have the time and and motivations can begin the article and eventually when the article is of a considerable maturity, we can add the state terrorims article into it or make it a main article of the section about state terrorism. I think most of us waste a lot of time discussing about it rather than to create it. Why not not just do it Kanatonian (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism

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)

I don't know about India, but maybe there aren't any noteworthy allegations of state terrorism there? But back to the topic, you're not giving any reason why you think your name is better. — Sebastian 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

oppose to name it as "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". there's no concrete evidence or independent investigations on that matter it would violate NPOV.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(General discussion of NPOV, RS, NOTABLE, "academic circles" and secondary sources moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Rename to State terrorism in Sri Lanka

and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject

State Terrorism like Genocide, Terrorism, Mass graves and Pogrom is a neutral English word clearly describes an action. It means we can write a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject. Just like we have to obey WP:NPOV, we also have to obey WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE and using these rules we can create a neutral article on State terrorism in Sri LankaKanatonian (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Wikipedia does not depend on truth but on Realiable published citations. We have enough of that in the Article. The article itself is about the State terrorism in Sri Lanka. This is the best title. Watchdogb (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(General discussion of neutral article names and neutral words moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

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)

It is only where it is because no one has taken the time to develop it. May be one day :))Kanatonian (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In wikipedia we say what others say. We strongly do not try to "prove" or find the "truth" of something. So in essence all articles in wikipedia are indeed collections of allegations or claims. In accordance with the rule of wikipedia, the current name of the article is "Allegation of State terrorism in Sri Lanka" which would mean that all the citations would only focus on the "Allegation" part of State terrorism in Srilanka. However, in this article the citations are the focus of "State terrorism" in Sri Lanka and because of this we should rename the article to "State terrorism in Sri Lanka". Watchdogb (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good reason, and it is stronger than my general reason against the term "state terrorism"! I will enter both of them in the table below. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government

What ever is considered to be Human rights violations as opposed State terrorim should be in Human rights in Sri Lanka article Kanatonian (talk) 23:23, 10 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)

Totally disagree to merging the whole thing into Human Rights in Sri Lanka. Though I will change my mind of "Attacks attributed to LTTE" gets merged into this along with a bit more constraints. Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not a vote. Therefore, it is pointless to just heap up personal preferences without providing reasons. And it's totally pointless to add the word "totally" - that wouldn't even make a difference if this were a vote. Can anyone among the three of you please provide a reason for your preference? — Sebastian 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment I made earlier, that was later removed, provides a perfect reason to my preference. Watchdogb (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to say, please say it clearly, and don't make everyone search the page history for what you might mean. — Sebastian

Human Rights violationsnad State terrorism are two different subjects. One is a violation of Human rights, happen all over the world but the other is terrorism practiced by a state as part of a Dirty warKanatonian (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion to a discussion of reasons. Of course these can be treated as different subjects - we have two different articles for these topics already. But they are very strongly related: Any terrorism is a violation of human rights. Moreover, state terrorism (just as dirty war) constitutes HR abuses by the government. So I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to cover the former topic under the latter section. — Sebastian 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is the difference between HIV and AIDS, not everyone who has HIV come down with AIDs but when you get it then you have an acute case of HIV infection. Human Rights violations are in general involves your street level cop in Seattle beating up a protester where as State terrorism is a state at the highest level decides not just to allow the policeman to beat up the protester but instructs the police department to ignore not only any beatings but spay the protesters with live bullets with the intention of killing as many protesters as possible to use it as a message (that is to terrorize the opponents by attacking civilians) , go to their homes and pull their family out and kill them and when ever the case comes up in the court system suppress the evidence or cook the evidence. Disappear anyone suspected of remotely connected to the protesters without a judicial review. It is that simple, the difference between Human Rights violations and State Terrorism. One is an acute format of the other but with it sown separate definition. Kanatonian (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a well presented reason! — Sebastian 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

General discussion of neutrality related issues

(Moved from #Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 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:ORKanatonian (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these "academic circles"? where are they? are they truly independent? what are the secondary sources they use? And most importantly what happens when their secondary sources are disputed? --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from #Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

What are neutral words? All words are neutral when they are used individually. But give different meaning and conveys a different message when used with other words.To create a article named "State terrorism in SL there needs to be proved "state terror" from a NPOV. It's a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to go for your POV which is not verifiable by independent sources. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To reply to (some of) both of NavodEranda's messages: The article currently contains many links that look reliable and neutral at first glance; at least to me. So it seems that there is a neutral reason for naming it something along the lines of state terrorism. You did a good job at refuting references in Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka‎#SL Army in Tamil homeland; if you can do the same for the refernces that back up the name of the article, then it would indeed have to be renamed.

If I may add a general remark: I'm not too happy about the term "state terrorism" to begin with, because it is a controversial term anywhere - independent of the situation in SL. I am also not clear where the distinction to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government is. But Kanatonian seems to see a clear distinction there. He has in the past often convinced me by just writing or improving articles. Kanatonian, would it be possible for you to make that distinction clear by improving that section? — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the citations look reliable. However, some might be biased, in which case, it will be explicitly attributed. Still the article can be written much better than now. Watchdogb (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview table

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

Legend

ST = state terrorism

Moving to a conclusion...

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 agree with Black Falcon on this. Let's try to get this resolved. Watchdogb (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should move the article to State Terrorist rather than Allegation. I agree that state terrorism is a controversial and disputed word but all the citation we have on the article use this exact word. All of the citations accuse that there is State terrorism in Sri Lanka. So the Topic of the article is State terrorism in Sri Lanka and in accord with the many given citation of the article it should be renamed to State Terrorism in Sri Lanka. Watchdogb (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A general comment - On March 9, the article was moved to State terrorism and Sri Lanka by an uninvolved editor. Though I do not endorse this pagemove (in fact, I think it should be reversed as a poorly-worded title that does not clearly delineate the scope of the article), perhaps it should be added to the list of options under consideration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lakshman Algama

Resolved

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;

• Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (both)
• Category:Terrorism victims (both)
• Category:Terrorist incidents in 1999 (Lakshman Algama)
• Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 (Ranjan Wijeratne)

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 youNitraven (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I made a mistake. I initially thought that they were military figures later realized that they were retired military figure. However, Ranjan Wijeratne is the minister of defense when he was killed and his campaign was to finish the LTTE. So I am not even sure that we can call any attacks against him a "Terrorist" attacks. Anyways, getting to the point my stand still remains the same. Please go ahead and read how to categorize an article. You need WP:RS claiming that these were terrorist attacks. Furthermore, a website of the Government of Sri Lanka is reliable only to add their POV. Thus it must be explicitly attributed to the Sri Lankan Government. If not, then it is not a reliable source. Last, you cannot add category using the Government of Sri Lanka's word. This is because this source is POV and it can even be seen as an attack site. Watchdogb (talk) 13:52, 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)

Speaking purely as one who does some analysis of terrorism, emphatically saying that is a term of art regarding tactics rather than a value judgment, I can't see how one could logically be a victim of terrorism if there was no terrorist incident or attack. In general, assassinations of government or military officials, when care is taken to avoid hard to innocent bystanders, may be within the range of guerilla activities that are not terrorism. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the sourcing used in the Lakshman Algama article. Some are directly from the Sri Lankan Government and I am fine with that as long as there is explicit attribution. Moreover I currently have no problem with the article except it's Terrorist Categories. Watchdogb (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can not agree to remove this article from the Terrorist Categories. This is due to the fact that this was a suicide attack in a crowded political rally (gathering) in which many (12) civilians were killed. Hence it can be categorized as a Terrorist attack.Nitraven (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bring WP:RS for this claim and then add it. Watchdogb (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nitravan, it is not about you agree of disagree. Adding a category such terrorist categories violates Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines #8. So unless you can provide RS for this claim you cannot add these cats back regardless of your personal feeling. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchdogb, it is matter of agreement and disagreement and personal feelings. Your definition of RSs provided is a fine example of agreement and disagreement and personal feelings.Nitraven (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. You have not even provided a single citation, RS or non RS, justifying the categories. The definition of a reliable source is clearly defined at WP:RS. Further definition that is related to Sri Lankan Conflict is given here. As long as these rules are followed I have no problem with any categorizations. Watchdogb (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ranjan Wijeratne

Resolved

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)

How come [9] is not RS?

From janes " 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. "

From janes "The list of Sri Lankan VIPs killed in suicide attacks includes one president, one presidential candidate, the State Minister of Defence, the Navy Chief and various area commanders. No country has lost so many leaders in such a short period of time as Sri Lanka has to the LTTE suicide bombers." Since only one State Minister of Defence has been killed (Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War) in Sri Lankan history, this refers to Ranjan Wijeratne who was minister of foreign affairs & minister of state for defense at the time of his death. Nitraven (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation from jane is just a general comment. However, there is no direct claim that says something along the lines of "Terrorist attack also targeted Ranjan Wijeratne". The claim that you have They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings only covers terrorist attacks on civilian buses and crowded places and in buildings. The next sentence says that they have attacked political and military VIP but does not say that these are terrorist attacks. Likewise BBC does not mention any terrorist attack. Watchdogb (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"The citation from jane is just a general comment" No I dont see how that could be. The article clearly says one of the VIPs killed by the LTTE include a State Minister of Defence, Ranjan Wijeratne was the ONLY State Minister of Defence killed while in Office. They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings goes to show that the LTTE carries out terrorist attacks. Besides this was a attack carried out on one Colombo's main roads during rush hour and it not only killed the minister and 4 of his body guards but civilians too. Nitraven (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to give you English lesson so if you do not understand what a period means and what a sentence structure looks like, then too bad. No one is denying They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings. However, that does not say that LTTE killing of any such State Minister of Defence is a terrorist attack. You need to read the sentence clearly.

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.

Please read it CAREFULLY. The last sentence, which is followed by a full stop (period) says only Suicide bombers have also assassinated political and military VIPs. The reason there is a full stop and the word Suicide bombers that begins the last sentence is so that people can clearly distinguish that these two sentence are independent of each other and thus each sentence can be read without the the other. See also the word also in the last sentence which clearly and deliberately cuts off the continuation of the terrorist attack and presents new subject- suicide attack that is not Terrorist attack. Watchdogb (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can not agree. What I see as the meaning of these too lines are that; The LTTE has carried out terrorist attack on civilians and the writer reiterates that they have carried out terrorist attacks on both political and military personal. It would have been a repetition if the writer were to have said "They have committed terrorist attacks by killing civilians in buses, crowded places and in buildings.They have committed terrorist Suicide bombers have also assassinated political and military VIPs." Therefor the anther used also mean that Suicide bombers have been used to kill both civilians and political and military VIPs. Then comes another point does political VIPs fall under the category civilians. I believe they do simply due to the fact that they are not military.

The arguments remain here about if the killings of Lakshman Algama and Ranjan Wijeratne should be defined as acts of terror or not. It should be noted that on both occasions that these to persons where killed, they where not the only persons killed. Civilians where killed as the bombings occurred in crowded places with civilians thus killed civilians. In the case of Lakshman Algama it was a political meeting and

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)

Disagree. You are now violating WP:SYNTH by synthesizing the two sentences. You are also doing WP:OR by claiming this. Watchdogb (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We are in the buisness of writing what others said. We simply can not put words into their mouth.Kanatonian (talk) 20:01, 27 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)

This is not "putting words into their mouth" but simply implying what they said. Case closed! You yourself agreed that you are making WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by claiming the above implying what they said. As for Rajan Wijeratne you can add the categories but only if you provided WP:RS for the claim. Now if you can do the same for the other articles and not imply what the article says, therefore violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you can add the categories back. Watchdogb (talk) 22:37, 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:

• Algama was killed in a suicide bombing that targeted a UNP election rally. At the time, Algama was a retired military officer. The attack also killed 11 others.
• Wijeratne was killed by a car bomb in a targeted assassination. At the time, Wijeratne was the Deputy Defence Minister of Sri lanka. The attack also killed 18 others, including several of Wijeratne's bodyguards.

Is this an accurate summary of the circumstances? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It will be accurate if it is mentioned that number of those killed were civilians.Nitraven (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, in both attacks, most of the victims seem to have been civilians. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll kindly request some one to please tell me why http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_91/asia.html is called not a RS by some one. Thank you Nitraven (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Patterns of Global Terrorism can, in general, be considered a reliable source, though in some contexts it may also be partly biased (it is, after all, a publication of a government). Would I be correct to assume that you are referring to the source in context of the following excerpt:

In March 1991, the LTTE returned to urban terrorism with the car-bomb assassination of Deputy Defense Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in Colombo. (emphasis added)

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Patterns of Global Terrorism is a report that is made by the US state dept. I encourage the use of state dept in articles however to use it to categorize an article is a different case. The state dept, at least to my understanding, terms terrorist attacks or acts of terrorism only because they are reported so by the country they happen in. Specially since Patterns of Global Terrorism is a collection of attacks and such that are termed terrorist attack. These collection directly come from claims from foreign countries. As Sri Lanka is a sovergn state and had always been with good ties with the State dept any attack termed "Terrorist attack" by the Governemnt of Sri Lanka would be categorized by the states as a terrorist attack. Facts are usually checked by state dept so that is why I agree it to be used as WP:RS. However, they do not do any fact checks before calling any attack a terror attack - it's enough if the particular counties government calls an attack a terrorist attack. Watchdogb (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes this right.124.43.212.158 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is what I meant. It clearly indicates that the act was a terrorist act and therefor the categories Category:Terrorism victims, Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam must be added to this article and since there is no article at present about the incident it self the *Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 can be added to this article.Nitraven (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" or "Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991" are suitable for the article, since it is (supposed to be) primarily about a person rather than an incident. If the incident itself is notable, then perhaps an article could be created about it and placed into the "terrorist attacks" and "terrorist incidents" categories. However, the case for adding Category:Terrorism victims seems much stronger with that reference... I've asked Watchdogb to comment here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon, I agree not to edit that article until this issue is resolved. I did have that as my intention until this entry here was ignored by other users. Anyways, since you are here now I'll not edit that article until this issue is resolved.Watchdogb (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that those two are an accurate summary of the two articles. Watchdogb (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your agreement. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

proposal to add section for classification of historical sources

Resolved

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)

It is a lot of maintennace and work, what we have done is for achiving peace in political charged articles. But in regular articles like etymology WP:RS & WP:VERIFY should satisfy all our needs. Kanatonian (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Resolved

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)

I will watch the page and I don't think there is a reason to decommision the page. Watchdogb (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary cats

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)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Resolved

It has been nominated for FA review.Kanatonian (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)