Talk:Bodu Bala Sena

(The following was copied from Kwamikagami's talk page. diff:[1])

Bodu Bala Sena or Bodu Bala Senaa?

I have just made an article for Bodu Bala Sena (බොදු බල සේනා in Sinhala language), but I see that Arab News is spelling it "Bodu Bala Senaa",[2]. This spelling seems to be spreading very quickly as the article is pasted all over the internet, and the organization receives more international attention. The organization's own YouTube and Facebook websites use "Bodu Bala Sena", as have earlier Sri Lankan sources. Ordinarily I would chalk it up to a typo, but the Arab News seems to be very strong in English, and the Sri Lankan sources, not so much; still, my gut reaction is to go with how the organization spells its own name. Google Translate doesn't do Sinhala yet, so I have puzzled over the Omniglot description of the Sinhala alphabet.[3] The problem seems to be with the last symbol නා, but that's as far as I can get. The Arabic letter ع is sometimes transliterated as "aa", perhaps this is how නා sounds to the Arab ear. Or perhaps it is a typo. Is this something I should be concerned about? Thanks. Neotarf (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The last word is sēnā. Both vowels are long, AFAICT. Normally we just omit the macron when assimilating into English, and that's true for Arabic as well. It would be odd to transcribe it with a ع, and I seriously doubt that's how it would sound to an Arabic ear. (Arabic also has vowel length, and it would presumably be heard as that.) It also seems a bit weird to show only one of the vowels as long. Since the org's preferred spelling accords with normal English practice, I'd go with that. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Singhala (Sinhala) vowels are these: a aa æ ææ i ii u uu e ee o oo

The doubled ones indicate long vowels just like in Dutch. (Two morae = Sanskrit:maaþra in length). Unlike in English, the ending single 'a' in Sanskrit and Singhala languages is more like a Schwa. The 'aa' discussed here actually shows correct pronunciation.

The modern trend in spelling words as close as possible to the native pronunciation is a good thing. It shows respect for the other language and its users while giving the reader a more accurate idea. Of course, Bodu Bala Sena is the way they Anglicized their own name. That is the way Lankans traditionally Anglicize Singhala -- a carry froward from colonial days. JC (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2013

Bodu Bala Sena (බොදු බල සේනා "Buddhist Power Force" in the Sinhala language)[1] is a Buddhist organization based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.[2]

please refer to them as a religious extremist organization. sources - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21494959, http://www.asiantribune.com/node/61792

Bodu Bala Sena (බොදු බල සේනා "Buddhist Power Force" in the Sinhala language)[1] is a Buddhist group of hardline extremists based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.[2]

116.15.177.167 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done:. Please see WP:TERRORIST. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@116.15.177.167: Those are both very interesting links, thank you. The first one, BBC News, is a reliable source and can be used for the article. The other one, Asian Tribune, is written by a Sri Lanka Tamil journalist from his own perspective. The publication does not have editorial oversight, so it cannot be used as a "reliable source". It also says its "focus is on issues and concerns and champions them with passion...", so it does not have a neutral point of view either. So this publication can not be used as a source for the article, even though its Tamil perspective is very interesting. I'm afraid you can't say Bodu Bala Sena is a "religious extremist organization" based on these sources, that would be original research; you have to be very careful with that, but I think you can still use these links in some way. 223.207.113.153 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Clear bias

No mention of the anti-islamic/islamophobe nature of this organization? Nothing on its anti-halal/anti-sharia facets? The English Defence League, if you read the page, is based on much the same policies as the BBS, and yet the BBS is being treated as a "Buddhist organization". I'd include this myself, but I have a feeling folks at WikiProject Lanka wont be too pleased if I do in this instance. All I'll say is that it is unbecoming of an encyclopedia to attempt to distort facts or demonstrate bias and lack of objectivity. Walkalia (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are extraordinary claims. At the very least, you need a source for that. 223.207.113.153 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not that extraordinary:

• Lakbima: "Bodu Bala Sena to continue anti-Muslim protests".
• DFT: "...Bodu Bala Sena, a monk-led extremist Buddhist organisation that has been at the forefront of recent anti-Muslim protests in the island".
• DFT: "He said that the Bodu Bala Sena group opposed Halal because they were essentially anti-Muslim".
• SL: "Matters have had been made worse due to the alleged anti Muslim sentiment created by Bodu Bala Sena, an extremist Buddhist sect..."
• LBO: "An extreme nationalist organization called 'Bodu Bala Sena', had been at the forefront of anti-Muslim activity in the island".

These are not "reliable sources"; please see WP:RS. In addition, Wikipedia articles need to be written in a "neutral point of view", see WP:NPOV. It is a shame that there are so many publications in the Islamic countries that are calling this group "ani-Muslim" when the group itself says it does not promote violence against other religious groups. And it is a shame there are so many anonymous IP editors from Islamic countries like Pakistan, Sinagapore, and Qatar that are vandalizing this article. 115.67.39.165 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bodu Bala Sena is the latest incarnation of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism that has since independence targeted the island's ethnic minorities. First of all it was the Indian Tamils, then it was the Sri Lankan Tamils, now it's the turn of the Muslims.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Muslims are the most intolerant people on the planet. In every single Muslim country, the minorities are terribly oppressed. It's only natural to hate Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.115.197 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What we see in the world today are non-Muslim peoples rising up and exacting their revenge on the Muslims who have horribly oppressed them, including Israel.

Walkalia you should not be discouraged by adding constructive and non disruptive edits, be bold there will always be editors who think otherwise. WikiProject Sri Lanka supports the addition of constructive and non disruptive edits. Obi2canibe I think it is important that you should know that the vast majority of Sinhalese people do not think this way, nor are they extremists. However upon recently coming back from Sri Lanka I did realize of tensions between the Sinhalese and Moors/Muslims. This "extremism" is reciprocated by the Moors/Muslims against the Sinhalese, or at lest many Sinhalese feel so. Yet it is the Bodu Bala Sena who (do not represent the Sinhalese as a whole who) take it that step further.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

At a time when the world situation is heating up between Buddhist/Muslim groups -- there are riots and deaths in Myanmar this week for example, and the Islamic groups in Sri Lanka plan a rally for later in the week -- the Wikipedia needs to take special care not to inflame the situation by calling groups "extremist" or making unsubstantiated claims about an organization.115.67.39.165 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that all/majority of Sinhalese were anti-Islam. The only thing the majority of Sinhalese are perhaps guilty of is remaining silent while BBS does these things in their name.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone add this halal label image?

Halal food label in Arabic language

I have added an image to the halal controversy section. There is a better image here that looks more like the label on the Sri Lanka food, but I don't know how to add a file from Indonesia wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.77.188 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Done MediaJet talk 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality of the Article

Article is tend to be one sided now,I dont see any neutrality here. MediaJet talk 06:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There has been a huge amount of information just dumped into the article without any organization and without vetting sources. For one thing, there seems to be a collection of quotations cherry-picked from people who oppose Badu Bala Sena, as well as a new round of inflammatory banners. On the other hand, the new links might be a gold-mine of new information. For instance, there is some information about the origins of the group that I haven't had time to look at yet. I have seen conflicting information about the group's origin, but nothing from reliable sources. If you look at WP:NPOV, an article is supposed to provide information first, not opinion. You can't leave something out just because it is negative, but the negative portions have to be sourced and cannot be given undue weight.

I would suggest that the article be reverted back to the last stable version, and the new information be vetted here and added back gradually. 115.84.92.252 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Majority of the quotations come from the organization itself. They are not cherry picked from anyone else. If you find the banner 'history' and 'organization' inflammatory I'm not sure what I can say. Even 'attacks on media' and 'criticisms' are neutral and state what happened. There is no opinion presented -- the organization has expressed anti-Islam sentiments and attacked several Muslim things and these are reported in a neutral manner. SinhaYugaya (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:MediaJet and anonymous dynamic IP editor 115.84.77.xx - You can't just the say the article isn't neutral and remove referenced content. You have to explain your objections on the talk page. Neutrality is generally achieved by adding content form opposing views, it isn't achieved by removing referenced content. You actions look like you are using lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Your assertion that the article is dominated by quotations from people who oppose Bodu Bala Sena is not true. The majority of the article is about what Bodu Bala Sena have done or said. And your assertion that this version is stable is also not true - this artcile has been regularly edited sine mid March. The only difference between your chosen version and the version you object to is that it doesn't contain so much negative content. Wikipedia is not censored - if all the available reliable sources paint Bodu Bala Sena in a negative manner, then perhaps that's just the what they are.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please go back and read the essay you linked to (and it is an essay, not a policy or guideline). If you want to say something negative you cannot do it in the voice of the Wikipedia. You have to present all opposing views and name your sources.

The only recent edits to this article have been vandalism, which up to now has been quickly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.13.88.60 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I included everything I could find about the organisation in reliable sources. If you be believe all opposing views aren't represented then add the opposing views. You, and all others who claim this article isn't neutral, haven't made any constructive edits. Instead you are engaged in censoring information for which reliable sources have been given.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issues and the information added by Obi2canibe

User:Obi2canibe has added a great deal of very interesting information, however the neutrality of the article is now questioned. The article is about "Bodu Bada Sena", not "Criticism of Bodu Bada Sena". The article itself needs to be encyclopedic in tone, with the various viewpoints represented neutrally. For myself, I have formed no opinion about the group; I think it is a changing situation and many things are not written in stone, yet.

Also there is a huge problem that most of what they write about themselves is in Sinhala language. Google translate doesn't support Sinhala language yet, so it is very hard for the international audience to find out what they say about themselves. So we must be careful what we say about them, that it is accurate and from high quality sources.

For now, I am looking at Palestine Liberation Organization as an example of how to write the article.

I have posted Obi2canibe's text below. I would like to see the links organized into topics, and the sources checked to see if they can be used as reliable sources. For now I would like to concentrate on the halal meat issue, since it is currently in the news, and on vetting sources for the organizational structure of the group.

More neutrality issues

I don't know if you are familiar with how Wikipedia is edited. You cannot remove large amounts of data because you have a suspicion that it's not neutral. You can state what you find is not neutral and what references you have a issue with and we can move on from there. SinhaYugaya (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lot of dumped nonsense,this is not the real countenance of the organization,this is biased to one side,however earlier version is much better than the current,even the earlier is not written in a neutral tone,Should Rewrite this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.206.171 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say not what you believe is the "real countenance" of the organization. SinhaYugaya (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Since the neutrality of this version has been challenged, you need to obtain consensus for these changes first. 115.84.79.166 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, YOU need to obtain consensus first before you remove data. SinhaYugaya (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. The cycle is bold, revert, discuss. A bold edit has been made, the edit has been reverted, or challenged, now you need to discuss the changes you want to make, and obtain consensus for the material you want to add. 115.84.79.166 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy it's just a suggestion on how to conduct yourself. You were bold you got reverted now it's your time to discuss. SinhaYugaya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous editor User:115.84.79.166 - As your fellow Laotian pointed out, WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. WP:BRD states that it is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. This is exactly what you are doing.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

The neutrality of the article has been questioned, however when at least three editors have attempted to revert back to the stable version, the disputed and inflammatory material keeps getting inserted over and over and over again. I have left messages on the talk pages of user:SinhaYugaya [4] [5] and user:Obi2canibe[6]. 115.84.79.166 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for more eyes on this article at [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.79.166 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in proposed lede

The lede that has been proposed for this article is:

Bodu Bala Sena is a right-wing Sinhala-Buddhist organisation based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

or alternatively:

Bodu Bala Sena is an extremist Sinhala-Buddhist organisation based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

There are several problems with this. First, the terms "right-wing" and "extremist" are highly inflammatory, and are hardly words the organization applies to itself. This certainly does not belong in the lede. See WP:Neutral point of view and WP:TERRORIST, also WP:No original research. If these attacks belong in the article at all, they needs attribution to reliable sources, and the person or organization making these attacks needs to be identified.

This is not an attack piece. It is an encyclopedia article. 115.84.79.166 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You call a spade a spade. Those words have neutral connotations and that is what is being referenced to when they are used in the article. The organization doesn't get to decide how others view it. SinhaYugaya (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The BBC calls the Bodu Bala Sena “A new hardline Sinhalese Buddhist group” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21494959)

Extremism, although a problematic concept, therefore rather than defining the idealogy it is best to characterise it (using Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits): following are the characters of extremism followed with particular actions of the Bodu Bala Sena:

INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion and race," (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21840600)

TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS ASESSENTIALLY EVIL – “It is not the BBS that created extremism in this country. The separatism that Prabhakaran could not achieve, the ACJU has managed to achieve in Sri Lanka today. The Muslim clergy have divided this society into two and built mistrust between religious communities,” (http://www.ft.lk/2013/02/16/bodu-bala-sena-anti-halal-agitation-to-begin-in-maharagama-tomorrow/)

TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION. At one meeting attracting thousands, the organisation's secretary, Gnanasara Thero, told each Buddhist present to become "an unofficial policeman against Muslim extremism" and said "so-called democrats" were destroying the Sinhala race.( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21840600)

USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPINGCLICHES Youth activists at the rally wore T-shirts denouncing the Muslim halal method of slaughtering animals to eat. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21494959) The group's secretary-general, Venerable Galaboda Aththe Gnanasara, told the crowds that "only monks can save this race", referring to Sinhalese. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21494959) "Our country is a Sinhalese one and we are its unofficial police," (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21494959)

ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS. "No one should doubt these clergy. We're here to give you encouragement." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21840600)

DOOMSDAY THINKING At one meeting attracting thousands, the organisation's secretary, Gnanasara Thero, told each Buddhist present to become "an unofficial policeman against Muslim extremism" and said "so-called democrats" were destroying the Sinhala race. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21840600)

There are a whole range of articles and ideologies, acts perpetrated by the bodu bala sena that can fall under the extremism bracket. I believe this is enough material from reliable sources to ascertain their status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.65.235 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTHESIS. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You cannot paste a link to a piece that says the group does not want Islamic halal symbols on their food packages during the upcoming religious holidays, and use that as an excuse to slap a huge green "Islamophobia" sticker on the article. (And I have a funny feeling whoever did that isn't exactly Muslim either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.13.88.50 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What a bizarre point to state that "far-right" is inflammatory. Extremist isnt? Militant White organisations are politely referred to as "Far-right" and NEVER as "Extremist". So non-white organisations must be accorded the same respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.183 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous editor User:103.13.88.50 - You're correct, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. But we don't need to do any synthesis to prove that BBS is an extremist organisation. A reliable source has been given in the article which states that BBS is an extremist organisation. Read it. There are other reliable sources which also state that BBS is an extremist organisation. No reliable source has been given for the assertion that it's a right-wing organisation.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Starting to look at the huge number of little-known news sources that are being used to justify the inflammatory rhetoric that has been substituted for the original piece. See WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG. If the first one is any indication, there are massive problems with sources here.

• The Asian Tribune seems to be written by one person, KT Rajasingham, a Tamil politician, who is now living in Sweden. Rajasigham has been sued for defamation in Australia, Sri Lanka, and Sweden [8]. You don't have to look very far to find out he has also been accused of attempting to have someone assassinated and of blackmailing another newspaper, that he is "widely regarded as a hate monger dealing in sewer reportage", that he is "engaged in spreading notorious propaganda against United States and Israel as well the Western world", that he is "trying to justify the activities of heinous Islamist militancy group like Harkatul Jihad", and that he "might have linked to Islamist militancy group, and receiving funding from such elements in spreading the message of Jihad as well publishing articles and commentaries against Jews, Christians, Israel, United States and the West".[9]
• Busy guy. But it doesn't look like this publication meets the Wikipedia standard for neutrality and editorial oversight. 103.13.88.45 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this right, you are using an anti-Muslim site to prove that Asian Tribune is not neutral? SinhaYugaya (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As SinhaYugaya has rightly pointed out, you, User:103.13.88.45, can't use unreliable sources to prove that Asian Tribune is an unreliable source. In fact it has already been judged to be a reliable source. WP:SLR has judged Asian Tribune to fulfill WP:RS, but only tell one side of the story. Also see this on WP:RSN. Even if Asian Tribune were unreliable, it only accounts for three of the 91 references on this article. The overwhelming majority are reliable sources.

International news organisations:

• Al Jazeera - 1 reference.
• BBC News - 3 references.

Sri Lankan national newspapers:

• Ceylon Today - 6 references.
• Daily FT - 13 references.
• The Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka) - 11 references.
• The Island (Sri Lanka) - 12 references.
• The Sunday Leader - 5 references.
• Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka) - 1 reference.
• The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) - 9 references.

Other country national newspapers:

• Arab News - 2 references.
• Gulf News - 1 reference.
• The Indian Express - 1 reference.

International human rights organisations:

• Asian Human Rights Commission - 1 reference.
• International Crisis Group - 1 reference.
• Islamic Human Rights Commission - 1 reference.
• Minority Rights Group International - 1 reference.

Ignoring all these reliable sources, scrutinising Asian Tribune and using that as an excuse to remove content you don't approve of is just a lame attempt at censorship.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at a source and it uses the phrase "Buddhist violence", but "alleged Muslim violence", you probably don't have to search for the publication's editorial oversight policy to know you are not looking at a neutral source. Just a quick look at the above list shows some of these publications used are not what could be called "scholarly sources" but are written by one individual, a Tamil in exile, and in this regard, are similar to blogs, which wikipedia does not generally allow. You really need to review [[WP:NPOV] and WP:RSwhich will tell you how to use sources, and no, it's not censorship — the wikipedia is not supposed to promote someone's particular world view. I could paste more explanations here, but it's all in the core policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research. Please look at them and learn how to use them. You really can't expect other editors to wade through all of that list until they can see that you understand the policy. 203.81.67.127 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is not based on 'gut feelings' you have. Name dropping Wikipedia policies doesn't suffice either. SinhaYugaya (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

more evidence

Kalmunai Resolution Names BBS As Extremists (http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2013/04/07/kalmunai-resolution-names-bbs-as-extremists/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.65.235 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one side reporting and self pass resolution as Muslims pass a resolution claiming some one who not accept them finally identify as a Extremists. Is that ethical? If this is true, TNA is also a Extremists. All Muslims are Extremists as they only deal with Islamic-brotherhood as Koran teach so too. But we as a clear mind people above statement is wrong though it is politically motivated resolution.

[Who wrote this? 61.4.72.106 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)]

Head of the Bodu Bala Sena

Court documents obtained by the Colombo Telegraph show that Bodu Bala Sena General Secretary and vociferous hardline monk, Galabodaaththe Gnanasara pleaded guilty to hit-and-run charges filed against him by Grandpass police in 2000. On September 20, 2000, the monk was fined Rs. 12,000 by Traffic Courts, Colombo 12. The accident occurred on April 14, the same year, causing injuries to two others named Mohamed Rifai and Ravindra Kumar. Gnanasara Thera was driving lorry number 6 Shri 5444. Among the charges against him were drunk driving, speeding, driving without a valid licence and failing to report the accident.

The monk pleaded guilty to all 9 charges.

[Who wrote this? 61.4.72.106 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)]

This is a personal behaviour. It is not a organization level activity. This type of act clearly shows hate speaking rather than facts.

I see that someone has spammed Bodu Bala Sena's Facebook page over and over with this. Pleas note that the talk page is for discussing the article, not discussing the subject or spreading propaganda. 61.4.72.106 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Proving"

Please note you cannot "prove" something on wiki. You have to find a "reliable source" that has "proved" it off wiki. See WP:RS. Please note also the requirements for a "reliable source", especially sources like blogs and partisan "newspapers" that are essentially written by one person. 61.4.72.106 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to edit this article you will have more success if you don't remove what has already been written, especially long-standing material that has been sourced and is the product of consensus. Blanking a page is usually reserved for obvious vandalism. You would do better to add small amounts of material at a time, and to discuss something you want to add on the talk page first. 61.4.72.106 (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of consensus version by SinhaYugaya

The version of this that was agreed to on the talk page was blanked by user:SinhaYugaya with this edit, with the edit summary "revert vandalism", see WP:VANDAL, and replaced with his own version, which several users have noted multiple problems with.

Please get consensus on the talk page before making massive removals of sourced text. 203.81.67.127 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anon, just following up on the concerns you rose over at my talk page. Firstly, I do not believe that I made revisions “without any explanation”. Each of my edits has been accompanied by an explanation in the edit summary. I have reverted various edits that have, amongst other things, added poorly phrased material, added unreferenced material, and removed referenced content without meaningful discussion. I don’t believe I have come close to edit warring, but I am happy to hear other editors opinions on this.

In the interests of moving beyond the current conflict, I think it is worth responding to your analysis of the situation more generally. I would make the following observations:

• I, like other editors, do not think you have established that this version is a “consensus version” or “unchallenged”. Indeed, the very fact that someone altered the article demonstrates that it is a challenged version.
• Despite your rhetoric, to my knowledge nobody is “blanking the article”. Yes, there have been some very bold edits and revisions (perhaps almost overly bold), but this is not article blanking and it is not a crime unto itself.
• You frequently cite removal of sourced material as a key objection, without acknowledging that your own revisions do just that. I do believe that other editors will be aware of the hypocrisy.
• “Muslim Tamil-in-exile version”? Really? I am not sure voicing your conspiracy concerns are helping you sound cool calm and collected on the topic.

Please do not think that I am strongly in favour for a particular version. I think that all versions of the article require serious work and I have some ongoing ‘point of view’ concerns. For example, I am of the opinion that “extremist” is probably not an appropriate adjective for the lead and is less informative than nationalist. However, I also realize that I will not be able to make a convincing case for this without discussing the specifics of the issue. Generalized chest beating about reliable sources and neutrality and bias will not get us anywhere. Yes, having the more meaningful discussion will be time consuming and require patience, but it will be more productive in the long run. This is my message to you. If you think that some removed material needs to be reintroduced then make a specific case for that inclusion. Similarly, if you think some content should be removed, then make a specific case for that removal. This is the only way that the article will be able to improve. I hope you get on the precision band wagon. Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew,

WP does not go by bands and wagons, it goes by neutrality, verifiability, and consensus. You are the one who has removed content. Not just some of it, all of it. Content that was discussed on the talk page and found to be neutral. And you have replaced it with a version that has been discussed on the talk page and found NOT be be neutral, among many other problems. I have provided you with the diffs for this discussion on your talk page. Yes, I saw you deleted some other material that was unsourced, and I do agree with that, but you did a mass revert and also deleted other material that represented agreement between the Buddhist and Muslim editors here. Please note that when I restored the consensus version, I also carefully restored this material that seemed to have been agreed on by some fairly divergent editors.

If you don't think the lede should say the organization is "extremist" -- and you will not find any reliable sources that say so -- maybe you should stop restoring this version.

I see SinhaYugaya has once again reverted to his disputed version, and deleted the consensus version without any discussion. He has also blanked the message I left on his talk page. 203.81.67.127 (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What content has been removed? There's more content now than before which you are keen on removing despite the opposition of many registered users. This version has in fact been found TO BE NEUTRAL (neutral doesn't mean agreeable to the specific viewpoint you want to convey btw). The stub version was not a consensus version -- it's a de facto version lacking a lot of information that was simply the version before more information was added. You however find the 'more information' to 'not be neutral' and assert on removing it while claiming that your removal constitutes the restoring of the material (very bizarre and darkly comic). SinhaYugaya (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ALL the content was removed here with no discussion. This was not a stub, as you claim, it was 800 words with 6 sections and 15 sources. Subsequent discussions [10] [11][12] failed to gain any consensus for either the mass deletion or for the replacement version.[13] However, I added back in some of it here to MediaJets's version, since one of the Buddhist(?) editors used it. If they do not like it, let them challenge it, and it can come out again, but it looks to me like this part does have consensus.203.81.67.127 (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with eyes can see that edit resulted in data being added not removed. You make no sense and I see you decided to stalk me to the Genocides in History article. Bravo. If you are satisfied with the reliability of Tamilnet on that article why are you claiming that Asian Tribune is not valid btw? SinhaYugaya (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

NO, that is not correct. The edit removed the consensus version completely. You have also completely removed the consensus version yourself. Four times. The material that was substituted was challenged by several editors and the arguments for it failed to get any traction. If you do not understand how to use sources, and which sources can be used where, I would point you once again to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYN. If you do not understand these policies, you should not be editing this article, or any others. And no, I did not follow you; I went to your talk page and found you had blanked the message I left for you, then I became interested in the editor who left a message on your talk page with exactly the same problem I am talking about here. With so many people telling you the same thing, maybe you should pay attention to them. 203.81.67.127 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus version according to whom? Your other IP addresses? You can bullshit all you want. You are not going to get away with deleting massive amounts of data from this page. SinhaYugaya (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. Well this is a bit of a mess isn’t it. The page is now oscillating between two quite different versions and this is preventing further improvements from being made. I would like to propose a well-intentioned way forward, but first would like to make a couple of observations regarding the discussion thus far:

• I think that it is unconstructive to describe an editor’s contributions as vandalism when they are clearly made in good faith. I would expect to see passionate rebuttal, but I do not think that accusing someone of intentionally harming the article has a place in that rebuttal.
• I do not think that it is realistic to claim that any version is a “consensus version”. The fact that we are having this discussion makes that claim patently false. Moreover, no article in Wikipedia may be expected to remain static.
• In whichever direction, large scale changes to an article are hugely problematic. This is because discussing their merit becomes prohibitively complex. I think it would have been better at the outset for SinhaYugaya's changes to have been made incrementally, but this is not a hangable offence. There may well have been a case for reverting that edit, but I do not think the case against the edit was precise enough at the time (e.g. there is no such thing a source that is unreliable in some general sense; it is claim specific). The opportunity has now past.
• We need to start from somewhere, and I know of no Wikipedia guideline that would suggest that earlier versions have inherently more credibility than latter versions.

Based on the above I would propose that the longer version of the article be the basis for subsequent changes and improvements. These changes should be made slowly and discussed as needed. My choice of version is not because I believe the latter version is obviously better (or vice versa), but because I believe it will be more expedient to slowly remove and alter existing content rather than wait around for people to discuss proposed additions. For the same reason I would also be happy to see unique content from the earlier version added to the latter version.

I feel that there is a great opportunity to take the editing moral high ground here. In my mind the ‘better’ editor will be the one who allows the version they take umbrage with to exist, and then begins systematic and small scale improvements from that point. I honestly feel that the end result will be the same whichever version we start with. Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not start the discussion with the “extremist” in the lead issue. That is obviously going to be a difficult conversation and it will be better to do so in the context of a stable, or at least comparatively stable, article body.

Thank you for trying to resolve this dispute. For the record it was me, not User:SinhaYugaya, who made the significant edit which is the subject of the dispute. SinhaYugaya has merely reverted its removal by User:115.84.77.98, User:MediaJet, User:115.84.79.166, User:175.157.153.242, User:61.4.72.106 and User:203.81.67.127.

Dealing with the specific charges levied by those opposed to this version, my edit did not remove the consensus version. There was no "consensus" - in the ten days prior to my edit there were 99 edits by 44 users. There was never any "stable version".

My edit did not remove any content which was backed up by reliable sources. Any such content (e.g. halal boycott, Maharagama rally, Saudi workers) is still in the article, it may have been re-phrased or re-positioned but it's still there. I added sources to some unreferenced content (e.g. BBS leaders) but where I couldn't find any sources (e.g. protest against the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission) I removed the content. And as you point out, it was the removal of my edit by MediaJet and the anonymous editors which removed referenced content.

A number of anonymous editors, who may be connected, and MediaJet have stated that my contribution wasn't neutral but have not explained why it's not neutral. SinhaYugaya and I have disputed their claims - see this. Therefore there was never agreement that my version was not neutral. I have stated above that neutrality isn't achieved by removing a large chunk of referenced content. It is achieved by adding content form opposing views. The anonymous editors and MediaJet haven't done this. They have just removed content they object to.

Having said all this, I am prepared to work with editors who genuinely believe my contribution is not neutral and want to improve this article. Therefore I support your proposal to remove any offending content from this article on a piecemeal process. To start with, if the consensus is that "extremist" shouldn't be used, then let's remove it. Whatever replaces it should be backed up by a reliable source - I'd suggest "hardline" as used by the BBC.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi obi2canibe. Firstly, sorry about giving the credit/blame to SinhaYugaya when it came to the major revision. My bad. Second, I obviously agree with many of your above points. My hope is that other editors may now choose to raise some specific concerns about some of the present content. I would also be happy to see some small scale article edits along these lines as the starting point for discussion. Finally, with regard to 'extreemism', and as I mentioned above, I am concerned that the difficult discussion will be complicated by an unstable article body. However, if you are interested to hear the rationale for my own concerns then I am happy to fill you in. However, perhaps my own talk page would be a better forum at this stage in the game. Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Objections to SinhaYugaya and Obi2canibe's contested version (again)

SinhaYugaya and Obi2canibe's contested version has been talked to death, but since they keep blanking the uncontested version to repost their own version, and they seem not to understand the objections I will try to explain. They would do well to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy. "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." This is policy. They may also find the WP:Criticism essay useful for editing this article, as it explains the policy in more practical language. Two useful points from this essay:

• When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice
• Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance

Users SinhaYugaya and Obi2canibe are single purpose accounts who only edit articles with content about Sri Lanka to conform with the Tamil point of view. Most admins take a very dim view of of this, which is why SinhYugaya has been repeatedly blocked. Their edit war to replace the uncontested version with their Tamil version is why the page was protected, however as soon as the page became unprotected, SinhaYugaya immediately started edit warring again to blank the neutral version and restore their contested version. They have never addressed the issues raised, and I believe they either just don't understand the concept of neutrality or there are some language barrier issues, which is why I haven't pressed the edit warring issue harder on other forums. I believe they can make valuable contributions here, but not if they are not willing to edit to Wikipedia's standard. It would be a sharp learning curve for various reasons, but I do hope they make the effort. As you have pointed out, they did goggle up a lot of sources. Unfortunately the sources were not neutral sources, and these users show no understanding of how to identify scholarly sources.

This contested version also has a section that consists wholly of links to current events 9see Wikipedia is not a newspaper) and unrelated quotations about the group (see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The material needs to be organized into topics, and written in paragraph form, with a topic sentence and supporting information. Direct quotations need to be paraphrased and all instances of plagiarism removed. This is very basic English composition stuff.

The lead paragraph of their disputed Tamil version illustrates some of these serious issues:

Bodu Bala Sena (Sinhala: බොදු බල සේනා; *English: Buddhist Power Force; BBS [sic]) is an extremist[1][2][3][4][5] Sinhala-Buddhist organisation based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.[6] It has organised various campaigns against the country's minority Muslim and Christian communities which, according to the organisation, are needed to protect the country's Sinhalese-Buddhist character. The organisation's hard-line attitudes drawn concern and criticism from inside and outside Sri Lanka.

Starting with the last item, the paragraph clearly establishes the intention of the article to be a "hit piece" by describing only criticism of this group. A more appropriate title for such an article would be Criticism of Bodu Bala Sena. There is no citation for the assertion that this group is campaigning against other religious groups, they deny it themselves.

While Wikipedia discourages the use of criticism sections as "troll magnets", this type of section is not forbidden. I would suggest at this point that if SinhaYugaya and Obi2canibe only want to write about "criticism" that they add their material to the article's criticism section.

203.81.67.127 (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you actually look at my history you would see that I don't represent a Tamil viewpoint at all and I've spent a lot of time doing the opposite. As for your other points, I will leave other users to deal with that. SinhaYugaya (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I see that after all the talk page discussion about neutral point of view, the word "extremist" is still in the lede sentence. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about what you are here for. 118.175.184.102 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon (203.81.67.127). I was saddened to see that you do not wish to engage with the discussion about the spate of large scale edits and possible solutions to the apparent conflict. I do not believe that your latest post is constructive as it is largely just a restatement of points that have failed to resonate with others to date. Where you have offered new points, they are still very general and thus not conducive to consensus building. Overall you seem intent on talking at fellow editors rather than with fellow editors. Given the fact that your points have not proved influential, and the fact that other editors are actively working on improving the longer version, I would implore you to accept that version for the very short term. We can then work toward slowly addressing the article’s shortcomings (of which I agree there are many). Your present solution (i.e. persistently reverting to a two month older version) is likely to lead to escalation of the issue. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit disingenuous, don't you think, to weep such bitter tears, since there have been attempts to engage you in discussion both here and on your talk page, with no response. Also disingenuous to complain about "large scale edits" when it was you who blanked the consensus version [14], [15], and [16], with no explanation, while refusing to discuss your mass reverts on the talk page. Also false, your assertion that the consensus version is "a two-month older version". A comparison of Mediajet's consensus version with the one right before new user Haminoon arrived on the scene (amazing how many brand new users there are who seem to jump immediately to this page to help out with the tag-team edit war) shows substantial editing was done to that version, and that it even includes material from your preferred Muslim-centric version. On the other hand, a comparison of your third revert [17] with the March 31 version (when the first blanking occurred) shows very few changes. It seems that your version is the two-month old one. A solution has been presented above to merge the two versions, but instead of addressing that issue in a professional manner, you once again make a series of condescending and highly personalized remarks, and refuse once again to discuss the issue. 118.175.184.102 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Western influence and original research

Hi Anon (103.247.49.158). It is obviously the case that we are not on the same page when it comes to whether or not certain content constitutes original research. I will therefore try to elaborate here. Put briefly, the content you wish to see included is original research because you are adding 'evidence' in a way that no reliable source substantiates (see this example). That is, while you believe that the employment connection between certain persons is pertinent, you have not offered a reliable source that concurs with you. You seem to feel that the information about employment history supports a general point about western influence in BBS, but as a Wikipedia editor it is not your role to provide further support for the arguments of various sources. That is the source's responsibility. I hope that helps clear things up. Cheers Andrew (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Andrew, that does NOT clear things up. The criticism in this paragraph is all about the Western link to BBS, and having a BBS executive committee member who HAS been cited in major news stories as a former director of the very Norway NGO that these stories claim gave money to BBS is HIGHLY relevant. As anyone who has been in business or who has worked for non-profits knows, the "money guys" almost always place somebody on the board of the organization they are funding to keep tabs on their money. The last story concerning Wimal basically says as much - "go challenge the Norway agent on the BBS board if you want proof of the Norway NGO he used to direct gave money to BBS." User:103.247.49.151

A couple of points to the anonymous user with the changing IP address : (1) none of us are trying to cover up the criticism because of some perceived "pro-Western bias" - the criticism remains at the top of the criticism section. (2) Abusing and mis-representing other editors doesn't help. (3) It's a bad idea to repeatedly edit other people's user pages to make it appear they've said things they haven't. Haminoon (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Haminoon's real name is (redacted) and he is part of the Secularized Education Network (Google both names). He therefore DOES have a Western bias, and his edits are calculated to weaken the link to the Western role in BBS. Because of his personal interest in spreading secularism (i.e., Western values) around the world he should not be allowed to edit this story. Period. And dissing Sri Lanka major news organizations as 'unreliable' is boderline racist. You can't even get away with that in New Zealand, (redacted) so why are trying that crap on Wikipedia? User:103.247.49.151

You are mistaking me with someone else - I never called a Sri Lankan news organisation unreliable. I tried Googling "Secularized Education Network" but nothing came up. I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that Western hands are behind BBS, but any arguments (and Wikipedia) are undermined by misrepresenting sources. Please read original research. Haminoon (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Google (redacted) and then go look up the profile for (redacted) to see the Secularized Education Network that he is a part of and what this group's mission is around the world. 103.247.49.151

Dear Anon editor, regardless of your personal opinion of Haminoon, please cease edit warring and engage meaningfully on the talk page. I have an attempted to discuss with you why I believe a portion of your edits are original research. Please make the effort to build consensus here. Repeated edits may lead to escalation of the matter. Best wishes Andrew (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I really think we SHOULD escalate the matter, as it is clear that Westerners with a Western bias are attempting to edit away the Western association with BBS. The bottom line is if YOU believe there is no Western connection to BBS then this is YOUR POV, not any real editorial insight. If you want to start a paragraph under the heading "Western Influence in BBS", maybe that would be more appropriate than putting it under 'Criticism'. Then the evidence for and against Western influence can be fully presented, and you get a chance to air your POV - which is shared by the leader of BBS - that there is no Western influence. 103.247.49.151

Like I said, no-one is claiming there is no Western influence. Haminoon (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon, you will see that the page is now semi-protected. Should you choose to return as an editor, I hope that you will adhere more closely to editing best practice (e.g. BRD). I also hope that you will take the time to look into the 'no original research' principals that are important to wikipedia. I would also suggest that the fact that you think "editorial insight" is a valuable characteristic for an editor indicates to me that you do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should check out this while you are at it. Finally, please observe that I have not removed all references to a potential western influence in BBS. I also do not think Haminoon has any intention of removing that content. Hopefully this alleviates your concern that we are attempting to censor the article for ideological reasons. Best wishes Andrew (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)