Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation

This is the talk page of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here or to add a new topic. Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. To become a member, please apply in the Members and applications section. List of Archived Pages 2007: /archive - /archive 2 - /archive 3 - /archive 4 2008: /general 1 - /issues 1 - /incidents 1

General

Clarification of what 1RR means to us

The 1RR stipulation of the SLDR agreeement caused some confusion, because the guideline WP:1RR is not consistent and seems to be changing. Therefore, Black Falcon proposed the following definition:

BF	Disputed text should generally not be restored or removed more than once in a 24-hour period if an editor wishes to avoid violating 1RR. If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.

I think that's generally the right approach. I find it can be worded a bit better by avoiding weasel words such as "should". How about the following:

S1	We will count it as a violation of 1RR, if more than half of a disputed text is restored or removed more than once in a 24-hour period.

I hope that the “more than half” clause expresses, in a measurable way, what BF meant by “If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.”. Please let me know if I misunderstood that. — Sebastian 07:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a more solid criterion than the 50% rule. For this, I need to introduce three terms:

Old unreferenced text

Any text that has been tagged with a {{fact}} tag or related tag at least 24 hours earlier.

Partial reinsertion

The insertion of part of a text that has been removed by the other party. For example, if user:Deletionist removed the text “A did X and Y.”, then user:Inclusionist’s insertion of “A did X.” would be a partial reinsertion.

Consensus version

A version that corresponds to a consensus reached on this page or on the talk page of the edit in question. For binary decisions,(cases that have only two options, such as the question if articles should be merged), consensus is achieved when each of the arguments for one option have been refuted without counterargument.

With this, we can write the rule as follows:

S2

Editors can be warned or blocked for the following: Repeat a revert after less than 24 hours (except for #1 below) - Note: This is not a free-for-all. We will look at reverts, not at who did them, so check what others did before you! Reinsert old unreferenced text revert consensus version to non-consensus version It is OK to: revert to consensus version Remove old unreferenced text partially reinsert referenced text

This is longer, but I think it is clearer now. What do others think? — Sebastian 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote that, I thought some more in that direction: It doesn't actually matter what and when the previous edit was. What matters, is if the edit itself improves Wikipedia. We have standards for that, so let's start with those! This also means we need to focus on consensus. That gives us the following:

S3

Editors who remove good texts or add bad texts against consensus can be warned or blocked. "Good" texts need to fulfill all of the following: be reliably referenced (See WP:SLR#QS for specifics) contribute to WP:NPOV of the article not be defamatory be on WP:TOPIC "Against consensus" means: There are unrefuted reasons against the edit (unless consensus has been established by a dedicated process, such as mediation). "Reason" means: an argument that is based on logic and consensus, not on personal preference. A reason is "refuted" if there is a countering reason that has not been refuted.

Notes:

• Edits do not need to "be" NPOV by themselves. WP:NPOV is achieved when several points of view are fairly combined, which can take several edits by different people. The important thing is the spirit of cooperation.
• Reasons can be posted either on the article talk page, on WT:SLR or, in simple cases, in an edit summary. Example: "Source X is a reliable source according to WP:SLR#QS". Counterexample: "The article should be renamed" (... because I say so??) "rv POV" (everybody has a POV. Instead, you need to explain on the talk page why you believe the edit does not contribute to the WP:NPOV of the article, and allow time for discussion.

Please let me know what you think of this proposal. — Sebastian 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Learning from Palestine-Israel ArbCom case

I am an arbcom clerk now. I am the clerk on this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. The similarities in this dispute are strikingly similar to the Sri Lanka dispute (as well as East Europe, Azerbaijan-Azeris, etc). Some of you may want to see how this case goes in order to aid your own efforts and avoid going to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by, and for the heads-up! And congratulations to your new role! I am sure we can learn from other ethnic conflicts, but I also hope that they can learn from us, too. WP:SLR has been pretty effective last year, especially since the Dispute Resolution Agreement was in place, which you selflessly helped to maintain. In 2 months, we resolved 19 content issues, many of which as hard as ArbCom cases - not bad for a group that's much smaller than ArbCom, I must say! — Sebastian 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, learning could go both ways here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Sumoeagle179. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by Sumo's recommendation, I went along and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration‎. Of course, I've no idea if this will catch on. Your input at the ArbCom case, or the WikiProject if it comes to life, would be most welcome. Peace, HG | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful! I'm so happy that this idea is spreading, and in particular to the Israel Palestine conflict, which is for me a particularly open wound, since I'm German: I think the actions of my grandparents’ generation fueled a vicious circle that is still spinning there.

I think there's already the first thing we can learn from them: They cut the sentence "This excludes members who have recently engaged in edit wars or sockpuppeteering." I don't remember why this was added in our project, but I propose we cut it. Every member has a right to deny a new membership anyway, and we encourage members to write their criteria on WT:SLR/H#What are we looking for in new members?, so there is no need for that sentence anymore. Any objections? — Sebastian 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This section has been open for seven months, and I'm assuming that the lack of comment is a sign that there are no objections. Therefore, I have removed the sentence from our project page. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumption, as I realise that it's possible that this section (and Sebastian's proposal) simply escaped attention. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon is correct and I support the action. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like this for non-SL articles?

Wiki Raja's idea of doing something similar for other articles (above, 21:39) deserves a section on its own. I support the idea, but there are some hurdles: It probably couldn't be the same template because that one is specific to Sri Lanka. So we would either need a specif one for the area Wiki Raja proposed, or a generic one. A more fundamental problem is that the agreement is only a tool - it takes people to use it. In our case, we are fortunate to have people from both sides, as well as administrators who are willing to delve into the discussion and understand the issues well enough to be reasonably fair, when it comes to warning and blocking disruptive editors. A good way to provide a home for such diverse people is a WikiProject. Is there a WikiProject already, or would you propose to create one? If there is a project, does it have the right mix of people already? — Sebastian 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you need to have a precedent. We have established that and now another attempt is on in Palestine-Israeli issues. We should suggest it in Village forum, so we can come up with guidelines as to how to create such projects Taprobanus (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Palestine-Israeli conflict is handled differently. First, it's ArbCom that imposes the restrictions, and not the collaboration project. They put their box on the talk page.[1], which means that many editors will not see it. They have more 1RR rules for editors than for articles, and the article restrictions are lifted much faster.[2] I have not seen a discussion or any reasons why they prefer that approach. I am not sure if it is possible to enforce restrictions on editors can work without being backed up by an ArbCom ruling. To be honest, when I see how our highest dispute resolution committe is going back and forward on individual article restrictions, it feels like micromanagement to me. In conclusion, I feel that their approach involves more bureaucracy, and it's not a model for all conflicts since they couldn't keep this level of detailled involvement if they wanted to expand the method to all conflicts. I think that our model could provide a good precedent, but I would prefer to wait a bit till WP:IPCOLL has settled on a modus operandi and we can really make useful comparisons. — Sebastian 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Glossary or other guide?

Forgive me if this is present and I missed it, but, as someone who is not a Project member but encountered a problem, resolved amicably with everyone involved learning things, that was caused by a combination of different usages of "general" phrases, as well as being aware of the SRL project's usage. I'm not trying to criticize anyone, but simply note the "Lessons Learned". The Military History Project is creating an assortment of essays to record lessons learned (a common military term of art), and give guidance to editors in finding certain materials. Perhaps there can be some equivalent "lesson learned" here, although I don't know how to solve the problem when an editor does good faith edits that do not reflect what the SRL project considers neutral language; the best I can suggest is not immediately to revert or edit, but to bring up the concern on the article's talk page, and initially to assume good faith if the editor does not seem familiar with the details of Sri Lankan matters.

In the specific, everyone agreed, I think, that "war on terror" and "global war on terror" are essentially meaningless terms used by politicians and lazy journalists. Even "terrorist group" is marginal, and, at least to military specialists, says nothing about ideology, who is right, etc. Perhaps an analogy would help: it is fair to call the US and Russia "nuclear powers". That could probably be rephrased to "nuclear weapons groups" without any real loss of meaning. One could call the UK and France and Japan and Argentina "naval powers", without judging who was right or wrong in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict.

There was a sensitivity about my referring to antiterror and counterterror, apparently because it implied, to some, that using these terms somehow made one side a "bad guy" in the "global war on terror". That was not the intention; it was first to establish that one side used terror tactics/weapons just as the above used ships or nuclear weapons. Antiterror and counterterror are specific sets of measures used to reduce the danger of terrorist attacks.

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but, on scanning through the project pages, it seems as if the terms "government" and "rebel" are considered descriptive and neutral. It might be very helpful if there were a section on "neutral terminology" that editors, not intimately familiar with the Sri Lanka situation, could use without setting off protests, reverts, etc. In the particular case, there was a lack of knowledge on both sides; I was using counterterror and antiterror (in the Counter-terror article) as specific terms of military art, while an editor, expert in Sri Lanka, interpreted this as both labeling a side as using counterterror or terror makes it "bad", and also that using the terms made the issue part of the "Global War on Terror". We were talking past one another, although after several exchanges of moderately heated reverts and talk comments, we began to see one anothers' positions, and User:Black Falcon was extremely helpful in mediating.

There are other terms that might be even more difficult to define, but will come up. Some, at least when used in a military context, carry no implicit condemnation. For example, "assassination", especially of a military or political leader, has "mainstream media" negative qualities, but sometimes is a perfectly legal act in a war -- consider the WWII interception and shootdown of the commander of the Japanese Mobile Fleet, Admiral Yamamoto. While killing him was the goal -- a sad one in a way, because, in hindsight, many on both sides regard him as an honorable man -- he was in uniform, in a military aircraft, and attacked by US military aircraft over the ocean, where there were no civilians at risk. I don't think there's a serious military historian that would call this terrorism. Again with WWII examples, I haven't seen the Japanese kamikaze attacks called terror, because they were exclusively directed at military targets at sea, away from civilians. "Suicide attack", then, does not imply "terrorist". A rebel boat ramming a government boat is not a terrorist attack.

Not to limit the examples to Sri Lanka, while LCDR Gerard Roope, RN, may not have intended to die when he rammed the German cruiser Admiral Hipper with his badly damaged destroyer, HMS Glowworm. Showing honor among deadly enemies, Roope received a posthumous Victoria Cross based on a letter, sent through the International Red Cross to the British, He received this honour in part due to the recommendation of his opponent, Captain Hellmuth Heye describing the courage shown by his opponent. Perhaps we will again see such chivalry in war.

Does the SRL project have an accepted term for assassinations or other targeted attacks that appear to use methods that would be likely to injure or kill civilians as well as the target? In military writing, a distinction gets drawn between the situation where civilians are not targets, but the nature of the weapon used, perhaps the only possible weapon, causes "collateral damage" among innocents. When the weapon is chosen to maximize civilian casualties, that may be called a terror attack, but that does not mean the entire group are terrorists. One sad example from WWII was requested by the Danish underground: bombing the Gestapo headquarters in urban Copenhagen, in order to destroy records, kill secret police, and possibly free prisoners. The Danes understood that with the weapons of the time, there would be civilian casualties; one especially bitter incident was when one of the bombers was shot down and crashed into an orphanage. The Nazis might have called this "terrorism" in their propaganda (although the word was not yet in common use), but neither the UK or the Danese regarded it as such. See Aquinas' Principle of Double Effect for an ethical guideline.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a great suggestion that will resolve a lot of un warranted discussions. ThanksTaprobanus (talk)

I'm working on an "essay" for the Military History Project, which has some "unencyclopedic" project pages intended to give informal guidance to editors. Perhaps that draft can be reviewed by people from this project, at least with respect to things such as "terror", "counterterror", "antiterror", and how little any of those terms of military art have to do with the "Global War on Terror".

Your project, however, could have its own reference that would have helped me -- apparently, "government" and "rebels" are considered fairly neutral? I don't know if there are any particular meanings you assign to "assassination" or "suicide attack". As I mentioned above, there are examples of both from conventional warfare between nation-states, which no one seriously called terror. That is not to say there were no state-sponsored acts of terror in World War Two, ranging from the "dehousing strategy" of deliberate population bombing by British Marshal of the Royal Air Force Arthur Tedder, to Japanese reprisals against China after the Doolittle Raid.

In general, it starts with the premise that military methods are separable from ideology and perhaps culturally dependent views of good and evil. Just to avoid falling immediately into the emotionally laden issue of terrorism, I plan to start with air warfare, and then explain how there are defensive methods that either disable the enemy air force at its bases ("Offensive counter-air") or protect targets from air attack ("Defensive counter-air"). You may observe that "anti-" and "counter-" are not universal terms.

Following this example, I am going to give a rough definition of terrorism, not to be exhaustive but as a working reference. Counterterror is the "far" defense and antiterror is the "near" defense, or, if you will, counterterror is "offensive" and "preemptive" while antiterror is "defensive".

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An essay on terms

See User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-TerrEssay as a starting point for disambiguating terms relating to terror. Perhaps it might help be a template for other sensitive terminology. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why we can do without trickery

Since I dropped by, I received mails from several people who seem to agree that there is some trickery and framing the enemy going on. Yes, it's well known that this problem exists in the Sri Lanka conflict. I can imagine that for some there may be no refuge against trickery but to resort to the same tactics. This is sad.

But WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has been created as a place for those who want to try a better way. Let me remind you that WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has some built-in mechanisms that make trickery a less successful strategy here:

• We don't count votes, but opinions. This makes it irrelevant if someone uses a sockpuppet for voting.
• We don't count number of reverts per account, but per "reason". This makes sock- and meatpuppets useless for revert warring.
• We have clear standards for how to bring up complaints. This means, hints and allegations are not needed, and they often backfire.
• We have a house rule that allows any project member to remove any off topic talk. This makes our talk page a good place for people who want to focus on good, constructive work.
• We are very transparent in our processes. All decisions and admin actions are open to scrutiny. For instance, by keeping a well sourced list about warnings, we ensure that nobody gets blocked without being properly warned in advance.
• There are always some people here who honestly try to work towards reconciliation. This means, there's always a voice of humanity, and we're not turning into a paper tiger who only pays lipservice to well sounding ideals.

I want to remind all our members to adhere to these ideals, and to make good use of the mechanisms we have in place to uphold them. If you see any behavior that does not fit to our ideal, remind the person politely that this is not the way things are getting done here, and help the person by pointing out how to do it better. (I recommend doing that by e-mail because nobody likes being criticized in public.)

I know that this project is not perfect, but we're all able to learn. If you feel we're missing out on a good chance to improve ourselves, please bring it up here. If you're unhappy about anything related to this project, or about any one of our members, and you don't bring it up in a fair way, you have no one but yourself to blame. --Sebastian (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, Good comment.Teasereds (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors in other projects trying to learn from your example

• • please feel free to move this to a more appropriate spot; I know there is structure to the talk page here that I don't fully understand.

As some of you know, there has been an ongoing discussion of managing political/national/ethnic POV at User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5. It started with some issues surrounding Iran-Iraq War, in which it proved useful to analyze the foreign support to both countries -- and learning quite a bit in the process. Other disputes involve the Balkans and Poland-Lithuania. Several of us have cited SLR as the most successful such dispute resolution that we've found in Wikipedia.

Some may remember that I first learned of your work when there was some confusion about the general use of the term counter-terrorism, and there was an initially strained, but eventually productive exchange.

There's an essay in my userspace,User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FactsFromPOV that both takes some of my observations on what you are doing, as well as an assortment of other techniques, such as methodologies that intelligence analysts use to glean information from highly POV sources.

If anyone has ideas about how the essay could be more useful, or if there's a place where some of these metadiscussions should go in mainspace, I'd certainly appreciate it. Again, your efforts have my immense respect.

Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice and interesting message! I will look at your essay over the weekend. Cheers, — Sebastian 07:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?

(Crossposting)

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put - I agree with Fayssal's congratulation. I haven't used Skype yet, but that would be worth a try. Currently, my best time is during the weekend, between 1800 and 0600 UTC. One problem some people may have is privacy - it's probably not safer than standard phone, is it? ---— Sebastian 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How to solve fundamental diagreements

I really hope that agreement can be reached about the fundamental questions at Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology, such as what the article should contain and how it should be structured. But if that doesn't happen, I would like to be prepared. This is a concept that might work in all cases where there are two fundamentally different and incompatible versions of an article, as is often the outcome of fundamental edit wars.

I see the following objectives for a good solution to such fundamental disputes:

1. Get agreement on the most fundamental issues first.
2. Be fair.
3. Allow reasonable editors to do good work on articles without hostile interruptions.
4. It should not depend on me. (For one, I believe in community efforts, but I also don't have much time.)

Did I forget any?

So far, I've come up with the following solution. It's quite unconventional, so let me know what you think about it:

If it turns out that there is no compromise possible, and both sides seem to have similar merits, then I will offer the following package deal:

Division of roles period: If side A (the "agreer") agrees with the basic demand of side D (the "demander", or the "doer"), then I will first change the article to A's last version (if it isn't already in this version) and D will be allowed to change it piece by piece to D's preferred structure. Each change needs to conform to 1RR_S3, and needs to be explained on talk page (or in edit summary, if it's a simple change). Only changes that serve the purpose of the basic demand, or changes that are uncontentious are allowed during that period. If there is any disagreement on an individual change, the change will be temporarily reverted to A's version, and decision will be deferred to WP:3O. (This will be announced both on WP:3O and on WT:SLR. I offer to spend three hours a week on this, so I can serve as a backup if no one else comments, or if comments are unreasonable.) If three changes are pending WP:3O, D can not make any new changes. This division of roles period ends when D says so; WP:3O decides when in doubt.

I think this achieves achieves the above objectives because:

• The side that feels more strongly about the basic demands needs to invest more time. That seems inherently fair to me.
• Each side can work at their own pace. Because an article will initially be in A's (the "agreer's") version, D has an incentive to move ahead quickly.
• There is an incentive for D to keep changes agreeable, because disagreement hinders the progress.
• Because it builds on WP:3O, I can be less involved than in a mediation case.

What do you think? Is it too complicated? Let's brain storm; please don't hold back if you have any other helpful idea! It would be great if we could discuss this leisurely before we actually need to resolve such a situation. --Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Classification as "QS"

This is in response to the fact tag added to the qualification "anti-rebel", as discussed at #Anton Balasingham article above, but it applies to all qualified sources.

Let's not forget that the the qualification "anti-rebel" was reached in an agreement among involved editors from both sides, rather than based on references. This is only a compromise. If we want to move away from this compromise, we need a thorough discussion that ends with a conclusive decision between one of the following two:

• AT is reliable => reclassify it and remove the qualification whereever disputed.
• AT is not reliable => reclassify it and remove all disputed quotes.

If no such discussion happens then it would be desirable if someone could find a reference saying that Asian Tribune is "anti-rebel" to better comply with our general policy of citing all claims, and to avoid such discussions in the future. Sebastian (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is one small problem - Asian Tribune has not been cited by any major sources like BBC. For a source like Tamilnet it would be easy to find that it is a pro rebel source because it gets used in other sources and they have to mention that it is pro-rebel source. On the other hand, it would be hard to find such claims from WP:RS about a website like Asian Tribune because it does not get used by reliable source to cite claims. Watchdogb (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Asian Tribune is not a RS or even QS source by WP:VERIFY, the fact that we allwed it to be used in Wikipedia was a compromise. Maybe we should revist that too? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rights and obligations

Everyone has rights and obligations...

a) any editor who did not recognize the ANI ruling has the right to remove h/self from the list. The request or the edit of the removal has to be documented somewhere. The page should be unprotected.

b) every editor has the obligation to respect the smooth running of Wikipedia and work in a collaborative way with others. Details about this are found at this project page and the ANI resolutions of late 2007.

c) administrators are here to help make sure a) and b) are being implemented. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what happens when an editor removes himself from a list but is tag-team edit warred back into the list? And admins who're watching over this page continue to watch without so much as attempting to put an end to the nonsense and trolling (yes.. not only reverting to keep my name in that list but also adding me under the "Warned!" list is trolling) And what happens when the tag team includes an editor one month old and from the looks of it being used by someone (any prizes for guessing?) only to tag-team? I do not intend keep removing myself from the list, but it will be in everybody's interest if this can be kept from escalating any further. Sarvagnya 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please try to remain calm and to not jump to conclusions. I'm not sure what you meant, but the statement that "it will be in everybody's interest if this can be kept from escalating any further" just doesn't read right. As for the "admins who're watching over this page", Sebastian has not been editing for several days and my watchlist contains way too many pages for me to react immediately to all changes. I'm sorry if you felt ignored, and want to assure you that this is not the case.

Let me ask this: why do you so strongly want to be removed from the list? The list is a tool for the WikiProject to identify editors who were involved with editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented. Your name is listed in the "no-show or inactive" section, so there is no implication that you either accepted the Agreement or rejected it—merely that you did not respond to it (which is carries no automatic positive or negative implications).

I have removed the warning, since the issue was not raised and discussed here. However, I ask that no further edit-warring be done on the project page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The points by FF and BF are all valid. The list merely documents who was around at the time and who agreed or not. Sarvagnya being on the list or not does not free him from the obligations of being a good wiki citizen; standard wiki remedies are always available. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What is that even supposed to mean? Where did I claim that I am not obliged to be a "good wiki-citizen"? All million or so editors are obliged to be good wiki-citizens. So why dont you put all of them on the list? And that still wouldnt answer my question of why I am on the list. "I was around at the time"... is no reason, my name should be there. I was not "around".. I was only commenting about L and N's blocks on ANI not even on SLR.. I had nothing whatsoever with any 'agreement' or any SLR. Also I was only shown the initial draft of the agreement and I was long gone by the time the initial draft became "final resolution" and got implemented on SLR. And btw... this is User:Gnanapit's contribs from Sep to Nov 07. As you can see, he has next to no contributions on SL-related articles. Can you explain to me why he is also on this list? Sarvagnya 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

editconflict response(unindent)why do you so strongly want to be removed from the list? -- And can you tell me why I should be on that list in the first place? Why not any of the other million or so editors? To answer your question anyway.. that troll of a warning you removed explains precisely why I want my name removed from the list. So there is no scope for the likes of Watchdogb and teasereds trolling me with nonsense like this.

However, that is not all. I want to be removed from the list simply because I insist that nobody other than me can speak for me. It simply is not upto any editor, admin or crat to sign me on a list or make me a part of any agreement without my consent. It would be a violation of policy to do so. Putting me under "Inactive"/"No show" would seem to imply that I am/was somehow a part of the process. Which of course, is not true at all. For starters, I was not consulted about any SLR and I have had nothing to say about SLR or any of its in-house proposals. I am not obliged to be a part of this effort or to have an opinion about any of its proposals. Even if I had an opinion, it should not be represented under "Signatories" without my consent. It is a gross misrepresentation of my stance (which is that I have no stance on the matter) to put me under "Signatories" of a proposal I havent the slightest clue about.

Like I told Elonka on my talk page, if you were to put me under a list of "Editors interested in SL topics" or "Editors who have edited SL articles" or even perhaps "Editors who'd like to be intimated of important SL-related discussions" etc., it would be a different matter.

Also, you say - The list is a tool for the WikiProject to identify editors who were involved with editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented. -- Two problems. First, what you state there is not true (can you prove that it is true in my case.. or in Gnanapiti's case.. Gnanapiti for heavens' sake has perhaps not even edited any SL related article!! definitely not any more than you or fayssal or jayjg et al.) and secondly, that list there proclaims something quite different from your "editors who were involved with editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented". Also, what is the point of even having a list of editors who were "editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented" if those users had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'agreement 'itself?! Sarvagnya 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, incivility ("troll of a warning", "likes of Watchdogb and teasereds") is not acceptable, regardless of whether one's name is on the list and regardless of which section it appears in ("acceptance", "no-show or inactive", or "rejection"). I will ask you again to please calm down.

Sebastian has already explained why your name appears on the list, and I alluded to the reason in my comment. You were an active participant in the AN/I discussion and you did not respond to FayssalF's comment here. (As for why I'm not on the list ... I think it has to do with the fact that I didn't participate in the AN/I discussion, though I have no objection to being added to the list.) Incidentally, you can't really say that you "haven't the slightest clue" about the Agreement since you were notified on your talk page and you posted a comment in response to the proposal.

You write that "nobody other than [you] can speak for [you]", and that is completely correct. However, having your name listed in the "no show or inactive" section does not in any way speak for you, and it does not make you party to the Agreement. It only notes that you were involved in the discussion which gave rise to the Agreement and did not explicitly accept or reject it. Is your only concern the section title "Signatories"? (After all, would you object to other editors mentioning your username on some talk page without your consent?)

It seems to be that you perceive the appearance of your name in the list to indicate that you have accepted something. It doesn't, since your username is not in the "acceptance" section. The appearance of your username in the "no show or inactive" section of the list does not make you a member of WP:SLR, it does not indicate that you accepted the Dispute Resolution Agreement, it does not indicate or imply anything about your personal views, and it does not place on you any obligations that do not apply to every other Wikipedia editor, regardless of their involvement in SL-related articles, in the AN/I discussion, or in this project.

I hope that clear up any ambiguities or confusion. If you still do not want your username to appear in the list, then please indicate exactly what your concerns are, so that we could do something to specifically address them (per FayssalF's original comment in this section). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• a) This project should work, be it with usernames or ghosts. If anyone who didn't recognize the resolution doesn't want to be mentioned then fine. I don't think discussing this would benefit Wikipedia project or this project in paricular. The "revert, edit war, 3RR, incivility, block, protest, remain blocked" cycle is a waste of time. The removal will surely benefit the named usernames and that's great. I think my a) point above addresses this point.

• b) Now let's see what would be beneficial to the projects... We first must respect the work of the people who spend much time here trying to coordinate editors' efforts in a calm and professional way. No disruption. Personally I am not mentioned on the list but that doesn't exempt me from my obligations toward the terms of the resolution (point b). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, I was only shown and I commented upon a "draft" (in drafting which I had no hand). And the draft suggested that I be made a party on whom certain sanctions (1RR etc) be imposed. I rejected the "draft" saying that no editor can be put on a list by admin fiat. Admins dont have that authority.
• I was not shown or was not part of any process where the "draft" became "final proposal" and thereafter an "agreement" under the aegis of SLR. In other words, my name here is under the signatories to the "final agreement" which is a misrepresentation of my stand because I have never been invited to comment or commented on the "agreement" at all. If you want to note that I was one of the editors who was invited to comment on the "draft", then so be it. But make that explicit and clear -- just dont claim that I was invited to comment on the final agreement. Right now, the "Signatories" section suggests something quite different. I was nowhere around this place when the "agreement" was "implemented" or even when the "draft"/"Specific propsal" became "Final resolution".
• Fayssal - I think my a) point above addresses this point. - So why dont you simply remove me from that list and put an end to all this? Do you realize that I removed myself from the list, but was tag team revert warred back into the list?
• And given the claims here as to why those who are on the list are on the list, can someone explain to me why Gnanapiti is on the list? Sarvagnya 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone thinks you signed anything Sarvagnya. At the opposite, people believe you haven't signed anything. Some others, me included, believe that you refused to sign even as being present. So being on the list or not doesn't matter. What really matters is...

• ...the list of people who signed and accepted the enforced rules. Those editors, admins and the ArbCom refuse to see any disruption to the resolution.

• point c) Sebastian and all admins are here to help everyone and their work should be respected. You also should remain calm. Requesting gently a removal of your username using a valid reason is one thing. Doing it unilaterally and go on reverting everyone before accusing the lot of tag teaming is another. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the historic reasons for Sarvagnya being on the list, but I think it is fine to see them as what they are, i.e. historic. Let's remove Sarvagnya from that list and be done. This will free much needed energy for other tasks. I see appearance on that list analogous to a phone book. You can decide to have your name listed, but other people cannot decide that for you. Period. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jasy, while understanding your point of view and I also want to move out of this but still I need to ask a nagging but rhetorical question, can I remove myself from the list too from the future ? can Iwazaki remove himself from the list ? can Snowulfd4 remove himself from the list in the future ? Can Watchdog remove himself from the list ? Where does this end and at the end of that process who is left on the list ? At the end what we are discussing is about our ability to rewrite history ? are we not. Anyway sorry for adding to the problem but not solving it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of your points are theoretical (I think you do not want to remove your name), but still, here we go:

• I think anybody can change from acceptance to rejections and vice versa. Opinions evolve and people change their minds.
• Anybody can change from no-show to acceptance or rejection (Hey, that's what everybody did in the beginning)
• If you quit wp, or quit editing SL related articles, you should probably remove your name as a matter of book-keeping
• People who have been put into "rejection" by "Higher Powers" (Admin/Mediation/Arbcom) can only change the class by appealing to the powers which put them there in the first place.
• As for the users you name, I am not around long enough to know why Iwa and Snowwolf are in the rejection class, but I think they are against WP:SLR. If some community decision had them end up there, they should stay there until the community decides otherwise, if they added their names themselves, they are free to remove them. Watchdog has accepted the agreement, but if he should come to the conclusion that he has lost faith in it, he could remove his name from the acceptance list (and probably add it at "Rejections").
• It is impossible to claim ignorance of WP:SLR if you have been either in the acceptance or rejection list. Hence it is impossible to move back to no-show.
• For the case of Sanga, he does not want to vote yes, he does not want to vote no, he does not even want to abstain, he simply does not want to go to the ballot. I can't see the problem. Many SL related users are on none of the lists e.g. User:Krankman is not on any of the three lists, but is editing SL related articles on a regular basis (This is NOT a call to add him to the list, nor is it a call to add User:Jsorens or User:Jorge_Stolfi, or any other User).

Jasty, I think you are misunderstanding the problem. Sarvagyna wants to remove his name because he "feels" like it and does not give a valid reason to remove his name. He was a party to many edit wars that took place in Sri Lankan related articles. Thought Sarvagyna might have only done, lets say, one revert in a situation of a revert war, then he is a party of the revert war itself. This is the crux of the matter. If you revert, even once, to a version that was a subject of the revert war, then you have indeed participated in the revert war (tag-team revert war as some imply). Sarvagyna further took part in many content disputes in Sri Lankan articles also. This is the whole reason that his name was initially put in the SLDR discussion on the AN/I - which was aimed to stop these types of edit wars in Sri Lanka related articles. Sarvagyna now comes here and says that he had no idea that there was this resolution. This, however, is not correct. In fact, the Final Resolution was posted by admin (Rlevse) at 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) while Sarvagyna's last comment on the issue came at 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC). This clearly means that the user posted after nearly 2 hours from the time Final Resolution was posted. So assuming that the user never looked at the page after his last visit, it still means that he was aware of the final resolution. He decided not to comment and this is why, the user as a involved party, is listed under the Signatory list (but as no-show /inactive section). Watchdogb (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the version of the ANI page when I last edited it. Clearly, it reads "Specific Proposal".. not "Final resolution". And if you can read my comment, I clearly take exception to having my name mentioned under "Users to be covered in this agreement". And that was the last I ever commented on the matter. I was not invited to comment and did not comment on any "Final resolution" or "Agreement", least of all an agreement of the SLR with which I have no truck.
• Neither the proposal nor the agreement says anything about including in its purview everybody who had commited a revert on a SL related article. In fact, no "agreement" can pass any such commandments. I am a member of WP:KAR and that doesnt mean I get together with a few other members of WP:KAR and lay down our own rules for WP:KAR articles. I cannot further pretend that I will include in the purview of my ad-hoc rules everybody who has ever edited a WP:KAR article. In other words, if you want to police yourself, nobody is going to stop you. But you dont have the right to police others. We already have wikipedia policies and guidelines laid down for that. If you folks want to get together and collaborate, collaborate.. just dont assume that you can lay down seperate rules for articles you work on. You simply dont have the authority to do that. If I am edit warring, feel free to report me on the 3rr board.. afa I can remember, except for the 3 reverts on this page yesterday, I've stuck to 2rr on every article I've worked on for as long as I can remember.
• And talking of edit warring, content warring etc., my question as to why Gnanapiti is on the list still remains unanswered.
• And if everybody who has a revert on a SL-related article is to be on the list, why arent Jayjg or Blnguyen or many others on the list?
• And to answer Taprobanus' "rhetorical" question, if any of you want to remove yourself from the list, just go ahead and do it. But what in heaven's name does it have to do with my name being on the list? And, then the minor matter that you put yourself on the list while I was put there by godknowswho. Sarvagnya 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I did not volunteer my name to the list. I was identified by a group of admins along with the rest of the names which included you and User:Gnanapiti (I think because of his/her edit warring in Sarathambal, State terrorism in Sri Lanka to name a few) and did not include User:Blnguyen (I dont know why and did not care at that time neither do I now) and was point blankedly asked to sign or reject. I happen to sign it and you at that time involved yourself in discussions but did not reject or accept the agreement. Currently the document reflects that reality and in my opinion we should leave it at that rather than to rehash the same old issues. WP:SLR has become a wiki model where such experiments have been tried in Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles today. It is a working model and has contributed to peace and quiet for a long time and has resulted in the creation of high quality articles related to Sri Lanka for Wikipedia. The document you want to amend is a past tense, history, the way it was. In the present tense and in foreseeable future all editors who edit, SLR edit protected articles will have to abide by that agreement whether they were initial signatories or not. What you are trying to amend is like amending the original US constitutions signatories. You can amend the constitution in content but not who signed it (in this case those who refused to sign it) . Again it is history, in my opinion you should move on because you are not going to convince anyone to tamper with that original agreement we had or we open the flood gates and believe me the wider Wikipedia community is not going to open itself for bunch people to give a black eye to Wikipedia again. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You clearly dont seem to understand the situation and I must ask you to stop taking this discussion backwards. Your analogy ('US constitution') is flawed and your assumptions factually incorrect. I can be put under "no show" if and only if I had been invited in the first place to comment upon the "agreement" on this page. Fact of the matter is, I was not. I was only invited to comment upon a "specific proposal" and that too on ANI where it is open for comment by anybody and an invitation is actually superflu Nobody has to be even invited to comment there. Also, can you point out precisely where I am asking you to change "history" or your "original document"? I am not asking you to do any of that, so stop your straw-man arguments which only serve to obfuscate the issue. I am only asking that I not be misrepresented. As it stands now, the list suggests that I was somehow a part of or atleast an invitee to the "final agreement", which I decidedly was not. If you think otherwise, show me a diff, where I've been invited to comment upon the agreement. As for your agreement, keep it.. who is to prevent you? Just be aware that you choosing to honour a proposal of the SLR does not mean that everyone else on wikipedia has to. As for Gnanapiti, so he's on the list because he has a grand total of 10 edits or so(the last of which was 2-3 months before Oct 2007) on SL related articles? Great! That explains it so very beautifully. I'm sure he'll be thrilled when he hears it. Sarvagnya 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• You asked for the diff. See here. Where you have been claerly invited and politely asked to accept the agreement and this where the history lives anyway. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• That diff (like I imagine, I've already pointed out more than once) does not point to any invitation to the "agreement". It was an invitation to a "specific proposal". Also.. it only stated that my input would be "appreciated".. not that it would be binding on me or that I was absolutely required to sign up for it or that I'd already been signed up for it. Sarvagnya 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One comment: Sarvagyna, no one from WP:SLR layed the rules of SLDR. Your argument of WP:KAR makes no sense as this does not relate to anything that is being discussed. It's funny that you claim that WP:SLR members decided to lay a rule down and police everyone because the SLDR was not proposed nor edited by a WP:SLR member. Watchdogb (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagyna, stop playing blind. You need to stick to the topic at hand an not bring in the terms of the SLDR into this argument. Anyways, your claim that Just be aware that you choosing to honour a proposal of the SLR does not mean that everyone else on wikipedia has to shows that you are not reading the comment made by admins above. It was a resolution passed (via consensus). As such, as explained by FayssaIF, everyone who was originally a part of the edit war cycle and others have to honour the rules of SLDR. Go back and see the An/I discussion again where a couple of admins repeated it more than once. Watchdogb (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So Sarvagnya's only problem is that Jayjg and Blnguyen is not on the list. - Neat!. I ask you why I am on the list and you tell me its because I have reverted on SL-related articles in the past. Then I ask you why then are many others who also have reverts on such articles missing from the list and you retort with ".. only problem is that jayjg and blnguyen are not on the list"!! And then you wonder if it has anything to do with them not being invited. So, would you mind answering these - was Gnanapiti invited? Was I invited?

I think I've explained enough. Fayssal has said more than once that anybody can choose to remove themselves from the list and Jasy also sees my point. I dont intend to keep running around in circles here and I will be removing myself from the list. The list as it is worded now only has to do with the "Agreement". If you want to mention my name, you may have to come up with a list which reads - "List of users who were invited to comment on an initial draft of the above agreement". Until such a time, my name should not be on this page. Sarvagnya 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The SLR way to resolve problems

FayssalF called this section “Rights and obligations”, and wrote “any editor who did not recognize the ANI ruling has the right to remove h/self from the list.” While I respect his opinion, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or general ethic principle that would back up such a right. I presume he extrapolated WP:OWN, but that policy only applies to articles, not to Wikiprojects.

To the contrary, such a right conflicts with my understanding of the purpose of this project. This project is not just a hobby project. It has been created, guided by {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing, to empower those who want reconciliation and collaboration across ethnic boundaries. The basis of empowerment is ownership. Therefore this project needs to be owned by its members.

It is therefore clear that it has to be up to the project’s members to decide such questions as:

• Do we want to maintain the SLRDA list?
• Do we want to allow non-members to edit the project page?
• Do warnings need to be accompanied by discussion on WT:SLR?

I am certain we can go about these question as we always do regarding project internal issues: Discuss it among ourselves, after one of our members brings it up. Then we decide in consensus, as we always do. I propose we do that on WT:SLR/H, the page we reserved for our internal discussions. — Sebastian 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Do we want to maintain the SLRDA list?
  • Yes
  • Do we want to allow non-members to edit the project page?
  • No
  • Do warnings need to be accompanied by discussion on WT:SLR?
  • Yes Taprobanus (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

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 Taprobanus (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

navy

We have to discuss all options as listed here not just one. Thanks Taprobanus (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 ? Taprobanus (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 Taprobanus (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 LankaTaprobanus (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 :))Taprobanus (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 Taprobanus (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 warTaprobanus (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. Taprobanus (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:ORTaprobanus (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 Taprobanus seems to see a clear distinction there. He has in the past often convinced me by just writing or improving articles. Taprobanus, 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

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

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 [3] 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.Taprobanus (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but fact remains,

1. [4] 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, [5] " 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 ([6][7]), 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)

Incidents

This chapter contains temporary issues as opposed to long term issues such as content disputes, which are in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the "resolved" tag means that an incident has been taken care of, not necessarily that we reached unanimous agreement. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sock puppetry

Resolved

 – While not technically "resolved", the incident has passed. Moreover, User:Iwazaki has not edited (contributions history) since 25 May 2008; he was notified of this discussion on 27 May.

Please see here and here. This looks to me like a violation of WP:NPA and according to the SLR agreement-section 6 there is Zero Tolerance for such violations and we have already issued a warning to the above user. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this to ANI next time?Teasereds (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No Teasereds, we should wait for the admins here to comment, thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I write anything, could someone please clarify what "elalan" means in the context of this diff? (I've notified Iwazaki of this thread.) Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"elalan" was a user who was active in Sri Lankan related articles before he was blocked for violation WP:SOCK. Watchdogb (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are as follows: An accusation of sock puppetry is not a direct personal attack per se. However, any such accusation–whether or not it is warranted–involves a lack of AGF, and should not be made without evidence. In general, accusations of sock puppetry should be accompanied by some formal or informal action (e.g. WP:SSP, WP:AN/I, WP:RFCU) or should not be made at all. Once an accusation is made, as is the case here, it should be substantiated or retracted.

I note that Iwazaki has already been warned for making "direct, unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of a user in good standing". While I do not consider an accusation of sock puppetry to be a direct personal attack, it is an "attack on the integrity of a user". At the moment, I think we should wait a while for Iwazaki to provide a response, either explaining his comments or retracting them. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How long do we wait or do we give him another warning and archive it ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New sections

Since most people (including myself, ahem) simply add new sections at the bottom of this page, regardless of which chapter they fit in, I'm adding this new chapter so it doesn't look like they are all content issues. Of course this raises the question if the distinction is really so helpful, but I think it is because it helps us focus on content. — Sebastian 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

proposal to add section for classification of historical sources

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. Taprobanus (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

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)

Tamil Eelam

Due to the controversial nature of the concept of Tamil Eelam, I believe that it falls under the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. The current article is a result of the recent editing carried out by a single editor and as such, due to the controversial nature of both Tamil Eelam and this article I believe it should be reevaluated by an member of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation specially the references, wording and POVs given here. Thankyou Nitraven (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial nature of an article does not mean that the article is biased. The current article is well cited and almost all aspect of the article is made with care as not to violate WP:NPOV. On a side note, saying that an article is biased because one editor has edited the article is totally unacceptable per WP:NPA. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Watchdogb (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember the tags are only added to help improve the article. So if you feel something is pov or controversial about this article, then say what the concern is so that it can be taken care of. 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor wishes to bring to the notice of the editing that has been carried out in the article Tamil Eelam by a certain editor and has grave questions about the WP:NPOV of the article, all attempts by this editor to highlight or change the WP:NPOV status of the article has been blocked by this editor in question and no consensus could be archive there. If intervention by this group is not made on this article then I'm believe that this would end up becoming a propaganda blog like so many out there.Nitraven (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take that as a violation on WP:NPA commenting on the author and their intention rather than a comment on the article. I shall report this to relevant admins. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this article was overlooked and was not included in the original SLDR covered article. Since the subject of this article is clearly one of the aspirations for the civil war this article should have been included in the original SLDR. Does anyone object this ? Watchdogb (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should be part of the SLR project and have its tags placed on it. Nitraven, provide some solid diffs to support your claims or you will be in violation of NPA. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Development

See also: Politics of Sri Lanka, Human Rights in Sri Lanka, and Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka

At first, the concept of Tamil Eelam conceived by the Federal party was state within united Sri Lanka, but in time the concept developed into complete self-determination. The concept of Tamil Eelam always implied the notion of freedom and self-government for the Tamil people . The demand for a separate statehood of Tamil Eelam is believed to have grown as a result of job opportunities and university admissions being severely curtailed for Tamils because of discriminatory government quotas; and continuing decline of economic opportunities. As a result the people began to believe that a separate state would win back their opportunities and the concept of Tamil Eelam was welcomed enthusiastically throughout Tamil areas. In addition to the economical and social basis for separate state there is also a more fundamental basis for support for a separate statehood - safety. In 1977, after the parliamentary election campaign by the TULF which was on a platform of separate state, a riot engulfed the island in which about 300 Tamil civilians were killed. Likewise in 1983, another anti-Tamil riot engulfed the island as a result of an IED attack on group of Sri Lankan Soldiers by LTTE rebels. The riot, know as Black July, killed between 1,000 and 3,000. The call for Tamil Eelam increased as a result of these communal violance against the Tamil minority perpetrated by the Sinhalese majority. Furthermore, allegations of state terrorism and genocide by the Sri Lankan government have led to solidification of demand for separate state for minority Tamils. To add to the Tamil people's separatist sentiments, acts of mass violence, rape, extrajudicial executions, whole scale round ups, force detention, torture and other forms of inhuman treatement by members of Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan security forces within the North and East provinces have further created communal tensions among the Tamil people. The mistrust in the Sinhala dominated armed forces and the perceived discrimination faced by the Tamil population lead the Tamil people to believe that only Eelam could provide long term safety and came to believe that their very survival was possible only through formation of a separate Tamil state on the island.

I have extracted the above section as a whole, its current statues is the result of the editing by the said editor . Please note the bolded text, the naturally these climes are very serious, the editor as written them in as if these are means used as suppression where are independent incidents. Genocide by the Sri Lankan government what proof has been established for this claime ? Is this wikipedia ? Can a article claim that there is genocide in Sri Lanka by a single ref !!!!!! I don't contest much of the other contents of this section, since refs are given, however the tone of the section is what I question. I would recommend that this article [8] be compared with the one in question for perspective.

First off you need to read the sentence on the Genocide. It is pointless to get angry and accuse editors of propaganda without reading the whole sentence. The sentence on Genocide and state terrorism reads:

Furthermore, allegations of state terrorism and genocide by the Sri Lankan government have led to solidification of demand for separate state for minority Tamils

There is not one reference for this claim but three. These sources are WP:RS and I can use them to cite what they say. The emphasis was added in the quote because the sentence does not say that there is Genocide or State terrorism and it does not disprove it either - it merely claims that there is ongoing allegation on Genocide and State terrorism in Sri Lanka and the demand for Tamil Eelam has solidified as a result of this. Since the sentence does not agree or disagree with the allegations, it is up to the reader to decide and do further research (if necessary) to find out if these allegations are true or false. Watchdogb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The other claims of mass round-ups and extra judicial was not added by me and it was done as a copy edit by another user. Watchdogb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for the claim that the "tone" of this article is POV. A user cannot just say "I dispute the tone" without giving any justification for it (aside from some reason that is made in haste because some people cannot even stand the fact that a ethnic population is making claims of Genocide and State terrorism). Watchdogb (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Still there has not been one evidence given against allegations of propaganda and POV edit against me. Watchdogb (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I would request any editor/admin to look at the discussions [9], [10], & [11]

Nitraven (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen the thread is too confusing for people to follow, really can you please figure out a way to summarize the points of contention. Also I would ask Watchdog to give us a time frame by which he/she will complete the reconstruction. At that point Nitraven can intervene and discuss his/her objections. It becomes very difficult when two different people are actively trying to undo each others work at the same time. So let’s be patient allow one party to complete and then each differences of opinion can be summarized and dealt with section by section.Taprobanus (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem, or at least the alleged problem, is that Nitravan thinks that the "development" section of the Tamil Eelam article violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, he claims that this article is soon becoming a propaganda blog because a single editor has significantly contributed to the article's rewrite. This is in direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF as Nitravan is commenting on the particular edit based on the editor, rather than commenting on the edit not the editor. Since Nitravan has not given any tangible evidence, or at least anything that would help address his concern, I request that a warning be issued to the user in order to prevent such accusation on other editors. As far as the time line is concerned, I would say that the article is almost complete now. Watchdogb (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would expect an admin to deal with WP:NPA and WP:AGF but looks like the difference of opinuion is over tone, so what is the suggestion about rewording and what sentences ? Taprobanus (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been blatantly accused of WP:NPA by Watchdogb I will refrain from editing the said article until I am judge by an admin. However I believe that the allegations of genocide by the Sri Lankan military should be discussed here in this project prior to be added to the article, due to the serious nature of the allegation. As to the part "acts of mass violence, rape, extrajudicial executions, whole scale round ups, force detention, torture and other forms of inhuman treatement by members of Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan security forces within the North and East provinces have further created communal tensions among the Tamil people" it should be rewritten as to mean that incidents of this kind have occurred, which have been carried out by cretin members of the Military of Sri Lanka in separate incidents and not to mean that these are random acts carried out as a policy by the military. Furthermore the article explains in detail the origins of the concept of tamil eelam and goes on to link the ltte control areas as tamil eelam, when in fact as Arvind says the declaration of independence of eelam by EPRLF in 1990 isnt recognized by the ltte and nether has they decelerated it them selves. Also the tamil Militancy (the mentions of tamil militant groups that fought for eelam and now turn to politics was removed), the eelam wars are not mention, which in fact should be added to the development part, since these lead to the ltte gaining control of land (which is implied to be the current state of tamil eelam at the end of the article). Finally about the status of the area controlled by the ltte, Watchdogb is adamant in his stance that it is a de-facto state based on his refs and states that it has a government, but conveniently levels out the fact that if it is coincided a government it is a Dictatorship. However is this article about the land controlled by the ltte or is it on tamil eelam. So far no link as not been proven. So shouldnt this article by classified as a proposed state. Also there is the question as to if the ltte control area is to be considered a state, de-facto or not, due to its populace electing MPs to the Sri Lankan Parliament (mostly from the Tamil National Alliance) in the 2004 election, who to this day serve. Therefore I think we should get the help of editors who are experts on the subject to formulate this article. Nitraven (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I removed nonsense from the article like how many groups fought for Tamil Eelam simply because there is no citation. The article was tagged (requesting citation) many months ago and no one has stepped up to back up those claims. If there is no citation, then I will remove it from the article as I am developing the article. Moreover, this point was discussed on the talk page of the article to which I said that I will add these groups as soon as I find citations to it. I know in Sri Lanka when a sinhalese says something it becomes fact, however, this is Wikipedia and here only citations are considered. So if someone can find WP:RS that has information on the gourps, then anyone can add it to the article. Second, Eelam wars article are currently a joke - something I explained in the talk page of Tamil Eelam and if I am asked to add Eelam wars, then I will only do so after I find proper references for the wars. If someone, other than myself, wants to add Eelam wars to Tamil Eelam then it needs two things; proper reference for claim and summary of the war rather than a whole section. These are two things are basic rules of wikipedia as you need to cite all claims that are controversial and must summarize a topic if there is already an article that exist on this topic. Third, allegations of genocide and state terrorism is not a exceptional claim. I have given 3 mainstream sources that back my claim. Since I have already replied all other comments, I will leave it to Nitravan to go and check the talk page rather than to beat a dead horse. Watchdogb (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to bring to the notice of this group the resent editing on the article on Tamil Eelam by user Mnmazur. All additions have been made without any citations. Nitraven (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because the user did not add anything new to the article. The user had just edited some template. Nothing requires a user to add citation when replacing template. Watchdogb (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not the template that is in question but its content that requires citation.Nitraven (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such content addition and therefore no required citation. Watchdogb (talk) 16:30, 21 July 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)

1 RR violation

User:Nitraven has violated 1RR in a number of articles protected by SLDR. See Captain Miller( revert here and here), Colonel Soosai (see here and here) and Pottu Amman(see here and here) by re adding the Terrorist cats. He has already been warned for his violation ( see here). An appropriate action is needed to stop this behavior. Watchdogb (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about the 1 RR rule in my effort to undo what I believed to be vandalism, Therefore I will undo my reverts immediately. Nitraven (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has not reverted all of his edits. Pottu Amman article still has Sri Lankan Terrorist tags. Watchdogb (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Didnt see that its reverted.Nitraven (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I believe that this was a technical oversight only. It seems to me that Nitraven attempted to self-revert, but reverted the wrong edit (this one instead of this one). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that my comment was obsolete by three minutes. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation in "terrorist" and "terrorism" categories

I do however request that some one from the Project look into the articles Captain Miller, Colonel Soosai, Pottu Amman, Velupillai Prabhakaran & Kumaran Pathmanadan and consider the edits made by User:Teasereds, who had removed cats, that has RSs justify them. The cats in question are

• Category:Sri Lankan terrorists
• Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka
• Category:Fugitives wanted by India
• Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges
• Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges
• Category:Fugitives wanted on arms smuggling charges
• Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers

The editor User:Teasereds removed the cats from the relevant articles claiming that there are no RSs to justify them, when in fact there are.Nitraven (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that categorisation in "terrorist" and "terrorism" categories seems to be a recurring focus of disagreement, I'd like to suggest starting a discussion (in a separate section) to define specific inclusion criteria for such contentious categories. (It may be prudent to wait until the conclusion of the CFD discussion mentioned below.) Even if we are unable to reach agreement on many individual cases, perhaps we can at least establish some basic inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thoughts?

Also, with regard to Nitraven's comment above, I'd like to note the following:

• The category description at Category:Mass murderers indicates that individuals who are categorised as terrorists should not also be categorised as mass murderers, and vice versa.
• Category:Sri Lankan terrorists recently survived a deletion discussion (as part of a massive group nomination of all "terrorism"/"terrorist" categories. The category has been nominated for deletion again, this time individually, here.

–Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

International organizations such as Interpol is not a law enforcement authority to list persons as terrorists, due to their activities. Again Interpol is a inter-governmental organization, its declarations or statement can't be used on wikiproject as "Categories". It should be noted most of the freedom movement leaders branded as terrorists and later they were accepted legendary leaders of the world. A good example is Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela had to fight against the illegal European invaders who occupied his country for a long time and discriminated his own community and the natives as slaves branding him and his colleagues as "Terrorists". The same mistake can't be repeated in the real world once more as well as on wikipedia.Teasereds (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Members of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation should take these to consideration.

• Captain Miller, Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers was listed in the article was't due to the link to terrorism, but due to the simple fact that he was a "LTTE Black Tiger suicide bomber, driving a small truck laden with explosives into a Sri Lanka Army camp in Nelliady Madhya Maha Vidyalayam, Jaffna peninsula, on 5 July 1987, killing himself and 39 Sri Lankan soldiers" as said so in the article it self with the RS [[12] & [13]. Also I believe that this article should include Category:Sri Lankan terrorists since he is a suicide bomber, just as the London train bombers.

• Thenmuli Rajaratnam, Category:Sri Lankan assassinsRS, Category:Sri Lankan female murderersRS, Category:Sri Lankan mass murderersRS and Category:Sri Lankan terrorists since she is a suicide bomber, just as the London train bombers.

• Velupillai Prabhakaran, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka RS RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by India RS RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges RS RS should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.

• Pottu Amman‎, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by India RS RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges RS, should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.

• Colonel Soosai‎, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka RS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges RS, should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.

• Kumaran Pathmanadan‎, Category:Fugitives wanted by IndiaRS, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism chargesRS, Category:Fugitives wanted on arms smuggling chargesRS, should be listed due to the RSs provided for each cat.

Nitraven (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't think the fact that an individual was a suicide bomber automatically justifies categorising them as a terrorist. The context of the attack, the identity of the target, and the purpose of the attack often matter just as much or more than the type of attack. Consider this hypothetical example: during a battle of World War II, a Soviet soldier picks up a satchel of explosives and throws himself under a German tank where he detonates the explosives, killing himself; the soldier is a suicide bomber, yet he is not a terrorist due to the fact that he attacked a military target in a time of war. On the other end of a spectrum, a suicide bomber who targets civilians in a time of peace also may not be a terrorist if s/he had no political motives. Thus, I don't think that inclusion in Category:Suicide bombers automatically justifies inclusion in Category:Terrorists (or its subcategories).

Here's what I think about the six articles listed above:

• Captain Miller - Inclusion in Category:Suicide bombers is definitely warranted; however, the article should not simultaneously be in both Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers per the notice at Category:Mass murderers, and it should not be in Category:Sri Lankan terrorists solely for the reason that he was a suicide bomber (additional justification is needed, imo). What is the legal definition of "mass murder" in Sri Lanka? In the United States, for example, an event is classified as "mass murder" only when four or more people are killed at the same location at (approximately) the same time. Does Sri Lanka have a similar definition?
• Thenmuli Rajaratnam - As above, the article should not simultaneously be in both Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers per the notice at Category:Mass murderers. It also should not be in Category:Sri Lankan terrorists solely for the reason that she was a suicide bomber, although I think the case for inclusion is much stronger here than in the case of Captain Miller (who attacked a military target). Whether Category:Sri Lankan assassins belongs depends on whether Gandhi's killing was an "assassination"; given the content and sources at Rajiv Gandhi assassination, I think the category is justified.

Since civilans were killed in this Suicide bombing, couldnt the cats Category:Sri Lankan terrorists and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers be added on that. Targeting the former PM, who him self a civilian at the time, amidst civilian could be concidered a act of terrorism.Nitraven (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Velupillai Prabhakaran - The Interpol source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Category:Fugitives wanted by India, and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges. I'm unclear about Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges since "murder" is not among the charges listed by Interpol and this source does not clearly indicate whether Prabhakaran is actually wanted on murder charges or is just a suspect. (He is wanted for the Central Bank bomb case, but is that a terrorism charge or a murder charge? Or perhaps both?) Per Teasered's comment above, Category:Sri Lankan terrorists may require more detailed discussion.

• • [14] [15] [16] [17] these sources state that he was sentenced for intention to cause death and committing murder, destruction of state property by attacking the central bank, and provoking violence. Also I think Category:Fugitives wanted on organized crime based on Interpol and Category:Fugitives wanted for murder and Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers should be added in my point of view .Nitraven (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Pottu Amman - The Interpol source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Category:Fugitives wanted by India, and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges. As with Prabhakaran, I'm unclear about Category:Fugitives wanted on murder charges, and Category:Sri Lankan terrorists may require more discussion (for the same reasons as above).
• Colonel Soosai‎ - The Interpol source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges. Category:Sri Lankan terrorists may require more discussion.
• Kumaran Pathmanadan‎ - The source justifies Category:Fugitives wanted by India and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges, and possibly justifies Category:Fugitives wanted on arms smuggling charges. (I write "possibly" only because I'm not familiar with the Indian Explosive Act.)

The "Fugitives wanted by..." and "Fugitives wanted on..." categories seem to be the least problematic, as they are the ones that are the least value-laden and the most descriptive, and the validity of Category:Sri Lankan mass murderers depends, in my opinion, largely on the legal definition of "mass murder" in Sri Lanka.

Category:Sri Lankan terrorists is the most controversial due to the fact that the definition of what constitutes a terrorist act is unclear. Naturally, this problem is not unique to the Sri Lankan conflict. I believe that this is where we should focus our attention, in order to try to define certain inclusion criteria (and non-criteria), or to try to identify an alternate means of categorisation. Whichever path we try to take, we should of course seek to avoid original research and rely on sources.

However, before we continue (or while we continue), I'd like to ask whether there is any objection to using Interpol's notices to justify "Fugitives wanted by [country]" and "Fugitives wanted on [charges]" categories. Such categorisation would not classify individuals as terrorists, but would rather simply indicate the fact that an individual is currently wanted by one or more countries on one or more charges. Does anyone object? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wanted by [country][year]" and "Wanted on [charges][year]" can be considered. Still we want to consider whether their counter parts could be considered as "Criticized by [Organization] for [charges][year]".Teasereds (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand what Teasereds means here & I dont think there are cats as to "Wanted by [country][year]" but the ref could be added with the cat. Since there are no objections I will add the relevant cats.Nitraven (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Objection: If there are no cats as to "Wanted by [country][year]", then don't add the cats: Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Fugitives wanted by India, and Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges.

They are rebels not Fugitives. And terrorism charges are only alleged and POV .

If we really want those cats, we can consider to create new cats, something like;

Rebels wanted by India or Rebels wanted on alleged terrorism charges.Teasereds (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One can very well be fugitive and rebel at the same time, like one can be fugitive and regular soldier at the same time, or fugitive and policeman at the same time etc. I do not understand this objection.Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "fugitive" is a neutral term, meaning "someone who does not appear before the authority charging him with some crime". This seems to be the case for the gentlemen mentioned above, and RS for the fact that the charges exist and the gentlemen do not appear can be found. The term "rebel" seems to pose problems of POV (who defines who is a rebel/terrorist) and RS (what RS can be used to categorize one of the gentleman above as a person who is wanted by India for charges of rebellion).Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I think that the Indian law does not contain the charge of "Rebellion", so that the Category "Wanted by India for Rebellion" is inherently meaningless, whereas "Wanted by India for Murder" makes sense, because Indian law incriminates murder.Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally, there is no POV-problem with "Charged for terrorism". We do not state that someone is a terrorist, which would be POV, but we state that some notable body (e.g. India) suspects that someone might be a terrorist and wants to conduct a trial to find out whether this suspicion is indeed correct or rather not. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Objection: A fugitive is a person who is fleeing from custody. How this could be applicable to a person in the dense jungle of Sri Lanka directing a civil war or else where with the same agenda. So the right term is Rebel.Teasereds (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A fugitive is a person who is fleeing from the law. The geographical conditions of the place where the fugitive remains hidden have nothing to do with this definition. In order to qualify as a fugitive, we have to ask a) is the person persecuted by law and b) is he evading this persecution. Both questions are easy to answer and do not involve debate. Your objection is void. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't justify not naming them fugitive. Furthermore these so called Rebels "in the dense jungle of Sri Lanka directing a civil war or else where with the same agenda" are responsible for directing terrorist attacks ref according to the Jane's Information Group, hence they are terrorist. Nitraven (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the fact that these persons are responsible or not for terrorist attacks according to some source has no bearing on their being fugitives or not. Please stay on topic. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you search some more on the net, you will come to know the worst atrocities, rape, mass murders by the Sri Lankan Government Troops to Tamil Civilian which cause the LTTE to rebel.Teasereds (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some other persons than the rebels commit rape and mass murders has also no bearing on the issue at hand. Please stay on topic and respect the WP:Talk page guidelines. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no factual evidence has been provided to counter the arguments in favor of adding the cats in question to the articles, I will re-add them in 24 hrs time. If they are removed relevant action will be taken in accordance to the SLDR guidelines. Nitraven (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I still can understand what Teasereds is trying to say here! He has reverted the additions I have made to the said articles! and now asking to creating new cats ! We are having problems using the cats we have now (not to mention people trying delete them repeatedly). RSs have been provided for the relevant cats clearly and members of this project say that they are justified. If I am not mistaken Teasereds removed cats such as Category:Sri Lankan terrorists, Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka, Category:Fugitives wanted by India, Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges from articles pertaining to the LTTE asking for RSs, now he/she is removing them again claiming something else after RSs are provided for each and every one of them. I have concerns about the intentions of this editor as to whether they are Disruptive Editing. And isnt it POV to say "They are rebels not Fugitives. And terrorism charges are only alleged and POV "'. I personally believe that there is no need to change the cats as they are perfectly accurate to what the RSs state. Also do not delete any part of my comments here after. Nitraven (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organization in 32 countries, including Sri Lanka, hence a leader or a member can be regraded as terrorist in those countries that proscribed it as a terrorist organization, including Sri Lanka. Therefore the person can be added to the cat Category:Sri Lankan terrorists. Just as a leader or a member of a rebel group or organization be called a rebel or as a leader or a member of a militant group or organization be called a militant. Furthermore if RSs could be provided of convictions could this person be added to the cat Category:Sri Lankan criminals ?Nitraven (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the LTTE is proscribed in 32 countries on Terrorism charges, then under those countries government enforcement limits only LTTE is a "Terrorist Organization", even those countries Legal institutions can have different views of the LTTE including the citizens of those countries. So even within those countries their "Terrorism Status" is not absolute. Further LTTE is banned in India but Tamil Nadu is an active supporter for the LTTE's cause. LTTE is banned in Sri Lanka where Sri Lankan Tamils in North-East and the diaspora Sri Lankan Tamils are active supporters for the LTTE's cause. A member of an organization which has been proscribed in those countries can't be regarded as "Terrorist", then most of the members of the then Serbian government might be wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Further LTTE is proscribed only by 32 countries, that is not an absolute majority.Teasereds (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats why they don't fall to the cat International Terrorist or Terrorist but Sri Lankan Terrorist. Where as " Sri Lankan Tamils in North-East and the diaspora Sri Lankan Tamils are active supporters for the LTTE's cause" and "Tamil Nadu is an active supporter for the LTTE's cause" is inaccurate since not all are supports, only certain people are, and in the case of Tamil Nadu its not the state just some people it it. Nitraven (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any way, particular Governments' proscription can't brand the LTTE for a wider "Sri Lankan Terrorist" Cat or else if a certain group of people or an ethnic group still like or admire them as "Liberation Fighters".Teasereds (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is about putting a article of a person in a cat based on the acts they have carried out. Not putting in cats that certain people think or "like or admire", that's POV. At this point I can't say that I don't believe your intentions are very bias and that you are trying to whitewash the LTTE here. Nitraven (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you to leave out the category "SL terrorist" and "SL mass murderer" for the moment. No problem with the insertion of "Fugitive wanted by X" and "Fugitive wanted for Y". Membership in these categories can easily be established and should be uncontroversial under a standard definition of "fugitive" as the one I have given above. For "terrorist", I think WP:TERRORIST applies. As for "mass murderer", as long as the person has not claimed responsibility for assassinations or is convicted by a court for murder, I can imagine that adding this category could be perceived as libelous and against WP:BLP. Better err on the side of caution here. (Disclaimer: the people mentioned above may or may not have committed crimes. I do not endorse either view) Jasy jatere (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "fugitive" is a descriptive term about legal status within a particular jurisdiction, and does not necessarily carry any automatic negative connotations (see fugitive). Moreover, Category:Fugitives is an established category scheme, so Category:Fugitives wanted by Sri Lanka and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges are valid as long as Category:Fugitives is considered by consensus to be valid.

Regarding the two proposals made so far:

1. "Category:Criticized by [Organization] for [charges]" contradicts our categorisation standards. In general, categories should reflect concrete actions (such as a "conviction" or "issuance of a warrant") rather than things that may be nothing more than verbal statements (such as "criticism").
2. "Category:Rebels wanted by [Country]" would be unnecessarily confusing. A person who is "wanted by [Country]" is a fugitive by definition (again, there need be no negative connotations associated with this status); their status as a rebel is often only coincidental.

–Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have overlooked the article Thenmuli Rajaratnam for the Category:Sri Lankan terrorists RS due to the fact that she was a suicide bomber and she killed civilians including a former PM, then a civilian. Any comments Nitraven (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this writer claims ref Thenmuli Rajaratnam a case of female suicide terrorism.Nitraven (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

These reports I found are very interesting to read [18] [19] [20] . Nitraven (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting read or not, none really claims that she is a terrorist. There is a reason why sources stop short of calling someone a Terrorist and this is the reason that we are requested to find sources that say someone is a terrorist to categorize them as such. Watchdogb (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[The NYT] treats her as a suicide terrorist, that should be enough.

In a similar vein, my research showed that women were much more likely than men to be used for single-target assassination suicide attacks. Perhaps the most famous of these was the 1991 assassination of India’s prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, by Thenmuli Rajaratnam, a Tamil Tiger. Although women make up roughly 15 percent of the suicide bombers within the groups that employ females, they were responsible for an overwhelming 65 percent of assassinations; one in every five women who committed a suicide attack did so with the purpose of assassinating a specific individual, compared with one in every 25 for the male attackers.

Yes, many female suicide terrorists are motivated by revenge for close family members or friends killed by occupation forces. But so too are males. Indeed, there are so many known instances of personal revenge driving both sexes to strike, and so much missing data about the friendship and extended family circles of suicide attackers, that it is simply impossible to say one sex cares more about others.

The bold faced text must necessarily include Thenmuli Rajaratnam for reasons of Coherence_(linguistics)/Cohesion_(linguistics)#Lexical_cohesion, which we can assume for the NYT.Jasy jatere (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, [this seminar] of the University of Maryland uses her as a case study for the motivations of terrorists.Jasy jatere (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have only commented on RS. other criteria for the inclusion of her in the category may or may not apply Jasy jatere (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. One article is from Lindsey O’Rourke, a doctoral student in political science at the University of Chicago and the other one is a Case Study. Both are not authoritative RS to use a Cat of that nature.Teasereds (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the NYT fails WP:RS? Please, Teasereds, you can't be serious on that one. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT might be worthy of using as a RS for article content but when it comes for a highly controversial CAT of this nature, the author also matters a lot.Teasereds (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be your opinion, but it is not a policy that for certain topics RS could be not RS because of an an author. By the way, I fail to see why doctoral studies in political studies should be problematic? Just in comparison to, say, Ann Coulter?Jasy jatere (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't use for the sensitive Cats, the RS sources as you want. If there is no policy that for certain topics RS could be not RS because of an an author, then in this Cat case, consider Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Otherwise no one will believe in the coming years wikipedia itself a serious source for information.Teasereds (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we agree that the rules in their present state endorse the interpretation I gave above, but you would prefer that the rules do not apply in this case. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The available wikipedia rules are not sufficient to guide what and what could be used or not as RS sources. So when you say "OK, so we agree that the rules in their present state endorse the interpretation I gave above" is only applicable to you not to me because I believe they are insufficient. And you could take it, "the rules do not apply in this case" as well because they are insufficient.Teasereds (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No more my comments here, a couple of Admins interpretations will be fine. Regards.Teasereds (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesty, I disagree. Just because some case study at a seminar about terrorist uses a person as an example it does not satisfy the requirement of the category. As I have said below the category clearly asks that a RS call someone a terrorist explicitly. As for the NYT article, no where in the article does it explicitly say that that she was a terrorist. Instead, it takes much the same path as the seminar and uses her as a case study. So we would have to refer to the other 4 definitions that needs to be fulfilled to call her a terrorist. Criteria 2 is not fulfilled as she was not targeting civilians but instead she assassinated a person. Criteria 3 is also not satisfied because there actually was a state of war (Civil war) in Sri Lanka and before the assassination there was a war between the IPKF and LTTE. Criteria 4 is also not satisfied because this attack was not to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, but instead this was a assassination - motivation for which is still a subject of controversy. Anyways, the argument about "london bombing" and any other type of terrorist attack is not an argument at all. London bombing and other bombing and the perpetrators have clearly fulfilled the 4 criteria and references can be found that explicitly call them terrorist but this case is unique in that it was an assassination and as we know assassination are not necessarily terrorist attacks. Watchdogb (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchdogb, seems to have a over looked facts;

"There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following elements defining individuals on this list:"

1. Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.: That goes without saying.
2. Targeting civilians.: Rajiv Gandhi was a civilian, coz he was the former PM and the 14 others killed were civilians. If assassination was the aim then she could have used a gun, knife or any traditional means of assassination, which would kill only the target and not 14 others.
3. Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.: LTTE is no state.
4. Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.: The IPKF had left Sri Lanka at the time of the bombing, hence LTTE was fighting only Sri Lanka not India (Rajiv Gandhi was Indian and the bombing was in India). Therefore no state of war between India and the LTTE at the time of the bombing,Absence of a state of war (We dont see the Japan bombing the US now do we?) .
5. Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.: Rajiv Gandhi was stating of sending a new IPKF to sri lanka if elected,"India, stay out of Sri Lank" was the message. If assassination was the aim then she could have used a gun, knife or any traditional means of assassination, which would kill only the target and not 14 others. The suicide bombing which killed 15 persons was more frighting that a assassination of one person.Since an LTTE links has been proven then it excludes organized crime performed for personal gain.

Furthermore "Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required'" the given RSs proves these, hence Thenmuli Rajaratnam should be added to the cat Category:Sri Lankan terrorists. Nitraven (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost the reason for the assassination of Rajiv Gandi was a political assassination. You cannot say that someone is a civilian because they are not prime minister of a country, in fact Rajiv, at the time of assassination, was a front runner and a candidate to become a prime minister and therefore is not some random person. Another wrong assumption made by Nitraven is that assassination does not define certain weapons to be used. A person can be assassinated in many ways which also include Suicide bombing. The assassination of Rajiv Ghandi was not to send a message to anyone, but it was to assassinate Rajiv Ghandi, who wanted to send the IPKF to Sri Lanka if he was to be elected. As I said above there is no WP:RS that explicitly call the person under question a terrorist and, in addition, the attack by the person does not satisfy Criteria 2 and 3 are not satisfied. Consequently she cannot be categorized to be a terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Watchdogb

First let me comment only on the issue of Terrorist Category as it is the biggest issue at the moment. Sri Lankan rebels were categorized as “Sri Lankan Terrorists” in wikipedia for a period of time. I feel that this category is in direct violation of a couple of wikipedia rules. The first issue is that this category violates WP:NPOV; “terrorist” is a POV word that is normally used to describe someone enemy or opponent. We, in wikipedia, are not allowed to call someone a “Terrorist” without WP:RS that specifically claim that they are terrorists. If we do have WP:RS to claim that someone is a terrorist, then editors are allowed to add that to an article but only in the format “X says Y is a terrorist” or “X alleges that Y is a terrorist”. This is the only way we can say that some is a terrorist. Our case, however, is unique in that when we categorize someone a terrorist, we cannot follow “X says Y” as it’s a category. I think the best way to resolve this issue is to take a look at the recent mass CFD involving all ‘’Terrorist’’ category, which resulted on a keep. The closing admin rationalised that definition on Category:Terrorism, if used properly, will take care of most concerns with the Terrorist categories.

The definitions are as follows:

• Use of violence or the threat of violence.
• Targeting civilians.
• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.

In addition, it also specifically says “If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate.” So to categorize someone, the four definitions should be satisfied as well as the latter, and probably most important, part. Definition 3 serves as one of the most important part to not include some of the LTTE members. Sri Lanka is one of the countries that is plagued with Civil war – A state of war and crimes committed under state of war, while may be defined as terrorism, cannot make the perpetrator a Terrorist. Another thing that is missing in most of the so called “Sri Lankan Terrorist” article is reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist. Nitraven claims that Interpol is enough to categorize someone a terrorist but that is incorrect. All that Interpol states is that these individuals are wanted on Terrorism charges, but it does not categorize them as Terrorist explicitly. We cannot say that because someone is wanted on terrorism charges that they are terrorists because this is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In addition to violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that claim is also false. A wanted person is not automatically a criminal because they have not been convicted in a court of law. To this point we should enforce that all categorization of a person as “Sri Lankan Terrorist” must be backed by mainstream WP:RS that explicitly say that the person is a Terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Captain Miller - should not be included in the terrorist category as he fails the Terrorist definition. He did not target civilians and there is no WP:RS that says he is a terrorist.
• Colonel Soosai - should not be included in terrorist category as the interpol website only says that he is wanted to on Terrorism charges but it does not explicitly say that he is a terrorist. As I said earlier if he is brought to a court of law and trailed he may or may not be charged with the crime. As no such trial has taken place he cannot be categorized to be terrorist
• Velupillai Prabhakaran - Again given interpol source only says that he is wanted on those charges. It cannot be used to categorize the person as a terrorist because, as stated before, someone who is wanted is not necessarily the perpetrator of the crime- something that is decided in a court of law with the accused having a chance to defend themselves.
• Kumaran Pathmanadan - Same as above.
• Pottu Amman - Same as above.
• Thenmuli Rajaratnam - Again while she may or may not have indulged on terrorist activities, it is vital for editors not to violate WP:OR. If there is no reference that clearly calls her "terrorist", she cannot be categorized a terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument about the organizations is actually obsolete for two reasons: 1) It is in violation to Category:Terrorism definition of Terrorist - which is supposed to be used to categorize someone a terrorist. 2) Currently LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka (to my knowledge) and as such they are not a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka itself. Watchdogb (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Balraj

I have also listed Balraj as article protected by SLDR. In it the user User:Teasereds is in a revert war claiming that Brigadier is a rank of the LTTE and Brigadier Balraj is a not the nom de guerre or alias of Balasegaram Kandiah. Nitraven (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide RS to prove that the LTTE has a formal rank structure similar to that of a formal military, describing it with the relevant insignia. If no RS is given within 24 Hours the use of Brigadier as a rank is in this article will be removed.Nitraven (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nitravan, please, remember that all there needs to be done is to find reference that Balraj was a Brigadier in the ranks of the LTTE. Your request goes beyond the simple WP:V and asks that reference should include more that what is needed. Let me also add that we do not need WP:RS - all we need is a LTTE reference that says that Balraj was in the ranks of Brigadier. Still, you seem to have missed this reference! Watchdogb (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, you are missing the point here. You have added Brigadier as a rank and not Brigadier Balraj as a nom de guerre. There is a difference. You can call your self Brigadier Watchdogb as a nom de guerre but you cann't claim to hold the rank of Brigadier in wikipedia coz there is no official rank structure or the rank of Brigadier in wikipedia. So it is inaccurate to claim that he held the rank of Brigadier in the LTTE rank & file coz you haven't established fact that there is a LTTE rank & file or if the LTTE can legally use Brigadier as a rank since it is not a legitimate military. As a encyclopedic article only facts should be added. The refs you have given is alright to state that Brigadier Balraj is the nom de guerre of Balasegaram Kandiah, it will not do to state that his Occupation = Brigadier (LTTE rank and file). And if Im not mistaken the LTTE started calling him Brigadier Balraj after his death, hence how can a dead man's Occupation be Brigadier (LTTE rank and file), Occupation should be what he did before he died. Nitraven (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read that the organization only gicves ranks after they are dead. That is the ranks are secret before they die but the information is made public only after death. I hope this helps Taprobanus (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The purpose of having proper ranks is to identify individuals in a proper command structure. you haven't given any RSs to prove what you said or to prove the LTTE has a proper rank structure. For what you say these are not ranks but just titles given after death. But then again, Soosai‎ is nt dead but uses the title Colonel, that contradicts what you just said. Nitraven (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule in wikipedia that requests we need to provide more than WP:V from WP:RS to add a claim or rank. LTTE has clearly bestowed Balraj with Brigadier ranks within their organization. You have not provided a single WP:RS that says that only a state Army can use the rank Brigadier. The fact of the matter here is that LTTE does use military ranking and it has, as proved by sources, placed Balraj in it's Brigadier ranks. All that needs to be done is to show that LTTE has placed Balraj as a Brigadier within their ranks -- this has been done . Furthermore, it is noted that Balraj is a rank Brigadier under LTTE and not under any other military, thus making your argument of a legitimate military obsolete. On a side note: Word are not covered in legal system; anyone and everyone can use words unless, of course, there is a trademark and currently Brigadier is not under any trademark and thus anyone, including the LTTE, can use the word as their ranks. Watchdogb (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are beating around the bush here, the LTTE started calling Balraj, Brigadier Balraj after his death the refs you gave prove it, Im not questioning that or saying that he shouldn't be refereed to as Brigadier Balraj. But what I am saying is that simply stating that his occupation (before death) was the Brigadier rank in the LTTE is inaccurate. So before adding this, provided an RS to establish Brigadier is part of the official rank structure of the LTTE or if the LTTE in fact as an official rank structure with information as to how people are promoted. Any one can add anything to his or her name or any organization can give or add any thing to a persons name, but that doesn't prove that they have a official rank structure with fixed ranks coz no one else may recognize it, so it means nothing out side that organization. Adding Brigadier as his rank in the LTTE in this article will give the impression that the LTTE has a proper rank structure, which it doesn't, since no RS is given to prove it. An RS is needed because, even if the LTTE claims it self a legitimate military and has a rank structure to go with it, yet no country in the world excepts it, why should it be legitimate on wikipedia. Nitraven (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that whether the LTTE actually has a "Brigadier" rank is more relevant than whether it is a legitimate organisation. The Mafia, for instance, is not a legitimate organisation, but it has a recognised rank structure (see Category:Organized crime members by role). So, for example, one could reasonably list as a person's occupation: "caporegime for Cosa Nostra". As long as "Brigadier" is a valid rank/title within the LTTE (is it?), I think that it would be valid to describe Balraj as a "LTTE brigadier". As long as we don't link to the article Brigadier, we are technically not suggesting that "LTTE brigadier" is a legitimate military rank (that's mostly a matter of personal opinion, and so it is probably best to avoid the issue altogether). Would that be an acceptable compromise? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point, but there are no refs stating that the a recognized rank structure. I am asking for a RS to prove that it, the rank structure is recognized. Therefore until such time that is established we cant describe Balraj as a "LTTE brigadier". But we can call him Brigadier Balraj for the sack of nom de guerre. But I do agree if it is established by a RS that the LTTE has a recognised rank structure we could call him a "LTTE brigadier", without linking to the article Brigadier. But in such a case what do we list has his Occupation ? brigadier or not its not a Occupation is it ? Nitraven (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon, you are absolutely correct and this is exactly what I am trying to show. Now all there remains is to show that Brigadier is a valid rank/title within the LTTE and that can be see here which clearly says that another person also head the rank. Watchdogb (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That ref doesn't say that the LTTE has a a recognized rank structure, as Black Falcon said, the Mafia has a recognized rank structure (see Category:Organized crime members by role). And if I remember right (ref) his case is similar to that of Balraj coz the ltte started calling him a Brigadier after his death too. And how does this fit in to his Occupation coz they both were named Brigadier posthumously? That contradicts the ref Watchdogb provided, and questions its accuracy.Nitraven (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But at this point could I say that we are in agreement that "LTTE brigadier" is not a legitimate military rank and that it can not be linked to the article Brigadier.Nitraven (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Read what Black Falcon says again. All that remained was to show that LTTE had a rank and that was showed. Watchdogb (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A rank makes no meaning alone, besides ur RS is not accurate hence can not be considered a RS.Nitraven (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also an important point rank and title are two different things. A rank maybe used as a title, but not the other way around since rank as a hierarchy, a title may not. As such brigadier maybe given as a title in the LTTE but not as a rank (yet to be proven). However it is not a legitimate military rank as Black Falcon says. Nitraven (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even Salvation Army had a Brigadier rank. See these references.Teasereds (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point from Teasereds, yes the Salvation Army does have a recognized rank structure, which includes a Brigadier rank, which it uses in all the countries it operates in. This rank structure is published by both the Salvation Army and RSs. However this rank structure is not a legitimate military ranks and as such is not used out side the organization. The rank of a person is mentioned only in Salvation Army publications and other publications when it is made about the organization. When the person is refereed to individually or biographical articles the rank is no mentioned as a title but referred to (eg: Shaw Clifton (born September 21, 1945 in Belfast, Northern Ireland) is the General of The Salvation Army ). In respect to the article on Balraj we can base it on that of Shaw Clifton or any of the Generals of The Salvation Army which is a post in the Salvation Army. But then again he is a living person, hence can list Occupation as General of The Salvation Army, coz he is currently holding it, were as Balraj was referred to as a Brigadier only after his death. Nitraven (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Still it can go like Brigadier(posthumously)(LTTE rank and file)

or Brigadier(LTTE rank and file), posthumously

or Posthumously Brigadier(LTTE rank and file)Teasereds (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it is more accurate to state that his Occupation was either

1. senior commander of the LTTE or
2. Militant leader of LTTE,

in the article we can state when RS is given that

1. "he was given the title Brigadier by the LTTE posthumously" or
2. "he is referred to as Brigadier Balraj by the LTTE since his death" (the current refs are ok for this). Besides can any one in their right mind list Brigadier(LTTE rank and file), posthumously as a persons occupation ? come on an occupation is something a person did before he/she died, so what did Balraj do before he die. Nitraven (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon has commented in detail. I think the right way how he could be addressed is Brigadier(posthumously)(LTTE rank and file).Teasereds (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Er Black Falcon do you have any thing to say about this ? Nitraven (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems Teasereds has been making changes to the article without the consensus of the members of this discussion. Will some one please revert them. Teasereds just because you want something to be the way you want it to be it wont be.Nitraven (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the consensus of this discussion will ultimately determine how the article appears, I don't think we should be too concerned with its current content/appearance. I think Teasereds' edit was an interesting approach (using another infobox to replace "occupation" with "rank"), but it introduces a new dimension to the issue (see #1 below). Before I offer a specific comment, I would like to request clarification on two points:

1. Do we want to indicate Balraj's rank or his occupation? If we're indicating occupation, using "posthumous" doesn't really work.
2. Was Balraj a "LTTE brigadier" prior to his death or was he posthumously promoted? My impression is that Balraj was a LTTE brigadier prior to his death, but that the LTTE did not announce this until after he had died. Is that correct?

Also, since the purpose of an infobox is to provide a concise overview of non-controversial information about a subject, we could simply leave blank the "occupation" or "rank" field in the infobox. The article is currently just two sentences long, so a method of providing a "concise overview" is not really essential. (I'm not suggesting that we do this now, but it may be an option worth considering if we are unable to reach agreement.) Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Balraj was a brigadier before he died, but it was announced only after his death. This discussion actually has a bigger manifestation because if we leave the infobox out, then I am inclined to add that he was ranked a Brigadier within the LTTE. So the conversation is not about just adding text to the infobox but instead being able to say what rank he held within the LTTE. So, I agree with Black Falcon in that it is not really essential and would accept Black Falcon's comment but seeing that this discussion is about a bigger picture, I firmly believe that I have shown what is needed to be shown, with WP:RS, that Balraj was indeed the rank of Brigadier and that LTTE does have a rank system. Watchdogb (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Watchdogb, you have nether established that the LTTE have a rank system or neither have you given any RS to this matter (the ref you claim to be a RS is yet to be excepted by persons in this discussion and has seen to be inaccurate, therefore I dont see it as a RS). Furthermore reports indicate that the LTTE started calling him a Brigadier only after his death here they were calling him a Colonel before that (this does not mean that they had a recognized rank structure). No RS has been given stating that the LTTE has a recognized rank structure indicating what they (ranks) are or their (ranks) order of seniority. What there is, is that the LTTE is going around referring to dead carders with military ranks (eg Brigadier, Colonel, etc) this is by no means proof that the LTTE has a recognized rank structure and that they had ranks when they were alive. An attempt to show in Wiki that LTTE carders have ranks will be inaccurate and false. How can we in wiki state that the LTTE has a recognized rank structure a when they them selves haven't neither published it (list of ranks) nor acknowledged it. So until such time that a RS is provided to prove that the has a recognized rank structure and provides details on what it is (the ranks listed in it) I say we refrain from referring to a rank in articles on LTTE carders, but their nom de guerre or alias could be used.Nitraven (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nitraven brings in more WP:OR. There is no WP:RS that claims that Balraj was posthumously promoted to Brigadier. In fact, S.P TamilSelvan was promoted posthumously to Brigadier and there are sources that claim this, but Balraj was not promoted at all, instead he was already called Brigadier when LTTE announced his death. Anyways, there is not argument here about his ranking when he died, as I said before this is a part of a larger scale of discussion regardless of the infobox . I have provided WP:RS by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that clearly refers to LTTE rank and in doing so I have not only provided what is needed but I have also provided more information that I will use to create another section under LTTE called "ranks". Good work Nitraven. BTW are you intending that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not WP:RS ? If BBC is reliable, then the Canadian counterpart must also be WP:RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please create a section under LTTE called "ranks" (with ref ofcoz), I am very interested to see what rank system you claim that the LTTE has when they them selves are yet to publish one. As oppose the posthumously beening called Brigadier, ref ref. As pre your logic, If BBC is reliable, then the Sri Lankan counterpart (Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation) must also be WP:RS too. Nitraven (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason the Sri Lankan Broadcasting is not WP:RS is because they are government owned like Rupawakani which is a one side of the ethnic conflict. On the other hand, CBC is in Canada where LTTE is banned and thus any news would be more lenient against them. As I keep on repeating it does not matter if he was promoted posthumously or not because even if he was promoted posthumously I can add that to the article saying that he was bestowed the Brigadier rank within the LTTE force. Watchdogb (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you also contest this source as being non RS ? If not, then it is clear that LTTE actually has a rank within their organization and that Brigadier is the highest rank. Watchdogb (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchdogb, your earlier comments on BBC's Canadian counterpart goes to show who your logic and your concept of reasoning is. I only could say that it is nonacademic for if I tell the truth, you'l have me reported to some admin for violating some wiki law. Alas wiki is not free a forum as one expects. As per The Hindu do you consider it RS? That article is quit interesting thanks for sharing it. Yes it describes "rank of “Brigadier,” highest rank in the organisation", then we go back to the ranks of Salvation Army. As Black Falcon said this means it is a "LTTE brigadier" and is not a legitimate military rank and that it can not be linked to the article Brigadier, this is proven by the article it self when it starts out as "Five self-styled officers of the LTTE" this casts doubts on the LTTE rank and file to begin with. Due to this Im having some difficulty in excepting this article due to its contradictions, Black Falcon, Jasy jatere what do you make of it? Nitraven (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As per my WP:OR, your entitled to your opinion. Others can judge for them selves if its WP:OR and I think the same applies to your points given.Nitraven (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a look at these articles too this, here. Nitraven (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Military Officers have got the ranks of Majors, Brigadiers, Generals...etc. I wonder how they have earned those ranks, by fighting with "self-styled?" Colonels and Brigadiers or with any other "Conventional Military" in the region. If Balaraj is not entitled to use the rank as Brigadier then how those who fought with him and his Military Organization are eligible to use those ranks?

Sam Manekshaw also a Field Marshal which we could rightfully use on wikipedia as he met number of wars. But Idi Amin who self-conferred the Field Marshal rank also used for his page on wikipedia. We can't pin point things on wikipedia, then most of the information on wikipedia are illogical though they have the RS.Teasereds (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all the Sri Lankan Military is a formal Military of a sovereign state, therefor I don't think I need to explain that such a Military has a formal and recognized rank structure, in place in both war and peace, included in constitution of Sri Lanka is the system of promotion and appointment of the ranks. It also notes the powers and responsibilities of the holders of the ranks. Therefor the officers and men of the Sri Lankan Military as any other legitimate Military, doesn't need to fight any one to be promotion. I am sorry that Teasereds don't understand this fact. In the case of Idi Amin he gave himself the rank (hence its refereed to as "Amin titled himself as" in the wiki article about him) but the rank was that of the Uganda Army (a legitimate Military). Its not just him all Kings of Europe including British hold the highest rank in their Militarys, technically self appointed, (eg Harald V of Norway). Hope that answers your question. Nitraven (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such rules that the "Brigadier" can be used by a formal Military of a sovereign state. Again a country in Civil War can't claim an absolute sovereignty of its territories.Teasereds (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that whether the LTTE is a legitimate organisation is the most important issue in this case; it may be relevant in whether we link to the article brigadier, but even illegitimate organisations can have formal rank structures. At least two sources (CBC, The Hindu) confirm that "brigadier" is a formal rank within the LTTE; this does not necessarily mean that it is the equivalent of the "Brigadier" rank in formal militaries, but it is a formal rank nonetheless.

The remaining sources fail to paint an entirely clear picture. The South Asia Monitor claims that Balraj was "posthumously conferred by the rebel leadership the self-style rank of a Brigadier". This claim is supported by The Nation, which further suggests that "Brigadier Balraj" was Kandiah Balasegaran's alias. The Sunday Times, however, uses "Brigadier Balraj" without any additional qualifications, and Siber News (is this article a copy of an article in TamilNet?) states: "Brigadier Balraj was the first commander of the LTTE's conventional fighting formation, Charles Antony Brigade, established in 1991".

Rather than attempting to come up with the precise combination of 2-5 words (e.g. "LTTE brigadier", "LTTE brigadier (posthumously), "Brigadier (LTTE rank and file)") that most accurately reflects this complex situation, I suggest that we instead add a sentence or two to the article that discusses his formal rank (or lack thereof), in a manner that conforms to WP:NPOV (e.g. "According to [source], ..."). Hopefully that will make the situation clearer and we can (if desired) discuss the infobox then. Thoughts? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming articles

Resolved

I believe the following articles should be renamed as following;

• Colonel Soosai as either Soosai or Thillaiyampalam Sivanesan (real name)
• Colonel Karuna as either Karuna Amman or Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan (real name)
• Captain Miller as either Miller or Vallipuram Vasanthan (real name)

It is inaccurate to use military ranks with their names since none of them have been granted these ranks from a formal military. Nitraven (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We should follw WP:NAME in maning articles, does to fulfill it it ? Taprobanus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". Whether a person is actually of the rank the public uses in her name is not relevant. Note that WP:NAME does not say "use the real name", but this applies only to the title. Within the body of the article Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names applies,

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version.

I think this is very clear and unequivocal. No need to move Jasy jatere (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

k Nitraven (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1 RR violation

Resolved

The user User:Watchdogb has has iolated 1RR in the of article Balraj protected by SLDR. here. Nitraven (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The two most recent reverts were made on 20:13, August 11, 2008 (UTC) and 14:48, August 13, 2008 (UTC), which is more than 24 hours apart. Also, since the intervening four edits by Thamil Priyan and myself (see diff) did not affect the disputed text, the "we will look at reverts, not at who did them" provision of 1RR (for clarification, see definition "S2" at #Clarification of what 1RR means to us) does not seem to apply. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

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

Category:Mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils

I have created the category Mass murder of Sri Lankan tamils per this definition. There seem to be some point of conflict or misundersatning about the term mass murder. I am opening it up here to discuss this in one location. Taprobanus (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All I really want to say is that if there is a clear definition by a reliable source, then we can use that definition to categorize articles provided the article fits, of course with RS, the definition. There is also another, much simpler, way of categorizing an article - giving RS that itself categorizes the article. Watchdogb (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on the talk page of the user this seems to focus on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Example 1

• original removal
• addition based on this
• reverted again

But no explanation given about the Talk page discussion Taprobanus (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Example 2

• original removal
• addition based on this
• reverted again

But no explanation given about the Talk page discussion Taprobanus (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This and the above case are synthesis/OR. No source is given at all, Taprobanus quotes a book, which he says tells us that riot = mass murder, but the book page doesn't mention rioting at all. I think this is a clear case of making things up and simply writing whatever one wants. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote Taprobanus quotes a book, which he says tells us that riot = mass murder. Please indicate where I wrote that. If not I expect you to take it back. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to play games with you. You say on the talk page that mass murder includes riots. You're saying that riots are murder. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have quoted the book that very clearly said mass murder includes genocide, massacre, pogoram. It did not say anything about riots. You said that I wrote it. Please be careful when throwing accusations around. Again, please show where I wrote riot=mass murder ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk)

Right on the talk page, you said that the book is a grounds for classifying riots as mass murder. I am not stupid. I do not worry too much if a bystander reads this and believes your fallacy. I do not choose what I do on Wikipedia based on popularity ratings. I don't think you do either. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if it is a Pogoram not just any riots. In that case I have to find sources that say they are pogorams. For 1958 riots, I have a cite, for 1977 I will produce a cite. Thanks again for keeping the discussion to the point. Taprobanus (talk)

From my understanding, you have to get it directly, otherwise one can get a legal definition and do theoretical judgments on people, which is still synthesis. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a difference of opinion as to how to interpret WP:SYNTH here. Understandable, may be we should get a bunch of others to comment on that, because Mass murder includes Genocide, Massacre, Democide, Politicide, Pogoram as well as individual mass murder by criminals. It has two distinct meanings, one is criminal justice level and the other is at international political level.Taprobanus (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Other articles

Other articles where such edits are happening are

1. Navaly church bombing revert war going on (see discussion Talk:Navaly_church_bombing#Categories)
2. St. Philip Neri Church shelling (no discussion)
3. Nagerkovil school bombing (no discussion)
4. 1974 Tamil conference incident
5. Vaharai bombing (see discussion Talk:Vaharai_Bombing#Removal_of_Mass_murder_category)

Murder means deliberate intent. Unless a source indicating deliberate intent to kill is shown, or a proper reference is given, then it can't go in there. You are adding things without a source. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder means deliberate intent. Unless a source indicating deliberate intent to kill is shown, or a proper reference is given, then it can't go in there Good point, based on your observation, follwing is my analysis

1. Agree it is WP:SYNTH
2. Agree it is WP:SYNTH
3. Thus far no RS sources
4. [21]
5. [22],[23]

That means for item 4 and 5, we should add the category back on Taprobanus (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From my reading, the conference incident says that the police charged into the crowd, and in the ensuing chaos people were killed. That is not sufficient to conclude murder, otherwise any police action that precedes a stampede will count as mass murder. Synthesis again. The fifth one again doesn't say murder either. It says the LTTE took some children to their bases and then it got bombed and it says that LTTE propaganda convicted the army, not that the army knew they were not conscripts and decided to attack them anyway. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On the 4th one In the confusion, in which tear gas and live ammunition were fired, overhead electric wires were dislodged and seven civilians died of electrocution. Live ammunition was fired into the crowd. That is intent to kill.Taprobanus (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It did not say that they fired at the crowd. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Yellow monkey, you lost on on the 5th one, the cit says Father Harry Miller, an American Jesuit Priest who has been based in the region since 1948, says that the military fired artillery at the civilians to force them out of the region. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To scare them, or to kill them? You can't force people out of the area if they are dead. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We in wikipedia really cannot get into the mind of the people on the ground. All what I citing (not OR) is that Vaharai shelling or bombing was a deliberate act. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes the eyewitness a reliable source? Why didn't the journalist simply state that it was deliberate. Obviously in any physical confrontation, the people present will say what different things depending on their opinion. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the eye witness is neither Tamil nor Sinhalese, the chairman of the local Citizens council and an American jesuit and a vocal opponent of the LTTE.Taprobanus (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not sufficient, especially the police one, because for instance, in some real legal cases, a hotel bouncer has tried to intervene in an incident and sometimes the situation gets out of control, eg David Hookes. In that case, the bouncer was charged with manslaughter (but was acquitted) because there wasn't a belief that he took physical action to kill the person. There are other cases where security guards attacked robbers and sometimes the robbers ended up dying from a punch. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In that casee simply have to find additional citationsTaprobanus (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Navaly church bombing

I have reinstated the cats. A discussion here could be beneficial.Teasereds (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is YellowMonkey in violation of the Wikipedia :WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation one-revert rule?Teasereds (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Teasereds has been banned for running a sockfarm. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you are behind the ban, but some of the accounts, which have been blocked are really not mine. I am forwarding a detail statement (via e-mail) to Jimbo Wales, other ArbCom Members, Bureaucrats and Check Users to verify whether you are a neutral editor or even worth enough to be an Administrator or an ArbCom Member on wikipedia.124.43.219.139 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ( I am leaving my IP address visible to show only how fools you and your team are, in dealing sensitive issues which are more privacy concerned on Sri Lanka Conflict).

::: Technically the experienced editor is in violation of IRR. Notwithstanding the disregard for SLR conventions, we have to deal with citations and facts. If there is clear citation that says it was a massacre then the category applies. About the war crimes, it is a legal term. So we can argue both ways. About mass murder which is a neutral term as you can find as this describes all kinds of activities. I have cited why that category should be retained. Let’s see whether he wants to discuss it or not. Step at a time, you know Navaly Church Bombing happened may years ago. We are not going to resolve anything by editiong in an emotional tone or by trying provoke people by misleading edit summaries. At the end the facts will speak for themselves. Taprobanus (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who is blocked and who is not, this article's categories are cited. Following source is reliable and covers the category, specially war crime. Watchdogb (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary on LTTE article

Also would like to understand this edit summary considering the edit had nothing to do with the edit summary ?Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended to all article

Since there has been a heated debate over the categorization of articles, we need to resolve this issue for all articles that are related to WP:SLR. From above discussion it seems that the following can be drawn from discussion

• A Reliable source must be provided in order to categorize an article.
• Any POV source, including the two parties to the conflict, cannot be used to categorize an article.

Is there consensus on these issues ? If not please address your concerns. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on this consensus. Sri Lankan articles are of special case and has been the battleground many times before. By this criteria for categorization we can avoide WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and possibly any further edit war relating to this issue. Watchdogb (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your edits violate WP:POINT. I only removed some categories where there is ambiguity between deliberate targeting and collateral damage or riots getting out of control. Planting a bomb in someone's house is not an accident. I have not removed the category for people who were lined up and shot in the back of the head, or hacked with machetes, because there is no doubt that whoever did them deliberately killed the people. In your case you are blanking out bombs planted in trains and planes, which cannot be compared to riots and disputed collateral damage. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is your argument, do you think the Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka and Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka don't belong to Navaly church bombing. You are blanking all the time. Don't try to be a "Proxy Warrior" as usual. Go and troll some less sensitive conflicts elsewhere in the world.124.43.194.119 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please maintain civility all the time. Let's try to understand what Yellow monkey is saying. These categories need wide consensus to survive a 100 years. Not just now Taprobanus (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Taprobanus, I agree with you. But a person, who is narrowly escaped in the Navaly church bombing and then visited the area after the bombing and then by my own hands removed the human debris especially the long hairs of women with fractured skulls, doesn't seem, I am violating any such "Civility" if there is something which is always valued by all the humans.124.43.194.119 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)