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 1,2 - /issues 1 - /incidents 1 2009: /general 2009 - /issues 2009 - /incidents 2009

Request for Comment

I have created the category Mass murder of Sri Lankan tamils per this definition. The definition defines mass murder as describing a genocide and types of genocide such as ethnocide, politicide.., and then massacres & pogroms. If so does this definition sufficient enough to describe the Black July, Gal Oya riots,1958 riots in Sri Lanka, 1977 riots in Sri Lanka in Sri lanka ? Taprobanus (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

to quote in full :

Massacres and pogroms are acts of mass murder committed by different types of perpetrators such as state agents, security forces, political extremists and interest groups against vulnerable groups, which have been excluded by mainstream society. Pogroms are usually committed by a mob of incited thugs while massacres can be premeditated and may include state agents or are ordered by political or state leaders

So, for each of the listed articles, we have to answer the questions:

• was there mass murder?
• were the victims vulnerable and marginal groups
• were the perpetrators a mob? --> pogrom
• were the perpetrators state agents --> massacre

Note that the page you give can be used to establish pogrom or massacre, but mot mass murder per se, which is part of the definition. The page you give does not give a definition of mass murder. There should be one somewhere else in the book (which I think is definitely RS, by the way)Jasy jatere (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to get the book from a local library. Taprobanus (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the question here whether these incidents are "mass murders", or whether they are "genocide", "massacres" etc? If it is just about "mass murder", is there any doubt that mass murder took place during Black July, for example? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No questions about Black July, but what about 77, 58 and Gal Oya ? Taprobanus (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are, so if you have RS calling them "mass murder", I have no objection to such a category been added to the articles. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But the book in question says Massacres and pogroms are acts of mass murder committed by different types of perpetrators such as state agents, security forces, political extremists and interest groups against vulnerable groups, which have been excluded by mainstream society. Pogroms are usually committed by a mob of incited thugs while massacres can be premeditated and may include state agents or are ordered by political or state leaders 58 one is called a pogrom and Gal Oya is called a mass massacre. Taprobanus (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you get the book from the library, Taprobanus? — Sebastian 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus to call Gal Oya massacre and 58 a pogrom then? Jasy jatere (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the question about Category:Mass Murder? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way I understood it, too. — Sebastian 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

more sources

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources

Tag-war proof 1RR

After I became aware of confusion about 1RR two weeks ago here, I took another look at WP:1RR, and I realized that all we needed in order to prevent tag warring, was a minor change of that rule: Leave out the focus on "your" change. That also squares well with WP:OWN. I propose therefore to add the following to our WP:SLR#Guidelines:

"If someone reverts a change, don't re-revert it. Instead, discuss it on the article talk page or on WT:SLR. On articles under SLDRA, there will be zero tolerance of re-reverts; these will be again reverted to the last version without undiscussed controversial changes, and editors will get warned and in repeat cases blocked."

How does this sound? Maybe I should replace "will" with "can", because few people actually warned revert warriors recently. Maybe we should change the wording of SLDRA to make this clear to everyone? — Sebastian 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LTTE article intro

OK gents what would be a better write up in the lead ?. Issues to keep in mind here is WP:PEACOCK, WP:LEAD and neutral language when even describing a violent organization. Taprobanus (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

for the record, the blue box states "do not insert unreferenced text". What I removed the second time was only unreferenced text. You cannot insert unref text (with a minor edit, I might add) and then call for 1RR when it is removed. First, you should not add any content at all with a minor edit. Second, you should not add unref content at all. But I think that Taprobanus is right that we should move forward. So, my edit explained:

• "violent" is redundant, no need for that word
• "wage a campaign", I thought it was a weird formulation, so I changed it, but google shows that it is used, so it can stay AFAIAC
• "against Sri Lanka" One cannot secede 'against' sth, only 'from' sth. Furhtermore, the country is mentioned again later in the same sentence, which is poor style.
• "longest running conflict in Asia" this is not so important and characterizing for the organization. No need for it to be in the WP:LEAD as far as I can see, but I do not have very strong feelings about that.
• "Due to the tactics ... " This is an interpretation of why the LTTE are proscribed. This needs sourcing, otherwise it is POV. There is no source, hence removal. Even if sources are provided, I think this is background info and does not belong in the lead.Jasy jatere (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Agree about "violent"
  • "against Sri Lanka" is poor English
  • "longest running.." no opinion
  • "Due to the tactics..." procribing organizations is a political decision, not based on tactics alone. Mormon church is considred a cult in Germany (officially) where is in the US it is a major religion. So simply state that they have been proscribed by so and so. Why is something readers have to figure out. Taprobanus (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we discuss all the changes, instead of a select few, and then decide what to do.

• When talking about a independence movement, discribing the LTTE as violent is not is not redundant.
• Its important to say who they are fighting against. How is "against Sri Lanka" poor English? The later mention can be changed to "north and east of the country".
• One of the most used descriptions of the conflict is that it is "Asia's longest running civil war".
• Why are they banned as a terrorist organization? It's important to explain that, rather than saying simply that they are banned. If readers have to "figure it out", then why do we have a Wikipedia entry at all?
• One of the trademarks of the LTTE are the attacks it has launched.
• It is important to talk about the future of the organization "i.e. that there are prediction that they are about to be defeated", however much people may try to ignore the fact.
• The last part of the final paragraph was a direct quote from the statement issued by the US, EU etc. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• violent: I agree, there's obviously value in contrasting this with nonviolent struggles. I'd keep this.
• against SL: Obviously, this is not just about language quality. But "Sri Lanka" can also refer to the Island. Maybe this could be worded along the lines of Confederate States of America: "secession from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka"?
• longest running: "One of" is weasel language. This statement contains no additional information over the more exact "since the 1970s", which is given already in the text and in the sidebar. Given that the lead is already quite long, I'd leave it out.
• why banned: Readers don't have to "figure it out". Just a look at the table of contents provides many reasons already, and there is a section for "Proscription as a terrorist group" that describes the reasons of individual countries. No need to add original analysis to the lead.

I'm not sure what is contentious about the remaining three bullets. — Sebastian 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• When you say "Sri Lanka", I think it's commonly understood that you mean Sri Lanka. Just like, if you Australia, you mean the country, not the land mass, continent, movie etc. We could say "government of Sri Lanka", but they aren't just fighting the government, they're fighting the people as well.

• I understand the point about the peacock aspect of the workding, but most news organizations constanly use that phrase. eg: "President Rajapaksa said Wednesday that it would be just days before the Tamil Tigers were defeated, promising an end to one of the world’s longest-running civil wars" [1]. That said, I wouldn't mind removing it, although I think it helps improve understanding of the scale of the conflict.

• Understood. But I would prefer some sort of explaination, maybe "due to the tactics it has used, the Tamil Tigers are..."?

• The last 3 points relate to parts of text that were removed from the intro. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I would like to comment the fact that LTTE is fighting to regain independence lost when the British Colonials unfied the Sinhala Kingdoms and Tamil kingdom together in 1833. LTTE is not and never was a 1 man show. The founding of the LTTE was asked for by the TULF , Chelvanyagam. 1972. It was Chelvanyagam that democratically 1977 (Vaddukoddai resolution) asked for a seperate state and was not the idea of the LTTE but given to the LTTE.Pretheepan (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether this is true or not, we need reliable sources to include this information in the article. We can't just take your word for it, since articles need to be verifiable and neutral. If you can provide such sources, then please discuss about the addition of this info on the article talk page or here. Chamal ^talk 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I suggest these goals for consensus; an intro that: 1) is immune to current events edits, 2) describes the LTTE as an attempt to secede from Sri Lanka by civil war, 3) explains leadership, goals, and history in summary. The idea is to give readers just enough about LTTE so that they'll want to read the article. I'm the guilty party; I tagged the intro as too long.

I support:

• Yes, neutral language is important! I hope we can remove some of the passionate rhetoric.
  • hot-button terms like violent and terrorist organization (see below).
  • in the intro, a cold-hard-facts approach.
• using Confederate States of America (CSA) as an example of a good intro for this type of article.
• Strike "longest running...", etc. These points can be make in the article.
• Strike "wage a campaign". The LTTE campaign began the Sri Lankan Civil War — simple and concise. Like "the CSA firing on Fort Sumter began the American Civil War".
• avoid future events discussion in the intro.

The intro has detailed and redundant information. Child soldiers, terrorist organization, territory under LTTE control are mentioned too often. Can we pare down the intro to a description of the LTTE, its leadership, goals and —in the general sense! — its tactics? Yes! The Confederate States of America is a good example as it also describes a secessionist movement and civil war. Here's what I'd like to remove.

• current events — should not be in the intro, reason: every new atrocity, peace gesture, territorial gain/loss, and statement by a government/international organization, etc., reopens the intro for revision. Current events also attract a collection of wikilinks and news citations that don't belong in an intro.
• terrorist organization — two words that draw the most vandalism in the entire article are these in the intro. Can we make the point but avoid this hot-button term? LTTE can be called a secessionist movement that uses terror as a tactic (although, this assertion might be too strong for the intro).
• violent — I would strike violent. Here's why. It's a hot-button for LTTE supporters. Moreover, a civil war is violence by definition and often targeted at civilians. The rest of the article makes this point. When the intro says the LTTE campaign began the civil war, violence is implied.
• militant — like violent, it's not neutral language. It implies extremism and confrontational methods. The article makes a case for these assertions, but shouldn't the intro let the reader decide?
• land area in km² — too detailed and subject to current events. What's important for LTTE is the territory they're fighting to win, i.e., their goal is to control the Tamil-majority parts of Sri Lanka.
• peace talks — someone always wants to end a civil war peaceably. The on-again off-again details belong in the article.

Copy editing would help to shorten the intro.

• strike the second paragraph: these details are more fully discussed and better referenced in the article.
• wordiness: for example, "from the Sri Lankan state" to "from Sri Lanka", "has developed into" to "began", "in order to create" to "to form", strike expressions like "over the course of the conflict" and "due to the tactics employed by the". It's sufficient to say LTTE has employed assassination and has targeted the civilian population if this allegation is essential for the intro. The article expands on this almost too much.
  • "secede from Sri Lanka" is clear since a civil war implies separation from the civil authority of a country.
• strike or revise the fourth paragraph: currents events, slightly speculative.
• in the intro, we should use either LTTE or Tamil Tigers. I prefer LTTE (300+ uses) versus Tamil Tigers (24 uses) throughout the article.

If we can agree on some goals like those I mentioned, that would be a good start! --Mtd2006 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the LTTE are widely known as a terrorist organization, and the intro should reflect that. It is not the purpose of wp to please everybody. If there are sourced facts which some people do not like, the solution cannot be to remove them. One could claim that terrorism is only a minor aspect and does not belong into the lead. I think that this does not hold up to scrutiny, it is one of the main things the LTTE are known for (one might think that this is the fault of Western media, but this is not to be judged by us). Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

agree about the removal of violent and militant Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

agree to remove km2 per mtd

Sri Lankan state is there to make clear that we are not dealing with the Sri Lankan island. Every time I read that passage, I get the idea that the LTTE want to create a separate island... Agree on the rest of changes Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

delete 4th paragraph, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL.

having both LTTE and Tamil Tigers makes for a more varied reading experience, and avoids repetitiveness.Jasy jatere (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This is exactly what I need. I volunteer to write a new intro for review if there's agreement on what's needed. --Mtd2006 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you got the basic idea of the intro wrong there. We aren't trying to sell a book or a newspaper. The intro is supposed to give a summery of information included in the article. There've been countless times where I've only read the intro of an article to get an idea of the topic. The intro isn't supposed to tease a person with information and make them have to read the rest of the article to find out what they wanted to know.

So the question becomes, if someone Googles "LTTE" and comes upon the Wikipedia article, what are they looking to find about the organization? I think they would want to know who the LTTE are, how they operate, and what their current status is.

I don't think "being immune to current events" is a requirement of the intro. Such a guideline is not stated anywhere in WP:LEAD. In fact, is says "...should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist'' (present tense) The current status of the LTTE is one of the most important points of the article.

Sure if you describe a group which ceased to exist in 1865 it will be largely immune to change. But the LTTE is a . And the current phase of the conflict could well decide their ultimate fate. If the LTTE are defeated, 20 years from now a significant part of the intro will be devoted to covering what happened during the 2006-09 offensive. Back to the CSA article, paragraph 3 is solely about its ultimate fate. The intro of an article about a say Lehman Brothers describes who they are and then details what happened to them. The latter part changed significantly during mid-2008 as they went through the phases of bankruptcy.

About the rest of the intro, the LTTE is involved in a violent struggle, and they are a militant organization. They don't want to achive their goals through peaceful protests. Those aren't assertions, they are facts. That's like saying person X pointed a gun at person Y and fired. Y died due to gunshot injuries. So we should leave it up to the reader to decide whether X killed Y. That's not the case.

There hasn't been continuous fighting throughout the last 25 years, and that's pointed out in many articles arbout the conflict. And no, not every conflict has seen unsuccessful peace talks to end it.

Saying stuff like "longest running" help establish notability of the subject.

And if the concensus is to not include the specific area under their control, we could of say something like "they have lost control of 98% of the territory they control", because that is an important aspect of who they are now. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowolf that the lead should summarize the article, and give concise answer to the questions who, where, what, why, and maybe some others. Maybe a wholesale rewrite is a better approach then piecemeal editing, which will be reverted anyay. So, if mtd wants to draft an intro privately and then offer it for discussion, he has my support. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we also need to add why they are fighting. i.e. they feel they've been discriminated against... --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MORALIZE and WP:TERRORIST, we do not need to assert that the Tamil Tigers are a militant terrorist organization. It is thoroughly implied by facts (e.g. terrorist status in 32 countries, suicide attacks, child soldiers) alone. Despite the fact that Al-Qaeda is often viewed as an epitome of terrorist organizations, its intro does not contain a similar POV assertion.   — C M B J   07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is the LTTE which is the epitome of a terrorist organisation which pionered suicide bombing, developed the first air wing of a terrorist organisation etc. Al-qeda etc learned it form them. The intro mentioning that it is a terrorist organisation is valid as most unbiased people and countries have classified it as such.Kerr avon (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparable articles including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, and PKK do not use the descriptor terrorist. While I understand that this is a controversial and sensitive subject, we are obligated to maintain an unbiased viewpoint. The neutral presentation of facts alone has an unprecedented ability to convey the true character of any individual or organization. Additionally, unless this article intends to ironically secede from relevant NPOV policies such as WP:MORALIZE and WP:TERRORIST, there must be a unique rationale to justify the use of a potentially biased term.

Pursuant to the the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, I have performed a single revert on the aforementioned text, and would like to recommend seeking NPOV/N or RfC should any discrepancies remain.   — C M B J   02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

The LTTE is rarely described as a "paramilitary" organization. They are much more frequently known as rebels, militants or terrorists. So while discussion on whether to call them "terrorist" or not can continue, I changing the text to refer to them as a "militant, Tamil Nationalist" organization.

Also, when quoting Wiki policy, such as WP:TERRORIST, you might want to read the policy in full first. In this case, for example, Al Qaeda is called "extremist", which is mentioned as been similar to "terrorist". Also, "militant" is said to be an acceptable term. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless of whether or not the majority of biased sources refer to them as terrorists, those who support them likely view them as freedom fighters. We can't call our view neutral if we pick sides. If it is any consolation, you don't even need to call them terrorists, as it is blatantly obvious that they fit that description from the majority viewpoint. See WP:ENEMY and WP:MORALIZE for some positive insight.

It still is notable that the LTTE maintains a paramilitary force, as described elsewhere in the article. Also, use of the peacock term "violent" may be interpreted as a negative narrative tone, and is redundant if militant is kept.

All things aside, Tamil Nationalist is a worthy descriptor that fits in perfectly. Cheers.   — C M B J   22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well first, can you please read the discussion above about why it is suggested that some specific terms are included in the intro. I've explained, for example why I think we need to include the word "violent" in the intro. "Violent" incidentally is not a peacock term,. Again, WP:PEACOCK if you need an explanation of the policy.

The sources provided to cite the "terrorist" wording are not biased, unless PBS somehow became the propaganda arm of the Sri Lankan government. I'm doubtful that you can find similar highly reliable sources that directly call them freedom fighters.

The LTTE are not referred to as a "resistance" movement by exceptional reliable sources.

And about the Tamil text, could you please provide a policy that says we need to add local languages and their IPA translations into articles on the en wiki? I honestly don't think we do. Anyone who wants can scroll down to the other languages link. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Peacock terms are generally flamboyant and/or sensational. WP:PEACOCK focuses mostly on positive terms, but the same logic could presumably be applied to similar but contentious terms. Since it does not directly deal with the subject, it may have been an imperfect citation on my part, so I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

PBS routinely displays an exemplary level of neutrality, but nonetheless, pejorative use of the word terrorist may constitute a potentially compromised viewpoint from an absolutely neutral encyclopedic perspective. It is my understanding that there is a widely established consensus that we should avoid using words that could be interpreted as having negative connotations when at all possible. Substantiation, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.

Regarding the translations, I'm not entirely certain that they are (or aren't) within the scope of any active policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), a proposed guideline, may be the most closely related manual of style.   — C M B J   05:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation needed?

Since we have half a dozen different issues here, it might require mediation. Since I have off-Wiki obligations, I'd be very happy if you could resolve this among yourselves. But if you feel you'd like to have a mediator, then I'd be happy to support anyone who wants to step up to the task. If nobody can be found, then I would be able to make some time for this. Here's the deal: I'll help you with this, if you guys take over the chores that I have done in the past - see WT:SLR/H#Chores. — Sebastian 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the discussion is going on well and does not seem to come to a standstill with hardened fronts. Will see whether we will get to a point where things really heat up, and mediation would be required. As I see it, there is still some margin, but thanks for your offer ;-)

Jasy jatere (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing SLRDA

While SLRDA has generally been a great success, there has always been confusion about what exactly is meant by its 1RR clause. At first we tried to go with WP:1RR but there were huge confusions (partly because WP:1RR was in constant flux) which almost got some of our members blocked. To remedy this, Black Falcon and I proposed a number of different wordings at Clarification of what 1RR means to us, but none was entirely satisfactory. A month ago, triggered by some new confusion, I proposed #Tag-war proof 1RR above. That was much simpler, and since there were no objections, I was just about to add it to our project page, when the above case #1RR happened. Since Taprobanus got it on a good, safe track of discussion now, I think I'm not harming progress there if I use that case as an example. The person who did the reversion-like edit may have acted within the limits of the usual 1RR rule, but it was not what we intend with SLDRA. We want people to discuss instead.

This gave me an idea: How about if we specified WP:BRD as a minimum standard? The request of the blue box "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." is still a valid and good guideline, but it's not enforceable, since people will disagree on what "might be controversial". But if we added something like "Edits that do not meet WP:BRD will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal", then we would rule out situations as the above #1RR. The reversion-like edit would have led to a warning.

I also think this may be a good chance to iron out another point of confusion: While we host SLRDA, it is an agreement of a set of people that is different from our member list. We could now ask all signatories if they agreed for us to take ownership of the agreement by (1) updating the text at Agreement and (2) deleting the obsolete list at Signatories. That would change the agreement to a policy of our WikiProject, and would make it easier for such adjustments in the future.

Does this sound feasible? — Sebastian 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After writing below how important it is to have a justification for each added sentence, I realize that my proposal suffers from the same problem. I'm less sure now if the added sentence really pulls its weight. — Sebastian 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be too harsh (or weird). I'm OK with the present system. IMHO, before the first revert is made (or after) the editor who made the earlier change should be notified and their opinions taken into account. This explanation could be done on the talk page if it is something big, or else even on the edit summary. If the other editor has a disagreement, then they can express their ideas on the talk page. If they revert without discussion, they should be notified/reminded of the policy, and then it should be discussed with them before we set ourselves on fire. Sounds simple to me :) But if we are thinking of implementing this new thing, do we have any examples where BRD was used successfully? Chamal ^talk 13:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though you say you're OK with the present system, I read below that you agree with one of my two big concerns. I don't think you actually disagree with me that we keep having trouble with the 1RR rule as it is.

BRD has been used by many well intended editors, but it also has been misused; I'm just not aware of any statistics. I also admit that it has not been used for something like this before, so it is unusual - which I think you mean by "weird". But so is the whole blue box! It's completely natural that new ways to solve problems may do something unusual. What do you find it harsh about it? What do you mean by "before we set ourselves on fire"?

I don't disagree with your statement after "IMHO" - but I think part of it is so watered down that it's not helpful, and the other can not be enforced. Typical scenario: Someone removes a change with the summary "rm unsourced text". Now, that is a notification, but it doesn't take the opinion into account. — Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:BRD is a technique, while WP:1RR is a policy-like thing. These are thus different things, and cannot substitute each other. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD defines itself as "a proactive method for reaching consensus". That's exactly what we need. WP:1RR is not a policy. It is a WP:PLEDGE or a rule for individual editors. It has no way to handle some of our biggest problems, such as tag warring or the "who was first" question you describe in the next paragraph. Because its repeated failures we need something that does what we need. — Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate clarification that 1RR not only refers to reverts, but also to insertions. So, if editor A adds content to the consensus version, editor B removes it, and then this repeats, I think the first person to fall under 1RR should be the "inserter" and not the "remover". Otherwise, there is an advantage to people inserting contentious content. For instance, someone could enter "Rajapaksa is supported by Nepal", and that could not be removed. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! One of the biggest problems of WP:1RR is that it answers the "who was first" question exactly opposite to what would make sense! That was the main reason why I wanted to go away from WP:1RR. I am concerned that if we still call it "1RR", people will experience some unpleasant surprises. If you feel it still can be called "1RR" without creating too much confusion, then I'm for it. The one difference to my proposal is that your definition presupposes the existence of a "consensus version". That doesn't seem very practical to me, as any editor who changes a version naturally does not regard that version as a "consensus version".

consensus does not have to be absolute. BTW, I borrowed that term from "what 1RR means to us"Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point! The short answer is: I changed my mind, because it didn't fly. I think the reason for the lack of endorsement was that it was too complicated. It only works if you also supply the definition of "consensus version". I suppose that was too complicated for our members already; let alone newbies. — Sebastian 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize that my original proposal actually didn't explicitly express my other main concern, about tag warring: I would like us to focus on edits, not on editors. Take this together with the "consensus version" change discussed in the previous paragraph, and I end up with this wording: "If content A is added without prior consensus, and is subsequently removed, then it is not allowed to readd A without consensus." Can we agree on this? How can we call this for short? "1RR V 2.0"? — Sebastian 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose to change "Before changing anything that might be controversial, please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation." to "If your edit is reverted, it is probably controversial. Please report the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation before adding it again." This takes away the speculative nature implied by "might" and gives a clear guideline what to do.Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This introduces one additional sentence. The longer the message gets, the less likely people will read it. More importantly, please keep in mind that the blue box occupies the top place of each article - we need to have a very strong justification for each sentence we add.

I am not sure whether longer messages are less likely to be read. I would actually presume the opposite. I have developped a kind of "template-blindness", under which the blue box falls, too. My "subconscience" classifies it as "just another wiki template", and I really do not read them. If the box was a bit longer, that would disrupt the pattern. This is not a plea to make the box very very long, but I do not see the problem if it gets a bit longer.Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is value in taking away the speculative nature, but I think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water: You simply take away any and all controversial edits, except for re-reverts. This encourages people to just throw dirt at articles and see if it sticks. — Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

that logic escapes me, sorry. Under the assumption that we all watchlist the blue box articles, none of the dirt should stick. And if we do not watchlist them, then the whole exercise is pointless anyway.Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to change "Do not insert unreferenced text" to "WP:RS is enforced on this page. All unsourced content may be removed". This is a stronger wording, and makes a clearer case. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence does not only inflate the blue box (see above for why that's bad), but it actually can backfire: It sounds as if we want people to act as WP:EDITNINJAS. Let's keep it simple - there's just no clearer message than "Don't!" — Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no shorter message than "Don't", but I think what we want here is "Don't; and we MEAN IT". There are many "don'ts" in wikipedia, and it is normally safe to ignore them until someone catches you. I think that the SLDRA "Don't" should be a notch stronger than the casual run-of-the-mill wikipedia "Don't"Jasy jatere (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, that kind of "don't" is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia on the basis that it is intimidating to newcomers or trying to own articles etc. Chamal ^talk 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would look very OWNy. But if the SLDRA has the power to put the blue box on articles, that is some kind of de-facto ownership. I joined this project after its creation, so I do not know very well how this blue box thing came about, but there seems to be some power vested in SLDRA to "claim" articles. While this does not mean that SLDRA should behave like described in WP:OWN, I do not think that adding more explicit wording to the bluebox would aggravate the structural issue of OWN within the project. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I think a guideline suggesting that people use clear edit summaries when removing content would be helpful. Then the inserter knows where the problem lies. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean, beyond just writing "rm POV"? I'd support that as a guideline for our members. Please start a new section with a proposed wording, and we can add it to our project page. — Sebastian 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I too think using a good edit summary would be the key to avoiding unnecessary complications. It's not exactly hard to type in an explanatory edit summary, and if it helps someone to think like "hey, this guy has a point" and urges him to discuss it instead of simply reverting it as POV or vandalism.

Now that I've followed the discussion between Jasy and Sebastian and reading through the page more carefully, I admit that BRD does seem like a sensible (but not perfect) method, and not "bad" as I thought before. However, I still think that what we really need is to refine the current methods a bit instead of introducing a new one. I agree with Jasy on most of his suggestions. But first shall we decide if we are going to adopt this new method or refine the old method, and then build our discussion upon that to make the necessary changes to whatever we use? Chamal ^talk 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your discussion here. There's a sad irony: I've been waiting so long for such a discussion to take place, and now that it's taking place, I don't have the time it deserves. I am very sorry about that. Since the two of you largely agree, I am retracting my opposition. I think we're not that far apart, anyway. We agree that there are problems with the current 1RR rule, and I hope we can agree on the goals of what needs to be changed:

1. Change the "who was first" question to the opposite of the current 1RR rule;
2. Prevent tag warring;
3. Make it clear enough so that we can write it in the blue box and even newbies understand it;

I will support any solution that addresses these goals. — Sebastian 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we really need to do something about the edit summary rule. Take a look at the history of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on 14 February. A load of reverts, and nobody knows what has been reverted for what reason. Chamal ^talk 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple version: Don't re-revert!

After replying to the two cases below (#Does this count as 1RR, #Mahinda Rajapaksa), I think I found an easy solution. We can simply call the rule "Don't re-revert!" and keep the details in its own page. I'll start at WP:SLR/Don't re-revert!; please, project members, edit that page as you see fit. — Sebastian 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds excellent to me. It will leave very little chance for edit warring with re-reverting not allowed. I don't think any changes are necessary. Revert wars might go on while the discussion is on, but this is likely to be very rare and we can get the page semi protected if it gets out of hand. Looks like a clean approach to me. Chamal ^talk 12:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point about protection. Actually, this rule would dovetail nicely with full protection, too. Full protection can work well in edit conflicts; see e.g. the mediation at talk:Chola dynasty, where the page was fully protected by another administrator before I was asked to mediate. In that case, I created a compromise version as a basis for the mediation. That is working well because editors who want the change are motivated to provide good reasons (in particular reliable sources) for it. However, creating the compromise version took several hours, and most admins don't have that time. The Don't re-revert rule solves that problem: It implicitly specifies which version should be protected (thus addressing the WP:WRONG problem). I added this to User:SebastianHelm/MedAd. Maybe we could also add it explicitly to the rule, so other admins know what to do when someone asks for protection at ANI. — Sebastian 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List of attacks attributed ....

List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military has been shrunk by Gira2be (talk) and the links I have created to the same article on Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Police, Special Task Force, Sri Lanka Navy, Sri Lanka Air Force, Government of Sri Lanka etc articles have been removed by the same person. - 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iross1000 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for reporting this here. Gira2be wrote in most of their summaries "not a RS as per Wikipedia:SLR#Classes_of_sources". The right thing, as recommended at WP:SLR#How to avoid a revert war, would have been to add a {{Verify credibility}} template. It would have been good if Gira2be had done that instead of deleting, but it would also have been good for you to do that when you reinserted the text. Better yet, replace the reference with a reference to a reliable source.

In this context, I need to add that I am not sure why we have these sources as "unclassified" in our table. People have been adding sources there in a haphazard way, without a link to their discussion, or even without any discussion. I specifically wrote instructions for adding new sources, but nobody seems to be reading that. To be honest, I am fed up with this mentality, where people treat this project page as if it were a public restroom about which they don't care, and never clean up after themselves. — Sebastian 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

people are lazy. I think the process of adding sources should become easier. RIght now, one has to follow the link to find a multi-step instruction. I think this is too difficult (yes, I am very pessimistic about the cognitive abilities and commitment of people). I would prefer for people to simple add a line to the table if they have found a source. I volunteer to do all the remaining work (start discussion here, close discussion if consensus is reached, archive). Help by others would still be appreciated. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Iross1000, I see you have reverted the edits of Gira2be (talk · contribs) that you mentioned above. I think it would be best if you dropped a not on Gira2be's talk page mentioning this, so that we can avoid any unnecessary revert warring. Chamal ^talk 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it! I think I did it right. How is the source list table updated? I see discussion but the results never appear in the table.

I believe the underlying problem with adding the "list of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military" to the LTTE article is that it's not about the LTTE. The Sri Lankan military is nowhere mentioned in the LTTE article, except that the LTTE has attacked their forces and the army has attacked the LTTE. The list would support a new section in the LTTE article along the lines of "reasons for LTTE tactics", but the article doesn't have that yet. We need to hear from Gira2be. --Mtd2006 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do apologias for my mistake. However the revts I did was based on the notion that Iross1000 was engaged in biased editing that lead me to believe that Iross1000 was have some other motive than sharing of knowledge. This is due to the edits by Iross1000 on the following articles on the 13;

1. Genocides in history ‎ (→Sri Lankan Tamils: - Added a link.)
2. War in Darfur ‎ (→See also: Added Lanka)
3. Genocide ‎ (→See also: - Added Lanka)
4. The Killing Fields ‎ (→Related topics: Added Lanka)
5. Rwandan Genocide ‎ (→See also: - Adde Lanka)
6. Armenian Genocide ‎ (→See also: - Added Lanka.) (top)
7. Riots and pogroms in Sri Lanka ‎ (→See also)
8. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States ‎ (→See also: - Adde Lanka) (top)
9. War crime ‎ (→See also: Added Sri Lanka)
10. List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military ‎ (→See also)
11. 1987 Mass Suicide of Tamil Tigers ‎ (→See also)
12. Politics of Sri Lanka ‎ (→See also)
13. My Lai Massacre ‎ (→See also: - Added 1989)

Therefore the resent edits by Iross1000 must be checked.

As per the article List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military, the listed attacks of which is claimed by RSs, indicate that this were allegedly or claimed to have been carried out by individual members of the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. However it does not state that it was the Sri Lanka Armed Forces carried out these as policy. Several of the incidents were result of aerial bombing at the US it self states as collateral damage. Therefor this article it self is both misleading and offensive, providing a biased out look unfit for wiki.

Some of the attacks listed here are stated in the RSs that it has been claimed by the LTTE that the Sri Lankan military was responsible. Listing these will in fact, give authenticity to rebel claims. That is why I removed some.

Also two redirects leading to this article also created by Iross1000 are non natural.

• Sri Lankan Army massacres (should be deleted)
• List of civilian attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military (should be deleted)

Therefor I suggest that this article be renamed as Notable attacks on civilian in the Sri Lankan Civi war much like List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and claimed perpetrator listed along side the attack.

Finally I will remove from see also this link to this article from Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lanka Police, Special Task Force, Sri Lanka Navy and Sri Lanka Air Force. Since no mention of these are found on the article it self. But leave Sri Lanka Armed Forces and Government of Sri Lanka. I will re-add the link to the article List of attacks attributed to the LTTE since a similar link exists there and to Sri Lankan Civil War. I am also removing the link to this page from the LTTE article too.

Gira2be (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case List of attacks attributed to the LTTE article should be also revisited as most of the attacks in that article are not claimed by LTTE as they carried out the attacks, but accused by Sri Lankan Government. Notable attacks on civilian in the Sri Lankan Civi war may be created and joined by most of the lines from List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military. Only those should be left in [[List of attacks attributed to the LTTE are the ones claimed by LTTE that they carried out the attacks. Having said all that we don't want in a hurry go about deleting and merging until it is agreed by number of members. -Iross1000 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Let's stop the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, guys. That won't get us anywhere. The article List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military lists attacks that the military was accused of having carried out (as the name says). As far as the information included there is verifiable, it should stay. In a war, nobody accepts things they have done unless admitting it would help them to achieve their objectives. This is why victories are given a lot of publicity and losses suppressed. It is too much to expect if we think either the LTTE or military would say, "yeah, we attacked a non-military target at location x at time y, and it is totally our own responsibility and has nothing to do with the other side". As Iross1000 says, most of LTTE's attacks have not been accepted by them as something they have done. However well we know that they were done by the LTTE, they are still "attributed". Same with military's attacks, whether they were done by them or not, if it has been attributed to them by an independent and trusted third party, it should be included. If the attribution is only done by the opposing side, then this should also be mentioned. Chamal ^talk 13:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual I am in total agreement with Chmal_N. It is attributed and verifiable. Just to avoid these edit wars, I had informed Iross many weeks ago that he needs to only add items to the list that have at least two RS sources if not more. I prefer 4, but that might be asking for too much. There are many more to be added to that list fot what ever it is worth before this war is over. So let us all relax not violate anymore policies and guidelines including WP:STALK. The list should also include an area for comment. Taprobanus (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you might want to actually read WP:STALK. It seems to have been changed since the last time I saw it. And I agree that the article should not have been added to all the articles listed above.

About the article itself, a problem I can see is our the names given for the incidents actually used by reputable sources, or are they made up by Wiki editors? I think we need citations for the names themselves as well, rather than just saying xx people were killed in y place. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is no names for an incident ( which may be the case for a massacre carried out by a country's military which is controlled by that country's government, the government controls the media and the incident info is supressed and possibly no name for it), is it not appropriate to give a name by a wiki editor provided there are neutral links exist supporting the incident but no incident name already ? All the articles listed in list of attacks....military.. does have valid supporting links. In any case a wiki editor will need an article name to write a major incident. -Iross1000 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

No, you cannot just make up a name for an incident. If there are no citations for the sources, the list heading should be changed to "location", and the articles should be suitably renamed.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK.

One other query, I still think list of ...military.. should have a link in Sri lankan army navy, air force STF etc articles as these units are part of military and there are incidents attributed to these mentioned divisions. (But I won't add them anymore) -Iross1000 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

It can be added to Sri Lankan Army, STF and pages like that just like attacks attributed to LTTe can be added to LTTe related articles. Taprobanus (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

edit summaries

As pointed out in the sections above, the lack of edit summaries makes things very difficult to follow. Blank ES are not necessarily edit warring, they are just annoying to people who patrol the pages. I briefly thought about sth like "edits without summaries will be reverted", but this is obviously against the spirit of wp, where anybody should be able to contribute. It would be nicer to have some way to encourage people to use edit summaries. Can someone bring about a template one can leave on user pages, saying "Dear XYZ, we have noted blabla, of course you are a nice guy blabla, please do use edit summaries? "Jasy jatere (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up! I'm all for clear edit summaries! I've been nagging many a new member here about just that. I would support having this as a project policy, or encouraged pledge for our members. But maybe that's not worth it, as most of our members are doing that already. You are asking about a template for all users; such a template already exists: {{Uw-editsummary}}. — Sebastian 08:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

outsource list of sources?

The list of sources is becoming quite long. Would it be worthwhile to create a subpage for this? Jasy jatere (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea. Add a link near the top of the Project page. --Mtd2006 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, too. But one question: Do we want to just move the List of sources or the whole chapter Classification of sources? If the latter, then we could have two links to it: One in section Subpages, and one in Classification of sources, which then would only contain one sentence like: "See WP:SLR/Sources for recommendations for which sources should be used in Sri Lanka conflict related articles, and how to deal with biased sources." — Sebastian 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, we could also move the discussions about sources from this page to the sources talk page, instead of archiving them. From then on, we just wouldn't archive the sources talk page, which would mean that we would have no more broken links due to archiving. — Sebastian 08:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

this seems like an extremely sensible idea to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

moved discussion of sources to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources

Bruce Fein

This is a lawyer who might file charges against the GoSL. Some edit warring is going on in that article about whether this should be mentioned, and how extensively this should be covered. I was wondering whether a blue box would be necessary. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support making it part of the resolution. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. More precisely, all we need is a protection of that section. I just edited the blue box so we can do that using {{Wikipedia:SLR/bluebox|type=section}}. That said, we need to bring that up at the article talk page. — Sebastian 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the section: it has just been removed in an act of desperation. I would not want to reinsert the last version, since it contains the headline "Genocide of Tamil ethnic group in Sri Lanka", the connection of which with Mr Fein is not immediately apparent, and invites off-topic additions. Before reinserting it, I also want to strip that section of all off-topic content. — Sebastian 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

new class of sources

I wonder whether we need Attributed Source, next to Reliable Source and Qualified Source. There are some sources, like GoSL, which must be attributed, but a qualification does not seem necessary because it is obvious. The three classes would be used as follows:

1. something happened <ref>reliable source</ref>
2. according to The Attributed Research Institute, something happened <ref>Attributed Research Institute, 14.2.2008, "Something happened"</ref>
3. according to the pro-Whatever organization The Qualified Weekly, something happened <ref>The Qualified Weekly, 13.2.2008, "Something happened"</ref>

There seems to be some confusion in the above discussions as to what QS/RS and attribution mean Jasy jatere (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Bullets replaced with numbers for easy reference by Sebastian.

I agree with you that we need to distinguish these three cases, but I'm not sure if the difference is big enough to outweigh the cost of making the system more complicated. The main reason why we allow references of class 2 to be cited without a qualification is not that they are better than class 3; it's just simply because they openly state their allegiance. The difference between saying "According to the SL Government's SCOPP" and "According to the pro-government SCOPP" is not that important. I therefore think we should continue to use the term "QS" to include both your class 2 and class 3.

If it were only for us then I could be persuaded to the three-class system, but we have to enforce and defend the system to many non-members. Everybody understands that RS are preferable to QS. If we now said that Peace Secretariat of the LTTE is a class above South Asia Terrorism Portal, then we would create, rather than resolve, more disputes. — Sebastian 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

one could of course have QSa and QSb, or sth like that, where a minor indication is made what kind of attribution is necessary, only by name, or also by allegianceJasy jatere (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, maybe this might make some sense as a shortcut for when we're discussing sources. But I don't see any use in making that distinction in the "Class" column. The difference is already entirely covered by the "Attribution" column. — Sebastian 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

one could also have a sentence like "If the allegiance of a qualified source is not inherently clear, a qualifier of the form pro/anti-X should be used." Jasy jatere (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We are already saying that the attribution of the "Attribution" column should be used. That completely covers all cases. I don't see any use of adding another similar instruction to that. That would just be instruction creep. — Sebastian 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that we have unattributed RS (bbc), attributed RS (Amnesty), unattributed QS (defence.lk) and attributed QS (tamilnet)? Or am I missing something? I feel that there is a qualitative difference between amnesty international and tamilnet... Jasy jatere (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that could explain our difference! The short answer is no, we only have two classes. (Amnesty is just as unattributed as BBC is - see the "Attribution" column.)

The long answer is: For some sources, we need some flexibility. In these cases, the class defines the default. A good example for this is defence.lk. Since it is QS, the default is attribution. But it would be silly to say "According to the ministry of Defence, G.R. is the minister of defense", so we allow to leave that out when it's uncontroversial. The opposite case is Daily News: Since it is RS, default is no attribution. But all agreed that if Daily News publish an editorial critical of an opposition politician, we should point out that it is state-owned. You can regard these as exceptions, but they only add a little flexibility to the system, without calling for a third class. — Sebastian 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not read all the arguments but in general we seem to have five classes

1. Reliable sources (Academic sources, BBC, The Hindu, Boston Globe, Daily Mirror ...)
2. Reliable sources but attributed (UTHR, AI, HRW...)
3. Reliable sources, attributed and but needs qualification because of apparent bias (Tamilnet, Ministry of Defence, Asioan Tribune...)
4. Unreliable sources with some reliable content (such as Sangam, Spur, Tamilnation & Tamilcanadian)
5. Unreliable sources (Tamileelam news, Sinhalay news.....)

Taprobanus (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Taprobanus, if you don't read what people write, then don't comment on it. "We seem to have five classes" is baloney. We have three classes: RS, QS and UnRS. That was decided in this project - mostly by you and me together after long e-mail conversations - two years ago. We built a large list based on this system, which has worked very well for two years.

Of course, you can divide it into 5 classes, too. Reality is a continuum. Anybody can choose to divide that continuum in as many classes as he pleases. But what's the point? There's absolutely no reason to reinvent the wheel now, just because you suddenly realize that you like the number 5 better. If we were now to extend the classification to 5 classes, we would have to rediscuss most of our sources. I certainly won't agree with such a stupid waste of time. The only alternative that we can all agree with is to return to Wikipedia's core policies and strictly follow WP:RS, which has only two classes: RS, or not reliable. All QS would automatically become Questionable sources, which means that we would have to go through all articles and mark most of the QS quotes with {{Verify credibility}} tags and eventually remove or replace them. That also would be a waste of time, but at least we would be safe that nobody could question that system anymore out of a whim. — Sebastian 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

while in an ideal world, we would be able to neatly sort out the sources in the three categories you mention, it happens that current practice in this project seems to be to have the 5 classes that Taprobanus mentions. Just read the discussions on sources above. There is a mismatch between what the policy states and the current discussion on this talk page. In a certain way, Taprobanus's list is an inventory of what we find today. That inventory obviously differs from what you established 2 years ago. Now, there are two ways to deal with this mismatch: either change the guidelines, or change the discussion. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

taking stock of the classes of sources on this talk page, and the representation of those sources in classes on the project page, are different things. We could have an elaborate schema for internal use and discussion, but reduce the complexity to three cases when we present it in a table. The fact that outsiders should be able to understand the classification does not imply that discussions about classes of sources have to be restricted in the same way. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think SLR has always maintained WP:RS and WP:VERIFY very strictly, what we call QS is nothing but a Reliable source, that is attributed and qualified with its apparent bias. We have not contributed to an encyclopedic project that intends to create content with unreliable sources. Further, I have spent over a year at the Reliable sources list where people ask these questions all the time just so that I have better idea as to sourcing. Even in the list there is this distinctions of RS categories. What we have done in SLR is to keep track of these discussions but meanwhile with time consensus will change. What is today an unreliable source with time may become a reliable source but along the way it is going to be qualified, attributed and eventually simply used with no qualifications and attributions. This a journey a source may take with time. That’s probably the reason why the wider wikipedia community does not keep track of all these discussions, but SLR can do it in the short term because it is much smaller and is focused on a conflict. Taprobanus (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let's pause this discussion. I think the three of us painted ourselves in a corner. It seems we're all under stress right now. I was so desperate that I wrote an angry reply. I’m now realizing that my reply of 05:38 yesterday contributed to an escalation - the very thing this project tries to prevent. We all made mistakes, and this dispute doesn’t make any of us look good. Rather than publicly talking about mistakes of people I respect, I would prefer to keep this off wiki. Jasy, can you please let me know your e-mail? Since I don't have your e-mail, and you don't have e-mail enabled, I will send mail only to Taprobanus for now. — Sebastian 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For now, I would like us to archive the discussion to allow it to cool off. Let’s wait a month until we all have a bit less stress and there are fewer discussions here. Maybe it will be easier for each of us to understand the other by then. If you choose to bring it up again, I ask that you base your argument not on what you feel would be nice, but on real-life problems in our area which can not be resolved with the current system. — Sebastian 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is Snowuld4 when we need a mediator anyway my final words on it. The wider wikipedai world has been right all along. There are only two classes of sources they are reliable and non reliable, there is nothing in between. But the way we use then depends on each type. An academic book is reliable and HRW is reliable but attributed (I have explained as to why under HRW section) , a Tamilnet is reliable, attributed and qualified. Calling this a Qualified Source is an innovation that SLR came up with but keep insisting that is different class all together puts out outside that mainstream of thinking in Wikipedia. I made my opinion clear when some one deleted the Template:QS template at least a year. I agreed with the deletion and did not oppose it.

In the end we are creating an encyclopedia and we have to insist on using only reliable sources and portions of reliable sources from obviously unreliable websites. Documenting these different sources about there reliability as a project is open to peril as I have pointed out earlier but in our context we have can do it for a short period of time at least as long as the civil war and its effects linger on. A table with columns for reliable, reliable and attributed, reliable attributed and qualified, un reliable and comments should be a better way to document our sources. Everything so far categorized as qualified sources should go under column three. So we really don’t have discuss all previously discussed sources again. Now I am going back to my real life, and if possible a wikipedia article or two. Taprobanus (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as 1RR

• Page: Sri Lanka Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Marinecore88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to: [2]

• 1st Revert [3]
• 2nd Revert [4]

It is 2 clear reverts of an article under the DRP. If this doesn't qualify, then we probably need to get rid of that section of the DRP. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

         The information is valid. Why are you deleting it? Remember snowolfD4, wikipedia is a NEUTRAL source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 

This is a good example for why I tried to get us to agree on clear 1RR rule above. This would be a clear violation of any of the versions I proposed. Let me show this using the WP:BRD test I proposed:

1. Bold addition of text: [5] - allowed per BRD Y
2. Revert: [6] - allowed per BRD Y
3. Bold readdition of text: [7] - not allowed per BRD N. Instead of readdition, Discussion should take place.

I am not sure how the people who disagreed with me would see this; I find their proposed rules rather unclear for cases like this. — Sebastian 06:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mahinda Rajapaksa

Some edit warring going on there. Might need a blue box. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Mahinda Rajapaksa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continously deletes valid information from valid sources like Amnesty International if they are seen as "anti srilankan army" or "anti sri lankan government" by him. This shows a disregard for the neutrality of wikipedia and possible an attempt at censoring information. Importantly, he's shown a disgregard for the policus of the WP:SLR interests in reconciling the difference. Second, he continously uses WP:BLP to justify removing genocide allegation information on the mahinda and gotabaya page, despite the fact that WP:BLP allows the writing of these allegations since they are widespread, recognized by the US, and the fact that Mahinda and Gotabaya are public figures and therefore allegations against them are allowed according to WP:BLP. I'd also like to point out that this use seems incapable of understanding the intricrite nature of wording certain sources. He takes allegations and words them as certain facts, as he's done in his article on the 2009 bombing in colombo. Further, he claims to "know" intentions of LTTE by comparing the bombing to 9/11, which was unwarranted and a blatant attempt to appeal to the victims of 9/11 despite the obvious difference between the events. Can we address this issue as a community looking for accurate reliable reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.241.78 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the above was written by by a biased Anon IP who was being edit warring, possibly a alias for another disruptive editor user:Marinecore88 whose edits [8] show a similar edit content. The only solution IMHO is to semi protect mahinda's and gotabhayas articles for say one month, and ban [user:Marinecore88] .Kerr avon (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note here: I don't see how accusations made by anyone against his government, military or his brother are relevant to Mahinda Rajapaksa's biography article. These allegations could be included in the articles about the war and the Sri Lankan government. Only thing that is needed in the bio is just a mention of these under a section on his ruling of the country, and no details are necessary there since it is something not directly related to him. The details should be included in the articles mentioned above, with suitable RSs. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and we don't need to pile up articles with unnecessary stuff (whether POV or not) when there is a lot more relevant info that can be added. Chamal ^talk 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am Marinecore88, And I added valid information which complies with all the rules. I refute the request of a ban, Kerr avon has been doing the same thing as snowwolf4d. I did recent accidentally remove information by accident on "the allegations of state terrorism by srilanka page", however it was because i misinterepeted the previous user edit as having deleted the content, which he didn't (you can read my reason of the edit and put it together). I apologize for that mistake but It was a mistake. Further, I am not a disruptive editor. I gave reason on the talk pages for ever edit I made, against what seems to me as a misinterpretation of facts by editors. Snowolfd4 has conceded his arguement on the "sri lankan army" page to me by not replying to me on the talk page. He has NOT REPLIED to the talk page disccusions where I have proven my point, which is why i must revert the page rather than have a discussion on it. And My reply to chama, accusations against a president's administration do have a place in his page provided they are widely acknowledged and in a major publication (both true), not a detailed paragraph but a mention of it is vital to the nature. And please Kerr on and Snowolfd4, please stop citing WP:BLP and actually read the page please. You will releazie allegations of PUBLIC FIGURES ARE VALID if they are notable. Also these are ALLEGATIONS and have been worded as such. consider my arguements for my case rather than this name calling nonsense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecore88 (talk • contribs)

Marinecore88, can you please provide diffs, as snowolfD4 did above? This makes is much easier for us to assess the situation. — Sebastian 06:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't so hard this time: It's the same situation as above:

1. Bold addition of text: [9] - allowed per BRD Y
2. Revert: [10] - allowed per BRD Y
3. Bold readdition of text: [11] - not allowed per BRD N. Instead of readdition, Discussion should take place. — Sebastian 06:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversial info has been re-added once more by 99.254.241.78 (talk · contribs). First, please note that just mentioning on the talk page and then re-reverting cannot be considered as consensus achieved through discussion. Before this readdition, it would have been best if you waited to see what others think about this, and then arrived at a suitable wording that is agreeable to everyone and then added it to the article. Otherwise, everyone can simply make a comment on the talk page and revert saying "your argument is invalid. please see my reply on talk page". Also, I've added the article to SLR since it was not included earlier (and therefore not under our guidelines/agreements?). Is it necessary to add the blue box as well, since the edit war seems to be still ongoing? Chamal ^talk 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Marinecore88 here again, thanks for the replies, My arguement is that it is not really an edit war, but me trying to revert what seems to me like vandalism, since the sources were valid (ICRC, Amnesty international, BBC), relevant and did not violate WP:fringe, WP:BLP, or anything else kerr avon and snowolf4d stated as i explained on the talk pages. However each time both users revert the entries rather than discuss them as I have asked. I had interpreted this as vandalism and again tried to revert to the valid verions but they just keep reverting it back. Further more snowolf4d i believe said that the gotabaya;s genocide allegations have no place on Mahinda's page, therefore I reworded the phrasing to refer to "a member mahinda's administration" as outlined in the sources and moved the other allegations to gotobaya's page. But now snowolf4d/kerravon still removed it from gotabayo's page. This was uncalled for. On the 2009 colombo attacks article i removed what seemed like a misinterpretation of sources (which may have been due to English ability-note this is not an attack but i'm trying to defend his mistake as an honest one) as I have argued on the page. Again Both kerr avon and snowolfd4 did not repond to the talk page and directly started reverting pages. Again kerr avon has recenty labelled the LTTE a "terrorist organization" despite the WP:terrorist which by no doubt we are all familiar with. He's also suggested banning me and suggesting I am a disruptive editor. I believe these two guys should be banned and have their contributions removed or reviewed with possibility of being bias (other users have voiced this opinion before about snowolfd4 before as well). I think i've made my case. thanks --Marinecore88 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you stop reverting and try to discuss with these two editors. Shooting first and asking questions later never work; it should be the other way round. Until someone stops reverting and begins a proper discussion, everyone is going to keep reverting back to the version they prefer. Everyone sees the other as a POV pusher and reverts, thinking to minimize the damage and POV content added to the article. However, the other sees this as an attempt at POV pushing and reverts again. The never ending cycle of life? We don't need that here. There is no vandalism by anyone here, I believe everyone involved has just the honest intention of improving the article. But different POV of each person makes the meaning of "improvement" different to them. This again comes to the fact that we should discuss and come to a suitable conclusion that suits both parties. Go ahead and start it; if everyone waits for the other to start, it will never happen and the edit war will continue.

There is no need to ban anyone here. Nobody has disrupted Wikipedia in bad faith, and people are not banned for making a honest mistake. All the edits mentioned above have taken place because each person sees the other as a POV pusher and thinks that his editing damages the article. This in turn, is because of lack of discussion. Just try to keep calm and comment on the edits, not the editor. A constructive discussion cannot take place if no one assumes good faith. Chamal ^talk 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa

Why the following should be deleted on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. RS supports the following content. Melienas (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge, filed with the US Justice Department by former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Fein. The 1000-page, 3 volume case has been submitted and is currently under review by the US Justice Department for 12 counts of genocide against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.