Talk:Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

religion

Before Sri Lanka being converted to Buddhism it had 4 religion view. Raksha, Yaksh, Deva, Naga. When Lord Buddha came to visit Sri Lanka it mentioned about 3 groups. Yaksha, Naga, Deva. There information are recorded in Mahavamsa. Before Magha some Tamil invasions has happened in Sri Lanka. But there wasn't a ethnic conflict. Tamils had been in kings court and there are ruins of 3 Tamil Hindu Temples within the castle of Pollonnaruwa , the last center of Kingdom of Rajarata. There were invasions but there weren't a huge Sinhalese migration from North to South due to invasions before Magha's invasion. It completely expelled Sinhalese from North. --Himesh84 (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC) It is stated that Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is a combination of Sri Lankan Civil war + History of Sri Lanka. Logically it is correct. But it is not practical. History of Sri Lanka is a huge subject. Also it is very much brief description about all the history which can't be written in a small wiki page. It is very much difficult to find specific details about ethnic details from the history of Sri lanka page. We must implements detailed specific things in derived pages. Also Sri Lankan Civil War only contains about things happened after 1900 and the last battle between two groups. But ethnic conflict is containing more details and more battles (Magha invation, Parakramabahu VI's Jaffna invasion, ... ) and relationships (king Senerat and Cankii) agreements,.... Those things can't be talked from Sri Lankan Civil war wikipage. It is out side the Topic (which target the last battle). --Himesh84 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article is a dog's breakfast. All readers of this article should use great caution in believing its contents to be complete and accurate.

• Neutrality - As most of the comments on the Afd pointed out, this article is heavily biased. The fact that Himesh84, the main author of this article, has deliberately chosen to only include one side of the story gives a clear indication of their intention. Large chunks of this article have been copied from other articles but Himesh84 has manipulated these (primarily by excluding content which disagreed with Himesh84's POV) in order to give a totally unbalanced view of the "ethnic conflict".
• Lack of references - The overwhelming majority of this article is unreferenced. The few given references are only back up uncontentious statements. All the contentious statements, which is most of the article, remain unreferenced.
• Factual errors - I am not an expert on this subject and yet I have found a number of glaring factual errors e.g. "when the Kandyan convention was signed with British, Jaffna was a part of a Kandyan kingdom"; "Sinhalese was...more than 75% of the total population of Sri Lanka"; "Before 1900 Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula"; "All the nations except Tamil Hindus were ordered to leave from North within 24 hours"; "LTTE executed 6000 police officers who worked in North & East" etc. An expert would find many more errors. I shall give Himesh84 the benefit of doubt and assume he has introduced these factual errors out of gross ignorance rather than as deliberate attempt to introduce false facts.
• Original research - Much of this article is original research by Himesh84. In the lead he/she has pin pointed Kalinga Magha's invasion of the island in 1215 as beginning of the "ethnic conflict" in the country. In Himesh84's mind every battle fought on the island for the last 800 years was an "ethnic conflict" - heroic Sinhalese pitted against barbaric Tamil invaders. In reality the "ethnic conflict" only started in the 20th century due to economic/social issues. Since then nationalists on both sides have re-written history in order to justify their own views and attack their opponents. Himesh84 is merely following in this tradition.

In essence the biased and false view that Himesh84 is trying to give with this article is that all of Sri Lanka's ethnic strife is due the Tamil "invasion" of the island. If this hadn't happened Sri Lanka would be a Buddhist nirvana.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.

I tried to add both side as possible. I may only know one side. If I missed please add with facts or references.

I will tried to add resources as many as possible. But the most of the things your said are very recent incidents. You can google key words (Kachchankudi mosque etc, data in census).

Ministy of Defence, Sri Lanka

"" In Himesh84's mind every battle fought on the island for the last 800 years was an "ethnic conflict" ""- This is right for me. Because they fight as ethnic groups. Kalinga Magha invaded Sri Lanka and expelled all the Sinhalese from the Kingdom in the North, that they ruled 1500 years. But did he expelled Tamils? No. Clearly there was a ethnic distinction there. He treated two ethnic group two manner. Also fights erupted as ethnic distinction rather than common issue for Sinhalese and Tamils.--Himesh84 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Demographics of Sri Lanka or 1990 massacre of Sri Lankan Police officers? And please don't try to fool people by adding references which don't back-up your lies.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I read them. But I didn't referenced them because for wikipedia data can come anywhere. Only Sri Lankan government can issue data about Sri Lankan population. If you want to talk about population in Sri Lanka , you can talk about the statics only from Sri Lankan government. That's what I have referenced. No other parties like USA, India, UN,... do a census in Sri Lanka. UN,... all contact Sri Lankan government to get data.

Every year Sri Lanka Police celebrating the massacre of 600 police officers. How you saying it is a not true ? Come to Sri Lanka and see. Again wikipedia is not a reliable reference.

http://www.island.lk/

http://www.police.lk/--Himesh84 (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your games. Go and read the purpose of a citation. Citations are meant to "verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources" - they are not meant to be links to related articles.

• You falsely claim "since at that time Sinhalese was the majority of the country with more than 75%" but the Department of Census citation you have provided does not verify this.
• You falsely claim "They executed several masscars against Muslims who weren't participated to this war, as part of "Pure Hindu Tamilsm"." but the Ministry of Defence citation you have provided does not verify this.

I do not doubt that 1990 massacre of Sri Lankan Police officers took place. What I am questioning are your lies that 6000 police officers were executed or that it was part of a "Pure Hindu Tamilsm" conspiracy.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's better. Now, what are you going to do about the rest of the article?!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page edits

RavanaTheGreat's some of the points are not 100% correct. Vijaya invasion didn't lead to any conversion. The administration went to natives led by Yaksha tribe when establishing Anuradhapura kingdom. Vijaya's and his relatives administration didn't lasted for 200 years when king Pandukabhaya massacred Indian royal blood line who tried to kill him. Conversions happened when Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in era of King Devanampiyatissa in 250BC. Main religion was worshiping Yaksha at that time. Then Naga. Then Raksha, Then Deva. Deva is not completely Hinduism. Sumana Saman was one of the favorite God in Sri Lanka. Anyhow those invasions specified by "Ravana the Great" didn't lead to any ethnic conflict. Sinhalese and Tamils lived in Rajarata even invasions happened. Battles didn't target the ordinary people. Tamil invader Elara had Sinhalese generals in his army. But 1215 Kalinga Magha's invasion was the key point. He didn't let any Sinhalese to live in Rajarata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tags

Himesh84, please don't remove the tags until all the issues have been resolved. There are many problems with this article. These problems were first articulated in the Afd and then in the above discussion. You have barely begun to resolve them. Until they are and there is consensus that you have done so, please don't remove the tags. Don't start another dispute based on how you believe Wikipedia should operate rather than how it does.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84, please stop your disruptive behaviour. The reasons you have given for the removal of the tags are not valid. The outcome of the Afd does not justify the removal of the tags. It was the Admin who closed the Afd who first placed the tags on this article. It is not up to those who placed the tags to resolve the concerns raised, it is up to the editor who added the content (you). The concerns are self evident if you read the article, I don't need to pin point them.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy about current content , so I am removing the tag. I can't read others mind. If you show some issue I can fixed it. If you don't like to pin point , you are not helping to improve the quality. If you don't like to pin point ,you can raise the concern to administrators than going into another edit war.--Himesh84 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus. Just because you are happy with the current content does not mean you can remove the tags. A number of editors have expressed concern about this article. I have explained in detail my concerns. You have done very little to address my concerns:

• Neutrality - self evident and doesn't need to be pin pointed;
• Citations needed - self evident and doesn't need to be pin pointed;
• Original research - any content without a reliable source could be original research; and
• Factual errors - In the above discussion I detailed some of the factual errors on this article some of which have been removed by you after a protracted discussion. There are other factual errors still in this article e.g "Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom", "when the Kandyan convention was signed with British, Jaffna was a part of a Kandyan kingdom", "Before 1900 Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula", "Muslims who were 40% of Sri Lanka's Eastern population" and "All the nations except Tamil Hindus were ordered to leave from North within 24 hours". As I have stated before, I am not an expert on this subject and yet I have found numerous factual errors. As a result I am not confident that there aren't even more factual errors.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84, if you can't abide by Wikipedia rules please go elsewhere. The tags have been placed by me and others and an explanation has been given. You cannot remove the tags unilaterally - there has be consensus that the issues have been resolved.

P.S. I used to believe your actions were out of a misguided belief that you were right. Now I know differently. Your edit summary for this - No one hasn't [sic] raised anything is wrong in the discussion - is deliberately misleading. I have repeatedly stated on this talk what's wrong with this article. A number of other editors also pointed out what's wrong at the Afd.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why you are not expert on this subject. You contributed to lot of wikipages on this subject. Seems like you unable to find much to object my opinion in here. If you know you are not expert , let experts to comment. That's the wikipedia policy.

Obi2canibe, I will respect your kind request to leave wikipedia if this wikipedia belongs to your mom or dad.

hasn't [sic] raised anything is wrong in the discussion : What I mean was in the AFD discussion. Refer my previous edit. There was only one issue in the article. I had used extra '0'. It was a type. But I have corrected it. So why you talking about corrected things after it was corrected? After I corrected 6000 to 600 it is only AFD thing was remained. Isn't it ? So why are you talking about talk page again when I fixed it. Seems you got it wrong.

Other thing is You are me are the subjects. Others are third parties. When I said it is correct that doesn't confirm it is correct. When you say it is wrong it doesn't confirm it is wrong. Some third party verification is required. So you needs to double think about orphan,disputed,...

Seems like you are unable to find references attached in the same wikipage. It was clearly mentioned when Tamils leaved Vanni and when British started tamil colonies south to jaffna. So you asking me to give references again to show references to show most of the SL tamils restricted to jaffna before british started tamil colonies?

then I have added king Rajasinghe restricted Portugese to Ports. Also Senerath invaded Jaffna using step sons. References are there. Still those are there in the wikipage you saying Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom is a factual error.

All the things you categorized as Factual errors are not actually factual errors expect Muslims who were 40% . I had to say it like Muslims who were about 40%. What I needed to tell is even Tamil was 42% of the total population they wanted to claim Eastern province only to them by force.

I don't know why you saying you are not expert on this subject. I looked into your contribution list. You have contributed to lot of articles about Tamils. You may be a best one who can show the issue in Tamil's view of point. But someone(not me) will thing you just escape because you don't have any counter arguments.

Now you must realized that the things you says factual errors are not factual errors. (I have given references to all the factual erros of you). Also you says you are not expert on this subject. I also realised that I have not provided references to some facts(jaffna belonged to Kandy at convention, ).So I will not remove citation needed tag.--Himesh84 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You are deliberately misunderstanding. The citations needed tags was not in relation to the factual errors I've identified - it was in relation to the rest of the article which is overwhelmingly unreferenced. You have corrected two of the factual errors (6000 police officers being executed; Sinhalese being more than 75% of pop) only after repeated cajoling by me. The other errors that I identified (see my comment on 20 October) remain in place. You have some how managed to find a reference which states that Jaffna was part of Kandy in 1815 but this flies in the face of all other evidence. Read "A History of Sri Lanka" be De Silva, particularly the map on page xix which shows the boundary of the Kingdom of Kandy in 1815. Also look at this map from 1814. You will see that the Northern Province - which is what I assume when you say Jaffna - wasn't part of Kandy, it was under British rule.

The result of the Afd wasn't an endorsement of the article as it stood. Let me remind of some of the comments by other editors:

• "There is broad agreement that this article is deeply flawed and written from a particular perspective. In fact the primary author's comments right here in this discussion show their own prejudices on the topic."
• "this article clearly has some POV material"
• "The present article is very one sided and has some irrelevant myths etc and therefore needs to be rewritten and improved."
• "unsourced"

You have not addressed these issues or the points I raised in this talk page. Also, one doesn't need to be an expert to edit Wikipedia, or even add tags. One just needs to verify one's contributions with reliable sources. Something you have failed to do over and over again.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You deliberately play. Here is the list. Wikipedia don't care what you ( Even you saying you are not expert) believe. If you saying references are wrong it is not say as a believing of inexperience fool. It should come with references.

"Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom"

http://www.island.lk/2007/11/03/satmag3.html,http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=31743

"when the Kandyan convention was signed with British, Jaffna was a part of a Kandyan kingdom",

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2008/06/22/plus01.asp

I am talking about the situation in 2nd March 1815. The sources attached by you doesn't say situation in that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Before 1900 Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula"

K.M. De Silva, p. 64. - Tamils withdrawn from Vanni to Jaffna Penisula

British started Tamil colonies south to Paranthan. http://books.google.com/books?id=4IdR9N9R7T4C&pg=PA228&dq=Iranamadu+colony&hl=en&ei=6eLMS5n5JoqUMcD7haIF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Iranamadu&f=false

"All the nations except Tamil Hindus were ordered to leave from North within 24 hours"

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=61937

All the references are there. Please find them in the article

Also what you mentioned as factual errors are actually are very minor factual errors consider to the message trying to giving. Message is LTTE massacred many policemen. 600 is not a small number. Even 75% changed to 73.2% it is still very high number. Even I changed it to 73.% Tamil won't be the majority of Sri Lanka --Himesh84 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, now you're just brazenly lying.

• The Island reference states "Senerat invaded Jaffna in 1628". It does not state "Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom"
• K. M. De Silva's A History of Sri Lanka (p.xix4) provides a map of Sri Lanka with the "Boundary between the Kandyan Kingdom and the British possessions (up to 1815)". The shows Jaffna, Jaffna District, Jaffna peninsula and Northern Province as British possessions not "part of a Kandyan kingdom". I challenge you to find another reference for your false claim.
• K. M. De Silva's A History of Sri Lanka (p.64) states "It would appear that by the thirteenth century the Tamils too withdrew from the Vanni, and thereafter their main settlements were confined almost entirely to the Jaffna peninsula and possibly to several scattered settlements near the Eastern seaboard". It does not state ""Before 1900 Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula"
• The Island reference states "they [LTTE] expelled Muslims from Jaffna in pursuit of ethnic cleansing within 24 hours". It does not state "All the nations except Tamil Hindus were ordered to leave from North within 24 hours."

You have not provided any references for the false statement "Muslims who were 40% of Sri Lanka's Eastern population". You have not made any effort in relation to the article's neutrality/original research issues. Nor have you provided references for the unreferenced content.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Census data from 1921 to 1963 Census when Tamil Nationalism highly promoted.

1921 - 39.41% 1946 - 39.06% 1953 - 38.18% 1963 - 33.75%

Average it can be approximated to 40%. Why are you always keen about small deviations ? --Himesh84 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Because on Wikipedia we deal with verifiable facts. We don't pick and choose data and then approximate to push our own POV. And what about all the other issues on this article? You haven't resolved these so why remove the tags?.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor (probably one of the ones commenting here, as I'm not sure how many there are). Specifically, that editor is concerned that the tags are being added without clear explanation. I believe the IP is correct in part, though not entirely. The real problem is that there are too many tags; our tagging rules suggest that you should not use multiple tags to cover the same problem. For example obi2canibe specifically says above that the OR tag is there because of the uncited text problem, which has its own tag. You (obi2canibe, since you're the one arguing for inclusion of the tags) need to pick one of those, not both. Personally, I think unsourced is better; the OR tag should be used sparingly when you have strong reason to believe that the info was specifically developed by the original WP editor, not a reliable source. I generally use that one only when I can see what appears to be synthesis or conclusions drawn from primary data. Plus, the Citation needed tag covers a wider range of problems. In addition, the "expert needed" is rarely a helpful tag, as just being an expert wouldn't help solve the real problems (sourcing, etc.). You might also want to consider removing the clean-up tag; that tag's main value is that it attracts people who do copy-editing...but no copy-editor would bother with this article since any changes they make would obviously be over-written when the more important/fundamental issue is tackled.

But, quickly looking at the article, "citations needed" is obviously necessary, "factual accuracy" is explained by obi2canibe above, and the article is, in fact, an "orphan". That leaves "neutrality". This is the one where the burden is on you, Obi2canibe; you can't simply assert the problem is throughout the article. Furthermore, if someone challenges a tag, you are required to justify why it's included. I recommend starting a separate section below to deal specifically with that tag. As above, I also recommend considering the removal of "clean-up", "expert needed", and "OR", though perhaps an argument could be made for one of those.

The important thing to remember, for both sides, is this: templates are not inherently bad things, because they 1) warn readers of possible problems, and 2) Help editors know what needs to be improved. The cannot be used as badges of shame, but so long as there are legitimate problems, the tags should remain. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you to go inside to the details and helping to resolve the situation as a neutral observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Qwyrxian. You're right, some of the tags are redundant and I am agreeable to your suggestions:

• I withdraw the "Original research" tags as it covers much of the issues covered by the "Citations needed" tag.
• I didn't add the "Expert needed" tag in the first instance and I have no objection to it's removal.
• Similarly I didn't add the "Clean-up" tag in the first instance and I have no objection to it's removal.
• The "orphan" tag is a technical one and the article isn't currently an orphan so the tag is inappropriate.

This leaves three tags:"Lack of references", "Neutrality" and "Factual errors". You have asked me to explain the last in detail and I will do this, though it may not happen immediately.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have started a separate section below justifying the POV tag. I am now going to re-insert the "Neutrality" and "Factual errors" tags on the article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To Obi2canibe

Only you saying this page need improvements. No one else says this page need improvements. Also they has appreciated the content

obi2canibe > The result of the previous Afd four months ago was keep and improve but the editor has done little to improve the article. Indeed he has said he is happy about current content

Jsorens > Keep

175.157.37.73 > Please Keep

Shu-sai-chong > Keep

MediaJet > Keep

131.107.0.81 > Keep

Please accept that your point (without facts) is not accepted by administrator who took the final decision.

Sue Rangell > The result was KEEP.

Please adhere to collectively agreed result. You can't conclude your opinion is right. Even you expressed it needs improvements you haven't provided facts. So it was concluded just as Keep ( Not keep and improve) If you want to introduce tags participate to talk page discussions and please specify what's the problem with current version that only you see problems or I'll report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.138.125 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're joking right Himesh84? I have explained ad-infinitum on this talk page about the issues with this article. You have ignored my comments completely. For the record, the result of the first Afd was keep and improve - you have made no attempt to improve the article. And it was the admin who close the Afd who first placed the tags on this article. The result of the second Afd was keep - this was not an endorsement of the state of the article but merely that the topic needed an article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am serious.

Your logic to made tags is all agreed results of "Keep and Improve". I also doubt whether it apply to this page. Can a page nominated to delete any times ?

There is lot of edits since July. Whether you accepted or not it has been improved. See the discussion on EOY. Who says this page needs improvements or this page have problems. All the people appreciated the work. Then see the all agreed result. Are you asking to accept your opinion neglecting all others opinion and agreed result ? 'Keep' itself may not describe the state but see the comments of the participants. No one except you didn't say any problem in the current version. So you doesn't have any single point to say this page requires tags other than your opinion. Also you can't made tags for past versions.

Please specifically state the problems in the page. Then I will do my best to improve. If you don't specify what's problems in current version ( version of November AFD) do not insert tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.168.53 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84, as the mediator who closed the recent DRN stated, Afd discussions only determine if an article meets the minimum standards required to be included in Wikipedia. The Afd does not deal with the specific issues raised by the tags. All the issues which I have detailed in depth on this talk page (Neutrality, Lack of references, Factual errors and Original research) still apply to the current version of this article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Himesh, Obi2canibe is correct that the AfD result has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the tags. About the only time an AfD would impact a tag was if there was a direct connection (like if an article was nominated due to lack of notability, and the AfD found the subject to be notable, then you couldn't have a "Notability" tag on the article). All of the tags here point to content/formatting problems, which are not covered by the AfD. You can see my (requested) comments in the section above indicating that most of these tags seem to be justified per policy, though one or two could stand revision or removal. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In the AFD most of the contributors appreciated the effort. But agreed about AFD nothing to do with tags. But no dispute on content right now. All the points made in the first AFD was correctly referenced and adjusted. Most of these tags are not introduced as a result of the first AFD. Most of them are introduced by a non contributed Obi2canibe with repeated objection from himesh. WelupillaisOb (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I swear to you...stop it. Stop edit warring over the tags. Obi2canibe specifically addressed most of the reasons above. Some of the tags you removed actually cannot be removed. For example, this article is an orphan: no other article links to it. That tag must' remain until it is de-orphaned. Period. The lack of sources is abundantly clear and obvious. Removing that tag is, again, not an option, until a much much larger portion of the article is sourced. As I explained in the section above, maybe some of the tags do need to go, but for certain not those. If you edit war over the tags I will ask for you to be blocked (note that this means that I'm explicitly calling myself "involved" on this article, in that I am explicitly stating that I will not use administrative tools...that does not mean I will not ask for another admins help, though). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please asked it from Obi2canibe. Where he does specifically addressed concerns ? In which edit ?

This article is an orphan because he removed all the links. And it is on top of your saved version of Sri Lanka. Now it may on edit war so you perhaps give him a edit warning next time.

Even through it is clear and obvious it doesn't enough. You know this better than me. Wikipedia works on consensus not based on what personally think. | This is the clear consensus of the AFD. Rest of the tags are introduced solely based on Obi2canibe observation. Consensus are the tags add by neutralized observer (Beeblebrox) and tags added by Obi2canibe are not the consensus and I will not admire that are consensus of the AFD. If you asked why Beeblebrox added that tags from your self you will find the answer. If you undid my next edit to remove additional tags introduced by Obi2canibe, I will consider it as a license given to anyone to add tags based on his + your perception. Himesh84 07:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)

Factual accuracy tag

I am making this section since it is easy to pick things if we made new section.

> The Island reference states "Senerat invaded Jaffna in 1628". It does not state "Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom"

Yes. It doesn't say it. But there are 3 sentences to back up the claim.

• Senerat invaded Jaffna in 1628
• In 1658 Dutch invaded Jaffna which belonged to king Wimaladharmasuria I of Senkadagala.
• However when the Kandyan convention was signed with British, Jaffna was a part of a Kandyan kingdom

> Boundary between the Kandyan Kingdom and the British possessions (up to 1815)

Kandyan Convention was signed on March 2, 1815. The reference is talking about March 2, 1815. I challenge you to find another good source which cover the situation on March 2, 1815 since your references are not conflicting with date of my references. Jaffna is a province of Kandyan kingdom and there was a flag to represent Jaffna flag in kings house.

> possibly to several scattered settlements near the Eastern seaboard

This is a comment with no sense. There are considerable number of Muslims in Europe. But they are not able to establish Sharia law for them self. If Tamils were withdrawn from Vanni which is just bellow Jaffna, how Eastern borders of the Sri Lanka is under Tamil power ? Tamil didn't had any kingdom in Eastern province. There was a small Tamil settlements in Eastern province,but they were under Sinhalese Kingdom. Tamil power couldn't be applied to Tamils in East. They were under Sinhalese power.

> "they [LTTE] expelled Muslims from Jaffna in pursuit of ethnic cleansing within 24 hours". It does not state "All the nations except Tamil Hindus were ordered to leave from North within 24 hours."

Sri Lanka have only 3 major ethnic groups. Sinhalese, Tamils (Tamil Hindus) , Muslims (Tamil Islamic). Tamils didn't had better relationship with Sinhalese than Muslims. In reality they gave 0 seconds to Sinhalese those days. No different than Kalinga Magha who expelled all Sinhalese in 1215 without giving anytime. If they given more time to Sinhalese your argument is correct. But you know the truth. Himesh84 15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

obi2canibe made 4 reasons to put factual errors tags.

• Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom - verified using referenced 3 sentence as above my comment. Verified sentence is not factual errors.
• Removed the all other nations except Tamil Hindus and only included Muslims. But they massacred Sinhalese villages like Kent farm,Dollar farm,..
• Boundary between the Kandyan Kingdom and the British possessions - It was refereed in the article. Not a factual error.
• possibly to several scattered settlements near the Eastern seaboard - Used the word most of Sri Lankan Tamils to recognize scattered SLTs.

Now since I have fixed obi2canibe's concerns I am removing the factual error tag. Himesh84 (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of Tags

• Citation needed - required
• Factual accuracy - I have answered to raised question. Please reinsert after discussion. Still discussion is not ended and consensus hasn't made clearly to insert this tag.
• Neutrality - If an expert found problems in neutrality need tags to sections with objections. Make it to whole page won't helpful to solve the issue.
• Original research - Go out since citation required tag is there to cover it.
• orphan - This page is linked from Sri Lanka page. It had been there for long time. If that page doesn't need that link we can put orphan tag in here later. But first task is to make consensus to remove the link from Sri Lanka page and clean it from that page.
• Cleanup - Lot of contributors ( see the history of this page) contributed to fix the issue. It seems like this page is Ok now leaving few issues like any other page. Himesh84 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I have been asked to justify the POV tag. There are two overarching POV issues with this article.

The first POV issue is the whole premise that everything that has happened in the island is part of an "ethnic conflict". This is not true. To suggest that all the conflicts that took place between Sinhalese and Tamil ruled kingdoms were "ethnic conflicts" is like saying that all the wars that took place in Europe between French speaking and German speaking states were "ethnic conflicts". They weren't. They were just geopolitical conflicts that have occurred throughout human history. The actual causes of the "ethnic conflict" i.e. civil war, were the apparent discrimination against the Sinhalese by the British during colonial rule and the retaliatory discrimination against the Tamils by the Sinhalese government post independence. The Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war article provides a thorough, well balanced encyclopaedic article on the true causes of the ethnic conflict.

The second, and most serious, POV issue is the gross and deliberate omission of facts in this article in order to portray a false history of Sri Lanka. If you knew nothing about Sri Lankan history and read this article you would believe there was no Tamil presence on the island prior to the 13th century, the "ethnic conflict" was all the fault of the Tamils and they are to be blamed for all of Sri Lanka's woes. This is not true. The Tamil presence on the island dates to pre-BC. The history section of Sri Lankan Tamil people article (a Good Article) provides a thorough, well balanced encyclopaedic article on Tamil history on the island. All of the well known, reliable texts on Sri Lankan history confirm this.

This article fails to mention some of the well documented discrimination against the Tamils by the Sinhalese government post independence which were the causes of some Tamils resorting to militancy - Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonisation; Standardisation; and Communal Riots. This article mentions the 13 soldiers that were killed in July 1983 but fails to mention the 3,000 Tamils who were murdered in the ensuing riots. This article mentions the 600 Sinhalese police officers killed by the LTTE but fails to mention the thousands of Tamils who were murdered by the Sri Lankan/Sinhalese security forces. This article has a table of all the people assassinated by the LTTE but it fails to mention the war crimes, genocide, disappearances and other human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan/Sinhalese state during the civil war. And worst of all it fails to mention the 100,000+ (mostly Tamils) killed in the war.

This article is sadly nothing but a POV fork by Himesh84. This is not just my opinion. This article was first nominated for deletion in July 2012. The nominator was a Sinhalese. Another Sinhalese editor (who wanted to keep the article) described the article as "very one sided". Other comments include "this article clearly has some POV material" and "apparent WP:POVFORK".

The true causes of the "ethnic conflict" can be found on Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war. If readers want to learn more about Sri Lankan history they should read the various history articles.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

* Please don't introduce tags until making consensus. You proud to be an Ealam Tamil, so you are not in a position to do the final judgement. You are only a party of dispute.

* You haven't raised any factual issues in above. But why did you introduced the tag ?

* For Tamils ethnic crisis start from post Independence. But for Sinhalese its started when 18 centuries longed their Golden kingdom was burnt by Tamils. They were expelled from where they settled more than 2000 years (900 BC to 1215). They were expelled from there and after 700 years of expelled, Tamil who lived in Jaffna peninsula from 1215-1900 claims Rajarata civilization as traditional Tamil lands while not providing any proof. Still you google traditional tamil lands you can find still Tamils promoting this myth without facts. Anyhow I added a reference so we don't need to talk this again until you bring another source (conflict with my source). Also every book written about ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka talk about Magha's invasion.

* Honestly I don't know first Tamil present of the Sri Lanka. It is very unclear. Not only Tamil goods have found in Sri Lanka but roman coins, Chinese coins,... It doesn't say Chines and Romans lived in Sri Lanka and they are eligible to claim a province in SL.

* But most important fact is the first Tamil present in the Sri Lanka is totally irrelevant to this article. You must understand the difference between ethnic group called Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka(official in SL - but it is different from Sri Lankan Tamil people) and Tamils came to Sri Lanka prior to Magha. Sri Lankan Tamils are descendant of none other than Magha's army who established settlement in Jaffna peninsula. Sinhalese are the descendant of Sinha + Hela + Indians came before 12th Century. It is linked in the article(Tamils came during kingdom of Rajarata era had mixed with the Sinhalese community). So better to read the link first rather showing your opinion. Sad thing is you are not descendant of Tamils who lived in 2BC or what ever. Also if you read the Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people you can found I have repeatedly questioned the reliability of the facts. No one answered to the raised question. So if you first read my comments you must not present it to me as a reliable source , good article or what ever.

* Ceylon Citizenship Act doesn't had any affect on Sri Lankan Tamils. It only applied to Indian Tamils. Peacefully it was resolved.If you can't prove your grand father born in SL how you can claim a heritage of 200 BCE.

* What is the problem with Colonization ? SL has full right within SL. Why Tamils in Jaffna kingdom object colonization in Vanni, Eastern province, ... ? Sinhalese made goldern civilization there. Why they can't resettle Sinhalese there ? There are no Tamil heritages bellow Jaffna peninsula. The attached links clearly describe British started Tamil colonization bellow Jaffna penisula(Paranthan) and SLT weren't there since 1323. Also except Jaffna all other districts records lowest population density in Sri Lanka. First prove you have some heritage in Wanni, Eastern province in anywhere.

* Standardization is a good thing to Tamils in north,east,central provinces. It secure number of minimum allocation to every district. It calculated on how student can reach facilities on the district. Still cutoff marks for universities from districts like Colombo, Galle, Matara are well above districts in rest of the Sri Lanka. If you cancel this scheme much more students from these 3 districts will fill the slots in universities. So how Standardization can badly affect on Tamils unless they are majorities of Colombo , Galle ,Matara ? It is unfair to Sinhalese but still you blame Sinhalese. I assume that you don't know objective rather titles.

* I haven't included small riots except Black July. All other than Black July wasn't backed by government. It is an Initiative of few of Sinhalese/Tamils. You must note government tried to control the situation. Some occasions they fired to Sinhalese. see 1958 rivot.

* Some of the riots are initiatives of Tamils. Gal Oya riots in Eastern province caused due to mentality of Tamil home lands. First thing is Jaffna is far away to Gal Oya. Other thing is Tamils has no right to attack other ethnic groups based on some selfish mentality ( traditional Tamil lands). Lot of Tamils settled in Colombo and Negombo. But Sinhalese didn't object saying colombo is traditional Sinhalese lands. They knew it was a right of Tamils or any other Sri Lankans.

* Killing well trained , well equipped 13 army solders is very important to the article rather killing 1000 unarmed civilians. It is to understand strength of armed groups.

* I haven't made any civilian killings and destroyed properties to the article. You have forget LTTE massacred Sinhalese in Dollar farm, kent farm, mascaraed civilians in religious locations like Temple of Tooth, Sri Maha bodiya, destroyed central bank like what Sinhalese did to Jaffna library,.. bombed public transport, shooting to public transport,... Lot of Sinhalese lost their life from the war. LTTE also done war crimes. You can find them in your favorite UNSG's report. Anyway I remove politicians killed from the article. Those things are covered by Civil war link. This article is to describe ethnic tensions not what we lost from final civil war.

* > This article is sadly nothing but a POV fork by Himesh84. This is not just my opinion - If it is common opinion why still wikipage exists ? You must report administrators who decided to keep the article. Please at least add ANI first and then comment in here. Himesh84 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here ( official ) is the cut off Z-scores in 2011

1 st - Colombo district (Sinhalese - 76%) - 1.9770

2 nd - Matara district (more than 90% are Sinhalese) - 1.9689

3 rd - Galle district (more than 90%) - 1.9470

4 th - Hambantota district (more than 90%) - 1.9327

.

.

lowest - Mullaitivu ( majority are tamils ) - 0.5950 Himesh84 (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the forum for debating ethnic issues, Himesh. Adopt a neutral stance and don't be so combative. SinhaYugaya (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, are you happy now ?

I have included details about Standardisation, CC act. You can sleep with peace. But don't raise citation required tags to the claims. Just because Tamils says so. Himesh84 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting facts from Obi2canibe

• SLT resorting to militancy due to their sympathy on Indian Tamils and Sinhalese by some government cruel actions against Indian Tamils and Sinhalese ( Indian Tamils - CC Act, Sinhalese - standardization). Better you can say You were hurt by Aryan Barbarian discrimination in India and since SLT unable to reach Aryan in India, SLT raised arms against Sinhalese who are also Aryan section. But give me references how Tamils get hurt from this and I will include them.
• Please give references to Tamil heritage out side of Sinhalese kingdom(With SLT). I will insert them to the article.
• Let me know when Tamils droped the colonization (Land) is a major issue to wear arms since Land issue has clear relationship to Sinhalese expel in 1215. I will drop claim the conflict started to appear since 1215.
• Let me know you needs to start a section war crimes by both parties.
• Let me know you needs to include genocides by both parties. I only know genocides by LTTE (600 police officers, Temple tooth,muslim church, secreat tree, kent dollar farms,... ). I will merge it with your list

Himesh84 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Factual issues

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

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

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

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

> majority of Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula before 1936

corrected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are more factual errors I have found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusions based on consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP works on consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

Himesh84 asked me to take a look at the validity of the tags (here) and whether obi2canibe is disruptively insisting that the tags should remain. Obviously, I can't comment on the validity of the tags since that is a content issue and is better taken up elsewhere but I don't see any disruptive behavior on the part of obi2canibe. Tags that are explained on the talk page are not disruptive and I don't see a consensus for their removal. I suggest that, if wider input is required, then you might want to seek some form of dispute resolution. Himesh84, if I may make a suggestion, you might want to avoid soapboxing in your comments and stick to statements that are fully supported by reliable sources. The tenor of your comments in the section above is troubling. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You are so bias. --Himesh84 (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No one asked to check the validity of tags. obinicanibe and Qwyrxian made consensus to put factual errors tag due to mentioned factual errors. After that list of sentences has been removed, factual errors tag must be removed. That is very simple. No needs to make consensus again. because consensus made tag is required due to these sentences and nothing else. --Himesh84 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. You ask another editor for advice and when they give to you you accuse them of being biased. And then you falsely use their comments to remove a tag. Why?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't care how many sentences (even referenced) removed from this article. Just needed to remove your accusation.

Who is he to judge factual issues? You 2( You and other admin) made consensus to insert factual errors tag due to specified sentences and it was resolved by worst approach (deleting sentences). After resolving I removed the tag. Any prob on that ?

I didn't asked for his advice. He was a judge. He should use tool fair manner. If he blocked me for not following consensus made by you and other admin why he is not blocking you for not following consensus made by you 2 ? --Himesh84 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of your feedback are inserted into the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to participate to this discussion until people comes with valid tangible points. Yes, English may be not good in this article but any one can fixed it because some people understand what is wrong. This is wikipedia and anyone can fix things like poor English rather deleting the page. Without fixing issue they blame the authors.

This article was nominated to delete twice but rejected on both occasion.

Let me know whats wrong (unreferenced, factual issues) with verifiable facts. If someone wants to challenge the content it should be done in fair way. Thats mean they have to prove with source. Otherwise no point of this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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