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: 1

Extended to all articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, can we assume that the above definition claimed by Taprobanus should be the criteria to categorize article? I agree with that since this will reduce a lot of edit wars in the future. Can we resolve this issue ? Watchdogb (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

LTTE "Rise to dominance" paragraph

Resolved

The former half of this paragraph immediately struck me as biased upon reading it. It does not seem that the LTTE ever "dominated" as the heading would indicate. More importantly, the paragraph itself takes the events of Black July out of context to paint a pro-LTTE picture while failing to cite any sources. Additionally, the grammar is poor. In light of these issues, I propose removing this half of the paragraph. A much better summary of the events and effects of Black July could be procured from its article and the article on the Sri Lankan Civil War respectively.PerryMarkLevin (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! This headline made more sense originally because it was only the second headline after a "Beginnings" section.[1] Since the section now includes everything from the beginnings, I think the title "Rise to power" would be appropriate. The text you mention was basically added with this anonymous edit and later modified, such as here. Since it has been there for two months without a reference, I agree that it should be removed, with a reference to this section in the edit summary. — Sebastian 18:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did the change as suggested. However, I can't close this as resolved yet. This section still is much worse than it was two years ago. The version at the end of our mediation described the beginnings, from the beginnings of the TNT. Maybe we should merge the old and the new? — Sebastian 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have so many issues right now that it seems now's not the time for that discussion. Let's resolve this issue and keep the general issue separate; I'll add a bullet to the list at WP:SLR/H#Unrealized proposals to remind us of it. — Sebastian 01:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

source quality of sangam.org

is this source reliable/partisan? It is used in some articles for LTTE military personnel. I think that the names given etc are factually correct, but I have no idea about the general quality of this site. Comments? Jasy jatere (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I Yahoo'ed for the name, and found the following:

• "Association of Tamils and Eelam & Sri Lanka in the US" [2]
• "The Association of Tamils of Eelam and Sri Lanka in the US - This site provides a range of information on Sri Lanka including links to various United Nations reports such as the Report of the UN Rapporteur on Torture (Feb 2000) and links to a range of United States government reports." [3]
• "Indian students' association at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston." [4]

— Sebastian 08:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It has to be attributed when used at the very minimum, if it contradicts an RS source then it cannot be used as we dont have assurance of third party counter checking of facts.Taprobanus (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is it a {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing or an unreliable source? — Sebastian 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the material used. Sangam archives material from other sources such as government publications etc, then one may use it as a url provided they have copy right to the material or the material is copy right free. But directly quoting from Sangam is clearly not acceptable in most cases, unless the subject matter is uncontested such as Eugene John Hebert, if there is even an iota of conflict then Sangam cannot be used. I dont use it at all. 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

I just removed the {{Resolved}} tag, because this is only resolved when it is entered correctly in the {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing. I was about to enter it, but this discussion has not reached a clear conclusion what should be entered there. From Taprobanus's reply, I seem to understand that he favors entering as a QS, with the attribution "pro-Rebel". Do I understand this correctly? Are there any objections? — Sebastian 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that sangam is reliable in the sense that they do not alter the information they archive. So if they, for example, this material can be directly attributed to TNA. Can we agree that it is reliable in it's archives - basically that we recognize that their archives are as is and has not been altered by sangam.org ? Watchdogb (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sebsatian. If we use them as source of material that theu have copy right for is copy right free (such as the TNA press release) we simply use. For everything else unless the article is written by a previously published author, it is not RS. Like Blueboar would say everything depends on the context. Taprobanus (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

LTTE article

Heavy vandalism is happening to the article and specially to the Administrative section. Editors are removing cited materials about administrative entities of the LTTE claiming that the fall of the rebels administrative capital to the SLA means that these administrative entities does not exist. The fact is that thought it might not be functional today, it did function at one time and might still be functioning in a smaller scale. Can members please watch the article. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be semi-protected for the time being. Taprobanus (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing yesterday, but today there have been a number of good-faith edits by IP editors. I think this can be solved if we only enforce the editing restrictions, as I pointed out in the previous section. I added a warning to that effect on the talk page; please bring up any accounts that flout it from now on. — Sebastian 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Today we had two edits that did not follow the editing restrictions, I am warning the users with variations of the following text:

== Please respect editing restrictions ==
You recently edited [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]], which is currently subject to editing restrictions. Please follow the instructions in the blue box on top of that page before you do any edits that could be regarded controversial. You may also want to check out our [[Wikipedia:Introduction|intro page]], which contains a lot of helpful material for new users. ~~~~

If others want to use the same text, feel free to do so. I think it's better than a template because it allows us to vary the text as appropriate. — Sebastian 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary, blocked for repeated vandalism: 99.228.164.238; warned for ignoring blue box and for adding unsourced text: 76.90.65.51; just friendly warning: 67.186.227.139. — Sebastian 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to reply here to Taprobanus' statement in the previous section: "I dont overly interfere in popular articles like LTTE, Sri Lankan civil war etc as at the end, its the responsibility of Wikipedia community not just SLR members to keep them straight.":

If, by "Wikipedia community", you mean the mass of editors outside of SLR and SLDRA, including vandals and other inconsiderate editors, then there's no reason to rely on it. But the Wikipedia community includes us. We are that part of the community that emerged for the very reason to protect such articles. When we put our blue box on these articles, we promise to the rest of the community that we will fulfill the purpose of our WikiProject and SLDRA. We have to keep that promise, or the blue box is not worth the space it takes. — Sebastian 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As you have correctly pointed out earlier, we dont have time to do everything all the time, with the limited time I have I have decided to keep a "watch" on all the not so popular articles and keep creating DYK+ articles, someone else who cares about LTTE and SL civil war should keep an eye on them. Taprobanus (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm happy about what you're already doing. But I'm as concerned as Watchdogb, who started this thread, that those who watch this article may be overwhelmed by those who deteriorate it. I don't know if semiprotection is the way to go; I still would prefer if we tried enforcing the blue box first, but I don't want t obe the only one doing that. It's fine now, but how is this going to work in the future? What will prevent the situation from getting as bad as it has become recently? Maybe we can call on other project members who haven't shown up in a while? — Sebastian 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative way to protect LTTE article

Unfortunately, the above experiment isn't going as I hoped, because few people who watch the page actually take the time to warn the users. As I am trying to cut down on the time I'm spending here, I won't be able to do this much anymore, either. We therefore need to find a solution that requires less work for those who want to protect the article. I'm aware of the following possible alternatives:

semiprotection

The problem I see with that is that there is no clear difference: I have seen disruptive edits by named users, and constructive edits by IP editors.

full protection

That would mean a lot of work for administrators, and prevent the article from the small improvements (such as spelling corrections) that happened in te last days.

full protection with sandbox

We could copy this article into a subpage and allow editing there. Then, once every couple of days, an admin could look at the change history of that page and copy it back, if there really are any improvements. I could sign up to do that twice a week, but I hope there will be other admins, too.

Are there any other ideas? — Sebastian 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion of Velupillai Prabhakaran

Resolved

 – Apparently, the request was to remove unsourced information, which has been done now.

The article states that his religion is Christian. However, multiple sources on the web denote that he was born a Hindu and still practices this, being particularly fond of worship of Lord Subrahmanya (Lord Murugan). Particularly, the US Pacific Command's assessment of him, listed as the first external link, discusses this. Perhaps this should be changed.

0seeker0 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please bring the citations here, so we can add it properly using WP:CITE formatTaprobanus (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did not see a reference for the claim that he is Christian in the article. I am therefore removing it now. — Sebastian 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Prabhakaran is a lapsed Methodist [5][6].Pectore^talk 08:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, interesting! However, I don't think this qualifies for inclusion in the article. The term "lapsed Methodist" is ill defined and not something you want to add to a WP:BLP without a proper citation, and I'm not sure if Christian Century qualifies as one. The AT link seems to refer to V.P.'s faith only in a blog message, and AT is only a {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing. Therefore, unless 0seeker0 says otherwise, I consider this request resolved, it apparently was to remove unsourced information, which has been done now. — Sebastian 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the principle that questionably sourced statement may not merit inclusion into the article. However, as an observer of the Sri Lankan conflict, I wish to show that this is NOT a religious war, and to stamp out unsourced misconceptions. Prabhakaran under no means is a Hindu.Pectore^talk 05:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pectore, when this citation was brought in very long time ago, this so called lapsed methodist citation was questioned . It was brought in by someone I knew very well then:)). All what I know is, if someone looked hard one will find citations that shows him attending Hindu religious festivals with his wife. To say he is not a Hindu or for that matter a Hindu or Christian is at some level sort of propaganda that certain Indians play. See an article by an anthropology professor that claims the whole organization is using Hindu world view. Taprobanus (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to edit a "resolved" section, but this issue needs to be put to bed, as it keeps coming up in various contexts. A piece in the Times Higher, clearly a reliable source, addresses this question expressly in the course of a review of a book on the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. In the course of commenting on a contribution which discusses the Christian influence on the LTTE (and calls Prabhakaran a Catholic), the author of the review says:

"The picture is somewhat complicated. Prabhakaran is known to be a Hindu, a follower of Murugan (considered by Tamils to be the son of the god Siva and his consort Parvati), and the grandson of the owner/builder of a Siva temple; pictures of Prabhakaran's wedding show a Hindu ceremony. On the other hand, the LTTE has sought to eradicate casteism; all LTTE ceremonies are secular; they bury their dead, rather than cremate them in the Hindu manner, in keeping with an ancient Tamil custom of burying warriors; and Prabhakaran named his son Charles Anthony after the LTTE's first suicide bomber (his daughter has the distinctly Hindu name Dwaraka)."

See also this piece in Time which reports that he was wed in a Hindu temple near Madras. Hindu temples do not conduct wedding ceremonies for Christians. -- Arvind (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And Robert Micheals questions even the so called secular nature of the organization. All his three children were named after dead LTTE cadres, it had nothing to do with religion. Taprobanus (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein and the reliability of tamileelamnews.com

There was an edit war at Bruce Fein about inserting the link http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20080605_12. I think this is noticeable; it doesn't happen very often that an American lawyer gets accused of supporting terrorists by the government of another country. I propose that we add this incident (with correct attribution), along with the reply, which I found at http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_9429.shtml. How reliable is tamileelamnews.com? I could not find a page that represents Mr Fein directly. What would be a fair summary of the rebuttal? — Sebastian 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because accusing one has to be balanced with his/her rebutal as far as WP:BIO is concerned that too accusation coming from a non reliable source, I would say that if the accusation has to be in the article then we have to attribute to the source and then the rebutal has to be made available and attributed to the source. Taprobanus (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein is currently working for an organization that is currently trying to press Genocidal charges against one american citizen and another green card holder - Sarath Fonseka and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Watchdogb (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add parts of this article he wrote to the Wikipedia entry. [7]

“ The Tamil Tigers seek a secessionist state in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka through terrorism. Characteristic of like organizations, the LTTE undertakes auxiliary activities that strengthen its terrorist torso and sweeten its public face: political organizing and advocacy; diplomacy; social services and humanitarian aid; economic development; establishment of a quasi-government on the Jaffna Peninsula; and, defending Tamils from human rights abuses. ”

“ Medically assisting the LTTE, however, facilitates terrorist abominations. Its injured members more quickly return to terrorist duties. And the LTTE more readily attracts grass-roots sympathizers, financial contributions and terrorist recruits. The nefarious LTTE terrorist goal of partitioning Sri Lanka into separate Tamil and Sinhalese nations would be closer." ”

A few wads of cash can really change a persons opinions, can't they? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that he is a supporter of LTTE ? Just because he is trying to press charges against officials of the Sri Lankan Government, who are also American citizens, does not make him pro LTTE. People who are in danger of being prosecuted might think so though! How exactly does the above quote fit into his Bio ? Mr. Fein has probably been quoted thousands of time and so are you proposing that turn his article into a quote farm ? If that is the case, then I disagree since this is wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is proven, we have to mention the accusation in the article, right? I believe this is a notable incident. I'd agree with Taprobanus. As for tamileelamnews.com, it looks to me like a suitable site to be used as a source. But it is clearly biased towards the LTTE, and this should be remembered when using it. Maybe something along the lines of tamilnet, or more likely the Asian Tribune. In short, I think it could be included as a QS. Chamal ^talk 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the accusation is made by a notable body (the GSL) and is therefore relevant. It is well sourced as well (to the government itself, which should know which positions it defends). We can take defence.lk as a reliable source for the positions of the GSL (although it is not reliable for many other topics). If Fein offers a rebuttal, it can be included, but if he does not, that would be no reason to remove the notable and sourced accusations. If the government of the USA accuses someone of being a terrorist, we include that info as well, even if it is often completely bogus. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I Disagree because the GoSL consist of members who Fein is trying to prosecute. So any such accusation from the government is a accusation from a POV source. Unless we can find the rebuttal from Fein, we cannot add the government claims without violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "John Doe is a terrorist" and "Government X believes that John Doe is a terrorist". The former is POV, the latter is NPOV. So, this is surely not in violation of WP:NPOV. As for WP:BLP, I suppose you are refering to the section "criticism and praise". If this is wrong, please state to which section of WP:BLP you are refering. I quote the relevant passage:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Could you please detail in what respect the inclusion of the link would be a problem in light of the passage presented above? Jasy jatere (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem here, as I mentioned before, is that the Government of Sri Lanka consists of members that this lawyer is trying to prosecute. So any bashing that comes from Sri Lankan Government are going to be in violation of WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

the government of Sri Lanka is a juridical person distinct from Mr Rajapaksa et al. Fein tries to charge Rajapaksa and Fonseka. He does not try to charge Sri Lanka.Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if he had not decided to prosecute these people he would not have been accused of terrorism and such.Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we add government claims to his article, then by the same token, we should add his claims to the articles of people who he is trying to prosecute.Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I am not totally against including these claims into the relevant articles, for the record I would state that the reasoning is faulty. If A must be mentioned in article B, this does not mean that B must be mentioned in article A.Jasy jatere (talk)

Additionally, we will also be forced to add his claims about the people who are bashing him even on his article. Unless we agree to that, then we cannot add government claims to his article. Watchdogb (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we maintain a distinction between the official opinion of states, and the personal opinion of people, which is general practice I presume, there is no need for this. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein's statement is actually archived here. We can use that without any attribution whatsoever. Also, Mr Fien has warned that the Government of Sri Lanka will be sued if they continue to make allegations about him without evidence. I wonder how wikipedia will fair too Watchdogb (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also any addition of such material from GoSL to the BLP, will be met with much addition from this. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

calm down. Wikipedia is not a place for threats. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is making threats ? This is his defense to the said article from GoSL. So obviously there needs to me much addition from his response. That is general wikipedia rules. Also, can you not break up my comments ? Breaking up someone's comment gets confusing and messy and even I was confused about who made the comment. More comments will be made once my comments are put back properly. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course both should be there if we include it. That's how we maintain NPOV around here isn't it? We provide both sides of the story without taking any side. Both are verifiable straight from the original publications. Wouldn't it be something like "the gov. has accused bruce fein of x. These allegations were denied by fein, who in turn accused y,z of x."? Chamal ^talk 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to what I proposed initially. However, my problem with this is that, while we can assume that a government website represents the opinion of the government, all the statements we have by Bruce Fein are from websites that do not necessarily represent his opinion, and are not reliable per se. Moreover, it is not actually a reply to the GoSL. The Statement of Bruce Fein responding to twenty five questions submitted by the Asian Tribune, is, as the name says, a reply to Asian Tribune. It begins with "The Asian Tribune, a notorious echo chamber of the Rajapaksa brothers reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda on behalf of the Third Reich, ...". I am sure that many would stop reading right there. (See also Godwin's law.) This does not sound like the defense of an American lawyer with 37 years experience in constitutional law against terrorism accusations by a foreign government. Instead, it sounds like a venomous rant. Using such a rant as a "defense" may rather harm than defend Mr Fein. This is why I brought up the question about reliability of sources for his statement right in the first place.

But I think we can close this discussion. Jasy found what I feel is a good compromise. The wording "The government of Sri Lanka has taken notice of these activities and expressed its discontent." summarizes very well all noteworthy and reliable facts we currently have about this. If someone finds a real defence, we will add it to the article. — Sebastian 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian, I agree with what your saying. I also just saw what Jasy has written in compromise. I must say that this was a Great Job on Jasy's part.

Just an FYI, this is Mr Fien's exact words. This is archived under "Tamil's for Justice" which is the organization Mr. Fein is representing. Watchdogb (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

quality of sources: http://www.lankadissent.com

I find this site quite well-written and neutral in tone. Seems quite critical of Rajapaksa, but not necessarily pro-LTTE. I would find it difficult to find a good attribution for it. On the other hand, I also do not know, whether it is reliable, but I have not come across any gross misrepresentations of facts. Any ideas? Jasy jatere (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

SL centric editors may no longer be as as free as before with their views because of the clear danger to them or their relatives. Also in Wikipedia people indulge in outing peoples identity so it is that much difficult to deal with these issues. Following are some write ups about the site 1, 2. So it is clear that it has an edior thus third part review of information that passes through hence can be argued that it is RS but QS at the very minimum. Taprobanus (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people think it's run by Mangala Samaraweera, who is strongly opposed to the President. They've denied it [8], but they've had reliability problems in the past, including a big conflict with the Daily Mirror [9] so I don't really think we can call it reliable. Maybe if they do have an article with outsdanding information that isn't available elsewhere, we can say "according to the website Lankadissent.com ..."

well, being run by someone who is opposed to the president does not necessarily make it unreliable. Le Monde is surely opposed to the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, but that does not mean it is unreliable. As for "according to", that should be taken care of by <ref> </ref>. We could use attribution like "according to the pro/anti-XYZ website", but the question is what XYZ might be. Anti-Rajapaksa? Jasy jatere (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Being run by a person simply "opposed" to the President may not make it unreliable, but a website that's run by a political party is hard to be classified as a reliable source. Le Monde is not run by a French politician.

<ref> tags take care of attribution? Really? The why do we use this QS thing? Why don't we just quote Tamilnet and just place ref tags at the end? If someone sees a paragraph and a ref tag at the end they're going to assume its factually accurate. Very few are going to check where it's sourced from. That's why attribution is required for non-reliable sources. — Snowolfd4 — continues after insertion below

it takes care of attribution in standard cases, and replaces "according to XYZ". If there is a need to qualify XYZ, <ref> should be complemented by such a qualificatoin. What I was saying is that "according to XYZ" is redundant to <ref>, but "according to the pro-ABC medium XYZ" is not. I myself would not know how to qualify the editorial stance of Lankadissent, this is why I started this thread. WHy don't you make a suggestsion as to what ABC might be? 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy jatere (talk • contribs)

Right now, I can show you multiple sources that questiont the accuracy of Lanka Dissent. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] I haven't seen anything presented here that calls it a reliable source. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

to discuss your links in order of appearance

1) does not have enough context. Daily mirror denies some allegations probably made by LS, but for an outsider it is impossible to evaluate what this is all about. DM is clearly upset about LD, but the article is so short that I would not count it as a source for any statement.

2) Daily News reports that the ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Order is unhappy with some coverage of LD. Given that ministry's attitude to media, that article surely cannot be used against the reliablity of LD

3) refutes a claim made by LD that Indian High Comission had stopped a raid. The IHC states that this was not so. While this is a factual inaccuracy by LD, it does seem to me that the issue is rather minor, as similar misreports about smaller incidents are found in many newspapers. It does not seem to be a huge distortion of the truth to gain political advantage.

4) defence.lk says that some report by LD is wrong. The original source for link 2. Now, it is quite common for ministries to say that reporters are wrong, even more in the Sri Lanka context. This link proves that the government does not like LD, but it does not prove that LD is factually wrong (the fact that LD was down quite often in the last months would rather suggest that there was an air of truth to it).

5) this is again a government website, which should not be used to judge media in Sri Lanka. I must say I have a hard time in trying to understand what this website wants to say. Could you explain in a bit more detail how LD is biased in its reporting as emerges from the website?

IPS = Inter Press Service. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I do not get you. As far as this is concerned, the only thing I learn is that "LD is a popular news site"Jasy jatere (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how IPS is a "government website"? Which government are we talking about?

Sorry, I got the link wrong for IPS. IPS is not a government website, but it does not provide sufficient evidence for your claims of inaccuracy. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, since you seem unable to read the article, it says "‘Lanka Dissent’, associated with an influential minister in the present regime...". That would be Mangala. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

please remain civil. I am able to read the article, I can assure you. Being associated with a minister is not a reason for questioning accuracy. You have provided the link to IPS to "show multiple sources that questiont the accuracy". As of now, all the links you give are either from the government, or do not call into question the accuracy in a fundamental way. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

6) is the same as 5)

to sum up, the last four links are government-owned and can certainly not be used. The first one could be used to establish dubious practices, but it does not provide enough context. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I haven't seen anything presented here that calls it a reliable source. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, now you are switching strategy. At first you wanted to present evidence that LD is inaccurate. The links you provide do not contain that evidence. You seem to abandon that strategy, don't you? Jasy jatere (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, my "strategy"? I though we were trying to establish whether lankadissent.com was a reliable source, not engage in silly attacks. Right now, I've provided multiple reliable sources that question the accuracy of lankadissent.com articles (if you don't know what a relaible source is, please look it up). You have failed to provide even a single source that calls lankadissent.com a reliable source. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Imputing a strategy was not intended as an attack, every participant in a discussion should have a strategy to get his point across. If the original one fails, one can switch, very normal. Unfortunately, all the pages you give are either biased (defence.lk) or do not contain allegations of major inaccuracies. I think that point is clear now. There is a process for arriving at what sources are reliable at Wikipedia:SLR#Classes_of_sources. WP:BURDEN is for inline citations in articles. These things are different Jasy jatere (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, looks like they've closed down now? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

indeed. Is there any List of most media shutdowns in one week? Jasy jatere (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: The citation you give does not really shed light on the "big conflict". Is there more info available? Jasy jatere (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Google is your friend --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, your onus to prove that such info exists, not mine that it does not exist. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the Daily Mirror has an article about it, so it obviously does exist. Or are you suggesting they made up the whole story? I provided a link where they question the accuracy of a lankadissent.com article, which is all that I intended to do. If you want further backgroud, GOOGLE IT. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This site looks to be noteworthy, I only looked at it ysterday for the first time when Jasy jatere mentioned it. I agree with Jasy's comment on the reliability. However today the site only showing one message. -Iross1000 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

If it is shut down then that means the editor does not want to find himself like Lasantha Wickramatunga and Taraki Sivaram and many others. But like jasy says I am open to some description about the cite such as anti-XXX Taprobanus (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no more comments proposing what pro-X/anti-X attribution could be used, I propose to add lankadissent as RS. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving towards a conclusion

I think the passages above contain all the necessary evidence to judge whether lankadissent is a reliable source or not. Further discussion is unlikely to unearth new arguments. It appears to me that among project members, there is a consensus to treat lankadissent as a reliable source, although many also could live with an attribution of some kind. The only dissenting voice comes from snowolf, who has rejected WP:SLR. I propose to close this discussion as "Lankadissent is RS", unless a good attribution (Anti-Rajapaksa, Pro-UNP, Anti-Buddhist, what-have-you) is proposed and accepted within the next 7 days. In that case, the discussion should be closed as "Lankadissent is QS", with the consequences that entails Jasy jatere (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving interval

(This was originally a reply to Jasy jatere's proposal of 11:30, 12 January 2009 to resolve the above discussion.)

Sorry, but not everyone can edit Wikipedia 24/7. School's starting so I've been pretty busy. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is required to edit Wikipedia 24/7. I think, five days are appropriate for a topic like this. It rarely happens that it takes longer for an objection to appear. AN/I archives its discussions after 24 hours. How about if we agree to wait a week from the first post before we archive a topic? — Sebastian 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean 7 days after the first post, or 7 days after the last reply? I would think the latter is reasonable. Also AN/I is the admins noticeboard. They would be expected to check Wikipedia more often. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not only read by admins, but also by many normal editors, and it affects non-admin editors often more directly. That said, a case can be made for taking more time, which is why we give ourselves seven times as much time.

Yes, I mean 7 days after the first post. If the discussion has been going on for a week, then of course we don't just perfunctorily archive it when time's up. Instead, we've always done it this way: We wait a bit (usually at least a day) before someone adds a {{resolved}} tag, and then usually at least another day until it gets archived. I'm not proposing any change; it was a mere clarification of what we've already been doing. Even in the case that triggered this, it worked just fine - you saw it, and replied. — Sebastian 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, I couldn't reply for 3 days after the last post, so by these standards, the thread will have been closed as "resolved", which it obviously is not. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 10:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

SLDR Violation of Tamil Eelam

Kerr avon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated SLDR by removing cited material, without consensus, on an article that is currently protected by SLDR. This use has already been warned for violating SLDR - 1RR- and this is the second such incident. I believe this merits a block, but any remedy to stop any more such violation is welcome. Watchdogb (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of focusing on content, not on editors, it would be better if you provided the actual link to the content that has been changed. I looked at Kerr's last two edits to Tamil Eelam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), here and here and I don't see any removal of cited material there. Kerr is one of our oldest members. Like most here, he generally tries to do the right thing, but makes occasional errors. So maybe this is just an error or misunderstanding. Have you tried talking to him? — Sebastian 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have provided the link even before under "Materual" I was not explicit enough. The link is here. I did not talk to him because I do not feel it will ratify into anything useful. My earlier conversations with him ended in just more violation of BLP's and such. Watchdogb (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that really was an SLDR violation, and a warning would be appropriate. An experienced editor like him should really know better. However, his edit was not completely without reason. The recent events have led other, more considerate, people to ask if such sections in our articles should be deleted. Luckily, one of them asked about it at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Current state of LTTE.

Until now, we just didn't have a good way to cope with this situation. People are too excited to find the time and the nerves to actually rewrite whole sections, particularly when they feel these sections have become irrelevant, so all they can think of is deleting them. I wish Kerr had come here to ask about it instead of following that urge. I could have helped him. For this situation, I specifically created the template {{Current-anytext}}, which can be applied on top of the section as follows:

{{Current-anytext|'''This section describes the situation of 2008 or earlier''' and may not be up to date due to [[Portal:Current events|current events]].}}

That resolved the issue then, and I am confident that it will also resolve the issue in the Tamil Eelam article. — Sebastian 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the warning to Kerr though, I ask you not to warn him this time, for the following two reasons: (1) When I checked Kerr's warning of last August, I felt bad for him; I found that the handling of the incidence back then actually did not follow what I had in mind when I wrote Clarification of what 1RR means to us (S3). I regret that I left that section in such a complicated, inconclusive state. (2) The Tamil Eelam incident actually was not a deletion; it was a replacement, as can be seen from the next edit to the article. While that still is a major change that he should have discussed, one can at least see some justification for the replacement. — Sebastian 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

Aren't we using this anymore? No articles have been added since 2007, but there are new articles that have been created within the scope of this project. Chamal ^talk 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good observation, the articles created within the same genre but not protected by the blue box still enjoy the advantages of blue box protection. Because would be vandals know that the moment a revert war begins, one party or the other will bring it here and boom we have a blue box on it. I rather leave it as is (i.e 2007 list) and not add anything unless specific actions by persistant vandals require it. Taprobanus (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this resolved, or should we move this to our householding discussion? — Sebastian 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Crimesofwar

I believe that this website is not reliable. It does not cited any of it's claims and it has not been used, to my knowledge and a quick google search, by any journal, news websites or any other reliable sources. Watchdogb (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly reliable. See this. It is run by individuals who have been published by other mainstream publications which are known for fact checking such as Boston Globe. This will be covered under the self published portion of RS and verfiability. Taprobanus (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this be resolved then ?Taprobanus (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

TMVP

The bluebox was removed two days ago with a user noting that nobody (Basically besides me) edits the page and there really is no issue with neutrality on the page or even content. For that reason I find it peculiar that SebastianHelm removed it when it (prior to today) had no mention on this page.Pectore^talk 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking here. Editing on that page is restricted per the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. That agreement was the result of long negotiations of well respected administrators, who did their best to include every editor of articles in the Sri Lanka Conflict.

But you are right; editing on that page seems to indeed have been very peaceful. I don't see a reason to keep the restrictions for that particular page; let's see what other here have to say. — Sebastian 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

socialism

On the right hand side box of the LTTE article, it is mentioned that one of its ideology is socialism. It is not correct by looking at this article [16]. See comments about 1977 elections.-Iross1000 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

I took a quick look, but failed to find anything about the ideology. Anyway there is no reference that claims that their ideology is socialism. They might want socialism for the state they aspire to create, but that does not make their ideology socialism. Tamil Nationalism is the best fit and should be the only one mentioned. For those reasons I added a fact tag on the particular section. If there is a RS that claims this, then we should keep socialism under ideology. Watchdogb (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lasantha Wickramatunge

A lot of activity is going on in this article, some good some bad. In my view it needs a Blue box on it. Taprobanus (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I acted quickly, since this is a person who recently died, and this is when such pages usually are most viewed. I also feel that WP:BLP provides an additional need for protection. Please, in light of what I said above, I would like to keep this open for a week before we archive it. (Of course, if anyone raises objections here, we will consider them and can remove the template again.) — Sebastian 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

His name is misspelt it should be Lasantha Wickrematunge [17]86.31.99.23 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review?

Can we have a peer review (within the project I mean) on the Battle of Kilinochchi (2008–2009) article? If so, what is the way to go about it? I've been working on the article for the past few days, and any help and advice would be appreciated on improving it and pointing out any mistake/bias. Chamal ^talk 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea! We haven't done this yet, but we could just use the same format of WP:PR (See also instructions at WP:PR#How to respond to a request.) They use transclusion, but that may be unnecessarily complicated. How about if we kept all peer reviews on the subpage /PR? — Sebastian 07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen people at WP:MILHIST doing something like this. I thought this might be better than going straight to WP:PR since getting some feedback from people who have a kind of background knowledge on the subject would be more helpful to identify factual and neutrality problems. At PR, you're likely to get detailed suggestions only on WP:MOS and things like that. Chamal ^talk 08:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's how I understood it. I meant that we can create our own subpage with a name such as WT:SLR/PR and then use the tried and proven format from WP:PR. If you like, you could just click on one of the red links just to start the page; and then people will respond just as described at WP:PR#How to respond to a request; only that they will do so here, instead of at WP:PR. — Sebastian 08:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Peer review - and nominated the article too :) - using the layout from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review and Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review. Hope it's OK. I also added the link to the project page. Chamal ^talk 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

more sources

I offer the following sources for critical assessment. Are they reliable sources, qualified sources, or unreliable sources? See Wikipedia:SLR#Classes_of_sources for explanations of what those terms mean Jasy jatere (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

website

Daily News

website

The Island

website