Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive 2

How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls?

I started this project because NCSLC did not achieve its goal of neutrality. So much so, that many good editors would have nothing to do with it. Let's sympathetically look at what went wrong so we can learn from it. [...] — Sebastian 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I archived the above discussion at WT:SLR/archive#How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls? because I didn't get my concern across. But I'd really be happy if someone could contribute ideas. Therefore, I'm keeping this little section here as a reminder. — Sebastian 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Soosai

This article is the Bio of "Colonel Soosai", not Interpol's special page for "Colonel Soosai".SAR23 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why you keep posting here? You are not a member of WP:SLR --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is open for everyone to add comments. — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanatonian requested to comment.SAR23 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

SAR I think that the terrorist part could be in the article. Although it is not needed in his bio it does give the reader the information. The article gives proper reference to interpool. I think that should be allowed but other comments like "Amonst other things" are POV pushing and should not be included in wiki. Watchdogb 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote: What to do with essays in our talk page?

The above long essay by SAR23 is more than just a talk page contribution. It is clearly not what WP:TALK has in mind, since it exceeds the recommended 100 words by far, and employs heavy editing so that it's virtually impossible to write replies without destroying the format. One option would be to move it into a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/LTTE digest, and that's what I'd recommend if SAR23 were a member. So, what should we do with it? — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy: Move into the authors' user space (in this case, to User:SAR23/Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective). — Sebastian 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy: --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 12:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Concer with SebastianHelm to take whatever action nessicary. --Sharz 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, seeing that he posted the same in 12 different pages I will go ahead and userfy it now before people start replying to it. — Sebastian 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist categorisation

Thileepan, Tamilchelvam etc

This is regarding Thileepan, Tamilchelvam etc, first of all just because a person is a member of a political wing of a terrorist organisation does not exclude him from being labeled as a terrorist. Regarding Thileepan he appears to have been part of the armed struggle as it says "He was injured in military operations with the LTTE", which shows that he was a millitant and would qualify him to be listed as a terrorist.

It is to be noted that Tamilselvam is a prominent leader of the LTTE which is listed as a terrorist organisation. As such it is hard not to categorise him as a terrorist. Imagine him saying "I am from the LTTE's political wing so therefore I am not a terrorist", it looks very odd logic indeed. Regarding labelling him as a sri lankan politician is wrong too as the LTTE to my knowledge is not registered as a legitimate political party in sri lanka.

I would value differing opinions regarding this issue.Kerr avon 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here! (I also very much appreciate that you're taking my rv in good faith; in fact, I didn't do that to take sides, but because I would like us to talk about such changes first.) Category:terrorists provides a list of conditions for listing a person there that we should go by. In addition, I just created /LTTE digest, which contains some relevant findings from our last mediation. — Sebastian 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC), amended 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Kanatonian is on wikibreak, so I'm not sure if anyone will speak up for the two persons you mentioned. But we want to solve this. So how about if we wait a certain time - I would propose 2 days - if anyone contests your changes. If not, then I'm fine with you reinserting the cats. (Please mention in summary that you are doing this "per [[WT:SLR#Terrorist categorisation]]") If then somebody contests it, please direct them here within the same proposed time. We will protect your version until it has been properly discussed. Time counts from when a disputed article was first announced with a link. Thus, we have:

• Thileepan: 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (per your link above)
• S.P.Thamilselvan: 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (per this link - there seem to be a number of different spellings!)

I hope this works for you! — Sebastian 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As you said we will wait and see what Kanatonian thinks about it. Regarding Thamilselvam's name, when he came into prominence it was listed as "Tamilchelvam" and it later changed just like Prabhakaran became "Pirapaharan". I dont know which is his real name, but currently tamilselvam appears to be the most popular one in news reports.00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for your patience! — Sebastian 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at third party opinion about this [1] User:Kanatonian 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm happy that the Balasingham case got resolved well by asking a third party opinion, I wouldn't feel so comfortable if we had to rely on third opinion for every such case. I'd rather agree on a general way to solve such cases. So allow me to pick up your general conclusion and question from that discussion:

• "Hence we can conclude that to tag anyone as a Terrorits he/she must have taken part in an act labelled as terrorist by a WP:RS. So any one who is categorized as a Sri Lankan Rebel can be tagged as a terrorist as long as in the talk page such evidence is provided?"

Are you saying that everybody who correctly classified in Category:Sri Lankan rebels should also be in Category:terrorists? The appropriate way to do this would not be by including individual articles in both, but by including the former in the latter. I'm not sure if we can get a consensus for this. It certainly would mean we need to apply the same (or very similar) criteria for Category:Sri Lankan rebels as the ones provided by Category:terrorists.

No just the tag itself is appropriate if you find the reputable soiurces to anyoneUser:Kanatonian

Note: Kanatonian changed the wiki break tag to notify us that he doesn't know when he'll come back. If that is an issue, we still can go back to the option I offered above. — Sebastian 05:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"State Terrorist" Tagging

If "Terrorism" tagging continues for LTTE caders, start "State Terrorists" and tag to Sri Lankan Presidents and Military personnel who are responsible for many of the "State Terrorism" directly or indirectly. They are elected or part of a legitimate Government doesn't exempt from the tag. Their status is only either they are still not tried or failed to be tried, but fit for the "State Terrorist" tagging.SAR23 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" tagging

References are not enough to call some one as terrorist. On which basis should be clarified.SAR23 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems you are awaiting till LTTE announce Soosai as a terrorist. Isn't it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You should ask them.SAR23 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah thank you, thank you very much. Actually I have no idea how can I appreciate for your brilliant advice. Why don't you reconsider my request over here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For your absurd question that is the answer. Ask Mangala Samaraweera, he will tell the new list of Sri Lankan State Terrorists and their extra-judicial killings rather tagging LTTe fellows.SAR23 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain Miller

US Defense/State Departments are not the international judicial arms to listen their views and rules. Tamils have the right to question the SLAF bombing. Mostly Sinhala or foreign pilots bombing in the Tamil areas. Sri Lankan government is not a responsible government and it has violated over the decades Tamil rights under the name protecting an ilusive/unaccepatable law, and sovereignty. Targetting a Military base which violated Tamil minority rights with the Sinhala majority dominated "Sri Lankan Government" is not "Terrorism" but "Self-Defense".SAR23 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that you are in the wrong place ?? those kind of comments are much appreciated at here and here,unless of course you already a contributer to them --Iwazaki 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes It is a wrong place. Asking something here where the die-heart mouthpieces of 99.9% Sinhala dominated army - controlled by 90% Sinhala dominated Governement are preaching law and order.SAR23 13:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

He became suicide bomber for the self-defense of his communitySAR23 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

your writing style reminds me someone I met over here, at wikipedia, someone who brought real time humour..Coming back to the point, LTTE's first murder victim came from their own community,they have been basically killing all the community members who oppose them..have you ever thought why?? --Iwazaki 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Iwazaki relax. Its not like you really belong to wikipedia more than anyone else. I am sorry but please refrain from your personal attacks on people. Especially those who do not see you way. That being said I do agree that this is not a place to make such an argument. Sar23 please take a look at the wiki rules. Please take up specific problems related to articles on the discussion page. Thanks Watchdogb 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arguements are ridiculous, Sar23, cite Wikipedia protocol, not your own arguements to justify your changes. Iwazaki, what does the alledged murder of people within the Tamil community by the LTTE have to do with Captain Miller? Absolutely nothing. Captain Miller drove a truck full of explosives and incinerated a camp of Sri Lankan Army personal. It's called warefare, terrorism is an entirely different concept that the Sri Lankan government manipulates unsuccessfully to gain support for their war against the Tamil Tiger Sepratists. --Sharz 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This clearly does not meet the criterion "Targeting civilians" of Category:Terrorists. If that criterion is appropriate or not should be discussed there, but as long as it's there, I don't see how Category:Terrorists can be appropriate for Captain Miller. — Sebastian 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the edit war on Terrorists Category

Sharz and Kanatonian are confronting. Sharz at Captain Miller and Kanatonian on this talk page. Beacause of that my view is not minority.SAR23 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you like to resolve this issue on here you are welcome to do so. But to refrain from editwars, I like to urge you to stay at the original version of the articles and then discuss. Project mediator will back on today and I hope he will help us to resolve this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys what I am confronting ? I dont understand Kanatonian 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Sharz and Kanatonian are objecting to tag.SAR23 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the tag entirely...If you want to tag Soosai or Prahibaharan, go for your dreams, I'll make it clear that I object to tagging Lt.Col Thileep, Cap. Miller or Thenmuli Rajarathnam. --Sharz 08:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Will revert all articles that I know off to their original cat position concerning terrorist. --Sharz 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

may i please ask one question?.. how do u know of this issue.. the issue of where the LTTE group has been attacking their own groups. I think you guys got your facts wrong! Have you ever seen the assassination of the Tamils by the LTTE group before?.. and if so have you ever thought of actually knowing if they are the governmental army or not? Please dont just assume on reality and know your facts to all. This obviously is a biased issue and should not be because the other people that are wanting to know about this are getting the wrong facts. And if you say that what i am saying are lies, do you, any of you have any proof of that?

Thank you... and I will for sure be back to respond. Thamilichi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.117.154.29 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

What is the point of Category:Terrorists?

Since we've had a lot of discussions about tagging individual articles about LTTE members as "Terrorists", I'm wondering what the people who promote this are trying to achieve. WP:CAT defines the point of categories as follows:

Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called.

Since Category:Terrorists currently has over 100 articles, I think it is unlikely that someone would browse through that category in order to find a particular LTTE member such as Captain Miller. I think it's much more likely that someone would search such categories as Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Category:Sri Lankan rebels and Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. In which scenario would Category:Terrorists add a benefit to our readers that the other categories don't provide? Are there other ways to help our readers in such a scenario? — Sebastian 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with sebastian on this matter. It is also a matter of POV pushing also since "terrorist" is not a NPOV that wiki tries to achieve. How are we to assume that someone is terrorist ? Remember the LTTE are only banned in 29 countries. Putting them up with people like Osama (world wide terrorist) is not the best way to achieve NPOV. Also what stops some LTTE supporters from not categorizing them as a "Hero" ? They are seen as heros by the pro-LTTE people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 14:55, March 3, 2007

Actually, I didn't mean this so much as a statement of opinion, but as a serious question to those editors who insist on adding the category to a number of articles. I want to reach an understanding of their reason.

This might be a similar situation as when I discussed with Dutugemunu why he insisted on adding the category Category:Terrorism to various articles, and after some discussion he convinced me that we needed to change the category structure. If the "taggers" could let us know what they're hoping to achieve then we have a good chance to find a solution that satisfies everybody. — Sebastian 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective

SAR23 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pledge: Cease Edit War

I propose that members of the SLR cease all editing of articles which are being conflicted over cats. Though we cannot extend any influence over other users, namely Iwazaki, Sar23 and Snowolfd4, we can lead by example. This would be taking a step in the Wikipedia guidlines of Conflict Resolution, to simply step back from the conflict, let old discussions die, and then start anew. — Sharz 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Note: This is not a vote, but a pledge; and it is of course open to all, not just SLR members. — Sebastian 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support--Sharz 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I join the pledge. — Sebastian 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where the action is

I just added our banner {{Banner WPSLR}} to some of the pages on which there has been relevant activity and updated our watchlist to include these pages, as well. Please check it out - there is a lot happening at the moment. Click here to see the changes of the last week. — Sebastian 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Guideline: Classification of sources

This is the discussion for WP:SLR#Classification of sources. For old discussions, see /archive#Guideline: Classification of sources.

Any proposal that has not been disputed for 48 hours is considered to have found consensus and can be moved into the table by any member.

Tamilcanadian.com

Iwazaki does not believe that tamilcanadian is a RS and has been reverting article with reference to tamilcanadian. I belive that this should be voted upon to find a resolution. Watchdogb 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Are there any arguments for or against the reliability? My hunch is that it may be a QS, but I'd like to hear from others who know more about this. — Sebastian 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the site a little bit today and found that their 'news' section is actually a list of collected articles from AFF, Reuters, Tamilnet and other RS and some QS. I checked other articles that are posted there and it seems to have the same message as many many other "tamil" related articles. It maintains a pride in the LTTE victories but then again most of the Tamil dispora do support the rebels. The stories seems pretty reliable and seem to have come from other tamil websites/books. I think this rates somewhere between RS and QS . Thats my input although I am not a member. Watchdogb 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

satp.org

I believe that this site does not have a NPOV. It's obviously not an arm on the Sri lanka but as I see it's articles seem a little bias. Please take a look. Watchdogb 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you think it is anti-rebel bias? Do you have any references to back up that opinion? If so, we can decide this quickly, otherwise, it may become a lengthy discussion. — Sebastian 03:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well some of the articles have come from www.spur.asn.au which is a anti-LTTE website. Also under the heading it has something like Srilanka>Terrorist group > LTTE. Which seems to side with the Srilankan government. Also reading through the article it seems to oppose the rebels. I also can't find the reference of that site, I think that a discussion would be best though. Thanks -Watchdogb 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Which articles come from www.spur.asn.au? If you could make a table like the following, it would help your case. — Sebastian 04:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

article in satp.org	source (exact link)	comment
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3

Since I can't fit all the info into a table I'll just give some comparison here.

satp has ---> The home guards and Army kill two LTTE cadres during retaliatory attack at Mahakachchikudi in the Vavuniya district.

which seems to have come from http://www.spur.asn.au/News_2007_January_10.htm or atleast from the same source

satp has ---> One soldier is killed and another one wounded when troops on foot patrol at Vakare West in the Batticaloa district came under a LTTE attack. Intelligence sources reveal that the outfit has suffered heavy damages.

Same article seems to be on spur also. The actual source for spur was the srilankan army and its extremly possible satp got it from the same source as spur.

satp has---> The dead body of a LTTE cadre is recovered and an injured cadre of the outfit is arrested during a search operation conducted by troops after a claymore attack targeting them at Mamaduwa Maharambakulam in the Vavuniya district.

same article from spur. Source is from srilankan army site.

Watchdogb 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since only the first of these examples contains a link I will only look at that one. I don't see that the texts match. The fact that they describe the same incident in different words can hardly be seen as an argument against their credibility. However, this source is in my opinion not reliable since it does not cite its sources. Classifying it as anti-rebel is probably a good compromise. — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right sabastian... The text doesn't match and it shouldn't because otherwise it could be considred plagiarized from one another especially becuase satp does not cite. I just wanted to point out that they seem to have come from either the same source or mabe one just reworded the same article. I hope you understand. Watchdogb 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please vote here: (Choices are: "RS", "UnRS" and "QS (qualification)".)

• QS (anti-rebel) (tending towards "UnRS" as per above, but I don't know enough about them to condemn them.) — Sebastian 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Since there was no objection, I'll enter this in the table, but I'll keep the vote open since there hasn't been enough discussion if this even qualifies as a QS.

Please vote here - we have to consider this a provisional decision if only one member voted. — Sebastian 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

spur.asn.au

Watchdogb claims above that this is anti-rebel. Do others agree? — Sebastian 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is from my point of view more than anti-Rebel it is anti-Tamil in some of its content hence crosses all the threshholds. It equates Tamils = LTTE also it is simply a website with no editorial control and attribution of sources. I can write what ever I want and get it published. It fails WP:RS completely Kanatonian 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds really horrible! I assume you are voting "UnRS". If you can back it up with references I will vote that way, too. — Sebastian 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it back, they have removed most of the of offending articles since i visited it few years ago. But it is still like Tamilnation a website without any editorial control an review hence it can only be used for primary sources not for any news or secondary informationKanatonian 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most definetly Anti-Rebel, Pro-Government and Anti-Tamil. I will provide references after this coming assesment period for me, but if you have some time to go over it, many articles make broad generalisations like "the Tamils responded..." and classing all Tamils in the same political and ideological camp. Also, articles have obviously been filtered to only show either pro-Goverment or anti-Tamil anti-LTTE infomation. --Sharz 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The site in question is critical of the LTTE. But other allegations against it like anti-tamil appear unfounded. I would be gratefull if Sharz etc could provide some cited info from the site was shown which shows that it has anti tamil and pro government info on it, or cites which questions its reliability which can be cross checked. Otherwise it could only be classified as a site which is critical of the LTTE.Kerr avon 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please vote here: (Choices are: "RS", "UnRS" and "QS (qualification)" (example: "QS (anti-Tamil)").)

If nobody votes here we'll have to close this as "no decision". — Sebastian 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. After spending what seems years of going through their material, I have the distinct impression that SPUR would never ever publish anything that was not either anti-tamil or anti-LTTE. I don't have a problem understanding where their loyalties lie, but what bugs me is whether they should be classified QS (anti-rebel) (given that they source some of their articles to clearly to QS (see: http://www.spur.asn.au/LTTE_Suicide_Attack_20061015_Navy_Buses_Habarana.htm (section referring to Asian Tribune)) or UnRS. At the end of the day (literally), I vote UnRS, based on the following:

http://www.spur.asn.au/LTTE_Suicide_Attack_20061015_Navy_Buses_Habarana.htm (title) Claim that these Navy Personell where unarmed, a factually incorrect description as there were photos from the bomb site published were weapons were being gathered in large piles.

So a (weak) UnRS from me. NeuralOlive 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on Neurolotive's comments.

http://www.spur.asn.au/current.htm Note that two articles are posted, one speaks of an attack against a person by members of the LTTE (in Melbourne? :S). Not only is no infomation given to verify this, another article is later posted citing the same incident, except it states that the LTTE is attacking members across Australia. I will not deny the fact thatt he LTTE uses unsavoury methods of extracting money from peoples all around the world, something that should be put to stop, however, this Spur article does not prove that using any methodology, facts or sources.

Not only that, further down the page, there are scathing attacks upon NGOs and also against a Norweigan diplomat which the site describes as a "flamboyant playboy and a rogue" without any real backing to their comments. --Sharz 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Connecting with DR folks!

Hi I've been lurking around reading (and adoring) Wikipedia's approach to dispute resolution. As an attorney focused in ADR now working for a statewide non-profit in NY, I'm not only interested in helping out the Wikicommunity but also taking your experience out of cyberspace to students and professional mediators. I'm probably not the first person to have approached you about this, but hey--your doing great work and building a really powerful model. --I now have a username iceweaselqueen but little experience in the ettiquete or best way to approach others sharing my interest in conflict resolution. Suggestions? Iceweaselqueen 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Iceweaselqueen, your experience is very welcome here! The Sri Lanka conflict is one of the toughest in the world, so we would be very happy if you could help us. We're of course not professional here, but it is an interesting new area of conflict resolution, and best of all, much of it is documented, so it should provide some good material for students and professionals. — Sebastian 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel entirely confortable with the prospect. --Sharz 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you not feel comfortable with? And why not? — Sebastian 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a great help to have out here also to take our approach to outside of this arena. Waht ever resolves conflictsKanatonian 12:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Current edit war

I am very unhappy about the current outbreak of hostilities on many articles in our scope, and I would like to start a brain storm about what we in this project can do about it. An example for this is Sri Lanka Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the revert warriors don't care about the conversation on the talk page, even when there are honest compromise proposals.

I think if we just ignore this we're not even worth our name. I posted a question and got some hints what could be done. I think WP:3O, WP:PR and WP:RFC sound good because they may be paths to an amicable solution. Please, let's brainstorm what we should do. And please remember, no personal attacks or other off-topic chatter on this page. — Sebastian 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we cannot resolve all edit wars all at once. What we can do is pick one at a time to resolve. Let's pick one. Kanatonian 12:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A new one will be begining pretty soon in this State terrorism in Sri Lanka unless pro active measures are taken to resolve it. Thanks Kanatonian 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're proposing to begin with this article? I have no objection. Which proactive measures would you propose? — Sebastian 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good articles from reliable sources

Thanks to some links provided by Snowolf [2] I was made aware that Reuters has a good correspondent on location, as well. I find his newest article [3] very interesting, and I specifically take Krishnagobal Sivamalar's statement to heart: "Both sides are the problem, both the LTTE and the army". — Sebastian 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chores

So far, I have been the only one who did such chores as

• archiving,
• closing votes,
• listing new members
• welcoming new members,
• updating What's New
• updating our watchlists.

(For completeness: Other chore that others did, too:

• welcoming new editors
• adding our banner to articles in our scope.)

In the future, I would like these chores to be

• either shared by everyone, if people think they're worth it
• or abolished.

I see worth in them, but if the majority doesn't then we'll abolish them.

I will create a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Chores and start listing what I did there. We can continue the discussion either here or on that page's talk page. — Sebastian 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's divide an conquerKanatonian 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could do it the Wiki way without a fixed work assignment. But divide and conquer might work better, at least for now. So here's a table that can be used for both purposes. Numbers correspond to current section numbers on WP:SLR/Chores. First, People could say on a scale from 0-10 how important they think a task is. And then we can use it as a signup sheet. — Sebastian 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chore	Value for								Signup
	Seb.	Lahiru	Kanatonian	Kerr	Sharz	Neuralolive	Krankman	Total
1.1 Manual archiving	2	closed	2	vote closed			2	6
Agree with using bot (See request)	Yes	closed	Yes	vote closed			Yes	Yes (no objection)
1.2 Updating What's New	4		2			(x)	2	8
1.3 Adding our banner	3		7			(x)	6	16
1.4 updating our watchlist	6		8			(x)	8	22
1.5 Welcoming new users	5		5			(x)	6	16
2.1 When a member applied	7		7			(x)	7	21
2.2 listing and welcoming new members	10		10			(x)	10	30
3.1 closing votes	8		7			(x)	6	21
3.2 adding voting results to WP:SLR	8		8			(x)	8	24

I added explanations in the chores subpage for each of the chores that explain why they're needed, and what it means if we don't do them. I also added links to each section from the corresponding row in the table. Now, fellow members, please vote in the table! — Sebastian 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: If you guys don't see value in them, they will not be done. — Sebastian 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, more than 48 hours passed. In fact, it's almost 100 hours since I posted this list, and only 2 people beside me voted at all. To me, it's an indication that most members take the project less seriously than I do. I will consequently reduce my commitment. I want to come to closure regarding the archiving since I said I'd get back to MiszaBot today. The other issues can remain open; they just don't get done unless they get sufficient support. It's up to each member to decide what's sufficient. I personally am not signing up for any task since no task even reaches 50% of all possible points. — Sebastian 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian - please don't take 48 or even 100 ours of inaction as lack of interest - it is sometimes difficult to access the web when the governement has cut all means of communication. Meanwhile, in Batticaloa, it has been a tough work week. (Oh, and I don't understand how to vote in these tables - don't say I didn't warn everyone) NeuralOlive 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reassurance! I feel embarrassed - this, of all places, should be a place where people understand the pressure under which people in Batticaloa are. I didn't know you lived right there - my apologies!

Dealing with tables in Wikipedia is indeed a bit tricky, since it's not WYSIWIG. (Usually you have to use the preview a lot.) The way it works is you have to write the value you place on each chore into the field under your name. To make it easier, I just wrote "(x)" in each of the cells. Please replace the "(x)" with your value (from 0 to 10). Does this help? If you want to be really helpful, you could also update the total sum, but I don't want to ask that of you; I can do it later, too. — Sebastian 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict over a Foto in Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Hey there!

I tried to remove a picture from the article because in my opinion it

• is completely inadequate for an encyclopedia (that should be suitable for children as well) and
• has been put there purely for anti-Tamil propaganda.

There are hundreds of pictures like that, and both sides have committed similar acts of cruelty. I feel it's biased: Either we would have to put in a picture of a Sinhala atrocity as well--which I am against because fotos of this kind are just not necessary to illustrate anything in a serious article-- or we should get rid of it. I sincerely hope you agree with me.

I know that there has been a discussion on picture censorship (here) which turned out inconclusive. But since almost every single country has laws about these things and people generally feel it's the right thing to protect people from traumatizing stuff like that, shouldn't we try the same here at WP?

I suppose one should concentrate on the aspect of protection of minors rather than mentioning the political aspect, because that way the discussion should hopefully be less emotionally (politically) charged, right? Cheers, Krankman 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, and for providing relevant links. I'm sorry, I don't think we can just ignore the political aspects; they're an essential part of the conflict. I feel the two questions are relevant:

1. What level of violence would be adequate for this article? Beside the Aranthalawa picture, there are already two other pictures violence, but they are not as graphic as the third. Is it OK to show pictures when the face of the victim is only 20 pixels wide, but not when it's 60 pixels? In that regard, I would like to see evidence that pictures of civilian victims of violence have a detrimental effect on young readers. There must have been some research for that - does anyone know more about this? I would like to add that this does not only concern minors, but anybody who looks at these pictures. Will it further increase violence in Sri Lanka when we show pictures like this? (Pictures of violence can stir up emotions in anyone - I have been told that even some Buddhist high ranking people called for violence.) Or will it show people the futility of war on civilians?
2. Given a certain level; what should be the balance of pictures that represents both sides fairly? Currently there are two pictures of LTTE violence versus one of GoSL violence. Is that fair?

From my experience with discussions here, I agree with your concern that the political aspect is likely to make it very hard to discuss the aspect of protection of minors. Therefore, it may make sense to discuss #2 before #1. — Sebastian 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I asked a specific question about the picture on Image talk:Aranthalawa Massacare 1.jpg. — Sebastian 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that on the article, all the pictures seem to be captioned with a small somewhat POV sub-story. Captions should only frame the picture, if a link cannot be drawn from the text to the picture naturally, then it does not belong there. --Sharz 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As we are trying to create an encyclopedic article and if pictures become point of distraction and discussion then it is an indicator of the total malaise in the article itself. But sometimes a picture can tell a more than the article itself. An encyclopedic article about historic concentration camp without the picture of emancipated prisoners will be unthinkable today. So my view is that we need to approach it case by case with a minimalist approach to pictures and captions. Kanatonian 12:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

Use of WP:HOAX tag

Problem statement: Dispute over usage of Hoax tag

Discussion

I would like to report a potential misuse of WP:HOAX and edit warring using the same tag in Sri Lanka related articles. The potential misuse began on See diff here) after considerable discussion on the talk page by neutral editors regarding the potential misuse see Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag the article was improved. Then the hoax tag was used on See diff and diff here again after patient explanation by a neutral Wikipedian editor and discussions on the talk page about how to use hoax tag see here the article was improved Then it was used by the same editor on see diff here) much to the chagrin of neutral editors see talk page. After that the behavior has escalated (See diff here), (see diff here) and (See diff here). I want to find out from SLR members whether my observations are correct or wrong and if there is anything we can do do resolve this issue or do we have to take it to ANI. Kanatonian 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lexicon for resolving this issue Kanatonian 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Malicious tagging Velupillai Prabhakaran page

Problem statement: Dispute over usage of tags in the article

Discussion

NPOV,OR,Citecheck, and weasel tags on them. I think if reasonable Wikipedians can create stable articles on Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh etc why is the crowd of primarily Sri Lankan specific editors have to resort to malicious tagging. Anyone who comes to read about this individual will return with a poor reputation about Wikipedia. This is a bloody nose to Wikipedia because editors are unable to suppress their personal feelings about such an obviously divisive person to create a neutral article. I feel strongly that SLR should look into this before I take it to ANI. My suggestion would be to replace them all with totally disputed tag Kanatonian 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in response to your first line, Hitler was cremated infront of the Reichstag, Stalin was buried outside the walls of the Kremlim and Ho Chi Minh has a building in which you can see his body in a glass case, however, Velupillai Prabhakaran is alive, and the Sri Lankan Conflict is very much on-going. If you look at people such as President George W Bush, Osama Bin Laden and any real political or military figure in power currently, there is alot of dispution in their articles accross the board. I really can't think of what can be done to alleviate this. --Sharz 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at George W Bush and Osama bin Laden are they all hen scratched like the above one ? No because reasonable people talk to each other and create a neutral article. Just one tag Totally disputed will do (my opinion) I would like it to take it to village pump also, because this makes wikipedia look bad Kanatonian 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out something from the Osama article. "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has taken responsibility for them". If you look at the Prabakaran article it has some section about LTTE's Forced prostitution. Somehow implying that he is behind this. Shouldn't this speak volumes about what the point of the article is Kanatonian ? Former states that even thought he took responsibility he is not indicated. Later however, states that even though there is no indication Prabaharan is somehow responsible. I just can't understand what people try to achieve through this article. Watchdogb 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What it does is, it makes wikipedia looks bad 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Gory image Sri Lankan civil war page

Problem statement: Dispute over usage of gory images in the article

• Discussion  Done
• RFC  Done
• Straw poll  Done
• Mediation here

Category dispute over Chencholai bombing

Problem statement: Dispute over, is it a massacre or not

• Discussion  Done
• RFC  Not done
• Straw poll  Not done
• Mediation  Not done

Category dispute over Chemmani mass graves

Problem statement: Dispute over is it a mass grave or not

• Discussion  Done
• Third party opinion  Done
• Straw poll  Not done
• Mediation - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani

Merging of Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE

Problem statement: Dispute pver whether this article should be merged with Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War

• Discussion  Done
• RFC  Not done
• Straw poll  Done
• Mediation  Not done

Neutrality of LTTE article

Problem statement: Dispute over neutrality of the article, should neutrality tag be used or not

• Discussion  Done

Resolved

Category inclusion conflict at Duraiappa stadium mass grave

Problem statement: Dispute over whether this article should be included at Category:Mass graves or at Category:History of Sri Lanka

• Discussion

Moved to [Talk:Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave#Category_inclusion_conflict_at_Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave see here] because people are too scared to reconcile :-)

• Straw poll [Talk:Duraiappa_stadium_mass_grave#Straw_poll here] 12:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Relaibility of Tamilnet and Asian tribune

Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count.  RGTraynor  17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above comment I no longer support the consensus we reached here that Tamilnet and Asiantribune are not reliable sources and they are qualified sources. The best support I can provide is to say that they are not asssessed as sources. I will change the table after a time period of 48 hours. Thanks Kanatonian 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as per Traynor Watchdogb 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I decline to take notice of inappropriate scatological language. Come back with an argument that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and we can talk about it. — Sebastian 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Sebastian, what we decide here has no leg to stand on. We dont make any policy. Everybody who is outside of this will interpret it anyway they want unless we decide once and for all. I belive in the wiki process so I have proposed an admin that we take it all the way to arbitration to decide whether Tamilnet is RS or not see here. Till the wiki community decides whether Tamilnet is RS or not, I will no longer consider it to be a biased source. It is according to my interepretation of WP:RS a reliable source. Thanks Kanatonian 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See ANI first step towards conflict resolution Kanatonian 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(From the ANI, relevant section copied)I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

• TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
• Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
• Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
• The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
• I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to [Human rights in Morocco] article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students to be available for Moroccan public. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
• I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
• NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per reasoning of SebastianHelm, as well as wording that suggests that a bias source can be a reliable source, perphaps a bias source can be a valid interpretation?--Sharz 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you say now that ANI has ruled that it does not violated RS, how can we say it is QS Kanatonian 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI has ruled that it has not violated RS?! :D Good luck with your lies. Sarvagnya 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::I will no longer entertain to answer to a troll like you. Thanks Kanatonian 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Since the discussion on ANI has gotten very long and is so far inconclusive, I proposed there to move the discussion to WT:RS. Since not everybody respects consensus decisions reached here, I think that an official guideline page is the most appropriate place for this discussion. — Sebastian 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was very clear as far as I am concerned but as I know by elevating it even further all POV pushers will simply vanish. I support your effort. Thanks Kanatonian 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello SLR members a question regarding Tamilnet has been asked as to whether it violated NPOV and UNDUE in the follwing page here Thanks Kanatonian 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification of sources

The article Eelam_War_IV cites http://www.defence.lk for casualty counts and updates on the progress of the war. The article treats this GOSL source uncritically. For example, the article says "about 30 LTTE cadres were killed" rather than the more accurate and neutral "the Defence Ministry reports that about 30 LTTE cadres were killed."

I have made an entry on Talk:Eelam_War_IV but this might also be a good forum to discuss the use of GOSL information sources such as defence.lk and the Daily News. DC Wallah 07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka centric potential disruptive editors

Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

Based on edits, only way to resolve, Request Arbitration.Lustead 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn this newbie learning so quick. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is the last step, we have to follow number of steps before that. Him accusing me of being an a sock of a long established editor such as Wikramadithya has to be brought to admins attentions, his edit warring, and his repeat violations of WP:VANDAL, WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK, WP:DTTR, all has to be brought forwards step by step. Some of these have already been done and a number of warnings have gone on to his talk page. More obviously is needed.

The only reason I dont aggresively go after that editor is because of his obvious violations a lot of neutral editors have noticed things about Sri Lanka. Pastor Wayne, Black Falcon, Sebastian, Lexicon, Paladin White, Shupniker to name a few. None of these would have happened if the violations were not that obvious. Hence he plays a very important role in highlighting to larger Wikipedia community that a lot of Vandalism is going on in Sri lanka specific articles, if not no one will ever notice such third worldly affairs from a insignificant country. In wikipedia do we care about Swaziland ? Sri Lanka is just like Swaziland, it is of no importance to anybody, in reality a non notable country to use Wikipedia language. Hence he is a vital peg in making these articles truely neutral. In one way I want him around messing articles so bad that it attracts attention. Others wise no body cares. Just my thoughts Kanatonian 12:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"None of these would have happened"? I, for one, joined before I met Iwazaki. I became involved with SL when I mediated this case. — Sebastian 05:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So your point is ? Kanatonian 03:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see almost as much disruption from the other side of the conflict (and probably would see exactly as much if there were as many Tamils on Wikipedia as Sinhalese). While I feel that Iwazaki is probably more disruptive than most, he's not so far apart from others on this issue that there really needs to be a Request for Arbitration. If an RfAr were initiated, I would likely not participate in the process. Lexicon (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing While I feel that Iwazaki is probably more disruptive than most and while respecting your sentiment If an RfAr were initiated, I would likely not participate in the process. I feel it is rather not understanble when you say I see almost as much disruption from the other side of the conflict because we really dont know who they are and because of unamed others we should not ask Iwazaki to follow wiki rules ? In my understanding is that Wiki rules dont care as to whether there is ethnic parity and equal number of other interupters. Anyway it is neither here nor there. If we dont have concensus here for a RfAr then individuals concerned such as User:Lustead should file it themselves. I will support it as he has wiki stalked me for a long time now. It is hard work, one needs to follow his edits for the last 6 months where he has violated rules such as Civil, Attack, Stalk, Vandal and Dttr. Thanks Kanatonian 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)