Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:48, 6 November 2007

This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

	Sri Lanka is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

Shortcuts WP:WPC WP:COUNTRIES

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

What's new?

Articles for deletion

• 05 Dec 2024 – Emirate of Banu Talis (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by R Prazeres (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Sandstein (t · c) on 26 Dec 2024; see discussion (6 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

• 22 Dec 2024 – Category:Same-sex marriage in South America by country (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by MikutoH (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Dec 2024 – Category:Same-sex marriage in Europe by country (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by MikutoH (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants by country (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Sims2aholic8 (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 24 Dec 2024 – Save The Montagnard People (talk · edit · hist) →Degar State was RfDed by Rusalkii (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Old Roman Empire (talk · edit · hist) →Roman Empire was RfDed by Veverve (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika (talk · edit · hist) →United States was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Les États Unis d'Amérique (talk · edit · hist) →United States was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Соединенные Штаты (talk · edit · hist) →United States was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Соединенные Штаты Америки (talk · edit · hist) →United States was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – 米国 (talk · edit · hist) →United States was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Estados Unidos da América (talk · edit · hist) →United States was RfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c); see discussion
• 12 Nov 2024 – Canadaa (talk · edit · hist) →Canada was RfDed by TeapotsOfDoom (t · c); see discussion
• undated – Yemen-Taizz (talk · edit · hist) →Kingdom of Yemen was RfDed

(1 more...)

Good article nominees

• 01 Oct 2024 – Regency of Algiers (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nourerrahmane (t · c); see discussion
• 01 Oct 2024 – Connecticut Colony (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gazingo (t · c); start discussion

Featured article reviews

• 30 Oct 2023 – Byzantine Empire (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by SandyGeorgia (t · c); see discussion

Good article reassessments

• 26 Dec 2024 – Eurasian Economic Union (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Requests for comments

• 08 Dec 2024 – Estado Novo (Portugal) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by 2804:29B8:5183:100C:7163:1F92:A81A:7841 (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

• 24 Dec 2024 – Central Powers (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by History6042 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 23 Dec 2024 – Slovak Republic (1939–1945) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to First Slovak Republic by 143.179.74.165 (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Dec 2024 – Syrian opposition (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Syrian opposition to Bashar al-Assad by Panam2014 (t · c); see discussion
• 17 Dec 2024 – Threatening statements in the Russo-Ukrainian War (talk · edit · hist) move request somewhere else by CanonNi (t · c) was moved to Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War (talk · edit · hist) by Cyberdog958 (t · c) on 24 Dec 2024; see discussion
• 16 Dec 2024 – East Timor (talk · edit · hist) move request to Timor-Leste by Kenneth Kho (t · c) was moved to Timor-Leste (talk · edit · hist) by Robertsky (t · c) on 24 Dec 2024; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 29 Nov 2024 – Uyunid Emirate (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Uyunid dynasty by Mrox2 (t · c); see discussion
• 05 Nov 2024 – Champa (Ja Thak Wa) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ja Thak Wa uprising by 27.96.243.106 (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 29 Nov 2024 – Sind State (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Veritasphere (t · c); see discussion
• 05 Oct 2024 – Francoist Spain (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Salmoonlight (t · c); see discussion

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Misplaced Pages, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

Navigation

This WikiProject helps Misplaced Pages's navigation-related WikiProjects (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Misplaced Pages's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Subpages

• List of all subpages of this page.

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Misplaced Pages, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

This section contains an essay on style, consisting of the advice or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest.This information is not a formal Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

• WP:COUNTRYLEAD

For lead length see, #Size

Opening paragraphs

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

Y Sweden, formally the Kingdom of Sweden, is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail, duplication and tangible information

• WP:COUNTRYDETAIL

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

Example:

Y A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. ]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

• The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
• The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
• A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
• A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
• Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
• The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
• The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
• The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
• If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
• Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
• Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
• GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
• HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
• Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: ].
• Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
• National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
• Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
• Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.

Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

• WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

• Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
• History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
• Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
• Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
• Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
• Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
• Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
• Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
• See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
• References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
• External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links

Size

• WP:COUNTRYSIZE

Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually 250 to 400 words as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

• Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
• Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
• Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
• Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
• Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
• East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
• Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
• New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
• Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"

Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

Y== Economy ==

N== Economy ==

Charts

• WP:COUNTRYCHARTS

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

• WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

• H:TRANSDRAWBACKS

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

• Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors. (To help mitigate these, see Help:Cite errors)
• Excerpts break the link between article code and article output.
• Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page.
• Transcluded text may cause repeated links or have different varieties of English and date formats than the target page.
• Transclusions may not reflect protection levels, resulting in transcluded text perhaps having a different level of protection than the target page. See Cascading protection
• {{excerpt}} and related templates may require using <noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude> markup at the transcluded page to have selective content; that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained.
• Excerpts cause editors to monitor transcluded pages for "section heading" changes to ensure transclusion continues to work. (To help mitigate this, see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS)
• Excerpts can result in content discussions over multiple talk pages that may have different considerations or objectives for readers.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

• Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
• Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Misplaced Pages articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Misplaced Pages articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Sisterlinks

Related WikiProjects

• WikiProject Former countries
• WikiProject Micronations
• WikiProject Limited recognition

Popular pages

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages

Notes

1. Swedish: Sverige ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
2. Swedish: Konungariket Sverige

v t e  WikiProject Council
WikiProject guides	WikiProject Council Talk Guidelines/Intro WikiProjects Task forces Technical notes Assessment FAQ Work via WikiProjects
Directories and summaries	Directory Proposals Deletion Signpost Shortcuts Popular pages Database reports Watchers
Culture and the arts	Arts Music Performing Plastic Visual Broadcasting Crafts and hobbies Entertainment Games and toys Food and drink Internet culture Language and literature Biography Linguistics Media Philosophy and religion Sports
Geographical	Bodies of water Cities Countries Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Landforms Maps Parks, conservation areas and historical sites
History and society	History and society Business and economics Education Military and warfare Politics and government Transportation
Science, technology and engineering	Science Biology Chemistry Economics Geosciences Information science Mathematics Medicine Meteorology Physics Space Technology Time
Misplaced Pages assistance and tasks	Contents systems Maintenance Files Article improvement and grading Classroom projects WikiProjects

Sri Lanka B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Archives

Conversation # 1-30 Conversation # 31-60 Conversation # 61-90 Conversation # 91-117

Ridiculous

You guys need to severely work this out. I've protected the page for another 2 weeks since edit warring has not dissipated as well as the lack of conversation. If it keeps happening, note that RfC/RfM/RfAr will be filed as appropriate. Now start conversing. - Penwhale | 01:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Eight points in dispute

With the hope of resolving the various disputes that led to the most recent page protection and of expediting the removal of said protection, and on the assumption that this diff includes all of the issues at dispute, I propose that we consider each point individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

Failed States Index

Should the FSI rank of Sri Lanka be given in the article? If so, should it be included in the infobox?

I think that the FSI rank should be included in the article, but not in the infobox. The FSI is a notable index, thereby justifying its mention in the article (probably in the "Government and politics" section). However, it is not part of the standard Infobox Country or territory template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:03, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

Its not clear to me what you mean by standard Infobox country template. Because if you do look at say Mynamar it has it The infobox will show an index if the data is provided. Sinhala freedom 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The row can be forced into the infobox, but it's not a standard field for all countries. See Template:Infobox Country and click on the "show" link next to 'Country or territory' to see the standard fields. Black Falcon 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do see "Failed state index " in the standard fields. True every country doesn't have the FSI parameter in yet but the tops ones do. This could change with time. The data supplied from the journal has large list. I don't know how the fact that it is in some articles and not others sets implies it can't be in the infobox when you have clearly established its notable. Sinhala freedom 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I see now that it was added (by you) on August 25. However, I'm not convinced that the addition is necessary. The FSI is a relatively recent index (2-3 years old, I think) and likely does not merit the same level of attention as the HDI. Moreover, unlike the other parameters, the FSI rank is largely meaningless for countries like Norway or Ireland. Since Template:Infobox Country is a general-purpose template, it should contain general parameters. I suppose that this discovery invalidates the bulk of my arguments above, but this is something to be discussed on the template's talk page. As long as the template contains the parameter, I see no reason why an individual article should not. – Black Falcon 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So far I should note none of the top entries of FSI by country (with info in the infobox) has raised any controversy to date, including amongst the top countries in the list. So for it to be an issue on Sri Lanka (which ranks 25th) appears to be odd. On Iraq, its both in the infobox and in one of the lead paragraphs if I recall correctly. Sinhala freedom 01:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The FSI rank is relevant to countries at the top of the list; it is not really relevant to countries at the bottom of the list. Since the template is supposed to be general-purpose, I think FSI should be excluded from it. However, this is something to be discussed at the level of the template, rather than just this article. Black Falcon 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I should comment there are other elements in the table that are not 'generically relevant'. For example the entry for Belgium includes "Accession to the European Union" as an entry. Wouldn't you say that entry is very relevant as an infobox item for EU member countries or are you satisfied, say the entry for currency will cover for this for the most part, with Britain being an exception. Sinhala freedom 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The "accessionEUdate" parameter is actually a part of Template:Infobox country. After clicking "show" next to 'Country or territory', scroll down and click the "show" link next to 'European Union specific parameters'. Accession to the EU is a defining characteristic for Belgium, but I'm not convinced that FSI rank is a defining characteristic for any country. – Black Falcon 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon, Just want to confirm if you still think it should or shouldn't be in the infobox, after looking at the main template. Sinhala freedom 01:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the template includes a field for the FSI, I think the infobox of this article should as well. I disagree with including FSI in Template:Infobox Country, but as long as that's the standard format, I don't see any reason that this article should deviate from it. – Black Falcon 02:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have that proof this "FSI index" is notable? I don't mean news reports from Tamil websites that "OMG FSI people say Sri Lanka is a failed state". I also don't mean coverage on the day the "ranking" was released describing it. This article is an overview of Sri Lanka, so I mean neutral reports, from Reuters, AFP etc, which, when describing the country say, say something in the order of "Sri Lanka has been engaged in a 3 decade long civil war... fighting resumed in 2005... according to (whoever) Sri Lanka ranks (whatever) on the FSI index". Unless you can provide such references, calling it notable will be entirely your opinion. And we don't include trivial, non notable data in articles. --snowolfD4 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is cited in numerous books, scholarly journals, and news reports. Some of these (especially the news reports) will coincide with the date of release, but many others don't. Moreover, the majority of uses of the FSI have nothing to do with Sri Lanka; not surprising since the FSI is an international index and Sri Lanka is only one country.

Your comment seems to imply that the FSI is about as reliable as TamilNet when it comes to Sri Lanka. The index is developed and published by the Fund for Peace and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, both of which are fairly well-respected organisations. For the specific type of source you want, see for instance: this article in The Times of India, published in 2005, at a time when SL was not ranked by the FSI as a failed state. Black Falcon 23:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether it's notable in itself and whether, for example, it deserves it's own article, but does any neutral organization consider it notable enough to mention it in articles related to Sri Lanka? Do you have any sources like what I requested above?--snowolfD4 00:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If an index and its contents is considered notable as has been shown by Black Falcon, then it should be in this article. Foreign Policy journal is one of the premier journal in foreign relations. What is the problem with an index number ? The index rating for Sri Lanka is simply a measure by the approach the FP outlined. They are after all not been shown out to get Sri Lanka. There is hardly any 'research' out their to claim bias against Sri Lanka. So the concerns seem unfounded. Sinhala freedom 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd, I don't quite understand why you only want a source that mentions the FSI in the context of Sri Lanka. The fact that it is mentioned, regardless of in reference to which country it is mentioned, is proof of its notability and more than enough to justify its inclusion in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). However, since the FSI is not as prominent or accepted as the HDI, I agree that it should not appear in the main infobox. Black Falcon 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't add every random detail to an article. For example, why not add the AIDS prevalance rate (it is a million times more notable than this "FSI index") or child mortality rate or access to drinking water or percentage of children who get the DPT vaccine or ... I could go on and on, and provide a quadrillion places where they are "cited in numerous books, scholarly journals, and news reports". Answer: because we don't add all sorts of trivial details to articles, specially ones like this which are meant to provide a summery for their child articles (linked to via {{main}}). Does anyone consider this notable (and I don't mean Misplaced Pages's notability guideline, I mean notable) enough to mention in general articles related to Sri Lanka? No (or you haven't provided any citations to prove it). --snowolfD4 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify why you only want sources that mention FSI in relation to Sri Lanka? If you want proof that it's notable in the general, off-wiki sense, the fact that it's been cited with regard to dozens of countries across the globes by dozens of news reports (including the Times of India article linked above, which mentions Sri Lanka), journal articles, and books should suffice. More generally, I think this issue needs to be worked out at Template talk:Infobox Country and believe that FSI rankings should be removed from the infobox altogether, for reasons stated above. – Black Falcon 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you just dodged my question there. Why don't we include are sorts of various figures in the article? We could find a million facts that would qualify as notable as you describe above because they are mentioned in newspaper article and books and whatever. Just because you consider it notable enough? I don't think so. --snowolfD4 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I consider FSI notable; the fact is that FSI is notable per WP:N. Does that necessarily mean we should mention it in this article? No. If you think that that's the position I've been arguing, then you have misunderstood. As for inclusion in the infobox, please comment at the template's talk page (I've initiated a discussion there suggesting removal of FSI from the infobox). Black Falcon 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused now. So you're saying it shouldn't be included in the article? Because this isn't Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Failed States Index. No one is disputing whether it's notable enough to have it's own article or not. You were arguing that cos it has been quoted in some paper or another made it notable enough to be included in the article. Your own words, "The fact that it is mentioned, regardless of in reference to which country it is mentioned, is proof of its notability and more than enough to justify its inclusion in the article"

You may want to take some time off and read the discussion above. --snowolfD4 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the "necessarily" in my post. The fact that it's notable doesn't necessarily mean it must be included. Allow me to clarify my opinion on this matter.

1. Do I think that the FSI rank should be mentioned in the article, outside of the infobox? Yes.
2. Is its inclusion something I feel strongly about? Not really.
3. Do I think it should be included in the infobox of this article? Yes, as long as it's a valid parameter in Template:Infobox Country.
4. Do I think FSI should be a parameter in Template:Infobox Country? No; I've started a thread at Template talk:Infobox Country suggesting its removal, but it has received only one response thus far.

In essence, the inclusion of the FSI rank in the infobox is something to be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Country. Its inclusion in the article (outside of the infobox) is an editorial matter, not a case of disputed policy, which we can and have been discussing here. Black Falcon 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>And? --snowolfD4 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And ...... nothing. I'm waiting for other editors to comment at the template's talk page. If there is consensus to keep FSI in the template, then it should be restored into this article's infobox. If there is no consensus to keep it, then I will remove it from the main template. – Black Falcon 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Just don't scroll up a bit and wonder what all the above conversation (excluding the stuff by SF) was about. --snowolfD4 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, seriously ... stop with the nasty remarks. I have no idea what prompted your increasingly hostile attitude (here and at Talk:Media in Sri Lanka), so please either clarify things for me or let's leave the sarcasm aside and focus on the content.

In regard to that: if the FSI rank remains in the infobox, there's no need to include it in the article. If it doesn't remain in the infobox, then we can discuss whether it should be in the article. There's no point having the latter discussion until the issue with the infobox is resolved. You may note also that most of my comments above came before I discovered (on October 1) that SF had added the FSI to Template:Infobox Country. Black Falcon 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay time-out. You started off by saying "The FSI is a notable index, thereby justifying its mention in the article (probably in the "Government and politics" section).", which is why I was arguing that it shouldn't be included in the article. You want to discuss this later? Great, I'm happy with the article as it is now. --snowolfD4 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, the article is clearly missing key elements of the present day situation. It is hardly NPOV in that respect. You have been forced to acknowledge one sentence is blatantly false yet you appear to be mincing words about it. It along with Media in Sri Lanka is being blanked repeatedly by you just because you don't like it. The sources are after all well referenced from reliable sources as Black Falcon has confirmed. You have failed to articulate your points convincingly and worst of all your conduct is getting to be gratuitously uncivil. Sinhala freedom 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual, let Black Falcon do all the arguing for you, and went he goes a little off course you come in with comments that have no relevance to this section. You need to stop wasting other editors time by posting such stuff. If you have something relevant to the section say so, other than that, no one cares about your personal opinion of the article. --snowolfD4 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since inclusion of the FSI rank in Template:Infobox Country is an issue that has implications for all country articles, not just this one, I have left a notice with WikiProject Countries, requesting their input. – Black Falcon 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Following discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank, the FSI parameters have been removed from the main infobox. I am tenatively tagging this section as "resolved" (with a description); if there are any outstanding issue, please remove the notice and provide clarification. – Black Falcon 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion was to have the Failed state index mentioned in the body, which I am also agreeble to. In that sense, I agree its resolved. Btw, the thread for this discussion is continuing on Sri Lankan Renconciliation wikiproject page. Sinhala freedom 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Winston Churchill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The quote by Churchill exists as a footnote to support the claim that "Sri Lanka served as an important base for Allied forces in the fight against the Japanese Empire". As far as proofs for claims of importance (a subjective concept) go, it's rather good, considering the identity of the quoted person. I'm not entirely sure why it is disputed, especially since the sentence itself doesn't seem to be disputed ... is this something that simply got caught up in the cycle of reverts? – Black Falcon 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was acutally removed in a "update intro with a more npov version" edit. --snowolfD4 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I still don't quite understand why it was removed by Sinhala freedom's. While it's not something that needs to be mentioned in the main text (which is why it's a footnote), it serves to lend credence to an assertion made in the text. Black Falcon 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually being sarcastic there. Lighten things up a bit... --snowolfD4 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops ... missed that. :P Black Falcon 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure either. I am all for having this section in the article. Sinhala freedom 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then. Can we consider this issue resolved? I've added the tag, but please remove it if there is an objection. Black Falcon 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka and democracy

WP:NPOV defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". If so, the claim that Sri Lanka is a "stable democracy" cannot be classified as a fact. Since there is real-world dispute regarding the matter (the US Department of State classifies Sri Lanka as a "stable democracy", but the World Bank and Asian Development Bank classify it as "one of the world's most politically unstable countries", and The Economist labels it a "flawed democracy".), I think the best course of action is to present both major views.

Although I have a slight issue with what one countries foreign ministry thinks of another countries political system (because there could be political motivations) - I am ok with including that state department statement there, provided its the most upto date and makes reference to the year and the stuff from ADB, World Bank and The Economist should definitely be in there with the same conditions. Sinhala freedom 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the part about "continuous economic progress"; an initial glance at the sources suggests that Sri Lanka has had relatively steady economic progress, despite the civil war, despite "the reemergence of the civil war resulting in increased lawlessness in the country" and despite the "sharp decline in tourism". (Note: the quotes are taken from the article, not the sources.) I'll comment more after I've had a chance to read through the sources in greater detail. – Black Falcon 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do check Sri Lanka 'economic' progress during the 1970s (when people had to line up for their daily ration of bread), apart from 2001. Sinhala freedom 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

2000 was an abnormally, and WP:RS for the rest? --snowolfD4 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well continuous economic progress is blatantly false as you have just confirmed. Sinhala freedom 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuous, not "...has increased every single year". --snowolfD4 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuous increase implies "has increased every year". You comment doesn't make any sense to me. Sinhala freedom 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to brake your bubble here, but you are not the English Language Czar. Continuous means it has increased since independence, which it has. --snowolfD4 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The supposed references also doesn't support the statement "continous economic progress", hence I am removing it. Sinhala freedom 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't reply to this for a month, then all of a sudden WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you take it off? Read the citations carefully. --snowolfD4 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "continous economic progress" is not there in any of your citations, you have not been able to find anything better in over a month. As far as I am concerned what you are claiming is WP:OR, unless if you can get reliable undisputed sources mention that. Sinhala freedom 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion and the constitution

The text under dispute reads as follows:

Buddhism, the state religion is given the foremost place in the constitution of the country . Hence unlike a liberal democracy, there exists no separation between religion and the state.

Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:

The constitution "give to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect and foster" of the religion as a responsibility of the state.

There are three reasons behind my proposed change. First, given that the text is contentious, it may be best to fall back on quoting directly from the Constitution. Second, according to this source, Buddhism is not the official state religion (a specific term with specific connotations). Third, the sentence that begins with "Hence unlike ..." seems to constitute an original synthesis. – Black Falcon 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with the version you suggested with this change to emphasize the role of Buddhism Sinhala freedom 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC):

Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:

The constitution "give to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect and foster" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state.

No objection to that, but in that case you'll also have to include the other two mentioned articles "Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice" and "Every citizen is entitled to -the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching", which brings the question, since this article is an overview, whether such details are required. If it is added, it'll have to be added in a way that it preserves the continuity of the article, instead of just been randomly thrown in. --snowolfD4 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with adding slightly compressed version of the sentences you have suggested as has been done by Black Falcon. Sinhala freedom 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The constitution "give to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect and foster" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state. Enshrined in the constitution is the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have, adopt and manifest ones religion.

Snowolfd, I think you make a good point regarding the necessity of inclusion of this level of detail. Since Buddhism is not a state religion, it may well be the case that it's not necessary to mention these details, and after looking more closely at the "Government and politics" section, I am inclined to agree with you. If retained, however, what do you think of the following wording:

The constitution "give to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect and foster" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state, but also guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", including to adopt a religion and to practice it.

Black Falcon 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Article 9 says "...while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)," therefore we should quote articles 10 and 14(1)(e) in terms of religion, rather than giving an overview of them.

But again, I really see no reason to add this to the article. --snowolfD4 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Once its no longer claimed that Buddhism is the state religion (and it isn't), the information is no longer quite as critical or interesting – at least not enough to merit inclusion in the main article. I think it may be better suited to the Constitution of Sri Lanka article. I also don't see how it would be added in without having an adverse effect on the overall flow of the "Government and politics" section. – Black Falcon 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, primarily since Buddhism has a unique status. Sure Buddhism is not the state religion, yet its uniquely defined in the constitution that it be given the foremost place. Does that not make the status interesting or for that matter non-standard from a purely secular or theocratic constitution. Sinhala freedom 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, comparatively speaking, it is interesting, but is it interesting enough for the main article? There's no doubt that the information is interesting and relevant in the context of Sri Lanka's constitution, but is it sufficiently interesting and relevant in the context of the country? Black Falcon 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This section has received no comments in the past 10 days. Can we consider the issue resolved, with an agreement to exclude the information from this article and with preference for inclusion in the article Constitution of Sri Lanka (although I can't identify a suitable location at this time)? – Black Falcon 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we agree this is unique to Sri Lanka, I am for having the bit about the constitution in the main Sri Lanka article. Sinhala freedom 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that it is 'unique'. It may be relatively rare on a comparative perspective, but it may not be unique. If Sri Lanka was a theocratic state, I would agree that this tidbit merits inclusion, but .... Hypothetically speaking, where in the text do you think it should be placed (not just the section, but the specific place within a section)? Black Falcon 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll find a potential spot though I am definitely open to compromise Sinhala freedom 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal and monetary policy

I can't determine what exactly is disputed and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

Comments, please? For reference, the disputed text reads as follows:

But this policy of subsidizing imported commodities like fuel, fertiliser and wheat soon unravelled the fiscal sector. In 2004 alone Sri Lanka spent approximately US$ 180 million on a fuel subsidy, as fixing fuel prices had been an election promise. To finance the expanded budget deficit arising from a range of subsidies and a public sector recruitment drive, the government eventually had to print Rs 65 billion (US$ 650 million) or around 3% of GDP. The expansionary fiscal policy, coupled with loose monetary policy eventually drove inflation up to 18% by January 2005, as measured by the Sri Lanka Consumer Price Index. Following the resumption of the civil war in 2005, which gave rise to increased lawlessness in the country, various foreign governments reduced assistance to Sri Lanka.

– Black Falcon 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Economy of Sri Lanka is for this stuff, in much further detail giving both the negative aspects and the positive aspects of the economy. --snowolfD4 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to move it to Economy of Sri Lanka then all this stuff get blanked by you and your friend there . This effectively means you are censoring info you don't like . I think thats unacceptable and is another instance of WP:GAME. Sinhala freedom 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Learnt a new policy did we? I suggest you scroll up the page, and take a look at the heading. This is Talk:Sri Lanka, not Talk:Economy of Sri Lanka. --snowolfD4 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the condescending talk. The subject matter is well within the scope of this article. You haven't even begun to give a reason here. I suggest you patiently attempt to answer what has been posed at you. Sinhala freedom 02:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you tried reading other users comments, but I guess that's expecting too much. --snowolfD4 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Plantation workers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The disputed text reads:

Nearly all of the island's Indian plantation workers were stripped of their citizenship due to Ceylon Citizenship act of 1948. Under various agreements, nearly 50 % of plantation workers were expelled to India and the remaining were granted citizenship by 2003.

The main problem I can identify is with the sources. The first source (a BBC timeline) doesn't mention the Ceylon Citizenship Act. The second source leads to a book's index, but doesn't provide page numbers. Unfortunately, Google Books does not provide a preview for the book.

Another problem may be with regard to the location of the sentences. They seem, to me, to be better suited for inclusion in the "History" section of the article, the History of Sri Lanka article, or the Demographics of Sri Lanka article. As a rule, the "Demographics" section on the main country page should provide only general information. – Black Falcon 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if the page number can be supplied, what is your suggestion. Sinhala freedom 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It still seems to be something better suited to another article, perhaps History of Sri Lanka, Demographics of Sri Lanka, or Sri Lanka Tamils (Indian origin). This level of detail just doesn't seem to fit all that well in the "Demographics" section, which convention dictates should focus primarily on current demographics. One possibility is to merge part of the information into the preceeding sentence; for instance:

Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were expelled back following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.

This preserves much of the detail without lengthening the section significantly. The reason I integrated only the part about expulsion and not the parts about citizenship is that the former seems more relevant to a section titled "Demographics". Also, the former is shorter and easier to integrate. ;) – Black Falcon 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeable to what you have suggested. Sinhala freedom 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Expelled"? Repatriated. --snowolfD4 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right ... "repatriate" is a more academic term with essentially the same meaning, but without any normative overtones.

Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were repatriated following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.

Are you, otherwise, satisfied with the wording? – Black Falcon 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --snowolfD4 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

% Buddhism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What proportion of the Sri Lankan population adheres to Buddhism? Is it 65% or 76.7%? The CIA World Factbook gives a figure of 69.1%, based on "2001 census provisional data" (link). The GOSL provides a figure of 69% as well (link). Where did the other two figures come from? In any case, I propose that we use the value of 69%, as given the by GOSL (and repeated by the CIA). – Black Falcon 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All for this. Sinhala freedom 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The propotion of Buddhists is 70%. The 76% figure turned up cos the LTTE prevented the 2001 census from been carried out in areas they control, so of the remainder of the country where the census was done, 76% were Buddhists. --snowolfD4 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we then consider this point resolved, with the agreement to use 69% and cite both the GOSL and CIA websites? I'd have no objection for 70% if it was supported by a better source (than the GOSL and CIA ones, that is). – Black Falcon 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah by 70% I meant 69.xx% --snowolfD4 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Media since 2005

The disputed paragraph reads as follow:

After the resumption of the civil war in 2005, Sri Lanka has steadily clamped down on its once free media. Verbal attack against media personnel by government authorities is common and has resulted in an atmosphere of self-censorship . By 2007, it is considered one of the worst places in the world for media personnel . According to Reporters with Borders (RSF) Pro-government militias have been actively targeting and attacking media organization with opposing points of view . In addition the LTTE has also been accused of threatening those who oppose their political position. RSF also maintains the killers of media personnel orchestrated by pro-government militias live with total impunity .

I suggest rewriting the paragraph to include explicit attribution to RSF (per WP:NPOV), which is directly responsible for three of the four sources:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel by non-governmental organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute and Reporters sans frontières (RSF); in 2006, five media workers were killed on the island. According to RSF, various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting. RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph has been rewritten quite well. I am all for it. Sinhala freedom 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the country. Such extensive details are not included in articles about countries. See India for a comparative featured article. There is already an article Media in Sri Lanka where such details may be included. --snowolfD4 00:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is good you have chosen a feature article to highlight your point, India is a land of a billion people and the lead article on the country has to be compressed many folds more than Sri Lanka. Thus India is hardly worthy for comparison in this respect. Sinhala freedom 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd, while you certainly have a point regarding the need for extensive details, I think a single paragraph about the current state of the media in Sri Lanka merits inclusion. If length is the main concern, I can offer the following shortened version:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting. RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.

This revised version drops much of the secondary detail. Black Falcon 02:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, if we include such current event related stuff, a million more news items need to be added. That's just not how this article should be, and currently isn't. The entire post indeendence history is covered by these two paragraphs,

Following the war, popular pressure for independence intensified. On February 4, 1948 the country won its independence as the Commonwealth of Ceylon. Don Stephen Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. In 1972, the country became a republic within the Commonwealth, and the name was changed to Sri Lanka. On July 21, 1960 Sirimavo Bandaranaike took office as prime minister, and became the first female head of government in post-colonial Asia and the first female prime minister in the world. The island enjoyed good relations with the United Kingdom and had the British Royal Navy stationed at Trincomalee.

Since 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, predominantly between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers), a separatist militant organization who fight to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island.

and you want to include such a diatribe about the media situation of the last 2 years. No way. --snowolfD4 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that is a well-sourced and fully attributed paragraph reflecting the views of some of the leading international organisations on the subject; your contention that is little more than an angry rant is completely unfounded. Secondly, country articles should strive to present up-to-date information about the current state of a country, so the comparison with the "History" section is not entirely fitting. Third, I would find your argument regarding summary style and length significantly more convincing if you hadn't reverted my addition of the paragraph (along with an unrelated minor fix) to the Media in Sri Lanka article. When I added the paragraph to that article, I did so with the idea that that could be a compromise of sorts: the information is provided somewhere, but not in the Sri Lanka article itself.

If the primary concern is length, I can offer the following further-trimmed version:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.

That version cuts out everything but the bare essentials. Thoughts? – Black Falcon 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well sourced? First of all, find me citations from a reliable source which says "Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel". And I don't mean opinion columns written by Thalif Deen. (WP:RS defines what a relaible source is FYI) --snowolfD4 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the fourth-deadliest country for media workers, after Iraq, the Philippines, and Mexico. If you'd like, the sentence can be revised to "... and, in 2006, Sri Lanka was the fourth-deadliest place in the world for media personnel". I'm not entirely certain whether the FYI comment was intended to be sarcastic, but it doesn't make sense to me in any case: Thalif Deen is or was the IPS UN bureau chief, editor of the UN edition of TerraViva, an employee of the UN, and a member of Sri Lanka's delegation to the UN General Asssembly. Why would an article written by him, and buttressed by effectively undisputable statistics, not qualify as a reliable source? Black Falcon 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to have read Thalif Deen's "Inside the glass house" column for the last 10 years to understand how reliable he is. In any case, WP:REDFLAG "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources". One citation is not enough for such an extraordinary claim. Any further citations? And note, we are talking about Sri Lanka, not Jaffna. --snowolfD4 21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been very busy blanking the contents that you don't like both on here and Media in Sri Lanka. I am dumfounded to hear you have decided exclude Jaffna from the rest of Sri Lanka. I am sure Tiger supporters will be very happy to hear this. Your comments of Thalif Deen appears to be just a personal axe to grind and doesn't have any merit until you have reliable sources to show otherwise. Sunday Times is a reputable english language weekly. and you claim of WP:REDFLAG, is an instance of WP:GAME Sinhala freedom 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, I found a few issues of "Inside the glass house", but none were about Sri Lanka ... would you please explain why you think an article written by Deen is not reliable, considering his current and past professional appointments? As for your second point, Jaffna is a part of Sri Lanka; there's no reason to exclude Jaffna when counting the # of reporters killed in Sri Lanka just as there's no reason to exclude Baghdad or Mosul when counting for Iraq.

I did a little searching and I can offer the following two revised versions (with additional sources):

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel. Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.

... or ...

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, in 2006, Sri Lanka was the fourth-deadliest place in the world for media personnel. Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.

Please note that the use of the phrase "most dangerous" to reflect # of deaths is something used in various sources, not just something I invented (see e.g. ). – Black Falcon 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Did you fail to read a single thing I said? "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources". If that's not clear enough, English lessons may be in order. Also, I did not say exclude Jaffna from Sri Lanka. Mr. Deen got his facts crossed when he said "Sri Lanka is one of the most dangerous places...", all the other sources use that phrase in context of Jaffna alone, not the whole country.

As for the Guardian article, all it says is,"Outside Iraq, the worst country for journalist deaths in 2006 was the Philippines (15 dead), followed by Mexico (eight dead), Sri Lanka (seven) and Guyana (six)." They also go on to add the disclaimer "INSI records all causes of death, whether deliberate, accidental or health-related,". So if, say, 15 journalists died in a plane crash over Antarctica, are you going to add something to the Antarctica article like "Antarctica is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel"?

And targeted? There's more WP:OR and WP:PEACOCK terms. You mean attacks like this, because that's what's mentioned in the citation. --snowolfD4 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to leave sarcasm out of this, shall we? First, you wanted multiple reliable sources, you received them: . Yes, I'm including Deen's source as reliable because: (a) you haven't really stated anything to counter the supporting evidence (credentials, so to speak) provided above; and (b) the only portion of the source used is the ranking of deaths, which is confirmed by other sources.

Second, if you dislike the wording of "most dangerous", you will note that I offered two versions, only one of which uses the phrase "most dangerous".

Third, what's wrong with 'targeted'? The exact words used in the RSF report are "attacked" and "threatened". Attacking and threatening are forms of targeting. Moreover, what does it have to do with the 2006 Digampathana bombing or the GOSL's response to it? Black Falcon 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Where? Okay so "first", I asked you to provide reliable sources which say "Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places for journalists". Apart from the misguided article by Deen, none of the ones you provided above say so. Reading into the data, and putting your interpretation into them, is called synthesis on Misplaced Pages. Also a lot of "deliberate, accidental or health-related" deaths don't automatically mean "one of the most dangerous". How much clearer does it have to get?

"Second", the second word you used was "deadliest". Now while that could be taken to include dead by natural causes or by accident, in context of the sentence, it sounds pretty much the same as "most dangerous", as in externally threatening.

And "third", it appears you aren't even reading the sources you are trying to quote, which frankly, I find hilarious. The army is mentioned in that article to have carried out these "attacks"

"The army attacked media accused of relaying Tiger Tamil propaganda, which they termed terrorist. In October, the studios of Voice of Tigers radio near Kilinochchi, in an LTTE-controlled area was hit and destroyed by air strikes injuring two employees.

"The military imposed new restrictions on the movements of the press reporting from the field. As a result, the army and the LTTE prevented reporters from reaching the site of a battle around Muttur, in August.

"In November, officers summoned newspaper managers in Jaffna and ordered them not to publish news coming from the Tamil Tigers."

The second too instance are not "attacks", controls will be a more apppropriate word. The first one, if included, will have to be directly mentioned, that the Air Force (apparently whoever wrote this doesn't know the army is a ground based unit, and air strikes are done by a part of the military called the Air Force) carried out air strikes against LTTE propaganda systems. (In that case, you'll have to mention in the United States article that the USAF took out Saddam's propaganda too, remember WP:BIAS)?

As for the article I directed you to, you really need to start reading what your talking about. "They said the bombing also destroyed a transmission tower of the Voice of Tigers radio station, which broadcasts pro-rebel news and patriotic Tamil music"--snowolfD4 01:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment about English lessons is a bit sarcastic, I'd say. In response to your points:

First, you still haven't explained your objection to the use of Deen's article and have provided no evidence to support your contention that Deen is unreliable. As for the "original synthesis" argument, please refer to my previous statement that "the use of the phrase 'most dangerous' to reflect # of deaths is something used in various sources, not just something I invented (see e.g. )".

Second, it's fairly simple to avoid the words 'dangerous' or 'deadliest':

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.

Third, please refer to the first four sentences of the article:

Pro-government militia ... and occasionally the army have attacked the press which they accuse of supporting Tamil nationalism. On the other side, the Tiger Tamils threatened those who oppose their political position. (emphasis added)

The second sentence of my proposed paragraph is explicitly attributed to RSF, so whether you or I classify the incidents as 'attacks' or 'controls' is not the issue (by the way, I agree with you that the latter two incidents are controls).

As for the article you directed me to ... it has little relevance to this situation. An "attack" is not necessarily a bombings or shooting ... in any case, the use of the broader term 'targeted' makes the issue a moot one. – Black Falcon 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason you cannot cite that sentence with that article is that one article by Deen is not sufficient to meet WP:RS requirements, that extraordinary claims have multiple reliable sources to cite them (and saying something like "one of the most dangerous places" is an extraordinary claim). Also, since I don't seem to be making things clear enough, so NONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU ARE CITING, APART FROM THE DEEN ONE, USE THE WORDS "SRI LANKA IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACES IN THE WORLD FOR JOURNALISTS". Saying something like that, and citing an article whose only mention of Sri Lanka is "attacks in the Philippines and Sri Lanka pushed the death toll to 34." is a gross attempt at deception.

Second, a lot better.

And third, in case you are not aware, we don't blindly quote sources on Misplaced Pages automatically assuming what they say is true. If CNN spells some term wrong, do we spell it wrong all over Misplaced Pages and cite it to the CNN article? If they call Osama Obama, shall we move Osama Bin Laden to reflect that? WP:IAR was created for a reason. --snowolfD4 02:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First issue: This source uses the phrase "most dangerous" in reference to the # of deaths in a given country. No original interpretation is required to induce that the country with the fourth-highest number of deaths would be labeled the "fourth-most dangerous". However, the point is moot now since neither "dangerous" nor "deadliest" are used in the latest version of the proposed text; with that mind, I think we should drop this issue and move on to the next.

Second issue: Thanks. Do you agree to inserting those two sentences (with revisions, perhaps?) into the article?

Third issue: This situation is not comparable to a simple misprint or a spelling error. Although we don't automatically assume that anything a source (even a reliable one) says is true, we should also reflect what the source says, especially when the statement is directly attributed to the source. If my proposed sentence claimed that the SLA attacks journalists, I could understand your objection; but, the claim is explicitly attributed to RSF. In any case, you'll note that I'm suggesting the more general and neutral term 'target' instead of the more focused and controversial term 'attack'. 'Target' was the least emotive word I could think of that encompasses both of the terms used in the RSF report: 'attack' and 'threaten'; if you have an alternate suggestion, I would be happy to hear it. – Black Falcon 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thanks for providing that link. I find this pretty interesting. The CPJ "only counts journalists killed in direct reprisal for their work, in crossfire, or while carrying out a dangerous assignment". According to their 2006 report, "Violence in Iraq claimed the lives of 32 journalists in 2006 ... Afghanistan and the Philippines, with three deaths apiece, were the next most dangerous datelines in 2006. Russia, Mexico, Pakistan, and Colombia each saw two journalists killed." And Sri Lanka? According to their detailed figures, only one journalist was killed while reporting, "Subramaniyam Sugitharajah, Sudar Oli, January 24, 2006, Trincomalee". That too will have to be included, if this section is to be added. something like

The Committee to Protect Journalists however noted only one journalist was deliberately killed while at work in Sri Lanka. Subramaniyam Sugitharajah, a reporter for Sudar Oli, which had previously come under attack by both LTTE and anti-LTTE forces, was killed by unidentified gunman in January 2006.

That would make the section more NPOV, but further prove my point that such a detailed section is not required in the article.

If you are generalizing the report as "target", you need to provide context as to what it means. i.e. "the army targeted sections of the media they consider to be sympathetic to the LTTE, bombing the tower of the LTTE's propaganda radio station and asking heads of media organization not to publish news coming from the LTTE"

That again brings us back to my previous point, that a truly NPOV section will be too long to include in the article. --snowolfD4 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you about the need to add the two sentences about Subramaniyam Sugitharajah iff we were still noting dangerousness, deadliness, and/or deaths, but the latest version of the proposed text makes no mention of any of the three.

As for the use of 'target', I don't see how that type of detailed context is necessary. Please note that the sentence itself does not claim that the SLA targeted media organisations and workers; it merely repeats something that the RSF alleged in order to give context to the first sentence. – Black Falcon 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let that bit of the discussion rest.

"Target" could mean so many things. And yes, while the disclaimer "RSF alleges" is present, we need to clarify what the incidents RSF cites are, because you can't expect readers to click on the citation and go read the entire article. So how I see it, two options, either include an entire description of what RSF alleges (which would not make sense as it won't fit in the article) or phrase it in a way that doesn't leave any ambiguity. --snowolfD4 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that I'm not ignoring your comment or anything like that ... :) I've just been busy with various non-SL related articles and off-wiki commitments. I will try to formulate an appropriate response/suggestion in the next 2-3 days. Cheers, Black Falcon 03:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I've got midterms these days :( so I couldn't reply to soon either. --snowolfD4 15:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New section request

As a lot of Sri Lanka specific articles get into endless edit wars, I would like to request a sub section on Human Rights. Sri Lanka just like Sudan has an ongoing issue with Human Rights. Not to mention that in a main article is in my view not appropriate. See the sub section in Sudan here. There is no major conflicts in that article over it, just a nice introductory into Human Rights in Sudan. Looking for commentsTaprobanus 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am for adding a comprehensive yet compact human rights section. It is a sad fact that Sri Lanka is comparable to the present day chaos in the Sudan. Sinhala freedom 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, you should state that, IN YOUR BLOG. Or I know very good places where those kinds of comments are mostly welcome.Should I direct you there ?Iwazaki 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article Human Rights in Sri Lanka. Given this is an overview article, we don't have subsections about every other thing.

I also think it's really sad there are people without a real country of their own. A country where the natives of the country actually think they belong there, rather than consider them unwanted refugees. Maybe we should mention that too, but I guess there isn't enough space to mention things which are pretty irrelevant to Sri Lanka nowadays. Maybe it should go in Demographics of Sri Lanka, in more detail. --snowolfD4 16:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree for a small section. Nothing too specific but just an overview. Link with HR in Sri Lanka article. Watchdogb 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great input Snowolf, I have read similar comments by a famous Japanese Psychiatric.Where I think he said unwanted refugees tend to grow up hating each and everything thing. Some of them would even adopt names of the people whom they hate, purely for mental pleasure, according to him. Should we include this part also in the human right section ? Well, I can easily WP:RS that part ,machan. Iwazaki 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate how, what you have just mentioned would relate to the human rights section, I am interested in knowing that ? Also, can you please specifically mention what group relevant to Sri Lanka you are talking about when you meant somehow this pertains to "unwanted refugees tend to grow up hating each and everything thing" ? Any reliable citations to go with this theory you have just presented in the Sri Lankan context or is it your feelings on this ? That would be much appreciated. Sinhala freedom 23:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like pretty healthy dose of endorsement to add a new section, let me think of something later. Maenwhile If you guys have any inputs please go ahed. Thanks Taprobanus 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see a "pretty healthy dose of endorsement". --snowolfD4 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Per SL article restrictions we will be opening a new discussion section in SLR, if you are interested you can join there with your points as to why you dont want a section on HR. Thanks Taprobanus 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:SLR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogb 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages are there to discuss article content. Nothing you talk about elsewhere has any relevance to this article. --snowolfD4 10:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Propaganda

I see a lot of propaganda and weasel wording in the INTRO!! While all the good things about SL has been thoroughly neglected, some peoples willingness to add things like flawed nation, which are not even internationally recognised is amazing. And their ignorance about other countries who are in the list, such as South Africa, just confirm who politically motivated these SL bashing are!! Actually a careful looker would noticed, in fact SL has been raked 58 th out of 160+Countries!!These kind od weasel wording,twisted info and un-recognised criteria should not be included in the article, though I think standard criteria such as GNP per capita, GDP per capita, population growth, mortality rate etc should be in, though i am not sure whether we should have it in the intro.Thank you.Iwazaki 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Went through the list, there are only 27 countries with full democracy status. And the rest 100+ including India,South Africa,Italy,Israel etc are in the flawed or lesser categories!!! So, the insistence to add this only to SL, is un-encyclopaedic , Or I would prefer to call it COMICAL. Plus, removed weasel wording like, SL lag behind Maldives in GNP per capita. I mean, does it make any sense adding these to the intro ??!! Do we add America still lags behind Qatar in GNP per capita ?? Do we add, India is lagging behind SL and maldives in the India article intro ?? Do we add every country lags behind Luxembourg in each and every article??!!If people are insisting adding these, there should be consistency. Add these to every country article ,instead of bullying a small country like Sri Lanka. Thanks Iwazaki 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki is correct in that the details recently added to the intro are out of place. However they were discussed on the SLR talk page and consensus reached. They are not propaganda as they have highly regarded references. Hence it is not POV pushing. As for similar materials being in other articles, we are not concerned with that in this Sri Lanka peace effort. If any want to go add similar documented material to the articles of other nations, have at it. As strong community consensus was reached, and proper dispute resolution process was used and was informed thereof at the beginning and during the process, and these SR articles were duly tagged, he and all others not formally accepting the terms are still subject to them. That he chose to not participate is his choice. There is also not sufficient evidence at this point to fairly call the users socks as he did. This is a little different from my block of Snowolfdr, who was intentionally disruptive. Here Iwazaki did have some good intent. While he violate the 1RR, he hints to me he wasn't fully aware, though he should have read the restrictions. There is precedent for non-agreeing users being subject to edit restrictions, Arbcom allows admins to add users to said restrictions. I almost full protected this article, but decided not to. I also almost blocked Iwazaki too, but what I'm going to do here is give him one final warning (I know all won't agree with that, but that's what I'm doing here and remember you all begged me to stay with the peace effort). ALL USERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EDIT RESTRICTIONS. Iwazaki, this includes you and Snowolfd4. For all users, past edit history is an factor in determining block length. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• WikiProject Countries
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
• WikiProject style advice
• WikiProjects participating in Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments
• B-Class Sri Lanka articles
• Unknown-importance Sri Lanka articles
• WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles