Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 3 February 2013

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sri Lanka Mid‑importance This redirect 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 Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Ethnic groups Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep and improve.

This redirect was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 12 August 2012. The result of the discussion was article moved over the redirect.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

religion

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

Multiple issues

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

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

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

Thanks for your feedback.

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

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

Ministy of Defence, Sri Lanka

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

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

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

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

http://www.island.lk/

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

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

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

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

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

Page edits

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

Removal of tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Time to Time kingdom of Kandy annexed Jaffna kingdom"

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

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

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

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

"Before 1900 Tamils were restricted to Jaffna Peninsula"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, now you're just brazenly lying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Obi2canibe

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

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

Jsorens > Keep

175.157.37.73 > Please Keep

Shu-sai-chong > Keep

MediaJet > Keep

131.107.0.81 > Keep

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

Sue Rangell > The result was KEEP.

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

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

I am serious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussion about factual accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

> possibly to several scattered settlements near the Eastern seaboard

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

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

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

Insertion of Tags

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

Neutrality tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect-Class Sri Lanka pages
• Mid-importance Sri Lanka articles
• WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
• Redirect-Class politics pages
• NA-importance politics pages
• WikiProject Politics articles
• NA-Class Ethnic groups pages
• Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles