This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kanatonian (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 17 January 2008 (Please extend this agreement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

This is the talk page of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here or to add a new topic. Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. To become a member, please apply in the Members and applications section. List of Archived Pages 2007: /archive - /archive 2 - /archive 3 - /archive 4 2008: /issues 1 - /incidents 1

General

Clarification of what 1RR means to us

The 1RR stipulation of the SLDR agreeement caused some confusion, because the guideline WP:1RR is not consistent and seems to be changing. Therefore, Black Falcon proposed the following definition:

I think that's generally the right approach. I find it can be worded a bit better by avoiding weasel words such as "should". How about the following:

I hope that the “more than half” clause expresses, in a measurable way, what BF meant by “If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.”. Please let me know if I misunderstood that. — Sebastian 07:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a more solid criterion than the 50% rule. For this, I need to introduce three terms:

Old unreferenced text

Any text that has been tagged with a {{fact}} tag or related tag at least 24 hours earlier.

Partial reinsertion

The insertion of part of a text that has been removed by the other party. For example, if user:Deletionist removed the text “A did X and Y.”, then user:Inclusionist’s insertion of “A did X.” would be a partial reinsertion.

Consensus version

A version that corresponds to a consensus reached on this page or on the talk page of the edit in question. For binary decisions,(cases that have only two options, such as the question if articles should be merged), consensus is achieved when each of the arguments for one option have been refuted without counterargument.

With this, we can write the rule as follows:

This is longer, but I think it is clearer now. What do others think? — Sebastian 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote that, I thought some more in that direction: It doesn't actually matter what and when the previous edit was. What matters, is if the edit itself improves Misplaced Pages. We have standards for that, so let's start with those! This also means we need to focus on consensus. That gives us the following:

Notes:

• Edits do not need to "be" NPOV by themselves. WP:NPOV is achieved when several points of view are fairly combined, which can take several edits by different people. The important thing is the spirit of cooperation.
• Reasons can be posted either on the article talk page, on WT:SLR or, in simple cases, in an edit summary. Example: "Source X is a reliable source according to WP:SLR#QS". Counterexample: "The article should be renamed" (... because I say so??) "rv POV" (everybody has a POV. Instead, you need to explain on the talk page why you believe the edit does not contribute to the WP:NPOV of the article, and allow time for discussion.

Please let me know what you think of this proposal. — Sebastian 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Templating regulars

I always have been opposed to construing the essay Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars as a policy. However, it makes sense as a recommendation: Templating your opponents doesn’t give you the desired results, at least not when it’s just a plain template without a diff and a description that could convince administrators that the editor really needs to be blocked.

A case in point was the case that started the section “General problem with user warnings”, which I just archived. In that case, an editor whom I’ll call Reverter kept reverting a page to a version that clearly violated policies. Another editor whom I’ll call Warner kept putting the same warning message again and again on Reverter’s user talk page. Reverter never took the warning seriously and even came here to complain about the repeated warnings. Since the warnings were unspecific, and since Warner did not explain them, we did not know if they were justified. Then, a few days ago, Reverter reverted the page again, and someone posted this as an incident on this page. So I looked into it and realized that the warnings had indeed been appropriate, and I issued a warning and entered Reverter in our table at WP:SLR# Warnings and blocks. Reverter now knows that, if they does it again, ey will be blocked.

The lessons I am taking from this are:

• On this page, we don't have to worry about accusations of inappropriate warnings on people's user talk pages. Usually, there’s something to them. Researching who is right would take too long and only distract us from our focus on content. I feel we only need to deal with specific, diffed incidents here. If one user is really pestering another, it is a violation of general Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:NPA, and requires no knowledge of the SL situation, so we can refer to the other steps of WP:DR instead.
• To anyone who has a concrete complaint about any content related edit, I recommend posting it here (with diff and explanation), since that gets results. — Sebastian 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Learning from Palestine-Israel ArbCom case

I am an arbcom clerk now. I am the clerk on this case: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. The similarities in this dispute are strikingly similar to the Sri Lanka dispute (as well as East Europe, Azerbaijan-Azeris, etc). Some of you may want to see how this case goes in order to aid your own efforts and avoid going to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by, and for the heads-up! And congratulations to your new role! I am sure we can learn from other ethnic conflicts, but I also hope that they can learn from us, too. WP:SLR has been pretty effective last year, especially since the Dispute Resolution Agreement was in place, which you selflessly helped to maintain. In 2 months, we resolved 19 content issues, many of which as hard as ArbCom cases - not bad for a group that's much smaller than ArbCom, I must say! — Sebastian 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, learning could go both ways here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Sumoeagle179. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by Sumo's recommendation, I went along and created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration‎. Of course, I've no idea if this will catch on. Your input at the ArbCom case, or the WikiProject if it comes to life, would be most welcome. Peace, HG | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful! I'm so happy that this idea is spreading, and in particular to the Israel Palestine conflict, which is for me a particularly open wound, since I'm German: I think the actions of my grandparents’ generation fueled a vicious circle that is still spinning there.

I think there's already the first thing we can learn from them: They cut the sentence "This excludes members who have recently engaged in edit wars or sockpuppeteering." I don't remember why this was added in our project, but I propose we cut it. Every member has a right to deny a new membership anyway, and we encourage members to write their criteria on WT:SLR/H#What are we looking for in new members?, so there is no need for that sentence anymore. Any objections? — Sebastian 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka

Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka - Template:Lc1
I think we ought to consider the need and appropriateness of this category in the context of the Sri Lankan conflict.

The term "war crime" has a particular and complex definition, and its application to particular incidents or people is usually highly controversial. Its definition is not the same as "atrocity". When it comes to articles about incidents in the Sri Lankan conflict, this type of categorisation is too problematic to justify, in my opinion.

Let's look at the first three articles in the category:

• 2006 Trincomalee massacre - GOSL is accused of extrajudicial killing, GOSL claims the dead were LTTE members preparing to attack government troops
• Akkaraipattu massacre - ca. 80 people killed, GOSL accused
• Allaipiddy massacre - 13 people killed; locals blame the Navy, LTTE blames the GOSL, GOSL blames the LTTE

Though a sample of three articles is small, these three are representative of the type of incident that currently appears in the category. In virtually all cases, the identity of the attackers and/or victims is disputed; sometimes the very existence of a human rights violation is disputed. I am not aware of any case where an independent inquiry concluded that any of these incidents constitute war crimes. Thus, for all of these reasons, I think that the classification of articles into this category necessarily requires original research on the part of editors.

Also: 30 of the 31 articles in this category also appear in Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, so Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization#Mostly-overlapping categories is applicable.

Although the above text could be used for a CFD nomination, I felt it would be best to raise the issue here first. If there is consensus to disband the category, a CFD nomination may even be unnecessary. – Black Falcon 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of both cats and put all applicable articles in Category:Atrocities in Sri Lanka. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Though the technical/academic definition of "atrocity" is tied to the political or ethnical motivations for a civilian massacre and Category:Atrocities in Sri Lanka is much more accurate than Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka, I worry that there may be confusion with the more common usage of the term "atrocity" to describe any incident that is (subjectively) deemed to be horrible. Also, Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka fits into the Category:Massacres by country scheme. – Black Falcon 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In wikipedia there is still an open discussion at to what should be in a category called War crimes. One is that if someone callas an act a Warcrime (from an RS source) then it should be categorized as such. The other is that only those that are prnounced as a warcrime in an international court should be in the category. This is not settled yet. I am of the view that the category should include those acts which are described as a war crime. In that respect, I will leave the category alone and remove any act that has no description of wracrime from an RS source Taprobanus 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fairly well-established precedent at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion against "alleged" categories such as "Incidents alleged to be war crimes". Also, what if RSs disagree about whether an act is a war crime (not an uncommon occurrence, given how controversial the label really is)? Categories are not capable of reflecting such case-specific details. ... Still, I'd be interested to know what would remain of the category once that standard (allegation by at least one RS) is applied; none of the articles I've looked at mention the term "war crime". – Black Falcon 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers, Padahuthurai bombing for starters, I am sure some of atrocities attributed to the LTTE may also fit that category Taprobanus 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An article on Sri Lankan war criminals, also there is a chance Karuna Amman will be charged in the UK with war crimes Taprobanus 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me the time to review more of the articles in the category, as well as those articles to which you linked, and I will develop a response. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, as you know I am not in any hurry for anything :))Taprobanus (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the time to respond. Of the 32 incidents covered in the category, only two mention the phrase "war crime": 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and Vaharai Bombing. The article Padahuthurai bombing mentions "crime against humanity", but that's a different concept. While it's likely that a few other incidents have been alleged to be war crimes, we currently have a category populated by articles whose inclusion in the category is: in two cases, based on contested allegations, and in 30 cases, unsupported by reliable sources. So, at minimum, we would need to rename the category to Categor:Alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka and remove all but two entries (at least for now), but that's not a good solution since "alleged" categories are inherently problematic and there is quite strong consensus against them (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). So, due to these issues and the fact that this category duplicates Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, I believe straightforward deletion is the best option. – Black Falcon 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Watchdogb (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I need time to respond. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! Take all the time you need... :) Black Falcon 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

War crimes in Sri Lanka is a sub category of main War crimes category created under the umbrella of War crimes by countries to clean up the main category. There are many such clerical categories by several countries. (at least was, last time I checked it) Hence the discussion has to be do these articles belong under War crimes category (it is irrelevant whether they are by so called nation states or not) By Misplaced Pages consensus an article can be categorized under War crimes as long as an RS sources claims an event as a war crime ( at least that is my consensus ) So all articles that don’t have an RS source that claims the act is a war crime should be removed from the War crimes in Sri Lanka category and the category itself should be left alone with those articles that fit it. Even if only one article is in it, it should stay otherwise they will clutter the main War crimes category. Also you may want to involve User:Cgingold as he was very active regarding these categories. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is OK, I can do the leg work of -CatsTaprobanus (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, this sounds like a great solution to me! — Sebastian 18:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Synthesis? to discuss what to do with the article. I'm posting here so that all editors involved in the SLR effort are aware of it. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently a little too busy for wikipedia. However, I will reply to this in a 8-10 days if that is at all acceptable. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about another option, Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the likes of Terrorism in India it can be a neutral article Taprobanus (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll mention it on Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Rename to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". I think it makes more sense to keep the discussion there. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not rename to "Sri Lankan state terrorism". As for the so called Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep that discussion in one place. — Sebastian 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Text which was moved from Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

We have to discuss all options as listed here not jsut one. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks for pointing that out! I had read Black Falcon's great list of proposals before, but had forgotten about it when the discussion moved here. I wonder if people are just more willing to discuss this in a traditional section like this because they don't want to interfere with what he wrote. Maybe we could add {{partofcomment}} to each of his subsections so it will be more inviting for people to respond in place? — Sebastian 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Terrorism in Sri Lanka

It has been proposed (on WT:SLR) to rename the article to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka" to match such articles as Terrorism in India and to make it easier to write it as a neutral article. This seems very reasonable to me. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

support this renaming as "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". It would make a neutral article.We can have a sub-heading there as a "list of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" or some thing.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: wil this article have two sections then ? one for terrorism by the LTTE and the other by the government ? will it then mirror the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article ? Taprobanus (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be one option. Another would be the example of Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War‎. — Sebastian 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes that would be one option. but the problem would be the topic "terrorism by Sri Lankan govt" is a POV. another option is to name as like "allegations of State terrorism". --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing prevents us from starting and developing this article right now. Those who have the time and and motivations can begin the article and eventually when the article is of a considerable maturity, we can add the state terrorims article into it or make it a main article of the section about state terrorism. I think most of us waste a lot of time discussing about it rather than to create it. Why not not just do it Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism

How about rename to "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". As for the Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about India, but maybe there aren't any noteworthy allegations of state terrorism there? But back to the topic, you're not giving any reason why you think your name is better. — Sebastian 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

oppose to name it as "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". there's no concrete evidence or independent investigations on that matter it would violate NPOV.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(General discussion of NPOV, RS, NOTABLE, "academic circles" and secondary sources moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Rename to List of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Rename to State terrorism in Sri Lanka

and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject

State Terrorism like Genocide, Terrorism, Mass graves and Pogrom is a neutral English word clearly describes an action. It means we can write a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject. Just like we have to obey WP:NPOV, we also have to obey WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE and using these rules we can create a neutral article on State terrorism in Sri LankaTaprobanus (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Misplaced Pages does not depend on truth but on Realiable published citations. We have enough of that in the Article. The article itself is about the State terrorism in Sri Lanka. This is the best title. Watchdogb (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(General discussion of neutral article names and neutral words moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

My strong objection. Above mentioned article is a collection of allegations. For example have a look on the TOC. Renaming as this makes nothing but poisoning the whole situation. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 09:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only where it is because no one has taken the time to develop it. May be one day :))Taprobanus (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government

What ever is considered to be Human rights violations as opposed State terrorim should be in Human rights in Sri Lanka article Taprobanus (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree for merging the whole subjected article. If it's happen so, I would like to expand the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#State terrorism during the Second JVP insurrection by 10 times from the current size. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree to merging the whole thing into Human Rights in Sri Lanka. Though I will change my mind of "Attacks attributed to LTTE" gets merged into this along with a bit more constraints. Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not a vote. Therefore, it is pointless to just heap up personal preferences without providing reasons. And it's totally pointless to add the word "totally" - that wouldn't even make a difference if this were a vote. Can anyone among the three of you please provide a reason for your preference? — Sebastian 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment I made earlier, that was later removed, provides a perfect reason to my preference. Watchdogb (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to say, please say it clearly, and don't make everyone search the page history for what you might mean. — Sebastian

Human Rights violationsnad State terrorism are two different subjects. One is a violation of Human rights, happen all over the world but the other is terrorism practiced by a state as part of a Dirty warTaprobanus (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion to a discussion of reasons. Of course these can be treated as different subjects - we have two different articles for these topics already. But they are very strongly related: Any terrorism is a violation of human rights. Moreover, state terrorism (just as dirty war) constitutes HR abuses by the government. So I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to cover the former topic under the latter section. — Sebastian 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

General discussion of neutrality related issues

(Moved from #Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

NPOV is not the only rule we use in Misplaced Pages. We also use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE, NPOV cannot be used as excuse even to AFD an article, it just mean we need to find information that balances given one. State terrorim by Sri Lanka is widely dicussed in academic circles and is in published secondary sources that are acceptable in Misplaced Pages. We can write an article using those sources. We dont have to prove or disprove anything in Misplaced Pages. We simply repewat after repuitable sources without own own commentary which is called WP:ORTaprobanus (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these "academic circles"? where are they? are they truly independent? what are the secondary sources they use? And most importantly what happens when their secondary sources are disputed? --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from #Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

What are neutral words? All words are neutral when they are used individually. But give different meaning and conveys a different message when used with other words.To create a article named "State terrorism in SL there needs to be proved "state terror" from a NPOV. It's a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to go for your POV which is not verifiable by independent sources. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To reply to (some of) both of NavodEranda's messages: The article currently contains many links that look reliable and neutral at first glance; at least to me. So it seems that there is a neutral reason for naming it something along the lines of state terrorism. You did a good job at refuting references in Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka‎#SL Army in Tamil homeland; if you can do the same for the refernces that back up the name of the article, then it would indeed have to be renamed.

If I may add a general remark: I'm not too happy about the term "state terrorism" to begin with, because it is a controversial term anywhere - independent of the situation in SL. I am also not clear where the distinction to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government is. But Taprobanus seems to see a clear distinction there. He has in the past often convinced me by just writing or improving articles. Taprobanus, would it be possible for you to make that distinction clear by improving that section? — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the citations look reliable. However, some might be biased, in which case, it will be explicitly attributed. Still the article can be written much better than now. Watchdogb (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidents

This chapter contains temporary issues as opposed to long term issues such as content disputes, which are in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the "resolved" tag means that an incident has been taken care of, not necessarily that we reached unanimous agreement. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New sections

Since most people (including myself, ahem) simply add new sections at the bottom of this page, regardless of which chapter they fit in, I'm adding this new chapter so it doesn't look like they are all content issues. Of course this raises the question if the distinction is really so helpful, but I think it is because it helps us focus on content. — Sebastian 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of SLR agreement

I have come to the conclusion that SLR has now become a model for Misplaced Pages to resolve problems even without going to Arbcom and its model has been followed by other conflict related areas. The agreement (achieved through ANI/1 and Mediation techniques) which gave power to any Admin to follow a stricter interpretation of Misplaced Pages rules should be extended beyond the initial 3 months to another 9 months (total of 12 months) Because the initial 3 month has brought to sanity to the situation and this cooling off period needs to be extended based on Misplaced Pages:General sanctions so that we achieve permanent peace. It is because the Sri Lankan civil war is official on between warring parties and this tense situation may bring the worst out of human emotions on both sides making our effort at building an encyclopedia that more difficult. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)