Talk:Sri Lanka/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Full protection

I've fully protected the article...again...for 1 week. As always, I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever about what the "correct" version is, and am, in fact, 100% certain that the article is currently at the WP:WRONGVERSION. Please work out your differences here rather than via edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I had requested this a week ago, which got rejected. Distributor108 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that I would also have been justified in blocking you for edit warring and tendentious editing on this talk page, right? You get that you are as much a part of the problem as anyone else, right? I'm not saying that others are blameless--several people could easily be blocked for edit warring. I just don't want you to think that you're totally in the right here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Distributor108 has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and a combative attitude. Because I think that xe may have been the major cause of the recent spat of edit-warring, I'm temporarily unprotecting the article. If edit warring resumes, I'll reprotect. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's hoping no hosiery appears ... Appreciate the attention you've given! Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

population data

The population should be around 20 million (not "1"), and the ranking is 56, not 180 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population). Not sure why this is messed up? Waxwingshadow (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a bit of vandalism earlier but it looks to be cleaned up at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speculations about the "Elu" language.

Early inhabitants did not speak "Elu". The Mahavamsa described the early inhabitants as Nagas(Snake worshipers) and Yakshas(Demon worshipers) which is a Dravidian HINDU tradition. Second, many Tamil sources such as the Mahavamsa have recorded history of the Naga aka Nakar in the coastal areas of Tamilakam (South India and North and North Eastern Parts of Sri Lanka) and spoke Tamil. IT is evident that the early inhabitants such as the Nagas of Sri Lanka were of different origin in linguistic aspects when compared to the present day speakers of the South,central, Sri lanka(Sinhalese). Which is why the speculations of their language should be added in this article.(Tamilan101 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Mahavamsa is not a Tamil source. You say "Many Tamil sources" - which ones? Are you thinking of Manimekalai? According to Manimekalai the Nagas of SL were not Tamils. Please note that Nagas were not only found in Sri Lanka, but all over India and South Asia, and the Nagas and Yakshas are not solely found in the Dravidian tradition (that is, if at all they play any significant part in Dravidian traditions). The terms Naga and Yaksha are not Dravidian, but Indic. If these are Dravidian traditions, why use Indic terms to describe these traditions? Whatever language the early inhabitants of Lanka spoke, they definitely didn't speak Tamil, as attested by all Tamil literature (i.e Tolkappium and other Sangam literature). According to Sangam literature the language spoken in Sri Lanka, was Sinhala (Cinkalam, which is one of the 18 languages refered to in Tamil literature). Tamil gramatical works, from as late as the 13th century do not mention that Tamil was spoken in Sri Lanka, meaning that there was no significant Tamil presence in Lanka for them to mention it. Elu is the genuine form of Sinhala, without foreign (i.e mainly Sanskrit) forms and borrowings. The spread of Tamil to Sri Lanka is post formation of that language in Tamilakam, while the Sinhala language formed in the island - understand that difference when you edit Sri Lanka related articles and keep unverifiable mythological recent constructions of history out of Wikipedia articles. --SriSuren (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No reference is sourced for many of the statements above and deemed to be considered as POV.61.245.168.52 (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is that u want references for? Mark them. I am still waiting for Tamilan101 to specify what he means by "Many Tamil sources" and for references to his (and some others') claim that North and Northeastern parts of Sri Lanka, was a part of Tamilakam (the Tamil country). I have given over 30 references from Tamil and non-Tamil scholars, to the fact that no part of Sri Lanka was ever a part of Tamilakam and that the boundaries of Tamilakam was between Venkata (hill) and Cape Comorin. I have also given one reference above, which is the Madras Tamil lexicon, as to the language of the island (Cinkalam/Ceylon) being Sinhala (Cinkalam). That should be sufficient here, unless u want me to copy and paste all those references here too. SriSuren (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight of history section

The following addition of information by Mariahmorton is most likely carries undue weight with respect to sri lanka history of 3000 years, considering the entire 30 year civil war only recieved a mention of 1 or 2 sentences, I would recommend omitting this entire section as this just 1 of many 100s of reports published by the government in recent times. "On May 15th 2010, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the president of Sri Lanka, appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to assess the conflict between the time of the ceasefire agreement in 2002 and the defeat of the LTTE in 2009. The mandate requires that the commission inquire and report on five elements of the civil war: circumstance of the failure of the ceasefire and the subsequent events, the groups or individuals responsible, the lessons learnt restitution to affected individuals, and the measures to prevent a similar situation in the future.[139] Given six months to complete its investigations, the commissions responsibility was to establish several recommendations that would lead to the completion of the five elements mentioned in the mandate.

Throughout the Commission's existence, the government collected evidence by equally hearing testimony from both army commanders and members of the military as well as displaced Tamil civilians. Once the Commission concluded in May 2011, a 400 page report was later released in December 2011 outlining the numerous recommendations the Commission believed the government should enact.

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission was criticized for its lack of independence from the government due to the fact that the Sri Lankan government, one of the parties accused of committing war crimes, appointed its members. Most of the commissioners were retired senior government employees and some held positions during the controversial final stages of the war. Many believed a bias was already established before testimony and investigations took place." Distributor108 (talk)

Agree with you on this occasion. It seems like this particular section was added by a user or users editing from the IP 192.147.239.1 which belongs to a school, over a range of articles related to Sri Lankan civil war. I've trimmed it to give information on LLRC the due weight. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the school regarding the time edit, the name of the editor, and possible ethnicity of the editor. I will follow up with a phone call later this week. Distributor108 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You've done what??? Don't mix wikipedia with real life; that's the sprit of the WP:OUTING policy. CMD (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not posted any personal information of the other editor on Wikipedia further still still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing Distributor108 (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You clearly missed the word "spirit" in my last post. CMD (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

This article has been subjected to "drive-by" tagging with "expert-subject", "COI", "cleanup", "disputed", "primary sources", and "recentism". It's a 9-times featured article, which means it's built up a pretty strong consensus for its content by now - and that bunch of tags, added with no explanation whatsoever, is pretty close to just plain vandalism.

If anyone thinks there are problems with this article, explain them here in some detail and, if your complaints have merit, they will be addressed. In the meantime, I have semi-protected this article to at least stop the drive-by IPs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boing, there is no such policy on Wikipedia, if an article is 9-times featured there is a pretty strong consensus built up; may be the reason there are lack of peer review by experts on the subject. Though certain tags are appropriate not necessarily all at once.Hillcountries (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works more by consensus than by hard policy, and a whole load of unexplained drive-by tags would appear to be firmly against consensus to me - or do you think they're valid? Or do you think asking the tagger to explain the tags is unreasonable, especially after they have been contested? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Those tags are appropriate but not all at once. If the tagger should explain after the tags have been contested, then the contestant also should explain why he differ. All tags at once are a bit too much and not helpful though those tags may be appropriate regarding the content concerned.Hillcountries (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Elu Language

I have removed the following section which is confusing and was fused with the Pre-history of Sri Lanka. There were many early inhabitants in Sri Lanka and not necessarily, they all were connected with each other or originated from a single ethnic group or they all spoke Elu language. Might be a section of the Early inhabitants had spoken the Elu language. Then again we will have to divide the Pre-history of Sri Lanka separating the mythical part and the other with appropriate sub-heading.

Early inhabitants of the country spoke the Elu language, which is considered the early form of the modern Sinhala language.

I have removed the above section which is confusing but it could be used elsewhere.Hillcountries (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be confusing? Do you have any RS to back up what you say?--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Long lines of pronounciations

Is it necessary to have 3 different forms of pronounciations for "Sri Lanka", which is taking up a good part of the first line, and then another 3 different forms for "Ceylon", when pronouciations are given in the sound files? Also Ceylon being an English word and commonly known do not need any additional specification of pronounciations. It could be included in the article British Ceylon if needed. My opinion is that we should try to avoid interuptions of the text with these additions of pronounciations etc, as much as possible as they make reading articles difficult - therefore, if there is consensus we should remove these pronouciations, as they serve no purpose here, especially since the sound files are given. --SriSuren (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Could the dynamic IP who keeps trying to undo the archiving please state here specifically 1) which topics you would like to continue discussing and 2) what you specifically want to say about them? If there is nothing specific, then let the information go to the archives. This is standard practice across all of Wikipedia. 90 days is a very generous time period. And, even if someone else wants to discuss a specific issue, they are more than welcome to open a new thread on the same topic. But we don't leave threads open indefinitely. The problem is that once a thread gets old, most readers ignore it. So if you go in and respond to a post from 6 months ago, your response will generally not be read by anyone, because people read what's current.

Unless you can give some specific reason why those specific threads should not be archived, let the bot do its job. If you keep disrupting the archiving, we'll have to either block the range you're on (which looks narrow enough) or temporarily semi-protect this talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have noted your concern. But please leave another one month for both threads to be there. I have restored the threads. There should be some mechanism to notify the particular thread/s will be archived within one month or within a specific time frame rather than a pre-programmed bot to handle the issue without prior notice at least to those who involved in those discussions.61.245.168.55 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The prior notice is right there in the archive box: "Threads older than 3 month may be archived by MiszaBot I."

—WWoods (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have given specific reasons why those specific threads should not be archived on the respective threads.61.245.168.52 (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks suspicious! Its exactly what happened last time. I wonder why there are two different I.P.s as well?--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Before you suspect, better have some idea about the dynamic IPs.61.245.163.13 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Do u have any idea why your IP is listed as a "Suspected network sharing device" and is a banned IP by many sites? SriSuren (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't come out with wild statements, support with evidence.61.245.165.26 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators should do that. A check at whatismyip .com says what I have stated. Anybody can do that check, and adminitrators who deal with these issues have better tools and expertise to do the checking. Each of the IP addresses you have posted with is listed as static Ips and not dynamic Ips, whatever that should mean.... The obscenities you have posted here should be good enough reason for the administrators to action on your IP. SriSuren (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let the CheckUser Admin to verify whether my IPs are Static or Dynamic. Don't be such a fool stating my IPs are Static. That is the usual situation when IPs are in Dynamic situation.61.245.172.37 (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You can watch the following different IPs when I sign each time when I log out and then log in.61.245.172.37 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Signed in 1st Minute(after log out and then log in):61.245.172.63 (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Signed in 2nd Minute(after log out and then log in):61.245.165.38 (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently nobody — including 61.245.* — has had anything new to say in those discussions in months, so why not let them go? —WWoods (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your POV there is nothing new to say in the discussion in months. Please read those threads properly; I have raised some concern and they should be addressed and dealt properly.61.245.172.37 (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

61, if no one has answered you in several months, they aren't going to. That's just the reality of how talk pages work. And if you aren't commenting there any more, it sure looks like you no longer care either. I really really don't understand any value to keeping those here--they actually make it much harder to have discussions, because they give the illusion that something is being discussed actively, when it isn't. Furthermore, excessively long talk pages are a problem for people trying to access Wikipedia on slow connections or on mobile devices. Insisting on keeping the items here hurts improving the article, not helps. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly 61... is not doing this for the purposes of contributing to the article, nor has he made an effort even after we all asked him/her. The copied content should be deleted.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

meaningless sentence?

The phrase "got down coral for a net" needs clarification.

- Is there such a thing as "down coral" or is there a typo of some kind in the sentence? Neither a Google search nor a Wikipedia search turned up any references to "down coral."

- How can coral, a hard object become a net which is a soft object used for catching butterflies or fish? Alternatively, the word "net" is being used in an unusual sense which requires some explanation.

- Finally, the sentence containing the above phrase is unnecessarily mysterious: Did the Sri Lankan representatives trade something to Rome in exchange for the coral, or did Rome give Sri Lanka coral as a gift? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.73.251 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it sounds meaningless. I guess the term "got down" is misleading. The source author might have wanted to imply "brought". Even the usage of the word "embassy" should be something like "envoy" to give a proper meaning. About the use of "net", this might be a translation issue from old text. I have no idea about the Sinhala or Pali word used in the original text, but the net should be replaced by something like "Crate". Sajeewashaluka (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of a photo

Hi Gareth,

I have removed the photo ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg from the Sri Lanka page since it is not relevant to the subject. Also uploader of the photo is an anti Sri Lankan and his photo url is http://www.sangam.org/2009/08/images/ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka.jpg and if you surf www.sangam.org you can see the massage that he give "boycotte Sri lanka". So you can easily understand that he wants to give bad image to the world regarding Sri Lanka. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagara.seram (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have undone my revert so I trust that suits you ... please let me know here. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Done ... and again this morning. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you have undone your revert of this edit by User:Sagara.seram following this request by that user. User:Sagara.seram has given a reason for the removal of the photo but he did not give any reason for the removal of the following referenced text:

"40,000 Tamil civilians may have been killed in the final phases of the Sri Lankan civil war, according to an Expert Panel convened by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon."

As you may be aware there were long protracted discussions about the inclusion specific allegations related to the civil war. The text removed by User:Sagara.seram had been on the article for some time without causing disruption. Could you undo your self-revert so that this referenced text is re-inserted? I have no objections to the removal of the File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg photo. Thanks.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Both actions completed. Please let me know here that you are content. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 12:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am content. Thank you for your prompt response.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have objection for the removal of the image and reinserted. Why it should be removed should be explained in detail on the talk page of Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The image is not only used in the www.sangam.org but also in The Sunday Leader, a registered Sri Lankan newspaper here.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@ HudsonBreeze, Thank you for the link. Any comments everybody else? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Gareth Griffith-Jones, I have altered the caption since all Sinhalese are not responsible for the riot. HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. That is a good edit. Thank you. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to Channel 4 and unverified claims of the disappeared, Amnesty International statements -- should it be included in the Introduction?

Issues related to number of people disappeared and criticisms of the country's human rights record are being inserted into the introduction. These issues are controversial and unresolved and I contend not relevant to a general discussion of the country. They also are covered in the Human Rights section and the Civil War article. BlueLotusLK (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC) User:Blackknight12 and User:Ian.thomson seem to think so? What do others have to say about this? BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at other countries, human rights do not seem to be mentioned in the introduction. Examples: Serbia, Iraq, United States, China, Russia, etc. BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's also interesting that the above mentioned users really want to preserve these sentences that feature horribly garbled English. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am boldly removing the RfC request. BlueLotusLK, you haven't even tried to discuss the matter with involved users first, which is a prerequisite to opening an RfC. Second, you're edit warring. When multiple editors revert you, it's up to you to come to the article talk page and discuss the matter--not start an RfC while simultaneously trying to force your version into the article. If after discussing the matter with other users, you can't come to a consensus, then you can start an RfC. Alternatively, you can keep edit warring, in which case I will block you. Note that I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever on whether or not that information should stay or be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Of the articles on other countries, only Iraq has a subsection on human rights, and only Iraq and China link to whole articles dedicated to the topic. Mentioning that the rest of the world is concerned about human rights in Iraq and China would be appropriate too, but that's an issue for those pages. "Human rights" don't even appear in the articles Serbia and the United States (save for the title of one reference), so there's nothing there to summarize in the article. The articles on human rights in the United States and Serbia only discuss past issues, while the human rights issues in this article discuss rather current issues.

As for the language of the portion BlueLotusLK has been removing, that's a separate issue. Should the language be fixed? Sure. Is that grounds for removal? No. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The submissions I've been removing were recently added by anons and are NOT even discussed in the rest of the article. The other articles I mentioned are better edited and display the standard of articles on Wikipedia. Who are you to challenge this by asserting that articles should focus on human rights issues and this is the proper manner to include these details. United States has ongoing human rights issues including drone strikes and occupation of many countries which if you are so interested in displaying human rights issue I will help you add to the main United States article introduction.

Further the claim about disappeared people is patently false and not supported by the source linked to. I'm going to remove this again BECAUSE the SOURCE contradicts the claim. The other bits I will leave up for debate. BlueLotusLK (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • And let's consider the other claims made and the sources that are used for it.

1. "controversial"

Links to Channel 4 coverage of Sri Lanka. No specific source is being cited here -- a single network's negative coverage is not sufficient to establish there is controversy abou the military victory. A major theme of these crusaders is that war was "under reported" and they are a lone voice in the dark trying to draw attention to these "great crimes". If there was controversy why would they need to do this? Rather there's been general support including a UN document praising the military victory which tend to suggest that there is no controversy outside of a minority of human rights lobbyists.

2."Firmer government in the 21st century has drawn criticism from the United Nations[19][20],"

The sources cites are not criticizing the government directly; rather they are criticizing the UN for inaction. Further they are independent panels without any power not the United Nations itself. So the claim they are intending to support is not being supported.

3. "Reporters Without Borders[21] for journalist disappearances"

Reporters Without Borders discusses press intimidation. No where does it claim that journalist disappearances is an ongoing issue nor even mention in the latest report. http://en.rsf.org/sri-lanka-sri-lanka-12-03-2012,42068.html

4. "and Amnesty International[22] for detention without trial."

Source notes most released and highlights the fact that they are combatants. Neither the rest of the article nor the Human Rights article mentions detentions witout trial so it is not summarizing anything in the article.

5. There has, however, been declining press freedom[24]

Source discusses the rage of the defense minister who is said to threaten reporters. This does not mean there is no press freedom and the source doesn't state that there is a decline in press freedom, merely highlights incidents of press coercion.

6. challenges to independence of the judiciary

This is what the source for this claim says. "..At the Universal Periodic Review later on Thursday, many countries - including Sri Lanka's close friends, Cuba, Iran and Pakistan - praised the country's post-war rights record..." An incidence about the judiciary is mentioned but no judgement is made. Amnesty or HRW may have more bolder statements on this case but this source doesn't support the claim.

BlueLotusLK (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am dismayed that all the admins who are watching this article have allowed you to get away with this. This article had been the subject of a painful dispute for many months but for the last few months it has been stable. Now you have come out of retirement solely to cause disruption.

Enforced disappearances

• UN - "Sri Lanka had the second-largest number of cases of enforced disappearances in the world, with over 5,000 un-clarified cases."
• UN - "Since its establishment, the Working Group has transmitted 12,460 cases to the Government; of those, 40 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the source, 6,535 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the Government, 214 cases were found to be duplications and were therefore deleted, and 5,671 remain outstanding."
• BBC - "The UN Working Group on Disappearances has identified Sri Lanka as having the second largest most number of disappearance cases in the world".
• BBC - "The UN says there are more than 5,000 cases of unsolved enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka. The rate has dropped since the end of the war but it has since risen again".

UN criticism

• 1st UN Panel -
  • "The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Government says it pursued a “humanitarian rescue operation” with a policy of “zero civilian casualties.” In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace."
  • "The Government sought to intimidate and silence the media and other critics of the war through a variety of threats and actions, including the use of white vans to abduct and to make people disappear."
  • "The Government shelled on a large scale in three consecutive No Fire Zones, where it had encouraged the civilian population to concentrate, even after indicating that it would cease the use of heavy weapons."
  • "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling."
  • "The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines."
  • "The Government also systematically deprived people in the conflict zone of humanitarian aid, in the form of food and medical supplies, particularly surgical supplies, adding to their suffering."
  • "The Government subjected victims and survivors of the conflict to further deprivation and suffering after they left the conflict zone."

If this isn't criticism of the Sri Lankan government, I'd like to know what is.

Controversial end to civil war

• 1st UN Panel - "The war in Sri Lanka ended tragically, amidst controversy".
• BBC - "the final phase of that war has been a source of considerable controversy, with both sides accused of war crimes".
• Economist - "Two years after it ended, Sri Lanka's civil war still generates controversy".
• Courier-Mail - "The final battles of January-May 2009 remain shrouded in controversy".
• Christian Science Monitor - "One year after Sri Lanka’s decisive victory over Tamil insurgents, controversy still swirls over the bloody end to the 26-year civil war".
• Guardian - "...the bloody and controversial end to the 26-year civil conflict...".
• SMH - "Australia is under pressure because of a war crimes controversy...".
• The Age - "war crimes controversy dating from Sri Lanka's grisly civil war with Tamil separatists".

But there is no need for me or anyone prove that the end of the civil war was controversial. Channel 4 is a WP:RS and you had no right to remove the content or the reference using the lame excuse "a single network's negative coverage is not sufficient to establish there is controversy about the military victory".

Journalist disappearances

• RSF - "These frequent aggressions, which can range from murder to forced disappearance, have made the country’s journalists feel threatened...".
• Committee to Protect Journalists - "The government's effort to silence critical media has been brutally effective as politically motivated deaths, attacks, and disappearances go uninvestigated and unprosecuted".
• HRW - "The government has failed to bring to justice those responsible for any of the killings or enforced disappearances of journalists".
• Island - "Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith...called for an impartial investigation into the killing and disappearance of several journalists in the past."
• Sunday Leader - "Issues such as disappearances, particularly the enforced disappearance of journalists are a matter of concern".

Press freedom

• Freedom House - "PRESS: Not Free".
• Freedom House - FH Press Freedom Index: Sri Lank's score was 71 in 2011 and 72 in 2012 - a decline.
• Reporters Without Borders - "Sri Lanka’s is the one that respects press freedom least". Ranked 163 out of 179 in worldwide index of press freedom.
• Reporters Without Borders - RSF Press Freedom Index: Sri Lank's score was 62.50 (158th) in 2010 and 87.50 (163rd) in 2010/11 - a decline.

Your actions are nothing more than a cheap attempt at censoring widely reported facts. Pathetic.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

HAHA, you showed up. I'm sure you were pleased that the article was "stable" after a few anons decided to insert the claims so dear to your heart into the introduction (no matter they are not covered in the rest of the article after discussion rejected its inclusion). The failure of the civil war section must have stung but now because of complacency of editors and failing to revert POV pushing you can still insert it into the introduction. I never doubted the accuracy that these claims are being made. The fact that these claims are sporadically reported doesn't require their insertion into the introduction of the Sri Lanka article. Maybe I should add claims about the LTTE to the Tamil and Tamil diaspora article. The point was the introduction is not the place for you to wage your battle to air all your grievances against Sri Lanka. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can go all out and air whatever you want in your cherished Alleged War Crimes Article, or Human Rights Article. You were motivated to make another press freedom article. Good job! I'm not even going to bother coming near those. I see AWC article is getting plum and in shape. Your motives are further clear now you've decided it's time for you to edit Genocides in History article. How long before you decide to insert that paragraph into the Sri Lanka article as well?

Anyway, your enforced disappearances claim as 2nd highest I've disproved below. Further the newest RSF section says nothing about journalist disappearances. They made one reference to it in the past doesn't warrant the claim made. I've not taken out the other claims. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted. Others should not suspect you represent Bell Pottinger Group.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks galore from the two activists. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And what have the admins allowed me to get away with? I have the freedom to complain about material I see as improperly inserted into the Sri Lanka article introduction. For most Sri Lankans, our country doesn't revolve around tamils and their issues. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The closest parallel regarding an ethnic conflict would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel Now how does it deal with the accusations by the UN, Amnesty and HRW? There is no press freedom in the Israel occupied territories, there is GREATER CONTROVERSY and ethnic cleansing among other things and continued bombings. I don't see any mention in the introduction. The Israel article is a more developed article representing the format of Wikipedia after many discussions. I don't see how this should not be the format followed here. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A UN panel that is an independent panel hired by the UN does not constitute the UN. What Reporters without Borders and Amnesty International have said about Sri Lanka is of peripheral interest at best to the article.

And further this article is about Sri Lanka not its government or its civil war. It's about what Sri Lanka as a country is not whether its civil war is controversial in some quarters. That would be of interest only if this controversy actually affected Sri Lanka the country through some form of international prosecution which is not the case. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So I would say the press freedom and judicial challenge part is valid and could be included but not the rest. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your examples. Then better remove all the history sections and human related stuff on Sri Lanka article. First remove the Foreign Relations section where Mahinda Rajapakse is decorating. And leave only the Sri Lankan Fauna and Flora and Geography.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Compromise -- stuff moved to human rights section. That's fine with me. I'm out.

Disappearances -- Sri Lanka doesn't have the first or the second or even the third

• Russia: 100,000s under Stalin, 5,000 forced disappearances in Chechnya since 1999
• Guatemala - 200,000 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/enforced-disappearances-americas-are-crime-present-2012-08-28
• Colombia - 61,604 http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/20141-forced-dissapearances-a-dramatically-deteriorating-situation-ngo-.html
• Argentina - 30,000
• Mexico - 10,000+ http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2012/09/forced-disappearances-increase-in.html
• Iraq - 10,000+

BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Could be comparable if they were all from the exact same source ... some of the above aren't even sourced (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Russia, Argentina, Iraq -- there's many sources out there and their history is widely known. I didn't think there was a necessity to provide sources for those. Mexico is the only one with uncertain figures. Every other state has high figures far above Sri Lanka from reputable sources. I'm not aware of one single source that keeps track of enforced disappearances across the board. If you do please feel free to link to it. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the properly sourced content based on Enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka. It is because other countries don't have the detail doesn't mean it should be exempted on the Sri Lanka article. What we can do is better add on those countries what is missing on enforced disappearances.HudsonBreeze (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a source makes a claim doesn't trump the fact that it's inaccurate based on facts as shown above. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of the article has been gravely mis-edited and apart from grammatical errors contain sections that are too specific to be mentioned in the lead. Such has been corrected. Cossde (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cesarian

Article includes the name "Cesarian". That should I think be "Caesarion", who (a) has a Wikipedia page, (b) is a small character in "Le Fils d'Asterix". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected this article to stop the edit warring. What should have happened a few days ago was that after Intotoronto added the info (fine, great, WP:BOLD, exactly what we want), and then Cossde reverted (also fine--he provided a clear reason for removal) then Intotoronto should have come to this article talk page and discussed the matter. Arguably, I could have blocked Intotoronto for edit warring, but this is faster and stops the problem. Now, everybody figure out whether or not there is consensus for the new info. If you decide, then make an edit protected request. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I also reverted. As an Admin, you can't get involved on the disputed content(whether it is right or wrong) and then use your admin tools to protect the page. You can protect the page as it is. I will request other editors whether you are right or wrong.Sudar123 (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what policy says. Admins are allowed to either protect the current version of the article, or to revert to the version that existed before the edit warring started. The exact quote from WP:PROTECTION is, "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Please note that I am not involved in the content dispute. I don't care whether or not the info is in the article. I just want you to follow normal policy and discuss the matter since it was reverted with a reason. I'm not even saying that reason is a "good" reason, merely that it is a legitimate reason, and thus discussion must be had. While WP:BRD is not policy, it borders on being mandatory on a page like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What clear point exists to you? That is a well sourced content. If the Sri Lankan nationalists are not happy with the content and you are reverting to their version, then you deemed to be supporting the nationalists' support on their legitimizing War of Terror. Please explain what is that clear point exists for your revert of the well sourced content and then protecting the page?Sudar123 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The "clear point" is measuring whether or not an admin can tell where the edit war started. In some cases, people are adding and subtracting things all over the article, and there's no real obvious point to declare "here, the page was stable, and from the next edit things started going crazy". That is not the case here. There was a clear, obvious point that triggered the edit war: the addition of new content. That content was then reverted. The content should not have been reinserted until it was discussed on the talk page. This is standard Wikipedia editing policy, that applies doubly and triply in the case of contentious information (and it's obvious that any claim of atrocities clearly is a contentious claim, no matter how well sourced it is). Simply because content is sourced does not necessarily mean it belongs on this page, which is exactly what Cossde's edit summaries said. WP:V does not guarantee inclusion, it's simply the minimum standard for inclusion. And please don't think I'm taking Cossde's side; all I'm saying is that you need to discuss the matter now. Please, do so. Please justify inclusion, and those opposed, justify removal. If you can't agree amongst yourselves, use dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

An administrator making & making changes in a wiki page and then using his admin privileges to lock the page is not moderation but abusing admin privileges (talk). (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

As Qwyrxian pointed out, reverting to the pre-dispute version is well within an admins remit. It is not the same as getting involved in the dispute, and it prevents contentious edits without consensus from being locked into articles. Rather than complain about the system and about admin abuse, why not spend your energy trying to reach consensus on the addition? The first will get you nowhere, the second might go so far as to be productive. CMD (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Reverting to pre-dispute version is, almost getting involved on the disputed content. Before the pre-dispute the particular source was not available and when it is available and the source can meet the WP:RS, there is no violation adding that content to the article. If certain section don't want to hear bitter realities, that is there problem, but the truth should prevail. What an admin should do is, he should encourage the editors involved to come out with the NPOV content rather than reverting the content completely and then protecting the page and then encouraging for a discussion; then he is abusing his tools. If there is no clear consensus here what Qwyrxian did is right or not, I will take this issue for RfC.Sudar123 (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you think I abused my administrative tools, please either privately ask some admins you trust, or take the matter to WP:ANI and let the community discuss it. Meanwhile, could you all please do what you have to do no matter what: discuss the additions and reach consensus on the inclusion? Even if you're right, and I was completely wrong and should be de-sysoped and the page put in the version it was when I protected it, you still have to discuss the edits. You (I don't mean Sudar123 specifically, I mean all of you) still need to decide if the content should be in or out. Even if I had the article protected in the version you prefer, you'd still be compelled to discuss it. Please. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sudar asked me to comment as an uninvolved admin. I see no problem with Qwyrxian's action. Where an admin protects a page to prevent an edit war, it is within his discretion per WP:PROTECTION to choose which version to protect. Someone will always say that it was The Wrong Version, but that does not make the admin involved or mean that they have taken a side in the dispute. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was also asked to comment. As highlighted above by JohnCD; Qwyrxian's actions where as an uninvolved admin; moving to the version before the contended changes and then locking the page. This is within admin discretion and is fine, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is clear bias seen by Qwyrxian's edits. He in the past has reverted edits in support of Cossde so he is involved within this dispute. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I've come close to blocking Cossde before and have issued him a number of warnings. At the same time, I've also been involved in stopping ongoing harassment of Cossde on his talk page and elsewhere (not related to this page or the editors here). All I care about is actual discussion of the actual edits. Please, for the love of all that is holy, please discuss the actual edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I, too, was asked to comment here. As best I can tell, what Qwyrxian did was valid per WP:PREFER (a subsection of WP:PROTECTION), which says in part: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Qwyrxian has made some edits to this page in the past, but they appear to me to be minor, dealing mostly with policy issues rather than content disputes. By its nature, any action taken on this article (even something that is clearly policy-based) is going to be seen by some as being partial to the "other side"; if Qwyrxian had kept the last edit before protecting the page, those opposing that last edit would surely have accused him of being biased. It's really a no-win situation. Those who still feel Qwyrxian abused his administrative role may certainly go ahead and raise the issue at WP:ANI, but if you do, I strongly recommend you be prepared with convincing arguments as to why you believe Qwyrxian showed past bias and unacceptable involvement in the content disputes surrounding this topic — much more convincing than anything I've seen here on this talk page. — Richwales 08:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've analyzed all of Qwyrxian's edits to this page in the last 500 diffs in history. The only borderline involved edit would seem to be this, which too is a citation required edit with some summarizing of the information. All the remaining edits that have been made to this page are either vandalism reversion, or undoing of edits that would have almost qualified as vandalism, if not for Qwyrxian's lenient tagging. In summary, there's no way you can consider Qwyrxian as being involved in this article. I'll encourage the editors here to focus more on resolving the editing dispute than on a non-relevant and quite without basis tangential issue. Wifione ^Message 14:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian may be an honest admin, but the coincidences made others to think he/she is biased or overly involved with his/her admin tools with pages on Sri Lanka and its Conflict.

Qwyrxian has closed the discussion while the "Civil War" section is out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) from the page as No-Consensus though Qwyrxian encouraged for mediation.

Qwyrxian has blocked Hillcountries though he/she encouraged for a talk page discussion while the "Category: Sinhalese people" is in(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) on the Prince Vijaya's page.

Again, Qwyrxian has reverted the controversial content out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) and then protected the page.

The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind.

I drop this issue pursuing further against Qwyrxian and agree with other editors that his/her actions are right.Sudar123 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should note that (per WP:PREFER) the reason for fully protecting an article subject to edit warring is to "force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus". If editors on both sides of this conflict can use this as an opportunity to discuss matters calmly and respectfully, in order to reach agreement on some sort of compromise language that is supported by reliable sources and respectfully represents all mainstream viewpoints in a balanced and neutral fashion, the article protection may have accomplished a good result. If, on the other hand, people remain entrenched in their polarized stances and do nothing but count down the days, hours, and minutes until the protection expires and they can resume their quest to make the article support their view and denounce the opposition at any cost, nothing will have been gained here, and we'll just be back to where we were before in a few days' time. — Richwales 03:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be fair, since I'm currently playing bad cop here, one small thing will have changed. I use a fairly simple plan for content disputes I'm acting on as an admin: the first time around usually results in full protection, while the second time around usually results in blocks. So, I suggest against waiting out the issue. I'll even start a subsection here to get the conversation started. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Including the disputed claims?

The following is my summary of the dispute, as best as I can construct it from the edit summaries:

Intotoronto1125 added some new information about allegations of human rights abuses intentionally perpetrated and ordered by the Sri Lankan government in this edit; these accusations were made by an ex-military member, and were reported on in the National Post. Later, in [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka&diff=525827538&oldid=525807541 this edit] 78.149.28.57 added a counter-claim from the Sri Lankan government; this counter-claim was reported on the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense site. Sudar123 objected to the counter-claim, arguing that we can't include the counter-claim until it's found somewhere other than on a Sri Lankan government website (essentially, asking for the counter-claim to be reported on in a secondary source). The IP revereted this. Later, Cossde removed Intotoronto1125's addition, arguing not that the information belongs not here, on the main Sri Lanka article, but on one of the sub-pages (I don't know which one, but I know that there are a number to choose from). Intotoronto1125 reverted Cossde, but gave no reason.

So, it seems to me that there are two specific questions that y'all are asking. The first is, does the information belong here, or on a different page? This is primarily a question of WP:DUE--that is, is this specific allegation important enough to the topic of "Sri Lanka" to appear on Sri Lanka, or is it a smaller detail that belongs on a subpage. If it is determined that the info belongs on a sub-page, then you should go discuss there whether and how much of the info to include there on the chosen article's talk page. If, however, the consensus is that the info belongs here, then you need to decide whether or not the subsequent denial should be included. This will revolve primarily around the intersection of WP:V and WP:RS; I suggest that both sides, though, look at WP:PRIMARY, noting that primary sources are not preferred, but that there are times when they can be used.

Please discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I apologize if I have mischaracterized the intent of any of the edits; it's sometimes tough to define the full thinking behind a short ES. If you correct me, I'll amend my statement above if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Aside from (and possibly more importantly than) the primary-vs.-secondary-source issue, I believe a major problem with acceptance of sources in this topic area is that people strongly disagree as to the reliability of various sources, based to a great degree on their own leanings. For example, a Sri Lankan government web site may be considered to be self-evidently, supremely reliable by supporters of the government, but to be just as self-evidently, hopelessly biased by opponents of the government. Even if we confine ourselves to secondary sources such as news services, Sri Lankan newspapers are considered little more than conduits of state propaganda by opponents of the government, whereas the BBC and other western news sources which have spoken critically of the Sri Lankan government are considered by the government's supporters to be virtually complicit in the war crimes reportedly committed by the LTTE rebels. This topic area is extremely polarized, and finding editors who can remain neutral (or at least set their personal views aside) and are willing to write in a balanced fashion, giving fair treatment to all sides, has so far proved to be nearly impossible. — Richwales 06:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And again

Intotoronto again restored the disputed material without any discussion whatsoever. Since this has been an ongoing problem for him, I've blocked him indefinitely, and unblocked the SinhaYugaya for 24 hours (first offense, re-establishing status quo). However, again, like I've said many times, I don't care if the information is in the article or not—but you need to establish a consensus to include it. But I will continue to block people for edit warring. People, this is not hard. Have a discussion here. I explained above what seem to be the disputed points; use that section or a new one to figure out what should be done here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian should not have blocked as per WP:involved and the editing were done by 3 editor including Intertoto.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

All outside opinions above note Qwyrxian is not involved. Focusing on this is a waste of your time. Try instead to focus on WP:Dispute resolution, and the advice it offers. CMD (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Both blocks should have removed one month before this one of the editors blocked has clearly said that the admin is WP:Involved right above in this very page and WP:3RR has not been violated.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The blocked editor was wrong, and 3RR is not a license to edit war. CMD (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any discussion of the blocks should not occur on this page—bring it to my talk page, or, better yet, to WP:ANI if you think I've broken the rules. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Though I agreed initially with other editors that your actions are right and drop the issue pursuing further against you(for a RfC)is not my permanent observation on the situation of your involvement on the issue.

I have clearly pointed out your borderline involvement by my polite comment, The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind.

Your Indefblock on Intoronto is premature with your borderline involvement on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles. I will go for a RfC sooner or later if his indefinite block is not reverted or if you could not provide a valid reason for the Indefinite Block. I too reverted in support of Intoronto on the content. Estimating some content is contentious is again someone's POV and it is against the whole WP:RS guidance.Sudar123 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take this matter to WP:ANI. I will not discuss the blocks here. A note that if you do, depending on when you do so, I may not respond quickly as New Year's starts in about 30 minutes for me and I may have holiday business to attend to. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am planning to take this issue for a RfC since it is something to with WP:Involved and beyond mere IndefBlock. But I will do it after a week since the New Year is around.Sudar123 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The block is fully justified. InToronto was guilty of edit-warring over the exact same thing they were blocked for earlier. Cries of administrative abuse and involvement are just so much hot air: as pointed out above by three or more uninvolved editors and admins, Qwyrxian has acted well within their discretion and there is no evidence to assume they have ulterior motives. If InToronto is to be unblocked they should show recognition of what they did wrong. If others wish to accuse Qwyrxian of anything they need to put their money where their mouths are--if not, they can be warned (and ultimately even blocked) for making personal attacks, since those are attacks on Qwyrxian's integrity. Thank you. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was asked (in private e-mail) to intervene in this situation. However, I am not going to do so, because I do not feel it would be constructive or helpful for me to get involved further at this time. If there are disagreements over whether Qwyrxian's admin actions here have been proper or not, I believe WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI would be the best place to discuss the matter. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Qwyrxian. GiantSnowman 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Army official statements

WP:DUE.Intoronto is inserting claims that have being doubted by a refugee board and only covered by one article. Only one author has presented this view and it thus represents a small minority view (in regards to the reliability of the particular claims being made not on the conduct of the Sri Lankan army in general). WP:NOTNEWS Reporting on the proceedings of a lone refugee hearing. The claims have not gone further than the lone article being linked to. If its relevant anywhere it would be the Alleged War Crimes article and perhaps the Sri Lankan army page. SinhaYugaya (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Army Deserter statement and SL defence website statement included.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If those who want to include the info refuse to discuss the matter here, it can only be assumed that there is a silent consensus to keep it out. So if you think this info should be included, please give policy compliant rationale here. The key question is, is the information WP:DUE? It may be...I don't know enough about the topic to say. But simply stating that the info is sourced is insufficient. For example, I can find quite a number of reliable sources talking abotu Tony Greig's recent death, and how important he was in Sri Lanka...but I doubt that anyone here would think he's important enough to include in this main article about the country. So...is the information of due weight? Has it been covered in a large number of sources? Is the story ongoing, or did it fade away quickly? How reliable is the source/information? Are there going to be any lasting effects? These are all questions that editors who know the content need to consider in determining if the info should go here. Note that if it doesn't go here, it may be appropriate for another, more specific WP article, and suggestions of that nature may also help. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been only covered in one source. No lasting effects.. it was forgotten after the one article that detailed it. No more developments on the story. SinhaYugaya (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

Please change the current font size of the Tamil wordings to a smaller font size. This is because the Tamil word font size appears bigger than the Sinhala and English font size. Sinhala(spoken by majority: 75% of the population) and Tamil(spoken by minority:12% of the population) are the official languages of Sri lanka, but in this Artical, Sinhala wording font size appears much smaller than the Tamil and English word font size, this is unfair to the majority sinhala speaking country. Amadini31 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Font sizes on wikipedia are of a standard size, nothing is coded to be larger. CMD (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013

Please change the sentence 'It is also known as the nation of Smiling people'to 'It's a nation with friendly and traditional pepole'. Because the people of the country are not all smiling people instead they are kind, helpful people.I am aware of it since I am a Sinhalese. The wording Smiling people is incorrect. Sithara03 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

procedural decline; see above query

"Inter-ethnic conflict" wikilink?

Regarding this dispute over the proper wikilink target for the phrase "inter-ethnic conflict", perhaps it would be better to replace "inter-ethnic conflict" with "civil war" (and have "civil war" wikilinked to Sri Lankan Civil War). What do people think about this idea? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No objections here - I think it's very clear from the context that the phrase is referring to the civil war. We should link to the correct article and really use clear text for that link so we don't surprise the reader. Ravensfire (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

…:From this edit following 2 sentences has been merged into 1 sentence.

Due to number of different ethnic groups, ethnic conflicts can be seen in Sri Lanka.

After an ethnic conflict that ravaged the country for 3 decades, a decisive but controversial military victory was achieved in 2009

are merged into

The country's recent history has been marred by a 3-decade inter-ethnic conflict which was decisively but controversially ended militarily in 2009

The author has merged it very carefully by not losing details about both inter ethnic conflicts ( conflicts between all ethnic groups) and civil war ( very recent conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils).

Considering how this sentence developed in history, I think both are required to the quality of the article. Ethnic conflict details are more relevant to this page since 'Sri Lanka's scope is larger than 3 decades.

I don't object to possible change in sentence, but highly object quality loss by reducing scope to 30 years and going to neglect conflicts between Tamils and Muslims which are out of the civil war's scope.

I think best option Richwales will have is change the sentence considering scopes of the problem and scope of this page and quality of the current version (grammatically sentence is wrong. But it have much more details about Sri Lankan conflicts which can be perfectly linked to the Sri Lanka page than civil war). Himesh84 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I support User:Richwales' suggestion. Himesh84's suggestion is poorly worded and too long for the lead. It is also factually wrong: the wiki link in "a 3-decade inter-ethnic conflict which was decisively but controversially ended militarily in 2009" redirects to Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which is apparently about a conflict which started in 1215 and is still ongoing. The only "3-decade inter-ethnic conflict which was decisively but controversially ended militarily in 2009" was the Sri Lankan Civil War.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is factually wrong. But to fix that we have 2 options. Change the link or change the sentence. I think users will interested to read whole history of the conflict than just 30 years.

Very recent eruption of inter-ethnic conflict ended in thirty year war with decisively but controversially[15] military victory in 2009.

Above sentence is not the best sentence. But as above some one like Richwales who interested for grammar and quality can make better sentence not losing both of them. Himesh84 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• • This is stupid. There is no ongoing conflict that started in 1215. The Civil War erupted separate from whatever conflicts happened hundreds of years ago. SinhaYugaya (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

who said last civil war has relationship with what happened in 1215 ? Two civil wars had difference reasons. But it is very clear that civil war is a part of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The sentence is clearly wrong. But as I said to fix this issue we have multiple options, not an single solution Himesh84 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)

It seems everyone except Himesh84 wants the wiki link to link to Sri Lankan Civil War and so I am going to amend to as User:Richwales' suggestion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I just blocked Himesh84 for 24 hours for edit warring back to his preferred version, in clear violation of the current consensus here. I'm not saying that his version is wrong, but merely that the burden is going to be on him to change the consensus before edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As nearly everyone in this discussion prefers the link to point to Sri Lankan civil war and WP:EGG also supports linking to the civil war article, I've reverted Himesh84's reversion. Something to consider as a compromise would be to mention elsewhere in the lead that Sri Lanka has seen ethnic conflict for centuries, linking to that article. We'd then have both articles linked in the lead. Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the history of the sentence, it was a merge of 2 sentences of CW and EC. But now you have removed details about EC. I will leave you to include new changes. But people (except who want to exclude Ethnic conflict in SL(ECSL)in talk page) will realize exclusion of the more detailed ECSL from SL article is not a good idea and impact it was a serious mistake.

I made ECSL page but it is not story made by me , but a story of well written history with more than 40 references from reliable news sources, books from neutralized European authors. Still people searching for factual errors. ECSL fit to SL page rather 30 years old civil war. I consider this effort done as a requirement of introducing orphan tag to ECSL. But still I can make another new wikipage which linked to ECSL on first attempt.

I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake Himesh84 11:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

Please change the wording'Sri Lanka is a diverse country home to many religions, ethnicities and languages' to 'Sri lanka is a country with majority sinhalese pepole whose predominant religon being Theravada buddhists and it also has many other ethnic minorities religions and languages.' This is because of the real satistics of the contry's nationalites, religions. Please see the section of 'Sinhalese people' on Wikipedia for reference. In sri lanka, Sinhalese contitute 74.8% of the population and 70% are Theravada buddhists. (I am a sinhalese Buddhist, Who lived in Sri lanka, and the majority of the country are Sinhalese, with the other minorities concentrating on few small parts of the island.) So it's not a very diverse country. Sithara03 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine - Sri Lanka is home to many religions, ethnicities and languages. Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

Please remove the sentence 'It is also known as the nation of Smiling people' and replace it with 'It's a nation with friendly and traditional pepole'. Because the people of the country are not all smiling people instead they are kind, helpful people.I am aware of it since I am a Sinhalese. The wording Smiling people is incorrect. Sithara03 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a nickname that it is known as - New York City is known as the Big Apple, but it isn't really a big apple! Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013

Please remove the picture of 'Black July 1983' and replace it with a beautiful scenory picture of Sri lanka (Example : with a Picture of Srilankan beaches, temples, president, city pictures, cricket team etc,). It's because the this black July picture gives a very negative image to the contry. These pictures relates to the conflicts which are now past incidents. They are not relevent now. And things like these had happened in India, between Majority Hindus and Muslims. that country is with a bloody past, but there's no pictures and descprition about those confilicts and violence in the 'India'Wikipedia page.[Please refer India Wikipedia page).Going forward, we should not dwell in the past and showing off the past confilicts to the world,with images of battlefields (for most of which sinhalese civilians are not even responsible for). This will only give a negative image to the country. These pictues could have been uploaded by anti sinhalese. There had been lots of violence by the Tamil minority in sri lanka in the past. Due to their non-stop suicide bomb attacks around the contry during past 20 years, thousands of sinhalese died. These incidents are not even highlighted in the Wikipedia page. The minority Sri lankan tamils /LTTE are responsible for all those suicide bomb attacks. These srilankan tamils are originated from the south Indian tamils who were brought in to the srilanka as indentured labourers by British colonists to work as plantation workers, cleaners etc, and by the left behind Indian tamils after the Indian tamil invadors in the northern part of the sri lanka were chased out of the country by the Sinhalese kings, several times. ( Northern part of the island were attacked and invaded by the south India, several times).Currently, these srilankan tamils are not even officially accepted by South India, as I was made aware of, these Sri lankan tamils are not even considered for the lowerst level jobs by south Indians. Though South india do not accept them, sri lanka government had given the the free education, freedom as pepole and all other facilities etc to the tamils of the country through out the history( also to all other minorites and citizans of sri lanka),the tamils would have never ever receive these facilities from South India if they lived in India. Yet these sri lankan tamils had organized a terrorist organization and had rebelled against the government, killing about 100,000 plus people through out a 20 year old war. During the war time most of the tamils in the country had migrated to western countries like UK, Canada, etc and still act as anti sinhalese, doing so many negative publicity to sri lanka. ( uploading of this 1983 Black july picture may had probably been an act of them). If they were not able to live in Srilanka due to differences in culture etc, rather than rebelling they could have migrated to South India from which they had originated. But all other minorities currently live in peacefully. (example; Muslims/moors who originate from Arabs, iraqis & malays aslo the Cristian, Cathoric minorities, and Burgers etc) Sithara03 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a historical photo, appropriately placed in the history section. You'll have to come up with a better reason for removal than whether something gives a negative or positive image to the subject, which isn't relevant to encyclopaedic value. CMD (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One edit request at a time, please. Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigiriya declared 8th World Wonder by UNESCO?

"It has been declared by UNESCO as the 8th Wonder of the world.[50][51]" The 2 sources does not support that, however one of the sources says "It has been ascribed by UNESCO as one of the seven World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.161.146 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013

Please change the sentence 'Early inhabitants of Sri Lanka were probably the ancestors of the Vedda people' ( from the 3rd paragraph under the section Pre historic sri lanka') to 'Early inhabitants of Sri lanka were known as Hela'. This is because the Early inhabitants of srilanka are called Hela, which is part of the current day Sinhala. Sinhala is a combination of Sinha(Vijay and his desendants) and Hela(early inhabitants). ( Please refer the section Etymology under 'Sinhalese pepole' page on Wikipedia, especially the following sentence 'Another synonyms clarification for Sinhala is siw (four) Hela (Pristine). Raksha, Yaksha, Deva, Naga were the four powerful hela tribes.')Also refer mahavanshaya for pre historic knowledge on Sinhalese. Sithara03 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done -- needs references. Are there any books or scholarly articles that mention this? The Etymology section in the "Sinhalese people" article also had no references. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2013

Sigiriya declared 8th World Wonder by UNESCO? "It has been declared by UNESCO as the 8th Wonder of the world.[50][51]" The 2 sources does not support that, however one of the sources says "It has been ascribed by UNESCO as one of the seven World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka." 173.79.161.146 (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for bringing it up. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2013

Please revert this page to the version that existed before. Then lock it with out allowing further editing.

Amadini31 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Amadini31, what specifically do you think should be changed? There are several thousand previous versions, so there's know way for us to know what you want. I can tell you, though, that we will never lock a page to prevent all editing. The whole point of Wikipedia is that pages evolve and improve over time. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC

In the article, both Tamil and Sinhalese are listed as official languages. The CIA fact-book categorizes Sinhalese as being the "Official and National language" and Tamil being the "National language"[[1]]. The article seems to be misleading by listing Tamil as an official language. Further research indicates that Sinhalese is the language used by the majority, and is also commonly known among minorities as well. Eng.Bandara (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of Sri Lanka states that

1. The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala.
2. Tamil shall also be an official language.
3. English shall be the link language.

http://www.priu.gov.lk/Cons/1978Constitution/Chapter_04_Amd.html --HKN ^talk 04:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. Tamil was made an official language through the much discussed 13th amendment, in addition to establishing provincial councils. Chamal ^T•C 05:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The amendment appears to be controversial with a resolution adopted by OPA it likely the 13th amendment will be reverted[[2]]. Going by this source [[3]]and the constitution [[4]] it appears that Tamil was added after the 13th amendment, also majority of country knows Sinhalese including minorities. I suggest the article should reflect by saying Sinhalese is the Official and De factolanguage, Tamil was later added as Official language by the 13th amendment. Eng.Bandara (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes the 13th amendment is controversial and a lot of people want it removed, but as of now it is part of the constitution. The page on constitutional reforms from the government website states the purpose of this amendment as "To make Tamil an official language and English a link Language, and for the establishment of Provincial Councils". A resolution by the OPA doesn't really change much as they don't make the laws; until the parliament decides to drop it or the supreme court overturns it, the 13th amendment will remain as part of the constitution and therefore Tamil will remain an official language. I think we can safely agree that facts stated clearly in a country's constitution can be trusted over the CIA Factbook (not mentioning Tamil as an official language is probably an oversight there anyway). I agree with your point on most people knowing Sinhala, and I'd support adding that to the article as long as we have reliable sources to back it up (so that it won't create any NPOV issues in the future). The same goes for mentioning that Tamil was added later as an official language through the amendment; no problems there. However, the article should make it clear that currently both Sinhala and Tamil are official languages without giving the impression that Sinhala is the only official language. Chamal ^T•C 09:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems acceptable to me however No Original Research prefers secondary sources such as CIA-world factbook, which interprets constitutional information and ground realities on a level board for all countries. Using the constitution as source would be a primary source, and the CIA fact-book does distinguish Tamil as national language as opposed to an official language. For now I'm happy to justify listing Sinhalese as the defacto and official language, and stating that Tamil was later added by the 13th amendment which remains controversial. However keeping inline with Wikipedia policy I strongly recommend the article should reflect the widely recognized reliable secondary source for now. If the CIA factbook changes in the future to reflect Tamil as an official language, we will change the article then to reflect this. Eng.Bandara (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's basically true. The problem here is that you're going into WP:OR. Secondary sources are of higher value.. I briefly tried to find a scholarly source for Tamil being the official language [5], and couldn't really find much. I'd say we'd be justified in including it as "controversial", but it is imperative that the constitution be cited directly in this respect, and without any interpretation whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

While secondary sources are prefered, WP:NOR doesn't disalow use of primary sources. It says primary sources "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge", and this looks to me like exactly that. When a country's constitution plainly and clearly says that a language is an official language in that country, that is the case legally. Secondary sources may say that it is not so in practice and that ground reality is different (which they don't in this case), but that doesn't change the fact that the country has recognised it as an official language. I should also point out that the CIA factbook does not contradict that Tamil is an official language. It merely neglects to mention this fact, which is not the same as disagreeing with it and as I said above, may well be the result of a simple oversight. Based on this, I'm strongly opposed to simply removing the fact that Tamil is an official language unless a reliable source can be found that specifically contradicts it or says that it was somehow removed from that status. Chamal ^T•C 12:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• The CIA world factbook clearly states Sinhala as an 'official and national language' then completely neglects Tamil as official and states it as (National language). This not a case of accidental 'omission' to say its an 'over site' by a well reputed source, used throughout Wikipedia as a valid source.
• When things are concerning Law, it not simply and straight forward, the definition of 'official' used in that context can vary to the definition of 'official' used by Wikipedia. When things are concerning numbers/statistics, then we can use the primary source.
• At the bare minimum, a note needs to be stated the Constitution states 'Tamil shall also be used as an official language, however this is disputed by other sources' Eng.Bandara (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• 1. I am requesting the infobox of this article be edited, to change the listing of Tamil as an official language to 'national language'. There doesn't appear to be current cite for that, however, this secondary source, confirms Sinhalese as the official language and Tamil as the 'national language'[[6]]
• 2. It is also requested to list Sinhalese as the De factolanguage as its widely spoken by the majority of the population, example Australia

Eng.Bandara (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the constitution of the country is a verifiable and reliable source when dealing with matters such as this. An Official language is designated by the state itself and, in this case, both Sinhalese and Tamil are official languages. It is irrelevant how many people speak it. For example, New Zealand has Maori as an official langauge despite less than 5% of the population speaking it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't mentioning the % of the population for official language, I was simply stating that the secondary source be used over the primary source. In accordance to this policy Eng.Bandara (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that is appropriate since any secondary sources on a government policy will, in turn, be based off the policy itself. The CIA factbook will base it's information on things like this off of Government policy, its likely it hasn't been updated or it is an oversight. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A reading of WP:OR shows this: . A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.. The official language of a country is a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you support Sinhalese being listed as the De factolanguage, and note for Tamil stating that 'constitutes later stated that Tamil would also be an official language'. The article in its current standing is quite misleading to the reader. Eng.Bandara (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What is so missleading? Both Sinhalese and Tamil are de jure official languages, I don't see what is missleading about this, it's a statement of fact. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Tamil and [[Sinhala] are both de jure languages, However only Sinhala is the De facto spoken by a vast majority of the population. The article should make that clear example AustraliaEng.Bandara (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can source the fact that Sinhala is the most widely spoken language then, by all means but I'm not sure if something can be de facto and de jure at the same time. I would say that while both are official languages, Sinhala is the most widely spoken as x% of Sri Lankans use it as their primary language. Or something to that effect Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The article states the population figures later. By what your saying, you seem to have misunderstood the meanings of those terms. The term 'de jure' means 'concerning law' the term 'de facto' means ground realities. In New Zealand as you stated moori is 'de jure' but not 'de facto', In Sri lanka, Sinhala is 'de jure' as well as 'de facto'. Tamil is 'de jure' but not 'de facto' Cheers Eng.Bandara (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Compromise - List Sinhalese and Tamil as official language, and Sinhalese as the National language (de facto).Eng.Bandara (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an English expert, but I'm pretty sure de facto and de jure are contrasting terms so it's probably incorrect to use both at the same time to describe one subject. The terms aside, I don't see a problem with mentioning that Sinhala is widely spoken/spoken by a majority as long as a couple of good references are provided, which we don't seem to have yet. And regarding your suggested compromise - Sinhala is not a 'de facto' national language. It is a national laguage already. Let me summarise the terms on the constitution:

• Sinhala and Tamil are both official languages
• Sinhala and Tamil are also both national languages
• English is a link language

Anything that's in direct contradiction to this would be a distortion of facts and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Chamal ^T•C 14:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Chamal, the most accurate way of representing the facts it to say both Sinhalese and Tamil are official languages with Sinhalese being the wider spoken of the two. Cite that appropriately and I have no issue. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is something fundamentally wrong with what Chamal said. By our definition national language is concerning ground realities, not the law. Logically speaking the law cannot define a national language as its going against the fundamental principal of our definition. This why WP has the NO OR policy, and uses secondary sources (where interpretation of information is required), and my justification as why I strongly believe we should use the CIA world factbook source. Eng.Bandara (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you keep quoting WP:NOR but the edits you're suggesting violate that same guideline. The CIA Factbook does not support your claims. The absence of a fact in a single source does not automatically imply that fact is false. If the source specifically says it's false, then yes. But not when the fact is simply absent. If we went by that logic most of our articles will have contradicting sources and we'll have to write most articles using just one source. On the other hand, my argument is that there is no better proof of the existance of a law than the law itself, which clearly states what it's about. Chamal ^T•C 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are not addressing the key issue I raised. By our definition de jure is concerning the law and aligned with Official language. De facto is concerning fact, or ground realities, by our definition National language. The law cannot define a National language by our definition, then how come the constitutions defines a national language? I am point to this to indicate a flaw in your interpretation of the primary source. Eng.Bandara (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A national language is a language (or language variant, i.e. dialect) which has some connection—de facto or de jure—with a people and perhaps by extension the territory they occupy. - In this case it is a de jure connection as defined by the Sri Lankan constitution. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, that's the problem. As you say yourself, you're using your own definitions. Where does it say a national language must be de facto? In the case of Sri Lanka, the government has declared official laguages and national languages, and both Sinhala and Tamil are recognised as such. I don't know why they have done that, and I don't care. The fact is, it's not going to change no matter how much you want it to, unless you get into parliament and pass a motion to make that change. Since you have brought Australia as an example, I'll give one as well - Malay is the national language of Singapore, despite the fact that English and Chinese are spoken more widely. However, all three are official languages. I can't go around saying that we should edit the Singapore article to say that English is a national language because the majority speaks it, because it simply is not. They have decided their official and national languages by law, and Sri Lanka has done the same. Chamal ^T•C 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Singapore has not listed Malay as a national language. Again you are emphasizing my points to use the secondary source, because its clear that Constitution definition of these terms are debated, the law is not written in numbers, it is quite complex. You seem to agree that you have no idea why constitution defined a national language, when its illogical for the law to do that. by saying ' 'I don't know why they have done that, and I don't care. The fact is, it's not going to change no matter how much you want it to, unless you get into parliament and pass a motion to make that change.' ' I have two simple questions that I want to you agree with

• Official language - de jure - concerning law Agree/disagree sign your name here
• National language - de facto - concerning fact Agree/disagree sign your name here

Eng.Bandara (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect, National language can be de jure or de facto. In the case where a national language isn't defined then it will be de facto, if it is defined then it is de jure. De facto implies a numerical advantage (i.e. a majority of speakers) where no legal recognition exists (like English in the USA) but you have national languages such as various native american languages which are recognised as national languages but not official languages. They are certainly not 'de facto' national languages Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely basing this on how you feel, 'de facto' means based on fact. It is clear that Sinhalese is the 'de facto' language [[7]] No can debate this as its a fact. National language used to represent either de jure or de facto based on the context, Official language is always used to represent de jure, do you agree that we can use de facto to represent official language.? So it is of my opinion in this case it is most appropriate to use National language for de facto. Eng.Bandara (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove your claims about de facto, de jure, Official language and National language? HKN ^talk 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Eng.Bandara, you just keep ignoring the facts and arguments presented to you, and reword and repeat your own interpretations based on your own assumptions with no grounding in any facts or sources. You have also ignored requests for sources to back up your claims, except for a single source that does not support them at all. I'm seriously beginning to doubt if you're interested in a productive discussion here. For the last time, my point is that both official and national languages are declared in the constitution. Therefore, you can't reclassify those languages as de facto national/official laguages. A possible de facto national language would be something that is not listed there, for example English. You can't just say "Sinhala is a de jure national language but I think it should just be a de facto language so I'm going to just ignore its de jure status". The law is the law, whether in Sri Lanka or elsewhere and whether it's illogical or not, and you can't change it just because you feel like it and then act like your version is correct. Chamal ^T•C 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have provided the source, these are not my claims, I have links above to respective de facto, dejure articles above. Again I will provide the source[[8]]. If you can find me reputable secondary source that says Tamil and Sinhalese are official languages, then I'm happy to have it there. It still doesn't change the fact that Sinhala is the de facto language[[9]], weather you want to call it a national language that's up to you. Do you agree? Eng.Bandara (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your latest "source" appears to be a blog post/journal entry from an eco-tourism organization - hardly counts as a reliable source, particularly when you refuse to accept an official government document as proof. Even that does not back up your claims, and clearly mentions how both languages are "constitutionally recognized". And as for your request:

• University of Toronto
• Asian Tribune
• United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees

These sources describe how Sinhala and Tamil and both recognized as official languages and national languages. They also discuss how the sinhala is used more widely and tamil speakers often have difficulties, which was a point that up earlier in the discussion. I hope they are good enough to satisfy you. Just to make it clear again, I'm saying that these languages are recognized as official and national languages, and that there's no need to relabel them as you see fit. There's also no need to list only Sinhala in either category and drop Tamil due to this reason. Chamal ^T•C 17:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources you provide clearly quotes the Constitution in its entirety the primary source, and does not provide and independent interpretation of it, Like the CIA fact-book does. It is quite clear the Constitution definition are debatable, as it tries to imply a de factor language when it does not have the power to do that. However all the sources does mention Sinhalese as being the widely used language, I am satisfied with the evidence provided to mention sinhala has the defacto language. Eng.Bandara (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're still trying to twist what those sources say to support your own opinions when they say nothing of the sort (which is WP:OR btw, exactly what you accused me and other editors of at the beginning of this discussion). Refusing to accept even secondary sources because they quote a primary source is ridiculous - how else would a secondary source discuss the subject, particularly when it involves a law? I'm not going to discuss this any further with you since you're obviously convinced that your viewpoint is absolutely correct and are unwilling to accept anything that goes against them. For the benefit of anybody reviewing this RfC/discussion, this was my point - it is true that Sinhala is the more widely used language out of the two, and I supported adding this fact to the article along with sources. In fact, the sources I have given above support this fact. However, I'm against labelling either of these languages as a de facto national/official language based on that and purely on our opinions, since both are already officially recognized de jure as such. I'm also against removing Tamil as either an official or national language for the same reasons; whether it's used widely or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is both a national and official language. Adding a statistic to the article is one thing, and making our own assumptions on that statistic and presenting them as fact is another thing entirely. Chamal ^T•C 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Sinhala be stated as the widely used language Eng.Bandara (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As per above discussion I'm requesting the revised changes Eng.Bandara (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You must specify exactly what you wish to place in the article? I.e. change X to Y or Add X after Y. etc Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that Sinhalese is the widely used language, and that anthem solely in Sinhalese as well [[10]]; my suggestion is write next to Sinhala(de facto language; sole language for anthem) Eng.Bandara (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per mine and Chamals reasons given above. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Above you said the Constitution states both tamil and sinhala are national languages. There no such proposal against that here. Eng.Bandara (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Tamil is an official language of Sri Lanka and is used as such. There are certain areas of Sri Lanka where Sinhala is not spoken like the Northern and Batticaloa District of the Eastern Province. SinhaYugaya (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, the issue here is to state Sinhalese as the widely spoken language, and that the national anthem is solely in Sinhalese.Eng.Bandara (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Indian national anthem is entirely in Bengali but that doesn't mean Bengali is the only official language of India. Official doesn't mean what's most widely spoken, but what the government has decided. Singapore has tamil as a national language even though barely anyone there speaks it. SinhaYugaya (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You are gaming the systemI have not disagreed with anything that you said. Please read what I wrote. Instead of stating something completely unrelatedEng.Bandara (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up to everyone involved that Eng.Bandara has been blocked indefinitely after a checkuser investigation as a block evading sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Distributor108. Chamal ^T•C 04:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination against Hill country Tamils

Both Sri lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils came from India. Majority of Sri Lankan Tamils came in 1215. All of the Hill country tamils came during last few decades of British rule as labors for tea plantations. But during the period of CC act they were considered as Indian Tamils because SL didn't accept to give citizenship unconditionally. The issue was there for some time and after few decades they were given citizenship in India and SL in approximately 50-50% basis. Final slot of Tamils who didn't wanted to get Indian citizenship was granted SL citizenship in 2003. Now all the things are cleared. Now Indian Tamils wanted get rid of the discrimination. They are SL citizens and highly discriminative if they were considered by name which mean other country. So hill country tamils trying to take different name other than Indian Tamils. So they have come up with Hill country Tamils / Up country tamils. (These names are not my creations). It is very obvious still they are called as Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka. Also it is very famous that now they | often called as Hill/Up country Tamils. Wikipedia doesn't required to use official names in articles. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that "Indian Tamils" are also known as Hill Country Tamils or Up Country Tamils. You are correct that most "Indian Tamils" now have Sri Lankan citizenship. And you are correct Wikipedia does not have to use official names. Wikipedia uses the most common name but you have not established which is the most common name is yet. To do that you will have to start a discussion on the Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka and convince other editors you're right. If you do manage to achieve consensus then Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka should be renamed Hill Country Tamils or Up Country Tamils. But until then this article should reflect what that article is currently called: Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand you. First you say WP doesn't have to use official names and later you say I have to use most common name.

Please don't introduce your own logic. We are working set of rules defined by WP. Please redirect me for guide line page you mentioning.

We can link article or redirect from a page. That's the purpose of redirects. I don't want to rename Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka page. So no consensus. I bought Indian Tamils of SL to this article so I have right to use any suitable name for it. If you want to change the name you should make consensus what's the wrong with 'Hill country Tamils'. I don't needs to come with your version when I inserting new things here. Its my responsibility. I got it from your very recent instruction in here.

You are revealing true opinion of SLTs about Hill country Tamils. How SLTs can say we fight for you brothers while SLTs wants to discriminate them ?

I don't think representing them in any name would be a problem unless some one want to use discriminative name. But for my inclusions I will use my name. Not the name suggested by you. So fair enough I guess. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Since User:Himesh84 requested me to comment on my talk page, I prefer the usage of "Hill Country Tamils" but as User:Obi2canibe pointed out consensus is necessary; otherwise we will be in chaos.Hillcountries (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Since there are now RS stating that this groups are commonly referred to as Hill Country Tamils, I do not see why they should be referred to as such in this article. What ever the source article title might be. After all the LTTE is referred to as Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Tamil Tigers. Cossde (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hillcountries, I don't want to rename Indian Tamils of SL page without consensus. But as first presenter of 'this fact' (Hillcountry tamils) to this article I have the right to use name preferred by me. I think I don't need to get permission to use name other than common name when there are several names. Others only can reject or accept my changes. If they want to change my content, making consensus is their responsibility. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Himesh, your statement above is flat out wrong. There is no "first mover advantage" on Wikipedia. In fact, there is a second-mover advantage. That is, the person who adds something is the one who has to get consensus if someone else reverts. You are the one who needs to establish consensus for using a name other than the one used in the other WP article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. But I guess you are confused about the situation in here.

What obi*** can do is reject or accept inclusions about HC Tamils. But he (Only obi****) don't want to remove HCTs but he want different name 'Indian tamils of SL'. I would make consensus if he completely removed rather altered.

Can you please direct me to the WP policy you picket 'WP article name rule', since I should read it when dealing with obi*** and currently inactive sudar. Anyhow I have seen lot of examples which use different names than article name by [ | ].

My opinion is WP promote different names through redirects and [ | ]. there is no usage of redirects other than allowing different names. If your logic is true I am can go to any article and fully allowed to correct which are not complying with 'WP article name' rule. --Himesh84 (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look into this | change. He has altered sentence. It means he has accepted my changes and include his change on top of my change. So he is the one who needs to make consensus to change the name Hillcountry tamils to Indian Tamils. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84 you say that Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka are discriminated against because they live in Sri Lanka, with Sri Lankan citizenship, but they do not like being called Indian Tamils. Do you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion? Can you show some evidence as to what you are claiming?--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What I said was using Indian Tamils name is discriminative. Obi** repeatedly wanted to use Indian Tamils name for Hill Country name. I recognized obi** action as a discrimination against HCTs. That's why I started this section. I don't know whether they are discriminated in other ways.

It is not good to call them as Indian Tamils is my opinion. But I have some friends from hill country Tamils. Also it is opinion of most people includes hill country Tamils in Sri Lanka. hill/up country Tamils names are inventions of them. Also you can Google the terms. Nowadays they are rarely called as Indian tamil name. In Sinhalese they are called as wathukara demala - Tamils in land of plantations. Hill country of Sri Lanka is the land of plantations. --Himesh84 (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

All you have said is that it is your opinion that calling Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, by that name is discriminatory, and that your friends think so too. This is no basis for changing anything on wikipedia. In fact you are wrong Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka is the most commonly used name while the other two are rarely used.

As your suggested Google results show:

• Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka = 142,000,000 results
• Up-country Tamils = 64,000,000
• Hill country Tamils = 2,430,000

Just redirect me to WP policy - common name rule policy or please revert back to all agreed version. Obi** is the point where conflict started. --Himesh84 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There has not been any agreed version and obi2canibe did not start the conflict. Here is the policy, Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names, note that "Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka" is also their official name.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong location (Article_titles#Common_names.). This article is about how to define article titles. I didn't create any new articles. I linked to existing page (Hill country Tamils) that was created long time ago . As I told I will make consensus if I want to change the article title. What we need is policy of using common names to define the name of the link within another page.

You have done two reverts. You should either redirect me to how to define link names within another page policy or revert back to previous version or completely remove adding new ethnic group to article. But last option is the bad one since you are the only one who want to do it. Otherwise I will report you.

Also I recommend you to not to search it. I am pretty much sure WP don't have such policy. If so they wont introduce [|] option or redirects --Himesh84 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict has been started after this edit. You can't say it was started due to this one since still information about Hill/up/Indian Tamil details are in the page. It is in obi*** every change and it is in every of your changes. I can completely remove HCT details and show you what is the difference, if you unable to understand what I am sayig. --Himesh84 (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I could say consensus hasn't made to include new rename ( HCT to Indian Tamils of SL) since only obi** and black wife support the second version of the name. Me, Cossde, hill country supporting first version of the name.

Piping rule, obi mentioned in [Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka] is not applying in here. Because in any case readers finally going to what he was expected. That is indian tamils of sri lanka or hill country tamils. He knows they are identical names. HCT redirects to ITSL proves it. Anyway I (Sinhalese) don't want to fight for Tamil's dignity if other Tamil group (Sri Lankan Tamils of SL) don't care. --Himesh84 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a dispute here. You were asked to achieve consensus to re-name Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka but you didn't want to that. You just wanted to change this high profile article to make a point. BTW, I care but I'm not sure you ever cared!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Speak for your self Himesh84 as you don't speak for the Sinhalese. Its quite obvious what you are trying to do here on Wikipedia and I can definitely say Sri Lankans dont support it. Please be civil (obi** and black wife) and neutral.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Himesh, you shouldn't be fighting for anything. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and grounds for being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion. But I already have lot of appreciations when it was proposed to delete. You are feared your civil war article will consider as folk or lost ratings one day. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do I needs to make consensus to rename when you asked. Are you a super user ?. obi** ( not readable name. difficult to remember) is the one who did rename. Not me. It is very simple to understand. So better you make consensus. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article. For example, in the Moment disambiguation page, with the entry for Moment (physics), " (physics)" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need in order to find the intended article. However, raw section and anchor points should not be displayed. See section and anchor point linking for the handling of these cases.

Hill Country Tamils and Indian Tamils of SL are not disambiguation pages.

I have clicked your link. But I wasn't given any control to chose an article. So what kind of disambiguation you means. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the reason for obi in Tamils in Sri Lanka page

"...redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" - Hill Country Tamils is a redirect, this is a disambiguation page. I am not surprised that you don't want to fight for Tamil's dignity. This dispute was never about the Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, it was always about Sri Lankan Tamil people. Having an article called Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka suggested that Sri Lankan Tamil people weren't Indian. This goes against everything you believe. So you came up with the ruse that you were concerned about discrimination against Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka. Once again you were making a point.

This is some primitive logic. Name doesn't prove anything other than discriminating. I made Tamils in SL to show there are several tamil groups in SL. Even Indian Tamils called with that name it doesn't prove SLT are not have Indian origin. Obi needs to clean history other than name to prove SLT didn't come in 1215. I don't know why obi thinks I can prove anything else by using Hill country name.

What I want is to prove SL Tamils are not the only Tamils in Sri Lanka. It is very important to remove any unreferenced or unspecific SLT reference in SLT page. Most of the references in that page mention about Tamils. Doesn't say SLT, or Indian Tamils or what ever .... I don't care what name HCT are called for that. I can do it until SL senses data show SLT are not alone in SL.

I live in SL. I rarely hear Indian Tamil name for that group. Sinhalese called them as Kadukara/Wathukara demala (alternative names for hill country). --Himesh84 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am reverting to the original version (before obi's rename) since only 2 (obi and black night) supporting rename proposed by this edit. But 3 people oppose rename. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ths is not a disambiguation page. Reverting now would be edit warring. Don't do it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1998 Temple of the Tooth attack

When compare to Navaly church bombing which cost 125 people; 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack is only with 17 deaths. There is no reason the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack should be on the Sri Lanka page.

Please see other attacks which are worse than the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack.

• Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka
• Aerial bombing in Sri Lanka
• Mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils

Please discuss before you re-insert the "1998 Temple of the Tooth attack", why it is more important than other incidents?HudsonBreeze (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• You might notice that an image of Black July is included which took about 3000 Tamil lives. To avoid being one-sided an image of an attack by the LTTE is also included. Also graphic images are to be avoided so this picture works rather than a more casualty causing attack which would have to be represented by pictures of dead bodies. The 600 policemen killed by the LTTE in 1995 for example (if pictures were available). SinhaYugaya (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I know you all have included to dilute the Black July; that is the reason I have removed it. I have removed it again. Don't compare Black July which is a pogrom with an isolated Terrorist attack. Come out with a better reason.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not isolated. It's an example of the many attacks launched by the LTTE. You come up with a better reason than not representing the particular vision of Sri Lanka you want to portray. Otherwise the neutral edit will stay. SinhaYugaya (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Black July would be the isolated incident considering it hasn't occurred again since 1983 but the LTTE launched attacks similar to the 1998 attack many times after. SinhaYugaya (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't add next time without right rationale; I will report you at ANI.

You stated, "You might notice that an image of Black July is included which took about 3000 Tamil lives. To avoid being one-sided an image of an attack by the LTTE is also included." "To avoid being one-sided" - What do you mean by that?

"Black July" was carried out by the Sinhala extremists on Mass Level with the support of Sri Lankan Government and its Armed Forces. You can't equate that with LTTE Attacks. If so; we will add an image of State Terrorism of Sri Lankan Government and its Forces on Tamils to equate that.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean, we will add the image of Chencholai bombing which was carried out by the Sri Lankan Air Force to equate the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack by LTTE.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Avoid being one sided -- means to represent all sides.

If Black July was carried out by the Sri Lankan government isn't that part of State terrorism? Why have you recently shown up seeking to sabotage this page that had been stable for so long.

LTTE is part of Sri Lankan history. Its inclusion is perfectly valid. For the last 30 years stop trying to censor material. SinhaYugaya (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

HudsonBreeze and SinhaYugaya, if you two keep edit warring I will block you both. If your edit was reverted, you should discuss the matter on the talk page and arrive at a suitable compromise, not put a comment here and then go back to the article and re-revert. Both of you have been blocked before for edit warring, so you should know better than to do this childish reverting which accomplishes nothing. Chamal ^T•C 09:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Something is there for a long time doesn't mean that is accepted by the community for good. I have added Chencholai bombing to equate the balance. Please note Black July is a pogrom which was carried out not only by the Sri Lankan Government, but its armed forces and with their support Sinhala extremists in large scale against the innocent and unarmed Tamils.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Chamal, I have explained enough.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

An explanation doesn't justify edit warring. In fact, repeated edit warring over a content dispute can't be justified at all, especially after being warned. I suggest you guys head over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution after your blocks have expired, if you feel you can't resolve the matter by discussing here. Chamal ^T•C 13:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We all know that Sinhalese and Tamils involved in war that lost big amount of Sinhalese and Tamils. Neutrality is core thing in WP. I think all the things related to war should go to war. I don't know how many Sinhalese were executed by Maghas army in 1215. It may be hundred of thousands. Otherwise Sinhalese will not migrate to South. For neutrality either both views must be included or both views must be deleted. I suggest to to move both views to sri lankan civil war page since it is the most related location to insert the materials. Sri Lanka page should be used in high level. Otherwise it's quality will be lost. I think moving the views about war to the civil war section is the best thing as it is the best place. --Himesh84 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct name in Sinhalese

The correct native name in Sinhalese is ශ්‍රී ලංකාව, not ශ්‍රී ලංකා. --Anatoli (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg

The file File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Response

I have replaced the the following image deleted;

File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 - from Commons.jpg

Black July, 1983. Rioters from a section of Sinhalese community set fire to Tamil homes and businesses.

by

File:Black July 1983 Sri Lankan Policeman.jpg

Black July, 1983 - Sri Lankan soldier kills a Tamil.

Please discuss before any amendments with rationale.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please give RS to verify that it is a Sri Lankan soldier killing a Tamil ? Cossde (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a flickr image and uploaded by User: Share Bear (talk | contribs) on 18 August 2011 on Wikimedia Commons.

The images on the same flickr on Black July, 1983 are - image 1, image 2, image 3, image 4(The Image in Use), image 5 and image 6

If every other images can be attributed to the 1983 Black July in Sri Lanka; the Image in Use also from Sri Lanka and belongs to Sri Lankan Soldier according to the source.HudsonBreeze (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The source being an annonymous uploader at Flickr!! :)) Not at all a reliable source. There's absolutely no evidence of soldiers partaking in the pogrom. Can u give references from reliable sources in books or other scholarly articles that soldiers partook in the pogrom? Who do u think implemented the curfews and stopped the mobs?? !!!! Do not add this image at any cost without verification beyond any doubt, that it is a soldier killing a Tamil. You said you will take it to ANI - you do that and come back and insert the image, if that's what the result of the ANI is. SriSuren (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Once you go through Horror Of A Pogrom: Remembering “Black July” 1983, you will get the answer for your doubts.

I have excerpted here some key facts from the above article.

1. Twenty seven years ago on the night of July 23, members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ambushed an army patrol at the Post Box junction area in Thirunelvely in Jaffna and killed 13 soldiers. Troops went berserk in Jaffna in the hours that followed and shot dead 51 innocent civilians in the Jaffna Peninsula including seven passengers in a minivan at Manipay. One of the Manipay victims was my friend Vimaladasan, editor of Manithan.

2. Some hours later on the Sunday that followed, members of the Sri Lanka Navy ran riot in Trincomalee burning down Tamil houses and also forcibly relocating Tamil refugees.

3. Shops, Banks, Offices and Restaurants in the Capital’s crowded City Centre and main streets being burnt while the Police look on. Thousands of houses ransacked and burnt, sometimes with women and children inside. Goon squads battering passengers to death in trains and on station platforms and, without hindrance, publicly burning men and women to death on the streets! Remand prisoners and political detainees in the country’s top prison being massacred. The armed forces joining in and sometimes organising this pogrom against members of Sri Lanka’s two Sri Lankan minority communities. The nation’s president and top ranking cabinet members publicly justifying the pogrom!

The above image is ideal for Black July or Human rights in Sri Lanka articles.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I consider that the image in question should be used in the Black July article. However, using it in this Sri Lanka article seems like an attempt at creating a negative perspective on the country. I encourage HudsonBreeze (or whoever is trying to place the image into the article) to instead focus their attention on the Black July article and improve it (with reliable sources). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add to my suggestion that using the image in Human rights in Sri Lanka would be another good alternative. I guess the point is that there are several other (more specific) articles that can focus on this matter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MarshalN20 for your comments. I want to leave it to other editors to decide where they want to include the above image either on Black July or Human rights in Sri Lanka. But Black July is a very important incident in the history of Sri Lanka and I have added another Black July image with appropriate rationale which is available on File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As a quick note, the image above from Flickr that is on Commons is likely to be deleted as appears unlikely the uploader on Flickr is actually the holder of the copyright or otherwise is able to licence it under a free licence. Feel free to participate on the commons deletion discussion if you have evidence to the contrary or anything else to say. Otherwise I suggest people concentrate on images with clearer copyright status even NFCC ones like the claimed iconic photo now used in our Black July article, provided that's justified under policy. This will also reduce concerns over what the image actually depicts. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If having this image is creating negative image to that island then not having this is creating a positive image!? The pro-Sri Lankan state editors here first asked if there should be a separate section for 30 years of Sri Lankan civil war.Then asked should there even be a sub-section.Then the sections about civil war and the post -war statements from Sri Lankan President and Sri Lankan Defense minister that NO POLITICAL solution is needed for Tamils were removed . I wonder if wikipedia is a free encyclopedia or some PR SITE or TOURISM site of SL, a staterelies heavily on tourism for its economy. I see a huge ancient history ,modern history section that would even describe that which Sinhala king had how many wives ,keeps a Sinhala king had etc but Sri Lanka is know to the world for its civil war but there is no section for that and now there are concentrated efforts to remove anything that is related to the civil war.May be after few months the pro-state editors will come and ask did we even have a civil war in Sri Lanka (182.19.67.200 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Several points are worth analyzing in this case, but (to respond to your question): No.

There is a logical fallacy to your argument. The correct logic is that not having the image in the article simply provides nothing (neither positive or negative perspectives on the subject).

It's understandable that the Sri Lankan civil war is a topic that matters to you. For example, I consider that civil rights abuses in Chile are also a highly important subject worthy of greater attention. However, to a neutral spectator, when they read the article on Chile they want to know about the country (geography, history, culture, economy, etc.) and are not interested in knowing more than a couple of lines on the country's civil rights abuses (If they wanted to know that, they would go into the article for the Mapuche conflict).

Since both the Sri Lanka civil rights problem and the Mapuche conflict are notable events, both articles on Chile and Sri Lanka should have one or two wikilinks that can direct editors into those articles, and a few lines on the subject. Anything more than that would be content forking.

To conclude, the best thing you and other editors interested on the subject can do about this matter is work on improving the articles on Black July and Human rights in Sri Lanka. Use the WP:FA guide to improve the articles, submit it for review, and get it established as a featured work in Wikipedia.

I hope this helps. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Germany page has separate section for third reich.The Germans don't hide behind post-world war II developments to hide behind it and deny the actions of Nazy Germany.So I wonder why Sri Lankans must be treated in a different way .If they can have big section of Pre-History, Ancient history,Medieval history,Colonialism,Independence etc!! why there is no section on ethnic conflict or civil war!? There was one such section and it was removed due to concentrated efforts of pro-sri Lankan state editors over here.The independence Section speaks of post-war political stance of TNA about demand for FEDERALISM.But the PRESIDENT in his recent independence speech had ruled out any federal solution,which means that the very cause for the civil war will NOT be solved or Sri Lanka finds no need to solve it.But this statement of the PRESIDENT and a similar state from the Defense minister earlier ,are missing.I once added that statement of the defense minister.But great sons of Sri Lanka had removed it.One of the worst argument from their side for not having a Civil war section is that 'After all many countries had Civil war and is their a civil war section in pages of every such country'. Going by this argument this page needs no COLONIALISM section too,since it was not exclusive that tiny island .It was a global phenomenon then. Sri Lanka didn't even have a great independence movement like British India.Since India & Pakistan became independent ,the British found it fruitless and uneconomical to hold that tiny island.That's how it managed not to have British.So if having a civil war section or references to civil war is black painting the country then having a COLONIALISM section is gaining sympathy!!??

Let the non-Lankan editors ask their own conscience that if Pre-History,Ancient History,Medieval history,Colonialism topics deserve separate sections and huge portion in the page then why doesn't civil ware deserve a separate section.After all the people who were butchered were Lankans as per the Lankan state and not some Indians or Maldivians or Pakistanis .Why should it be taken as black painting a state ,since it's not about act of the state on citizens of another state but it is about things that happened within the country. (182.19.20.14 (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)arun1paladin)

"However, to a neutral spectator, when they read the article on Chile they want to know about the country (geography, history, culture, economy, etc.)"

\\ Wouldn't all thesebe available in some tourist website about some country!I am not a Admin or regular editor wikipedia.So I as normal person find no difference between Wiki pages on states and tourist websites .All the effort that was take to not a have that photo about Black July was not taken to update the links about the claim that SL is one of the fastest growing economy in the world.The link was about economy in 2011 and we are in second half of 2013.(182.19.20.14 (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Tourist websites (and guides) try to do their best to imitate encyclopedias, except that they focus more on main attractions. So, in that aspect, yes, Wikipedia resembles tourist websites. In fact, all encyclopedias (that have countries) resemble tourist websites.

Per WP:SUMMARY, much of the information currently in the article should be shortened down (summarized) and placed into relevant articles.

If there is an attempt at whitewashing the history of Sri Lanka, the solution is not with making it look bad. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If your objective is for the article to be WP:NPOV and fairly present material, use policies such as WP:SUMMARY to shorten excessive topics.

Again, my recommendation is for you to work on articles that drive your interest. While the information you add here gets removed easily by someone citing lack of relevancy, it will be more difficult for them to argue the same in topics specific to these problems (such as the Black July article).

People will read what you write, if it is reliably sourced and relevant to the topic, and that does not necessarily need to be in this Sri Lanka article. The internet is a vast place.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MarshalN20 for your comments. There are many inaccuracies on the Sri Lanka article. "Civil War" section is removed inappropriately. There is no binding conclusion, it should not be there. I will add the section back or take to the DRN once again.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Contact me if I can be of any help. :) --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)