# Talk:Protests in Canada against the Sri Lankan civil war

What world organizations are calling this a genocide? Why are we calling it an anti-genocide strike, when it is not certain by any means that it is a genocide?
The language in this article is heavily biased in a pro-Tamil Tigers direction. That bias may or may not be correct, but especially on current events we need to maintain a neutral point of view. Captainktainer * Talk 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is heavily biased, however there may be some. Even if there is then it's all backed up by facts and sources that I provided. Also, this event does not in anyway involve the Tamil Tigers, and therefore you have misunderstood it to be biased towards the Tigers, which is not a subject brought up here. I will go over the whole article and change up any real bias I find.--Eelam Stylez (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be cleaned up fast! It might as well be a PR piece for the Tamil Tigers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.241.204 (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 

Sure it can be cleaned up. I really don't know about the PR piece you claim... Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just put up a POV tag on this article. It seems that whenever I check this article, I find unsubstantiated claims of genocide reported as fact, unverifiable claims of the use of chemical warfare by the SLA, inflated casualty numbers and un-cited numbers of protesters, all slanted towards a pro-Tamil bias. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualty numbers and attendance of protestors have all been given citations with credible sources. All POV statements have been removed. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we obviously have a difference of opinion over what makes for a creditable source. I'd argue that 'Tamil.net' is perhaps not an impartial source, and selectively citing a obscure "global newspaper" catering to ex-pat communities that happens to agree with your inflated casualty numbers of over 1000 fatalities, while the majority of major media outlets report a number closer 400 is deceptive to say the least (The MSN/Sympatico article you cite actually reports the lower number along with the protester's claims of over 1000 fatalities.). So, I'm going to revert your numbers and put the POV tag back up, where it really should remain until the dispute is resolved. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the sentence to: "...which killed 378 civilians, which protestors claim it to be over 1000." Hope that's fair enough. Please notify if there is any other biased statement. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian, a national newspaper in the UK quotes the Dr working in the warzone as estimating over 1000 deaths: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/sri-lanka-civilian-deaths
Nagadeepa (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. McGregor, is it safe to remove the tag or do you still dispute this article's neutrality? Eelam StyleZ (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Clearing up a lot of those "" tags by citing mainstream media sources would be a good start... Especially ones regarding the numbers of protesters. Police crowd estimates (or reports of them) would be a good source. Removing "weasel words" and "peacock terms" would also a good step.Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I still think that this is not a neutral article. it appears to have been written by one of the protestors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.188.246 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 

Well, please point out any biased statements and they can be changed rather than just claiming it not to be neutral. Regardless of who edits this article, everyone is still obliged to use sources while writing. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This artiocle has the potential to be made into a GA or even FA quality article one day. Who ever it is keep up the good work. Taprobanus (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Thanks to the others who have given contribution as well. :) Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
POV is pretty clear if you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eelamstylez77#2009_Tamil_protests or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eelamstylez77#Tamil_protests  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherpajohn (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How is that supposed to tell you about POV? Random... Eelam StyleZ (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Put a picture of the protests in the top part of the page. Makes the page more informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 

I'm going to start going through the article section by section over the next few days to try and improve the flow of the article. I'm going to try and stay away from changing the content and stick to the wording. Help and input would greatly be appreciated. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking it may be helpful to reorganise the article into sections by city (i.e. a Toronto section, and Ottawa section, as well as a section for 'other cities') with subsections for each major demonstration in that city in chronological order. Right now it seems like mention of specific demonstrations is repeated throughout the article while there is no clear differentiation between other demonstrations. To this ends, I'm going to keep the opening section to general info about the demonstrations across Canada and their aims: I'm going to pull info specific to the Toronto demonstrations out of the opening section to be re-added into the sections about the T.O. demos.  Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a section on Campus activism would be useful to. In the past few months I received quite a few messages and invites over Facebook that seemed to be tied to a pretty well organised student campaign, probably worth mentioning. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I've pulled out of the opening section to be worked into other sections:
 
Several Tamil organizations and businesses in the Greater Toronto Area, which is home to nearly 200,000 Tamil immigrants and citizens, had closed businesses and took part in rallies in the downtown area of the city.
The first notable protest took place on January 28, 2009 in front of the Sri Lankan Consulate in Toronto involving a few hundred people. The following day, several thousands gathered in front of the United States Consulate in Toronto to appeal to the American government to take action regarding the hostilities. A human chain, as long as 5 kilometres, of several thousands of people took place the next day in Downtown Toronto. 
and the Consulate General of Sri Lanka in Toronto, Bandula Jayasekara,
After the January 30th human chain, several protests have followed till date, including the non-stop protests at Parliament Hill and the US consulate in Toronto during April and the Gardiner Expressway blockade in May. Canadian Tamils have helped active protesting in the United States as well.

Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


### sections perposal
Here's my idea for how the sections could breakdown:

Intro
Background
Protests
Online and Student Activism
Ottawa
Sections for specific Ottawa demos
Toronto
Sections for specific Toronto demos
Other Cities
Impact
Emergancy Debate
Reactions
Criticism
I think this puts the demonstrations in a roughly chronological order (with online and student activity coming 1st, ottawa demos before toronto demos...). Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting McGregor's good faith edits, Eelam.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I was always glad with McGregor's edits and I  agree with your way of organizing the Protests section. YOU should stop reverting mine. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Then why are you reverting BOTH of our edits? You're not telling the whole truth. Two (or more) editors disagree with your edits. Stop reverting and post why you think the article should be changed.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
EelamStyleZ, you seem clearly involved. As you were probably an active participant in these rallies, you should not be editing. Pretty clear Conflict of Interest to me - arguably in violation of WP rules. Let McGregor and others sort out this article.206.210.126.186 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My job was to create and add all information of what happened and I tried my ultimate best to not convey a certain point of view and keep it neutral. I see that my edits are probably sounding biased but that definitely is not my intention. And, yes, I have attended these protests and I have seen things happen -- does not necessarily mean I'm an organizer of these things because I was not. I will continue to add certain events that happened during any protests but I'll let the rest of you take care of the article's wording and make up. Hope that sounds fair enough. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Tamil diaspora protests in Canada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I can do this review.  I'll start soon. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


### Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
At first glance, the article looks great:  good layout, good prose, good citations. There should be no problem reaching GA status.  --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
One small issue: the footer navboxes at the bottom have all hidden, but one expanded:  "Combatants · Theaters · Campaigns · Battles · Indian involvement".  That looks odd, but maybe it is beyond the control of this article. --Noleander (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - unfortunately it is beyond the control of this article. However I was able to tweak the navbox template and keep the entire navbox collapsed. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The footnotes contain several "dead link" external citations. ... those must be fixed. --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Dead links have been replaced with working links. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you make a pass thru the article and double check the punctuation, etc.  I see two examples:
government. [24]   ... space after period
of human-shields [26] ... missing period
--Noleander (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done On going EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Footnote #16 is not working.  Please check all footnotes and make sure they are functional.   #16 is  http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVN
--Noleander (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done On going EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has both a sidebar navbox and a footer navbox for Sri Lankan Civil War.   They look nearly identical .. although the footer seems to have more.  I dont think there is  a  WP policy prohibiting two nearly identical navboxes in one article, but it doesnt seem very tidy or encyclopedic.  I suggest that one or the other be removed. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead contains some material that is not in the body of the article, e.g. "Further demonstrations took place in Ottawa in front of Parliament Hill, while smaller scale demonstrations took place in Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton. Tamil Canadians took part in Tamil American demonstrations in Washington, D.C. and New York City as well".   WP:Lead states that the lead is supposed to summarize the article's body ... so the lead should not have any info that is not also in the body.  I'd suggest moving/copying the info from the lead down into the body.  Also, please check other statements in the lead for similar issue. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead has some citations.  WP:Lead says citations are optional in the lead.  Right now the lead is half cited and half not cited.  You should choose one way or the other (personally, I prefer leads without cites, but it is your call).  If you move/copy  the "not in body" material   from the lead to the body, you should be able to remove all cites from the lead. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done, I've included a one line portion of smaller scale demonstrations happening in Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary in the body, but couldn't add more since they weren't as notable as the events that occurred in Toronto and Ottawa, so I still kept that line in the lead. Otherwise, the Tamil American demonstrations line has been removed. Also, the sidebar navbox was removed and footer navbox was kept. All citations in the lead have also been removed from lead and kept in the body. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's looking pretty good.  Give me a couple of more days, and if nothing new is found, I think we're golden. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There are some double links ... for instance in the lead  there are two links to Sri Lankan Tamil people.  Also, I see two for Sri Lankan civil war.   There are several links to Queen's Park (Toronto).  The WP MOS policy is to just have the first occurrence of an item be a link. See WP:REPEATLINK.   Subsequent mentions are not linked.  Could you make a pass thru the article and ensure that there are no double links?  --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Previously, I made sure that links were linked at first occurrence after every level 2 heading, but now I've removed all repeating links altogether. Let me know if there's anymore. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Petextrodon @UtoD The allegation for the attack on the Buddhist temple is clearly linked to the protests. From the CBC article:

Dozens of them stopped at the site Saturday, shaking their heads at what they consider a violation of a sacred place.
"This is not just in Canada," said Chaturi Dissa. "It's not only this temple, the temple in Holland, France and England has been attacked. So it's kind of a pattern.

"These were other countries that had mass protests on the Sri Lankan issue and there's no other reason why the temple should be attacked."
I suggest this as a compromise: we can say something like, "members of the Sinhalese community alleged that the violence was connected to the protests." SinhalaLion (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

“"members of the Sinhalese community alleged that the violence was connected to the protests."” - @SinhalaLion
But that person did not explicitly say that though. That’s your own inference. Even if you could somehow argue for that, I don’t think that one tenuous statement by itself warrants a section of its own. ~~~ Petextrodon (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
"These were other countries that had mass protests on the Sri Lankan issue and there's no other reason why the temple should be attacked."
It’s not clear whether they are blaming the “mass protests” or the “Sri Lankan issue” for the violence. Petextrodon (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
“connected” is kind of weaselly as it could either mean contemporaneity or causation. There were many contemporaneous events connected to the Sri Lankan issue that happened outside the confines of the protests and I don’t think they should all be mentioned in an article that’s specifically about the public demonstrations.
But if you insist you can add a line under an existing section about how a member of the Sinhalese community alleged that an attack on a Sri Lankan Buddhist temple in Canada was part of a larger pattern of similar attacks in other countries where the protests happened. But it’s unclear whether this person intended it as a criticism of or reaction to the wider protests for you to add it to that section, as they were primarily reacting to the violent incident in question. Petextrodon (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I mean, sure, there's some interpretation required, but why bring up the protests at all if it was just about the Sri Lankan issue? Clearly, the CBC seems to agree with my interpretation; after all, why bring up the protest leader explicitly defending Tamil protesters? The civil war was going on for decades but the spate of violence against Sinhalese diaspora came in 2009, more contemporaneous with the protests than the "Sri Lankan issue." And all this assumes some kind of mutual exclusivity between the Sri Lankan issue and the protests which there obviously isn't. SinhalaLion (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
"The civil war was going on for decades but the spate of violence against Sinhalese diaspora came in 2009, more contemporaneous with the protests than the "Sri Lankan issue.""
This person could have meant anything by the "Sri Lankan issue" but the context makes it likely they were specifically referring to the last phase of the war which saw unprecedented scale of killings and mass demonstrations.
"why bring up the protest leader explicitly defending Tamil protesters?"
She was chosen for the interview perhaps because as a protest leader she was seen as the most visible representative of the Tamil community at the time and when asked about the violent incident she could have highlighted the peaceful nature of the demonstrations to distance her community from it.
Ultimately, it's uncertain without explicit statement and we can't impute motive either to the Sinhalese individual nor to the author of the article. Petextrodon (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
To me, it's pretty explicit that the Sinhalese individual linked it to the protest and the protest leader distanced the Tamil demonstrators, whom she claimed to be perfectly peaceful, from the violence. Reading your other comment, however, you seems to be fine with adding a sentence somewhere in this with the temple incident and the Sinhalese woman's remark? If not, we'll have to bring a neutral third-party into this. SinhalaLion (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, context disambiguates the meaning of the "Sri Lankan issue" as referring to 2009, but context doesn't clarify the Sinhalese woman's remark as being related to the protests even after she explicitly brought them up??? SinhalaLion (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
To add to this the actual protests had a clear objective, to put pressure on the Sri Lankan government to stop the military offensive, that is what the protestors repeatedly stressed. Whereas attacks on Sinhala civilians in these countries had no common objective with the protestors, but were criminal elements angry at Sinhalese in general for the massacres and lashing out. They were not a "protest against the civil war", there is no evidence that these attackers thought that their actions would lead to a stop in the Sri Lankan government's military offensive. Oz346 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
But they had a common grievance with the protestors and engaged in violence concurrently with the protests. And to me, the Sinhalese interviewee explicitly links the demonstrations with the violence. The discussion has now become one of semantics, and if no resolution is reached, a neutral third-party will have to be brought in. SinhalaLion (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
"you can add a line under an existing section about how a member of the Sinhalese community alleged that an attack on a Sri Lankan Buddhist temple in Canada was part of a larger pattern of similar attacks in other countries where the protests happened." I think this is reasonable. Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
" And to me, the Sinhalese interviewee explicitly links the demonstrations with the violence"
links in what way? That she stated demonstrations caused violence? If so, that is not "explicit" in her statement. She might as well have linked the violence to "the Sri Lankan issue" (last phase of the war). Petextrodon (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
We're just going in circles here, and anyways, I think there's a consensus for the compromise you proposed, so I'll implement that change as agreed. SinhalaLion (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
"you can add a line under an existing section about how a member of the Sinhalese community alleged that an attack on a Sri Lankan Buddhist temple in Canada was part of a larger pattern of similar attacks in other countries where the protests happened."
Is that acceptable to you? Petextrodon (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes. SinhalaLion (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Consensus has been reached. Done. Petextrodon (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)