Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/issues 1

message: There is a problem on this page in regards to users Lahiru_k and Nitraven removing my additions in the paramilitary section here which can be seen here. The additional paramilitary groups of the Sri Lankan military has been backed up and sources given from both the U.S. State Department and the World Factbook. Furthermore, in the edit summary of my post, I have stated to see talk page where I have commented on their removal here only to receive a reply from Nitraven with this message. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we can discuss this as a content issue, not as a personal issue. Therefore, I moved this from "Incidents" to "Issues" and changed the title. — Sebastian 06:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a content issue Kanatonian (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: This page is currently not protected with WP:SLR/bluebox. Should it be? Discussion of this issue is taking place at Talk:Military of Sri Lanka#RE: Paramilitaries. — Sebastian 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be blueboxed. The WP:SLR tag appears on the talk page and the article is even linked from Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. — Sebastian 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A solution has been proposed at Talk:Military of Sri Lanka#Possible solution. — Sebastian 06:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been some replies here; however, since the bulk of the discussion is taking place at Talk:Military of Sri Lanka, and most of it was duplicated on both pages anyway, I'm moving the remaining two replies there. I propose we keep this section for general notices and summaries of the discussion there. — Sebastian 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved the discussion of the proposal for a new article "Sri Lankan paramilitary groups" to Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, as it is closely related to the discussion about renaming that article. — Sebastian 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sebastian should get involved other Admins rather asking Lahiru to give warning on Wiki Raja. And there should be a separate article on "Paramilitaries Aided by Military of Sri Lanka".Teasereds (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  This  could be added to the article, if the Military of Sri Lanka is added with, how the LTTE is calling that.  Teasereds (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Military of Sri Lanka#paramilitary]]

message: Please check out the lead section of S. P. Thamilselvan. The spelling "Thamilchelvan" has been there for over a month. Was it vandalism, and if so, who did it? — Sebastian 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism, since both "Thamilselvan" and "Thamilchelvan" are used by reliable sources. However, I'm not sure in what context the different spellings should be presentend and at what title the article should be located. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does not really matter which one is used. It is in the way people spell the individual Tamil letters and different dialects of Tamil. I would go with S. P. Thamilselvan because I do not believe that the "Ch" can be properly written/Spelled in Tamil. Watchdogb (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just changed it, and added a redirect page for Thamilchelvan, but then I realized that the initial "T" can be both aspirated or unaspirated. The aspirated version is a bit more common in Google - is that the correct one? — Sebastian 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thamilselvan or Thamilchelvan? 

message: A number of articles on attacks and massacres by the LTTE contain a "Related incidents" section that lists the major attacks by the LTTE. While such content is often fine, I think that the content of these sections should be standardised per Wikipedia:Layout to appear under a "See also" heading. Not only is "Related incidents" a non-standard section heading for what is essentially a "See also" section, but in many cases it implies a degree of relationship that verges on an original synthesis. For instance, aside from the identity of the perpetrators, how are the Anuradhapura massacre and the Central Bank Bombing related?
More generally, I would like to propose that "See also" sections that list other attacks limit the list to attacks that took place in the same vicinity and/or time period (or that share some other unique connection). In most cases, there is no reason for a link to an article about an attack that took place in 1990 in Colombo to appear in the "See also" section of an article about an attack that took place in 2007 in Jaffna. (Note: I'm using hypothetical locations and dates to present an clear example.) – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Another thing of concern right now is that both sides have committed massacres and civilian killings but only one sides atrocities are given. Going with Black Falcon's idea we can solve the NPOV problem too.Watchdogb (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related incidents sections 

message: I think we ought to consider the need and appropriateness of this category in the context of the Sri Lankan conflict.
The term "war crime" has a particular and complex definition, and its application to particular incidents or people is usually highly controversial. Its definition is not the same as "atrocity". When it comes to articles about incidents in the Sri Lankan conflict, this type of categorisation is too problematic to justify, in my opinion.
Let's look at the first three articles in the category:
* 2006 Trincomalee massacre - GOSL is accused of extrajudicial killing, GOSL claims the dead were LTTE members preparing to attack government troops
* Akkaraipattu massacre - ca. 80 people killed, GOSL accused
* Allaipiddy massacre - 13 people killed; locals blame the Navy, LTTE blames the GOSL, GOSL blames the LTTE
Though a sample of three articles is small, these three are representative of the type of incident that currently appears in the category. In virtually all cases, the identity of the attackers and/or victims is disputed; sometimes the very existence of a human rights violation is disputed. I am not aware of any case where an independent inquiry concluded that any of these incidents constitute war crimes. Thus, for all of these reasons, I think that the classification of articles into this category necessarily requires original research on the part of editors.
Also: 30 of the 31 articles in this category also appear in :Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, so Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Mostly-overlapping categories is applicable.
Although the above text could be used for a CFD nomination, I felt it would be best to raise the issue here first. If there is consensus to disband the category, a CFD nomination may even be unnecessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say get rid of both cats and put all applicable articles in Category:Atrocities in Sri Lanka.  — Rlevse • Talk •  18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the technical/academic definition of "atrocity" is tied to the political or ethnical motivations for a civilian massacre and :Category:Atrocities in Sri Lanka is much more accurate than :Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka, I worry that there may be confusion with the more common usage of the term "atrocity" to describe any incident that is (subjectively) deemed to be horrible. Also, :Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka fits into the :Category:Massacres by country scheme. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In wikipedia there is still an open discussion at to what should be in a category called War crimes. One is that if someone callas an act a Warcrime (from an RS source) then it should be categorized as such. The other is that only those that are prnounced as a warcrime in an international court should be in the category. This is not settled yet. I am of the view that the category should include those acts which are described as a war crime. In that respect, I will leave the category alone and remove any act that has no description of wracrime from an RS source Kanatonian 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a fairly well-established precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion against "alleged" categories such as "Incidents alleged to be war crimes". Also, what if RSs disagree about whether an act is a war crime (not an uncommon occurrence, given how controversial the label really is)? Categories are not capable of reflecting such case-specific details. ... Still, I'd be interested to know what would remain of the category once that standard (allegation by at least one RS) is applied; none of the articles I've looked at mention the term "war crime". – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers, Padahuthurai bombing for starters, I am sure some of atrocities attributed to the LTTE may also fit that category Kanatonian 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An article on Sri Lankan war criminals, also there is a chance Karuna Amman will be charged in the UK with war crimes Kanatonian 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please allow me the time to review more of the articles in the category, as well as those articles to which you linked, and I will develop a response. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your time, as you know I am not in any hurry for anything :))Kanatonian (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed! Watchdogb (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need time to respond. ThanksKanatonian (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly! Take all the time you need... :) Black Falcon (Talk) 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  War crimes in Sri Lanka is a sub category of  main War crimes category created under the umbrella of War crimes by countries to clean up the main category. There are many such clerical categories by several countries. (at least was, last time I checked it)  Hence the discussion has to be do these articles belong under War crimes category (it is irrelevant whether they are by so called nation states or not) By Wikipedia consensus an article can be categorized under War crimes as long as an RS sources claims an event as a war crime ( at least that is my consensus ) So all articles that don’t have an RS source that claims the act is a war crime should be removed from the War crimes in Sri Lanka category and the category itself should be left alone with those articles that fit it. Even if only one article is in it, it should stay otherwise they will clutter the main War crimes category. Also you may want to involve User:Cgingold as he was very active regarding these categories. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this is OK, I can do the leg work of -CatsKanatonian (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead, this sounds like a great solution to me! — Sebastian 18:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kanatonian (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka

message: This  has been used by the author of the website across Wikipedia to add his personal commentary. I have no problems with the commentary but the source fails all WP:RS requirements. It has no oversight, no one peer reviews the views and does not back it up with academic sources. It is original research that too with a very partisn point of view. What do we do ? Do I take to the RS sources discussion site  or resolve it here ?   Kanatonian (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, let's decide this here! We have built up all of WP:SLR#QS by discussing it here, and it became a cornerstone of our success. There's no reason to change that, just because we had so many other discussions here in the mean time. I only forget what our process was back then (and I'm too lazy to look it up). I think we gave it two days, and if no objection was raised, it was decided. So I gather you are proposing it should be classified as an unreliable source, rather than as QS. Correct? — Sebastian 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly a website maintained by individuals so it fails even QS, yes Kanatonian (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any feed back on this or can we archive it as a non reputable source ? because for those who are dealing with this matter, there are number of WP:RS books on this matter. Kanatonian (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two days are long passed - just feel free to go ahead and add it to the list. That's the way we've always done it, and it worked. Any member can do that. — Sebastian 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about a source

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Velupillai_Prabhakaran&oldid=198483304#Article_name
I made a move of Velupillai Prabhakaran to Velupillai Pirapakaran because I learned that the proper way to spell the Tamil name is with the latter name. It comes to my attention that this move is in violation of WP:NAME because the former is more popularly used. The discussion is taking place on the article's talk page. Please comment when time opens up Watchdogb (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Velupillai Pirapakaran]] 

message: Is this person notable among Sri Lankan Tamils?Quior (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving this discussion to WT:WikiProject Sri Lanka#K. S. Balachandran. Sebastian (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[K. S. Balachandran]]

message: 1. "With the escalation of the Sri Lankan civil war local villagers affected by it were formed into localized Militia to protect their families & homes." - here I believe affected by it should be added. It is justified by this reference   
::: Adding "affected by it" is a redundant word. Since later in the sentence there is a direct quote from a Sri Lankan official that claims that this unit was set up after "deadly massacres by the LTTE". So if you want you can include the affected by it comment but then I would ask to remove the "deadly massacre by the LTTE". You see when a "deadly massacres" takes place it will definitely affect the people in the villages who are later made into civil defensive forces. So, to avoid redundancy, and other POV  problems, only one should remain. Even your citation comes from Sri Lankan Military. To add the affected by it wording we will have to quote that reference and claim that the wording came from the Sri Lankan Military. This is counter productive and ends up making the small sentence look bad. Watchdogb (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The home guard was formed after "deadly massacre by the LTTE" but not just in those villages or localities that the massacres took place, but in other villages to prevent  "deadly massacre by the LTTE". That is what I am trying to imply by adding the "affected by it" to mention that home guards were formed in villages that where under threat  of possible attack in order to prevent them, thus ensuring self defense.Nitraven (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under threat of attack is not "affected" by attacks. There is not point in adding the "affected" part because it is neither backed by RS or necessary. Watchdogb (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine I shall change "affected" to "under threat of attack"Nitraven (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. Watchdogb (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Affected by" 

message: 2."In 2008 the government called for the formation of civil defence committees on the village level for additional protection in all parts of the country, how ever this not a armed militia". here I believe this part of the line must be added which has been removed. It is justified by this reference , 
::: Both given citations here do not back up the  how ever this not a armed militia. Furthermore, the claim "all parts of the country" is a false one unless you recognize that Tamil Eelam is a separate country. How can a civil defense committee be formed in areas controlled by the LTTE ? Indeed if you believe that Tamil Eelam is also part of the country, then you cannot set up a civil defensive force in the LTTE controlled areas of Sri Lanka ! Watchdogb (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because they (citations) never state that they are armed as apposed to the home guard who are state as armed. Regarding Tamil Eelam I have mentioned below. But I do agree that these were formed in areas other than LTTE controlled areas, therefore it could be stated as ."In 2008 the government called for the formation of civil defence committees on the village level for additional protection in all parts of the country other than LTTE controlled areas, how ever this not a armed militia" Nitraven (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I disagree with your new sentence also. The burden lies on you to claim to show that they are not armed militia as the other reference, one given by the news website, clearly claim that they are soldiers. Unless you can provide reference to claim that they are not armed, you cannot add such claim. Watchdogb (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the first issue (regarding "in all parts of the country") be resolved through use of alternate wording, such as "In 2008, the government called for the formation of nearly 15,000 civil defence committees at the village level for additional protection." That sentence reflects the content of this source and makes no explicit claim regarding the distribution of the CDCs in Sri Lanka, but I think that most readers will infer that the range of territorial coverage is broad, since the program includes 15000 villages. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am fine with what you propose. Watchdogb (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm ok with it.Nitraven (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I've gone ahead and modified the sentence. I cannot access the island.lk source, and so can't really comment on the second issue (regarding "not an armed militia"). Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not an armed militia" 

message: Revert war going on based on an unreliable website as a source that was deemed as non reliable in WP:SLR see this. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Place names in North and East of Sri Lanka]]

message: I rewrote the article from a neutral point of viw with WP:RS sources. See Sri Lankan place name etymology. Any copy editing will be appreciated. Also I would want it to be covered by the SLR agreement. The blue box protection.  Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote the article from a neutral point of view

message: He wrote back saying that he was asked to contribute but has no recollection as to whether he contributed or not and says that he is not an expert in the subject matter as well as it is a minefield. Kanatonian (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Professor Micheal Roberts

message: The article currently has the following text within:
"The Black Tigers are believed to be the most idiotic, stupendous mentally ill unit of its kind in the world, as with the rest of the LTTE, it is also demonic. Till date, the Black Tigers have carried out 1-2 missions. The Black Tigers operate in three distinct ways: conventional combat (running in circles and skinny dipping together), guerrilla attacks (humping each other like gorillas), and targeted assassinations or bombings."
-under the section Black Tigers today. Seems like pure vandalism to me and I suggest it be reverted. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LTTE Black Tiger 

message: I was wondering whether we could remove the blue box from Sri Lankan place name etymology. There have been no major edits since late August, and the initial dispute seems to be resolved. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issues with it. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been posted here for 3 days without any objection, so I'll just go ahead and remove it. — Sebastian 13:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SL place name etymology 

message: We have to discuss all options as listed here not just one. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Thanks for pointing that out! I had read Black Falcon's great list of proposals before, but had forgotten about it when the discussion moved here. I wonder if people are just more willing to discuss this in a traditional section like this because they don't want to interfere with what he wrote. Maybe we could add  to each of his subsections so it will be more inviting for people to respond in place? — Sebastian 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text which was moved from [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka]] 

message: It has been proposed (on WT:SLR) to rename the article to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka" to match such articles as Terrorism in India and to make it easier to write it as a neutral article. This seems very reasonable to me. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: support this renaming as "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". It would make a neutral article.We can have a sub-heading there as a "list of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" or some thing.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Question: wil this article have two sections then ? one for terrorism by the LTTE and the other by the government ? will it then mirror the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article ? Kanatonian (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be one option. Another would be the example of Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War‎. — Sebastian 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  yes that would be one option. but the problem would be the topic "terrorism by Sri Lankan govt" is a POV. another option is to name as like "allegations of State terrorism". --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing prevents us from starting and developing this article right now. Those who have the time and and motivations can begin the article and eventually when the article is of a considerable maturity, we can add the state terrorims article into it or make it a main article of the section about state terrorism. I think most of us waste a lot of time discussing about it rather than to create it. Why not not just do it Kanatonian (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to [[Terrorism in Sri Lanka]]

message: How about rename to "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". As for the Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about India, but maybe there aren't any noteworthy allegations of state terrorism there? But back to the topic, you're not giving any reason why you think your name is better. — Sebastian 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  oppose to name it as "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". there's no concrete evidence or independent investigations on that matter it would violate NPOV.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (General discussion of NPOV, RS, NOTABLE, "academic circles" and secondary sources moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to [[Sri Lankan State Terrorism]]

message: and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject
: State Terrorism like Genocide, Terrorism, Mass graves and Pogrom is a neutral English word clearly describes an action. It means we can write a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject. Just like we have to obey WP:NPOV, we also have to obey WP:RS and  WP:NOTABLE  and using these rules we can create a neutral article on State terrorism in Sri LankaKanatonian (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly correct. Wikipedia does not depend on truth but on Realiable published citations. We have enough of that in the Article. The article itself is about the State terrorism in Sri Lanka. This is the best title. Watchdogb (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (General discussion of neutral article names and neutral words moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only where it is because no one has taken the time to develop it. May be one day :))Kanatonian (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  In wikipedia we say what others say. We strongly do not try to "prove" or find the "truth" of something. So in essence all articles in wikipedia are indeed collections of allegations or claims. In accordance with the rule of wikipedia, the current name of the article is "Allegation of State terrorism in Sri Lanka" which would mean that all the citations would only focus on  the "Allegation" part of State terrorism in Srilanka. However, in this article the citations are the focus of "State terrorism" in Sri Lanka and because of this we should rename the article to "State terrorism in Sri Lanka". Watchdogb (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a good reason, and it is stronger than my general reason against the term "state terrorism"! I will enter both of them in the table below. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to [[State terrorism in Sri Lanka]]

message: Now that a few reasons for and against some of the options have been presented, let's start summarizing them in a table like this. I will start with what I see; please feel free to add  short keywords to this table after full text explanations in the sections above. Please also correct me if I misrepresented your reasons. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview table 

message: I would like to offer that we try to move toward a resolution of this issue, based on the discussion above and comments on the talk page. This particular thread has been open for two months, and the issue itself has been debated for much longer. (By the way, I apologise for starting a thread on the issue and then disappearing -- initially I was forced to take a month-long extended break due to various personal circumstances, which then continued for a further 3 weeks as part of recovery from wikistress.) Black Falcon (Talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Black Falcon on this. Let's try to get this resolved. Watchdogb (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that we should move the article to State Terrorist rather than Allegation. I agree that state terrorism is a controversial and disputed word but all the citation we have on the article use this exact word. All of the citations accuse that there is State terrorism in Sri Lanka. So the Topic of the article is State terrorism in Sri Lanka and in accord with the many given citation of the article it should be renamed to State Terrorism in Sri Lanka. Watchdogb (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A general comment - On March 9, the article was moved to State terrorism and Sri Lanka by an uninvolved editor. Though I do not endorse this pagemove (in fact, I think it should be reversed as a poorly-worded title that does not clearly delineate the scope of the article), perhaps it should be added to the list of options under consideration. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to a conclusion... 

message: I wish to bring to the attention of an admin edits made by the user Watchdogb on the article Lakshman Algama and in the same respects the Ranjan Wijeratne. This user has removed them from cretin categories;
*Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (both)
*Category:Terrorism victims (both)
*Category:Terrorist incidents in 1999 (Lakshman Algama)
*Category:Terrorist incidents in 1991 (Ranjan Wijeratne)
As for reasons he state in the case of Ranjan Wijeratne "fact tag added. Reworded and added citation. Removed all "terrorist" cats. This person was a minister of Defence. Thus attack on him are legitimate military attacks" and in the case of Lakshman Algama "rm pov cats. Attacks on a Military figure is not a Terrorist attack". It should be noted that these persons here were retired or resigned Military Officers, hence they both where civilians & also politicians at the time of death. 
I also wish to bring to the attention of an admin the removal of given references by Watchdogb on the basis that they are not Reliable sources. Pls tell me why Full military honours for Lucky Algama is not a Reliable source. 
Thank youNitraven (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that I made a mistake. I initially thought that they were military figures later realized that they were retired military figure. However, Ranjan Wijeratne is the minister of defense when he was killed and his campaign was to finish the LTTE. So I am not even sure that we can call any attacks against him a "Terrorist" attacks. Anyways, getting to the point my stand still remains the same. Please go ahead and read how to categorize an article. You need WP:RS claiming that these were terrorist attacks. Furthermore, a website of the Government of Sri Lanka is reliable only to add their POV. Thus it must be explicitly attributed to the Sri Lankan Government. If not, then it is not a reliable source. Last, you cannot add category using the Government of Sri Lanka's word. This is because this source is POV and it can even be seen as an attack site.  Watchdogb (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Speaking purely as one who does some analysis of terrorism, emphatically saying that is a term of art regarding tactics rather than a value judgment, I can't see how one could logically be a victim of terrorism if there was no terrorist incident or attack. In general, assassinations of government or military officials, when care is taken to avoid hard to innocent bystanders, may be within the range of guerilla activities that are not terrorism.  Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problems with the sourcing used in the Lakshman Algama article. Some are directly from the Sri Lankan Government and I am fine with that as long as there is explicit attribution. Moreover I currently have no problem with the article except it's Terrorist Categories. Watchdogb (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not agree to remove this article from the Terrorist Categories. This is due to the fact that this was a suicide attack in a crowded political rally (gathering) in which many (12) civilians were killed. Hence it can be  categorized as a Terrorist attack.Nitraven (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bring WP:RS for this claim and then add it. Watchdogb (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nitravan, it is not about you agree of disagree. Adding a category such terrorist categories violates Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines #8. So unless you can provide RS for this claim you cannot add these cats back regardless of your personal feeling. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchdogb, it is matter of agreement and disagreement and personal feelings. Your definition of RSs provided is a fine example of  agreement and disagreement and personal feelings.Nitraven (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  No, it is not. You have not even provided a single citation, RS or non RS, justifying the categories. The definition of a reliable source is clearly defined at WP:RS. Further definition that is related to Sri Lankan Conflict is given here. As long as these rules are followed I have no problem with any categorizations. Watchdogb (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lakshman Algama]] 

message: There is currently some discussion on Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology about the value of several sources on Lankan history (books, articles, websites, etc). It might be interesting for the project to keep track of the outcomes of these discussions, since they will be relevant for other articles as well, especially those where demographic history or etymology are contested. I am thinking of sth akin to the "Classification of sources" section we have on the project page, but then for historiographic sources. The current section with bbcsinhala.com, tamilnet, asiantribune etc is only for current political events. The new section would be used to cover topics predating the war.
Because of the different period covered, the setup would have to be a bit different, but I think that reliable source, qualified source and unreliable source could still be used. What do other editors think? Jasy jatere (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lot of maintennace and work, what we have done is for achiving peace in political charged articles. But in regular articles like etymology WP:RS & WP:VERIFY should satisfy all our needs. Kanatonian (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal to add section for classification of historical sources 

message: Nobody seems to be watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/housekeeping anymore. There's one application there; please take a look. 
That page was created by me in the hot phase of the SL Agreement, when housekeeping issues were drowned out by the discussion on this talk page. Please, valuable active project members, either watch that page or decommision it. For decomisioninging, I would think it is necessary to change all links to that page that specifically ask people to go there in order to apply for membership. (That would be a couple of links from WP:SLR and one from the box on top of this page.) Sebastian (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will watch the page and I don't think there is a reason to decommision the page. Watchdogb (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

message: The placement of all controversial cats should be discussed here in detail before they are reinstated.  Wikipedia is not a  propagandapedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teasereds (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unnecessary cats

message: It has been nominated for FA review.Kanatonian (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sri Lankan Tamil people]]