Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive 4

message: I'm starting to lose track of who we warned for what. Is the following correct and complete? Is my understanding correct that these users can be blocked immediately without discussion here if the same behavior reoccurs? 
* : Direct, unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of a user in good standing on 15:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go ahead Kanatonian (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I moved it into the new chapter Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. I also moved the sections that are not talk sections from this chapter there. — Sebastian 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of warned users 

message: FayssalF has closed the proposal, which is now in effect. This talk page is the primary discussion point for concerns. You also contact one of the admins. I am currently in the process of tagging affected articles. — Rlevse • Talk •  23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more things...
#I don't know about the other admins, but I feel I can be more neutral if I don't have a watch set on the affected articles, so leave a note here, where I do have a watch set or contact myself or another admin.
#Two more admins have agreed to help, User:Jehochman and User:LessHeard vanU. This is in addition to myself, User:Chaser, User:Haemo, and User:FayssalF.
*Here's to a successful effort by all. — Rlevse • Talk •  23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've placed a very short block on this IP to prevent further disruption.  More likely than not, this was a breaching experiment.  If anybody thinks that blanking two Sri Lanka related pages was just a random action by a clueless newbie, feel free to revert my block, but I think the chance of this being a newbie are very low. - Jehochman  Talk 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lone skirmisher. This time i'd call the soldiers camped at WP:MILHIST. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  02:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, Jehochman.  — Rlevse • Talk •  09:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatant vandalism's such as this in Sri Lanka related articles have been regularly reverted by many wikipedians including User:Utcursch who seem to have a watch list, such deeds indeed go a long way in keeping nuisances editors and newbies at bay but what we need help is with entrenched editors who know what they are doing.Kanatonian 12:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sri Lanka articles dispute resolution in effect

message: === General question: do we stick to the Classification of sources? ===
Since this is the main page for Reconciliation, do we stick to the Source classifications that was achieved before ? I personally think we should but what are the thoughts of others ? Watchdogb 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by source classifications? — Rlevse • Talk •  09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We constantly have quarrels about what source can be uses and what not so we came up with this, it is not 100%. We should complete the task. Thanks Kanatonian 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks you very much. The table of Citation classification was used before until things fell apart because of people not willing to discuss. Now that we have another formal peace effort we can use the table again. Watchdogb 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation clarification

message: Since this is the main page for Reconciliation, do we stick to the Source classifications that was achieved before ? I personally think we should but what are the thoughts of others ? Watchdogb 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by source classifications? — Rlevse • Talk •  09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We constantly have quarrels about what source can be uses and what not so we came up with this, it is not 100%. We should complete the task. Thanks Kanatonian 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks you very much. The table of Citation classification was used before until things fell apart because of people not willing to discuss. Now that we have another formal peace effort we can use the table again. Watchdogb 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General question: do we stick to the Classification of sources? 

message: I've boldly expanded the scope to cover the edit war on Batticaloa, a Sri Lankan city.  Hoepfully, this ends it.  --Haemo 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Watch as people are removing your notification. Thanks Kanatonian 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article added to [[WP:DR|resolution]]

message: Currently in this page we are discussing about 10 disputes. Eleven days have passed since we get into this resolution process but still we have been able to resolve only 3 issues. How about taking one issue at a time and discussing it and finishing it before moving into the next dispute? As I see this will help to save time to getting the issues resolved. Any thoughts? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 12:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would only slow things down. — Rlevse • Talk •  12:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we have never been fast on resolving either. For all these 11 days we resolved only one content dispute dispute. Issue on Kattankudy Massacre got a temporary solution. Sockpuppet resolved as a user issue. Still 10 disputes are pending for answers. I think getting together all users into one point will make resolving the issue very swift. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 13:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing this in parallel is a lot faster than doing things  one by one and I would oppose any imposed "rule" to do that. Sinhala freedom 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have done a lot her including having civil conversations in user pages about conflicts like here. Thanks Kanatonian 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One issue at a time 

message: Yes the 11th but silent issue. It is on History of Eastern Tamils. This article has been mass tagged by number of editors repeatedly ever since it was originally creatd by a newbie without any effort at improving it and contributing to the project. I have just finnished cleaning it up, but left the WP:OR tag that my friendly Iwazaki tagged it as soon as he found out that I was working to clean it on. I need the neutral perspective of other SLR members before I remove it. Thanks Kanatonian 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This the version. Who knows by the time someone from SLR looks at it, it might have been reduced to nothing :(Kanatonian 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help to resolve tagging

message: === Classification of http://satp.org ===
::Disagree and requesting for an appeal on http://satp.org . satp.org is a very notable organisation on terrorism and currently been categorized by the #Classification of sources as anti rebel. SATP's research papers have been even used by the UNHCR for their documents. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it s a biased source just like Tamilnet. Thanks Kanatonian 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what i am saying is that it should still be attributed that it is coming from SATP not written up as an undisputed fact from an RS source. Can we update it similar to that please ? Thanks Kanatonian 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Kanatonian. Satp is a biased source and thus needs to be explicitly attributed. Watchdogb (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the "unresolved" tag the other day, but on second glance, it appears that this is resolved: There never was a real disagreement. We never had classified satp.org in the first place, so there's no need to appeal. It seems there is agreement that it is a reliable source and that it can be used with explicit attribution. Therefore, I will classify it as QS in WP:SLR#List of sources and I would like to change the tag to "resolved". — Sebastian 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation clarification

message: ::Disagree and requesting for an appeal on http://satp.org . satp.org is a very notable organisation on terrorism and currently been categorized by the #Classification of sources as anti rebel. SATP's research papers have been even used by the UNHCR for their documents. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it s a biased source just like Tamilnet. Thanks Kanatonian 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what i am saying is that it should still be attributed that it is coming from SATP not written up as an undisputed fact from an RS source. Can we update it similar to that please ? Thanks Kanatonian 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Kanatonian. Satp is a biased source and thus needs to be explicitly attributed. Watchdogb (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the "unresolved" tag the other day, but on second glance, it appears that this is resolved: There never was a real disagreement. We never had classified satp.org in the first place, so there's no need to appeal. It seems there is agreement that it is a reliable source and that it can be used with explicit attribution. Therefore, I will classify it as QS in WP:SLR#List of sources and I would like to change the tag to "resolved". — Sebastian 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of http://satp.org 

message: Iwazaki says "Controversy - First I didn't know carrying dead bodies away is the most important in a war. secondly I didn't know there are people who belive what LTTE say!!"
::I am not so sure the sentence claims carrying bodies from the battle field is the most important thing, rather its intentional abandonment or claims thereof is a controversial issue. I would be more than happy to hear an elaboration from Iwazaki, maybe his point is not clear from the edit summary.  Sinhala freedom 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lahiru you have reverted to Iwazaki's version but haven't bothered to explain anything.  This is very troubling and appears to be a return to "old ways."  The sentence doesn't address what Iwazaki mentions, we can't just make up a non existent issue.  Sinhala freedom 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this issue even notable? Armies, as a matter of preference, usually try to recover the bodies of their dead, if circumstances permit. Circumstances don't always permit. I don't know what article this sentence is in, but it sounds like potential POV. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is in the Sri Lanka Army controversies section.  This issue was covered by BBC and other major news sources.  Sinhala freedom 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link. This thread is mistitled as the section is not about abandonment of dead soldiers, but rather criticism of the army's handling of remains, notification to their families, and meager recompense for those lamed. I'm going to edit the section header in that article to something more descriptive; meanwhile, I'd recommend editors try to find sources describing the government's and military's responses to these criticisms, for better balance. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also this paragraph regarding abandonment of bodies and complaints by relatives, . Thanks for helping to sort it out.  I'll try to find SL Army responses.  Sinhala freedom 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In August 2001, Mr. Thamilselvan, the leader of the political wing of the Tamil Tigers, accused the Sri Lankan Army of intentionally abandoning the bodies of nearly a thousand soldiers on the battlefields since May, despite the Tamils’ request that the Red Cross act as an intermediate.  He told visiting relatives of missing servicemen that the military had only accepted 55 bodies to return to their families, while burying the rest with full military honours on the spot.  Mr. Thamilselvan did not offer a reason for the army’s refusal, but did note that several hundred decomposing bodies remained in a minefield due to the danger of extracting them.  A Sri Lankan military spokesman, Brigadier Sanath Karunaratne, acknowledged that the army cannot always retrieve a body because it might cost more lives, but denied the Tamil accusations, saying they were propaganda aimed at demoralising the parents of the missing soldiers. 
Note that I have left out reference to the statement in the original paragraph that “Many of these soldiers are noted as missing in action, which doesn't entitle the relative of the soldiers to any benefits.” This would be very relevant and would provide an adequate contextual segue to the following paragraphs, but is not in the sole article cited and would need its own separate citation.  Again, this is just one way to render the information in a balanced way, but I believe it worth the exercise to serve as a template for handling the issues that arise so frequently in these contentious articles.  Askari Mark (Talk) 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My question is do we really need such section? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort on writing an encyclopedia, not a collaborative effort on writing news bulletins about abandoning the dead bodies of fallen comrades. This is a single incident(or few incidents) of a 30 year old conflict which was cleared the path for more than 80,000 people for rest in peace. Right now I have the Sri Lanka Army's roll of honor list which is contain 10,688 names of fallen members since October 15, 1981 to June 30, 1999 excluding the number of missing in action. As I said before there is no need at all for mention such issues in an encyclopedia article and such abandoning the dead bodies incidents have even reported in countless times where the developed world armies have been involved. So this matter is obviously subject to the WP:Notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do maintain the events are notable since it does have coverage from major news sources.  Its very rare there is coverage on sri lanka at all, and the very few times it is for notable reasons.  What is being blanked is a case of a person not liking what is there.  All sort of unrelated wikipedia rules are stated, hoping something will stick.  So I don't buy this censorship.  This censorship is going on other articles as well and it is politically motivated towards supporting the ruling Rajapakse regime.  Sinhala freedom 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any notability about these facts unless someone else's POV and bias which is mixed with some mere references from the google and remixed it to meet the encyclopedic writing style. I am well aware of the wikipedia policies what I'm talking in this page and only thing that I can see from your comment is you are misusing my assume good faith and attacking me and my nonexistent politics while keeping violating WP:POINT. I have no resistant at the moment towards the Peacekeeping scandal section which at least has the current event advantage and the notability. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not in a position to resolve the issue's notability. As I pointed out above, most times the fact that an army has not been able to recover all of its casualties is not notable in of itself. The only aspect that potentially makes this notable here is due to its apparently being an issue in Sri Lanka itself – and that is something you and more knowledgeable editors will need to resolve. My purpose was more to demonstrate how to handle the write-up of a contentious issue. You'll note that I have not added it myself to the article in question simply because I don't know whether it should be there or not. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sri Lanka Army dead bodies abandonment issue

message: As the poll is at a stalemate, I would like to look for a compromise. The following two have been proposed some time ago and nobody has objected to them. — Sebastian 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reference/paraphrase is already part of the outcome of the discussion below. How much in depth we want to describe the issue is another question. I do respect your opinion that you want it to be longer, but that is not a compromise idea. — Sebastian 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise ideas 

message: On a similar note, the images on the Kattankudy massacre article  had questionable copyright from before (there is no evidence to show since the old image was deleted - maybe an admin can see what was deleted)  Kanatonian can testify to this as well.  The uploader then deleted the original files and instead uploaded it to flicker, where it doesn't say its legal or not and now its referenced in wikipedia.  I think that move should be investigated for copyright legitimacy.  I fear this may become a repeat ocurance for other controversial images that have questionable copyright.  Sinhala freedom (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I refer you to WT:C? My personal impression is that flicker does not agree with the copyright we would need, so we can't generally use a flicker picture. But I'm no copyright expert, don't quote me on that. — Sebastian 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyrights 

message: Can all please take a look at this and comment. Thanks Watchdogb 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me as odd to have an infobox on an organization that lists its crimes. Having said that, these things--terrorist bombings, children in war-, etc are crimes. The other thing wrong with these links is that they are mostly internal wiki links. I think this section of the info box be removed and the links put into "See also" OR made into a summary style section with links to the main articles on these crimes.  — Rlevse • Talk •  02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally feel that we use the same infobox that has been used on other proscribed organizations. Thought ? comments ? BTW Thanks Rlevse for being active and helpful . Your time is appreciated. Watchdogb 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I strongly believe LTTE has committed these horrible acts, there needs to be some token comment or room for something from the LTTE side.   Otherwise it looses credibility and won't be believable. Thats the sad reality. If we break wikipedia rules to get the message across from one side (even though its nice to read), I just think the article gets to be in perpetual chaos in the long run and so we must prevent that.  This is bringing collective shame to Sri lanka based editors when articles we write are deeply distrusted.  Sinhala freedom 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SF is correct, both sides need to be presented. — Rlevse • Talk •  10:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously resolved, since this has remained stable for over two weeks now. — Sebastian 07:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[LTTE]] article dispute 

message: I altered the POV heading and sentence.Lustead 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, some POV content was added to the article from November 28 through 30. I did a wholesale revert of the additions by the IP user and the newly-created account to the November 20 version. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jaffna]]

message: I had stayed out of this article, but now that even the main opposition claim Sri Lanka is practicing state terror, I think its controversial to keep the tag.  The article was tagged a while back and no effort was made to justify that. Therefore I am removing it and adding RW quote on the subject. Ranil Wickremasinghe is the head of the opposition in the Sri Lankan parliament.  Lahiru_k removed this section 
Here is lahiru_k's response to this:
"Undid revision 173130084 by Sinhala freedom (talk) nice. did the opposition party told you that this article is NPOV"
"rm section. www.lankaenews.com is the official news site of the Free Media Movement, which is a known biased source when commenting on government." 
Where is it said that www.lankaenews is the official site of the Free Media Movement ?  Where is mentioned that FMM is a biased source ?  I am deeply concerned, unsupported statements like these are being used to censor articles.  Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinhala freedom did have a ref for this. Does someone have a ref for the opposing view? — Rlevse • Talk •  18:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently nobody does, so can we regard this as resolved? — Sebastian 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranil Wickremesinghe's Statement on state terror

message: I propose that the contents of this article be merged to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE for the following reasons:
First, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality". For instance, an "article might cover the same material but with less emotive words". The word 'terrorist' is undoubtedly emotive and moreso than terms such as 'separatist', 'rebel', 'insurgent', and so on.
Second, the adjective "terrorist" has no clear definition. I personally do not dispute that the Aranthalawa Massacre, for instance, is a terrorist act; however, we should not label these acts as 'terrorist' in the article without a reliable source to support that contention (even then, it would technically be a "list of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist"). Otherwise, we delve into original research.
Third, this article and the article List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE currently make a distinction between attacks on civilians and "military and guerrilla style attacks". However, it's not always easy to distinguish between the two. For instance, the 28 May 2007 Rathmalana attack was carried out against a military target (a truck carrying STF personnel) but killed civilians. Merging the two lists would eliminate the need to try to make this distinction.
Any thoughts? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Black Falcon]] 

message: Black Falcon has stated things well, but let me point out a few things. List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE currently redirects to List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE. In addition, per the WP:MOS lists should not have "notable" in them. The reason is that by definition the events must meet notability or not be included in a wiki list. I agree that terrorist is POV. In these types of conflicts, who is or isn't a terrorist depends on what side of the conflict you are on. For example, if Americans lost the War of Independence, imagine how different the history books would view those who fought it. I basically agree with Black Falcon except I think the new title should be List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. If we use Watchdogb's merge plan, the final article will be huge. So I propose that Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka have a summary paragraph of each additional article on this topic with a  link to it. This is standard procedure on wiki when a topic is big enough to warrant its own article.  — Rlevse • Talk •  12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you propose a name change ? That sounds like a solution. Also how do you feel about explicit attribute to POV statements ? Many RS say things like The Sri Lankan Military/The defence ministry blame the tigers for this attack. As a part of the warring party it is POV to just say LTTE did [attack]]. In accordance with wikipedia rules can I add the explicit attribution to allegations made by a POV party ? Watchdogb 14:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A POV should have a reliable source ref, as should any controversial statement. — Rlevse • Talk •  14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement have RS but the RS state that the Sri Lankan Military is the ones who blame the Tigers. So I think we should have explicit attribute such as X suspect y in this case. What do you think ? Watchdogb 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the article's title properly (attributed part is there). So there is no need to state as X suspect LTTE. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, yes it does. Attributed by who ? Unless you want to rename the article to Attributed, by the Sri Lankan Military, terrorist attacks by the LTTE. Just because something says attributed it does not mean that you can have only one side of the story. Attributed is ambitious because no one knows who it is attributed by. We need to stick to wikipedia rules and explicitly attribute to who claims what (if the people who are making the claim is a POV party- as it the case). Watchdogb 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have to read this one. See, most of the incidents in this list were reported by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, not by the SLGOV. Also we do not need to carry all the info on the article title. Attributed means somebody have attributed the incident to the LTTE. If our readers wants to know who did this accusation, they will find it by following the reference. We have given neutral citations which are accusing the LTTE or says X accused. If you wish to have the other side of the story then you can find and hang refs saying LTTE denied the involvement. We are Wikipedians, not investigation officers. If someone is accused, then we do the reporting. If someone says that LTTE has no involvement, we will remove those. But since someone is being accused we can't simply remove those. If you don't like the article, then you have to change it's title first. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not want attribute to the UNHCR or any other HR organizations and RS. I only want explicit attribution to the citation that themselves have explicit attributions. This is in accord to say what the RS says and not to violate wikipedia rules. Watchdogb 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recommend you to read the article again. There is no violation of Wikipedia policies here and nor X and Y confusions. The sources explicitly state the accusations are attributed to LTTE. Please go through the sources to find out who the X and Y are (We have properly attributed the suspected party in the article). References are there to refer. We cannot put the complete content of the references inside an article. That's the procedure. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recommend you to read what I wrote. When Sri Lankan Military claims something, then we should explicitly attribute them. This is because they are part of the warring party and therefore only represent one side of the story. This is why even the RS citations given claim that "X blames Y". We should also do so for 2 reasons. 1) To stick to NPOV and 2) keeping our claims with only what the RS says and not violate WP:SYNTHWatchdogb 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is what I mean by explicit attribution. Watchdogb 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Rlevse, I agree with you about the title being List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, without use of the self-referential term "notable". I'm not entirely clear on what Watchdogb's merge plan entials (out of 4 articles, do we end up with two or one?), and I should note that a previous proposal made by me to merge Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka into Human rights in Sri Lanka essentially stalled after a few days of discussion. Anyway, I am ready/willing to perform the merge (a straightforward merge of List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE and List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, without adding or removing any content or sources) if the discussion so far is deemed adequate and there is no significant opposition to it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Rlevse]] 

message: Merger of attacks of one sort or another and human rights can't be done since its incompatible.  I am not so sure its the same subject.   One is about rights, the other would be considered acts of war. So I would oppose attempts at merger, till better justifications are given.  Sinhala freedom 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Sinhala_freedom]] 

message: Calling things "terrorist" attacks is hard; I edit 9/11, and it's contentious even there.  The best thing to do is to either source everything, completely, or change the name to something less divisive.  "Terrorist" is a word to avoid in general, but it can be used accurately, however, the previous comments make a good point about the blurry distinction between civilian and military targets.  You might be able to write a better article about the two subjects combined. --Haemo 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Haemo]]

message: Time to settle this, vote what you think should happen here, with no more than one line of comment. — Rlevse • Talk •  15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears settled. Who is going to implement the merge? — Sebastian 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Settle this

message: No reply in 4 days. Has this issue been resolved? — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, we cant wait for ever Kanatonian (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Absolutely no content was lost in the merge, as of the revision dated 00:01, December 15, 2007. I will go over the list over the next hour or so and eliminate any redundancies. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I already said I have finals this weeks and can't respond to such post quickly. If editors here don't have the decency to wait for replies that isn't my problem, and frankly I no longer care for discussions here. If you want to merge or move this article, bring it up on the talk page or take it to requested moves. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge certainly can be reversed, if the consensus changes, so do offer your comments when you have time. Note, however, that this issue has been open 1-2 months. As for the procedural issues you raise, you've been informed before that they're inapplicable: discussion doesn't have to take place on the talk page, especially when a notice is placed on the talk page and all relevant editors are well aware of the discussion. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, my apology for moving the page without discussion. I reverted myself. I am still lost here. We have clearly got a consensus having 4 people agreeing to merge along with comment of Hoemo (who also claimed to work with both the articles combined). So we have 5 people who say to merge and 2 people who want to keep the article as it is. Also as people have pointed out the article not only violates the naming of wikipedia. The article also violates WP:OR and all of that good things. I am not sure why one user has this authoritarian powers over admin . Watchdogb (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolved - action needed 

message: I am still concerned about the state of the article. I believe that there needs to be explicit attribution to the article. Some attacks are blamed on the LTTE by the Sri Lankan Forces or the Sri Lankan Government. As an involved warring party in the War the SL government/ Sri Lankan military ect are POV sources. I feel that these should be explicitly attributed. Watchdogb (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an easy one: Just proceed according to WP:SLR#Classification of sources. — Sebastian 01:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misunderstood. While the citations used in the articles may be classified my problem is of another sort. Some incidents are referenced to RS. However, the RS citations them self say something along these lines: "The Sri Lankan military claim that the LTTE  did the attacks". In the article the "Sri Lankan Military claims the LTTE" part is left out. Since even the RS have explicit attribution and we , in wikipedia, are supposed to say ONLY what the citations say I believe that "Sri Lankan Military claims the LTTE"  should also be added. Otherwise there is a misinterpretation on the article and the reference. Which might be confusing because readers might think that the given citation actually claim that the LTTE did the attack. Watchdogb (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, sure, if the sources say so, by all means, include it! — Sebastian 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do thanks. Watchdogb (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of attacks attributed to the LTTE]] (attribution)

message: has violated one revert rule restrictions imposed by the above proposals on the  article, which is subject to editing restrictions. 
*Previous version reverted to: 22:57, November 29, 2007
*1st revert: 13:40, November 30, 2007
*2rd revert: 13:42, November 30, 2007
*3nd revert: 14:05, November 30, 2007
User knows about the restrictions, yet continued to edit war on the article.--snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed a violation of our 1RR agreement. Watchdogb is blocked for 72 hours. 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, indeed. I agree with the block. — Sebastian 09:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1RR by [[User:Watchdogb]] 

message: Can you kindly unprotect Sri Lankan Tamils articles and blue box it instead 
? Beacuse of the edit warring, it was protected but it prevents people from 
editing it normally. A blue box will prevent it becoming an edit warring article. 
It has been in protection for a looooong time. Thanks 
Kanatonian (talk) 14:18, 14 
December 2007 (UTC)
: Done. — Sebastian 19:13, 14 December 
2007 (UTC)
::Another one. 
Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 
23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, too. I created a new template for this: . I think we 
can speedily use it in cases like the above two, when we remove a 
protection. For the other direction, adding it to on articles that are not 
protected yet, let's discuss it here first. — 
Sebastian 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect and blue box it