Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/issues 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Military of Sri Lanka#paramilitary 2 Thamilselvan or Thamilchelvan? 3 Related incidents sections 4 Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka 5 Question about a source 6 Velupillai Pirapakaran 7 Realibility of Mackenzie institute 8 K. S. Balachandran 9 Counter-terrorism 10 LTTE article 10.1 Notes 11 Militia 11.1 "Affected by" 11.2 "Not an armed militia" 11.3 "Local villagers of Tamil Eelam" 12 Category using citations

[edit] Military of Sri Lanka#paramilitary

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)

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)

It is a content issue Taprobanus (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is EditWar on the page.Teasereds (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Done. — Sebastian 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

This [1] 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)

[edit] Thamilselvan or Thamilchelvan?

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Related incidents sections

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)

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)

[edit] Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka

Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
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)

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

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

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

There is a fairly well-established precedent at 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War crimes in Sri Lanka is a sub category of main War crimes category created under the umbrella of War crimes by countries to clean up the main category. There are many such clerical categories by several countries. (at least was, last time I checked it) Hence the discussion has to be do these articles belong under War crimes category (it is irrelevant whether they are by so called nation states or not) By 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 Taprobanus (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Y DoneTaprobanus (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about a source

This [2] 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 ? Taprobanus (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is clearly a website maintained by individuals so it fails even QS, yes Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Taprobanus (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Velupillai Pirapakaran

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)

[edit] Realibility of Mackenzie institute

This website is not NPOV website. It is maintained by a person who has come into heavy criticism by many communities including the Tamil community in Canada. The statements made by this websites author was quoted in a newspaper in Toronto to be later withdrawn and the newspaper companies later apologized for quoting this author. As such I propose this website to be anti-Tamil or atleast Anti-LTTE. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a tele chat with a woman from the institute some time back. I too have reservation of the institute and its NPOV status to quote on wikipedia. Teasereds (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't go by individual opinions and anecdotal evidence. To make an informed decision, therefore, we need links; especially if we want to take Watchdogb's points into account. However, they are a think tank, not a news source. According to our article Mackenzie Institute, they are not uncontroversial; so they are obviously not "the most reliable sources", as defined inWikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. Unless anyone raises any objection, I would therefore think it is safe to assure that they are QS. And since they are obviously anti-terrorist, the designation "Anti-LTTE" seems very appropriate to me. Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no objection in four days, so feel free to add it to our WP:SLR#Classification of sources as discussed. Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should'nt it be anti-rebel per our agreement Taprobanus (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, we have used that term for the other sources, too. When you proposed it here, nobody objected, so that's what we used; and since it worked for one source, we used it for other sources, too. But I actually never understood why you felt it is more elegant than "anti-LTTE". There's no need to change it now, but would you care to explain this to me? Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that sticks to my memory Taprobanus (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] K. S. Balachandran

Is this person notable among Sri Lankan Tamils?Quior (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to WT:WikiProject Sri Lanka#K. S. Balachandran. Sebastian (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-terrorism

There has been some inclusion of Sri Lanka in this article. Namely the current Civil war is used in this article as "War on Terrorism" and "Counter terrorism". The citation that are given to back these statements do not represent these views. The first appearance of Sri Lanka is here. This sentence is highly POV. This sentence claim that the current war in Sri Lanka is a anti terrorism activity. The Sri Lanka part was removed because of the lack of citation for that claim. A citation was added and Sri Lanka was re-added. The problem is that the citation given does not claim that this is a war on Terrorism and not a civil war. While the citation claimed that the Tamil groups terrorized civilians it does not claim that the war in Sri Lanka is a anti terror actions. The article does not even claim that these groups were terrorists. So addition of Sri Lanka in the Anti-terrorism versus Counter-Terrorism section is a direct violation of WP:SYNT. Again can admins take steps in this matter. Watchdogb (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchdogb is complaining about my edits there, and I have made several efforts to be responsive, variously by removing US sources in favor of UN, Human Rights Watch, and European legal scholars, since there was an objection to the Bush Administration phrase "War on Terror". I agree "War on Terror" is meaningless. I invite anyone to show where I have used the term "War on Terror", rather than deleting it.

I made sure to include, so as not to be taking sides about the use of terrorism by either side, the statement of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston,

The Government should not, however, interpret the widespread proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist organization as an endorsement of its own record. Indeed, it is an enduring scandal that convictions of government officials for killing Tamils are virtually non-existent, and many Tamils doubt that the rule of law will protect their lives.

A resolution of this conflict that would merit the international community's endorsement will require the Government, the LTTE, or both, to demonstrate genuine respect for human rights. The strategic importance of achieving and maintaining international legitimacy grounded in respect for human rights is not completely lost on either the Government or the LTTE. Indeed, the discourse of human rights is central to the parties' own understandings of the conflict's origins and conduct. However, by using proxies, the subversion of accountability mechanisms, and disinformation, both parties have been able to commit deniable human rights abuses. Effective monitoring would foreclose the possibility of employing a strategy of deniability, pressuring the Government and the LTTE to seek legitimacy through actual rather than simulated respect for human rights.

Terrorism is a tactic. Whether it is part of a civil war, anarchy, or separatism is irrelevant. I disagree with Watchdogb's argument that there being a civil war is remotely relevant to the counterterrorism discussion.

The article in question is not specific to Sri Lanka. Indeed, I find it interesting that Watchdogb has not raised complaints about the mention of counterterror/antiterror with respect to any of the other countries cited. I would welcome mediation or arbitration.

I removed a massive inclusion of the text of Wikipedia policies from the body of the article, which simply don't belong there verbatim -- they can be linked if relevant. Regretfully, I am hearing a great deal of wikilawyering about Sri Lanka in a non-country-specific article.

Again, third party input is welcome. Watchdogb and I are at an impasse, and I feel as if I have been reverted at least twice while offering more explanation and sourcing each time. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that my first edit was reverted with only an edit summary. Eventually, the matter did move to the counterterrorism talk page. May I make it quite clear that I have no particular POV about Sri Lanka, but have encountered what appears to be sensitivity about referring to it in a more general discussion? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping the discussion in one place, and since the article Counter-terrorism is not exactly within the scope of the SLR agreement, I would like to propose that all (or at least most) discussion regarding this issue be held at Talk:Counter-terrorism. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine with me; I simply happened to see a link that indicated Watchdogb was bringing the article over here. In my edits on counterterrorism, in no way was I focusing the discussion on Sri Lanka. My only intention in mentioning it was to balance the cliche that terrorism is synonymous with radical Islam.

If anyone from here would like to try mediating on the CT talk page, I'd certainly welcome it. In no way am I trying to refocus a general discussion of CT into a debate on Sri Lanka. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Black Falcon. My only reason to comment on here is to let the concerned parties know about the current content dispute relating to Sri Lanka. Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LTTE article

Watchdogb (talk)

I am proposing to remove some parts of the Child Soldier section. I am proposing the removal of several sentences and remove old material. For example, there are claim on the how many Child soldier LTTE had in 2001 and many claims from the past. However, it is clear that LTTE has reduced it's child recruits drastically since then. I , therefore, propose we change the current revision to the following :

The LTTE has recruited and used Child Soldiers in it's fight against the Sri Lankan Army^[1][2][3]. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001.^[4][5]. However, since 2007 LTTE has pleaded that it will release all of the recruits under the age of 18 before the end of the year. As a result, on 18 June 2007, the LTTE released 135 children under the age of 18. UNICEF claims that only 506 child recruits remain under the LTTE. UNICEF and the United States note that there has been a significant drop in LTTE recruitment of children ^[6]. Furthermore, a report released by the LTTE's Child Protection Authority (CPA) in 2008 reported that only less than 40 child soldiers, under the age of 18, still remain in their forces. ^[7] The LTTE argues that instances of child recruitment occurred mostly in the east, under the purview of former LTTE regional commander Colonel Karuna. After leaving the LTTE and forming the TMVP, it is alleged Karuna continues to forcibly kidnap and induct child soldiers.^[8] Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens.^{[citation needed]} It says that its official policy is now that it will not accept child soldiers. It also says that some underage youth lie about their age and are therefore allowed to join, but are sent back home to their parents as soon as they are discovered to be underage.^{[citation needed]}

I feel that having extended coverage of the past on this matter is not WP:NPOV. This is because the LTTE has decided to stop the inclusion of Children in it's rank and therefore we need to focus on the current situation rather than the past. However, I did include some facts from the past so that the reader can get the necessary insight into this matter. Watchdogb (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would dictate that the article present a fair overview of the general history of the LTTE's use of child soldiers, which means that the current situation should be clearly specified (in particular, the subsection titled "2007" should be incorporated into the remainder of the section). Perhaps the sentence starting with "Amid international pressure, ..." could also be kept for historical context, though modified to fit into the revised paragraph.

This proposal has been posted here without objection for almost 10 days, so I think it could be implemented at this time, subject (of course) to subsequent discussion and revision. (If nothing else, pasting it into the article may prompt others to comment.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to tag this section as being {{resolved}}, but then noticed that the wording of the current 'Child soldiers' section does not seem to match the wording above. Has the text been modified since it was inserted or has the change been completely removed/reverted? If it has been reverted, perhaps we could discuss the reasons here... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct the two versions do not match. I had added some text into the version proposed because you had asked that "Amid international pressure, ..." could also be kept for historical context, though modified to fit into the revised paragraph. Therefore I added your request into the article. Watchdogb (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So it's safe to tag this issue as resolved? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no objection here or at the LTTE talk page. Go ahead and tag it as resolved. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[edit] Militia

Watchdogb (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A user has been adding material that is not given in the citation. Please see the addition here. The used added words in the quote that is not backed by the given citation. Can an admin please take much necessary action. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While the text of quotations should not be changed, I think we can reasonably assume that this was an honest mistake and that Nitraven simply forgot to remove the quotation marks. With regard to the content of the sentence in question, the text of the source ("The concept of the home guard force was originated in 1985 with the deadly massacres done by the LTTE terrorists in villages.") does not exactly support the use of the term "several", but it does not definitively rule it out either. Given the ambiguity, I think it would be best to preserve the plural "massacres" without adding any qualifier (e.g. few, several, many). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous comment, I do not think any admin action is called for, but I've left a comment on Nitraven's talk page to notify him of this thread, partly so that he can comment here if he wishes and partly as a reminder to exercise caution with direct quotes. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I called for admin action not to block but perhaps a step-in-word by an admin. Thanks for your swift action. Watchdogb (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Black Falcon on his earlier suggestion. However I believe an admin should take in consideration several other points of disagreements in this article.

[edit] "Affected by"

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 [3]

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)

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)

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)

Fine I shall change "affected" to "under threat of attack"Nitraven (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Watchdogb (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Not an armed militia"

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 [4], [5]

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am fine with what you propose. Watchdogb (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with it.Nitraven (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] "Local villagers of Tamil Eelam"

3. "During 2004 local villagers of Tamil Eelam were formed and trained by the LTTE and are called "Auxiliary force". LTTE's head of Police claimed that the if need arise the Auxiliary force will be used to battle the Sri Lankan Military." In this line "local villagers" is inaccurate since there is no mention of it in the references provided and therefor should be removed. Since there is no recognized state such as Tamil Eelam, I should recommend to the admin that this line should be changed to "During 2004 men and women from LTTE controlled parts of Sri Lanka had been formed and trained by the LTTE to form a "Auxiliary force"". Further more I would like to know if this paragraph should be listed under Militia or rather be under Paramilitary groups of Sri Lanka due to the more military nature of this unit and the 6 month long training (Militia units normally receive a lesser amount of training). Could an admin please look in to these points, thank you. Nitraven (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation clearly claim that LTTE formed a Militia. My claim is backed by RS and it complies with the WP:Topic- Militia. "Since there is no recognized state such as Tamil Eelam". What are you talking about ? I don't need to say much except for the fact that the Tamil Eelam Auxiliary force claim comes under the hierarchy of Sri Lanka. This clearly means that this is under Sri Lanka and not a separate country (yet anyways). Your concern would be correct if I had created a new entry and called it Tamil Eelam. I did not do that! Watchdogb (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant, which I see talk haven't understood is there is currently no country, province, or part of Sri Lanka that is recognized to be Tamil Eelam, although it "is the name given by Tamils in Sri Lanka to the state which they aspire to create in the Northern and Eastern portions of Sri Lanka". The LTTE may claim the area under its control Tamil Eelam, this is not recognized by any other government. Therefore referring to Tamil Eelam is referring to something that physically does not exist. "During 2004 local villagers of Tamil Eelam were formed and trained by the LTTE...." is very inaccurate due to the above mention reseason. Nitraven (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The citation claim that the LTTE called upon citizens of Tamil Eelam to join the Auxiliary forces. My claim is backed by RS to some extend. My claim is not exactly what is said on the citations but it is a rule in wikipedia not to do so. I cannot just cut and past the exact claim on the citation. Again, if I had created a new section and called it Tamil Eelam or made a subsection under sri Lanka and named it Tamil Eelam, then your argument has merit but I have not. Tamil Eelam is the part of Sri Lanka that is traditional homeland of Tamils. The translation of Tamil Eelam is actually Tamil place. Even Sri Lanka is called Eelam by Sri Lankan patriotic Tamils! Please do not let these new definition given by the warring parties confuse you! Watchdogb (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to fix the sentence. This is as far as I am willing to compromise on this sentence as this sentence is well backed by RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, however the reference to Tamil Eelam is a reference to something that does not exist. However for the movement I dont think it is an issue since it is linked to the main article on Tamil Eelam, which provides a more detailed description about it. But still I kindly request a admin to look in to this.Nitraven (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the three sources ([6][7][8]) given for the paragraph, I was unable to find a reference to "local villagers". Although it is virtually a given that most of the recruits to the auxiliary force are villagers from LTTE-controlled areas, the sources do not seem to suggest that the force is exclusively composed of residents of rural areas. The LTTE recruitment process was aimed at "citizens of Tamil Eelam", which could conceivably include people in urban areas.

Since this article notes the presence of a "thorough screening to establish whether [applicants] were 'citizens of Thamil Eelam'" and since all three sources directly quote the phrase, perhaps we should as well? For example:

During 2004, the LTTE recruited and trained "citizens of Tamil Eelam" into a "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". The LTTE's head of police claimed that, if the need arose, the auxiliary force would be used to battle the Sri Lankan military. However, he also noted that the forces would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture.

Does placing the phrase in quotation marks address the concern regarding misrepresentation of the status of Tamil Eelam? Another possible variant, which makes no mention of the composition of the auxiliary force (except to note that it is a voluntary force) is:

In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force" which, according to the LTTE's head of police, would be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose. However, he also noted that the forces would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture.

Is either of those an acceptable revision, or does either version contain certain elements that are an improvement of the current text? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain why I added the local village which is not included on the citation. I did not want to get into copy right violation by making the sentence too similar to the citation and I, therefore, had to find a way to make the two sound different. So I added the village part. Anyways, I would agree to have the first part that you proposed. Looks neutral and nice Watchdogb (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of the comments below, what are your thoughts on the second or third versions? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think can agree with the second part, simply because 'citizens of Thamil Eelam' is misleading and inaccurate since there is no state called the Thamil Eelam, so how can there be citizens of it. It will be like saying "In 2002 the Bundeswehr which is made up of citizens of the Third Reich, were deployed in Afghanistan." There is no Third Reich in 2002, but a Federal Republic of Germany. - Nitraven (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of quoting the text was to address the concern regarding potentially-misleading wording, but I can understand how even that could possibly be confusing for readers. Also, another possible variation on the above:

In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". According to the LTTE's head of police, the force would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture, but would also be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose.

This version changes the ordering of the information so as not to unduly emphasise that the auxiliary force may be used for combat, but to equally note both possible stated (by the LTTE's head of police) functions of the force. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Im ok with the new version.Nitraven (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I still stick to the First one. The citation given, by more of an anti-LTTE, websites quoted the citizen of "Tamil Eelam". So I have citation to back my side of the story. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Nitraven's concern with the first version (please correct me if I'm mistaken) lies in the fact that two sentences cannot provide as much context as a full-length newspaper article. (Although all three sources use the quote, they are all also able to provide some context for it.) Thus, and in light of the disputed status of Tamil Eelam as a political entity (it is not a recognised state), the inclusion of the quote without additional context such as is provided here may cause confusion or misunderstanding. That said, I think we should also consider the fact that the term "citizenship" is not limited only to state-level citizenship (see, for instance, subnational citizenship).

Perhaps we can approach the issue from another angle: is the information relevant enough to the topic of militias to justify inclusion in the article? It would certainly merit mention in an article about the auxiliary force itself, but does it deserve to be noted in the article Militia, which is itself not primarily about Sri Lanka? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

does it deserve to be noted in the article Militia, which is itself not primarily about Sri Lanka?. I think it does. There is some antagonizing of LTTE in the article which is about Militia. As the entry of Sri Lanka is highly one sided towards the Sri Lankan view and a reader who read the section will be left with the impression of the Sri Lankan Government. Which is not only false but it hides an important side of the story. Those rapes, murder, disappearances and regular attack that the Sri Lankan state imposes on the Tamil civilians almost go without any notice. So in short the answer is yes the sentence is relevant. The sentence is as relevant as the addition of sentence that antagonizes LTTE. If it can be agreed to take off reference to LTTE and one sided claims such as "deadly massacre by the LTTE" and such, then I think there will be no problem to take off the Tamil Eelam entry from the article. Watchdogb (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the entire paragraph about the auxiliary force, but just the portion regarding "citizens of Tamil Eelam"... Is that specific bit of information relevant to the article Militia? Also, would your concern about unequal coverage be addressed by removing the sentence starting with "The defense force was made..." (the rationale being that interested users can read more about the history of the defence force by clicking on the wikilink to Department of Civil Defence (Sri Lanka))? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what black falcon means. I think that the "citizens of Tamil Eelam" might not be something needed in the militia article. Furthermore, my concern of unequal coverage will be addressed if the "The defense force was made..." part is removed. Watchdogb (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitraven's concern: Tamil Eelam might not be officially recognized by any state but that is no problem here. I think a better version would be:

In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force". LTTE claimed that the voluntaries have to be "Citizen of Tamil Eelam". According to the LTTE's head of police, the force would be assigned to tasks such as rehabilitation, construction, forest conservation and agriculture, but would also be used to battle the Sri Lankan military if the need arose.

This directly quotes that LTTE claim the Citizen of Tamil Eelam part. Watchdogb (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I may prefer the third version, instead of quoting the LTTE and then the head of the LTTE's so called Police. Wouldnt it be easier to just say that

In 2004, the LTTE established a voluntary "Tamil Eelam auxiliary force", with men and women from LTTE controlled areas in the North and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka.

Nitraven (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted a rewriting of the two paragraphs in question. Please offer your thoughts... Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon does it again. I agree to the version that is written by Black falcon. Watchdogb (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Off topic admiration: I've been using examples, such as this, and citing this project on Iran-Iraq War as a standard of dispute resolution to which I'd hope other conflicts aspire. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I cant agree with the version of Black falcon. Coz it leaves out the reason behind the formation of local militias in the first place. Perhaps if we rephrase it like this;

"With the escalation of the Sri Lankan Civil War, local villagers under threat of attack were formed into localized militia to protect their families and homes. These militias were formed according to the Sri Lankan Military, after "massacres done by the LTTE" and in the early 1990s they were reformed as the Sri Lankan Home Guard. In 2007 the Home Guard became the Sri Lanka Civil Defence Force. In 2008, the government called for the formation of nearly 15,000 civil defence committees at the village level for additional protection."

I think Watchdogb could be ok with this since the "The defense force was made..." part has been removed. Nitraven (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks very good. I can agree to this also. I am deducing that LTTE's defense force paragraph will be there too ?Watchdogb (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category using citations

We have achieved a new system in WP:SLR about citations. We have branded citations as RS and Anti-rebel and Pro-Rebel. Problem arises when the anti-rebel/ Pro-rebel citations are used for categorization purposes. I would oppose this as these citations quickly categorizes attacks as Terrorist attack (State Terrorist attack included) or Ethnic cleansing without proper fact checking and only do so to stir up emotions. I propose that to categorize an article we only use RS and not QS. Watchdogb (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can follow the guidance of Wikipedia:Categorization in these situations, specifically:

"An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."

Of course, there can be disagreement about whether an article "adequately" shows that it belongs in a certain category, and this may need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration given both to the nature of the source(s) and the types of claim being made by the categorisation.

Could you provide an example of an article that would be affected by your proposal? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One example would be Jeyaraj Fernandopulle. He was killed on April 06 2008 and it was alleged by the Government of Sri Lanka that his was the LTTE suicide bombing. A source that is classified as (QS) Anti-rebel at WP:SLR#List_of_sources was used to call this terrorist attack. However, these are claims by one party of the war and as such will be biased. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question! We had a discussion about categorization last year, but I'm afraid the solution there won't help us much here. We don't have a general solution for cases in which we only have QS to back up the categorization. Fortunately, though, in the case of the article Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, the problem has been solved already because we have, with BBC and (indirectly) AI, two RS that agree with the categorization. --Sebastian (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please specify where BBC and AI claim that this was a terrorist attack ? Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "terrorist" is highly controversial in itself. I would go along with how our article Terrorism currently defines it: as "violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear." The article clearly describes this as an "attack against civilians". It is always hard to other people's motives, so not even the most reliable source in the world can give us ultimate clarity about that part. However, for our purposes, I think we can safely rely on the last part of the definition: "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants". That's indeed what the article says it was. --Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)