This is the talk page of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here or to add a new topic. Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. To become a member, please apply in the Members and applications section. List of Archived Pages /archive - /archive 2 - /archive 3 - /archive 4

As of 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC), a number of articles are subject to editing restrictions, following a dispute resolution consensus. Please see the discussion, and details below.

This is a list of signatories. If you agree with the conditions of the editing restrictions, please enter your name below with the acceptance symbol.

Legend:

• : acceptance
• : no-show or inactive
• : rejection
• : de-facto rejection (user has been blocked for disruptive behavior related to this conflict)
• Users marked with a (*) star have been modified or added since the original resolution.

---

1. User:Taprobanus - formerly "RaveenS"
2. User:Lahiru k
3. User:Netmonger/Mystic/Arsath
4. User:Watchdogb
5. User:Sinhala freedom
6. User:Nitraven
7. User:Sudharsansn
8. User:Wiki Raja
9. User:Supermod*
10. User:Bodhi dhana*
11. User:SebastianHelm*

---

1. User:Iwazaki
2. User:Pharaoh of the Wizards
3. User:Gnanapiti
4. User:Sarvagnya
5. User:Lanka07
6. User:Rajkumar_Kanagasingam
7. User:Firewater101 (AKA User:Sharz (see [1])

---

1. User:Snowolfd4 *

As of now, 6 of 11 issues have been resolved - more than half! Good work, everybody! I archived the resolved issues into /archive 4. — Sebastian 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 9 of 12. — Sebastian 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can all please take a look at this and comment. Thanks Watchdogb 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SF is correct, both sides need to be presented. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been settled. Any objection to closing this? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's title is of concern. The whole article is about attacks that are attributed to LTTE. However, there is no reliable source that claims that all (or most) of these attacks are Terrorist attacks. This is in direct violation of wikipedia rules and the naming convention. Furthermore, some of these citations claim that the Sri Lankan Military/ Sri Lankan Defence ministry or the Sri Lankan Police accuse the LTTE. As only one side of the story (or suspicion) is given this article also violates WP:NPOV. I have tried , in the past, to explicitly attribute some allegations of a POV party but that has just ended up in edit wars. Last, this article also violates POV fork. To take care of these problems I agree with User:Black Falcon and think that this article should be merged. I feel that this article should be merged to Human rights in Sri Lanka with Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka also being merged into it. Please comment on this situation. Thanks Watchdogb 07:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This is an archived discussion regarding this issue. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{main}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A POV should have a reliable source ref, as should any controversial statement. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is what I mean by explicit attribution. Watchdogb 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In my opinion this list should not be merged with the list of notable attacks because, we were careful in choosing the incidents to the list that go with the definitions of the terrorism. Simply, we took only the incidents with the civilian causalities. By going through the list anyone will notice that in all the incidents with security forces causalities, there is at least a single civilian causality. In other sides this list is the most comprehensive and the well referenced list regarding the attacks of LTTE which is an invaluable source for terrorism and other researchers in the whole world. We all used all the NPOV sources with LTTE attacks(lists), available in the cyberspace and even from 2007 we started to use 3-5 neutral sources to each incident. As we all know, more than 1000 civilian causalities and series of bomb attacks attributed to the LTTE reported within this year, but we chose the most notable incidents only. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to get the point. This is wikipedia and as editors we cannot say what is Terrorist attack and what is not. We need citation to make such exceptional claim (Terrorist attack). It does not matter how many sources have been used for the claim (to verify an attack) but unless the sources say that this is a Terrorist attack we cannot claim that this is a terrorist attack. Some of the claim are directly from the Sri Lankan Defence ministry or the Sri Lankan Military. This is a simple case of POV and either they should be explicitly attributed, as done in the actual citations, or they need to be take off entirely until a RS claims that LTTE is the ones who are responsible. Watchdogb 15:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Watchdog here, we need to be clear and everything per WP:REDFLAG has to be properly cited or removed. Thanks Taprobanus 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is well-sourced, the problem is that there is no single, accepted definition of terrorism (the article Definitions of terrorism lists many). Some definitions focus on the method of attack, some on the identity of the attacker, some on the identify of the target, some on the intent of the attacker, and some on a combination of these and other factors. Simply limiting the list to incidents that caused civilian casualties is not enough since: (1) an incident may cause civilian casualties and not be generally considered a terrorist attack (e.g. "collateral damage"), and (2) an incident that is generally considered a terrorist attack may not cause any civilian casualties (e.g. attacks against infrastructure).

The sources provided in the article mostly verify that the incident happened, and attribute the incident to the LTTE, but there are still two problems. First, not all sources explicitly apply the label "terrorist" to these attacks. Second, even if all sources did do this, the list would still be a "List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist" rather than an actual "List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE".

Finally, while the list may be among the most comprehensive and well-referenced of its kind, merging it will not change that, as virtually all content will be preserved. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Note: Previous discussion.

The above-named image - Image:LTTE child soldier.jpg - is labelled on its description page as being a picture of an LTTE child soldier, and is used in the article on Military use of children in Sri Lanka to illustrate the use of child soldiers by the LTTE. Whilst the LTTE has indeed used child soldiers - and very possibly still does - according to this piece in the Sri Lankan newspaper "The Nation on Sunday", the girl in this particular picture is actually not a child soldier, but the daughter of the person being buried, dressed up in military fatigues for the funeral. As such, it seems to me that its present use may be somewhat misleading.

I'm bringing this here because the article says it's subject to editing restrictions, and I'm not sure where else to take it - apologies if it's in the wrong place. -- Arvind (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is true regardless if the Nation on Sunday is right. As long as we have no reliable source saying that this is proof for child soldiers being used, we can't WP:SYNTHesise such a statement from this one picture. Moreover, the picture is probably not fair use, but I'm not a copyright specialist. — Sebastian 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copyright, the image may fail non-free content criteria #1, which states:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

In theory, a free photo of an LTTE child soldier, and one in which the subject is more prominent displayed in the photo, could be produced. Of course, there is also the fact that an attempt to take an image of an LTTE child soldier could endanger the life of the photographer, which strengthens the fair use claim (if the image is to be kept, that should probably be added, as the current wording of the fair use rationale seems insufficient).

In addition to copyright and original research concerns (I won't comment on the latter as I can't access the source that claims that the image depicts a child soldier), we should also consider conformance to the BLP policy. The image depicts a living person, and the label "child soldier" should be applied only if it can be reliably sourced.

At the moment, given the information presented so far, I am leaning toward deletion of the image, possibly with the option to re-upload (under a different name, per WP:BLP) for use in the article S. P. Thamilselvan, to illustrate Thamilselvan's funeral. (Caveat: Unless more content is added to the section in that article currently titled "Death", use of the image in that article could be considered to serve a decorative purpose only, in violation of WP:NFCC #8). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know whether this girl is a child soldier or just dressed as a soldier? Is there proof either way? Does it say this in the original newspaper article? Until we know, it should be removed from the wiki article and it could very well indeed fail FU rationale. The article on the person in the coffin is a better place, with no mention of the girl being a soldier. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rlevse, the picture will be removed from the article. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are issues that appear to be resolved. Because I don't want to archive them right away while people might still object to the resolution, I am moving them here first. I think it's safe to archive them after one day. — Sebastian 06:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.[2] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it s a biased source just like Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Taprobanus 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Taprobanus. Satp is a biased source and thus needs to be explicitly attributed. Watchdogb (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just want to confirm whether this section violates WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN and WP:NOT#NEWS. As per 8th and 9th points I hereby requesting admin's attention on this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All are referenced to impeccable sources such as the Washington post and the BBC. Could it be a case of WP:DONTLIKE ? Sinhala freedom 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have what ever we want here. It doesn't matter whether it was well cited with RS. WP:NOT#BLOG, so anyone can have anything they want in their own blog cited with the RS but not in here. Yeah DONTLIKE it coz I have never seen such cruft in Wikipedia before. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it is blog material ? Please do not try to censor wikipedia. These are relevant information about the Sri Lankan Army. You didn't like the HR violations there and now you don't like the Controversy section there. You do not own this article. Bring wikipedia rules that actually apply to this case. Do not bring things that has absolutely no connection to the addition. Watchdogb 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your just too funny. Point out the exact sentence in the rule set that says that addition of well cited (and non synthesized) information violates rules. Watchdogb 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common I am waiting. It should not take too long to point out what is wrong because you must already know it since you quote it so flawlessly. Watchdogb 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather create another article that points out these problems ? HR violations and such ? Wouldn't that be POVfork ? This is exactly why these are the addition to this article and not a creation of new article.Watchdogb 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section sure reads like a blog and far from NPOV. It picks some isolated incidents and rather 'matter of factly' passes them as routine fact. It also passes accusations as fact. And what is with comparing soldier's pay with politicians?! That is as silly as it can get. What next? Comparing soldiers' pay packets with cricketers and film stars? All the content of the section is entirely UNDUE and should go. If these isolated incidents are really so notable, create articles about them and then let us see how to import a summary of those into this article. Sarvagnya 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are main points of controversy for the Sri Lanka army. Notability is covered by well sourced references, namely washingtonpost and bbc. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "undue weight" with notability the same as Lahiru_k. Undue weight implies, when there is competing point of views or an event, you don't give undue prominence to that point. If its "silly" and isolated as you impatiently claim, why would WP:RS sources such as BBC and Washington Post 'waste' their time covering it ? Sinhala freedom 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that this problem could be fixed through collective editing. Or would you rather want to engage in edit war and start removing stuff. Violating the peace process ? What will it be ? I want the former but seem like you want the Latter. Watchdogb 19:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section as it stands now will go. This is a summary article and you cant simply pull any random stuff from anywhere and dump it in the article. You are free to work on it in your sandbox and come up with something that is reasonably non-UNDUE and non-POV and we can take it from there. Like I suggested you can start creating stubs/articles for these incidents so that we can see them for what they really are. Many of these incidents need more nuanced treatment and you cant simply dump a two line POV summary in this article. Sarvagnya 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to justify why it needs a "nuanced treatment". Just saying so doesn't justify it. Sinhala freedom 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead back it up with Wikipedia rules and not your rules. If there is rules please can you specifically point to wikipedia rules, then we can all work with that specific rule in our mind. This was no problem will arise and your concerns will be taken care of. So go ahead and show wikipedia rules and quote specific rules and not just name rules that has nothing to do with this. Watchdogb 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:POV. The section fails all of them and maybe more. The first part of the section is entirely based on the words of an acknowledged international terrorist. A well known international terrorist as he is, nay, was, his words are certainly newsworthy. Why, everytime Osama sneezes it is news. But everything newsworthy is not encyclopedia-worthy and words of a two-bit terrorist frothing at his opponents isnt what an encyclopedia is about. We have Wikinews for trash like this. Take it there. Sarvagnya 17:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is also this paragraph regarding abandonment of bodies and complaints by relatives, [3]. Thanks for helping to sort it out. I'll try to find SL Army responses. Sinhala freedom 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Since Sinhala freedom has been kind enough to provide me a link to the more controversial paragraph which wasn’t in the version I had read,[4] I would like to deconstruct it as a way to offer guidance on formulating NPOV presentations of controversial material. While the accusation is relevant from an encyclopedic perspective (primarily because of the related issue of complaints by dead or missing servicemen’s bodies and not the simple fact of unrecovered bodies), as written it is not NPOV. If one reads the source article, several things can be noted.

First, it is not made clear that a Tamil political leader made the accusation; it is in Mr. Thamilselvan’s best interest to portray the Sri Lankan army and government in the worst possible light, so this needs to be taken into account. He speaks of requesting the Red Cross to aid in turning over nearly 1000 bodies, but does not say what conditions were laid on the other side to access the bodies or their condition. Mr. Thamilselvan himself noted that hundreds were in a minefield and might have required that the army remove the mines – or refused to permit them to do so. There are always negotiations over such arrangements and the article does not make us privy to the terms and conditions. Moreover, rotting bodies can be a serious health problem and dealing with large numbers can be difficult without adequate mortuary services at hand. In either case, statements by a Red Cross official are notably lacking and would be more neutral (and thus more preferred) than those of either side.

A second problem is a factual error: the paragraph says that the Tigers buried the “abandoned” dead, but the article actually says that the army did (according to Mr. Thamilselvan himself).

A third problem with the paragraph is that it does not include the Sri Lankan Army’s response – despite the fact that the source article does. Just as the BBC reporter gives assertions from both sides, so should a Wikipedia article. Without doing so, we cannot claim to have a balanced representation of a controversial circumstance. With that in mind – and by way of example – please let me offer below one possible presentation of the material provided in a more NPOV vein:

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,[5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please make sure that you read the above discussion regarding the Sri Lanka Army#Controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families section before you make your vote here. Please sign below with # ~~~~ and make sure to keep a small note to backup your vote.

Everybody is invited to contribute constructively to the discussion. However, to avoid spamming and canvassing, we will only count votes from users who signed the final resolution.

• Note: I just changed the above wording to make it more straightforward and logical. This includes removing the special clause for admins. It is everybody's prerogative to sign the resolution. I appreciate that the admins were instrumental in creating the resolution, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't want to sign it, too. — Sebastian 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should remain in the article

1. --Taprobanus 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Watchdogb 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Sinhala freedom (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should not remain in the article

1. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bodhi dhana 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC) See my statement further down.[reply]
3. This is clearly a piece of work for the propaganda of the LTTE. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of writing. I agree with Lahiru_k that this should be removed from the article. Supermod 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements

• 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 a few incidents) of a 30 year old conflict which cleared the path for more than 80,000 people to rest in peace. Right now I have the Sri Lanka Army's roll of honor list which contains 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 to mention such issues in an encyclopedia article and such abandoning the dead bodies incidents have been 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. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Compromise ideas moved to next subsection)

Note: The following was intended as a vote; however, the voter has chosen to not sign the list of participants. While everybody is welcome to participate in the discussion, it would not be fair to count this as a vote. I am therefore moving this down here to the Statements section. Iwazaki, you are still invited to join as a participant! — Sebastian 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 10:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Per Lahiru_K,Bodhi dhana,supermod. The whole thing looks nothing but pure LTTE propaganda. Regardless of this straw poll, this should be promptly removed.[reply]
  • "LTTE Propaganda" is not true. However, it is true and notable (Per Askari) and should be mentioned. Watchdogb 11:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just leave links

I think Askari Mark has hit the nail on the head with: "most times the fact that an army has not been able to recover all of its casualties is not notable in of itself." Perhaps all that is needed is a link to the Washington Post or BBC article. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and articles are not supposed to be mongraphs on a topic. So, remove this section or just leave a couple of links to the RS. Bodhi dhana 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sri Lankan Civil War

I don’t think the issue of notability in this particular case revolves around the issue of “abandonment” so much as it does the novelty of families of missing soldiers making a religious pilgrimage into enemy-held territory to specifically ask for the other side’s assistance in resolving the status of their missing sons. This would be the reason the BBC and other Western press made a rare presentation of it. That said, though, in my personal opinion, to the degree that the subject matter is notable, it would be more appropriately placed in an article on the civil war and not in an article on the Sri Lankan Army itself. That may suggest a constructive, non-deletionist compromise. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference/paraphrase from source verbatim

Since the source is notable and no one has argued that. Why not paraphrase from the sources directly. While its an encyclopedia, we can't be selectively choosing to reduce coverage of issues to links, when the pro-Rajapakse regime says so. Sinhala freedom (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is the discussion of the following compromise idea:

Move to Sri Lankan Civil War

I don’t think the issue of notability in this particular case revolves around the issue of “abandonment” so much as it does the novelty of families of missing soldiers making a religious pilgrimage into enemy-held territory to specifically ask for the other side’s assistance in resolving the status of their missing sons. This would be the reason the BBC and other Western press made a rare presentation of it. That said, though, in my personal opinion, to the degree that the subject matter is notable, it would be more appropriately placed in an article on the civil war and not in an article on the Sri Lankan Army itself. That may suggest a constructive, non-deletionist compromise. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In which section of Sri Lankan Civil War would you propose to put this? The article currently is arranged chronologically, and this section covers several events. Would it make sense to move it to Human rights in Sri Lanka instead? — Sebastian 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really looked through the wealth of material on this conflict to look for a proper home for it, so I've just done some further perusal. It really doesn’t fit in the Human rights in Sri Lanka article at all. As for the Sri Lankan Civil War, timewise it would seem to fit in the Eelam War III section, possibly under the Early peace efforts subsection. The conflicts of 2001 are barely addressed in passing and it may be that only passing mention should be made of this issue here, if at all. Where it probably belongs is in the separate article Eelam War III – which is just a stub. If nothing else, it could be added there in toto awaiting fuller development of that article. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea to move it to Eelam War III. I could do this right now, seeing how the remove faction has been really patient with the article being in the WP:WRONG version for a week. Should we link to that from the SLA article? We could just leave one sentence in the Sri_Lanka_Army#Personnel section like this "During the Eelam War III there has been some controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families." Does that sound like a fair compromise? — Sebastian 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] It does, and I think it goes along with Bodhi dhana's suggestion as well. I’ve taken a closer look at the full section and its sources (and found the third paragraph has mistakes not supported in its sources), and here’s what I would like to suggest:

First, replace the entire current 3-paragraph subsection 3.2 with the following:

Complaints over survivors’ benefits

The Organisation for Disabled Soldiers has complained that compensation paid for war victims is inadequate. In August 2007, a spokesman for the organisation pointed out that the compensation paid to the families of soldiers killed during the war has remained flat for 23 years at Rs. 150,000, which has dwindled in value to the equivalent of US$1500. This amount is the same for all ranks, including generals. In contrast, however, the families of politicians are much more highly compensated; the family of the late Minister Mr. M. H. M. Ashroff was awarded Rs. 5 million (US$50,000) following his death in a helicopter crash. Furthermore, the families of soldiers killed before completing 12 years of service are unable to claim any pension.[6] There have also been criticisms of the manner in which the Army recovers and disposes of the remains of its dead soldiers.[7]

Second, move the 1st and (a rewritten) 3rd para. to Eelam War III as a new Section 3:

Controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families

In August 2001, S. P. 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.[8] 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 honors on the spot. 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 demoralizing the parents of the missing soldiers.

However, this was not the first time issues had arisen over reclamation of soldiers’ remains and the Army’s responsiveness to the requests of families of missing soldiers for information regarding their fate. In April 2003, a group of parents of some of the 619 soldiers reported missing from a battle fought 27 September 1998 obtained permission from the LTTE to travel to the battle site. The families’ previous inquiries at the Defense Ministry, the Sri Lankan Army, and the International Committee of the Red Cross for information on their sons’ fates had been fruitless. At the battlefield they learned that some 500 bodies had been piled together, doused with kerosene, and burnt on the spot by the Sri Lankan Army. Upon their return, a lawsuit was filed on the families’ behalf requesting a mass funeral and DNA testing so Buddhist, Muslim and Christian families could collect their sons’ remains and give them proper burials. The Ministry of Defence organized funeral in 2006, but declined to perform the requested DNA testing.[9]

I don’t believe this should remain as a section in the long run, but the article is so poorly developed, there’s no clear place to subordinate it to. Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is clearly an improvement on several counts. I also have a few changes.

• Most importantly, you're right that the compensation for war victims can be separated from the burial issues. Generally, payment belongs here, since it is an important issue for any organization, and I think it is defendable for the text on compensation for war victims to take about one tenth of the description of equipment. I wouldn't object to it being shortened a bit more, though. (E.g., I'm not sure if the addition of "The Organisation for Disabled Soldiers" is really an improvement. The organisation itself doesn't have an article, and the important information is that this issue exists, not that it is a veterans' organization that brought it up.
• The wording of the last sentence sounds like disposal of garbage. Why not avoid weasel language and quote the source verbatim?: "There have also been several hundred cases in which the military was not recovering soldiers' bodies." I think to keep one sentence is a fair compromise.)
• I would like to have some link to Eelam War III or to the section. I'm assuming it was just an oversight; but if there is a reason why you left this out, feel free to remove it.
• The third paragraph is a clear improvement - well done!
• You are raising a good question if that should remain a separate section. However, I think we can postpone that till when the Eelam War III gets reworked.

In conclusion, I will implement the changes for now. We can discuss the details tomorrow, and if there is no objection I would mark the issue as resolved. — Sebastian 03:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are fine with me.

• I added the Organisation for Disabled Soldiers because that is the organization quoted in the source as making the complaint. I do not know how notable that organization is nor how many other veteran issues organizations are active in Sri Lanka. Given that I can’t say “several veteran organisations have complained”, I’ve left it at the one I know that did so – and it makes clear that this is an indigenous complaint rather than, say, LTTE propaganda. I have to leave that to editors more knowledgeable about Sri Lankan political culture than I.
• Having lived my entire life around military personnel, I have tended to pick up their euphemisms. In such usage, “disposal” is more in line with “a process of proper and responsible treatment” and encompasses location, recovery, and either the burial or cremation (specific forms of “disposition”) of their remains in situ or else (if practical) returned to their families for same. It’s not a term I’d quibble over in any case – and I would never believe anything I submitted to be “unimprovable”.
• It had been my original intent to have such a link; I lost track of it due to other distractions.
• Thanks – I hope both sides will find it an agreeable rendering.
• Well, actually it’s a default case since there’s so little in the article in the first place. As is, I don’t believe Eelam War III could survive an AfD.

FYI, I will be on a Wikibreak for about a week beginning Tuesday, since Thursday is our Thanksgiving which is always full of family gatherings. (In fact, this may well be my last post beforehand, considering what all needs to be done in the time remaining.) It’s a time for us to remember to be thankful for whatever we have been blessed with and to be mindful that God and his provenance are greater than we are or the things that threaten us. Happy Thanksgiving Day! Askari Mark (Talk) 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful and nice words. You have done good work here and you deserve a rest. I will miss your military expertise, but I can hold the position till you're back. — Sebastian 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, the images on the Kattankudy massacre article [10] 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) Taprobanus 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [11]

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." [12]

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)[reply]