Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:01, 31 December 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Sri Lanka is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 5, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 31, 2012 Peer review Reviewed April 5, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:VA

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Sri Lanka Top‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 4, 2005, February 4, 2006, February 4, 2007, February 4, 2008, February 4, 2009, February 4, 2010, May 22, 2010, February 4, 2012, and May 22, 2012.

Archives

Conversation # 1–30 Conversation # 31–60 Conversation # 61–90 Conversation # 91–120 Conversation # 121–150 Conversation # 151–180 Conversation # 181–210 Conversation # 211–

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

meaningless sentence?

The phrase "got down coral for a net" needs clarification.

- Is there such a thing as "down coral" or is there a typo of some kind in the sentence? Neither a Google search nor a Misplaced Pages search turned up any references to "down coral."

- How can coral, a hard object become a net which is a soft object used for catching butterflies or fish? Alternatively, the word "net" is being used in an unusual sense which requires some explanation.

- Finally, the sentence containing the above phrase is unnecessarily mysterious: Did the Sri Lankan representatives trade something to Rome in exchange for the coral, or did Rome give Sri Lanka coral as a gift? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.73.251 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it sounds meaningless. I guess the term "got down" is misleading. The source author might have wanted to imply "brought". Even the usage of the word "embassy" should be something like "envoy" to give a proper meaning. About the use of "net", this might be a translation issue from old text. I have no idea about the Sinhala or Pali word used in the original text, but the net should be replaced by something like "Crate". Sajeewashaluka (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of a photo

Hi Gareth,

I have removed the photo ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg from the Sri Lanka page since it is not relevant to the subject. Also uploader of the photo is an anti Sri Lankan and his photo url is http://www.sangam.org/2009/08/images/ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka.jpg and if you surf www.sangam.org you can see the massage that he give "boycotte Sri lanka". So you can easily understand that he wants to give bad image to the world regarding Sri Lanka. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagara.seram (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have undone my revert so I trust that suits you ... please let me know here. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Done ... and again this morning. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you have undone your revert of this edit by User:Sagara.seram following this request by that user. User:Sagara.seram has given a reason for the removal of the photo but he did not give any reason for the removal of the following referenced text:

"40,000 Tamil civilians may have been killed in the final phases of the Sri Lankan civil war, according to an Expert Panel convened by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon."

As you may be aware there were long protracted discussions about the inclusion specific allegations related to the civil war. The text removed by User:Sagara.seram had been on the article for some time without causing disruption. Could you undo your self-revert so that this referenced text is re-inserted? I have no objections to the removal of the File:ColomboburningBlackJuly1983anti-TamilpogromSriLanka 1 .jpg photo. Thanks.--obi2canibe 11:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Both actions completed. Please let me know here that you are content. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 12:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am content. Thank you for your prompt response.--obi2canibe 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have objection for the removal of the image and reinserted. Why it should be removed should be explained in detail on the talk page of Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The image is not only used in the www.sangam.org but also in The Sunday Leader, a registered Sri Lankan newspaper here.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@ HudsonBreeze, Thank you for the link. Any comments everybody else? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Gareth Griffith-Jones, I have altered the caption since all Sinhalese are not responsible for the riot. HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. That is a good edit. Thank you. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to Channel 4 and unverified claims of the disappeared, Amnesty International statements -- should it be included in the Introduction?

Issues related to number of people disappeared and criticisms of the country's human rights record are being inserted into the introduction. These issues are controversial and unresolved and I contend not relevant to a general discussion of the country. They also are covered in the Human Rights section and the Civil War article. BlueLotusLK (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC) User:Blackknight12 and User:Ian.thomson seem to think so? What do others have to say about this? BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at other countries, human rights do not seem to be mentioned in the introduction. Examples: Serbia, Iraq, United States, China, Russia, etc. BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's also interesting that the above mentioned users really want to preserve these sentences that feature horribly garbled English. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am boldly removing the RfC request. BlueLotusLK, you haven't even tried to discuss the matter with involved users first, which is a prerequisite to opening an RfC. Second, you're edit warring. When multiple editors revert you, it's up to you to come to the article talk page and discuss the matter--not start an RfC while simultaneously trying to force your version into the article. If after discussing the matter with other users, you can't come to a consensus, then you can start an RfC. Alternatively, you can keep edit warring, in which case I will block you. Note that I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever on whether or not that information should stay or be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Of the articles on other countries, only Iraq has a subsection on human rights, and only Iraq and China link to whole articles dedicated to the topic. Mentioning that the rest of the world is concerned about human rights in Iraq and China would be appropriate too, but that's an issue for those pages. "Human rights" don't even appear in the articles Serbia and the United States (save for the title of one reference), so there's nothing there to summarize in the article. The articles on human rights in the United States and Serbia only discuss past issues, while the human rights issues in this article discuss rather current issues.

As for the language of the portion BlueLotusLK has been removing, that's a separate issue. Should the language be fixed? Sure. Is that grounds for removal? No. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The submissions I've been removing were recently added by anons and are NOT even discussed in the rest of the article. The other articles I mentioned are better edited and display the standard of articles on Misplaced Pages. Who are you to challenge this by asserting that articles should focus on human rights issues and this is the proper manner to include these details. United States has ongoing human rights issues including drone strikes and occupation of many countries which if you are so interested in displaying human rights issue I will help you add to the main United States article introduction.

Further the claim about disappeared people is patently false and not supported by the source linked to. I'm going to remove this again BECAUSE the SOURCE contradicts the claim. The other bits I will leave up for debate. BlueLotusLK (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • And let's consider the other claims made and the sources that are used for it.

1. "controversial"

Links to Channel 4 coverage of Sri Lanka. No specific source is being cited here -- a single network's negative coverage is not sufficient to establish there is controversy abou the military victory. A major theme of these crusaders is that war was "under reported" and they are a lone voice in the dark trying to draw attention to these "great crimes". If there was controversy why would they need to do this? Rather there's been general support including a UN document praising the military victory which tend to suggest that there is no controversy outside of a minority of human rights lobbyists.

2."Firmer government in the 21st century has drawn criticism from the United Nations,"

The sources cites are not criticizing the government directly; rather they are criticizing the UN for inaction. Further they are independent panels without any power not the United Nations itself. So the claim they are intending to support is not being supported.

3. "Reporters Without Borders for journalist disappearances"

Reporters Without Borders discusses press intimidation. No where does it claim that journalist disappearances is an ongoing issue nor even mention in the latest report. http://en.rsf.org/sri-lanka-sri-lanka-12-03-2012,42068.html

4. "and Amnesty International for detention without trial."

Source notes most released and highlights the fact that they are combatants. Neither the rest of the article nor the Human Rights article mentions detentions witout trial so it is not summarizing anything in the article.

5. There has, however, been declining press freedom

Source discusses the rage of the defense minister who is said to threaten reporters. This does not mean there is no press freedom and the source doesn't state that there is a decline in press freedom, merely highlights incidents of press coercion.

6. challenges to independence of the judiciary

This is what the source for this claim says. "..At the Universal Periodic Review later on Thursday, many countries - including Sri Lanka's close friends, Cuba, Iran and Pakistan - praised the country's post-war rights record..." An incidence about the judiciary is mentioned but no judgement is made. Amnesty or HRW may have more bolder statements on this case but this source doesn't support the claim.

BlueLotusLK (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am dismayed that all the admins who are watching this article have allowed you to get away with this. This article had been the subject of a painful dispute for many months but for the last few months it has been stable. Now you have come out of retirement solely to cause disruption.

Enforced disappearances

• UN - "Sri Lanka had the second-largest number of cases of enforced disappearances in the world, with over 5,000 un-clarified cases."
• UN - "Since its establishment, the Working Group has transmitted 12,460 cases to the Government; of those, 40 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the source, 6,535 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the Government, 214 cases were found to be duplications and were therefore deleted, and 5,671 remain outstanding."
• BBC - "The UN Working Group on Disappearances has identified Sri Lanka as having the second largest most number of disappearance cases in the world".
• BBC - "The UN says there are more than 5,000 cases of unsolved enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka. The rate has dropped since the end of the war but it has since risen again".

UN criticism

• 1st UN Panel -
  • "The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Government says it pursued a “humanitarian rescue operation” with a policy of “zero civilian casualties.” In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace."
  • "The Government sought to intimidate and silence the media and other critics of the war through a variety of threats and actions, including the use of white vans to abduct and to make people disappear."
  • "The Government shelled on a large scale in three consecutive No Fire Zones, where it had encouraged the civilian population to concentrate, even after indicating that it would cease the use of heavy weapons."
  • "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling."
  • "The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines."
  • "The Government also systematically deprived people in the conflict zone of humanitarian aid, in the form of food and medical supplies, particularly surgical supplies, adding to their suffering."
  • "The Government subjected victims and survivors of the conflict to further deprivation and suffering after they left the conflict zone."

If this isn't criticism of the Sri Lankan government, I'd like to know what is.

Controversial end to civil war

• 1st UN Panel - "The war in Sri Lanka ended tragically, amidst controversy".
• BBC - "the final phase of that war has been a source of considerable controversy, with both sides accused of war crimes".
• Economist - "Two years after it ended, Sri Lanka's civil war still generates controversy".
• Courier-Mail - "The final battles of January-May 2009 remain shrouded in controversy".
• Christian Science Monitor - "One year after Sri Lanka’s decisive victory over Tamil insurgents, controversy still swirls over the bloody end to the 26-year civil war".
• Guardian - "...the bloody and controversial end to the 26-year civil conflict...".
• SMH - "Australia is under pressure because of a war crimes controversy...".
• The Age - "war crimes controversy dating from Sri Lanka's grisly civil war with Tamil separatists".

But there is no need for me or anyone prove that the end of the civil war was controversial. Channel 4 is a WP:RS and you had no right to remove the content or the reference using the lame excuse "a single network's negative coverage is not sufficient to establish there is controversy about the military victory".

Journalist disappearances

• RSF - "These frequent aggressions, which can range from murder to forced disappearance, have made the country’s journalists feel threatened...".
• Committee to Protect Journalists - "The government's effort to silence critical media has been brutally effective as politically motivated deaths, attacks, and disappearances go uninvestigated and unprosecuted".
• HRW - "The government has failed to bring to justice those responsible for any of the killings or enforced disappearances of journalists".
• Island - "Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith...called for an impartial investigation into the killing and disappearance of several journalists in the past."
• Sunday Leader - "Issues such as disappearances, particularly the enforced disappearance of journalists are a matter of concern".

Press freedom

• Freedom House - "PRESS: Not Free".
• Freedom House - FH Press Freedom Index: Sri Lank's score was 71 in 2011 and 72 in 2012 - a decline.
• Reporters Without Borders - "Sri Lanka’s is the one that respects press freedom least". Ranked 163 out of 179 in worldwide index of press freedom.
• Reporters Without Borders - RSF Press Freedom Index: Sri Lank's score was 62.50 (158th) in 2010 and 87.50 (163rd) in 2010/11 - a decline.

Your actions are nothing more than a cheap attempt at censoring widely reported facts. Pathetic.--obi2canibe 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

HAHA, you showed up. I'm sure you were pleased that the article was "stable" after a few anons decided to insert the claims so dear to your heart into the introduction (no matter they are not covered in the rest of the article after discussion rejected its inclusion). The failure of the civil war section must have stung but now because of complacency of editors and failing to revert POV pushing you can still insert it into the introduction. I never doubted the accuracy that these claims are being made. The fact that these claims are sporadically reported doesn't require their insertion into the introduction of the Sri Lanka article. Maybe I should add claims about the LTTE to the Tamil and Tamil diaspora article. The point was the introduction is not the place for you to wage your battle to air all your grievances against Sri Lanka. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can go all out and air whatever you want in your cherished Alleged War Crimes Article, or Human Rights Article. You were motivated to make another press freedom article. Good job! I'm not even going to bother coming near those. I see AWC article is getting plum and in shape. Your motives are further clear now you've decided it's time for you to edit Genocides in History article. How long before you decide to insert that paragraph into the Sri Lanka article as well?

Anyway, your enforced disappearances claim as 2nd highest I've disproved below. Further the newest RSF section says nothing about journalist disappearances. They made one reference to it in the past doesn't warrant the claim made. I've not taken out the other claims. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted. Others should not suspect you represent Bell Pottinger Group.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks galore from the two activists. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And what have the admins allowed me to get away with? I have the freedom to complain about material I see as improperly inserted into the Sri Lanka article introduction. For most Sri Lankans, our country doesn't revolve around tamils and their issues. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The closest parallel regarding an ethnic conflict would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/Israel Now how does it deal with the accusations by the UN, Amnesty and HRW? There is no press freedom in the Israel occupied territories, there is GREATER CONTROVERSY and ethnic cleansing among other things and continued bombings. I don't see any mention in the introduction. The Israel article is a more developed article representing the format of Misplaced Pages after many discussions. I don't see how this should not be the format followed here. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A UN panel that is an independent panel hired by the UN does not constitute the UN. What Reporters without Borders and Amnesty International have said about Sri Lanka is of peripheral interest at best to the article.

And further this article is about Sri Lanka not its government or its civil war. It's about what Sri Lanka as a country is not whether its civil war is controversial in some quarters. That would be of interest only if this controversy actually affected Sri Lanka the country through some form of international prosecution which is not the case. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So I would say the press freedom and judicial challenge part is valid and could be included but not the rest. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your examples. Then better remove all the history sections and human related stuff on Sri Lanka article. First remove the Foreign Relations section where Mahinda Rajapakse is decorating. And leave only the Sri Lankan Fauna and Flora and Geography.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Compromise -- stuff moved to human rights section. That's fine with me. I'm out.

Disappearances -- Sri Lanka doesn't have the first or the second or even the third

• Russia: 100,000s under Stalin, 5,000 forced disappearances in Chechnya since 1999
• Guatemala - 200,000 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/enforced-disappearances-americas-are-crime-present-2012-08-28
• Colombia - 61,604 http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/20141-forced-dissapearances-a-dramatically-deteriorating-situation-ngo-.html
• Argentina - 30,000
• Mexico - 10,000+ http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2012/09/forced-disappearances-increase-in.html
• Iraq - 10,000+

BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Could be comparable if they were all from the exact same source ... some of the above aren't even sourced (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Russia, Argentina, Iraq -- there's many sources out there and their history is widely known. I didn't think there was a necessity to provide sources for those. Mexico is the only one with uncertain figures. Every other state has high figures far above Sri Lanka from reputable sources. I'm not aware of one single source that keeps track of enforced disappearances across the board. If you do please feel free to link to it. BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the properly sourced content based on Enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka. It is because other countries don't have the detail doesn't mean it should be exempted on the Sri Lanka article. What we can do is better add on those countries what is missing on enforced disappearances.HudsonBreeze (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a source makes a claim doesn't trump the fact that it's inaccurate based on facts as shown above. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of the article has been gravely mis-edited and apart from grammatical errors contain sections that are too specific to be mentioned in the lead. Such has been corrected. Cossde (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected this article to stop the edit warring. What should have happened a few days ago was that after Intotoronto added the info (fine, great, WP:BOLD, exactly what we want), and then Cossde reverted (also fine--he provided a clear reason for removal) then Intotoronto should have come to this article talk page and discussed the matter. Arguably, I could have blocked Intotoronto for edit warring, but this is faster and stops the problem. Now, everybody figure out whether or not there is consensus for the new info. If you decide, then make an edit protected request. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I also reverted. As an Admin, you can't get involved on the disputed content(whether it is right or wrong) and then use your admin tools to protect the page. You can protect the page as it is. I will request other editors whether you are right or wrong.Sudar123 (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what policy says. Admins are allowed to either protect the current version of the article, or to revert to the version that existed before the edit warring started. The exact quote from WP:PROTECTION is, "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Please note that I am not involved in the content dispute. I don't care whether or not the info is in the article. I just want you to follow normal policy and discuss the matter since it was reverted with a reason. I'm not even saying that reason is a "good" reason, merely that it is a legitimate reason, and thus discussion must be had. While WP:BRD is not policy, it borders on being mandatory on a page like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What clear point exists to you? That is a well sourced content. If the Sri Lankan nationalists are not happy with the content and you are reverting to their version, then you deemed to be supporting the nationalists' support on their legitimizing War of Terror. Please explain what is that clear point exists for your revert of the well sourced content and then protecting the page?Sudar123 (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The "clear point" is measuring whether or not an admin can tell where the edit war started. In some cases, people are adding and subtracting things all over the article, and there's no real obvious point to declare "here, the page was stable, and from the next edit things started going crazy". That is not the case here. There was a clear, obvious point that triggered the edit war: the addition of new content. That content was then reverted. The content should not have been reinserted until it was discussed on the talk page. This is standard Misplaced Pages editing policy, that applies doubly and triply in the case of contentious information (and it's obvious that any claim of atrocities clearly is a contentious claim, no matter how well sourced it is). Simply because content is sourced does not necessarily mean it belongs on this page, which is exactly what Cossde's edit summaries said. WP:V does not guarantee inclusion, it's simply the minimum standard for inclusion. And please don't think I'm taking Cossde's side; all I'm saying is that you need to discuss the matter now. Please, do so. Please justify inclusion, and those opposed, justify removal. If you can't agree amongst yourselves, use dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

An administrator making & making changes in a wiki page and then using his admin privileges to lock the page is not moderation but abusing admin privileges (talk). (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

As Qwyrxian pointed out, reverting to the pre-dispute version is well within an admins remit. It is not the same as getting involved in the dispute, and it prevents contentious edits without consensus from being locked into articles. Rather than complain about the system and about admin abuse, why not spend your energy trying to reach consensus on the addition? The first will get you nowhere, the second might go so far as to be productive. CMD (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Reverting to pre-dispute version is, almost getting involved on the disputed content. Before the pre-dispute the particular source was not available and when it is available and the source can meet the WP:RS, there is no violation adding that content to the article. If certain section don't want to hear bitter realities, that is there problem, but the truth should prevail. What an admin should do is, he should encourage the editors involved to come out with the NPOV content rather than reverting the content completely and then protecting the page and then encouraging for a discussion; then he is abusing his tools. If there is no clear consensus here what Qwyrxian did is right or not, I will take this issue for RfC.Sudar123 (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you think I abused my administrative tools, please either privately ask some admins you trust, or take the matter to WP:ANI and let the community discuss it. Meanwhile, could you all please do what you have to do no matter what: discuss the additions and reach consensus on the inclusion? Even if you're right, and I was completely wrong and should be de-sysoped and the page put in the version it was when I protected it, you still have to discuss the edits. You (I don't mean Sudar123 specifically, I mean all of you) still need to decide if the content should be in or out. Even if I had the article protected in the version you prefer, you'd still be compelled to discuss it. Please. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sudar asked me to comment as an uninvolved admin. I see no problem with Qwyrxian's action. Where an admin protects a page to prevent an edit war, it is within his discretion per WP:PROTECTION to choose which version to protect. Someone will always say that it was The Wrong Version, but that does not make the admin involved or mean that they have taken a side in the dispute. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was also asked to comment. As highlighted above by JohnCD; Qwyrxian's actions where as an uninvolved admin; moving to the version before the contended changes and then locking the page. This is within admin discretion and is fine, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is clear bias seen by Qwyrxian's edits. He in the past has reverted edits in support of Cossde so he is involved within this dispute. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I've come close to blocking Cossde before and have issued him a number of warnings. At the same time, I've also been involved in stopping ongoing harassment of Cossde on his talk page and elsewhere (not related to this page or the editors here). All I care about is actual discussion of the actual edits. Please, for the love of all that is holy, please discuss the actual edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I, too, was asked to comment here. As best I can tell, what Qwyrxian did was valid per WP:PREFER (a subsection of WP:PROTECTION), which says in part: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Qwyrxian has made some edits to this page in the past, but they appear to me to be minor, dealing mostly with policy issues rather than content disputes. By its nature, any action taken on this article (even something that is clearly policy-based) is going to be seen by some as being partial to the "other side"; if Qwyrxian had kept the last edit before protecting the page, those opposing that last edit would surely have accused him of being biased. It's really a no-win situation. Those who still feel Qwyrxian abused his administrative role may certainly go ahead and raise the issue at WP:ANI, but if you do, I strongly recommend you be prepared with convincing arguments as to why you believe Qwyrxian showed past bias and unacceptable involvement in the content disputes surrounding this topic — much more convincing than anything I've seen here on this talk page. — Richwales 08:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've analyzed all of Qwyrxian's edits to this page in the last 500 diffs in history. The only borderline involved edit would seem to be this, which too is a citation required edit with some summarizing of the information. All the remaining edits that have been made to this page are either vandalism reversion, or undoing of edits that would have almost qualified as vandalism, if not for Qwyrxian's lenient tagging. In summary, there's no way you can consider Qwyrxian as being involved in this article. I'll encourage the editors here to focus more on resolving the editing dispute than on a non-relevant and quite without basis tangential issue. Wifione 14:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian may be an honest admin, but the coincidences made others to think he/she is biased or overly involved with his/her admin tools with pages on Sri Lanka and its Conflict.

Qwyrxian has closed the discussion while the "Civil War" section is out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) from the page as No-Consensus though Qwyrxian encouraged for mediation.

Qwyrxian has blocked Hillcountries though he/she encouraged for a talk page discussion while the "Category: Sinhalese people" is in(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) on the Prince Vijaya's page.

Again, Qwyrxian has reverted the controversial content out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) and then protected the page.

The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind.

I drop this issue pursuing further against Qwyrxian and agree with other editors that his/her actions are right.Sudar123 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should note that (per WP:PREFER) the reason for fully protecting an article subject to edit warring is to "force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus". If editors on both sides of this conflict can use this as an opportunity to discuss matters calmly and respectfully, in order to reach agreement on some sort of compromise language that is supported by reliable sources and respectfully represents all mainstream viewpoints in a balanced and neutral fashion, the article protection may have accomplished a good result. If, on the other hand, people remain entrenched in their polarized stances and do nothing but count down the days, hours, and minutes until the protection expires and they can resume their quest to make the article support their view and denounce the opposition at any cost, nothing will have been gained here, and we'll just be back to where we were before in a few days' time. — Richwales 03:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be fair, since I'm currently playing bad cop here, one small thing will have changed. I use a fairly simple plan for content disputes I'm acting on as an admin: the first time around usually results in full protection, while the second time around usually results in blocks. So, I suggest against waiting out the issue. I'll even start a subsection here to get the conversation started. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Including the disputed claims?

The following is my summary of the dispute, as best as I can construct it from the edit summaries:

Intotoronto1125 added some new information about allegations of human rights abuses intentionally perpetrated and ordered by the Sri Lankan government in this edit; these accusations were made by an ex-military member, and were reported on in the National Post. Later, in 78.149.28.57 added a counter-claim from the Sri Lankan government; this counter-claim was reported on the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense site. Sudar123 objected to the counter-claim, arguing that we can't include the counter-claim until it's found somewhere other than on a Sri Lankan government website (essentially, asking for the counter-claim to be reported on in a secondary source). The IP revereted this. Later, Cossde removed Intotoronto1125's addition, arguing not that the information belongs not here, on the main Sri Lanka article, but on one of the sub-pages (I don't know which one, but I know that there are a number to choose from). Intotoronto1125 reverted Cossde, but gave no reason.

So, it seems to me that there are two specific questions that y'all are asking. The first is, does the information belong here, or on a different page? This is primarily a question of WP:DUE--that is, is this specific allegation important enough to the topic of "Sri Lanka" to appear on Sri Lanka, or is it a smaller detail that belongs on a subpage. If it is determined that the info belongs on a sub-page, then you should go discuss there whether and how much of the info to include there on the chosen article's talk page. If, however, the consensus is that the info belongs here, then you need to decide whether or not the subsequent denial should be included. This will revolve primarily around the intersection of WP:V and WP:RS; I suggest that both sides, though, look at WP:PRIMARY, noting that primary sources are not preferred, but that there are times when they can be used.

Please discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I apologize if I have mischaracterized the intent of any of the edits; it's sometimes tough to define the full thinking behind a short ES. If you correct me, I'll amend my statement above if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Aside from (and possibly more importantly than) the primary-vs.-secondary-source issue, I believe a major problem with acceptance of sources in this topic area is that people strongly disagree as to the reliability of various sources, based to a great degree on their own leanings. For example, a Sri Lankan government web site may be considered to be self-evidently, supremely reliable by supporters of the government, but to be just as self-evidently, hopelessly biased by opponents of the government. Even if we confine ourselves to secondary sources such as news services, Sri Lankan newspapers are considered little more than conduits of state propaganda by opponents of the government, whereas the BBC and other western news sources which have spoken critically of the Sri Lankan government are considered by the government's supporters to be virtually complicit in the war crimes reportedly committed by the LTTE rebels. This topic area is extremely polarized, and finding editors who can remain neutral (or at least set their personal views aside) and are willing to write in a balanced fashion, giving fair treatment to all sides, has so far proved to be nearly impossible. — Richwales 06:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And again

Intotoronto again restored the disputed material without any discussion whatsoever. Since this has been an ongoing problem for him, I've blocked him indefinitely, and unblocked the SinhaYugaya for 24 hours (first offense, re-establishing status quo). However, again, like I've said many times, I don't care if the information is in the article or not—but you need to establish a consensus to include it. But I will continue to block people for edit warring. People, this is not hard. Have a discussion here. I explained above what seem to be the disputed points; use that section or a new one to figure out what should be done here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian should not have blocked as per WP:involved and the editing were done by 3 editor including Intertoto.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

All outside opinions above note Qwyrxian is not involved. Focusing on this is a waste of your time. Try instead to focus on WP:Dispute resolution, and the advice it offers. CMD (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Both blocks should have removed one month before this one of the editors blocked has clearly said that the admin is WP:Involved right above in this very page and WP:3RR has not been violated.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The blocked editor was wrong, and 3RR is not a license to edit war. CMD (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any discussion of the blocks should not occur on this page—bring it to my talk page, or, better yet, to WP:ANI if you think I've broken the rules. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Though I agreed initially with other editors that your actions are right and drop the issue pursuing further against you(for a RfC)is not my permanent observation on the situation of your involvement on the issue.

I have clearly pointed out your borderline involvement by my polite comment, The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind.

Your Indefblock on Intoronto is premature with your borderline involvement on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles. I will go for a RfC sooner or later if his indefinite block is not reverted or if you could not provide a valid reason for the Indefinite Block. I too reverted in support of Intoronto on the content. Estimating some content is contentious is again someone's POV and it is against the whole WP:RS guidance.Sudar123 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take this matter to WP:ANI. I will not discuss the blocks here. A note that if you do, depending on when you do so, I may not respond quickly as New Year's starts in about 30 minutes for me and I may have holiday business to attend to. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am planning to take this issue for a RfC since it is something to with WP:Involved and beyond mere IndefBlock. But I will do it after a week since the New Year is around.Sudar123 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The block is fully justified. InToronto was guilty of edit-warring over the exact same thing they were blocked for earlier. Cries of administrative abuse and involvement are just so much hot air: as pointed out above by three or more uninvolved editors and admins, Qwyrxian has acted well within their discretion and there is no evidence to assume they have ulterior motives. If InToronto is to be unblocked they should show recognition of what they did wrong. If others wish to accuse Qwyrxian of anything they need to put their money where their mouths are--if not, they can be warned (and ultimately even blocked) for making personal attacks, since those are attacks on Qwyrxian's integrity. Thank you. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was asked (in private e-mail) to intervene in this situation. However, I am not going to do so, because I do not feel it would be constructive or helpful for me to get involved further at this time. If there are disagreements over whether Qwyrxian's admin actions here have been proper or not, I believe WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI would be the best place to discuss the matter. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cesarian

Article includes the name "Cesarian". That should I think be "Caesarion", who (a) has a Misplaced Pages page, (b) is a small character in "Le Fils d'Asterix". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Army official statements

WP:DUE.Intoronto is inserting claims that have being doubted by a refugee board and only covered by one article. Only one author has presented this view and it thus represents a small minority view (in regards to the reliability of the particular claims being made not on the conduct of the Sri Lankan army in general). WP:NOTNEWS Reporting on the proceedings of a lone refugee hearing. The claims have not gone further than the lone article being linked to. If its relevant anywhere it would be the Alleged War Crimes article and perhaps the Sri Lankan army page. SinhaYugaya (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Army Deserter statement and SL defence website statement included.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1. "40,000 Tamil civilians killed in final phase of Lanka war, says UN report". Hindustan Times. 25 April 2011. Retrieved 22 May 2012.

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• C-Class Sri Lanka articles
• Top-importance Sri Lanka articles
• WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
• C-Class Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles
• C-Class South Asia articles
• Top-importance South Asia articles
• South Asia articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2012)