Talk:Sri Lanka/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Eight points in dispute

With the hope of resolving the various disputes that led to the most recent page protection and of expediting the removal of said protection, and on the assumption that this diff includes all of the issues at dispute, I propose that we consider each point individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

Failed States Index

Resolved

 – The parameters for FSI rank were removed from Template:Infobox Country; the index can no longer be displayed in any article via the infobox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the FSI rank of Sri Lanka be given in the article? If so, should it be included in the infobox?

I think that the FSI rank should be included in the article, but not in the infobox. The FSI is a notable index, thereby justifying its mention in the article (probably in the "Government and politics" section). However, it is not part of the standard Infobox Country or territory template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:03, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

Its not clear to me what you mean by standard Infobox country template. Because if you do look at say Mynamar it has it [1] The infobox will show an index if the data is provided. Sinhala freedom 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The row can be forced into the infobox, but it's not a standard field for all countries. See Template:Infobox Country and click on the "show" link next to 'Country or territory' to see the standard fields. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do see "Failed state index " in the standard fields. True every country doesn't have the FSI parameter in yet but the tops ones do. This could change with time. The data supplied from the journal has large list. I don't know how the fact that it is in some articles and not others sets implies it can't be in the infobox when you have clearly established its notable. Sinhala freedom 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I see now that it was added (by you) on August 25. However, I'm not convinced that the addition is necessary. The Thanoshon is a relatively recent index (2-3 years old, I think) and likely does not merit the same level of attention as the HDI. Moreover, unlike the other parameters, the FSI rank is largely meaningless for countries like Norway or Ireland. Since Template:Infobox Country is a general-purpose template, it should contain general parameters. I suppose that this discovery invalidates the bulk of my arguments above, but this is something to be discussed on the template's talk page. As long as the template contains the parameter, I see no reason why an individual article should not. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So far I should note none of the top entries of FSI by country (with info in the infobox) has raised any controversy to date, including amongst the top countries in the list. So for it to be an issue on Sri Lanka (which ranks 25th) appears to be odd. On Iraq, its both in the infobox and in one of the lead paragraphs if I recall correctly. Sinhala freedom 01:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The FSI rank is relevant to countries at the top of the list; it is not really relevant to countries at the bottom of the list. Since the template is supposed to be general-purpose, I think FSI should be excluded from it. However, this is something to be discussed at the level of the template, rather than just this article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I should comment there are other elements in the table that are not 'generically relevant'. For example the entry for Belgium includes "Accession to the European Union" as an entry. Wouldn't you say that entry is very relevant as an infobox item for EU member countries or are you satisfied, say the entry for currency will cover for this for the most part, with Britain being an exception. Sinhala freedom 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The "accessionEUdate" parameter is actually a part of Template:Infobox country. After clicking "show" next to 'Country or territory', scroll down and click the "show" link next to 'European Union specific parameters'. Accession to the EU is a defining characteristic for Belgium, but I'm not convinced that FSI rank is a defining characteristic for any country. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon, Just want to confirm if you still think it should or shouldn't be in the infobox, after looking at the main template. Sinhala freedom 01:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the template includes a field for the FSI, I think the infobox of this article should as well. I disagree with including FSI in Template:Infobox Country, but as long as that's the standard format, I don't see any reason that this article should deviate from it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have that proof this "FSI index" is notable? I don't mean news reports from Tamil websites that "OMG FSI people say Sri Lanka is a failed state". I also don't mean coverage on the day the "ranking" was released describing it. This article is an overview of Sri Lanka, so I mean neutral reports, from Reuters, AFP etc, which, when describing the country say, say something in the order of "Sri Lanka has been engaged in a 3 decade long civil war... fighting resumed in 2005... according to (whoever) Sri Lanka ranks (whatever) on the FSI index". Unless you can provide such references, calling it notable will be entirely your opinion. And we don't include trivial, non notable data in articles. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is cited in numerous books, scholarly journals, and news reports. Some of these (especially the news reports) will coincide with the date of release, but many others don't. Moreover, the majority of uses of the FSI have nothing to do with Sri Lanka; not surprising since the FSI is an international index and Sri Lanka is only one country.

Your comment seems to imply that the FSI is about as reliable as TamilNet when it comes to Sri Lanka. The index is developed and published by the Fund for Peace and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, both of which are fairly well-respected organisations. For the specific type of source you want, see for instance: this article in The Times of India, published in 2005, at a time when SL was not ranked by the FSI as a failed state. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether it's notable in itself and whether, for example, it deserves it's own article, but does any neutral organization consider it notable enough to mention it in articles related to Sri Lanka? Do you have any sources like what I requested above?--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If an index and its contents is considered notable as has been shown by Black Falcon, then it should be in this article. Foreign Policy journal is one of the premier journal in foreign relations. What is the problem with an index number ? The index rating for Sri Lanka is simply a measure by the approach the FP outlined. They are after all not been shown out to get Sri Lanka. There is hardly any 'research' out their to claim bias against Sri Lanka. So the concerns seem unfounded. Sinhala freedom 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd, I don't quite understand why you only want a source that mentions the FSI in the context of Sri Lanka. The fact that it is mentioned, regardless of in reference to which country it is mentioned, is proof of its notability and more than enough to justify its inclusion in the article (see also Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). However, since the FSI is not as prominent or accepted as the HDI, I agree that it should not appear in the main infobox. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't add every random detail to an article. For example, why not add the AIDS prevalance rate (it is a million times more notable than this "FSI index") or child mortality rate or access to drinking water or percentage of children who get the DPT vaccine or ... I could go on and on, and provide a quadrillion places where they are "cited in numerous books, scholarly journals, and news reports". Answer: because we don't add all sorts of trivial details to articles, specially ones like this which are meant to provide a summery for their child articles (linked to via {{main}}). Does anyone consider this notable (and I don't mean Wikipedia's notability guideline, I mean notable) enough to mention in general articles related to Sri Lanka? No (or you haven't provided any citations to prove it). --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify why you only want sources that mention FSI in relation to Sri Lanka? If you want proof that it's notable in the general, off-wiki sense, the fact that it's been cited with regard to dozens of countries across the globes by dozens of news reports (including the Times of India article linked above, which mentions Sri Lanka), journal articles, and books should suffice. More generally, I think this issue needs to be worked out at Template talk:Infobox Country and believe that FSI rankings should be removed from the infobox altogether, for reasons stated above. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you just dodged my question there. Why don't we include are sorts of various figures in the article? We could find a million facts that would qualify as notable as you describe above because they are mentioned in newspaper article and books and whatever. Just because you consider it notable enough? I don't think so. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I consider FSI notable; the fact is that FSI is notable per WP:N. Does that necessarily mean we should mention it in this article? No. If you think that that's the position I've been arguing, then you have misunderstood. As for inclusion in the infobox, please comment at the template's talk page (I've initiated a discussion there suggesting removal of FSI from the infobox). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused now. So you're saying it shouldn't be included in the article? Because this isn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed States Index. No one is disputing whether it's notable enough to have it's own article or not. You were arguing that cos it has been quoted in some paper or another made it notable enough to be included in the article. Your own words, "The fact that it is mentioned, regardless of in reference to which country it is mentioned, is proof of its notability and more than enough to justify its inclusion in the article"

You may want to take some time off and read the discussion above. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the "necessarily" in my post. The fact that it's notable doesn't necessarily mean it must be included. Allow me to clarify my opinion on this matter.

1. Do I think that the FSI rank should be mentioned in the article, outside of the infobox? Yes.
2. Is its inclusion something I feel strongly about? Not really.
3. Do I think it should be included in the infobox of this article? Yes, as long as it's a valid parameter in Template:Infobox Country.
4. Do I think FSI should be a parameter in Template:Infobox Country? No; I've started a thread at Template talk:Infobox Country suggesting its removal, but it has received only one response thus far.

In essence, the inclusion of the FSI rank in the infobox is something to be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Country. Its inclusion in the article (outside of the infobox) is an editorial matter, not a case of disputed policy, which we can and have been discussing here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>And? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And ...... nothing. I'm waiting for other editors to comment at the template's talk page. If there is consensus to keep FSI in the template, then it should be restored into this article's infobox. If there is no consensus to keep it, then I will remove it from the main template. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Just don't scroll up a bit and wonder what all the above conversation (excluding the stuff by SF) was about. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, seriously ... stop with the nasty remarks. I have no idea what prompted your increasingly hostile attitude (here and at Talk:Media in Sri Lanka), so please either clarify things for me or let's leave the sarcasm aside and focus on the content.

In regard to that: if the FSI rank remains in the infobox, there's no need to include it in the article. If it doesn't remain in the infobox, then we can discuss whether it should be in the article. There's no point having the latter discussion until the issue with the infobox is resolved. You may note also that most of my comments above came before I discovered (on October 1) that SF had added the FSI to Template:Infobox Country. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay time-out. You started off by saying "The FSI is a notable index, thereby justifying its mention in the article (probably in the "Government and politics" section).", which is why I was arguing that it shouldn't be included in the article. You want to discuss this later? Great, I'm happy with the article as it is now. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, the article is clearly missing key elements of the present day situation. It is hardly NPOV in that respect. You have been forced to acknowledge one sentence is blatantly false yet you appear to be mincing words about it. It along with Media in Sri Lanka is being blanked repeatedly by you just because you don't like it. The sources are after all well referenced from reliable sources as Black Falcon has confirmed. You have failed to articulate your points convincingly and worst of all your conduct is getting to be gratuitously uncivil. Sinhala freedom 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual, let Black Falcon do all the arguing for you, and went he goes a little off course you come in with comments that have no relevance to this section. You need to stop wasting other editors time by posting such stuff. If you have something relevant to the section say so, other than that, no one cares about your personal opinion of the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since inclusion of the FSI rank in Template:Infobox Country is an issue that has implications for all country articles, not just this one, I have left a notice with WikiProject Countries, requesting their input. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Following discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank, the FSI parameters have been removed from the main infobox. I am tenatively tagging this section as "resolved" (with a description); if there are any outstanding issue, please remove the notice and provide clarification. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion was to have the Failed state index mentioned in the body, which I am also agreeble to. In that sense, I agree its resolved. Btw, the thread for this discussion is continuing on Sri Lankan Renconciliation wikiproject page. Sinhala freedom 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote by Winston Churchill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – The footnote, which is present in the revision dated 01:38, September 25, 2007, is to remain. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote by Churchill exists as a footnote to support the claim that "Sri Lanka served as an important base for Allied forces in the fight against the Japanese Empire". As far as proofs for claims of importance (a subjective concept) go, it's rather good, considering the identity of the quoted person. I'm not entirely sure why it is disputed, especially since the sentence itself doesn't seem to be disputed ... is this something that simply got caught up in the cycle of reverts? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was acutally removed in a "update intro with a more npov version" edit. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I still don't quite understand why it was removed by Sinhala freedom's. While it's not something that needs to be mentioned in the main text (which is why it's a footnote), it serves to lend credence to an assertion made in the text. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually being sarcastic there. Lighten things up a bit... --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops ... missed that. :P Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure either. I am all for having this section in the article. Sinhala freedom 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then. Can we consider this issue resolved? I've added the tag, but please remove it if there is an objection. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sri Lanka and democracy

WP:NPOV defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". If so, the claim that Sri Lanka is a "stable democracy" cannot be classified as a fact. Since there is real-world dispute regarding the matter (the US Department of State classifies Sri Lanka as a "stable democracy"[2], but the World Bank and Asian Development Bank classify it as "one of the world's most politically unstable countries",[3] and The Economist labels it a "flawed democracy".[4]), I think the best course of action is to present both major views.

Although I have a slight issue with what one countries foreign ministry thinks of another countries political system (because there could be political motivations) - I am ok with including that state department statement there, provided its the most upto date and makes reference to the year and the stuff from ADB, World Bank and The Economist should definitely be in there with the same conditions. Sinhala freedom 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the part about "continuous economic progress"; an initial glance at the sources suggests that Sri Lanka has had relatively steady economic progress, despite the civil war, despite "the reemergence of the civil war resulting in increased lawlessness in the country" [5] and despite the "sharp decline in tourism". [6][7] (Note: the quotes are taken from the article, not the sources.) I'll comment more after I've had a chance to read through the sources in greater detail. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do check Sri Lanka 'economic' progress during the 1970s (when people had to line up for their daily ration of bread), apart from 2001. Sinhala freedom 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

2000 was an abnormally, and WP:RS for the rest? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well continuous economic progress is blatantly false as you have just confirmed. Sinhala freedom 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuous, not "...has increased every single year". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuous increase implies "has increased every year". You comment doesn't make any sense to me. Sinhala freedom 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to brake your bubble here, but you are not the English Language Czar. Continuous means it has increased since independence, which it has. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The supposed references also doesn't support the statement "continous economic progress", hence I am removing it. Sinhala freedom 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't reply to this for a month, then all of a sudden WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you take it off? Read the citations carefully. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "continous economic progress" is not there in any of your citations, you have not been able to find anything better in over a month. As far as I am concerned what you are claiming is WP:OR, unless if you can get reliable undisputed sources mention that. Sinhala freedom 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion and the constitution

The text under dispute reads as follows:

Buddhism, the state religion is given the foremost place in the constitution of the country [8]. Hence unlike a liberal democracy, there exists no separation between religion and the state.

Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:

The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of the religion as a responsibility of the state.[9]

There are three reasons behind my proposed change. First, given that the text is contentious, it may be best to fall back on quoting directly from the Constitution. Second, according to this source, Buddhism is not the official state religion (a specific term with specific connotations). Third, the sentence that begins with "Hence unlike ..." seems to constitute an original synthesis. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with the version you suggested with this change to emphasize the role of Buddhism Sinhala freedom 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC):

Perhaps we could rewrite the text as:

The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state.[10]

No objection to that, but in that case you'll also have to include the other two mentioned articles "Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice" and "Every citizen is entitled to -the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching",[11] which brings the question, since this article is an overview, whether such details are required. If it is added, it'll have to be added in a way that it preserves the continuity of the article, instead of just been randomly thrown in. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with adding slightly compressed version of the sentences you have suggested as has been done by Black Falcon. Sinhala freedom 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state. Enshrined in the constitution is the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have, adopt and manifest ones religion. [12]

Snowolfd, I think you make a good point regarding the necessity of inclusion of this level of detail. Since Buddhism is not a state religion, it may well be the case that it's not necessary to mention these details, and after looking more closely at the "Government and politics" section, I am inclined to agree with you. If retained, however, what do you think of the following wording:

The constitution "give[s] to Buddhism the foremost place" and identifies the "protect[ion] and foster[ing]" of Buddhism as a responsibility of the state,[13] but also guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", including to adopt a religion and to practice it.[14]

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Article 9 says "...while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)," therefore we should quote articles 10 and 14(1)(e) in terms of religion, rather than giving an overview of them.

But again, I really see no reason to add this to the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Once its no longer claimed that Buddhism is the state religion (and it isn't), the information is no longer quite as critical or interesting – at least not enough to merit inclusion in the main article. I think it may be better suited to the Constitution of Sri Lanka article. I also don't see how it would be added in without having an adverse effect on the overall flow of the "Government and politics" section. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, primarily since Buddhism has a unique status. Sure Buddhism is not the state religion, yet its uniquely defined in the constitution that it be given the foremost place. Does that not make the status interesting or for that matter non-standard from a purely secular or theocratic constitution. Sinhala freedom 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, comparatively speaking, it is interesting, but is it interesting enough for the main article? There's no doubt that the information is interesting and relevant in the context of Sri Lanka's constitution, but is it sufficiently interesting and relevant in the context of the country? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This section has received no comments in the past 10 days. Can we consider the issue resolved, with an agreement to exclude the information from this article and with preference for inclusion in the article Constitution of Sri Lanka (although I can't identify a suitable location at this time)? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we agree this is unique to Sri Lanka, I am for having the bit about the constitution in the main Sri Lanka article. Sinhala freedom 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that it is 'unique'. It may be relatively rare on a comparative perspective, but it may not be unique. If Sri Lanka was a theocratic state, I would agree that this tidbit merits inclusion, but .... Hypothetically speaking, where in the text do you think it should be placed (not just the section, but the specific place within a section)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll find a potential spot though I am definitely open to compromise Sinhala freedom 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal and monetary policy

I can't determine what exactly is disputed and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

Comments, please? For reference, the disputed text reads as follows:

But this policy of subsidizing imported commodities like fuel, fertiliser and wheat soon unravelled the fiscal sector. In 2004 alone Sri Lanka spent approximately US$ 180 million on a fuel subsidy, as fixing fuel prices had been an election promise. To finance the expanded budget deficit arising from a range of subsidies and a public sector recruitment drive, the government eventually had to print Rs 65 billion (US$ 650 million) or around 3% of GDP. The expansionary fiscal policy, coupled with loose monetary policy eventually drove inflation up to 18% by January 2005, as measured by the Sri Lanka Consumer Price Index. Following the resumption of the civil war in 2005, which gave rise to increased lawlessness in the country, various foreign governments reduced assistance to Sri Lanka[15][16].

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Economy of Sri Lanka is for this stuff, in much further detail giving both the negative aspects and the positive aspects of the economy. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to move it to Economy of Sri Lanka then all this stuff get blanked by you and your friend there . This effectively means you are censoring info you don't like [17]. I think thats unacceptable and is another instance of WP:GAME. Sinhala freedom 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Learnt a new policy did we? I suggest you scroll up the page, and take a look at the heading. This is Talk:Sri Lanka, not Talk:Economy of Sri Lanka. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the condescending talk. The subject matter is well within the scope of this article. You haven't even begun to give a reason here. I suggest you patiently attempt to answer what has been posed at you. Sinhala freedom 02:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you tried reading other users comments, but I guess that's expecting too much. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Plantation workers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Proposed new wording has been agreed upon

The disputed text reads:

Nearly all of the island's Indian plantation workers were stripped of their citizenship due to Ceylon Citizenship act of 1948.[18] Under various agreements, nearly 50 % of plantation workers were expelled to India and the remaining were granted citizenship by 2003.[19]

The main problem I can identify is with the sources. The first source (a BBC timeline) doesn't mention the Ceylon Citizenship Act. The second source leads to a book's index, but doesn't provide page numbers. Unfortunately, Google Books does not provide a preview for the book.

Another problem may be with regard to the location of the sentences. They seem, to me, to be better suited for inclusion in the "History" section of the article, the History of Sri Lanka article, or the Demographics of Sri Lanka article. As a rule, the "Demographics" section on the main country page should provide only general information. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if the page number can be supplied, what is your suggestion. Sinhala freedom 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It still seems to be something better suited to another article, perhaps History of Sri Lanka, Demographics of Sri Lanka, or Sri Lanka Tamils (Indian origin). This level of detail just doesn't seem to fit all that well in the "Demographics" section, which convention dictates should focus primarily on current demographics. One possibility is to merge part of the information into the preceeding sentence; for instance:

Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were expelled back following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.

This preserves much of the detail without lengthening the section significantly. The reason I integrated only the part about expulsion and not the parts about citizenship is that the former seems more relevant to a section titled "Demographics". Also, the former is shorter and easier to integrate. ;) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeable to what you have suggested. Sinhala freedom 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Expelled"? Repatriated. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right ... "repatriate" is a more academic term with essentially the same meaning, but without any normative overtones.

Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were repatriated following independence in 1948, are called "Indian Origin" Tamils.

Are you, otherwise, satisfied with the wording? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All of them were forcefully repatriated against their will. the above wording makes it sound like they all went away happily! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.234.126 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

% Buddhism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Percentage of Buddhists is to be consistent as 69.1% throughout the article

What proportion of the Sri Lankan population adheres to Buddhism? Is it 65% or 76.7%? The CIA World Factbook gives a figure of 69.1%, based on "2001 census provisional data" (link). The GOSL provides a figure of 69% as well (link). Where did the other two figures come from? In any case, I propose that we use the value of 69%, as given the by GOSL (and repeated by the CIA). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All for this. Sinhala freedom 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The propotion of Buddhists is 70%. The 76% figure turned up cos the LTTE prevented the 2001 census from been carried out in areas they control, so of the remainder of the country where the census was done, 76% were Buddhists. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we then consider this point resolved, with the agreement to use 69% and cite both the GOSL and CIA websites? I'd have no objection for 70% if it was supported by a better source (than the GOSL and CIA ones, that is). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah by 70% I meant 69.xx% --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Media since 2005

The disputed paragraph reads as follow:

After the resumption of the civil war in 2005, Sri Lanka has steadily clamped down on its once free media. Verbal attack against media personnel by government authorities is common and has resulted in an atmosphere of self-censorship [20]. By 2007, it is considered one of the worst places in the world for media personnel [21]. According to Reporters with Borders (RSF) Pro-government militias have been actively targeting and attacking media organization with opposing points of view [22]. In addition the LTTE has also been accused of threatening those who oppose their political position. RSF also maintains the killers of media personnel orchestrated by pro-government militias live with total impunity [23].

I suggest rewriting the paragraph to include explicit attribution to RSF (per WP:NPOV), which is directly responsible for three of the four sources:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel by non-governmental organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute and Reporters sans frontières (RSF); in 2006, five media workers were killed on the island.[24] According to RSF, various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting.[25] RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [26]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:01, Sep 30, 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph has been rewritten quite well. I am all for it. Sinhala freedom 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the country. Such extensive details are not included in articles about countries. See India for a comparative featured article. There is already an article Media in Sri Lanka where such details may be included. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is good you have chosen a feature article to highlight your point, India is a land of a billion people and the lead article on the country has to be compressed many folds more than Sri Lanka. Thus India is hardly worthy for comparison in this respect. Sinhala freedom 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd, while you certainly have a point regarding the need for extensive details, I think a single paragraph about the current state of the media in Sri Lanka merits inclusion. If length is the main concern, I can offer the following shortened version:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media. As of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel.[27] According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), various factors, including lack of headway in criminal investigations involving attacks on journalists, "verbal attacks" by government officials against members of the media, and restrictions on freedom of expression and movement in LTTE-controlled territory, have resulted in pervasive self-censorship and undermined independent reporting.[28] RSF also alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. [29]

This revised version drops much of the secondary detail. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, if we include such current event related stuff, a million more news items need to be added. That's just not how this article should be, and currently isn't. The entire post indeendence history is covered by these two paragraphs,

Following the war, popular pressure for independence intensified. On February 4, 1948 the country won its independence as the Commonwealth of Ceylon. Don Stephen Senanayake became the first Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. In 1972, the country became a republic within the Commonwealth, and the name was changed to Sri Lanka. On July 21, 1960 Sirimavo Bandaranaike took office as prime minister, and became the first female head of government in post-colonial Asia and the first female prime minister in the world. The island enjoyed good relations with the United Kingdom and had the British Royal Navy stationed at Trincomalee.

Since 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, predominantly between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers), a separatist militant organization who fight to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island.

and you want to include such a diatribe about the media situation of the last 2 years. No way. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that is a well-sourced and fully attributed paragraph reflecting the views of some of the leading international organisations on the subject; your contention that is little more than an angry rant is completely unfounded. Secondly, country articles should strive to present up-to-date information about the current state of a country, so the comparison with the "History" section is not entirely fitting. Third, I would find your argument regarding summary style and length significantly more convincing if you hadn't reverted my addition of the paragraph (along with an unrelated minor fix) to the Media in Sri Lanka article. When I added the paragraph to that article, I did so with the idea that that could be a compromise of sorts: the information is provided somewhere, but not in the Sri Lanka article itself.

If the primary concern is length, I can offer the following further-trimmed version:

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel.[30] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.[31]

That version cuts out everything but the bare essentials. Thoughts? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well sourced? First of all, find me citations from a reliable source which says "Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel". And I don't mean opinion columns written by Thalif Deen. (WP:RS defines what a relaible source is FYI) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the fourth-deadliest country for media workers, after Iraq, the Philippines, and Mexico. If you'd like, the sentence can be revised to "... and, in 2006, Sri Lanka was the fourth-deadliest place in the world for media personnel". I'm not entirely certain whether the FYI comment was intended to be sarcastic, but it doesn't make sense to me in any case: Thalif Deen is or was the IPS UN bureau chief, editor of the UN edition of TerraViva, an employee of the UN, and a member of Sri Lanka's delegation to the UN General Asssembly. Why would an article written by him, and buttressed by effectively undisputable statistics, not qualify as a reliable source? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to have read Thalif Deen's "Inside the glass house" column for the last 10 years to understand how reliable he is. In any case, WP:REDFLAG "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources". One citation is not enough for such an extraordinary claim. Any further citations? And note, we are talking about Sri Lanka, not Jaffna. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been very busy blanking the contents that you don't like both on here and Media in Sri Lanka. I am dumfounded to hear you have decided exclude Jaffna from the rest of Sri Lanka. I am sure Tiger supporters will be very happy to hear this. Your comments of Thalif Deen appears to be just a personal axe to grind and doesn't have any merit until you have reliable sources to show otherwise. Sunday Times is a reputable english language weekly. and you claim of WP:REDFLAG, is an instance of WP:GAME Sinhala freedom 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, I found a few issues of "Inside the glass house", but none were about Sri Lanka ... would you please explain why you think an article written by Deen is not reliable, considering his current and past professional appointments? As for your second point, Jaffna is a part of Sri Lanka; there's no reason to exclude Jaffna when counting the # of reporters killed in Sri Lanka just as there's no reason to exclude Baghdad or Mosul when counting for Iraq.

I did a little searching and I can offer the following two revised versions (with additional sources):

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media[32] and, as of 2007, Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel.[33][34] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.[35]

... or ...

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media[36] and, in 2006, Sri Lanka was the fourth-deadliest place in the world for media personnel.[37][38] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.[39]

Please note that the use of the phrase "most dangerous" to reflect # of deaths is something used in various sources, not just something I invented (see e.g. [40]). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Did you fail to read a single thing I said? "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources". If that's not clear enough, English lessons may be in order. Also, I did not say exclude Jaffna from Sri Lanka. Mr. Deen got his facts crossed when he said "Sri Lanka is one of the most dangerous places...", all the other sources use that phrase in context of Jaffna alone, not the whole country.

As for the Guardian article, all it says is,"Outside Iraq, the worst country for journalist deaths in 2006 was the Philippines (15 dead), followed by Mexico (eight dead), Sri Lanka (seven) and Guyana (six)." They also go on to add the disclaimer "INSI records all causes of death, whether deliberate, accidental or health-related,". So if, say, 15 journalists died in a plane crash over Antarctica, are you going to add something to the Antarctica article like "Antarctica is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for media personnel"?

And targeted? There's more WP:OR and WP:PEACOCK terms. You mean attacks like this, because that's what's mentioned in the citation. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to leave sarcasm out of this, shall we? First, you wanted multiple reliable sources, you received them: [41][42][43]. Yes, I'm including Deen's source as reliable because: (a) you haven't really stated anything to counter the supporting evidence (credentials, so to speak) provided above; and (b) the only portion of the source used is the ranking of deaths, which is confirmed by other sources.

Second, if you dislike the wording of "most dangerous", you will note that I offered two versions, only one of which uses the phrase "most dangerous".

Third, what's wrong with 'targeted'? The exact words used in the RSF report are "attacked" and "threatened". Attacking and threatening are forms of targeting. Moreover, what does it have to do with the 2006 Digampathana bombing or the GOSL's response to it? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Where? Okay so "first", I asked you to provide reliable sources which say "Sri Lanka is considered one of the most dangerous places for journalists". Apart from the misguided article by Deen, none of the ones you provided above say so. Reading into the data, and putting your interpretation into them, is called synthesis on Wikipedia. Also a lot of "deliberate, accidental or health-related" deaths don't automatically mean "one of the most dangerous". How much clearer does it have to get?

"Second", the second word you used was "deadliest". Now while that could be taken to include dead by natural causes or by accident, in context of the sentence, it sounds pretty much the same as "most dangerous", as in externally threatening.

And "third", it appears you aren't even reading the sources you are trying to quote, which frankly, I find hilarious. The army is mentioned in that article to have carried out these "attacks"

"The army attacked media accused of relaying Tiger Tamil propaganda, which they termed terrorist. In October, the studios of Voice of Tigers radio near Kilinochchi, in an LTTE-controlled area was hit and destroyed by air strikes injuring two employees.

"The military imposed new restrictions on the movements of the press reporting from the field. As a result, the army and the LTTE prevented reporters from reaching the site of a battle around Muttur, in August.

"In November, officers summoned newspaper managers in Jaffna and ordered them not to publish news coming from the Tamil Tigers."

The second too instance are not "attacks", controls will be a more apppropriate word. The first one, if included, will have to be directly mentioned, that the Air Force (apparently whoever wrote this doesn't know the army is a ground based unit, and air strikes are done by a part of the military called the Air Force) carried out air strikes against LTTE propaganda systems. (In that case, you'll have to mention in the United States article that the USAF took out Saddam's propaganda too, remember WP:BIAS)?

As for the article I directed you to, you really need to start reading what your talking about. "They said the bombing also destroyed a transmission tower of the Voice of Tigers radio station, which broadcasts pro-rebel news and patriotic Tamil music"--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment about English lessons is a bit sarcastic, I'd say. In response to your points:

First, you still haven't explained your objection to the use of Deen's article and have provided no evidence to support your contention that Deen is unreliable. As for the "original synthesis" argument, please refer to my previous statement that "the use of the phrase 'most dangerous' to reflect # of deaths is something used in various sources, not just something I invented (see e.g. [44])".

Second, it's fairly simple to avoid the words 'dangerous' or 'deadliest':

The resumption of the civil war in 2005 negatively impacted the freedom of the media.[45][46] Reporters Without Borders alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view.[47]

Third, please refer to the first four sentences of the article:

Pro-government militia ... and occasionally the army have attacked the press which they accuse of supporting Tamil nationalism. On the other side, the Tiger Tamils threatened those who oppose their political position. (emphasis added)

The second sentence of my proposed paragraph is explicitly attributed to RSF, so whether you or I classify the incidents as 'attacks' or 'controls' is not the issue (by the way, I agree with you that the latter two incidents are controls).

As for the article you directed me to ... it has little relevance to this situation. An "attack" is not necessarily a bombings or shooting ... in any case, the use of the broader term 'targeted' makes the issue a moot one. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason you cannot cite that sentence with that article is that one article by Deen is not sufficient to meet WP:RS requirements, that extraordinary claims have multiple reliable sources to cite them (and saying something like "one of the most dangerous places" is an extraordinary claim). Also, since I don't seem to be making things clear enough, so NONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU ARE CITING, APART FROM THE DEEN ONE, USE THE WORDS "SRI LANKA IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACES IN THE WORLD FOR JOURNALISTS". Saying something like that, and citing an article whose only mention of Sri Lanka is "attacks in the Philippines and Sri Lanka pushed the death toll to 34." is a gross attempt at deception.

Second, a lot better.

And third, in case you are not aware, we don't blindly quote sources on Wikipedia automatically assuming what they say is true. If CNN spells some term wrong, do we spell it wrong all over Wikipedia and cite it to the CNN article? If they call Osama Obama, shall we move Osama Bin Laden to reflect that? WP:IAR was created for a reason. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First issue: This source uses the phrase "most dangerous" in reference to the # of deaths in a given country. No original interpretation is required to induce that the country with the fourth-highest number of deaths would be labeled the "fourth-most dangerous". However, the point is moot now since neither "dangerous" nor "deadliest" are used in the latest version of the proposed text; with that mind, I think we should drop this issue and move on to the next.

Second issue: Thanks. Do you agree to inserting those two sentences (with revisions, perhaps?) into the article?

Third issue: This situation is not comparable to a simple misprint or a spelling error. Although we don't automatically assume that anything a source (even a reliable one) says is true, we should also reflect what the source says, especially when the statement is directly attributed to the source. If my proposed sentence claimed that the SLA attacks journalists, I could understand your objection; but, the claim is explicitly attributed to RSF. In any case, you'll note that I'm suggesting the more general and neutral term 'target' instead of the more focused and controversial term 'attack'. 'Target' was the least emotive word I could think of that encompasses both of the terms used in the RSF report: 'attack' and 'threaten'; if you have an alternate suggestion, I would be happy to hear it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thanks for providing that link. I find this pretty interesting. The CPJ "only counts journalists killed in direct reprisal for their work, in crossfire, or while carrying out a dangerous assignment". According to their 2006 report, "Violence in Iraq claimed the lives of 32 journalists in 2006 ... Afghanistan and the Philippines, with three deaths apiece, were the next most dangerous datelines in 2006. Russia, Mexico, Pakistan, and Colombia each saw two journalists killed." And Sri Lanka? According to their detailed figures, only one journalist was killed while reporting, "Subramaniyam Sugitharajah, Sudar Oli, January 24, 2006, Trincomalee". That too will have to be included, if this section is to be added. something like

The Committee to Protect Journalists however noted only one journalist was deliberately killed while at work in Sri Lanka. Subramaniyam Sugitharajah, a reporter for Sudar Oli, which had previously come under attack by both LTTE and anti-LTTE forces, was killed by unidentified gunman in January 2006.

That would make the section more NPOV, but further prove my point that such a detailed section is not required in the article.

If you are generalizing the report as "target", you need to provide context as to what it means. i.e. "the army targeted sections of the media they consider to be sympathetic to the LTTE, bombing the tower of the LTTE's propaganda radio station and asking heads of media organization not to publish news coming from the LTTE"

That again brings us back to my previous point, that a truly NPOV section will be too long to include in the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you about the need to add the two sentences about Subramaniyam Sugitharajah iff we were still noting dangerousness, deadliness, and/or deaths, but the latest version of the proposed text makes no mention of any of the three.

As for the use of 'target', I don't see how that type of detailed context is necessary. Please note that the sentence itself does not claim that the SLA targeted media organisations and workers; it merely repeats something that the RSF alleged in order to give context to the first sentence. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let that bit of the discussion rest.

"Target" could mean so many things. And yes, while the disclaimer "RSF alleges" is present, we need to clarify what the incidents RSF cites are, because you can't expect readers to click on the citation and go read the entire article. So how I see it, two options, either include an entire description of what RSF alleges (which would not make sense as it won't fit in the article) or phrase it in a way that doesn't leave any ambiguity. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that I'm not ignoring your comment or anything like that ... :) I've just been busy with various non-SL related articles and off-wiki commitments. I will try to formulate an appropriate response/suggestion in the next 2-3 days. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I've got midterms these days :( so I couldn't reply to soon either. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I SUGEST THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE ASOKA HADAGAMA AND VIMUKTHI FROM THE FILM SECTION, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THEIR WORK HAS GIVEN A WRONG IDEA. THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE DISGRACED SRI LANKAN FORCES WHO ARE FIGHTING AGAINST TERRORISM.THEY DO THIS FOR NGO MONEY. WE HAVE EVIDANCE TO PROVE THAT. AND ASOKA HADAGAMA IS SUCH A MANIAC, HIS LATEST FILM WHICH IS BANNED IN SRI LANKA IS ALL ABOUT MOTHER AND SON SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE DO NOT PROMOTE SUCH PEOPLE IN THIS GREAT SITE, WITHOUT KNOWING CORRECT FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaya77 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange flag

I was going to post this on the Flag stub, but I think here it will get noticed and hopefully remedied quicker.

Why has the flag been replaced with a strange stylized version? This version of the flag essentially has come from the OpenClipart library which in turn may have come from this site (the original artist is Željko Heimer) and not from an official government source. Not only have the lines on the lion been redrawn, I don't even think the colors are accurate. Originally the flag was from the CIA world fact book as per the WebArchive (it seems this image has been deleted from the Commons). This is the most accurate representation. I know, I'm from Sri Lanka.

I'm not going to change the image back as that won't fix the original problem that lead to the image being changed (not in SVG format). But, I hope someone can change the real version of the flag to SVG, so it can be accurately represented.

67.189.211.114 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Coat of Arms have the same problem. Everything has been "modded". Please don't do this. It's not meant to be stylish, but accurate. 67.189.211.114 (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The place we can live with peace and harmony!

Sri Lanka is a wonderful place with lot of historic, religious places and kind people. I suggest she is a must place to visit!

Kasunbg (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Propaganda

I see a lot of propaganda and weasel wording in the INTRO!! While all the good things about SL has been thoroughly neglected, some peoples willingness to add things like flawed nation, which are not even internationally recognised is amazing. And their ignorance about other countries who are in the list, such as South Africa, just confirm who politically motivated these SL bashing are!! Actually a careful looker would noticed, in fact SL has been raked 58 th out of 160+Countries!!These kind od weasel wording,twisted info and un-recognised criteria should not be included in the article, though I think standard criteria such as GNP per capita, GDP per capita, population growth, mortality rate etc should be in, though i am not sure whether we should have it in the intro.Thank you.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Went through the list, there are only 27 countries with full democracy status. And the rest 100+ including India,South Africa,Italy,Israel etc are in the flawed or lesser categories!!! So, the insistence to add this only to SL, is un-encyclopaedic , Or I would prefer to call it COMICAL. Plus, removed weasel wording like, SL lag behind Maldives in GNP per capita. I mean, does it make any sense adding these to the intro ??!! Do we add America still lags behind Qatar in GNP per capita ?? Do we add, India is lagging behind SL and maldives in the India article intro ?? Do we add every country lags behind Luxembourg in each and every article??!!If people are insisting adding these, there should be consistency. Add these to every country article ,instead of bullying a small country like Sri Lanka. Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki is correct in that the details recently added to the intro are out of place. However they were discussed on the SLR talk page and consensus reached. They are not propaganda as they have highly regarded references. Hence it is not POV pushing. As for similar materials being in other articles, we are not concerned with that in this Sri Lanka peace effort. If any want to go add similar documented material to the articles of other nations, have at it. As strong community consensus was reached, and proper dispute resolution process was used and was informed thereof at the beginning and during the process, and these SR articles were duly tagged, he and all others not formally accepting the terms are still subject to them. That he chose to not participate is his choice. There is also not sufficient evidence at this point to fairly call the users socks as he did. This is a little different from my block of Snowolfdr, who was intentionally disruptive. Here Iwazaki did have some good intent. While he violate the 1RR, he hints to me he wasn't fully aware, though he should have read the restrictions. There is precedent for non-agreeing users being subject to edit restrictions, Arbcom allows admins to add users to said restrictions. I almost full protected this article, but decided not to. I also almost blocked Iwazaki too, but what I'm going to do here is give him one final warning (I know all won't agree with that, but that's what I'm doing here and remember you all begged me to stay with the peace effort). ALL USERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EDIT RESTRICTIONS. Iwazaki, this includes you and Snowolfd4. For all users, past edit history is an factor in determining block length. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse, thanks a lot for your input.Article looks much better/neutral now than it was before.though I have my reservation regarding flawed nation thing, which to my knowledge can be taken as a positive(regarding we were ranked 50+ out of 160+),I agree with your other edits. About the rules implemented by the reconciliation team, I was not aware of them.Since you have clearly explained it here,I will do my best not to break those in the future. But having said that, I would appreciate it a lot if you also take some action regarding tag-team editing in SL related articles.Also, I would also appreciate it,if anyone put a link in the relative talk pages about the on going debates at the reconciliation page, cause people who prefer not to be involved might not aware of those.Once again thanks for your comments and involvement.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Iwazaki, as for the tag teaming, each editor can contribute and if they agree, the line between legit edits and meat puppeting and/or tag teaming can be very blurry and hard to distinguish. Therefore, I advise ALL SR editors to be careful of tag teaming and keep their edits legitimate. This is my last warning on this too. We've all had a chance to get our feet wet in this peace process now, so let's move forward. Now if the same editors tag team on multiple articles, that I would not be happy about, but this is the only article I am aware of this has occurred. I can't watch every SR article myself, that is why the SLR project talk page is the central reporting center for the peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Capital city

Just wondering about what the real capital city is. The CIA World Factbook (who I think are very reliable) say it is Colombo. Lonely Planet say it is Colombo. I have checked over 15 different maps just by using Google Images and they all say Colombo. I have about 4 mini atlases and they all say Colombo. I've thought it was Colombo since I was born! Wikipedia seems to be the only site to list it as Sri-Jayawardenapura Kotte or whatever it is. If there was some sort of change (which I thought I would have at lease known), when did happen and why is Colombo no longer the capital? Or was it the capital in the first place? If someone has answers, either post again here or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gibbsyspin (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently according to the Sri Lankan Government the Administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura-Kotte while the Economic capital is Colombo. The main reason for this is, according to the Government is the fact that the Parliament of Sri Lanka is situated in Sri-Jayawardenapura Kotte since the Parliament is the highest institution in the country as it represents the people of the land who is the most powerful as according to the constitution. In the 1980's the Government started a process of moving all Government officers and departments out of Colombo to Sri-Jayawardenapura Kotte and allowing Colombo to operate as the commercial hub of Sri Lanka. Although the move was never completed the Parliament and a few other ministries where moved however the Presidents, PMs & main ministries still are at Colombo. Since Sri-Jayawardenapura Kotte isn't much far from Colombo many still think that Colombo is the Capital its a common mistake. Nitraven (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing that has lead to this confusion is the Sri Lankan practice of clearly defining where one place ends and another begins. What the world thinks of "Colombo", in the sense of the overall urban area, is divided into a number of differently-named places, and Kotte is what most people from other similar-sized cities would classify as a "suburb of Colombo". But to the Sri Lankans it's a completely different place than Colombo. The move from Colombo to Kotte was not much different from moving the NSW Parliament from Macquarie St Sydney out to Parramatta. As far as we're concerned it would still be in "Sydney". I've been there on a visit recently and can verify what I'm saying. I like to think I keep abreast of new capitals etc, but like you I only heard about the move to Kotte about 18 months ago, when I met someone from Sri Lanka, who told me. I almost didn't believe him at first, since Colombo is one of the best known capitals in the world, or so I thought. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. The commercial capital is Colombo. This means the administrative capital is Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte.Srilankan1948 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

traditional new home gifts

We have a couple colleagues who just purchased their new home. From Wikipedia's write-up, it seems the Sr89i Lankan people are well diversed. Are there traditional gifts we could offer for their new home? Thank you all for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.150.30 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You could buy them clay carvings of the sun and moon (the moon should be a crescent with a rabbit). If you live in Colombo, you can get them at Lakpahana or Laksala.Srilankan1948 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tea industry

I will ad about fair trade tea after the article is un locked.

File:Ftc Fair trade tea.jpg

An exsampel of a box of ethicly grown fair trade Sri Lankan tea bought in the UK.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.54.36 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sinhalese image

Should both instances of Sinhalese text in this article be images? I think it looks messy (as an image, it is blurry and aliased) and it looks out of place when the normal text is viewed in larger or smaller sizes. Also, one should expect Sinhalese at the Sri Lanka article, as much as you should expect Georgian at Georgia. They are both relatively rare fonts, but I think if a person cares enough about the language to see the foreign text, he or she should get the font. ALTON .ıl 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Districts Entry

There is a Wrong entry in the Districts page. There is No such thing as Alambil in Sri Lanka. Where did that come from????

Please someone, modify it. The Districts for the northern province should be 1. Jaffna 2. Kilinochchi 3. Mannar 4. Mulativu 5. Vavuniya

09:45, 10 March 2008 (+0530) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.133.225 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous Pronoun Usage in "Human Rights" section

Both the government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are accused of violating human rights. In its 2007 report, however, they...

"It" and "they" could refer to either the Sri Lankan government or the LTTE. Anyone care to clarify?

Verbalcontract (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE CONTAINS WRONG INFORMATIONS.

IT SAYS THAT HINDUISM WAS BROUGHT TO SRI LANKA BY HINDU MERCHANTS FROM SOUTH INDIA.. HOWEVER IT NOT THE FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.58.79 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

im not disagreeing with you... but prove it. 165.21.155.76 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism was brought to Sri Lanka by the Aryans from North India, whom, I mentioned in the section Ethnic history, wiped out the native Yaksha and Naga tribes, making Hinduism the mainstream religion until Mahinda Thera brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka, centuries later.Srilankan1948 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it fallen or given to British, I think the truth is not highlighted enough here??

From Article: The *fall* of the kingdom of Kandy in 1815 unified the island under British rule.

- This statement is partially correct..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture and Arts - Traditional Food

There's a photo that says: Hoppers, a Sri Lankan delicacy.

If you go to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cuisine_of_Sri_Lanka you will see "Hoppers (appa) are another food native to Sri Lanka, served mainly for breakfast or lunch and often accompanied by "lunumiris," a fiery hot mix of red onions and spices"

And finally, on the entry for delicacies at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Delicacy it states "A delicacy is a food that is particularly prized within a given culture. Delicacies are often rare foods that are difficult to obtain or prepare, and as a result may only be served for special occasions. Often the rarity or difficulty to prepare a dish causes it to be comparatively expensive to other local foods."

So my question is this: If a delicacy is rare and hoppers served for breakfast or lunch, are they really a delicacy? It might be prized in Sri Lankan culture, no doubt, but does that, independent of rarity, make it a delicacy?

Just curious.

66.108.217.8 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Appa used to be eaten for breakfast and lunch and is only eaten by people in rurual Sri Lanka. Therefore, it is not common to find to find hoppers in urban Sri Lanka, making it a delicacy.Srilankan1948 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How relevant

Is the failed state business? I do not see it included in any of the other countries articles (the failed state ones). Further it seems almost arbitary because the basis of the judgement seems vague. Regardless I do not think its notable enough, and if it is it should be added to all the other articles as well (i am putting in an appropriate tag please reply here before removing it).Pubuman (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

History

The History section is misleading. Actually most history sections in the southern parts seem to have conflicting points of views. The true history of most of India and Sri lanka is that they were occupied by the "Cola" empire. They were the first sailors in the region and occupied most parts of India, Sri lanka, Malasia and Singapore. They were and always will be the original settlers of Sri lanka. So please make the correction at least for History sake.

Concerned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.201.107 (talk)

What is your source? We can't just take your word for it, we need verification from reliable sources. And BTW, what I have heard and learned tells me otherwise. Chamal ^talk 11:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Detail

I know it's nothing compared to the other disputes going on over here, but I noticed that while the article mentions "The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries (see list).", there are actually only 31 countries on that list... Again, I know it's just a detail, but it IS wrong, so I think it should be corrected...201.223.140.170 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, I didn't notice I wasn't logged in.  R a k h t æ l  20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

There are a few spelling mistakes in the article. I can not edit to correct them because it's restricted. Karlstar (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction of temperature

FTA "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (39 °F) to 7 °C (45 °F)."

The difference between the day and night temperature sounds correct in Celsius (centigrade). But not in Fahrenheit. Someone mindlessly applied the formula to give the equivalent Fahrenheit temperature which is not the same as the difference range. A difference range between day and night of 4-7 C converts to 7.2-12.6 degrees Fahrenheit. So instead the sentence should read "Day and night temperatures may vary by 4 °C (7.2 °F) to 7 °C (12.6 °F)" and if rounding is desired just say from 7 to 13 degrees F difference between day and night temperatures.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised in today's innumerate society that this was presented incorrectly and has gone uncorrected. 75.65.12.80 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War

Almost everyone know that the civil war has been going on and this section must be the main interest about Sri Lanka for a foreseeable future. The section should include concise information of the civil war, one of which must be the origin and the background of the civil war. One of the guideline state that content forking for a partisan purpose should be discouraged. And someone who openly support the government troop in his page may not be the appropriate person to delete unfavourable reference to the past Sri Lankan Policy. Vapour (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the section on the civil war and the background information is relevant and we should keep the content may be after few edit to remove the POV tone in current content. Not because it is the *current interest*/hot topic as Vapour says, but since I believe it is an important encyclopedic fact about Sri Lanka. BTW I am someone who supports the war against LTTE as well. However, that is not relevant in deciding what an encyclopedic fact is and what is not. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Language

The 13th ammendment of the Sri Lankan constitution has expired. (Making Tamil an official languge). Therefore Tamil is not an official Language anymore. http://www.colombopage.com/archive_091/Jul1246811709RA.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshana48 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not say the 13th amendment has expired. It is just reporting something Mr. Weerawansa said theoretically. The government has not, as of yet, taken any decision to discontinue the 13th amendment, and the changes can be made to the article if and when that happens. Chamal ^talk 05:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - Independance

Question. Why in the infobox, under independence from the UK, does it say Foundation 543BC? Independence from the UK wasn't in 543BC. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cossde (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Didn't want to do it myself as I wasn't sure if there was a reason for it, or something controversial. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

removed again. No date of 543 BC for any sort of historical unification of Sri Lanka is cited. Looking into the history article, I find that the earliest date for which we can say the island has been under a single admninistration would be the Chola invasion of 1018. I am not sure how that qualifies as "foundation" of the current state though. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

fwiiw, I figured out what the 543 date was. It's the traditional year of accession of a legendary ruler or culture hero, Vijaya of Sri Lanka. The source for this is the Mahavamsa, although nobody seems to be able to quote who came up with the absolute date of 543 BC. If somebody is able to actually cite a reference for the 543 date, we could state that it is a traditional date for the legendary foundation of the first Sinhala kingdom on the island. --dab (𒁳) 19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

there appears to be an edit warrior reverting to this unreferenced legendary date, in spite of the giant "special restrictions" template. I strongly suggest that whoever wants to see this date in the infobox

• supply a proper, and above all referenced discussion of said date in the article body. Infoboxes summarize the article content, they aren't standalone "counter-articles".
• seek consensus for their presentation of the date here on talk.

otherwise, their behaviour will fall under WP:DISRUPT as plain revert-warring. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

dab, sorry to revert your edit as vandalism but the Chola invasion of 1018 was definantly not the earliest date the island has been under a single administration, in fact the Chola invasion did not conquer the whole island at all, and incase you don't know Sri Lankan written history goes back more than 2500 years to when Vijaya of Sri Lanka arrived on the island. Here is a referenced source from a website of an organization for the Mahavamsa [48] which clearly states "the people who forged our nation, from the coming of Vijaya in 543 BCE".

I will revert it back to how it was.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The modern history of Sri Lanka is considered to start when the first king established his kindgdom on the island. That was King Vijaya, in 543 BCE[49].--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

this may come as a shock, but Wikipedia does not accept random urls as "references". Please read WP:RS. It strikes me as rather questionable to treat an unattributed date for a legendary first Sinhala king as the "foundation of Sri Lanka". This needs a quotable reference putting it in context or it needs to go. Note that we do not just need a source dating Vijaya to 543 BC. We need a source explicitly stating that Vijaya is traditionally dated to 543 BC and that this date is "frequently" or "popularly" taken as the first foundation of the Sri Lankan state. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

googling around, I find this interesting source stating "The Vijaya story was certainly not the only colonization myth about Sri Lanka". Here is another interesting reference for more context. It turns out that the Vijaya story is a Sinhalese colonization myth. The 543 BC date is deep in Sri Lankan prehistory and cannot be taken literally, although it is plausible that Sinhalese colonization took place roughly around that date. I think it would be fitting to refer to Vijaya story as a notable national myth of Sinhalese Sri Lanka in the article body, but I do not think it is fit to be listed as the date of the "foundation of Sri Lanka" without qualification. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese colonization? Sinhalese didn't come from anywhere to "colonize" Sri Lanka. If that happened then there should have been Sinhalese in an original place to begin with. King Ashoka died in 232 BC, and there's evidence outside Sri Lanka that he sent his son Mahinda to spread Buddhism in Sri Lanka, which means there was a reasonable government in Sri Lanka at that time. So while the dates may be murky, they are not totally impossible. In other words, you are right about the plausibility of the date, although you are not accurate about "Sinhalese colonization". Recent archeological evidence hints for an older civilization, I'll dig in some academic/credible references if I get time. -- Greenleaf (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Name of Ancient Sri Lanka: "Heladiva"

{{editsemiprotected}}

There is another, very prominent name for Ancient Sri Lanka: "Heladiva" (meaning 'land of the Hela'). This name is not given in the article and it SHOULD be. "Heladiva" is what the ancient people of Sri Lanka called the island in the era of King Ravana.

Not done. If you think that the text should change, you need to specify;

• The exact text to be inserted and where, and
• A reference or reference to a reliable source which verifies the fact.

Due to the potentially controversial nature of the edit, I also suggest that you discuss this with other editors (on this page), and try to reach a consensus before requesting such a change. If that is done, then please use another editsemiprotected.  Chzz  ►  18:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done