Talk:Protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protest pages[edit]

Anyone who is familiar with the protests or anyone who is living in any one of the countries listed in the article, please create and/or expand an article on the protests that are happening in your country. Thank you for your contributions! Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction in Sri Lanka[edit]

Several Sinhalese in Sri Lanka protested in front of the British embassy in Colombo, following the Sri Lankan Army's claim of defeat over the LTTE and the ambush of its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran on May 18, 2009. The protesters accused the British government of supporting the LTTE, as protesters threw eggs and stones at the embassy compound along with vandalising the building by spray painting graffiti on the wall, chipped out large stones from the facade and painted over a security camera. They also burned an effigy of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband before throwing it over the high walls and into the embassy compound.The Canadian embassy was spray painted by the Sinhala mob,the mob claiming Canada supported LTTE. The mob also terrorized the Canadian embassy, the Sri Lankan Police force and Army did nothing to stop the mob's act of terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.65.233 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the separate countries really necessary?[edit]

The table still contain numerous red links, and others are stubs at best. I think its best to merge to this article.--PCPP (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are stubs because no one from those countries have updated any recent information about them, which is why I hope anyone familiar with the protests in a specific country can update the news on the article. I'm sure many of those articles can be as large as 2009 Tamil protests in Canada. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think it's better that you add the sources yourself rather than wait for others editors to add it.--PCPP (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced citations[edit]

If references can't be found for tagged citations, they should be deleted.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reviving the Canadian article[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Tamil protests |This is the version I propose reverting and linking to

  • Ok, so i messaged the closing admin for the AfD and he informed me that it's possible to restore the Canadian article, liked off the main Tamil protests page with a {{mainarticle}} link, provided there is a consensus to do so. You can read his explanation here. So I'd like to propose doing that. thoughts? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. The Canadian article in here is longer than any other part. If we breakaway the Canadian article on its own, then the information here could be put in the following order:
  • Locations
    • Australia
      • Sydney: Paragraph of text
    • Canada
      • Ottawa: Paragraph of text.
      • Toronto: Paragraph of text.

...and so on.

Hope this looks good. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed. The merge was reasonable, and supported by consensus. In ten years, this will be an almost totally non-notable topic. Until then, it behooves us to keep it NPOV. Which is why Eelamstylez arguments were blatant non sequiturs.99.245.37.46 (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all you need to stop with the personal attacks on me. Your foolish accusations show no constructiveness here. My arguments gave my opinions on why I think the articles should stay, unlike yours which were rather the blatant arguments. If you're going to comment then just speak about the article, instead criticising on other editors.
It's your own opinion that these protests will be non-notable, as I'm sure many people around the world do not know about Tianamen Square protests or Tea Party protests. In fact, the Sri Lankan Civil War itself lacks notability due to the fact that journalists were restricted from the warzone. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the personal attacks on you, Eelamstylez? You're not helping.206.210.126.186 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what makes you say I am not helping when I'm actually trying to compromise here and come to an agreement on how these articles should be kept. Maybe none of you took a look at my last message on Talk:2009 Tamil protests in Canada. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop playing tit-for-tat and accusing people of personal attacks when there are none. Period. Saying that your arguments were non sequiturs is not an argumentum ad hominem.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't play anything on Wikipedia. You are just denying my conclusions and opinions with no solid reasons. You haven't even justified why my arguments were non sequitur. Rather you provide an explanation for your irrational criticism. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are non sequiturs because arguing that because you think something should be deleted means that you shouldn't edit it at the same time does not logically follow. There was no guarantee that the article would be deleted (in fact, it wasn't), and until such time, the information that was there should be accurate, NPOV, and encyclopedic. Non sequitur. No personal attacks. Care to back up your "irrational criticism", rather than let it sit as a personal attack?206.210.126.186 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks because both your criticism seems exaggerated. My argument was not to stop editing if you want the article to be deleted. It seems contradicting how you edit something and work for its betterment when at the same time you wish it were deleted. My main argument for not deleting was the notability of protests. Take a look at the debate page for better understanding. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, people can't edit articles they're pushing to have deleted? Huh? This a new policy? No. I don't see any personal attacks, either. Your argument doesn't make sense Eel.174.114.232.143 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You conclude personal attacks because criticism seems exaggerated?! Seriously?? Ridiculous. Enough of your baseless accusations. Stick to the facts and stop reverting good faith edits. You WILL be blocked, Eelamstylez, I assure you, if you continue this ridiculous behaviour. As an admittedly involved party, it might be time for you to step back. You've already violated a number of Wikipedia policies. You should stop.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is reverting good faith edits? You or me? What policies have I violated, other than mistakenly "canvassing?" What right do you have to say that I can get blocked? From the 3 years I've been editing on Wikipedia, you're the first person I'm hearing this from. My edits were constructive and I've always given citations as much as I can and tried to keep this article at NPOV from the start. Only very recently have you IP address users begun editing and you have tried to keep this article your way. Now you are adding more criticism of LTTE instead of keeping it a NPOV as you wished on the intro. And yes your criticism seem exaggerated. You can't say my arguments are not logical when your arguments are pretty much the same way. You have reverted my good faith edits in the Canadian article before as well with no proper reason given. Think before you speak and no more threatening me of blocking me. There is no reason for me to be blocked. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If three unregistered IP address users show the same ideologies and aren't willing to understand, then let's just leave the argument right here. Bottom line, it would be beneficial if the Canadian article were split into a separate article. Protests have recieved adequate coverage on television news, newspapers, online and other media in Canada. I hope this makes sense to the three of you, if thats what you were looking for. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is YOUR opinion, and is not shared by all editors of this page. Bottom line. And stop editing without discussing, or you will receive an official warning, as I've noted on your talk page. Also stop with the personal attacks. "Aren't willing to understand" is a pretty silly accusation, and not constructive.174.114.232.143 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well what would define the adequate media coverage received for the Sri Lankan Civil War for it to be notable enough to be here? What would define the media coverage of local election results of a town in northern Ontario? Yes I agree what I said there wasn't constructive, because I was speaking to individuals who weren't constructive themselves. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry for having an opinion that you don't share. I think YOU'RE the one who doesn't WANT to understand, Eelamstylez. The Canadian article is still too long, but I might be willing to leave it alone for a little bit - with the new, more NPOV introductory paragraph, and without all the uncited assertions - if you stop reverting and arguing for a split. Otherwise, I will continue to edit, in good faith, as I deem fit. WP:BOLD. 99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this merge was the product of, at best, a very loose definition of consensus. Secondly, it's ridiculous to speculate on the notability of these events in 10 years. If the subject is non-notable in 10 years, we can delete it then. but then again, wikipedia is full of articles about events of less notability, be they about events of 10, 100 or 1000 years ago. What specifically have been your objections to this series of articles? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give my answer. They've been extraordinarily pro-LTTE, and they've gone into what I consider to be ridiculous detail covering these events.206.210.126.186 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as proposed. A quick look at the article shows that it is a candidate for splitting -- any other article, and the split would be quite non-contentious. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note. The closing admin for the AfD stated: "...but there is consensusal articles that the additional articles are unnecessary" (I assume he meant that "there is consensus that the additional articles are unnecessary"). There was no such consensus. Recognizing that an AfD discussion is not a vote, 7 editors spoke in favour of merging all of the articles, with 11 saying either keep/no merge/or no merge for the Canadian articles. Three editors (including myself) spoke against merging the Canadian article, and nobody rebutted their points. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • _I_ spoke against keeping separate articles, as did others editors.99.245.37.46 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the event of a keep, however, no one directly countered the points made about the Canadian article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to retroactive split. It's fine in one article. The Canadian portion seems *awfully* longwinded.206.210.126.186 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is why it should be pared down. There is WAY too much information.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no shortage of room on wikipedia. The whole point of the project is to make as much knowledge accessible as possible.Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Within the boundaries of notability, NPOV, COI ... basically, keeping things encyclopedic, rather than documenting everything that happens everywhere to everyone on the planet.206.210.126.186 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then, what should be taken out? Everything on the article sticks to topic. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a couple of edits were made, one more constructive than another, and the whole thing was reverted. This kind of thing isn't going to help. Please be more constructive making edits in the future, both McGregor and Eelam. I will put back the only constructive thing that was added since, by Eelam. If you wish to remove all the "pro-LTTE" tags, please do so - but do not remove what look to be constructive, good faith edits at the same time. It looks all the statements that can't be referenced were removed, as well as some very extraneous details. Good, constructive edit, IMHO.206.210.126.186 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as if a few users keep wanting to make heavy reversions and not discuss things on the talk page. This is not good form.174.114.232.143 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are users editing without using the talk page? Stop, or you will be blocked PERIOD.174.114.232.143 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they're giving admin rights to anonymous IPs now? when did that start? Also, from looking at user contributions, 99.245.37.46 and 206.210.126.186 appear to be the same person. I suspect 174.114.232.143 is as well. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better you create an account and have a positive history of editing before you say such a thing. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument that makes no sense - you seem to have a history of that.174.114.232.143 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eelam, there is no policy against IP addresses making edits to Wikipedia. Registration is encouraged, but not required. On the other hand, there are policies in place that you need to review, seriously, regarding Ownership, Conflict of Interest, Personal Attacks, Neutral Point of View, and Good Faith Editing. I encourage you heartily to read these, or risk being banned from this article.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would take a lot of effort for you to ban me from here. Interesting how you both are the first ones to label me in such ways. I also agree with Mr. McGregor's message above. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I think there's been enough time and considering that all the objections to reviving the Canadian article came from anon. ISP accounts controlled by the same person (who has multiple vandalism warnings), I'm going to go ahead and revert the Canadian article to it's last version and add a link in the Canadian section here. That means the Canadian section here will be mostly blanked except for a summary and the link. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COST of the diaspora protests[edit]

There were several news articles in Canada and UK on the cost of fixing broken roads, local stores and others due to Tamil diaspora protests. In addition, Ontario(Canada) government said that it also effected the economy and Ontario said, cost to the Canadian taxpayers are much higher than expected. Please find more information on cost of providing security(police), cleaning streets, buildings and economic impact. Then we can publish this information on this article. This is very relevant because this is a GLOBAL protest that effected not just one, but many governments. At one time there was a major argument between the Government of Canada and Ontario Provincial Government on WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THE DAMAGES. When LTTE supporters blocked the streets with their red LTTE flags, many Canadians called media and told that it affected their views on Tamil diaspora. Since they are holding the LTTE flag and caused problems for general public, Tamil diaspora lost the support from many, if not all people around them. Many Canadians worked against Tamil diaspora protesters because of the the cost to taxpayers and it effected their daily life(such as blocking a steerts at 5:00PM, right after work - Gardiner Expressway on May 10, 2009). This is true in many other countries. I think we should find all the news paper information on this and add it under "Reaction and Aftermath". This is a very important point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph[edit]

The one in place now has all unreferenced statements removed, and seems much more NPOV. Sufficient time has been given for the Fact/Date tags to have been dealt with. Since no references were forthcoming, they need to go. I would say this is a balanced intro. Please debate the issue here and seek consensus before reverting or editing further.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced? Are you kidding? You've deleted criticism of Sir Lankan army while leaving the criticism of LTTE. There's no time limit for citations. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for why these protests have stopped and their violence and vandalism[edit]

A new section as to why these protests have stopped would be nice, or is it evident and obvious? The reasons given at that time were "Save the Tamils", "Genocide" etc etc. Now that the self appointed sole protector of the Tamil people is gone, shouldn't the dangers be more? Or is it not necessary to address?

Another section or a new article on reported violence and vandalism associated with these protests should also be in place. Also the reaction of the native peoples of the countries which these protests took place would be an good idea.

Regards SriSuren (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word the native peoples of the countries which these protests took place i want to clarify that there is no much reaction come from First nations, or Metis in Canada for Tamil protest. Do yo think whites are natives. LOLZ man.... --BlueLankan 03:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reaction of Canadian natives were written in the Tamil Protests in Canada article once but there aren't enough sources. It would be excellent if anyone could find sources and add information about that on the Canadian article. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protests_against_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War&oldid=1209887970"