Talk:Sri Lanka/Archive 7

Untitled
Hello note that GDP nominal percapita sri lanka is $2399 in 2010 check it on http://www.statistics.gov.lk/national_accounts/Press%20Release/PRESS%20NOTE%20%202010%20Annual.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.72.136  (talk)  04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.85.231.26, 7 June 2011
Demography by Religion. Sri lankan population by the end of 2010 is 20.632 millions where as Budhists 14689974 ,Hindus 2048646 ,Christians 1335012,Moors 2217946 Malay,Burghers & Others 340438

Percentage of the population by Religion Budhists  71.2 Hindus     9.93 Islam     11.35 Christians 6.88 Other      0.64

88.85.231.26 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.- Happysailor  (Talk) 21:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Naushadson, 8 June 2011
Demography of the article is wrong,hence to be corrected.

Naushadson (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Chencholai bombing
I have added the Chencholai bombing by the Sri Lankan Air Force as it is something to with the Sri Lanka Military and its Air Force wing.Hillcountries (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have taken it back out. There is an entire article for the war.Shajure (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated. Even there are separate articles for Military to display "Kifir" and other fighter jets.Hillcountries (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And another editor has removed it. There is a section here about the civil war, with a link to the full article.  This article is a summary of the everything about Sri Lanka.Shajure (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we want to shift those contents to Civil War page, why there are contents related to Sri Lanka Military decorating the page. There are pages related to Sri Lanka Army and Military on Wikipedia. Wikipedia page is not a show piece for Sri Lanka Military or the Sri Lankan Government. It should be a neutral one.Hillcountries (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mahanipe, 15 June 2011
Add to further readings: Nihal Perera, Decolonizing Ceylon: Colonialism, Nationalism and the Politics of Space in Sri Lanka (oxford, 1998)

Mahanipe (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Alleged War Crime Charges
I have added Alleged War Crime Charges under "Foreign relations and military" as it is a major issue related to Sri Lanka. The page Sri Lanka should be a neutral page to give the right picture of the current and past Sri Lanka rather than a promotional piece of Sri Lanka to the World.Hillcountries (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have taken it back out. There is an entire article for the war.Shajure (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also a "civil war" section in the current article, pointing to the main article on the civil war. This seems adequate.Shajure (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated. Even there are separate articles for Military to discuss in detail of its credentials.Hillcountries (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please consider adding this to the existing section on the civil war. Consider wp:undue.Shajure (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, then the existing title should be altered as "Civil War and Alleged War Crime Charges".Hillcountries (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is already a section for human rights, and an entire article for it as well. The document does not detail war crime charges, but allegations... very different.Shajure (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are more issues related to War Crimes along with the human rights. So we need a separate section on War Crimes. Even there is a separate article on "Alleged War Crimes...."Hillcountries (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To whomever added this picture: Please do not post personal views in public place. If you have problems in certain matters bring it to the juridical system and prove it.If you want add past history about massacres in each country, you will find many incidents in each developed countries. Unless if you live in one of those countries you still fight for your rights while your government pay your bills.Find a job friend.Eeriyaka (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)]]


 * Thanks for your advice, please remove the Kfir Bomber along with...... which might have killed some thousands in the Civil War.Hillcountries (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I understand your feelings and respect your thoughts and views.Kfir Bomber was there so long time.and Wiki Pedia didnt decide the Kafit Bomber as violence image. Why didnt you ask to move the picture those days? Problem here is not the peace of machine . if you still have problem with Kafir Bomber discuss with United Nations and other relevant authorities .ask them to banned the Kafir bomber ,F16 and other all the War Planes around the world. this all planes do same thing. Eeriyaka (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't visited for a long time Sri Lanka page and didn't give enough notice to the Kfir Bomber.
 * Kfirs were used to bomb LTTE targets in the North & East of Sri lanka and there were several civilian casualties especially in the last stage of the War. When the victims' kith and kin visit the Sri Lanka page, Kfir won't be a piece of flying machine for them. Again for many it's a Friend of Conquest!Hillcountries (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed both War related images. and will take nessary action to remove all the war related topics.this page is not a United Nations forum.please take those matters to nessary authorities. Eeriyaka (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the War related details are part of the Sri Lanka's history, better let them be there, whether they are debated in the UN or elsewhere. Hillcountries (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly take necessary action to remove all war crimes allegations from the page. There are war crimes allegations against the US as well. I don't see a section on their page dedicated to the subject. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.40 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The argument, the war crimes allegation section is not there in the US page, doesn't validate, it should not be there in the Sri Lanka page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The dispute has already been settled.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the link where it is settled.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because there are allegations, it is not justify its addition into a country article. There are many allegations directed at any country at any given point. Yet these are NOT added for the simple reason that they are only allegations, not proven facts. Therefore alleged matters will be taken out of the article and could be included in the primary article of the war. As per images of military hardware, it is meant to provide an informative outlook into the military of a country. Since Sri Lanka is a sovereign country that has a legal military adding images of it to an article is acceptable. Cossde (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The allegations are credible according to recent UN Panel of Experts and they found credible evidence too. Sri Lanka is not willing to go for an International War Crime Investigation though the investigation is called by leading Human Rights Organizations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and International Crisis Group. And the Alleged War Crime section contain, the issues of both of the Sri Lankan Military and the LTTE at the final phase of the war.


 * Though Sri Lanka has a legitimate military to show the world, it actually consists of 99.9% Sinhalese personnel and waged a War with LTTE which fought with the violent methods for the liberation of the Tamil minorities.


 * While there are thousands of Tamils affected and killed by the Military apparatus which is controlled by the Sinhalese majority military, showing the military hardware won't justify the Sri Lanka page concerned on Wikipedia or for the reconciliation of the grieving masses of minority in Sri Lanka.


 * The world is no more tolerable under the guise of sovereignty to evade from the War crimes and other atrocities against minorities.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As per your first point the UN Panel of Experts does not constitute a formal inquiry by the UN, non has the UN formally acknowledged war crimes in Sri Lanka or move a resolution against it. Hence it is still allegations and NOT fact. As per "Sri Lanka is not willing" it is the prerogative of the government of Sri Lanka, not your's, mine or wikipedia. Hence wiki article can not establish that there were war crimes due to "Sri Lanka is not willing to go for an International War Crime Investigation".


 * Point no 2, are the stats your own ? and I am not clear to your point as the who fought with the violent methods. Please clarify. In any event you admit that Sri Lankan Armed Forces are legitimate.


 * Point no 3, "reconciliation of the grieving masses of minority in Sri Lanka" will have to occur in Sri Lanka on the gound. Not in wikipedia. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a forum, hence anything informative such as a photo only increases its value.


 * Point no 4, I believe is POV and nothing I could say would change you opinion.


 * My point, A country's armed forces are there to defend the entity of state against threats to its existence from both outside and within. Hence defending its self is not only tolerable but legitimate. And sovereignty is the independent existence of a state which must be protected so that exist.


 * Fact, people killed in the conflict were not just Tamils, but Sinhalese, Muslims and Burgers who were killed by the LTTE or by the acts of the LTTE. People killed by the LTTE or by the acts of the LTTE included members of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Foreign Armed Forces, Sri Lankan civilians, Foreign civilians and even Tamil militants. As Sri Lankans I consider Burgers, Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalese.  Cossde (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any of your above comments are genuine or makes sense while you are gaming the system with sock puppetry to push your POV. The "Alleged War Crime" is supported by reliable sources. I am reinstating the content on Alleged War Crime.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no offence but, I don't take your comments as genuine or makes sense either. Cossde (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well sourced content. Identifying the content as Controversial is POV. Wikipedia is not a promotional piece for the Sri Lankan Government. It should reflect all major historical events of other affected nationalities in Sri Lanka. Please have a look on Al-Anfal: Kurdish genocide, it is there on the main page of Iraq.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As per your second point may I refer to your comment before "the war crimes allegation section is not there in the US page, doesn't validate, it should not be there in the Sri Lanka page" hence just because its in the Iraqi article it doesnt mean that it should be here. As per your first point "Controversial is POV" it think its your PoV, it is controversial because it has not being established by the UN or the ICC. The sources listed, claimed as by you as RS, state that there were the possibility of war crimes NOT THAT THERE WAS without any question. Further do you stipulate that statements of the Government of Sri Lanka can be taken RS as your second sourced content is such ? Cossde (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We can argue this way or other way as we want, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Though the United States is not convicted for its is War Crime, it has an article on United States war crimes, not starting with the term, "Alleged". Still, if some want to bail out the US Government from its War Crimes and Crimes against the Humanity, can argue, The War Crime has not been established by the UN or the ICC; having in mind, "the United States has veto-wielding power at the United Nations Security Council and not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, the United States can't be convicted for ever".


 * Any way, it is up to those editors who managed to keep an article on United States war crimes, to decide whether they want to include in the main page of The United States.


 * Sri Lankan Government's Websites are not reliable RS, as well as of the LTTE. But when their statements appear in the third party sources we can take them as RS depends on the reliability of the third party sources.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you two still edit-warring here too? This better stop or there should be additional actions. If you two are willing to discuss on-the-table, with policies, fine; otherwise, you should both step out-of this topic. Just STOP original research, and stick to what reliable sources say. Hence, I don't want any messages on my talkpage, and I'll follow-up this article for a couple days. Take care and happy editing...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: HudsonBreeze, please try not to use someone's block history in a discussion.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk


 * Thanks, noted.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, removing credible sources is disruptive! Edit-warring here should also stop, and whoever have alternative views is welcome to add them. I know that the current phrasing is less-accurate, but fixing it is welcome or bring a policy-based reason to remove it.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems someones big brother has come around, hello ! Changes have been made as per sources provided. Cossde (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what do you mean by big brother? You accused Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and now other Wikipedians. An ArbCom enforcement is the right solution for this mess.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmmm now I can't state my opinion in a talk page ? wonderful I was under the impression that there was freedom of speech or is that a just an forgotten word from an by gone era ! Btw how come on one is doing anything about this fellows Edit Waring that he/she is doing right now ??? I say what I said before Changes have been made as per sources provided. Cossde (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech is the First Amendment in the United States, not here. Wikipedia requires WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL! Your comment wasn't nice, at all. If I see you two edit-warring somewhere else, I'll request you both for a topic-ban. You know that I'm not joking... You've already been warned on that noticeboards, so no further warnings are required.
 * What kind of source are you talking about that gives you the right to remove other sourced material? Yes, it needs rephrasing, as I mentioned above; but that doesn't give you the right to removed it. Bring me the policy that you imagined your claim on. Both of your arguments, using WP:OTHERSTUFF, is meaningless.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  04:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I do have to agree with you sir, in the US its Freedom of speech, but then the US and its allies may not practice it else where and even jail a wiki-leeks fellow. On the topic at hand I DID NOT remove sourced material even though I may question it. I only removed un-sourced material !!! Pls tell me what is inappropriate in that ? I also agree that it should be reworded which I did and was reverted by HudsonBreeze on some vague reason pls ask him to bring the policy that he imagined he claim on. It is very much clear that certain editors here have an agenda they wish to push and that is not the neutral point. Since the US has been dragged into the topic, look at its [Unites_States_of_America#Civil_War_and_industrialization|civil war section in its main page] it too was complicated as ours and had many....... oh I forgot the word war crimes wasn't in the dictionary back then sorry. Cossde (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, someone can't scream "FIRE" in a crowded building and call that freedom of speech. Everything has limits. Now, your denial is really starting to irritate me. I've jumped-in and started discussing the continues reverts, where your "I DID NOT" statement doesn't really make sense (unless you forgot this edit). For the third, and last, time: WP:OTHERSTUFF ain't a valid argument and your agenda theory definitely violates WP:AGF. We just use what reliable sources say in each case. As things started to clear here, I want to re-confirm that my above warning is still valid. If I see you two edit-warring again, a topic ban will be the next step. I know you both don't want that, so be civil and discuss things calmly.
 * As I've closely looked at your recent edits now, HudsonBreeze massively reverted your edits (including a PovFork), which is not good. If I saw it, I would also revert your tweaking (not the rest). For the time being, I see that I already made the changes you intended to do, except for the unsourced material. Whoever objects on removing the unsourced material should source that material this week; otherwise, I'll remove it myself. I think that's fair enough, as it's been tagged since 2010.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, last time I checked I wasn't the one shouting FIRE, its some one else. Since the history section requires only a brief description of the civil war, I suggest we follow the example of similar sections such as the [US#Civil_War_and_industrialization|US] or the [UK#Prior_to_1707|UK]. The subject it self is discussed in detail in the relevant articles. If not then what is the point of having titled articles ? why not put everything to gather ???  Cossde (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, everything can be brief in the main page, even the Sri Lankan Military's weapons(Used against its OWN citizens with War Crime charges) and its trivial and infamous Peace keeping involvement. However Civil War needs enough coverage in the main page as it has caused the deaths of several hundreds thousands and was discussed in almost all the media in the world.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ar Ah !!!! "Civil War needs enough coverage in the main page" so that is your end game !!! To gain enough coverage in wikipedia just as your compatriots have gone to great lengths to achieve enough coverage "in almost all the media in the world". I see that someone just let the cat out of the bag ! Cossde (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be too happy that you got one thing right, so stop feeding the troll.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  18:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cossde, which Cat out of the bag? our compatriots have gained enough coverage in the world media under the name humanity and your compatriots for war crime using deadly lethal weapons, banned bombs, rapes and extra-judicial killings?HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, where you referring to the LTTE, oh no they are not my compatriots. You may have mistaken me with someone else. BTW I have never been called a troll.... but I kind of like it. Cossde (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that this topic is emotional, but we still need to stick to policies. Please work on the "citation needed" sentences, as they will be removed by the end of the week.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk
 * I think I've said ENOUGH TIMES that WP:OTHERSTUFF ain't a valid argument, and a less-than 4 lines (in my screen) summary isn't too much of content. Look for some other excuse.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  16:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is neither a Sri Lankan site nor a Tamil forum for seeking justice for the genocide.So I think that this article must give a neutral picture of Sri Lanka.So I assert that the UN's Secretary Generals Expert Panel report that says that SL's armed forces deliberately targeted civilians,shelled hospitals incessantly,made Tamils civilians a in a state declared 'no fire Zone' and bombed them from air,water and land .Thus killing 40,000 Tamil civilians in the final stages of the war alone.Channel 4's documentary Sri Lanka's killing fields must be included in this article.So that a user can read the whole article and get a neutral idea about Sri Lanka.(Arun1paladin (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

Fact, people killed in the conflict were not just Tamils, but Sinhalese, Muslims and Burgers who were killed by the LTTE or by the acts of the LTTE. People killed by the LTTE or by the acts of the LTTE included members of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, Foreign Armed Forces, Sri Lankan civilians, Foreign civilians and even Tamil militants. As Sri Lankans I consider Burgers, Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalese<<The whole world is talking about the last part of the 25 years of civil war which took place in exclusively Tamil part of the island where the armed forces of SL were exclusively Sinhalese and the 40,000 killed people were Tamils (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Bosnian_War_.281992.E2.80.931995.29 '''I find that Srebrinca genocide is described in the Bosnia page.So why not Sri Lanka's genocide [crimes against humanity or war crimes according to some] in Sri Lanka page?(Arun1paladin (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC))
 * I think I've already mentioned above to please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF :p. Channel4's story was highly disputed by more credible sources (which I can provide, if needed). Therefore, we can't bring a story then say a better source said it's a lie. If you have another source, it's welcome; otherwise, please avoid Channel4.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka is a member of UN.The UN had clearly stated that the Channel 4 videos are authentic.I can give you sources of that.I will do that when I find time.Yet what use?You are going to deny that it's fake like all diplomats from SL.(Arun1paladin (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC))
 * I think you should set your wording straight and WP:AGF. Actually, the SL you're talking about are mentioned here. The UN said some Channel 4 reports were fake, and you said some are true (there's different reports for different timings). Bring the UN source you're talking about and no-one can stop you from adding it.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Now when I wrote things about the Channel 4 videos with source from UN's site,why was it removed?!(202.71.142.219 (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
 * You're using a shared IP, so I can't track your edits. Can you please provide a history link, to see whom and on what base it was removed? Thanks...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that my login session got expired at that time.In my last edit.I quoted from the UN site.Why was it removed?(Arun1paladin (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Hehe, ok. Now I know your IP, jkjk. It wasn't removed, but temporarily moved (in order to avoid a closed-cycle discussion). Please closely read and reply to this section.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * User HudsonBreeze has been engaged in serious edit waring, reverting and removing changers or modifications done in line with the sources at hand. I dont think this is working ! Cossde (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How it will work when you are adding content which is not tallying with the source and mixing up with your Original Research. While you are on a Edit War with me, you can't accuse me...Let someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HudsonBreeze (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you say, yet keep on reverting using lame excuses without taking the time to see that a new ref had been added. SO let me understand what your saying is that WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE AS YOU SAY IT HAS TO BE OR REVERTED IS IT ? Cossde (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then every time you come out with some Original Research and then when someone say, the source is not supporting the content, you bring some new source and say "hey, here it is". And the details you have added are not relevant to the section while the LTTE's ban is discussed on the LTTE's page. And your accusation on Tamil Diaspora is not supported by the source. Still, why you want that message there, better refer on the LTTE's page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ar ah !!!!, isn't this what the fighting was all about !!!! If such a relevant detail as the fact that the LTTE is considered a Terrorist organization should not be listed or the fact that they were funded by the Tamil Diaspora is nt noted here why should allegations of war crimes be listed here should it be "better refer on the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War's page" ? Why the double standard ? Is it inappropriate for the image you are trying to create here ? It should be both or nothing at all !!!
 * PS if you had read the source before deleting them you would have found everything you clam there isn't or maybe you feel free to ignore it too. Cossde (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War, both parties are accused. Then we can add along with Sri Lankan Armed Forces, all their rape charges and other.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then we can added all the suicide bombing, child soldering, assassination, etc here which are btw not alleged but fact.Cossde (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If all the opposing parties here say, "yes", then that it is fine.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That means all their terrorist activities could be listed here in full ? Or is it that you dont care about them any more since their nolonger and its the SL government thats left standing so you want to smother it with claims of war crimes so you can go ahead with your agenda. New means to an end after the LTTE way failed ? Cossde (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there will be struggle until the core issue are solved whether the LTTE is there not. If you don't know the history how the core issues were developed, please read below;


 * The Sinhala - Only movement and the Sinhala-Only Act were driving forces behind Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict.


 * The Sinhala Only Act was, curiously enough, not in agreement with the constitution of 1947, which forbade language discrimination.


 * The designations of Sinhala, the language of the majority community, as the sole official language was the first major step in a process, which eventually destroyed the post-independence "ethnic status-quo".


 * The Sinhala Only legislation was a severe blow to the national pride of the Sri Lanka Tamil community. For them, it symbolized an explicit rejection of their existence as a distinct nationality in Sri Lanka society, and posed the threat of assimilation by the majority community.


 * The Sinhala - Only Act blocked the Tamil quest for continued socioeconomic progress and led to Tamil mobilisation against the State. When peaceful protests were suppressed, extremists actions was legitimised.


 * The Sinhala - Only Act affected state employment and educational policies at a time when the state was the country's largest employer and when University education was viewed as a key to socioeconomic progress.


 * Equally important the act led to ethnic out bidding, and it legitimated Sinhalese jingoism, which only radicalised an otherwise culturally and politically conservative Tamil Community.


 * Although other factors - such as the government's internal colonisation policies - played a significant role in Sri Lanka's ethnic relations, the language issue was the most important item on the agenda for both Sinhalese and Tamils.


 * Indeed the Federal Party's crucial contribution to Tamil politics was its emphasis on the role of language as the determinant of nationhood. This determination to attain Tamil nationhood was exemplified by a Tamil parliamentarian who prophetically claimed that "if the Sinhalese will not agree to federation the Tamils will have a fully autonomous Tamil linguistic state by whatever means they can get it, by all the methods of history - rebellion, guerrilla war fare or anything you please.


 * When the bill was introduced on June 5, 1956, the Tamil Federal Party organised a Satyagraha(peaceful protest) outside the parliament building, The Tamil protest was met by a counter - protest organised by the (activist Sinhalese group) Eksath Bhikku Peramuna. A mob representing the latter attacked the Tamil protestors and was responsible for unleashing riots that killed nearly 150 Tamils.


 * While economic rivalry and ethnic jealousies partly lay behind the 1983 riots, the major reasons were the Sinhala - Only language policy and the culture of ethnic outbidding and the institutional decay that the language initiated, enculturated, and legitimated. It was the official Language Act and the blatant discrimination that it imposed on the Tamils over two decades that led to the Tamil quest for eelam.


 * References


 * Guys, you're both edit warring and you both ignored my proposal. Both of you, simply reply below if you "accept" or "deny" the proposal of only editing on the mediation sandbox till we find consensus. A simple answer will confirm your intentions; otherwise, we need to go through other channels.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  19:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Accept.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the sum of Sri Lanka, highly POV
I reverted for explanation. How those facts can't be sum of Sri Lanka, when they had happened in the very same land of Sri Lanka? Who says those facts are "highly POV"?HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add new sections to the right bottom. I think you wanted it to be after the above section, but it doesn't work that way.


 * I agree with Blackknight12 that the tone is a bad NPOV violation and unencyclopedic. I also agree with Cossde about being a summary, which the insertion is way too much. I believe the section is already well covered.
 * Arun1paladin, I've told you above to cite the UN, as you said you'll find, not media over media.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the objective is to summarize then, allegations of war crimes is out of proportion to the section on the civil war its self. Where as in reality there is much in the form of data and information in that of civil war than that of war crimes. For the simple fact the former is of 30 years duration and the later has popped up in the recent months. These two should not be taken out of proportion as its articles have now become and attempts are made to do the same in else where. Cossde (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then there is a new section should be started on the Sri Lanka page below the "Civil War" for "War Crime". War Crime is completely different than that of the Civil War which discuss about the structural issues, but the earlier one is solely about worst crimes committed in the midst of the Military Operation.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since some people find it irritating to find some sourced information against so called Democratic Socialistic Republic of Sri Lanka,i think that a new heading called Alleged War crimes and Crimes against humanity must be started in this article.After all wiki is not there to cater the interests of genocidal states(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

When the Germany page has a section called Weimar Republic and Third Reich which tells about what did Nazi Germany do in Germany and rest of [Europe]] then how come what Sri Lankan armed forces did in Sri Lanka is not a sum of Sri Lanka!!?(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Well we could have done that if the LTTE took over Sri Lanka. But they didn't. And for a person who now feels free to upgrade claims from War crimes to Crimes against humanity to genocide; I dont find any constructive comments here.Cossde (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Arun1paladin, I've told you above to cite the UN, as you said you'll find, not media over media. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)\\ You mean from UN site?Why shouldn't I add that 'This was reported in media x that person y from organization z said this?(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Reverting you will add crap-over-crap. Can everyone avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS please!
 * Now to the point. Let me put it another way. The civil-war section here is based on another article, so your information needs some fixes and can be added there. Most of the old content here is unsourced, so your addition will violate WP:DUE when the unsourced material is removed. I'd suggest keeping your content for one week (Aug 17th) keeping your material in this mediation sandbox because this article has a very high traffic, if someone promises to cite those unsourced materials in the civil-war section. On the 18th, I'll delete it all (old & new) if nothing has been fixed. I authorize anyone to edit the sandbox! Does this seem fair-enough to both sides?     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  04:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont see that this has stopped people from doing their own bit on the primary page without proper refs or any meaningful refs at all !!! Please tell me why anyone should contribute to this effort when people with "fixed agendas" are crafting both items with impunity ? Cossde (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, please stop your accusations. This is a high-traffic article, and a sandbox will have less stress when editing. You've seen that I haven't been on one side, but just follow policies on what you guys are doing. I never even knew where Sri Lanka is, and I've explained this before. Lets discuss there, to get a draft on the changes. Whoever is pushing a POV there will be dismissed. If no solution is found, then a topic-ban is the only way to go.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't a push of POV at both ends here, certain editors seems the want to use this article as an canvas for their objectives. Since one seems to be sticking to the sand box I see that there is no point of it at all. Cossde (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you all the same way, IMHO. Well, you just gave me an extra step to do tomorrow, summarizing between the sandbox and the article (including this edit, of course). We'll see how it goes.    ~ AdvertAdam   talk  19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka was formed in February 4,1948.From day one it had an ethnic conflict and it had a 30 years of civil war that ended only in 2009 and one editor wants to have just 4 to 5 lines about this civil war which occupied almost half of history of so called Democratic Socialistic Republic of Sri Lanka!!!!!!!!!! .Adam I request you to summarize the Civil war section and post war section.The edit of cossde is unacceptable (Arun1paladin (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC))


 * I'll be taken all the material that was presented here into consideration, from all parties. To be fair regarding time-zones, I'll add a maintenance tag before the end of the 18th my-time; because the 18th in California's time-zone will last the longest.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For your information the history of Sri Lanka is more than 3000 years, most of which is recorded. Therefore 4 to 5 lines maybe little bit too much for something that lasted 30 years ! How can you say that there was an ethnic conflict from the February 4,1948 its just POV !!! Cossde (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I too agree the history of Sri Lanka is more than 3000 years, even well before of the arrival of Vijaya with whom the history of the Sinhalese started.


 * There is evidence of Paleolithic (Homo Erectus) people in Sri Lanka about 300,000 BP and possibly even as early as 500,000 BP. There is strong evidence of prehistoric settlements in Sri Lanka by about 125,000 BP.


 * What will give the due weight how many lines could be there on Wikipedia is the recent significance and its importance of the Sri Lankan history in our memory lane, rather than how long we could go back in the time roller coaster.


 * At least from the day the Sinhala Only Act was introduced in 1956, the ethnic conflict also started.


 * When the bill was introduced on June 5, 1956, the Tamil Federal Party organised a Satyagraha(peaceful protest) outside the parliament building, The Tamil protest was met by a counter - protest organised by the (activist Sinhalese group) Eksath Bhikku Peramuna. A mob representing the latter attacked the Tamil protestors and was responsible for unleashing riots that killed nearly 150 Tamils.


 * Again, how many lines should be allocated is based on its importance and its impact on the modern history of Sri Lanka than some recorded events on history books or findings on fossils.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For your information the history of Sri Lanka is more than 3000 years, most of which is recorded. Therefore 4 to 5 lines maybe little bit too much for something that lasted 30 years ! How can you say that there was an ethnic conflict from the February 4,1948 its just POV !!!\\\ So if tomorrow all asian countries are invaded and acceded either to India or China to form a single sovereign state called Asia then will you say that there existed a country called Asia since 10,000 BC.There existed no single sovereign state in that island before February 4, 1948.You remind me of the right wing people from Hindutva camp of India who say that India is existing since 170,000 BC and Pakistan,Afghanisthan,Bangladesh,Bhutan,Maldivies,Nepal,Indonesia,Vietnam,Thailand,Malaysia,Singapore are parts of India and they have to captured back to form Akhand Bharath.Regarding the ethnic conflict.The Sri Lankan  state chose to discriminate Tamils right from the day one.So it's a conflict that started on the very day your state was formed.I don't think I have to writes pages and pages to remind you that how non-violent Tamil protestors  were brutally attacked by Sri Lankan[Sinhala] army and police in front of your Parliament when the SINHALA ONLY ACT was about to be enacted. Sinhala ministers and Sinhala PM were watching this from your parliament's balcony and enjoying that.Didn't the Sri Lankan state  by passing the Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948,  dis-enfranchise  a  million  Indian origin Tamils who were forced to work as slaves to convert jungles on hills of Central Sri Lanka into tea plantations.(Arun1paladin (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Thank you very much for your point of view, Arun1paladin. Cossde (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.246.66.79, 25 June 2011
regarding the Tamil minority we should update their 25 years movement's defeat and the destruction, caused to the country also the equal ism now the have in the country.

24.246.66.79 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace Keeping Force
Sri Lankan Defense Ministry's website is not a reliable source.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then Tamilnet also is a reliable source on Tamil's grievances in Sri Lanka. But it is branded as a non reliable source for its use on Wikipedia. We can't have double standard on Wikipedia. HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr.AdvertAdam ,now what is your stand on this?You find that The Times is an unreliable source.Now what is your stand on the reliability of Sri Lankan government sites.I thin that if SL's sites can be considered reliable then the same can bell applied to www.tamilnet.com(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
 * It all depends on a case-by-case thingy, with a mixture between commonsense and policies. I don't know what this discussion is about, as it will take a lot of time to track the history of 1 month. In general, a SL site is reliable to talk about itself (not defending), and Tamil's site is reliable for their-own content (not defending). Although, none of the two are reliable, alone, to accuse others. I hope that helps. I don't see a reason to consider The Times unreliable, as long as we don't have a stronger source (or future incident) that highly contradicts it. As long as everyone stays calm and avoid warring, consensus can be met :).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Conflict
I have created a new section on "Ethnic Conflict"

History section can't accommodate the issues of Ethic Conflict which is so far not resolved in Sri Lanka. History section is for dead and gone issues.Hillcountries (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The mediation sandbox hasn't been agreed by all editors, so it can't be copy-pasted. Anyways, I'll be working on the article tonight. It should-of been yesterday, but sorry for the delay guys (it's been a crazy week at work :p). I'll look into your point, too.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  17:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I have re-added the content. There are number of sections and content which are not acceptable to others. A few editors here act like they own the page, "Sri Lanka". The Civil War and Post War issues are extension of the Ethnic Conflict and not some isolated events or dead and gone history altogether. Hillcountries (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with Hillcountries some users are trying to hijack this article to publish their idealism ! The history section is a summary of 3000 years of Sri Lankan history. I don't understand what this new Ethnic Conflict Hillcountries is referring too! The Sri Lankan Civil War was referred to by many as an Ethnic Conflict, therefore I think that you are referring to that. If so there is a complete article on that subject where details are ample. Cossde (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Sri Lankan Ethnic Conflict started immediately after the independence of Sri Lanka, but the Sri Lankan Civil War was subsequently after that. If the Sri Lankan Civil War could be referred as an Ethnic Conflict then it should begin with the events after the independence, and not somewhere in between. By the way, there is a separate article for History of Sri Lanka, but you want a detail content of history on Sri Lanaka article. And the same time you want to hide somewhere in between the Sri Lankan Civil War in the Sri Lanka article, under "Modern Sri Lanka". What is your rationale? Sri Lanka is much known by outside world for its Civil War than its more than 3000 years old history.Hillcountries (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What part of "I think the Sri Lankan Ethnic Conflict started immediately after the independence of Sri Lanka, but the Sri Lankan Civil War was subsequently after that" is POV ? ..... oh yes all of it. The history section is also a simple summary of the History of Sri Lanka. Again "Sri Lanka is much known by outside world for its Civil War than its more than 3000 years old history." is PoV and perhaps the objective of certain people ! Cossde (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not my POV. There are enough WP:RS to support "Sri Lankan Ethnic Conflict started immediately after the independence of Sri Lanka" and "the Sri Lankan Civil War was subsequently after that". We can summarize the "Ethnic Conflict" or "Sri Lanka Civil War" in the main article "Sri Lanka" and then direct to the main article. Again "Sri Lanka is much known by outside world for its Civil War than its more than 3000 years old history." is not a PoV at all because every other country and region has more than 3000 years old history in the world and why they should look at Sri Lanka other than its bloody Civil War or its unresolved Ethnic Conflict. Only those who want to hide the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka only want to hide it on Wikipedia also. But that won't work over the time.Hillcountries (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All I see here is you attempting push our idealism into this article. Further no one wants to hide it, as it has been summeriesed here. However it may not adhere to your objective of blowing it out proportion to create and alternate history of your liking. Cossde (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been watching many incidence in this article, and the worst I ever saw is removing the main template that's linking to the original Civil War article. Anyways, I just added the maintenance templates to start working on the section, so I hope everyone has time to study WP:Ownership of articles while I'm editing.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems your doing a very poor job at it. Cossde (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We've dealt together Cossde, and you know that this is not how I work. Give me some time to dig things up... I'm still working on it.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced, specifically due to the source you have copy pasted here, these where the sources used during the war, when a another war raged in wiki by the same people we have here, with different guises and aims. Cossde (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convince you with anything. How can I rephrase my previous comments, "JUST WAIT". All I did is restored your massive deletion (I'm not saying it's wrong nor right!). Now, I'm studying the sources, the content, and how can it be best summarized to qualify for a higher-then "C Class", IMO. When I'm done, I'll open another section below for discussion. So please, stay calm, wait, and read WP:Ownership of articles.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  06:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ! may I ask your standard for classifying sources ? Cossde (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my standard: WP:RS. AGAIN, I'm not satisfied of this edition of the article, and I'll let you know when I am.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like some one else has to read WP:Ownership of articles Cossde (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You just make me laugh, even though it wasn't funny this time. The only reason I'm pushy here now, is to avoid opening a topic-ban case against both of you. Haven't your realized that you're the only one that's involved in all edit-wars I've seen? You've been warned about this, so please stop and present your concerns here instead of removing anything you don't like. If a part has a problem fix it, but don't remove the whole section. Anyways, can we focus on the content please; below.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  10:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Official Religion
The Official religion of sri lanka is Buddhism. Please refer to chapter 9 of the constitution. Quote " The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(l)(e). "

Please make appropriate changes to the article. Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when are we editorializing articles?
Actually, let me answer that. We aren't. So first, a little relevant policy blurbs.


 * Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. - WP:SPS


 * Exceptional claims require high-quality sources - WP:REDFLAG


 * The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. - MOS:OPED

For decades, experts from around the world have been discussing reasons for the militarization of the Tamil youth in Sri Lanka. Even now, they'll struggle to come to any kind of consensus as to the root causes of the conflict. (And note, by saying experts I mean real experts). But apparently, Wikipedia has the answer.


 * The Sinhala Only Act was driving forces behind Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict.

Ignoring the bad grammar, where is this claim cited from? A book by a pol sci Professor at Indiana. Now if he is acceptably determined to be an expert in the field, his opinion can be included in the Sri Lankan Civil War article as a quotable primary source. But his book alone is in no way sufficient to cite such a controversial claim.

And it gets better (actually, I mean worse).


 * The Sinhala Only Act blocked the Tamil quest for continued socioeconomic progress and led to Tamil mobilisation against the State. When peaceful protests were suppressed, extremist actions were legitimized.

And we now have a Wikipedia article basically justifying the acts of the Tamil Tigers. Great!

So... I will be taking this totally irresponsible section out.


 * The Sinhala Only Act was driving forces behind Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict. The Sinhala Only Act was, curiously enough, not in agreement with the constitution of 1947, which forbade language discrimination. The designations of Sinhala, the language of the majority community, as the sole official language was the first major step in a process, which eventually destroyed the post-independence "ethnic status-quo". The Sinhala Only Act blocked the Tamil quest for continued socioeconomic progress and led to Tamil mobilisation against the State. When peaceful protests were suppressed, extremist actions were legitimized.


 * Equally important, the act led to ethnic out bidding and it legitimated Sinhalese jingoism, which only radicalized an otherwise culturally and politically conservative Tamil Community. Although other factors&mdash;such as the government's internal colonisation policies&mdash;played a significant role in Sri Lanka's ethnic relations, the language issue was the most important item on the agenda for both Sinhalese and Tamils. Indeed, the Federal Party's crucial contribution to Tamil politics was its emphasis on the role of language as the determinant of nationhood. This determination to attain Tamil nationhood was exemplified by a Tamil parliamentarian who prophetically claimed that "if the Sinhalese will not agree to federation the Tamils will have a fully autonomous Tamil linguistic state by whatever means they can get it, by all the methods of history: rebellion, guerrilla war fare or anything you please.

And on to the rest of the section. The Civil War went on for 26 years. The Tamil Tigers were active for 6-7 years before that. Tamil militants were popping up years before that. So we're talking about a war and it's roots stretching back 40-50 years. Somewhere around a hundred thousand people died. A President was assassinated. A foreign leader was assassinated. A foreign army lost over 1000 men in the country. A plane was bombed mid-flight. Entire cities were cleansed of their minority population. Thousands of people were forced to flee the country. Countless battles were fought. 4 rounds of peace talks were held. International ceasefire monitors maintained a shaky peace for 4 1/2 years. And you get the picture. Yet 2 of the 3 paragraphs that actually describe the conflict pretty much cover the last 3 months of the conflict, out-datedly at that.

So a couple more relevant policy and essay quotes.


 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. - WP:UNDUE


 * Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in... Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. - WP:RECENT

Now I'm not saying other related articles are perfect. They too give too much coverage to recent events. But given the Civil War was a 50 year event for a country with a 2500 year history, and this article is already well past the WP:SIZERULE guidelines, this section needs to be contained. For reference, see also coverage the World Wars/War On Terrorism get in the United States of America article, or coverage of the World War in the Germany (featured) article.

My suggestion, 3 paragraphs covering the Civil War. One about the past, the suggested causes and the rise of militants etc. One about the actual Civil War. And one about the end of the war and recent occurrences. I would also suggest, we discuss on here how the section gets worded and what is contained, and they copy it over to the main article.

What say? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 02:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is your usual POV piece as elsewhere to degrade the original cause of the ethnic conflict.Hillcountries (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you start by reading WP:NPA. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Do you have anything to say related to the material of the article? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 10:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please avoid accusations. The comment wasn't a PA!     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That wasn't an accusation! And again, Hillcountries, do you have anything to say regarding content? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If academic publishers ain't reliable then what is, in your theology? There has been multiple discussions and the summary I started was based on all the content I've seen here by pros and anti blas. Your suggestions are highly welcome, but flipping around policies aren't. You're not the only one who has the book. I'll be replying to the above comment in a minute.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you read the policies mentioned above? I'm not flipping around policies, whatever you mean by that. Very clearly stated in the guidelines of Wikipedia is that you can't use single/self published sources to cite controversial claims, and you can't give bias to certain events.
 * And I will expect the rest of your reply. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 10:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well sir, since when was a book published by an academic publisher self-published? Is that in your guidelines too? Please explain, as this flips the whole discussion backwards.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, since when is "Nova Science Publishers" a reputed academic publisher (No, a Wikipedia article is not a RS). And Routledge? Do you have any sources which suggest any of the cited material has been peer reviewed before publication?
 * And none of this changes that controversial claims require multiple/exceptional sources. To put it in perspective, the section, as it stands, is similar to saying the actions of the 9/11 hijackers were legitimized by US actions in the Middle East, based on the opinion of a single author. No, that would not stand.
 * And I am still waiting a response to the rest of my post. In the meantime, tags. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sourced books of "Nova Science Publishers" and "Routledge" in question are each written by Two authors, so the peer review is there among the authors of each books and both books are carrying the same message of the Ethnic Conflict which validates more of their findings along with the other book which was published by The MIT Press which is sourced there.Hillcountries (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not how peer review works. Two people with extreme biases can write two books with the same content, that doesn't make them automatically peer reviewed. And again, you are missing two points. One, controversial claims require exceptional sources, which are not present here. And two, the section contains extreme "recentism".
 * Also, you cannot simply remove article templates. If you actually read the template before erasing it, it says, " Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". This dispute is far from resolved. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 11:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Two authors can't write a book with bias view. Even if they write another Two set of Editors can't write another the same view similar to the first set. That means what they write is general fact than their POV. Your edit of this, how good you are pushing the "Sinhala" in a Tamil dominated City of Jaffna with some facts which are questionable.Hillcountries (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What a "surprise"! With the article protected from the inappropriate (constant) edit warring and vandalism, and a chance for the dispute to be finally discussed PROPERLY, the users making the controversial edits have not even bothered to back up their edits or given a good enough rationale for their reason behind it.
 * "The above is your usual POV piece as elsewhere to degrade the original cause of the ethnic conflict." and "Your edit of this, how good you are pushing the "Sinhala" in a Tamil dominated City of Jaffna with some facts which are questionable."

are again just another opportunity to digress from the topics and are not responses to the dispute. Further more a couple of the editors have not even shown up! These actions may even suggest why these editors are on Wikipedia in the first place. I wonder what will happen when the protection tag comes off in a weeks time?--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Peace keeping
The following should be added;

There has been a terrible pattern of abuses: in December 2007, more than 100 UN soldiers from Sri Lanka were deported under charges of sexual abuse of under-age girls..HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be included in Foreign relations or Military section?(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

Island nation
There is no valid justification why Sri Lanka should be called as an Island nation and a redirect to Island country from Island nation.Hillcountries (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the stupidest thing I have heard! There is nothing wrong with using the word nation here and has not been until you guys came.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nation is more a accurate term when there is only a homogeneous community of people who share a common culture and religion. When there are different ethic groups the term becomes controversial whether the different ethnic group territories are governed by governments which claim sovereignty over them. There is one more editor too differ your opinion here. What he/she says in the summary is true, "A nation = a country united not true here". And because no one has noticed so far doesn't validate its true for ever. Hillcountries (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that is only your point of view and the person you have cited happens to have the same point of view as you. You have no evidence nor a good enough rationale and just because you may think Sri Lanka is not a united country doesnt make it so.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is a United country why there is a Ethnic Conflict and was Civil War in your land. Just because a country is united by some historical incidents and mistakes don't make sense some one to consider there is a Nation within it.Hillcountries (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So considering what you are saying, you are editing Wikipedia based on your accounts and research of the country, and what you think is right and wrong? Is that correct? Do you have any non biased evidence or sources to back up what you say? It looks to me like you committing WP:OR. These actions are not excusable on wikipedia, an encyclopaedia.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I think is the way rest of world also think these days and you don't want to be worry about the POV on my part.04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Hillcountries (talk)
 * Yes but can you provide a source for what you said so that the edit can be change?


 * What you just said is not valid for use in wikipedia, if you do not recognize that your quote "The way I think is the way rest of world also think these days and you don't want to be worry about the POV on my part." was your point of view and not that of others (even though some may have similar views) you should not be editing here.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is my generalised view. But if you search, you will find enough reports of many human rights organizations and other intellectuals but you will brand them simply as pro-LTTE or separatists.Hillcountries (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you can not be adding your generalised view to Wikipedia, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT WHEN YOU FIRST CAME HERE! I have asked you many time but still you can not provide one single piece of evidence to back up what you say. Obviously you are out to smear Sri Lanka's image here so I think it fair to say Island nation will continue to be in the article. Thank you--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need someone to come at what point he or she comes into a scenario to tell something is right or wrong. "Island nation" wrong term. Please leave others to comment here.Hillcountries (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again just because you say it is doesnt make it so. Others can comment when ever they want but I'm sure your friends will come back you up, and maybe they will produce a piece of evidence that you could not.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why you should worry about so called my friends, then what about your friends(or your SPAs) who are reverting while you are discussing here? What about other neutral editors who are involved here. Everyone oppose your views are friends in your view.Hillcountries (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Island nation is the best term for Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is too small to be called an island country. It sounds better to refer to very small nations as nations, and leave country for big countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. Australia might be called an island country. It sounds odd to speak of the Vatican country, the country of Monaco, or the country of San Marino...but calling them nations sounds right. Your notion that nation implies ethnic unity while country does not is incorrect...that idea probably comes from something in your own native language. Some of the Slavic languages such as Belarusian and Croatian tend to memorialize ethnicity in some of their words, but in English the words nation and country do not have such a sense. —Stephen (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up Stephen, but the problem here is that there are some users that think its ok to edit Wikipedia based on their generalised view points and that evidence doesnt matter because what the say is always right.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka might be a recognise sovereign state but this doesn't make it a nation.It's not a homogenous.I would like to remind Blackknight that when ever any Foreign journalist questions a Sri Lankan [Sinhala] diplomat about the crimes against humanity and war crimes of the exclusively Sinhala army of Sri Lanka under the command of Sinhala president,Sinhala PM,Sinhala Defense Minister during the last phase of the ar from January 2009-May 2009 that diplomat would say that in this 30 years Sinhalese and Muslims too died.Sri Lanka is can't be called be a nation because it doesn't have a single ethnic group with a single language.After all it's one state on earth that says muslims is an ethnic group(Arun1paladin (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC))


 * You don’t speak native English. Being recognized as a sovereign state DOES make it a nation. It doesn’t matter if every Lankan citizen belongs to a different race and religion and hates every other citizen, it is still a nation. The word has nothing whatsoever to do with ethnicity or homogeneity. —Stephen (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

Sri Lanka doesn't have a common language,common culture ,common ethnicity.In fact it has invented a new ethnicity on earth called 'Muslims' and recognised it (Arun1paladin (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC))


 * That’s right, there are nations like the Sioux Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation. That’s a different sense of the word nation. The kind of nation that Sri Lanka is is the common meaning of nation, and it does not matter that there are different languages, races, religions, loyalties, and ideologies in Sri Lanka, it is a nation. Being a nation has nothing to do with ethnicities or Muslims. —Stephen (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Native American nations mentioned in that nation article are recognised as sovereign states by USAThe word nation has many meanings so it's better to write country.

I have even seen photos of Sri Lankan military establishments with slogan 'One nation,One Country,One People'.So in this sentence the Sri Lankan state wouldn't have used the words nation and the country in the same sense.(Arun1paladin (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Just for your information there are people of all ethnicities and backgrounds in the government, not just Sinhalese. And they are not called Muslims they are called Sri Lankan Moors and they where not invented. I am surprised by your ignorance, or maybe your just trying to deceive Stephen. --Blackknight12 (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't get what do you mean. If they don't call them as Muslims why there is a Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and All Ceylon Muslim Congress.Hillcountries (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hallo Stephen! Your POV pushing is great! You are an uninvited guest before we take this issue to any forum for comment or opinion. Any way just I am asking you where it is there "Country" is for big states and "Nation" is for too small states. Don't misinterpret those island states which are called as "Island nations" because not only they are small but they are with homogeneous ethnic people like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Palau, Maldives...etc. But Sri Lanka with decades long ethnic strife not fit for the term, "Island nation". Why you super impose the term "Nation" if it could be called as a "Country" or a "State".Hillcountries (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how anyone, Sri Lankan or not, who doesn't have the same POV as you is wrong in your eyes and is "pushing for it".--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hillcountries, you are mistaken...I am indeed an invited guest here. English is my native language, it is clearly not your native language. And no, Native American nations are not sovereign states. That is why I said that it is a special sense of the word nation. In the case of Sri Lanka, it regular sense applies. Sri Lanka is a sovereign state, which makes it a nation, and which makes it a country, both in the same sense. The only difference is that nation in this sense can be applied to nations of any size and strength, from the Vatican to Russia, while the word country is usually more appropriate for the large countries. The people of Sri Lanka speak Tamil or Sinhalese, and English is a foreign language for them. When they speak English, it is not perfect English, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand their attempts at English. How they use or misuse English does not have any impact on our language; how they use or misuse English does not mean that we have to accept their strange usage when we describe their nation in this article. Specifically, island nation is a good fit for Sri Lanka, but island country is not. —Stephen (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hallo stephen, don't come out with Cock and Bull stories here. Why your are so bothered whether some one language is first or second on English. So do you mean if my mother tongue is English, I will interpret the term "Nation" in a different way and if not another way. If you are a invited guest no surprise you will repeat the slogan, "Specifically, island nation is a good fit for Sri Lanka, but island country is not." forever.Hillcountries (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think editors need to review WP:Ownership, as this is the second editor not welcoming non-Sri Lankans (like myself). Can you please comment on contributions, not contributors.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk
 * I thought the discussion was over before I reverted. I kinda have an additional view on the matter. Nation is more closer to certain people on a certain land (without separation), while country is more closer to a governmental system. As long as there was and probably still is intention with the Sri Lankan government, I don't see no reason to not generalize to nation. As Stephen said, not being a native speaker might make a difference on the weight of the word nation. I suggest checking the dictionary, as Wikipedia ain't a reliable source :p.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adamrce none of the discussions, including any of these users, were over.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adamrce, I am not getting what do you mean by, "As long as there was and probably still is intention with the Sri Lankan government, I don't see no reason to not generalize to nation."Hillcountries (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Hillcountries, I’m not bothered about whether someone has English as his first or second language. It is a question of native competence in the language, or not so native competence. Yes, I do mean that if your mother tongue were English, then you would use and understand the word nation in a different way from how you understand it now. You don’t speak perfect English by any means, and I can tell that you don’t understand it perfectly either. Now, I do not know what you mean by the word slogan. That whole sentence makes no sense to me at all. I can’t figure out if it is bad English or bad logic. —Stephen (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephen, my mother tongue is not English, but I am not bothered of that when I use the English language for my communication. I don't think even an American and an English do understand the same way when they watch an Australian movie like average Australians though all their mother tongue is English. Slogan, I used to indicate, for some phrases which won't be altered for a while.Hillcountries (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong but I think what he meant by that was you were invited to this discussion by someone to support the opposite view to his?--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be taking this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine.Hillcountries (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for your information there are people of all ethnicities and backgrounds in the government, not just Sinhalese<< Yea may be in some dummy posts.Even India we have a dummy post called President.Do you have contradictions with the fact that your President,PM,Defense Minister are all Sinhalese?How many Muslim Prime Ministers or Presidents did you have so far!?? How many muslims army generals are their in your army.I think you can details from your sovereign states websites related to those departments(Arun1paladin (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Indian article the word that is used is country and not nation(Arun1paladin (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

Nation http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation

noun


 * a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:the world’s leading industrialized nations
 * a North American Indian people or confederation of peoples.

Phrases

one nation
 * [often as modifier] a nation not divided by social inequality:one-nation Tories

Derivatives

nationhood noun

Origin:

Middle English: via Old French from Latin natio(n-), from nat- 'born', from the verb nasci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 

One word may have many different meanings, and for your information and that of everyone here "your President,PM,Defense Minister are all Sinhalese" is inaccurate since, for most part of the country's post independence history the PM was the Defense Minister and their after the President was the Defense Minister. However powerful portfolios such as Foreign Minister, Finance Minister, etc were held by non-Sinhalese. There have been and are General officers, flag rank and air officers of all ethnic groups.Cossde (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the compromise I've offered as a neutral at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If you wish to approve, oppose, or discuss that suggestion, please do it there, not here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a student currently majoring in Geography I have taken a keen interest in the whole Sri Lankan issue. In this sense people usually use nation and country interchangeably. However that is incorrect. User:Hillcountries is correct in the definition of "nation". Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   19:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka belongs the sinhalese....
I tought Sri Lanka is a multinational island, but this whole article is a sinhalese nationalist propaganda. Nice to see, that Wikipedia is a platform for all extremist. --Tamilstyle (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First show us some examples before making false accusations. and keep this in your racist mind properly. we got number of Tamil ministers ,Businessmen, Teachers, Professors , and even Buddhist Monks. we ain't racism and no need to propagate that obviously Sri Lanka is the land of Aryans which means Sinhalese and rest of ethnic people are minorities. sorry about that but that's the reality. no offense. --Avaloan


 * Name some examples, show us what is wrong there and correct it if you want to. It could not be easier. --Askalan (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sinhalese is the majority language. Just like Hindi is the language of India and Mandarin is the language of China. Not all the people in those countries speak those languages. But still no one says anything about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.67.147 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that Latin Americans constitute 15% of the population and is growing. Why isn't Spanish made a national language in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.40 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

USA has never made an English-only resolution because it's a democratic country, with no official language. Sinhala-only resolution resulted in the civil war. Hindi is not the national language of the India, it's just an official language, just like English. In Tamil Nadu, Hindi is never used, not even officially. English and Tamil are used instead. Had Sri Lanka kept English as the linking language there would have been no civil war at all. In Belgium two thirds of population is Dutch-speaking, but they would never impose Dutch on French-speaking Belgians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.32.176 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So, now do you want to go back to the past using a time machine and make sure to use "English as the linking language" to avoid civil war? the sinhala-only act is just among one of the many mistakes made by both Sinhalese and Tamil communities that resulted the terrorism and civil war. - Composemi (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Stick to the point and focus on sourced material only, pls
Sorry for my absence guys... I think anyone would consider the above conversations very progressive, considering 3 months with over 85,000 bytes of discussion for a 3,000 byte section! I think it would go smoother if everyone avoids original research (especially WP:SYNTH), personal knowledge & WP:POVs, and most important, the word you. I actually had an instructor that totally hates the word you and would kick anyone out if they use it. I believe it will cool and narrow down the two groups of discussions. I've stepped in when I saw continues edit-warring in two Sri Lankan-related articles before, and this is my third. I hope everyone can stick to the specific material concerns and avoid OR. Any requested change/concern should simply be provided with an independent reliable source. Do the following sum-up all concerns here? Just ignore the tags, for now. We're not here to point fingers or win arguments. Please follow the same numbering, to avoid confusion: 1.Terrorism: Calling LTTE terrorists is a NPOV violation. We might call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization anywhere, but not Hamas, Hizb Allah, and Zionists, even though they're highly accused to be terrorists by many governments and organizations. I'm just giving an example of the usage, comparing the notability of the term. The terrorist statement is already in its article (where it belongs), and this article already says separatist (which is almost always non-legit) and militant (which is worst).    ~ AdvertAdam   talk
 * War Crimes: Talking about alleged war crimes in the case is a NPOV violation. We might talk about Nazi Germany's war crimes, but not United States, United Kingdom and Israel' s war crimes, even though they're highly accused of committing alleged war crimes by many people and and organizations. I'm just giving an example of the usage, comparing the notability of the term. The alleged war crimes statement is already in its article (where it belongs), and this article already says conflict (which is almost always non-legit) and brought the entire country under the control of Sri Lankan government (which is worst) since it was a reestablishment of control. Cossde (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the matter of balancing between credibility and notability, as alleged by the UN is not equal to alleged by Sri Lankan government or the Arab League.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to you, perhaps but this may say otherwise to your "balancing act". Cossde (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We just can't use singular POVs. Not all medias agree so, like on Al-Qaida. Anyways, just follow WP:TERRORIST to get this over-with.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2. War crimes: According to the discussion, I think that it needs a little more details; but I suggest postponing it till the end. The current state is neutral, and we can work on it as soon as everything else is settled, IMO.    ~ AdvertAdam   talk


 * WP:DUE should be considered since you hadded only two sentences on a war that killed over 70,000 and seven for just one of many reasons as to the causes of the war, which seems to exemplify that as the reason for the war which is WP:NPOV together with editorialization with terms such as "Equally important,".
 * The seven sentences following the brief section on the actual war is also violation of WP:DUE. Clearly 80% of the content is not of the war even though the section title may say so. Therefore its a clear violation of WP:DUE and WP:POV. Cossde (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Writing (with credible sources) that both parties committed war-crimes ain't WP:DUE! It said both, and never favored any side of the story. As I said, let's give this topic a couple more days till the rest of the content gets settled, IMO (to not get everything mixed-up).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your are missing the point here, WP:DUE is breached simply by your focus more on one single cause (out of so many) and one sub topic (alleged war crimes), completely neglecting the actual war it self. Cossde (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I can't just take your word for WP:DUE. You were invited to add material before, so you can't claim WP:DUE without bringing sourced material that proves so. Please read policies before you link them, like this closing statement: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. I've said earlier that I think we need more material. Don't just remove the part you feel/think is overdue.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

3. Sources: The beginning of the argument didn't make sense, generalizing that the sources are self-published. Then when there was more details about the concerns, we can categorize the other two sources as weaker sources (not self-published). I agree that weaker sources need stronger sources to support them, while MIT already covered the material. Therefore, the weaker sources aren't standing alone. If the accuracy of the information is disputed, there simply need-to-be stronger reliable sources that say so. None-of-us, while on Wiki, are reliable enough to personally dispute academic publishers. If my explanation isn't satisfying, then WP:RSN is the place to go (but please link it here).


 * As an example, the weakest source I see is the "Noval Science Pub," even though you can easily see their scholarly credibility in the following:.
 * 107 is the most source I'm concerned about, which I recommend replacing if anyone has an independant source. I know that a lack of media is a problem. Otherwise, we can just phrase the last sentence as it's the government's estimate.

4. Please let me know if I forgot a point! There were chunks of material on the article before, so I made a summary to balance WP:DUE and WP:NPOV solely based on the available material. If someone feels more details are needed, please prove sources and try to keep it as neuteral as possible. Cheers and happy editing...   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess some couldn't wait till the page got automatically unprotected. I'll request a protection if this warring keeps going. I've made a couple edits, so opinions criticism is welcome here: my revert], but I can't accept the edition's POV tweaking that was done. I suggest to review the history and correct the phrasing. Again, I think that the introduction in the revision before my revert was more neutral, but it just needs some work.   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the POV tag again, which is currently needed (even tho it wasn't accurate before, within an ongoing discussion).
 * I honestly do like the introduction of the revision before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka&diff=cur&oldid=prev


 * Clearly your objectives in this article are questionable since you effectively call for protection after your own work has been restored, blurting out that of others without any regard. What I see is that you are forcing your own contribution violating WP:Ownership ! Cossde (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't called for protection, and reverting obvious POV tweaking and restoring removed reliably-sourced material ain't ownership-claiming. No-one added sourced disputes yet, so do you have any? I think you've seen in previous articles that I don't take sides, so can you please WP:AGF. Thanks you and happy editing...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sited marital
Revert by Hillcountries has resulted in the removal of sited marital. Cossde (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that edit also restored sourced material that was removed by yourself, sir. I was bold and took a median action, removing the POV image, restoring the previously removed material, and re-adding the POV-tag until the wording is fixed (it still needs work, so I'm not claiming perfection).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Official and recognized language
(1) The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala. (2) Tamil shall also be an official language.(Added by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution Sec. 2 (b)) (3) English shall be the link language. (4) Parliament shall by law provide for the implementation of the provisions of this Chapter].

Like all the countries Sri Lanka must have official religion reconnizing the other religious faiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.42.225 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

/* Demographics */ outdated stats/ Invalid
Revert this edit by Astronomyinertia as reasons stated below - see this. Distributor108

I have updated the demographics in accordance to latest government statistics, however user gave me a vandalism notice for this change.

The current demographics stats is sourced from the university of cambrdige in the 1993.

A. The university of Cambridge does not have jurisdiction to make statistical estimates in sri lanka.

B. This stats is from 1993.

C. They are in direct contradiction to stats from an agency charged responsibility and jurisdiction to maintain statistics in sri lanka.

Here is the source to the Department of statistics. please change the Stats as follows.
 * caption=Source: Department of Statistics

Buddhism 	81% Hinduism 	6% Islam 	       6% Christianity 	0.93%

If you believe these stats are wrong please take it up with the Department of Statistics, and get them to change the stats to what you believe is correct.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are open to criticize my edits:) But in this case, I don't agree with your argument. The census report you have provided, specifically states "Jaffna, Mannar, Vavuniya, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi, Batticaloa and Trincomalee districts in which the 2001 census enumeration was not completed are not included here.". That should close the argument. Astronomyinertia (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that source is invalid still stands due to points A. B. and C. Even if what are saying is true, we are not legislative assembly to argue if and why the census was not completed in those districts. However that is the latest census on statistics on sri lanka. You may include that point in your notes, but your original source in non-valid, as university of Cambridge doesn't have the jurisdiction for that nor does the UN. Please revert the changes kindly. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Further more, if that is your argument then next latest information should be used which is 1981. However 2001 is the census which sri lanka is using for statistics, if the read wants the confirm with the source, they can see the footnote for themselves within the source. Distributor108 (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, as Astronomyinertia has repeatedly pointed out to you, the 2001 census is deeply flawed because it excluded the seven districts in which the majority of the country's Hindus and large chunks of Muslims and Christians live. However, even if we were to use the stats from the flawed 2001 census the percentages would be:
 * Buddhism 76.71%
 * Hinduism 7.76%
 * Islam 8.48%
 * Christianity 7.00%
 * Other 0.05%


 * From the above you managed to fabricate this:
 * Buddhism 	81%
 * Hinduism 	6%
 * Islam        6%
 * Christianity 	0.93%
 * (doesn't even add up to 100%)


 * If the University of Cambridge isn't good enough for you, will the Government of Sri Lanka do?
 * Buddhism 70%
 * Hinduism 16%
 * Islam 7%
 * Christianity 7%
 * -- obi2canibe talk contr 12:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay that seems viable, that doesn't add to 100 because the other was ignored as there was a box for it. and you second figures don't make sense then because you how can have 100% religious accountability? where for a fact their are people with other religious. Distributor108 (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, the 2001 statistic don't qualify to be used in this case, as the report admits that the census is not complete. None-of-us have the credibility to dispute an academic source. Read WP:RS. If you still insist on your view, you can ask WP:RSN.
 * For the time-being, the latest credible census we have is 1993, so we can't replace it with 1981. If it was the same date, the Sri Lankan source goes first (but not in this case). Note: Others include other religious views and non-religious views. Cheers...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mate 1993 source must be based on the the 1981 consensus. because that is the agency which has legal power to conduct and maintain statistics. 1993 was not a census if so you need to provide full details of the census the jurisdictions to conduct it e.tc Please use latest census by the department of statistics, which you think is complete. In this case it is the 1981 census. Also I do need have access to this book to confirm the details of the 1993 census which you claim was conducted by the university of Cambridge. '''The 1993 is not a credible source it fails the grounds A. B. and C. stated above.

Let me try and spell this out for you here is what wikipedia counts as a source "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)."

A. The work itself i.e the census (The DoS is the only agency in the entire world that has legal jurisdiction for this.)

B. the creator of work (The DoS is the only agency in the entire world that has legal jurisdiction for this.)

C. The publisher of the work (either university of Cambridge or any other 3rd party or the DoS itself '''Distributor108 (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, it's not my duty to give you access to the book (it's your duty). I can't share my library access code, tho (even if I wanted to).
 * Second, what you're trying to conclude is that the University of Cambridge is lying and have made-up statistics or inaccurate dates. Sorry, I can't take your words. It's the University's duty to verify the accuracy of the material (not your duty). As I mentioned above, WP:DRN is the place to give your thoughts about sources.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is the university isn't responsible for the statistics. DoS is. the university is'nt the direct source for the statistics, therefore please use the direct source of statistics. Please refer P392 of Sri lankan historical statistics book -1996 KDU University,Author jaysinghe. which confirms my above stats. So kindly undo the revert with this new reference.

Just a further note, I took a look at the disputes page. It looks great, I will initiate a dispute soon when I get some time free from school. I'm very please on how Wikipedia handles these cases, please pass my compliments on to wherever appropriate. If only other people in the world were this civil, this is exemplary. Distributor108 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the request above as there is no consensus for it. Could people please refrain from using editprotected until they have a consensus for the change? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the dispute is being settled here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lanka

I have changed answered back to No; as this is on going.
 * Disabled again. Please do not activate until there is a consensus for change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharia law is not practiced in sri lanka
'''Please remove the part in the article which states and "Sharia law too are practiced." in sri lanka. The source given does have any indication, nor does the source pass Wikipedia accreditation as a reliable source. United Nations country profiles are not a valid source with regards to laws carried in sri lanka. The source should be from a government law website, or a reference to a sri lankan law book.'''

Let me put it to you in a way so you can understand what source passes Wikipedia's source accreditation. When someone is being arrested say on terrorism charges, is the government going to refer to the united nations country profiles? or the Constitution? and national law books?. What the UN says is irrelevant to whether prabha gets a bullet through his head. DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? This is like teaching 2 years olds

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As the user who had made this edit, I think I owe a comment here. Sri Lankan law is highly complex. It is influenced by various european laws such as British law, Roman law and Dutch law. In addion, there are three parallel laws applied in specific instances such as matrimonial cases. They are, the Kandyan Law, The Thesavalamai and the Sharia Law. I may have made a mistake by not providing additional details on the article. That should be corrected. Astronomyinertia (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay fair enough; that revised sentence makes more sense. However it is very wrong to say sharia law is practiced, when their is no legal backing for this. however please provide reference to accredited sri lankan law book, for your claims. Till I believe this fails Wikipedia source accreditation protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * From the talk page, the phrase in question is "In addition Sinhala customary law and Sharia law too are practiced." and cited to an UN document. I'm not finding anything in there that says Sharia law, only muslim law.  It's also described as "A highly complex mixture of English common law, Roman-Dutch, Muslim, Sinhalese, and customary law;".  I'd really prefer to see another source to back up the Sharia law, especially one that can go into a bit more detail about those aspects of the legal system.  It doesn't need to be a Sri Lankan law book, but any good secondary source that meets the WP:RS criteria.  Ideally it would be from someone that knows Sri Lankan law, but that does not mean only law books.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Like Ravensfire, I'm a neutral at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but this is not in response to the dispute you currently have listed there (which is how I happened to come to this talk page and see this discussion). While I cannot find anything in the cited reference about Sharia or Muslim law, I have been able to confirm that the law of Sri Lanka allows for Muslim divorce and marriage law to be applied in special Islamic courts called "Quazi" or "Qazi" courts under the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act of 1951, which can be viewed here. There are also reports of 58 (new?) Qazi courts being set up last year. The law only refers to "Muslim law" (which the law, interestingly, apparently allows to vary by the "sect to which the parties belong"), not specifically to "Sharia", but the article on Sharia uses "Islamic Law" and "Sharia" as synonyms, so it would appear to me that the reference to Sharia in this article is appropriate, but needs to be properly sourced. Let me close by noting that Sri Lanka also has, apparently, quite a few other laws specifically relating to Muslims and that some of them might possibly also incorporate Islamic law into the legal system of Sri Lanka, but I haven't looked at them to see if they do or do not since finding that any Sri Lankan law incorporates Islamic Law is enough to justify the reference under discussion here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know sri lankan law is applicable to people of in sri lanka, excluding the president. Therefore there cannot be a different set of laws for Muslims, common law would override any sharia law you imagine to exist. However as TransporterMan said, some laws may or may not 'incorporate' sharia law, however this is most likely due to a coincides and does not justify stating sharia law is being practiced. Also Note Sri lanka is not entirely a secular country, Buddhism is protected and fostered under chapter 9 of the constitution, ref in an above discussion; other religious are allowed to be practiced and granted freedoms detailed in chapter 14 and 15 article (e) of the constitution as long as they do not violate this requisite. Just read through the"Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act of 1951" this not Act of 1951, this provision for it. A proposal made, I can confirm this Act was not passed. Please bother to read the at least the first few sentences of the pdf boefre you send it. Distributor108 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong about the act not being passed into law and you are misunderstanding the preliminary materials. It was not only passed, but has been amended several times, for example, here. You can't legislatively amend something that has never been passed. Moreover, and more significantly, it is described as being part of the law in this training document for Sri Lankan judges, linked here (the last link at the bottom of the page), prepared by the Sri Lanka Judges' Institute established by the Sri Lankan goverment to train Sri Lankan judges; for example, that document says:"Capacity to marry is governed by the law of each party's antinuptial domicile. In Sri Lanka the capacity to marry is governed by the statute law and the common law. Some of the statutes are the General Marriages Ordinance as amended by No. 18 of 1995, Kandian Marriage and Divorce Act No.44 of 1952 and the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act No.13 of 1951."In fact, the law has been widely criticized because of the effect that it has under Sri Lankan law on underage marriages and allegations of subjugation of women; see, for example, here. Indeed, since my last posting I've also discovered that there is also a law allowing Muslim law to control how a Muslim's property passes to his heirs if he dies without a last will and testament, see the Muslim Intestate Succession Ordinance of 1931. All of these laws are mentioned in a document from the Emory University School of Law here as part of its Islamic Family Law project (though that document may not be suitable for use as a reliable source because it is a draft). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I will accept here, this reference. However this just talks about amends to a Muslim marriage and divorce act, Please find the exact act, and how closely it follows sharia law. The rest of your links including document about training sri lankan judges is just an internal circulation, the author has not published with any legal authority. As of now, we do not have any evidence to warrant a statement which says sharia law is practiced. Distributor108 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I entered this discussion as a neutral, having no particular interest in this article, merely for the purpose of attempting to avoid further dispute on this issue. I've already provided a link to the law, and have nothing more to say on this issue. The regular editors here can use the information that I've provided as they see fit. The article is currently indefinitely edit-protected, so editors here are going to have to convince an administrator to make any changes which they wish to make and that sysop will evaluate the evidence provided here in deciding whether or not to make the requested edits. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mediation and providing some conclusive evidence proving that Sharia law is indeed applied on special cases. I suggest replacing the current sentence dealing with the issue, In addition, Sinhala customary law and Sharia law too are practiced. with Due to ancient customary practices and/or religion, the Sinhala customary law (Kandyan law), the Thesavalamai and the Sharia law too are applied on special cases. Is that fine with you? My source for the info is this. I think it would be better to add this and this references to prove the claim. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But to say Sharia law is applied is still wrong, and goes against any logic, of law being equal to everyone. anybody can claim to be Muslim/ non Muslim, depending on which will result in a better outcome for them. What I think this act is about is, if both plaintiffs agree to certain resolutions, it will be allowed and that may coincidentally be matching to sharia law. However if one of the plaintiff disagree and appeal, standard law (outside of this act) is more beneficial her, that would override this act. What you saying make no sense at all. I don't think this act for what its worth justifies a statement like you stated.Distributor108 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Khmer interwiki
The Khmer interwiki is incorrect. It should be km:ស្រីលង្កា. —Stephen (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrative divisions flags
Can we get the flags for each administrative division on the map please. Currently we have only for Northern province and Uva province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the change, Western province is still missing. Distributor108 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Official language
Revert this edit by Distributor108 as Tamil is an official language - see this.-- obi2canibe talk contr 11:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

'''Please refer to chapter 22 of the constitution, which details this clearly, that is just a summary. Official language in Wikipedia is at a contrasting definition to the constitution. Tamil would come under what is called Recognized language on Wikipedia. Quote "Sinhala shall be the language of administration and be used for the maintenance of public records and the transaction of all business by public institutions of all the provinces of Sri Lanka"''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we're quoting the constitution, Section 18 (Official Language) states: "Tamil shall also be an official language". Which part of this simple statement do you not understand? The infobox is asking for the official language, not the language of administration or recognised language. BTW, Section 22 (Language of administration) goes on to say: "...other than the Northern and Eastern provinces where Tamil shall be so used". You conveniently missed out this bit!-- obi2canibe talk contr 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, however the definition of official language as to Wikipedia is: "An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration." I think the distinction in legal status between Sinhala and Tamil should be made clear, furthermore; sinhala should also be made de-factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Request declined for now, pending input on this issue from other editors. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the arguments here and the text of the constitution as given, I find it fairly clear that both languages have co-official status (one language taking precedence in some provinces and the other in the rest). I'll reinstate the mention of Tamil in the infobox. I really can't see any reasonable argument about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Devotess engaing in 'Kavadi' at a Vavuniya temple image change
The image titled "Hindu Devotess engaing in 'Kavadi' at a Vavuniya temple" I suggest to change to image to a Buddhist function instead of a Hindu function to have a better representation of the population. Please discuss new suggested images here. Distributor108 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are enough Buddhist Images on the Sri Lanka article, if you want to replace the above, other images also should be replaced.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Negative, the Buddhist image doesn't show some kind activity. My Basis for change still stands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Civil War summary
I was thinking of supporting the Ethnic Conflict section; however, the modern era section has plenty of details that we can't duplicate. Anyways, any comments, suggestions, disagreements about the current status of the section? Plese keep your notes here... Thanks     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  10:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Requested for an citation, hope I dont get banned for that !.
 * Addition: That the LTTE is an listed terrorist organization.
 * Addition: War crimes committed by the LTTE during the war since war crimes here are listed on the later stage of the war. All or nothing is only fair.
 * Consolidation of the later part of the Modern Sri Lanka section since its otherwise just repetition.
 * Addition: At least one more RS per item to support cotes since all of it is attributed to a single document which is unavailable for verification.
 * Addition: Current political forms of reconciliation and acceptance of Tamil political parties of a federal solution.
 * Modification: Menik farm camp situation as it reflects current situation since this was three years ago.

These are my observations, you are well come to laugh at it. Cossde (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The war was declared to be ended in 2009 .And now it's 2011.So how could have the Menik farm situation existed 3 years ago.??!So what you call as current situation?The army men in dressed in rags and covering their face with grease and intimidating Tamils in their homeland?(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

I request you Adam to write a bit in detail about war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan state and LTTE,Gotabaya's comment that 'Political solution for Tamils is irrelevant because the LTTE is defeated'(Arun1paladin (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Good Cossde... let me use the same sequence to be more clear (this message was written yesterday, but I slept before I clicked send ^^):
 * So what! Is the aim of considering it a terrorist organization in this article to push that they're wrong? Sorry, but that's what I'm seeing now. That statement is clearly stated in the infobox of the LTTE's article, and that's where it belongs. If someone want to read about the two parties, they're welcome to do so. Please don't add irrelevant details that doesn't clarify the war.
 * Don't sources say that LTTE made war-crimes, and other sources say that the government made war crimes? Therefore, I made a fair statement that they both made war-crimes, where you falsely tweaked it to be US department's claims only. We don't want to go to the same mess, so we DO NOT want to state a list (you know what I mean).
 * I've been thinking of that for awhile, so I'll be working on it. I'll probably keep the pre-war and conflicts there, to keep the war section for only war-related content (my aim).
 * Unavailable is a brouad word to use. We can't force multiple sources to verify reliability. Although, I am currently reviewing all sources now, but you need to clarify which ones are you claiming unverifiable.
 * What are you talking about, as it's all in 2009 and even the defeat of LTTE was in 2009... huh?  o.O
 * I only laugh on your personal comments, sometimes :p, but never on your discussions about content. We're all here for the benefit of Wiki, so all opinions are valuable (out-of edit warring). Cheers...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Arun1paladin: I wish I had more content in-hand, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic. I don't want to bring biased material. The reason I'm trying to avoid war details is to keep this high-traffic article cooled, even tho it really isn't needed. I think you've done well on the conflict section, which I'll try to organize it. Yes, I'll also be working on the crime-paragraph.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If not listing that the LTTE is a terrorist organization, due to as you the information already provided in its article, then why have you stated "the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a separatist militant organisation who fought to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island." If their objectives are listed natural the means should be there as well.
 * Based on your logic the "That statement is clearly stated in the infobox of the LTTE's article, and that's where it belongs" the matter of alleged war crimes and immediate post war refugee camps do not belong here since they are "clearly stated" in the Sri Lankan Civil War article and the dedicated articles that have been created for them. Same goes to the origins of the war.
 * Since the civil war is a part of Modern Sri Lanka, I think it should be a sub topic of it.
 * You have missed to point completely, the situation of the refugee camps existed at the height/end of the war in 2009. Now three years later the there are only 8000 odd people in the camps. Therefore this is something that should be listed the Sri Lankan Civil War article.
 * Since all of these items are heavily contested multiple RS should support it.
 * The articles are claiming alleged war crimes without a formal investigation, therefore if we must name the source since non of these are legally empowered to place judgment. They are voicing their opinions.
 * The mentioned source only details of allege war crimes at the final stages, why do you leave out the allege war crimes that was carried out in other parts of the war.
 * Its funny how you have given more attention to the origins and the post of highlights with many a quote only two sentences attributed to the war its self. Very odd !


 * You may say that you laugh on my personal comments, yet I quite feel it is not limited that. Your actions speak louder than words. In the case of wiki your edits speak louder than your words in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You have missed to point completely, the situation of the refugee camps existed at the height/end of the war in 2009. Now three years later the there are only 8000 odd people in the camps. Therefore this is something that should be listed the Sri Lankan Civil War article.<<

The no. of people released from the camps is not verified by any independent international body.International agencies including the UN was not given free and proper access to these camps.It's a matter of fact that Sri Lanka didn't disclose

1.The list of people who were taken in to the camps to any neutral international organisation 2.Their health condition while they were lodged into the camps 3.The number of people who gone missing/abducted by the Sri Lankan army 4.No. of young women gone missing/taken for engaging into forced prostitution in Sinhala south or to cater the sexual needs of top officers exclusively Sinhala armed forces of Sri Lanka 5.No. of deaths in camps 6.Number and names of people who were released from the camps.

But the neutral non-Tamil reports are all against your Sri Lankan state. Moreover in your statement itself you say that there are still 8000 people.It's not a small number my friend.In Srebrenica the total number of Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) killed by Army of Republika Srpska(Bosnian Serb Army) was around 8000 and it was recognised as genocide.Since there is poor respect for human rights South Asia and obviously in Sri Lanka you may find 8000 as a small number (Arun1paladin (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

Well my dear friend, you need to read my comments properly, 8000 people are still in the camps from a number of 300,000 which is a mathematically low and this wantn't a number of people killed. The displaced people are returning to their homes hence this number is going down from a war time high as in other wars. For your information refugee camps is not equal to genocide. As for the other claims I see no refs so I have to take that as your PoV or original research. That is all Cossde (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

he displaced people are returning to their homes hence this number is going down from a war time high as in other wars<< I can site from Tamil sources that each Tamil family is given 4 bamboos ,2 tin sheets to make hut an live.Was this the state ,they were living in the de-facto state of Tamil Eelam!!?? I can site your own state sources which say that resettlement is impossible in Mullaitheevu and Mullivaaikal [the places in which the last phase of course war genocide was done/ war was fought].Moreover  if for argument sake I have to agree that  the plight of Tamil civilians in the state run camps was a matter past,how it is irrelevant to this article.After all it was a state run program.Still these international agencies like UN,international media are not allowed to meet this people by the Sri Lankan state(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

As for the other claims I see no refs so I have to take that as your PoV or original research.<< I don't know what thing you are referring to.But I have stopped making major edits to this article since Adam requested all the editors to do so.(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

I was referring to thing like what you mentioned here. Cossde (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there can be no neutral witnesses about the things that I mentioned because Sri Lanka is a rouge state that doesn't let UN or international agencies or independent journalists to visit the Tamil victims.Recently an Indian journalist stealthily managed to take the interviews of Tamil victims and the program was telecasted in Headlines Today. The victimized Tamil people who gave interview in that program just claimed the things that I stated above. Anyway Patriotic Sri Lankans like Mahinda Rajabaksa,Gotabaya Rajabaksa,Sri Lankan High Commissioners are going to say that report or false.May be in future they would say to the world that no war took place in Sri Lanka :)(Arun1paladin (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC))

And in the future you would have dissociate yourselves from the LTTE, and they will become no one's baby... oh I am sorry it has happened already. How funny, when they were around they where heroes to some and now that they are no more killing (Sri Lankan) people those same people dont give a dame about them. You talk of Tamil victims, you forget that they were/are Sinhalese victims, Muslim victims and Burger victims too in that conflict. What do you have to say about the reports on about them ? Cossde (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No single Sinhala civilian was killed in the last phase of the war :). Don't worry you will soon have JVP kind of rebellion or some Tamil armed struggle in a decade.Because in the past there was a Tamil armed movement to save Tamils from the genocidal racist Sinhala triumphalist Sri Lankan state,but now they just need Tamil Eelam for their Right to Survive.Sri Lanka has started structural genocide and cultural genocide of Eelam Tamils after the war.It's  provoking the Indian s state of  Tamil Nadu .Regarding Sinhalese they were and are the majority community.The Sinhala politicians dis-enfranchised Indian origin Tamils by stripping their Citizenship. The Sinhala people always voted for the man who is more Sinhala racist than the other.Solomon Bandaranayaka became you PM just because he promised that Sinhala will be the sole state language.Rajabaksa was elected for the first time because he promised a war against the Tamil.The interesting thing is that Tamils didn't vote in that presidential election.Sinhalese always chose to practise racism,  state- terrorism and genocide against Tamils,they find every neutral person in west or any part of the world as Tamil Tiger.They write lengthy conspiracy theories against Rights organisations in the world.I really pity the Sinhalese.Regarding the muslims i pity them too .Because it's only on so called Democratic!? Socialistic!?[they why did JVP take arms!?] Republic of Sri Lanka MUSLIMS is called an ethnicity.If Sinhalese suffered that much because of LTTE then why are they not ready for an international investigation to prove the world about what they claim.The remenants of LTTE and the Tamil diaspora had said that they are ready to face any international investigation but why your president and your diplomats come all the way to India to beg for help and wh they run to China IF AT ALL they DIDN'T really to the genocide of Tamils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Arun1paladin (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC))

You talk of state-terrorism and genocide and remnants of the LTTE and the Tamil diaspora willing to have the LTTE investigated, just because YOU say something it doesn't make it true. Its very easy since the LTTE has been identified as a terrorist organization world wide and their crimes against humanity are well documented there is no need for investigations, it already well known yet no one to prosecute. Yet the Tamil diaspora should be investigated for financing terrorism by financing the LTTE in-turn for responsible of the deaths of 70,000 Sri Lankans in the war. Its easy to speak and give money when some one else is doing the fighting for you and getting blamed. Im sure you would love to see another war in Sri Lanka as soon as possible, but for those of us who lived through one will make sure that it doesn't happen, so start worrying. You seem to forget that the LTTE faced rebellions within its on ranks in the east and that they were the ones who forced the people of the North and East to not to vote for the presidential election thus paving way for Rajapaksa to win over Wicramasinghe, and I guess it was irony that Rajapaksa's administration resulted in their military defeat. And while your at it go and count the number of Tamils killed by the LTTE, if you use our jargon we could call it a genocide too. Tamil Nadu was interfering in the politics of Sri Lanka for decades even as to pushing the Indian government of violate the sovereignty of Sri Lanka which is a war crime in its own right, pitty that the payed pressure groups are not pressuring the UN on those matters. Sri Lanka has suffered much to the antics of those who dont live in Sri Lanka yet want to dictate how it should be. Cossde (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My friend your are desperate and enraged.You state that LTTE is listed as terrorist in foreign countries .Now the very same countries want a war crimes tribunal on your sovereign Sri Lanka.Sovereignty was not taken as a criteria for Serbia or Rwanda or Bosnia.You state that Sri Lanka is a sovereign state.A sovereign state can't be allowed to be terrorist against the people on whom it claims sovereignty:)>/i> .Because it' will set precedent for another Rwanda genocide,Tamil Eelam Genocide by Sri Lanka,Srebrenica genocide.Now the Sinhala state is in triumphalist mindset which is a compliment to it's half century old racist and genocidal mindset.Gotabaya's statement that 'Political solution for Tamils is irrelevant because the LTTE[the representatives of Tamils] are defeated' is an example.Sri Lanka is not in planet MARS.It's a state that always goes around the world with a plate asking for funds .So the world can't  be silent on the genocide it did.They have unleashed new terror in Tamil lands inthe name of GREASE DEVILS {probably a Gotabaya Chintan/Gotabaya's ideas just like Mahinda Chintan/Mahinda's idea of genocide].Any way all the best for genocidal Sri Lanka .(Arun1paladin (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

amil Nadu was interfering in the politics of Sri Lanka for decades even as to pushing the Indian government of violate the sovereignty of Sri Lanka which is a war crime in its own right, pitty that the payed pressure groups are not pressuring the UN on those matters.<< If this allegations are true then why can't Sri Lanka approach to UN regarding this!!?? Atleast Sri Lanka is a Sovereign state unlike Tamil Nadu :)(Arun1paladin (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Arun1paladin it looks to me that you are the one who is desperate and enraged because you cannot accept that the LTTE lost the war, like many others that come here to edit wikipedia. You forget, or in fact I would believe that you don't know, that Lakshman Kadirgamar, a Tamil and a well respected Sri Lankan, was the politician who campaigned to get the LTTE banned in foreign countries. So how can you call Sri Lanka a "Sinhala state" when there were and still are tamils openly against the LTTE and what they stand for? Yes Lakshman Kadirgamar is one person but there are others Kethesh Loganathan, Neelan Tiruchelvam and Chelvy Thiyagarajah. You say "a sovereign state can't be allowed to be terrorist against the people on whom it claims sovereignty" but you forget the LTTE "the representatives of Tamils" terrorised their own people, not only in Sri Lanka but around the world too. Now if the LTTE did come to power would you not call that state-terrorism? And regarding genocide obviously you don't know what it means or you refuse to acknowledge what it means. You would not be using the word here if it was not for your racist point of view and the LTTE propaganda. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Sri Lankan government's target was to conclude the war, re-establish peace and end the LTTE and all its activities. And with a maximum estimate of 100,000 dead, during those 30 years from all ethnic backgrounds, from around 2 million Tamils in the country you can not call the war a genocide. Yes there were assassinations, massacres etc. but neither was there intent nor numbers. In fact calling this war a genocide would be an insult to people who actually experienced one. So please stop your baseless racist comments and arguments and spread your propaganda and point of view elsewhere.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * LTTE is not a perfect organization and they have done crimes and other violations. But that doesn't mean they are a out fit which was originated solely for Terror and killing Sinhalese. Lakshman Kadirgamar is more a intellectual cum opportunist than a statesman who could understand his own community's grievances. Neelan Tiruchelvam also was the same. But I am not sure of Kethesh Loganathan and Chelvy Thiyagarajah.


 * Sri Lankan Government and its forces did the following to consider their activities for a War Crime and borderline Genocide;


 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


 * If the "The Sri Lankan government's target was to conclude the war, re-establish peace and end the LTTE and all its activities", the LTTE's target was to liberate its community from the persecutions of the Sri Lankan Government.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that why the LTTE killed Lakshman Kadirgamar and Neelan Tiruchelvam ? Cossde (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And with a maximum estimate of 100,000 dead, during those 30 years from all ethnic backgrounds, from around 2 million Tamils in the country you can not call the war a genocide<<Yes according to rouge state sri Lanka that conducted a war without witness.Bosnian Serb army killed 8000 Bosnian muslims.It's recognised as  genocide.In SL ,the exclusively Sinhala army of the Sinhala dominated state under Sinhala president,Sinhala defence minister and Sinhala Prime Minister killed 40,000 Tamil civilains.The perpetrators are all Sinhalese and the victims are  all Tamil civilians during the last phase of war from January 2009 -May 2009.What else is it his if not genocide!!!???? .If stating facts is propaganda according to you then let it be so.You can call names against the LTTE but SL a Sovereign State has done genocide of people on whom it claims sovereignty.So how can some one treat some crimes of LTTE and SL equaly.If it has to be done then Sri Lanka has to declare itself as a terrorist state.After that we can have compare the crimes of SL and LTTE (Arun1paladin (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC))


 * It seems very well that you cannot think out side your own propaganda, just because you shout it out loud it doesn't make it true. If your logic is implied, the LTTE made up soley of Tamil leadership, carders and funded by the Tamil diaspora killed Sinhalese and Muslim civilians then its logical is a genocide of Sinhalese and Muslim. On the other hand the Sri Lankan government is made up of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslim and Burghers as so is the Sri Lankan Armed Forces but how many leaders form Sinhalese or Muslim were there in the LTTE ? Did the LTTE hold elections in the areas they controlled, even when they had setup so called police, courts, tax collectors, armed ground, naval and air units is that what you called " non perfect organization" ? It seems that it was very perfect organization in a dictatorial way and very much imperfect organization in any other form. I wounder who is actually racist here ! According to your logic it seems that the LTTE was in fact committing Genocide in Sri Lanka!  Cossde (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * LTTE never involved in a "War Without Witness" by sending out UN Agencies, International NGOs and by barring International Media in Sinhalese areas. But the Sri Lankan Government and its forces did in Tamil areas. Sri Lankan Government and its forces are dominated by the majority Sinhalese community.


 * If the Sri Lankan Government is made up of all parties why S. J. V. Chelvanayakam has come  out with separatism?


 * These are from his Political Career on Wikipedia and will remind pluralism??? in Sri Lanka;


 * "After the 1956 election ITAK became the leading party in the Tamil regions, but the new Prime Minister, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, pushed through the Sinhala Only Act, which met with stiff opposition from the Tamils. Chelvanayakam led a satyagraha protest against the new law. The campaign succeeded at first in swaying the government, which negotiated the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact which agreed to provide government services in Tamil and devolve powers to a set of provincial councils. Bandaranaike abandoned the pact after stiff opposition from Buddhist monks (Bandaranaike was assassinated by a Buddhist monk in 1959).


 * After his fruitless experience dealing with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party governments of 1956-65, Chelvanayakam turned to the UNP. After that UNP's victory in the 1965 election, ITAK joined the national government of Dudley Senanayake. He signed the Senanayake-Chelvanayakam Pact which also provided for Tamil services and district councils. Senanayake's regime failed to implement the Pact and as a result, Chelvanayakam and the ITAK left the government in 1968.


 * By the 1970s, Chelvanayakam had grown bitter over his failure to win any meaningful concessions from the Sinhalese, and became sympathetic to the cause of Tamil separatism. ITAK and other Tamil parties formed the Tamil United Front in May 1972, with Chelvanayakam as their leader. Chelvanayakam resigned from Parliament on 2 October 1972 as a protest against the new republican constitution. The government deliberately delayed holding the by-election in Kankesanthurai until 6 February 1975. Chelvanayakam won the by-election easily. HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cossde I would suggest not continuing this "debate", as I am stopping too. There is no point in arguing with these people whose only task on Wikipedia is to smear the reputation of Sri Lanka, in one way or another. I think we have said all we can but these people are intent on presenting their one sided view.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree. Clearly the objective here is to smear Sri Lanka by attempting to fill it with allegations Cossde (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I slightly agree with both of you. There has been POV-pushing from almost everyone. I guess editors where waiting for the protection to expire in-order to continue their warring. That's highly disruptive in a high-traffic article. The only option is to stick to policies. Avoid any conversation about the topic, which is what the WP:Reference desk is for, and stick to suggested changes here. You will all be fine!   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why has this section been completely removed from the article?(Arun1paladin (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
 * It has not been removed from the article. It has only been merged with modern Sri Lanka section to give the reader a clear view of how the conflict has been developed over the years. Addition of a separate civil war section clutters the gradual development of the history section. War is just the tipping point of a conflict which has its roots at least 6 decades back. You might need to read this version of the article properly before adding the redundant civil war section again. Astronomyinertia (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus here to transfer the content of "Civil War" into a new section which has been created by you by the name "Modern Sri Lanka". Vankalaian (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We know the War is just the tipping point of a conflict which has its roots at least 6 decades back, but at the same time there is a page on Wikipedia by the name Sri Lankan Civil War which analyses the issues related to 6 decades.Vankalaian (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It has only been merged with modern Sri Lanka section to give the reader a clear view of how the conflict has been developed over the years.<< Oh you wrote 100 pages to narrate how it gradually evolved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??You removed an entire section and replaced it with 4 to 5 lines.60 years of gradual developments explained in a maximum of 6 lines!!Did you discuss before removing that content?I find this as vandalism(Arun1paladin (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC))


 * The fact I want to emphasize here is that you cannot separate civil war from the mondern history of Sri Lanka. Civil war spanned only from 1983 to 2009. The "History" section is divided into several sub-sections based on important eras Sri Lanka has underwent. If you are going to consider the 26 year civil war as a separate era, you have to stick to details within that period of time, as it is the case with all other history sub sections. Here is the only para, which it seems to be dealing with events relating to that period, in current "Civil war" section:
 * "From 1983 to 2009, there was an on-and-off civil war between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a separatist militant organisation who fought to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island. On 19 May 2009, however, the President of Sri Lanka officially claimed an end to the insurgency and the defeat of the LTTE, following the death of Velupillai Prabhakaran and much of the LTTE's other senior leadership."


 * All other stuff is clearly pre or post-civil war history, which does not belong to that section. Arun1paladin's accusation on vandalism is thoruoughly unwarranted because all what I have tried to do is model the article on a coherent manner to the readers. Unlike him, I am interested in and have edited all the history sub-sections from pre-historic era, and mindful of the gradual development of the whole section. I am certain that that is the case with almost all the readers as well. Sections popping up from nowhere and simply repeates information that was already available in other sections is a great pain for the readers. And I am interested in hearing how I have replaced the whole section with 5-6 lines. Can Arun1paladin throw some light on that? Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you Astronomyinertia on this occasion. The civil war lasted 26 years. It killed 100,000+. Several hundred thousand fled abroad. Millions were displaced. Hundreds of thousands suffered physical and psychological injuries from which they are still suffering. None of these facts are mentioned.


 * In the current version readers are told that
 * Parākramabāhu the Great built 1470 reservoirs, repaired 165 dams, 3910 canals;
 * A devastating leaf disease struck the coffee plantations in 1869;
 * Royal Navy stationed at Trincomalee remained until 1956;
 * 2004 Asian tsunami left at least 35,000 people dead;
 * Sri Lanka has become one of the fastest growing economies of the world.
 * Are all of these facts more worthy of inclusion than that 100,000+ died during the civil war? We are told a lot about the causes of the civil war but the civil war itself has all been boiled down to one or two sentences. Indeed the term "civil war" isn't even mentioned in the history section.


 * Most people in the world know little, if anything, about the civil war. If they were to come this article they wouldn't appreciate the true horrors that millions across the country endured between 1983 and 2009. Although this probably wasn't your intention, it smacks of the revisionist history some people are trying push: the terrorists have been defeated so the whole civil war can be erased from the history books. I am not advocating that we include all that Arun1paladin and others want to include. That content, once cleaned up, should be included in sub-articles, if it already isn't. One or two small paragraphs, similar to what was here before the edit warring started in June, would suffice.-- obi2canibe talk contr 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the current version gives only a very few details about the civil war. But the point I'm trying to stress here is, that you can't take the 26 year period out of the history and present it as a separate section. War is the culmination of political friction that was prevalent in the country for at least 60 years backwards. It's not possible to get a clear view of the situation without referring to those details. And since the previous history sub sections have included details related to that era only, it does not make sense adding a separate "Civil War" section with all those detals related to pre or post civil war history. My suggestion to resolve this problem is adding more detials of civil war to the "Post independence Sri Lanka" section. Sorry that I failed to mention 100,000+ died during the war, in the "Post independence Sri Lanka" section, which was written by me. But I'm wary of adding details like LTTE has carried out this much of suicide bombings, GoSL is accused of committing war crimes etc., because these details are covered in other articles in depth. Addition of such details leads only to another blame game because post 1983 period in marked with gross atrocities. True that hundreds of thousands suffered physical and psychological injuries from which they are still suffering. But we have to keep in mind that this notion is slanted towards recent allegations of war crimes and tends to ignore the thousands of civillians tortured, maimed or killed in bordering villages and by suicide bombings. Since these details are covered in other articles, I suggest we should stick to key details and avoid blaming any party for these atrocities. What's your opinion on that? Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree Astronomyinertia on the above comment and re-added the "Civil War" section as there is no consensus to remove the section which was there for 2 years. Why Astronomyinertia and others are expanding the History section in different sub-sections is only to erase the "Civil War" sub-section and the War Crimes as well. Astronomyinertia points out very clearly his/her hidden motive on the above observation.Hillcountries (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Astronomyinertia in keeping the part on the civil war to bare facts. With the current blame game more additions will lead to the loss of the summary nature of the article and turn it into a subject article on the war, specially due to the highly editorialized sub section on the civil war, mind you which was not there in the last 2 years and only appeared in the last few weeks without any consensus at all! And I do have to agree with Hillcountries on the fact that, Astronomyinertia points out very clearly hidden motives, however these motives are not of Astronomyinertia but that of Hillcountries and others to focus the content of the article and the article itself towards the recent allegations of war crimes, blatantly ignoring the thousands of civilians tortured, maimed or killed during the war due to regular attacks on bordering villages, suicide bombings, bus bombing, train bombings, massacres, etc. The end result of these hidden motives will result in the article losing its neutral point of view! Cossde (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A separate section isn't necessary in my opinion - the whole history section is already too large. I would prefer that the sensitive issues (war crimes etc) were mentioned - we don't need to go into detail in this article, one or two neutral sentences would be sufficient.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. The article needs copyediting as well as a clean up to remove some of the unnecessary details. Brief details about issues on press freedom, human rights and allegations of war crimes deserve a place in "Human rights and media" section, I believe. Will try to add any missing details, while keeping the neutrality, the next time this article gets unprotected. Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I stand for the obi2canibe's previous observation on this thread, "Most people in the world know little, if anything, about the civil war. If they were to come this article they wouldn't appreciate the true horrors that millions across the country endured between 1983 and 2009. Although this probably wasn't your intention, it smacks of the revisionist history some people are trying push: the terrorists have been defeated so the whole civil war can be erased from the history books. I am not advocating that we include all that Arun1paladin and others want to include. That content, once cleaned up, should be included in sub-articles, if it already isn't. One or two small paragraphs, similar to what was here before the edit warring started in June, would suffice."HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer User:adamrce or a non-involved editor on this dispute to re-edit the content or we could get the participation from the Dispute Resolution.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that's fine. We can also get ample evidence from other country articles (some featured articles as well) on how these sort of issues have been handled. If anyone is interested, I can list down a number of such instances. But for now, I will remove the section that is an obvious repitition of info available elsewhere. Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We will take to the Dispute Resolution and then compare with other countries, till that please leave it as it is.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not Sri Lanka's tourism website to give an attractive depiction about sri lanka.We have to stick to facts.Sri Lanka was created in 1948.It has a 60+ years of unterminated ethnic conflict.It has spent around 30 years in civil war.So the civil war really deserves a separate section.I have abandoned most of my previous statements and created a civil war section using the statements added by Astronomyinertia.If anyone has issues then they can edit the civil war section or discuss here or go to dispute resolution board.But how is deleted a section of the article is constructive?? This makes me doubt the intentions of some editors.I wonder why they want to cover up a brutal civil war under the tag post independence sri lanka?(Arun1paladin (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Arun1paladin, I have to make it clear that I have no intention to hide details about the civil war. I have extensively edited and expanded civil war related articles in Wikipedia, and in fact most of my editing time has been spent on civil war spin offs. Of course this is not a tourism website, but if its mere appearance makes you uncomfortable, that's not my problem. Your disruptive style of editing makes it clear that you are driven by the intention to smear the appearance of the article. I kindly request you not to engage in such acts, and keep things clean and tidy. Your hatered towards the country, does not justify cluttering the article developed by other editors dedicating months of editing time.
 * Back to the issue of article organization: The country has a very long history, and that's why we need to divide it into sub-sections. The best possible timeline in my opinion is the subdivision of "Pre-historic", "Ancient", "Medieval", "Early modern" and "Modern" eras. Since Modern history is distinguishably divided into pre and post independence eras, the section is further divided into two. The main problem of adding a separate "Civil war" section to deal with events between 1983 and 2009 is, that you cannot describle it ignoring the historical context. And putting all historical details in the civil war section obscures the timeline, and makes it an exception. Since the war is clearly over, it belongs to the modern history. You can't deny that. Arun1paladin's accusation that I have deleted a section, hence my edit is not constructive, is fundamentally wrong, because I not only kept the main points in the section but also added a previously undiscussed historical background that helps the reader to understand how the conflict has evolved. Moreover, if you are going to subdivide history based on conflicts that have resulted in civillian casualties, you may also need to add separate sections on 1971 JVP Insurrection which claimed 15,000 lives and 1987–89 JVP Insurrection which claimed around 50,000 lives. Both these conflicts are described in the article in no more than 1 sentence. The reason being, the scope of the article is much broader than describing each and every detail related to conflicts that the country has undergone in the past. If any reader is interested in reading more about these conflicts, they can refer to artcles that are dealing with the specific topics. However obi2canibe's notion that the article does not mention the term Sri Lankan Civil War, is true, and I will look forward to rectify that mistake. I also agree with the notion that facts such as Tamil civillians fleeing the country as a result of the war, are worth inclusion.
 * In addition, I agree with Cossde and encourage formulating a policy of not accusing any party for atrocities they may have committed, because it polarizes the POV leading to problems of neutrality. There are an ample articles dealing with the attacks and counter-attacks by both sides. This article is much more than detailing each and every incident during the war, and should give simply an overview of each of the sections that it needs to cover. Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your love towards the Sri Lanka can't be a criteria in wiki to remove the civil war sections that existed for a long.Whether you have done constructive[self-proclaimed] or destructive edit is a different thing.At first why didn't you notify in the talk page before removing the civil war section.In the Germanypage Third Reich is not hidden under the tag Modern germany.You say that you spent so much time in editing.But what about the time of editors who created the civil war section.They had to face strong opposition from Cossde.Finally it was added by administrator [User:AdverAdam|Advert]].You can create sections for some kings their wives.In that two you get into details like who was his sinhala wife,who was his Telugu wife etc]But you don't want a section for civil war.You said that my writing style is destructive.That's why I took most of your own points and created the civil war section again.Your problem is not my writing style but your intention to hide the civil war in srilanka by making some references about it in post-independence history.If you don't want the reader's to know about the civil war in the country that you love then it's purely your problem.If your argument is that civil war has to be mentioned with events of political history that led to it then why don't you do it in the civil war section itself?If your argument is that Black July ,Sinhala only act etc don't come under the period then title of that section be Ethnic conflict.At least the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is not over.I don't thing it will end in near future as your honourable defense minister had said that Political solution is irrelevant.Now have made my point and I am reverting your edit(115.246.185.221 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Regarding JVP insurrection /terrorism you can create a new section .I too will help in you in making that section.After all what can someone do when the history of the country that you love is like that!?.The accusations on LTTE doesn't warrant the need to avoid mentioning the atrocities of Sri Lankan state.LTTE is banned in many countries.LTTE says that it's aim to attain independence for Tamils.But SL claims sovereignty on both Tamils and Sinhalaese and it's a recognised state .So when someone writes of SL's atrocities some Sri Lankans [Sinhalese as per their talk page] come and include LTTE's atrocities.This makes me wonder if they think that SL state is ONLY FOR THE SINHALESE and it represents only the Sinhalese.It also makes me wonder if they recognise LTTE  the representative of Tamils !?.Later they say Both SL and LTTE Committed atrocities.So why to mention them?.Isn't this a tactic to save the image of SL? I am also not sure if these people are really different people or sockpuppet of a single .First they made the Alleged war crimes section to be removed.Ofcourse the other side also accepted it since administrator[User:AdvertAdam|AdvertAdam] said that he would brief it in the civil war section itself.But now some people want to civil war section to be extinct.(Arun1paladin (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Arun1paladin, I remember you mentioning that you are Indian, if it is so please go back and read the article on India with its history section divided into Ancient India, Medieval India, Early modern India & Modern India before stating "After all what can someone do when the history of the country that you love is like that!" let us not start about the colourful Indian history here ! Cossde (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You can have beautiful history section divided into Ancient Sri Lanka, Medieval Sri Lanka, Early modern Sri Lanka & Modern Sri Lanka, but don't try to hide one of the deadliest Civil Wars in the world under any of those history section, because simply the Ethnic Conflict is still not over. Please leave Ethnic conflict and Civil war as a separate section as how Third Reich is not hidden under section Modern Germany in the Germany page.LostBeetles (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cossde,unlike some Sri Lankan users [sinhalese according to their page] most users in India page welcome non-indians to edit the India page.Regarding India it didn't have a civil war.So it has no civil war section.If you have some cited info then you can edit that page.You are very much welcome.Ethnic conflict in SL is not over it's still a LIVE issue.So please don't try to hide it under the word HISTORY(Arun1paladin (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Arun1paladin's tone doesn't seem to be aimed at reaching a consensus on what modifications have to be done in-order to give an NPOV of civil war related information. No regular editor has ever complained that I have removed content in an attempt to whitewash the Sri Lankan state, or bias the article towards a certain viewpoint. You have failed to answer my key question, on how can we treat the 26 year period as a seprate era. Inclusion of the topic under the Modern Sri Lanka allows editors to handle it more freely, without confining themselves to the time interval. Your example to counter my claim, the Third Reich is simply irrelevant because it is a distinguished period of time in the German history. I'm baffled by your constant accusation that I'm trying to hide civil war under the guise of Modern History, when I have tried to include Tamil grievances in the article, and identify GoSL policies which have contributed towards gradual erosion of ethnic relations, while coming under criticism from other corners. Your disruptive style of editing is a problem not only for me, but also for the readers of this article. Your lack of knowledge of the subject is evident by the remark that I have tried to "hide the civil war in srilanka by making some references about it in post-independence history". Not only in that section, "Sri Lanka under the British rule" section also provides details about the development of the issue. You indirectly accept that you have a hatred towards Sri Lanka by commenting on my "love" towards the country in a sarcastic tone. If that indeed is the case, all your edits do not amount to be good faith edits by definition. Every country has underwent insurgencies, wars and civil disobedience, but you can't categorize a country based on that. If you continue to vandalize the article by repeatedly adding already available content, it makes reaching a consensus in the future a really difficult task. Commenting on the time you have spent on developing the article, I can clearly state that you have copied the content that is already available in this article and other related articles, and have done little or no research on your own. Astronomyinertia (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not replied to my question about ethnic conflict?How can you call a preset thing as history ?I never said that you are not including the Tamil grievances.Your writing style just includes all the events that gave rise to civil war but the problem is that you don't want the word civil war to be seen in the index .You say that post independence sri lanka and civil war are of the same timeline.So why not post independence sri Lanka be titled as ethnic conflict and civil war in post independence sri lanka?All this flowery edits started with the aim to white wash the crimes against humanity of sri lanka on Tamils.Now the next step to white wash the civil war section itself.What is your view on adding alleged war crimes of SL in Human rights section?I know you will want me to add the violations of LTTE too.I accept that.SL claims to represent both Tamils and Sinhalese.But whom does LTTE represent?But we can include things about LTTE too.Do you agree?Also I have to edit that Kathchatheevu thing.It was not formally acceded to SL.Indian PM has no right to gift off an indian territory to any state without the consent of the parliament.The treaty of accession of katchatheevu was not ratified by Indian parliament(Arun1paladin (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Commenting on the time you have spent on developing the article, I can clearly state that you have copied the content that is already available in this article and other related articles, and have done little or no research on your own.<< This shows that you didn't read the talk page properly.What do you think ,I was doing in the mediation sandbox created by [User:AdvertAdam|AdvertAdam]] to merger the Civil war section and Alleged war crimes section because Cossde] was pushing hard to remove the accusations about war crimes.([[User:Arun1paladin|Arun1paladin (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I agree that the section should be included, however it does require cleanup. The situation isn't over its still in the present. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you Arun1paladin are pushing your PoV, shared by several over editors of this article such as HudsonBreeze, LostBeetles, Hillcountries, Obi2canibe that why when want numbers to support your rhetoric that you keep on repeating on this talk page, you run along to them and ask them to voice their common opinion, as you have done now. Your objective creating undue attention to certain items and neglecting the others your to push your POV on this article just as the matter of katchatheevu, wikipedia can not be a portal for voicing your opinion in must record the history and the sequence of events so that a ready can make sense of how a situation came to be and no just jump into in from no where ! In the case of your own country that is not more than 60 years old in your context, how many wars were fought with neighbors, how many people killed in these many riots, attacks on rival races in these 60 years, how many people killed ! has the Indian history section dedicated to it ! or has it tried to cover more than 3000 years of history in it ! As for the mis-informed LostBeetles, how much has the American Civil War been mentioned in its country article ! a civil war far more deadly than the Sri Lankan and most costly in percentage of population killed in all the Wars the US has been in ! Since you have not provided relivable sources to prove your repeated claims of crimes against humanity of sri lanka on Tamils, this clearly proves that you are trying to using wikipedia as a platform for your propaganda in pushing your PoV. 112.135.102.162 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

IP, from Sri Lanka.First come up with your true account.Don't engage in sockpuppetry.What is reliable source according to you?The state site of Sri Lankan site?.I had posted various neutral sources from various reputed media in the world and even from UN site.If UN site is not reliable I wonder why you state is a member of such a organistation?Regarding India it was formed in 1947.Many region's in current India were either acceded to India or captured by the Indian state. If you think something is hidden in Indian history then you can raise the issue India page.May be you want to cover road accidents that take place everyday in India.Unlike Sri Lanka,India never had a Civil war.If there had been civil war then it surely deserves to be added.If long too much that there must be a civil war section in India article.Then start praying to Buddha(Arun1paladin (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

Astronomyinertia .I agree that the civil war and genocide of Sri Lanka on Tamils and crimes of LTTE are culmination of various political events and deeds by Sinhala PMs and Sinhala Presidents of Sri Lanka.So I suggest that,please create a separate section for Ethnic Conflict & Civil war  and list the political events that lead to ethnic conflict,civil war, genocide of Tamils[I know you will not agree with this thing],crimes of LTTE.Also include few lines about what SL is doing politically to solve the ethnic conflict.(Arun1paladin (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC))


 * I refrained from adding further comments because this talk page is not a forum to discuss each and everyone's POVs on the conflict. Since now that even Obi2canibe agreeing on the fact that a separate section on civil war isn't necessary, you may need to revise your opinion and help to stabilize the article. Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

HDI update
Sri Lanka's HDI rank is 93rd not 91st that needs to be updated. That's all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Aglo123 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka belongs the sinhalese....
I tought Sri Lanka is a multinational island, but this whole article is a sinhalese nationalist propaganda. Nice to see, that Wikipedia is a platform for all extremist. --Tamilstyle (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First show us some examples before making false accusations. and keep this in your racist mind properly. we got number of Tamil ministers ,Businessmen, Teachers, Professors , and even Buddhist Monks. we ain't racism and no need to propagate that obviously Sri Lanka is the land of Aryans which means Sinhalese and rest of ethnic people are minorities. sorry about that but that's the reality. no offense. --Avaloan


 * Name some examples, show us what is wrong there and correct it if you want to. It could not be easier. --Askalan (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sinhalese is the majority language. Just like Hindi is the language of India and Mandarin is the language of China. Not all the people in those countries speak those languages. But still no one says anything about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.67.147 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that Latin Americans constitute 15% of the population and is growing. Why isn't Spanish made a national language in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.40 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

USA has never made an English-only resolution because it's a democratic country, with no official language. Sinhala-only resolution resulted in the civil war. Hindi is not the national language of the India, it's just an official language, just like English. In Tamil Nadu, Hindi is never used, not even officially. English and Tamil are used instead. Had Sri Lanka kept English as the linking language there would have been no civil war at all. In Belgium two thirds of population is Dutch-speaking, but they would never impose Dutch on French-speaking Belgians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.32.176 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.85.231.26, 7 June 2011
Demography by Religion. Sri lankan population by the end of 2010 is 20.632 millions where as Budhists 14689974 ,Hindus 2048646 ,Christians 1335012,Moors 2217946 Malay,Burghers & Others 340438

Percentage of the population by Religion Budhists  71.2 Hindus     9.93 Islam     11.35 Christians 6.88 Other      0.64

88.85.231.26 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.- Happysailor  (Talk) 21:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)