Talk:Sri Lanka/Archive 9

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)

LEFT HAND DRIVE ?
As it is mentioned Sri Lankan vehicles are not left hand driven but Right hand driven, please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.37.3 (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the "Drives on the" line in the infobox, left is actually correct since it refers to the side of the road vehicles travel in, and not the driver's seating position. See Right- and left-hand traffic for more information. Chamal T •C 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012
Add English as one of the official languages
 * official_languages    = Sinhala Tamil] [[English language|English

Yasiths (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The cia factbook says it's commonly used, but doesn't mention it being official. Do you have a source for this? Tra (Talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam
After war, we should mention that there is a - Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit Request
Just a simple copy-edit request. I think we need a comma after "Sri Lanka". The first sentence should read, "Sri Lanka, officially the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,..." Joefromrandb (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ (will now look at your other request) Tra (Talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Chittagong hill tracts" should be "Chittagong Hill Tracts". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tra (Talk) 22:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wording of economy section
"According to the International Monetary Fund, Sri Lanka claims to a US$50 billion economy as of 2010."

Wording of this sentence is wrong, for three reason, 1. It is not accurate. 2. It doesn't make economic sense. 3. Information not updated.

It should ready "According to the International Monetary Fund, Sri lanka has a yearly Gross Domestic Output of US$50 Billion as of 2010." Concern highlighted.

1."Sri lanka 'CLAIMS'" This figures are not from 'sri lanka' they are from the IMF, and I'm not sure what is actually meant by 'sri lanka' because sri lanka itself doesn't publish GDP figures. A government department called Department of Statistics published GDP figures. IF this is IMF claim, as its said, it should not be 'sri lanka' claims. OR if the figure are from sri lanka it should be The department of Statistics Sri lanka claims......

2. "claims to a US$50 Billion economy" This doesn't make any sense. It should really be an annual Gross Domestic output, or the total value of goods and services produced in sri lanka. Where as 'US$50 Billion economy', doesn't mean anything at all.

3. As of 2011 the GDP is USD $59 Billion However this is not much of a concern, the figures seem reasonably up to date and accurate of the time published. Distributor108 (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you want "Gross Domestic Output" and "Billion" to have capital letters at the start? I'm not sure which is preferable gramatically but something about it doesn't look quite right. Tra (Talk) 00:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Grammar /spelling is up to you, I'm currently not disputing grammar. From my POV please re-word the sentence so it satisfactorily meets the 3 areas of concern i have laid out "three reason, 1. It is not accurate. 2. It doesn't make economic sense. 3. Information not updated." If there is an issue with anything else such as grammar, we can take this up with another request. 114.76.220.19 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ In that case I've changed those words to lowercase, and also capitalised L in Lanka. Tra (Talk) 15:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing concerns 1. and 2. Please address point 3. The link to the source of the information is updated, if you follow that link the IMF est for 2012 its US $64 Billion. No need to change sourcing, just change number to reflect the updated source. And by PPP its US$ 158 Billion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sri_Lanka Also please update the country info box with the same, to maintain consistency. 114.76.220.19 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence you asked to be put in contained that same figure of $50 billion as before the edit. Are you now asking to change that figure, or is this a different number in the article that you want changed?
 * Since I am not an economist, it would help greatly if you could be a specific as you can regarding which numbers need changing (i.e. the location in the article, the number it was before, the number it needs to be changed to). For instance, I don't know what the connection is between gross domestic product and gross domestic output. Tra (Talk) 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Change 1. The number US$ 50 Billion needs to be changed to ->US$ 64 Billion, 2010 needs to go to -> 2012. change 2 Next sentence the number $106.5 needs to be changed to ->US$ 158 Billion the purchasing power parity (PPP). change 3 The country info box, GDP PPP change to reflect the same above with the only difference per capita $7900 and the nominal same change to reflect the above and per capita $3200.

Gross domestic product is the total value of goods and service produced within a country, it doesn't actually have a time period attached do it. When we are talking about yearly gross domestic product, its just a better way of saying it Gross Domestic Output, makes sense. Hope this clears it up for you. 114.76.220.19 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks for the info. Tra (Talk) 05:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest Addition of 3rd photo to economy& transport section
Suggest the addition of this picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Dakshina_lanka_Highway.jpg to the Economy section next to transportation. Distributor108 (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- SLV100 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speculations about the "Elu" language.
Early inhabitants did not speak "Elu". The Mahavamsa described the early inhabitants as Nagas(Snake worshipers) and Yakshas(Demon worshipers) which is a Dravidian HINDU tradition. Second, many Tamil sources such as the Mahavamsa have recorded history of the Naga aka Nakar in the coastal areas of Tamilakam (South India and North and North Eastern Parts of Sri Lanka) and spoke Tamil. IT is evident that the early inhabitants such as the Nagas of Sri Lanka were of different origin in linguistic aspects when compared to the present day speakers of the South,central, Sri lanka(Sinhalese). Which is why the speculations of their language should be added in this article.(Tamilan101 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Mahavamsa is not a Tamil source. You say "Many Tamil sources" - which ones? Are you thinking of Manimekalai? According to Manimekalai the Nagas of SL were not Tamils. Please note that Nagas were not only found in Sri Lanka, but all over India and South Asia, and the Nagas and Yakshas are not solely found in the Dravidian tradition (that is, if at all they play any significant part in Dravidian traditions). The terms Naga and Yaksha are not Dravidian, but Indic. If these are Dravidian traditions, why use Indic terms to describe these traditions? Whatever language the early inhabitants of Lanka spoke, they definitely didn't speak Tamil, as attested by all Tamil literature (i.e Tolkappium and other Sangam literature). According to Sangam literature the language spoken in Sri Lanka, was Sinhala (Cinkalam, which is one of the 18 languages refered to in Tamil literature). Tamil gramatical works, from as late as the 13th century do not mention that Tamil was spoken in Sri Lanka, meaning that there was no significant Tamil presence in Lanka for them to mention it. Elu is the genuine form of Sinhala, without foreign (i.e mainly Sanskrit) forms and borrowings. The spread of Tamil to Sri Lanka is post formation of that language in Tamilakam, while the Sinhala language formed in the island - understand that difference when you edit Sri Lanka related articles and keep unverifiable mythological recent constructions of history out of Wikipedia articles.  --SriSuren (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: The existence of a Civil War section
The question in-dispute is whether having a separate section with no duplicated material for "civil war" under "post independent Sri Lanka" similar to this diff, OR not having a civil war section like this diff.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  05:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

After multiple disputes here, there is a need to solve each dispute separately. The first stage is getting the community's opinion about the structure. Some editors prefer the Civil War topic to be included within the "post independent..." section like its current state, while others prefer it to have a separate sub-section under "History" or "post independent...". The Sri Lanka civil war does have its own article, but what I see most challenging is the Civil War's direct relation to the ethical ethnic conflict. The ethical ethnic conflict is wide-spread before and after the Civil War.

I hope others can give their opinions/advice on how to handle the structure, while avoiding detailed political explanations. Again, this is not related to the content of the Civil War, but the article's structure in-particular.

Please indicate Agree or Disagree of having the Civil War content in a sub-section, with your rationale.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

* A spelling correction was fixed (from "ethical" to "ethnic"), which shouldn't change the meaning of this RfC.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  00:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree

 * 1. Obi2canibe: This article is about the political entity that came into being in 1972. Its many predecessors (Dominion, British, Dutch, Portuguese, Kandy, Kotte, Jaffna, Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura etc) each have their own article and most have a history section. It is therefore not unreasonable for this article to give more emphasis to post-1972 history. And, like it or not, the civil war has been the defining event in the post-1972 history of the island. In addition, as I've mentioned above, the civil war killed 100,000+, forced hundreds of thousands to flee abroad, displaced millions and caused physical and psychological injuries to hundreds of thousands. No other event in the island's "3,000 year history" can compare with this. I'd suggest that the History section be divided into five sub-sections: Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war (I have used Nigeria, which was also subject to colonial rule and civil war, as inspiration). Some editors have suggested that the civil war should be section on its own right i.e. outside the History section. This would be inappropriate as country articles have standard main sections (etymology, geography, history, government & politics, economy, culture, demographics etc). The civil war also shouldn't be relegated to other sections (e.g. human rights) - it was part of the island's history.-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. Adamrce: My views on this dispute after hearing most of the involved editors' previous views on this topic (in this talkpage, edit summaries & DRN), and while focusing on the structure ONLY, I see that (1) "Ethical conflict" is as wide as "Modern history," so I don't believe it deserves a separate section; (2) "War crimes" is a notable topic under the civil war, but it will violate WP:DUE if it had its own heading; (3) "Civil war" is the concerned section now, which the following is the criteria that led me to believe it deserves its own section (under the "Modern history" "post independent Sri Lanka" section):
 * Civil war is a very notable and controversial topic, which can easily be verified by Google Books.
 * It already has its own article, Sri Lanka civil war, which is getting many readers' interest. We're all here to help readers find what they're interested in encyclopedicly, and the civil war article has over 18,000 visitors a month and it has one-day each month that has an average of 3000+ visitors (ONE DAY).
 * The topic itself got tons of international attention, which is a good reason for the International community (non-Sri Lankans) to open the Sri Lanka article and learn about it.
 * This is the first community-wide comment request, in order to resolve the structural dispute. And then, we can follow by discussing the content structure based on the overcome. Cheers     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  04:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1.Sri Lanka was a colonial creation.It was formed in 1948.Sri Lanka has an ethnic conflict that begand in 1948 and it has not ended till date.

2.The civil war in Sri Lanka existed from 1983 -2011

3.10 of 100s of Tamils were killed by the exclusively Sinhala army of the Sinhalese dominated State of Sri Lanka

4.[LTTE] had killed considerable amount Sinhala civilians.

5.The UN panel report on final months of the civil war had accused that both parties have committed warcrimes and crimes against humanity .It's estimated that 40,000 civilians were killed in the final months of the war and all the victims were Tamils

6.During the war the Head of the Army said that the country belongs to the Sinhalese.

7.After the war ended in 2009, in 2011 the country's defense minister said that political solution for the Tamil people is irrelevant.

Sri Lanka had spent all it's history in ethnic conflict and 30 years civil war since it was formed in 1948.So I think that a civil war section is needed in that article.I am not actually talking about the contents of that section but I insist the there must be a civil war section in Sri Lanka page just as there is a section for Third Reich in Germany page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 4. HudsonBreeze, I too suggest that the History section be divided into five sub-sections: Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war. But the "Civil War" section should be expanded into Ethnic Conflict, Civil War & War Crime. We can go for a RFC on this expansion. All related issues of "Civil War" should be commenced from the island's independence. If there are overlapping on sections that could be discussed or we should go for a RFC.HudsonBreeze (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5. Agree per HudsonBreeze. Kanatonian (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6. A genocide by a government by its people should not be ignored, therefore I agree with HudsonBreeze. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

 * Astronomyinertia: I have previously discussed in detail why a separate section on civil war is unnecessary in the article. I think the threaded discussion should take into account the arguments I have presented, but I won't repost all of that here because it will consume a lot of space in this talkpage. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blackknight12: I think sufficient information such as, dates, who was involved, why it happened, how many died, and the effect it had on the country etc. can be included in the article, as well as linked to the main articles and its spin-offs, without being too overstated in relation to the history of the country. Just because this was the most recent and most widely covered war in the history of Sri Lanka does not mean it should have undue weight over all the others.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cossde: I think the addition of a separate section on civil war would distort the time line of events and would take things out of context as there had been two insurgencies before and during the civil war. Therefore having a separate section would violate WP:DUE (given the two other insurgencies) making the reader unable to comprehend the full situation, if further details are needed, then in line links would direct the user to the relevant articles. Since there is a article on the civil war a reader searching for that article would be directed by a search to that rather than the Sri Lanka article. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe a long paragraph (separate from the Jayawardene one) in the Post independence Sri Lanka section should suffice. It can mention any allegation of war crimes, etc. I would strongly recommend, in any case, not separating war crimes into a subsection (as proposed by one user above). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis: Although the information in that section is notable and should go into the article, considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BoogaLouie: Disagree by a hair. The Civil war was a major event in Sri Lankan history but the article is already quite long, as is the history section. Obviously in the History of Sri Lanka article there should be a big fat section on the war. 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SriSuren Disagree having a main section on the Civil War, and I disagree particularly to the alternative sugeested by Obi2canibe, where he wants to divide the history section into 5 parts, 2 parts being "Civil War" and "Post Civil War"!! and then list all other majour events in the country under those sections, for example even the Tsunami!!! Reorganizing the article as suggested by Obi2canbe is suitable for an article on the Civil War or the Ethnic Conflict, not THE article about Sri Lanka. I see these suggestions to reorganize the article with stress on the Civil War, specially as suggested by Obi2canbe, as an attempt to direct the article in the direction of the Civil War, the Ethnic conflict and Tamil specific issues. I would like to refer to the manual on editing articles and the section on reorganizing articles, where it is adviced to not to have separate sections on controversies and critisims, but to integrate them in the article. The Civil War is a part of the Ethnic Conflict, and that is the majour issue, which is still not resolved. Therefore I see no harm that we have a main section called the Ethnic Conflict, and under that have a subsection called Civil War and maybe Post Civil War, where in addition to the obivious things which will be mentioned we can have a subsection on activities in Tamil Nadu and the threats Tamil parties and persons are issuing in Tamil Nadu. As the UN report also specifically mentions, there must be a mention of the aggreesive Tamil propaganda and the harm it is doing, in some section in this article, especially if the article is going to go in the direction of the civil war. I also think that any section or subsection on the Civil War in this article is going to open to a flooding of the usual undocumented allegations and demonization of the Sinhalese people, which is also the intention of Obi2canbe which will result in endless edit wars. There are articles which deal with these Tamil grieviences (sic.) already. So principally I am against having a section or even a subsection on the Civil War. --SriSuren (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I have separate comments on obi2canibe's and AdvertAdam's ideas above. I don't agree with Obi2canibe, that this article is about the political entity that came into being in 1972. True, the name Sri Lanka was substituted in the place of Ceylon in 1972, but the history of the geographical location we are talking about, runs a long time backwards. You are correct that its predecessors also have a history section, but it seems to me that these sections are used together with sections like administration, economy and culture to discuss separate aspects of those eras. A separate section on history is essential to mention the notable events that took place during each era. I'm sorry that I can't agree with your suggestion to breakdown the history section into Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war simply because it gives an undue (80%) weight on events that happened after 1505. Instead, I suggest this article should follow the layout of India aricle, because as I've mentioned elsewhere that India is easily the most comparable country to Sri Lanka, and it has always remained within the sphere of influence of India. You may also notice that Sri Lankan history closely follows India's transition from pre-historic to ancient era, medieval to early modern era and early modern era to modern era. Moreover, the geographical area that we today identify as India has been unified under a single ruler only on few occassions. But that hasn't made the details pertaining to those separate kindoms and empires not get discussed under the history section of India article. Regarding Adamrce's views, I also agree that civil war is the single most important issue in the post independence Sri Lanka. I have no doubt about its notability, but my question here is, whether that fact is sufficient to consider it as a separate era of the history. As Obi2canibe observes, civil war is an item belongs to the history. But that should be added to the history section without distorting the timeline. One other way I see as a method to help the readers to find the Sri Lankan Civil War article, is to add it as a sub-sub section under the post independence Sri Lanka, so that the item will appear on the contents box as well. It all also give a chance to include a main article link to the civil war article. Anyhow, my point is that, civil war is not a separate era in the country's history, and the required changes should not distort the timeline of history. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but you actually read, and restored, an older version of the summary before I opened the RfC. This is the current version that was there when you replied. Please review, thanks :)     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. I think now the main issue here is to provide readers with an easy way to access the civil war article. In order to reach a lasting solution to this problem, pending the views and suggestions of Blackknight12 and Cossde, I think its fine to add a subsubsection named Civil war (1983-2009) following the sentence It made Sri Lanka the first South Asian country to liberalise its economy... in the current version of Post independence Sri Lanka sub section. But that will kick the Tsunami disaster out of its place. Therefore, I think its better to add another subsubsection called Contemporary era, to deal with the post war details and non-war related details prior to 2009. Does that sound reasonable? Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. There's an error in the RfC, that's why we haven't received any community input. I'm fixing it now.     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  06:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

India is a multi-ethnic multi lingual multi racial multi religious entity that never had something that was called Civil war.There are insurgencies in India but not civil war.In India no religion is given first preference as you give constitutional preference to Buddhism in Sri Lanka.India is quasi-federal.Sri Lanka is an unitary state.The history of land mass of the island on which the Sri Lanka is established is not the history of Sri Lanka as country but the land mass.It's something like British India and India are not one and the same.Even Myanmar,Bangladesh,[Sri Lanka],Pakistan or parts of these countries were a part of British India.In India there were around 500+ princely states that were paying subsidies to U.K.These princely states were merged with British India to form Dominion of India and then Republic of India.India has 1600 + languages and 100s of ethnicities.India can be compared only with Europe and not a single country or some island.(Arun1paladin (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC))
 * There was a revert mistake right before your respond. Can you please review the RfC again. Do you specifically agree to have "civil war" under "history\modern history\post independent Sri Lanka"? Sorry for the confusion.     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ceylon or Burma where never part of the British India, and the Republic of India is considered as the successor to the British India, just as the Indian Army was the successor to the British Indian Army. India has had a several insurgencies, riots based on ethnic, racial lines as well as wars with neighbors but it has never been mention in separate sections. In Arun1paladin's logic on what happen in Sri Lanka, then all the insurgencies in India are civil wars. Cossde (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read your colonial documents if you still have them there in Sri Lanka.You can find in British India page that Burma was a part of British India for some years.

>>The term British India also applied to Burma for a shorter time period: starting in 1824, a small part of Burma, and by 1886, almost two thirds of Burma had come under British India.[6] This arrangement lasted until 1937, when Burma commenced being administered as a separate British colony<< Similarly parts of the tiny island of Sri Lanka were parts of  Madras Presidency of British India until that tiny island was made a separate crown colony of the British crown.These things are not related to the article so I wind up these details with this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sri Lanka had its coastal areas briefly controlled by the Madras Presidency from 1796 to 1798, intern the British Government of Ceylon controlled the Cocos Islands from 1942 to 1946 after the fall of Singapore. Just as Cocos Islands is not considered as a part of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka is not considered part of British India. Cossde (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we please stick to the structural topic... thanks     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  06:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways to use a "Civil war" heading, for a section solely about the civil war, or for a section about the part of the county's history that is coeval with the war. Without a clear distinction it is hard to judge whether such a heading is appropriate. I would say that if if it is used as a time period the structuring is much simpler, and since there is the main article to refer to on the subject of the civil war, that seems like a good approach. The insurgencies can then be covered in the appropriate sections. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC).


 * You're right, any Civil War section should cover all events from the time period rather than just the civil war itself. Any significant event which occurred during the 1983-2009 period (e.g. 1987–89 JVP Insurrection, 2004 tsunami) should be included in the section.-- obi2canibe talk contr 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I request clarification from the users User:Grandiose, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:BoogaLouie on their comments to be discussed with other participating editors. These three editors as far as my knowledge never participated previously on the Sri Lanka related issues but after Rfc request and rather than they could come out with comments, they voted strangely with one side which "Disagree" the insertion of the "Civil War" from the "Sri Lanka Page".

The comments of the above Editors with their "Disagree" votes as below;

User:Grandiose


 * "I believe a long paragraph (separate from the Jayawardene one) in the Post independence Sri Lanka section should suffice. It can mention any allegation of war crimes, etc. I would strongly recommend, in any case, not separating war crimes into a subsection (as proposed by one user above)."

Discussion
 * I was contacted by the article request service. I have no in-depth knowledge of this particular situation. I gave the article a close look over before deciding what I believed to be the best course of action. I'm busy in real life and don't have time to do the same again. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You should not have participated at all in a discussion which is highly controversial if you don't have in-depth knowledge of the subject or the situation around, but you went to vote as well. Even if you would have wanted to vote, you should have participated in the discussion for some time at least by observing.


 * I suggested "War Crime" should be included but that is not the view of the User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile who voted "Agree"; Why we can't consider the suggestions of User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile that "Civil War" should be a subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section? Even that is the view of the User:Rich Farmbrough after Rfc. HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis


 * "Although the information in that section is notable and should go into the article, considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present."

Discussion
 * I saw this RfC through the wikiproject country article alerts. This was an RfC, meaning it asks uninvolved users to leave a comment. I left my comment. CMD (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you saw the RfC through wikiproject country article alerts, you should have commented your opinion at Threaded discussion and participated in the discussion with other editors, before you cast your Vote since it is a topic of highly controversial nature.


 * If you say, "considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present." why we can follow the suggestion of User:Rich Farmbrough.


 * If the breaking of the flow is the case, then the following subsections can't be survived in the following country article;


 * Afghanistan
 * 3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war
 * Libya
 * 2.9 2011 civil war and interim government
 * Laos
 * 2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75
 * Sudan
 * 1.7 Military Coup d'état (1989–present)
 * 1.8 Civil War and Secession of South Sudan
 * 1.9 Abyei situation
 * 1.10 Darfur conflict
 * 1.11 Chad-Sudan conflict
 * Nigeria
 * 1.3 Post-independence
 * 1.4 Nigerian-Biafran War


 * Considering the above, why we can't consider the suggestions of User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile that "Civil War" should be a subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section? Even that is the view of the User:Rich Farmbrough after Rfc.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your example subsections are irrelevant as they miss the entire point of my argument. I was commenting on the original civil war section posed by the creator of the RfC. If it can be rewritten to address my concern, then that's a different discussion. If you don't want people to offer a comment, then don't create a Requests for comment. No user is under obligation to do anything more in an RfC, and it is totally inappropriate to demand that they do while baselessly accusing others of canvassing. CMD (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then better you should have suggested for rewriting at the Threaded discussion rather than Voting, something like of User:Rich Farmbrough. We need suggestions from neutral editors and get involved in discussions to come for a Dispute Resolution than just Voting with one side straight away, and being accused by other parties in dispute that they have been canvassed because in Wikipedia canvassing is very common.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested that in the comment. I can not state this any clearer. An RfC requests comments. Users are asked to leave a comment. They are not asked to participate in discussion. Neither are they voting. An RfC is not a vote. No-one votes to a specific side. The inappropriate behaviour isn't the behaviour of the editors who do what they're supposed to do on an RfC. The inappropriate behaviour lies with those who for no reason at all and with no evidence chuck accusations of canvassing around. An accusation without a shred of evidence is a beautiful example of WP:bad faith. CMD (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, "....An RfC is not a vote. No-one votes to a specific side." But since you have commented in the side which "Agree" created suspicion; anything suspected is not so bad and aware of WP:bad faith in a world where geopolitics and diplomacy are used for betterment of the nations rather than human rights of the people in large.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That reply was nonsensical. There was nothing suspicious about any comments on the RfC. CMD (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How you are that sure that there was nothing suspicious about the comments on the RfC when the RfC itself about a structural issue of a bloody Civil War with much controversy in the real world. Could you kindly show the diffs, how many RfCs you have participated before you post your comment on this particular RfC?HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All three users you've questioned are long term wikipedia editors, two with over 10,000 article edits. If you have no reason to suspect users other than they disagree with your position, don't. CMD (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not asking whether you Three have "100, 000" or "500, 000" article edits or your are there since the inception of the Wikipedia, simply whether you have participated any other RfCs before you post your comments on this particular RfC, if "yes" please provide the "diffs" if "no" please give your rationale what made you to comment on this particular RfC after the wikiproject country article alerts?HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trawling through my contributions to fuel your witchhunt, it's a waste of everyone's time. There's a current RfC on Talk:Northern Ireland I put a comment in, if you really want, although it proves nothing. Why did I participate in the RfC? It popped up on the alerts. That's the thing about RfCs. They are seen by quite a few people. Now drop this. Consensus is not obtained by deeming everyone who chose a position contrary to yours as having been canvassed. That only makes your argument look weaker. CMD (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not in a witchhunt, but simply trying bring the truth. Then the world is in witchhunt against Sri Lanka. I am not asking your current RfC but the RfCs before you participated here. Some editors think they are above until they meet the right editors. That is in your case. I too don't waste my time. For me you have been canvassed for this RfC with 100% certainty. Now I also want to drop this, discussing further with so-called non involved editors based on their credibility of the comments on sensitive structural issue.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User:BoogaLouie


 * "Disagree by a hair. The Civil war was a major event in Sri Lankan history but the article is already quite long, as is the history section. Obviously in the History of Sri Lanka article there should be a big fat section on the war."

Discussion


 * Like the other two editors I was contacted by the article request service asking uninvolved users to leave a comment. I left my comment. What exactly about "the article is already quite long, as is the history section" do you require clarification about? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have contacted the RfC through wikiproject country article alerts, you should have commented your opinion at Threaded discussion and participated in the discussion with other editors, before you cast your Vote since it is a topic of highly controversial nature.


 * If the article is too long, we can do the following;


 * Making a brief "Civil War" subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section and link it to the main article Sri Lankan Civil War.


 * Making the following section brief in the Sri Lanka article
 * 2.1 Pre-historic Sri Lanka
 * 2.2 Ancient Sri Lanka
 * 2.3 Medieval Sri Lanka
 * 2.4 Early modern Sri Lanka


 * and making fat of the main articles such as Prehistory of Sri Lanka, Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka and Colonial history of Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the above editors fail to participate in a discussion with other editors who "Agree", I will re-instate the "Ethnic Conflict, Civil War & War Crime" to the main article page in Two Weeks.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Im sorry I can not agree with your option nor your arbitrary decision to re add the section. Cossde (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is the majority wants, it can't be the arbitrary decision. It is only removed by your side arbitrarily, just before the Rfc/Dispute Resolution started. I am sorry I will re-add the section after "Two Weeks".HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference to the comment User:Steven Zhang, "For what it's worth, undue weight is something that has to be considered with a few points in mind, the impact it had, how long it lasted, how significant an event it was in the subjects history. Duration of time is not the only deciding factor, however. The fact that the civil war lasted only 30 years should not be the sole deciding factor." and since the the editors who voted "Disagree" after RFC never turned back for discussion with who voted "Agree" even after Two Months, I revert back to the non-involved editor User:Adamrce's last version on Sri Lanka page on "Civil War" section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I brought back the "Civil War" section which was removed unilaterally by User:Blackknight12 while the discussion was going on, on "Content" dispute rather than on removal of the Section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't answered nor replied to any of the issues raised by me or the disagreeing editors. So what's the point of asking the non-involved editors to clarify their position? RfC was intended to bring community input, or fresh ideas to the discussion, which was largely between the long term contributors/edit warriors for the article. Therefore the most important votes here are that of the non-involved editors, who are merely giving their opinion on the matter. Don't intimidate them with orders to clarify their thoughts, just be welcoming and engage with them in the discussion. About your revision; the section you added back largely consists of information already availabe elsewhere, and breaks the flow of the History section. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your so called Non-Involved Editors who voted Agree are mostly Canvassed from you side. On Wikipedia there is nothing called intimidation when we observe some irregularity on voting patterns. We can't welcome those who want to say something when they want to be biased. If they have just voiced their comments rather on voting on different thread, we might have discussed with them. There is nothing breaking the flow the History section, only you want the "Civil War" section should not be included on the Sri Lanka page. If it is really breaks the flow, then we will discuss how we could keep the "Civil War" section without breaking the flow.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well well, your accusation that the non-involved editors "who voted Agree [should be Disagree] are mostly Canvassed from you side" is a blatant accusation on the respected editors who troubled to voice their opinion regarding the matter. Do you have any proof to say so? If I want the details regarding the civil war completely removed from the article, then why did I bother to add chunks of information on the origin, evolution and the effects of civil war, plus the alleged human rights abuses in their relevant sections? Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since those editors have not come out their comments on the Threaded discussion where other editors might have discussed with them on the subject; they have simply voted "Disagree" elsewhere with brief comment and almost escaped. How they could be respected?


 * That is your mistake or POV that you have systematically included what should be under the section "Civil War" under the sections of "Sri Lanka under the British rule" and "Post independence Sri Lanka". Following Countries have Sub Sections on "Civil War", "Genocide" or "War" under "History" Section.


 * United States
 * 3.3 Civil War and industrialization
 * Afghanistan
 * 3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war
 * Iraq
 * 2.8.1 Al-Anfal: Kurdish genocide
 * 2.8.2 Gulf War
 * Libya
 * 2.9 2011 civil war and interim government
 * Laos
 * 2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75
 * Why Sri Lanka can't have a separate section on "Civil War"? The title matters a lot. Otherwise we are trying hide something in real world and on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with HudsonBreeze Kanatonian (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, this very discussion was held several months back and my suggestion to model a section on Civil War and industrialization of United States was flatly rejected by several users including HudsonBreeze. Attempts by HudsonBreeze and several other users are motivated by external factors and not the betterment of the article. Their time is also very suspicious. Therefore I see this as an attempt to further own objectives rather than create an article on information to the public. Cossde (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not under the influence of external factors since facts stands for ever and Wikipedia stand for ever.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then Id kindly ask you to stop stating allegations related to Sri Lanka and start stating actual facts.Cossde (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of your suggestion how we could model Civil War section on Sri Lanka directly in relation to a section on Civil War and industrialization of United States.HudsonBreeze (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After the long and extensive discussion with your peers, I came to the conclusion that the summarized form section represented the section on Civil War and industrialization of United States is not practical here. Only the current form of time line is practical. Cossde (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't come any agreement why the "Civil War" section under a separate title can't be included on the Sri Lanka page. Even if the section on Civil War and industrialization of United States is not practical on the Sri Lanka page, what about the parallels of other countries which have the tile on "Civil War" on their countries' pages under separate titles?HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are all civil wars the same ? Cossde (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is anything special on Sri Lankan Civil War, please mention rather than removing the title.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If all civil wars are not the same, stop comparing Sri Lanka with other country pages. Putting a title based on your opinions is PoV pushing .Cossde (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How it becomes POV based you a few Sinhalese editors want the title "Civil" war should not be there. Maybe in Sri Lanka it is possible since you Sinhalese control the Government, but not in Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

HudsonBreeze has once again failed to come out with a rationale for his prime accusation that users Grandiose, Chipmunkdavis and BoogaLouie have been "canvassed" to disagree with the proposal. Hudson, I would like to know whether you still stand by the accusation, or concede that you have lied to the Wikipedia community, to gain additional weight to your argument? I also find your reply to Grandiose: "You should not have participated at all in a discussion which is highly controversial if you don't have in-depth knowledge of the subject.." somewhat threatning and misleading, because what we discuss here is not a controversial historical fact, but a straightforward structural dispute, which any Wikipedian should be able to draw a conclusion with common sense. A STRONOMYINERTI A ( TALK ) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not the threatning or misleading observation, that is the evidence that at least he or she might have been canvassed and most probably by you. Let them discuss rather than you come out your own POVs on behalf of them always. Though it is on Structural, the content is about Civil War and War Crime. In Sri Lanka, people have been kidnapped in White Vans and killed by the Sri Lankan Government's paramilitaries extra-judicially just voicing for these atrocities. Then how you could say that is not a controversial subject? HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This RfC clearly asks the Wikipedia community to "indicate [whether] Agree or Disagree of having the Civil War content in a sub-section, with [a] rationale." In no place it is stated that one should participate in a discussion with the proponents of this idea, before, while or after voting. Note that all those non-involved editors have provided their rationale, on which you have repeatedly failed to comment. But you keep questioning their intention and accusing me of canvassing, with no evidence what so ever. Please remember that here, the politics is out of the question, and the concern is merely about a structural dispute of an article. Your additional comments on political issues carry absolutely no weight. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 10:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * People are judged not by their words but by their actions. So as here, Voting after discussion will count a lot than simply Voting with brief statements with no room others to discuss with them. I have commented already and we will get involved in discussion and better you stay away being others' mouth piece. The pattern of Three Editors's Voting "Agree" with brief rationale will create anyone doubt of them. Better you raise this at ANI, RfC, or in Dispute Resolution and get their opinion how do they will think rather than questioning me over my accusation that they have been canvassed.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree

Civil War Section is Needed Now there has been even more evidence released regarding crimes against humanity and war crimes of Sri Lanka on Tamil civilians.I think that a civil war section is needed.Since Ethnic conflict and Civil war had been the most the part of the island's contemporary history we need a section for that.The ethnic conflict is not yet over and a political solution is not yet given to the Tamils .It's an issue that is still alive.(Arun1paladin (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Page fully protected due to edit warring/content dispute
I have protected the page for 1 month per a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=479517240&oldid=479516863 request on RFPP]. Please discuss all changes and establish a consensus before requesting that the page is unprotected - you can ask any admin to review this an unprotect it when consensus has been reached. Please note, that continued edit warring after protection expires (if the page is not unprotected before then) may result in you being blocked. Thank you, The  Helpful  One  18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure (sort-of)
Blacknight12 asked me on my talk page to take a look at the discussion and see if I can close it. And I can, but unfortunately, the closure won't provide an immediate solution. After reviewing the discussion, as well as the last discussion at DRN, and a few things in the archives, I see a very distinct lack of consensus here. On numbers alone it's an exact tie with 7 editors on each side (noting that there's one !vote in the collapsed section from Arun1paladin). One problem is that a number of the positions advanced aren't really about Wikipedia policies...although, that's not as terrible here as it would be in other discussions because this really is a case of editorial discretion--there is no real policy that governs how to divide up an article/history. The major point of dispute seems to revolve around (though it's only mentioned once above), WP:UNDUE--i.e., will separating out the Civil War into its own section make that section overly important with respect to its actual importance in the history of Sri Lanka. Part of the problem, also, is that there seems to be a bit of disagreement about the actual scope of this article--whether this article is about the entire history of the geopolitical land unit on which the current country of Sri Lanka sits, or whether it only refers to the "political entity that came into being in 1972". I believe that clarifying this last point may provide a way forward. Finally, I am a little concerned that HudsonBreeze's misunderstanding of how RfCs work (and the subsequent inappropriate questioning of the comments of uninvolved editors) may have kept away additional uninvolved voices that could have helped shed a wider light on the subject. However, my concern there is pretty small, because getting only 3 uninvolved editors is not at all unusual for an RfC of this type.

So, the more important question is, what do you do now? I have to strongly recommend mediation, specifically formal mediation conducted by the Mediation committee. My hope is that a neutral mediator will be able to guide future discussion productively. I also think that once the overall scope of the article is defined, we need a little bit more investigation into reliable sources; for example, are there any relatively recent, high quality academic-level books about Sri Lanka? If so, how much weight to they give to this issue?

Lastly, there was concern expressed on my talk page that the very long-lasting nature of this dispute may in part be due to problem editors intentionally holding up a consensus. That complaint is quite difficult to determine without specific diffs showing bad behavior. While I still strongly recommend trying mediation first, if anyone is firmly convinced that the problems here are more behavioral than content, then I recommend taking the issue to Arbcom. Note that this is not a step to take lightly, and anyone taking this discussion to ArbCom must be prepared to have everyone's edits, including their own, very closely scrutinized.

I'll still keep watching the article; no matter which route you pursue, anybody starting up an edit war will likely find themselves blocked quite quickly. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Speculations about the "Elu" language.
Early inhabitants did not speak "Elu". The Mahavamsa described the early inhabitants as Nagas(Snake worshipers) and Yakshas(Demon worshipers) which is a Dravidian HINDU tradition. Second, many Tamil sources such as the Mahavamsa have recorded history of the Naga aka Nakar in the coastal areas of Tamilakam (South India and North and North Eastern Parts of Sri Lanka) and spoke Tamil. IT is evident that the early inhabitants such as the Nagas of Sri Lanka were of different origin in linguistic aspects when compared to the present day speakers of the South,central, Sri lanka(Sinhalese). Which is why the speculations of their language should be added in this article.(Tamilan101 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Mahavamsa is not a Tamil source. You say "Many Tamil sources" - which ones? Are you thinking of Manimekalai? According to Manimekalai the Nagas of SL were not Tamils. Please note that Nagas were not only found in Sri Lanka, but all over India and South Asia, and the Nagas and Yakshas are not solely found in the Dravidian tradition (that is, if at all they play any significant part in Dravidian traditions). The terms Naga and Yaksha are not Dravidian, but Indic. If these are Dravidian traditions, why use Indic terms to describe these traditions? Whatever language the early inhabitants of Lanka spoke, they definitely didn't speak Tamil, as attested by all Tamil literature (i.e Tolkappium and other Sangam literature). According to Sangam literature the language spoken in Sri Lanka, was Sinhala (Cinkalam, which is one of the 18 languages refered to in Tamil literature). Tamil gramatical works, from as late as the 13th century do not mention that Tamil was spoken in Sri Lanka, meaning that there was no significant Tamil presence in Lanka for them to mention it. Elu is the genuine form of Sinhala, without foreign (i.e mainly Sanskrit) forms and borrowings. The spread of Tamil to Sri Lanka is post formation of that language in Tamilakam, while the Sinhala language formed in the island - understand that difference when you edit Sri Lanka related articles and keep unverifiable mythological recent constructions of history out of Wikipedia articles.  --SriSuren (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: The existence of a Civil War section
The question in-dispute is whether having a separate section with no duplicated material for "civil war" under "post independent Sri Lanka" similar to this diff, OR not having a civil war section like this diff.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  05:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

After multiple disputes here, there is a need to solve each dispute separately. The first stage is getting the community's opinion about the structure. Some editors prefer the Civil War topic to be included within the "post independent..." section like its current state, while others prefer it to have a separate sub-section under "History" or "post independent...". The Sri Lanka civil war does have its own article, but what I see most challenging is the Civil War's direct relation to the ethical ethnic conflict. The ethical ethnic conflict is wide-spread before and after the Civil War.

I hope others can give their opinions/advice on how to handle the structure, while avoiding detailed political explanations. Again, this is not related to the content of the Civil War, but the article's structure in-particular.

Please indicate Agree or Disagree of having the Civil War content in a sub-section, with your rationale.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

* A spelling correction was fixed (from "ethical" to "ethnic"), which shouldn't change the meaning of this RfC.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  00:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree

 * 1. Obi2canibe: This article is about the political entity that came into being in 1972. Its many predecessors (Dominion, British, Dutch, Portuguese, Kandy, Kotte, Jaffna, Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura etc) each have their own article and most have a history section. It is therefore not unreasonable for this article to give more emphasis to post-1972 history. And, like it or not, the civil war has been the defining event in the post-1972 history of the island. In addition, as I've mentioned above, the civil war killed 100,000+, forced hundreds of thousands to flee abroad, displaced millions and caused physical and psychological injuries to hundreds of thousands. No other event in the island's "3,000 year history" can compare with this. I'd suggest that the History section be divided into five sub-sections: Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war (I have used Nigeria, which was also subject to colonial rule and civil war, as inspiration). Some editors have suggested that the civil war should be section on its own right i.e. outside the History section. This would be inappropriate as country articles have standard main sections (etymology, geography, history, government & politics, economy, culture, demographics etc). The civil war also shouldn't be relegated to other sections (e.g. human rights) - it was part of the island's history.-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. Adamrce: My views on this dispute after hearing most of the involved editors' previous views on this topic (in this talkpage, edit summaries & DRN), and while focusing on the structure ONLY, I see that (1) "Ethical conflict" is as wide as "Modern history," so I don't believe it deserves a separate section; (2) "War crimes" is a notable topic under the civil war, but it will violate WP:DUE if it had its own heading; (3) "Civil war" is the concerned section now, which the following is the criteria that led me to believe it deserves its own section (under the "Modern history" "post independent Sri Lanka" section):
 * Civil war is a very notable and controversial topic, which can easily be verified by Google Books.
 * It already has its own article, Sri Lanka civil war, which is getting many readers' interest. We're all here to help readers find what they're interested in encyclopedicly, and the civil war article has over 18,000 visitors a month and it has one-day each month that has an average of 3000+ visitors (ONE DAY).
 * The topic itself got tons of international attention, which is a good reason for the International community (non-Sri Lankans) to open the Sri Lanka article and learn about it.
 * This is the first community-wide comment request, in order to resolve the structural dispute. And then, we can follow by discussing the content structure based on the overcome. Cheers     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  04:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1.Sri Lanka was a colonial creation.It was formed in 1948.Sri Lanka has an ethnic conflict that begand in 1948 and it has not ended till date.

2.The civil war in Sri Lanka existed from 1983 -2011

3.10 of 100s of Tamils were killed by the exclusively Sinhala army of the Sinhalese dominated State of Sri Lanka

4.[LTTE] had killed considerable amount Sinhala civilians.

5.The UN panel report on final months of the civil war had accused that both parties have committed warcrimes and crimes against humanity .It's estimated that 40,000 civilians were killed in the final months of the war and all the victims were Tamils

6.During the war the Head of the Army said that the country belongs to the Sinhalese.

7.After the war ended in 2009, in 2011 the country's defense minister said that political solution for the Tamil people is irrelevant.

Sri Lanka had spent all it's history in ethnic conflict and 30 years civil war since it was formed in 1948.So I think that a civil war section is needed in that article.I am not actually talking about the contents of that section but I insist the there must be a civil war section in Sri Lanka page just as there is a section for Third Reich in Germany page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 4. HudsonBreeze, I too suggest that the History section be divided into five sub-sections: Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war. But the "Civil War" section should be expanded into Ethnic Conflict, Civil War & War Crime. We can go for a RFC on this expansion. All related issues of "Civil War" should be commenced from the island's independence. If there are overlapping on sections that could be discussed or we should go for a RFC.HudsonBreeze (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5. Agree per HudsonBreeze. Kanatonian (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6. A genocide by a government by its people should not be ignored, therefore I agree with HudsonBreeze. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

 * Astronomyinertia: I have previously discussed in detail why a separate section on civil war is unnecessary in the article. I think the threaded discussion should take into account the arguments I have presented, but I won't repost all of that here because it will consume a lot of space in this talkpage. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blackknight12: I think sufficient information such as, dates, who was involved, why it happened, how many died, and the effect it had on the country etc. can be included in the article, as well as linked to the main articles and its spin-offs, without being too overstated in relation to the history of the country. Just because this was the most recent and most widely covered war in the history of Sri Lanka does not mean it should have undue weight over all the others.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cossde: I think the addition of a separate section on civil war would distort the time line of events and would take things out of context as there had been two insurgencies before and during the civil war. Therefore having a separate section would violate WP:DUE (given the two other insurgencies) making the reader unable to comprehend the full situation, if further details are needed, then in line links would direct the user to the relevant articles. Since there is a article on the civil war a reader searching for that article would be directed by a search to that rather than the Sri Lanka article. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe a long paragraph (separate from the Jayawardene one) in the Post independence Sri Lanka section should suffice. It can mention any allegation of war crimes, etc. I would strongly recommend, in any case, not separating war crimes into a subsection (as proposed by one user above). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis: Although the information in that section is notable and should go into the article, considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BoogaLouie: Disagree by a hair. The Civil war was a major event in Sri Lankan history but the article is already quite long, as is the history section. Obviously in the History of Sri Lanka article there should be a big fat section on the war. 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SriSuren Disagree having a main section on the Civil War, and I disagree particularly to the alternative sugeested by Obi2canibe, where he wants to divide the history section into 5 parts, 2 parts being "Civil War" and "Post Civil War"!! and then list all other majour events in the country under those sections, for example even the Tsunami!!! Reorganizing the article as suggested by Obi2canbe is suitable for an article on the Civil War or the Ethnic Conflict, not THE article about Sri Lanka. I see these suggestions to reorganize the article with stress on the Civil War, specially as suggested by Obi2canbe, as an attempt to direct the article in the direction of the Civil War, the Ethnic conflict and Tamil specific issues. I would like to refer to the manual on editing articles and the section on reorganizing articles, where it is adviced to not to have separate sections on controversies and critisims, but to integrate them in the article. The Civil War is a part of the Ethnic Conflict, and that is the majour issue, which is still not resolved. Therefore I see no harm that we have a main section called the Ethnic Conflict, and under that have a subsection called Civil War and maybe Post Civil War, where in addition to the obivious things which will be mentioned we can have a subsection on activities in Tamil Nadu and the threats Tamil parties and persons are issuing in Tamil Nadu. As the UN report also specifically mentions, there must be a mention of the aggreesive Tamil propaganda and the harm it is doing, in some section in this article, especially if the article is going to go in the direction of the civil war. I also think that any section or subsection on the Civil War in this article is going to open to a flooding of the usual undocumented allegations and demonization of the Sinhalese people, which is also the intention of Obi2canbe which will result in endless edit wars. There are articles which deal with these Tamil grieviences (sic.) already. So principally I am against having a section or even a subsection on the Civil War. --SriSuren (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I have separate comments on obi2canibe's and AdvertAdam's ideas above. I don't agree with Obi2canibe, that this article is about the political entity that came into being in 1972. True, the name Sri Lanka was substituted in the place of Ceylon in 1972, but the history of the geographical location we are talking about, runs a long time backwards. You are correct that its predecessors also have a history section, but it seems to me that these sections are used together with sections like administration, economy and culture to discuss separate aspects of those eras. A separate section on history is essential to mention the notable events that took place during each era. I'm sorry that I can't agree with your suggestion to breakdown the history section into Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war simply because it gives an undue (80%) weight on events that happened after 1505. Instead, I suggest this article should follow the layout of India aricle, because as I've mentioned elsewhere that India is easily the most comparable country to Sri Lanka, and it has always remained within the sphere of influence of India. You may also notice that Sri Lankan history closely follows India's transition from pre-historic to ancient era, medieval to early modern era and early modern era to modern era. Moreover, the geographical area that we today identify as India has been unified under a single ruler only on few occassions. But that hasn't made the details pertaining to those separate kindoms and empires not get discussed under the history section of India article. Regarding Adamrce's views, I also agree that civil war is the single most important issue in the post independence Sri Lanka. I have no doubt about its notability, but my question here is, whether that fact is sufficient to consider it as a separate era of the history. As Obi2canibe observes, civil war is an item belongs to the history. But that should be added to the history section without distorting the timeline. One other way I see as a method to help the readers to find the Sri Lankan Civil War article, is to add it as a sub-sub section under the post independence Sri Lanka, so that the item will appear on the contents box as well. It all also give a chance to include a main article link to the civil war article. Anyhow, my point is that, civil war is not a separate era in the country's history, and the required changes should not distort the timeline of history. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but you actually read, and restored, an older version of the summary before I opened the RfC. This is the current version that was there when you replied. Please review, thanks :)     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. I think now the main issue here is to provide readers with an easy way to access the civil war article. In order to reach a lasting solution to this problem, pending the views and suggestions of Blackknight12 and Cossde, I think its fine to add a subsubsection named Civil war (1983-2009) following the sentence It made Sri Lanka the first South Asian country to liberalise its economy... in the current version of Post independence Sri Lanka sub section. But that will kick the Tsunami disaster out of its place. Therefore, I think its better to add another subsubsection called Contemporary era, to deal with the post war details and non-war related details prior to 2009. Does that sound reasonable? Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. There's an error in the RfC, that's why we haven't received any community input. I'm fixing it now.     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  06:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

India is a multi-ethnic multi lingual multi racial multi religious entity that never had something that was called Civil war.There are insurgencies in India but not civil war.In India no religion is given first preference as you give constitutional preference to Buddhism in Sri Lanka.India is quasi-federal.Sri Lanka is an unitary state.The history of land mass of the island on which the Sri Lanka is established is not the history of Sri Lanka as country but the land mass.It's something like British India and India are not one and the same.Even Myanmar,Bangladesh,[Sri Lanka],Pakistan or parts of these countries were a part of British India.In India there were around 500+ princely states that were paying subsidies to U.K.These princely states were merged with British India to form Dominion of India and then Republic of India.India has 1600 + languages and 100s of ethnicities.India can be compared only with Europe and not a single country or some island.(Arun1paladin (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC))
 * There was a revert mistake right before your respond. Can you please review the RfC again. Do you specifically agree to have "civil war" under "history\modern history\post independent Sri Lanka"? Sorry for the confusion.     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ceylon or Burma where never part of the British India, and the Republic of India is considered as the successor to the British India, just as the Indian Army was the successor to the British Indian Army. India has had a several insurgencies, riots based on ethnic, racial lines as well as wars with neighbors but it has never been mention in separate sections. In Arun1paladin's logic on what happen in Sri Lanka, then all the insurgencies in India are civil wars. Cossde (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read your colonial documents if you still have them there in Sri Lanka.You can find in British India page that Burma was a part of British India for some years.

>>The term British India also applied to Burma for a shorter time period: starting in 1824, a small part of Burma, and by 1886, almost two thirds of Burma had come under British India.[6] This arrangement lasted until 1937, when Burma commenced being administered as a separate British colony<< Similarly parts of the tiny island of Sri Lanka were parts of  Madras Presidency of British India until that tiny island was made a separate crown colony of the British crown.These things are not related to the article so I wind up these details with this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sri Lanka had its coastal areas briefly controlled by the Madras Presidency from 1796 to 1798, intern the British Government of Ceylon controlled the Cocos Islands from 1942 to 1946 after the fall of Singapore. Just as Cocos Islands is not considered as a part of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka is not considered part of British India. Cossde (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we please stick to the structural topic... thanks     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  06:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways to use a "Civil war" heading, for a section solely about the civil war, or for a section about the part of the county's history that is coeval with the war. Without a clear distinction it is hard to judge whether such a heading is appropriate. I would say that if if it is used as a time period the structuring is much simpler, and since there is the main article to refer to on the subject of the civil war, that seems like a good approach. The insurgencies can then be covered in the appropriate sections. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC).


 * You're right, any Civil War section should cover all events from the time period rather than just the civil war itself. Any significant event which occurred during the 1983-2009 period (e.g. 1987–89 JVP Insurrection, 2004 tsunami) should be included in the section.-- obi2canibe talk contr 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I request clarification from the users User:Grandiose, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:BoogaLouie on their comments to be discussed with other participating editors. These three editors as far as my knowledge never participated previously on the Sri Lanka related issues but after Rfc request and rather than they could come out with comments, they voted strangely with one side which "Disagree" the insertion of the "Civil War" from the "Sri Lanka Page".

The comments of the above Editors with their "Disagree" votes as below;

User:Grandiose


 * "I believe a long paragraph (separate from the Jayawardene one) in the Post independence Sri Lanka section should suffice. It can mention any allegation of war crimes, etc. I would strongly recommend, in any case, not separating war crimes into a subsection (as proposed by one user above)."

Discussion
 * I was contacted by the article request service. I have no in-depth knowledge of this particular situation. I gave the article a close look over before deciding what I believed to be the best course of action. I'm busy in real life and don't have time to do the same again. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You should not have participated at all in a discussion which is highly controversial if you don't have in-depth knowledge of the subject or the situation around, but you went to vote as well. Even if you would have wanted to vote, you should have participated in the discussion for some time at least by observing.


 * I suggested "War Crime" should be included but that is not the view of the User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile who voted "Agree"; Why we can't consider the suggestions of User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile that "Civil War" should be a subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section? Even that is the view of the User:Rich Farmbrough after Rfc. HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis


 * "Although the information in that section is notable and should go into the article, considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present."

Discussion
 * I saw this RfC through the wikiproject country article alerts. This was an RfC, meaning it asks uninvolved users to leave a comment. I left my comment. CMD (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you saw the RfC through wikiproject country article alerts, you should have commented your opinion at Threaded discussion and participated in the discussion with other editors, before you cast your Vote since it is a topic of highly controversial nature.


 * If you say, "considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present." why we can follow the suggestion of User:Rich Farmbrough.


 * If the breaking of the flow is the case, then the following subsections can't be survived in the following country article;


 * Afghanistan
 * 3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war
 * Libya
 * 2.9 2011 civil war and interim government
 * Laos
 * 2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75
 * Sudan
 * 1.7 Military Coup d'état (1989–present)
 * 1.8 Civil War and Secession of South Sudan
 * 1.9 Abyei situation
 * 1.10 Darfur conflict
 * 1.11 Chad-Sudan conflict
 * Nigeria
 * 1.3 Post-independence
 * 1.4 Nigerian-Biafran War


 * Considering the above, why we can't consider the suggestions of User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile that "Civil War" should be a subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section? Even that is the view of the User:Rich Farmbrough after Rfc.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your example subsections are irrelevant as they miss the entire point of my argument. I was commenting on the original civil war section posed by the creator of the RfC. If it can be rewritten to address my concern, then that's a different discussion. If you don't want people to offer a comment, then don't create a Requests for comment. No user is under obligation to do anything more in an RfC, and it is totally inappropriate to demand that they do while baselessly accusing others of canvassing. CMD (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then better you should have suggested for rewriting at the Threaded discussion rather than Voting, something like of User:Rich Farmbrough. We need suggestions from neutral editors and get involved in discussions to come for a Dispute Resolution than just Voting with one side straight away, and being accused by other parties in dispute that they have been canvassed because in Wikipedia canvassing is very common.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested that in the comment. I can not state this any clearer. An RfC requests comments. Users are asked to leave a comment. They are not asked to participate in discussion. Neither are they voting. An RfC is not a vote. No-one votes to a specific side. The inappropriate behaviour isn't the behaviour of the editors who do what they're supposed to do on an RfC. The inappropriate behaviour lies with those who for no reason at all and with no evidence chuck accusations of canvassing around. An accusation without a shred of evidence is a beautiful example of WP:bad faith. CMD (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, "....An RfC is not a vote. No-one votes to a specific side." But since you have commented in the side which "Agree" created suspicion; anything suspected is not so bad and aware of WP:bad faith in a world where geopolitics and diplomacy are used for betterment of the nations rather than human rights of the people in large.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That reply was nonsensical. There was nothing suspicious about any comments on the RfC. CMD (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How you are that sure that there was nothing suspicious about the comments on the RfC when the RfC itself about a structural issue of a bloody Civil War with much controversy in the real world. Could you kindly show the diffs, how many RfCs you have participated before you post your comment on this particular RfC?HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All three users you've questioned are long term wikipedia editors, two with over 10,000 article edits. If you have no reason to suspect users other than they disagree with your position, don't. CMD (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not asking whether you Three have "100, 000" or "500, 000" article edits or your are there since the inception of the Wikipedia, simply whether you have participated any other RfCs before you post your comments on this particular RfC, if "yes" please provide the "diffs" if "no" please give your rationale what made you to comment on this particular RfC after the wikiproject country article alerts?HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trawling through my contributions to fuel your witchhunt, it's a waste of everyone's time. There's a current RfC on Talk:Northern Ireland I put a comment in, if you really want, although it proves nothing. Why did I participate in the RfC? It popped up on the alerts. That's the thing about RfCs. They are seen by quite a few people. Now drop this. Consensus is not obtained by deeming everyone who chose a position contrary to yours as having been canvassed. That only makes your argument look weaker. CMD (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not in a witchhunt, but simply trying bring the truth. Then the world is in witchhunt against Sri Lanka. I am not asking your current RfC but the RfCs before you participated here. Some editors think they are above until they meet the right editors. That is in your case. I too don't waste my time. For me you have been canvassed for this RfC with 100% certainty. Now I also want to drop this, discussing further with so-called non involved editors based on their credibility of the comments on sensitive structural issue.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User:BoogaLouie


 * "Disagree by a hair. The Civil war was a major event in Sri Lankan history but the article is already quite long, as is the history section. Obviously in the History of Sri Lanka article there should be a big fat section on the war."

Discussion


 * Like the other two editors I was contacted by the article request service asking uninvolved users to leave a comment. I left my comment. What exactly about "the article is already quite long, as is the history section" do you require clarification about? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have contacted the RfC through wikiproject country article alerts, you should have commented your opinion at Threaded discussion and participated in the discussion with other editors, before you cast your Vote since it is a topic of highly controversial nature.


 * If the article is too long, we can do the following;


 * Making a brief "Civil War" subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section and link it to the main article Sri Lankan Civil War.


 * Making the following section brief in the Sri Lanka article
 * 2.1 Pre-historic Sri Lanka
 * 2.2 Ancient Sri Lanka
 * 2.3 Medieval Sri Lanka
 * 2.4 Early modern Sri Lanka


 * and making fat of the main articles such as Prehistory of Sri Lanka, Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka and Colonial history of Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the above editors fail to participate in a discussion with other editors who "Agree", I will re-instate the "Ethnic Conflict, Civil War & War Crime" to the main article page in Two Weeks.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Im sorry I can not agree with your option nor your arbitrary decision to re add the section. Cossde (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is the majority wants, it can't be the arbitrary decision. It is only removed by your side arbitrarily, just before the Rfc/Dispute Resolution started. I am sorry I will re-add the section after "Two Weeks".HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference to the comment User:Steven Zhang, "For what it's worth, undue weight is something that has to be considered with a few points in mind, the impact it had, how long it lasted, how significant an event it was in the subjects history. Duration of time is not the only deciding factor, however. The fact that the civil war lasted only 30 years should not be the sole deciding factor." and since the the editors who voted "Disagree" after RFC never turned back for discussion with who voted "Agree" even after Two Months, I revert back to the non-involved editor User:Adamrce's last version on Sri Lanka page on "Civil War" section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I brought back the "Civil War" section which was removed unilaterally by User:Blackknight12 while the discussion was going on, on "Content" dispute rather than on removal of the Section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't answered nor replied to any of the issues raised by me or the disagreeing editors. So what's the point of asking the non-involved editors to clarify their position? RfC was intended to bring community input, or fresh ideas to the discussion, which was largely between the long term contributors/edit warriors for the article. Therefore the most important votes here are that of the non-involved editors, who are merely giving their opinion on the matter. Don't intimidate them with orders to clarify their thoughts, just be welcoming and engage with them in the discussion. About your revision; the section you added back largely consists of information already availabe elsewhere, and breaks the flow of the History section. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your so called Non-Involved Editors who voted Agree are mostly Canvassed from you side. On Wikipedia there is nothing called intimidation when we observe some irregularity on voting patterns. We can't welcome those who want to say something when they want to be biased. If they have just voiced their comments rather on voting on different thread, we might have discussed with them. There is nothing breaking the flow the History section, only you want the "Civil War" section should not be included on the Sri Lanka page. If it is really breaks the flow, then we will discuss how we could keep the "Civil War" section without breaking the flow.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well well, your accusation that the non-involved editors "who voted Agree [should be Disagree] are mostly Canvassed from you side" is a blatant accusation on the respected editors who troubled to voice their opinion regarding the matter. Do you have any proof to say so? If I want the details regarding the civil war completely removed from the article, then why did I bother to add chunks of information on the origin, evolution and the effects of civil war, plus the alleged human rights abuses in their relevant sections? Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since those editors have not come out their comments on the Threaded discussion where other editors might have discussed with them on the subject; they have simply voted "Disagree" elsewhere with brief comment and almost escaped. How they could be respected?


 * That is your mistake or POV that you have systematically included what should be under the section "Civil War" under the sections of "Sri Lanka under the British rule" and "Post independence Sri Lanka". Following Countries have Sub Sections on "Civil War", "Genocide" or "War" under "History" Section.


 * United States
 * 3.3 Civil War and industrialization
 * Afghanistan
 * 3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war
 * Iraq
 * 2.8.1 Al-Anfal: Kurdish genocide
 * 2.8.2 Gulf War
 * Libya
 * 2.9 2011 civil war and interim government
 * Laos
 * 2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75
 * Why Sri Lanka can't have a separate section on "Civil War"? The title matters a lot. Otherwise we are trying hide something in real world and on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with HudsonBreeze Kanatonian (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, this very discussion was held several months back and my suggestion to model a section on Civil War and industrialization of United States was flatly rejected by several users including HudsonBreeze. Attempts by HudsonBreeze and several other users are motivated by external factors and not the betterment of the article. Their time is also very suspicious. Therefore I see this as an attempt to further own objectives rather than create an article on information to the public. Cossde (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not under the influence of external factors since facts stands for ever and Wikipedia stand for ever.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then Id kindly ask you to stop stating allegations related to Sri Lanka and start stating actual facts.Cossde (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of your suggestion how we could model Civil War section on Sri Lanka directly in relation to a section on Civil War and industrialization of United States.HudsonBreeze (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After the long and extensive discussion with your peers, I came to the conclusion that the summarized form section represented the section on Civil War and industrialization of United States is not practical here. Only the current form of time line is practical. Cossde (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't come any agreement why the "Civil War" section under a separate title can't be included on the Sri Lanka page. Even if the section on Civil War and industrialization of United States is not practical on the Sri Lanka page, what about the parallels of other countries which have the tile on "Civil War" on their countries' pages under separate titles?HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are all civil wars the same ? Cossde (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is anything special on Sri Lankan Civil War, please mention rather than removing the title.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If all civil wars are not the same, stop comparing Sri Lanka with other country pages. Putting a title based on your opinions is PoV pushing .Cossde (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How it becomes POV based you a few Sinhalese editors want the title "Civil" war should not be there. Maybe in Sri Lanka it is possible since you Sinhalese control the Government, but not in Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

HudsonBreeze has once again failed to come out with a rationale for his prime accusation that users Grandiose, Chipmunkdavis and BoogaLouie have been "canvassed" to disagree with the proposal. Hudson, I would like to know whether you still stand by the accusation, or concede that you have lied to the Wikipedia community, to gain additional weight to your argument? I also find your reply to Grandiose: "You should not have participated at all in a discussion which is highly controversial if you don't have in-depth knowledge of the subject.." somewhat threatning and misleading, because what we discuss here is not a controversial historical fact, but a straightforward structural dispute, which any Wikipedian should be able to draw a conclusion with common sense. A STRONOMYINERTI A ( TALK ) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not the threatning or misleading observation, that is the evidence that at least he or she might have been canvassed and most probably by you. Let them discuss rather than you come out your own POVs on behalf of them always. Though it is on Structural, the content is about Civil War and War Crime. In Sri Lanka, people have been kidnapped in White Vans and killed by the Sri Lankan Government's paramilitaries extra-judicially just voicing for these atrocities. Then how you could say that is not a controversial subject? HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This RfC clearly asks the Wikipedia community to "indicate [whether] Agree or Disagree of having the Civil War content in a sub-section, with [a] rationale." In no place it is stated that one should participate in a discussion with the proponents of this idea, before, while or after voting. Note that all those non-involved editors have provided their rationale, on which you have repeatedly failed to comment. But you keep questioning their intention and accusing me of canvassing, with no evidence what so ever. Please remember that here, the politics is out of the question, and the concern is merely about a structural dispute of an article. Your additional comments on political issues carry absolutely no weight. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 10:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * People are judged not by their words but by their actions. So as here, Voting after discussion will count a lot than simply Voting with brief statements with no room others to discuss with them. I have commented already and we will get involved in discussion and better you stay away being others' mouth piece. The pattern of Three Editors's Voting "Agree" with brief rationale will create anyone doubt of them. Better you raise this at ANI, RfC, or in Dispute Resolution and get their opinion how do they will think rather than questioning me over my accusation that they have been canvassed.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree

Civil War Section is Needed Now there has been even more evidence released regarding crimes against humanity and war crimes of Sri Lanka on Tamil civilians.I think that a civil war section is needed.Since Ethnic conflict and Civil war had been the most the part of the island's contemporary history we need a section for that.The ethnic conflict is not yet over and a political solution is not yet given to the Tamils .It's an issue that is still alive.(Arun1paladin (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)arun1paladin)

Page fully protected due to edit warring/content dispute
I have protected the page for 1 month per a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=479517240&oldid=479516863 request on RFPP]. Please discuss all changes and establish a consensus before requesting that the page is unprotected - you can ask any admin to review this an unprotect it when consensus has been reached. Please note, that continued edit warring after protection expires (if the page is not unprotected before then) may result in you being blocked. Thank you, The  Helpful  One  18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure (sort-of)
Blacknight12 asked me on my talk page to take a look at the discussion and see if I can close it. And I can, but unfortunately, the closure won't provide an immediate solution. After reviewing the discussion, as well as the last discussion at DRN, and a few things in the archives, I see a very distinct lack of consensus here. On numbers alone it's an exact tie with 7 editors on each side (noting that there's one !vote in the collapsed section from Arun1paladin). One problem is that a number of the positions advanced aren't really about Wikipedia policies...although, that's not as terrible here as it would be in other discussions because this really is a case of editorial discretion--there is no real policy that governs how to divide up an article/history. The major point of dispute seems to revolve around (though it's only mentioned once above), WP:UNDUE--i.e., will separating out the Civil War into its own section make that section overly important with respect to its actual importance in the history of Sri Lanka. Part of the problem, also, is that there seems to be a bit of disagreement about the actual scope of this article--whether this article is about the entire history of the geopolitical land unit on which the current country of Sri Lanka sits, or whether it only refers to the "political entity that came into being in 1972". I believe that clarifying this last point may provide a way forward. Finally, I am a little concerned that HudsonBreeze's misunderstanding of how RfCs work (and the subsequent inappropriate questioning of the comments of uninvolved editors) may have kept away additional uninvolved voices that could have helped shed a wider light on the subject. However, my concern there is pretty small, because getting only 3 uninvolved editors is not at all unusual for an RfC of this type.

So, the more important question is, what do you do now? I have to strongly recommend mediation, specifically formal mediation conducted by the Mediation committee. My hope is that a neutral mediator will be able to guide future discussion productively. I also think that once the overall scope of the article is defined, we need a little bit more investigation into reliable sources; for example, are there any relatively recent, high quality academic-level books about Sri Lanka? If so, how much weight to they give to this issue?

Lastly, there was concern expressed on my talk page that the very long-lasting nature of this dispute may in part be due to problem editors intentionally holding up a consensus. That complaint is quite difficult to determine without specific diffs showing bad behavior. While I still strongly recommend trying mediation first, if anyone is firmly convinced that the problems here are more behavioral than content, then I recommend taking the issue to Arbcom. Note that this is not a step to take lightly, and anyone taking this discussion to ArbCom must be prepared to have everyone's edits, including their own, very closely scrutinized.

I'll still keep watching the article; no matter which route you pursue, anybody starting up an edit war will likely find themselves blocked quite quickly. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is last two sentences 3rd paragraph self research
I believe two sentences on the sri lanka article constitutes self research and thus doesn't meets WP NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Post_independence_Sri_Lanka

in the 3rd paragraph, last three sentences states. "In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was deployed in northern Sri Lanka to stabilize the region by neutralising the LTTE.[120] The same year, the JVP launched its second insurrection in Southern Sri Lanka.[121] As their efforts did not become successful, IPKF was called back in 1990."

The provided source does not indicate that the failure for the IPKF was due a JVP insurrection. I'm not contesting that a JVP insurrection occurred, but its linkage to the failure of IPKF. On the same logic I can simply relate any other incident that occurred that year to the IPKF failure. I think WP as an encyclopedia shouldn't make assumption on ones 'pinons' we should simple state it as it is. The IPKF was engaged in military conflict with the LTTE however due the LTTE superior military capacity, the IPKF failed to realize its objective. Distributor108 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some references to that the LTTE's military capacity was superior to the Indian Army. --SriSuren (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_intervention_in_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War LTTE won, indian army lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this finished? Just in case it isn't: what seems to be at issue/in dispute is the reason for the recall of the IPKF. The idea that the Indian army was militarily inferior to the LTTE seems absurd on the face of it, and I suspect the reason would have been political. But surely there is at least one reliable source that can settle this? PiCo (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is last two sentences 3rd paragraph self research
I believe two sentences on the sri lanka article constitutes self research and thus doesn't meets WP NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Post_independence_Sri_Lanka

in the 3rd paragraph, last three sentences states. "In 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was signed and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was deployed in northern Sri Lanka to stabilize the region by neutralising the LTTE.[120] The same year, the JVP launched its second insurrection in Southern Sri Lanka.[121] As their efforts did not become successful, IPKF was called back in 1990."

The provided source does not indicate that the failure for the IPKF was due a JVP insurrection. I'm not contesting that a JVP insurrection occurred, but its linkage to the failure of IPKF. On the same logic I can simply relate any other incident that occurred that year to the IPKF failure. I think WP as an encyclopedia shouldn't make assumption on ones 'pinons' we should simple state it as it is. The IPKF was engaged in military conflict with the LTTE however due the LTTE superior military capacity, the IPKF failed to realize its objective. Distributor108 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some references to that the LTTE's military capacity was superior to the Indian Army. --SriSuren (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_intervention_in_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War LTTE won, indian army lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this finished? Just in case it isn't: what seems to be at issue/in dispute is the reason for the recall of the IPKF. The idea that the Indian army was militarily inferior to the LTTE seems absurd on the face of it, and I suspect the reason would have been political. But surely there is at least one reliable source that can settle this? PiCo (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should we update figures for religion and add figures for ethnicity
The current figures for religion are sourced from 1993 in the Demographics section, I'm recommending we update them with the newest figures from 2001 and also add bar graph for ethnicity from 2001. Sources:
 * Ethnicity http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p8%20Ethnicity.pdf
 * Religion http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p9%20Religion.pdf Distributor108 (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, unless there is reason to believe these are not reliable sources. Even then, we could say, "According to official government statistics..." -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Distributor108 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the bar box to the previous version because 2001 statistics are not representative of the entire country; and misses 7 of Sri Lanka's 25 districts. For Orange Mike's information, there was a lengthy DRN discussion, followed by a MedCab case on the issue previously. All neutral editors concluded that usage of Cambridge Factfinder data is preferable. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was several months ago, If you wish to reassess please feel free to open a new dispute. further Wikipedia is not an experiment on democracy, we establish a consensus here based on critical analysis of the merits of what one is saying, not casting votes. several points I made there were not given due foresight. Your revert has been reverted and FYI both the DRN and MedCab were closed as unresolved due to lack of valid arguments presented by other users. Distributor108 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are having doubts, you are the one who should open another discussion. Note that all the editors who countered your view have provided a valid rationale for their opinions. You seem to be the only one who maintain the opinion that 2001 statistics should be used. Since Wikipedia works on a consensus model, burden is with you to reach a consenus on the issue. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming Astronomyintertia's account of past dispute resolution is correct, both this RfC and the change were inappropriate. It is unacceptable to just start a new RfC that fails to provide context for the discussion, and to essentially ignore multiple previous DR processes. If something is widely agreed upon in mediation, someone wishing to challenge that needs to explicitly reference the previous discussions, explain why they were found wrong, and attempt to change consensus. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE does not mean that you just get to, a few months later, get a quick answer on an RfC to override months work of previous work--there is a very strong onus on the person wanting to change the prior consensus to argue for that change and only proceed with editsgiven a clear indication that consensus has, in fact, changed. While I haven't yet looked into Astronmyintertia's links, if they are correct, I consider this RfC to be disruptive editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you can tell me why my sources are not reliable source, I don't see as why the source should be changed to an older secondary source.Distributor108 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

update I have filed a request for [Arbcom] regarding this issue Distributor108 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been told why your sources are not reliable source already, because they do not cover the whole country simple as that. I would suggest withdrawing the Arbcom request and just waiting a few months until the 2011 census statistics are released, which would make this whole discussion obsolete.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Distributor108, I have reverted your changes. Note that I have exactly no opinion in the underlying dispute. Rather, I am acting as an admin to revert someone edit warring against a firmly established consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some semantic misunderstanding here. The 2001 census is a reliable source, from an established official body. Arguing it isn't a reliable source won't go far. However, the source doesn't do what these edits would purport it to do: present a breakdown of all of Sri Lanka. It should only be used to support what it actually support.
 * I agree with Blackknight12's idea of simply dropping leaving statistics at status quo until the new census comes out. No point getting into all sorts of trouble if it all becomes obsolete soon. CMD (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Arbitration
I have commented at the Arbitration request that Distributor108 opened that I do not believe that this specific issue requires arbitration. However, I do think that, based on my comments above in relation to the Civil War RfC, it could be that behavior as a whole on this page does require arbitration. Thus, I invite other regular editors from here to comment on that arbitration as to whether or not they believe a wider look at the behavior of involved editors would benefit this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a close scrutiny of personal behaviour in this article, as well as several other civil war related articles would benefit the Wiki Project Sri Lanka as a whole. This article is undergoing edit wars in sessions, since June 2011, starting from this edit. I added this article to my watchlist in mid-August last year, and got involved in dozens of DRN, ANI, MedCab, RfC discussions and SPIs to date. While there is a content dispute, to what extent the civil war related details should be covered in this article (Distributor's behaviour is a separate issue), what has dragged the problem this far, in my opinion, is the behaviour of a series of SPAs. These editors have continuously editwarred, often in turns, until there is a looming threat of getting blocked. Thus I think there is a necessity to separate the editors who truly want to improve this page, from distractors, for its future betterment. And I am happy to answer any questions regarding my edits if they were to occur. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 17:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was one of the parties named in that Arbitration request. Since I was not aware of this dispute I had to study many revisions and talk page discussions to find out what this whole issue is about. I have written a statement, but now it seems that the arbcom has rejected the case. What should I do? As for edit warring and the general quality of Sri lanka related articles, somebody or some committee or who ever deals with these matters, should really look into this issue, as myths and fables are presented as documented history and references are misquoted and distorted and blantant lies are written over and over again and no real progress and development of the articles can be achieved due to some editors constantly reverting edits, some even claiming that guidelines do not apply to them or cannot be followed and continue with their presentations of distortions and falsehoods. Example - the article on Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, which has been held "hostage" by one editor for months now by his demand to write this king's name in Tamil first and insisting on calling this king by his pre-coronation name, and breaking all the policies and guidlines for naming and biographies, even going to the extent of claiming that Kandy was not a Sinhalese kingdom, just to push his view!! Important aspects of history and historical significance on many of the topics, like the fall of Kandy and its significance is totally ignored, and everything is directed into picking and pointing out what is Tamil or Tamil admixture or some distant Tamil connection which has no bearing to the main events or significance. In reaction to this, editors who otherwise would not have to emphasis the Sinhalese elements are pushed to pointing out what is Sinhalese, again draining energy and resources and hindering the articles getting developed with important information. One of the last edits in the Devanampiyatissa article is that this king was not a Sinhalese and asking to prove that he is a Sinhalese!! I'll end my post now, since it will take atleast a couple of hundred pages to write a more complete post on this issue. Regarding the Arbitration request - please advice what to do. --SriSuren (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironing out the copyright issues regarding images
Please help iron out the copyright issues regarding revision [], [], [] and [] Distributor108 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those links are misformatted--they're just linked to non-existant pages on those numbers. If you mean to include diffs, take a look at WP:Diff to see how to produce those links correctly. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you fixed them so that they now point to a specific historical version of the page, but all three point to the same historical version. However, looking at the edit history, I'm guessing you're referring to the images that were deleted. Those images were hosted on Commons, and legitimately deleted because the uploader claimed they were "own work", when, in fact, they were taken from other websites. If you have images that you think would be good for the article, and they are in the public domain, you're welcome to upload them to commons. But we can't just copy pictures from other websites (or books, or newspapers, or wherever) and add them to Commons or Wikipedia articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the owner claims them as "own work" and a website also has them, I don't see the problem. Unless there is claim put forward by the website also there no contest to the up-loaders claim. Distributor108 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you talked to the admin on Commons who deleted the image? Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't upload them, and the delete appeared to be by a BOT. can you do this? Distributor108 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the diff for the change, it tells you who the admin was that deleted the image and links you to his page on Commons. From the digging I did, several of the images I find highly unlikely to be the uploaders own work.  Click on his name in the diff and leave a question on his talk page.  Make sure you include the name of the files and include at least one of the diffs of the image being deleted over here so they'll know what images you're asking about. Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012
edit protected

It's mentioned that Sri Lanka drives on the left side, I have lived in Sri Lanka for 8 years (I'm also Sri Lankan citizen) and I can assure you that Sri Lankan vehicles drive on the right side.

123.231.90.121 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you've driven on the right hand side for eight years you must have had lots and lots of head on accidents! Does your insurer know that you stubbornly refuse to drive on the correct side of the road?-- obi2canibe talk contr 18:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * anonymous IP talk is most likely confused by the definition, this is a common mistakes and you should have responded respectfully, instead of mocking him. your sarcasm is not appreciated. Distributor108 (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Official and National languages and User:Distributor108's edits
User:Distributor108 is refering to the CIA fact book and claiming that only Sinhala is the official language in Sri Lanka. And he has characterized my edit as vandalism. Is this acceptable? I mean that the constitution should be the source for such information, not some fact book. Is there anything that I am missing here, in regards to the CIA fact book and Wikipedia? --SriSuren (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Chapter IV of the Sri Lankan constitution clearly defines both languages as official languages. Besides, it is a well known fact that Tamil language was made an official language by the 13th amendment in 1987. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 17:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But what about the CIA fact book? Does it some kind of special no-questions asked status in Wikipedia? Because it is ridiculous to even claim that Tamil is not an official language in Sri Lanka and Distributor keeps claiming that. He has posted [|this] too. What a waste of time and energy..... if only people use some common sense.... --SriSuren (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CIA factbook has no such status according to my knowlegde. We always have to analyse the all available souces and decide what is the most plausible scenario. In this case, the constituion has the upper hand. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 18:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The government website hasn't been updated, I'm providing an independent reliable source. If your source says that Tamil is an official language, then its obviously not a reliable source. Distributor108 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Constitution has to be updated only when it is changed. Even the the most recent change, 18th amendment appears on the government website. Therefore no basis to the claim that website has not been updated. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 17:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the fact-book is reliable enough to publish your religious figures, then its reliable enough for published this. The source in independent and free and highly reputed, there is nothing wrong with the source. If that's your argument it wont get you very far Distributor108 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My advice to you is show some respect and get some common sense and decency. You are hurting a lot of good people's feelings by questioning the status of Tamil. CIA fact book can make a mistake in printing or data entry, but the constitution of Sri Lanka can't make a mistake. I hope you get the point. Now since you have initiated sockpuppet investigations and mediations etc, for this matter let's wait and see what the investigation says and what comes out of that mediation. In the meantime please take off that Fact tag from the article. It is not necessary. --SriSuren (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever your trying to play here will be stopped Distributor108 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't add a fact tag just because of one tiny information you disagree. If you want you can add a citation needed tag near the disputed content. As for stopping - let's see who gets stopped on this matter. Just do a Google book search and you can find a couple of hundred books which say what the rest of us here say. Your fact book is going to create alot of problems for you if you do not know how to use it. The sad thing is you are draining us of energy by these edits, just based on a single omission in your fact book..... at least if this book said when Tamil was taken out of the official status, then you might have had a case. --SriSuren (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please. A STRONOMYINERTI A  ( TALK ) 18:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Character assassination Please Distributor108 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to note - the State department site has both languages listed as official. Distributor108, do you have any source that might show the constitution changed to give only Sinhala official status? There is no question that an amendment was passed to give Tamil official status, has that been changed? I understand that it appears reliable sources differ on this point, so a question to all of you - what do other reliable sources say? Ignore the Sri Lanka site, ignore the CIA Factbook, what do other reliable sources say about this? Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If Tamil is not an official language in Sri Lanka, then what we do on a daily basis in Sri Lanka, as regards to language matters in administration, from top to bottom in the govt apparatus and elsewhere must be just our imagination.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSuren (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm writing a letter to the state department making them aware of their mistake. It seems to me that statement department website is just older copy of the CIA world factbook, which hasn't yet been updated.Distributor108 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the previous CIA factbooks (yes, they are there, search)? And obviously, you haven't bothered to look for any other sources. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what I asked, nor helpful for Wikipedia. Contentious facts require reliable sources as references.  When source disagree, one of the first things that should be done is search for other sources that also have the same information, that's what should be done here.  Find other reliable sources for the official language of Sri Lanka.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravensfire Here is some other sources that should clear this up once and for all. ( one, two, three, four page 6) I hope this should settle the matter now Distributor108 (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, isn't that odd how they all EXACTLY match, down to the %'s for everything, what's in the CIA Factbook? Oh, hey, would you look at that, two of them EVEN SAY IT'S FROM THE FACTBOOK.  So yeah, I guess that does settle it - it's the Factbook against everything else.  Please, take some time, do some solid research and make sure that the information is truly independent and from good solid sources.  Source A that copies from source B isn't independent.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you rely on a single source from a factfinder earlier regarding the religious break down? Can you provide some other sources to that matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the attempt at diversion. You're welcome to start another discussion topic if you'd like.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already plenty on going, I'm not going to start a new one. It seems to me that Wikipedia is an experiment on failed democracy. You are free to go there and ask for some other sources to support the current data in the article. Distributor108 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)'


 * maybe the % match, because they are accurate, If I count 10 people, and another sources counts 10 people are you say that those two sources arnt indepent because they come up with the same figure Distributor108 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * People are not counted by sources, people are counted at censuses. We've just had one so be patient and wait for the data to come out. --SriSuren (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, just maybe, they copied it. Two of which pointedly say that, and you didn't check too carefully since they back your POV.  Another is an exact copy, word-for-word, that's not attributed.  The other copies the numbers exactly.  The same survey, taken even months different, will give different results.  *sigh*  Best go ahead and start your next RFC or DRN so we can get this "officially" settled, for at least a few months.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * you can do that, until then the dispute banner stands as there is reliable sources to dispute the content of the article. Distributor108 (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No issues there - I've tweaked the phrasing you added for NPOV though. It was extremely pointed.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I added to the content dispute regarding religious break down. I have not changed your NPOV though for the first point. Distributor108 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Distributor08, Please do not waste other editors' time with these nonsesense claims of yours. Asking a reliable source to prove that Tamil is also an official language in Sri Lanka is like asking for a reliable source for the fact that the sun rises from the east. I hope u get my point. Also sources do not count people, people are counted at censuses. The constitution of Sri Lanka is not a website, but a constitution which has been adopted by the parliament. You can get a printed copy if you want to. So stop saying that the website is outdated. Your adding these huge fact tags on the article for such tiny matters is not acceptable either. Your trying to get as much attention to your problem with these issues. Or when your version of the "truth" is not accepted you want to mark it as unreliable. Tamil being a national language is a fact, even according to your sources. Why did you mark that with the citation needed tag? --SriSuren (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Approved You may remove the citation tag from Tamil as a national language, but NOT the Official language. Also your attitude here is not helping to foster a healthy and productive discussion process Distributor108 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see that there is any need for this discussion at all. As other editors too have pointed out there is absolutely no dispute about the situation of the official languages of Sri Lanka. You have created this dispute on your own, based on a mere fact book entry and expect the rest of us to foster your discussion about the dispute u have created, with a healthy attitude. What is official in Sri Lanka is decided by the constitution and the laws and rules of this country, not a website in the US. Therefore, what you are actually trying to dispute is whether this sentence "Tamil shall also be an official language" is in the constitution or not, which is easily verifiable by checking the constitution. There's absolutely no need for other sources. You should note that if you were to follow the policies on neutrality you should have first checked the sources of your source before you removed Tamil from the official language status or jsut checked the constitution. But you chose to first take Tamil out and then start a discussion, about a fact that cannot be disputed, and then stated that the government website is not updated/up to date! Wikipedia should have mechanisms in place to identify and stop this kind of trolling right at the begining without letting them get out of hand to the degree it has done in this case. --SriSuren (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)--SriSuren (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * your blatant disregard of a reliable and highly reputed source is disturbing. And to be honest quiet disrespectful, for your sake I have taken the courtesy to email the government website to verify its authenticity. I had sent an email to the US state department as well Distributor108 (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something you should have done BEFORE you did the change. If you just knew how many times every single day this particular amendment to the constitution is used and refered to in Sri Lanka, u would not have wasted your time or others' time. I will not discuss the reputation of your fact book or the agency behind it, though it is easy to get fooled - I thought the population figures were accurate too, before I took the time to study the data. Once one realises that it is wrong, there's no point in trying to push a lie, using another lie as a source. This is simple common sense and simple maths. So, please remove all the tags and labels you have placed in this article, due to these "disputes" based on figures and entries in a single source. --SriSuren (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Added the following line to demographics section

 * "Sri Lanka is also a multi-religious country, however Buddhism is placed at the foremost place, and it is also a constitutional obligation of the state to protect the Buddha Sasana doctrine, all other religions and faiths have the right to practice under the purview of Buddhism." [Source]Distributor108 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So now it is not outdated? Really.... "under the purview of buddhism" is not acceptable. Buddhists do not own this country and therefore no one is living here at the mercy of Buddhism or the Buddhists. Everybody is equal. In other words if the Buddhists are not happy here, they are free to leave. Do not revert my edit. If u do so you'll be violating guidelines on neutralilty. --SriSuren (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any other source to contest this? please don't take things out of context. I was referring to the possibility of that source being out-dated to 'explain' the dispute between it an another source, which BTW is Independent.Distributor108 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The contest is not what the constitution says, the contest is your interpretation of it. What the constitution says is that while assuring all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14 [i.e the full freedoms], the state shall give Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana. You make that into "all other religions and faiths have the right to practice under the purview of Buddhism". It is not acceptable at all. Also, Sasana and doctrine means the same thing. So the wording is also wrong - "Buddhist doctrine" or "Buddha Sasana", not "Buddha Sasana doctrine". --SriSuren (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What is meant by under purview is that all religion may also practice so as long as it does not violate the principals of Buddhism. Case in point [here], even if 'another religion/ faith' has a obligation, it will be over ridden if it violates Buddhism. Distributor108 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that article doesn't mention anything about a conflict with Buddhism or the specific article of the Constitution being used to bar the act. Connecting them together is involving some original research.  Yes, source needs to draw those specific connections.  There needs to be a specific source for "under the purview of Buddhism]]" that specifics says that (or something close to that), preferably from a legal journal.  The Constitution can only be used to say that Buddhism is the foremost religion and that Sri Lanka is required to protect and foster the faith. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)