Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War/Archive 2

Resorting article
I just sorted the paragraphs of the article back into chronological order. i.e. the "Eelam War II" occurred before the 2002 peace process. Also, for example parts like "Just days after Prabhakaran's speech" were orphaned due to the changes made to the article (what speech?) so it'll be nice if we could discuss things before making any major changes. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be confined to the Civil War
We need to have this article confined to the civil War.Major Killing which influenced the Civil War in a political or Military sense only should be highlighted here.Rajini Thiranagama has a separate article feel her killing was not a major event in the context of the Sri Lankan Civil War and adding details about her and her picture is not necessary here.Harlowraman 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the said incidents here has separate articles. Rajini Thiranagama's incident is one of the turning points of the civil war(I prefer terrorist war)as it gave a wake up call to some of the tamil intellectuals who at that point was blindly following LTTE. This incident shows, how the tamil people were deceived, till that time, by this so called freedom fighters who were allegedly protecting tamils from the mythical persecution under the Sinhalese government. If anything Her killing is a vital point of the War, along with the 1983 riots,1987 Aranthalawa massacre,1987 Indo-SL peace agreement and etc. So please don't remove this just because you don't like it personally.  Iwazaki  会話. 討論 09:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say I disagree with you more important people like Ranjan Wijeratne (defence minister had a military impact) ,Amirthalingam, have been killed and they are more notable than Rajini Thiranagama the list in endless actually sorry we cannot add everybody here .The reaction to there deaths was international whereas her death was not even local and she was not major Tamil leader her only major contribution was the formation of UTHR nothing else and no author or article has described her or her killing as having a major impact.Please correct me if I am missing something.She was a ex LTTE cadre.Really feel she is not notable to be added in the Civil War article nothing personal .Anyway not removing it till the debate is over.Harlowraman 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karuna@east.jpg
Image:Karuna@east.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karuna@east.jpg
Image:Karuna@east.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly long 'origins' section
I have moved much of the Origins section over to the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war article where it does not crowd the article so much. Even so, this article is now 88K long whereas I believe the guideline is 32K. The recent events also need articles of their own. Tyronen (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Casualty figures
The casualty figure that has been put forth by a user since 2002 is not backed by RS. The QS given as citation only give casualty figures for 2006 and 2007 time line with nothing being mentioned about 2008- the bloodiest year since the cease fire. Furthermore, nothing is mentioned about 2003,2004 and 2005. Please give due respect for WP:SYNTH and note that you cannot synthesize things that are given in citations like adding and such. Watchdogb (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes numbers for 2005 are given, also check every news article that comes out these days about the fighting in Sri Lanka, they all state the updated numbers given by the Ministry of Defence about their casualties for 2008. Don't start an edit war. Top Gun

Same to you. Please provide citation that back you claim and we can all be off editing. The citation that was given as reference does not even back up your claims. I just read the article clearly and it does not back you claims. So please prove that your claim is backed by this particular citation. You can do this by copying and pasting the passage on the article that would back the casualty figure you had given. Indeed if this is not possible, then your claim is not backed. Watchdogb (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I realy don't now what your problem is. The more and more you fight this it is becoming obvious that you are not so neutral about this situation as you should be. Also because you are obviously to buisy with something or other and don't check the article properly here is the page within the already given reference that states the numbers for 2000-2005, in addition to the already given 2006-2007. Add to that the 270+ confirmed for this year and you get some 1,700 dead soldiers. It's at the botom of the page so you don't "accidentaly" miss it. The problem here was you should have just checked under Sri Lanka Assessment 2006, before you started an unprovoked edit war.Top Gun


 * Let's clearly analyze your edit shall we ? This is your edit. You reference the 1700 death with the following article. Clearly, you just pointed out a different article. While your second citation has casualty figure from 2002 - 2007 it does not have any detail on 2008 figures. If you are going to add the so called "confirmed casualty", then you will be clearly violating WP:SYNTH. Therefore you can only cite the casualty figure up until 2007. Furthermore, go ahead and read WP:REDFLAG. The claim you are making, the casualty figure of a security force, is an exceptional claim. Any exceptional claim needs exceptional sources. So unless you can find a reference on a scholar/book or a highly regarded news website you cannot add this. If you can find a reference from the Sri Lankan Military for their own casualty figure, then you can add that. Watchdogb (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * please do not remove the sourced info unilaterally, without consensus. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen man I cann't add the reference for 2008 because it is being updated regulary on Yahoo news and Yahoo news articles cann't be used in Wikipedia because those links go dead after a few weaks but the number is there check it for yourself you sceptic. Also, there is no other way to sum up the number of the deaths after 2001 because there is no source that states that number,we can only use two different sources and then sum up the number. In any case you can not remove the reference unilateraly. Just like TheFEARGod said. There has to be a clear consensus on this. And until then the references that are given stay there.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there is no other way to sum up the number of the deaths after 2001 because there is no source that states that number,we can only use two different sources and then sum up the number. Check mate ! This is clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Further, I do not need consensus to delete numbers if it violates WP:REDFLAG. A passage from this rule claims the following ''


 * "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". SATP is not a mainstream source. Since no mainstream source backs this surprising and important claim, the casualty of a countries Security forces, the sentence should not be included per the following passage of the same redflag rule "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included."


 * So in reality adding the casualty figur violates two important wikipedia rules. I do not need consensus to clean wikipedia of material that clearly violates rules of wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry buddy but your wrong there, for this kind of edit war you do need a consensus and you don't have one. And what's the deal with the Checkmate statement, I'm not playing a game with you here. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia about battles in wars that use numeres references for summed up numbers of casualties because there are no single references. These references are valied and justified and you can not do anything about it. If you didn't have does two rules of Wikipedia to stick to, you would find some other reason to deleate those numbers because you are obviously not neutral and yo have to be neutral here on Wikipedia. And if you were we could have solved this peacefully. Your kind of POV pushers is not needed on Wikipedia. Also as for your mainstream sources statement. What are you talking about? Where does it say SATP is not a mainstream source? What? Are you only stuck on CNN and BBC. This is the only one site that presents these numbers and it will be used in Wikipedia there is no rule to say otherwise. And as for you rule of original reasearch I don't see how this is original research. Original reaserch is when someone puts numbers he himself researched but this are official referenced numbers. Top Gun


 * First, do not violate WP:NPA and only comment on the edit and not the editor. Second, there is no rule in wikipedia that states only "Neutral" editors can edit wikipedia. Third, just because other articles violates rules it does not mean that we can break wikipedia rules - rules are there to be followed. Do you not understand what Mainstream source is ? Mainstream source is sources such as books, peer reviewed journals and well recognized news websites such as BBC. SATP is a source that is not used to cite any of the WP:RS sources. SATP is not used by news websites as a mainstream source, by books or by on line journals. If you do not know what mainstream source is, or for that matter what a exceptional source is, refer to WP:RS. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't know what your talking about. "There is no rule in wikipedia that states only "Neutral" editors can edit wikipedia". Do you understand what you just said. You talk that much about rules and you are here violating the main founding rule of Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view). Wheter you have a prefered side or not in a war article you cann't involve your personal opinion. Neutrality is needed here, just on that one basis you can be called a vandal here on Wikipedia and baned from editing. Also there is no rule that mainstream sources are the only references that can be used. Thousands of references are being used on Wikipedia that are not books, journals or BBC articles as you put it. I don't think that there are books talking about current events that are happening at this very moment and we are talking about casualtie figures here. SATP is giving their numbers based on their list of day-to-day events in the war. BBC or some other "mainstream" source is not going to bother with anything like that. Icasualties.org which lists day-to-day events in the Iraq war, and the "mainstream" media use that one. And so we can call it reliable here on Wikipedia by your standards. Icasualties.org is just the same as SATP, and the media is using it only because the Iraq war is more popular than the Sri Lankan civil war. By the way, I was not making a personal attack on you. If I was you would realy know it.Top Gun


 * You are having difficulty understanding what I am trying to say. A user can be biased in wikipedia. Indeed, in a controversial subject like the Sri Lankan Civil War people are going to be more biased than not. This is no problem. There is not a single rule in wikipedia that asks the user to be neutral. Moreover, wikipedia strictly prohibits the discussion of a user's neutrality which you are doing and thus violating WP:NPA. If you continue to question my neutrality and keep commenting on me rather than my edit I will report you for your continued violation of WP:NPA. For some reason you are assuming that people who are not neutral cannot make neutral edits - wrong. The crux of WP:NPOV only asks articles and edits to be neutral regardless of the user's sentiments. Furthermore, I am not making any biased edits, I am only following wikipedia rules.


 * "Also there is no rule that mainstream sources are the only references that can be used. Thousands of references are being used on Wikipedia that are not books, journals or BBC articles as you put it". I did not disagree with this. In fact I agree with this claim. However, there is a policy that needs be followed when making a exceptional claim. WP:REDFLAG clearly asks editors to give exceptional sources when making exceptional claims. Now you may think what an exceptional source is - an exceptional source is a mainstream source. A mainstream source is something that is used as reference by well respected sources (like books, peer reviewed journals and well known news agencies) and that too without any attribution. For example, books that are written as thesis for someone's doctorate are used in other high quality sources (like books, peer reviewed journals and well known news agencies) without any explicit attribute (explicit attribute: "According to x fighter jets in formations can save Y% of fuel") and thus it would look something like the following: "Fighter jets in formation can save Y% of fuel"(reference). The problem with SATP is that it is not regarded as high quality- mainstream source. You can refer to WP:SLR to see that indeed satp is not regarded as reliable source but qualified source and thus it needs explicit attribute even in wikipedia. So in essence satp is not a mainstream exceptional source. Again, a casualty figure of a sovereign state's security force is a EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM and thus needs exceptional source.


 * "I don't think that there are books talking about current events that are happening at this very moment and we are talking about casualtie figures here". Correct once again. This argument, that you made yourself, makes my argument about WP:REDFLAG stronger. The first bullet of the policy states the following "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;". Surprising or apparently important claims, yes, the casualty figure of a sovereign state's security force is a an surprising claim because the numbers you put forth have not appeared in any mainstream source. It is also a important claim because the number of casualty in a war is definitely an important claim. not covered by mainstream sources- this is what you yourself stated and I concur. The first bullet of WP:REDFLAG is thus violated and therefore we can see how the casualty figure is an exceptional claim and therefore needs exceptional sources.


 * "Icasualties.org which lists day-to-day events in the Iraq war, and the 'mainstream' media use that one. And so we can call it reliable here on Wikipedia by your standards". Definitely! This is why no one has argued against this source in the respected article.


 * "Icasualties.org is just the same as SATP, and the media is using it only because the Iraq war is more popular than the Sri Lankan civil war". Good so you agree that SATP is not covered by media. So then how can it be the same as Icasualties.org if Icasualties.org is covered by mainstream media and SATP is not ? Regardless of the popularity of the war Icasualties.org is covered by mainstream media and thus is an exceptional source which can be used to make exceptional claims. On the other hand, SATP is not covered by mainstream media (you agreed to this)/mainstream scholar and therefore is not an exceptional source and as a result cannot be used to make exceptional claims. Watchdogb (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are only covering your personal point of view (which is not neutral) with the Wikipedia rules. I have not made personal attacks against you. Accusing you of not being neutral is not a personal attack. How long have you been editing on Wikipedia anyway? I fought a lot of guys like you who were just trying to push their POV. There IS NO RULE on Wikipedia that forbides SATP to be used as a source. This casualty figure, I don't see how it is an exceptional claim. It is a casualty number that is sourced by a reference, which those not include just a table of year-to-year deaths but also a lsit of all the deaths. And if our fight goes to an arbitration commity, you may as well be sure that everyone will agree with me that SATP can be used as a reference. And your reliability claim is just crazy.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a rule in wikipedia: its called WP:REDFLAG. I have clearly explained why SATP cannot be used as source for the casualty figure. If you do not understand wikipedia rules, then you need to read them carefully. Go ahead and read my last comment very carefully. Watchdogb (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I read it and there is no basis in WP:REDFLAG to exclude SATP. But explain to me this. Before you started complaining about the rules your biggest complaint was that there was not a definite number on the page of SATP. You did acknowledge there was a number for the period of 2006-2007, but demanded a number for the period of 2002-2005. When I gave it to you you started yeling about the rules. Common admit it, when I provided the sources you just came up with something else to impose censorship on this issue on Wikipedia. By the way, explin it to me one more time why SATP is not a reliable source. You said it yourself it has to be of noble background. Do you now what SATP stands for. South Assia Terrorism Portal. But do you know from where they get their numbers on casulaties. The Institute for Conflict Management, and the numbers come from their database. Read this link [], it explains what The Institute for Conflict Management is.

I'll also paste here so anyone can read it:

The Institute for Conflict Management is a non-Profit Society set up in 1997 in New Delhi, and is committed to the continuous evaluation and resolution of problems of internal security in South Asia. The Institute was set up on the initiative of, and is presently headed by, its President, Mr. K.P.S. Gill, IPS (Retd).

The core areas of research on which the Institute focuses include: Continuous appraisal of internal security and the state’s responses in all areas of existing or emerging conflict in South Asia; Planning for Development and Security in India’s Northeast; Administrative Reforms for Restoration of Effective Civil Governance in Terrorism Affected Areas; Emerging Internal Security Challenges in South Asia; Judicial, Legal and Legislative Reforms in Terrorism Affected Areas and areas of widespread civil disorders; Evolution and Dynamics of the Underground Terrorist Economy and its Disruption; Identification and Evaluation of the Impact of Emerging Technologies for Terrorism and Counterterrorism; Emergency Response Codes and Protocols in Terrorism Affected Areas, Security Parameters and Procedures for Installations and Establishments Under Threat of Terrorist Attack, the ‘Peace Dividend’ and the Reconstruction of Societies affected by widespread collective violence, Impact of Terrorism on Child Victims, etc.

The Institute is a registered non-profit, non-governmental organisation supported by voluntry contributions and project aid.

The Institute has provided consultancy services on terrorism & internal security to a number of governments within India and abroad.

Again read the last sentence I'll make it bold:

The Institute has provided consultancy services on terrorism & internal security to a number of governments within India and abroad.

Obviously India and other governments of southeast Asia consider it reliable. What do you say about that? Or are you going to question the reliability of the goverment of India or of the entire Southeast Asia? Based on this your rule WP:REDFLAG goes right out the window. So what is the next loophole you will try to use to vandalise Wikipedia? Hmm? Also if you are so much into Wikipedia rules you should know you yourself went up against two of them. WP:3RRand WP:NPOV. Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You still have not answered the concern that this website is not covered by mainstream sources and media. Just because this website claims The Institute has provided consultancy services on terrorism & internal security to a number of governments within India and abroad. it does not make it true. You cannot use their own description to call them exceptional. If they were you would not be having this discussion with me. Even if it did clearly read what it says: The Institute has provided consultancy services on terrorism & internal security to a number of governments within India and abroad.Consultancy services on terrorism and internal security does not make them a Mainstream source. Furthermore, this website is based in India so it can be more reliable on the Indian context rather than on Sri Lankan issue. Last, there is a reason why Scholars, Mainstream news and Mainstream media do not use this website as reference - is not not a mainstream source and largely disregarded by these WP:RS. Watchdogb (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the last time there is no rule that it has to be a mainstream source. Also the website is based in India but covers the whole of Southeast Asia, which includes Sri Lanka, and to your statement that maintream sources largely disregard it. That is simple not true. They don't use it because the Sri Lankan war is not simply covered by the mainstream media. Because of the censorship imposed by the military there. So there are actualy no reliable sources in the media that you can use on this war. In fact you can actualy say that the mainstrean media largely disregarded this war. Which is not the case with this website.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:REDFLAG to see why a mainstream source (thus a exceptional source) is needed for exceptional claim. There are definitely reliable source that covers this war. Countless journals, books and mainstream media covers the war. SATP puts forth a figure that is not covered/ referenced by any other WP:RS. The reason mainstream sources do not quote a casualty figure is because they acknowledge that this is definitely a controversial subject and since they do not verifications they cannot claim any numbers. However, SATP a largely disregarded source from scholar and mainstream media puts forth a number. This source does not get quoted by any other WP:RS. Do you know why ? They do not quote numbers from sources that they do not believe is exceptional enough. Watchdogb (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is going on for too long, I must insist that we use academic sources for these numbers. Both sides inflate and deflate numbers just for propaganda and we cannot allow Wikipedia to fall victim to that. This is what BBC says about this game Taprobanus (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Press release (http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/97as/LTTE_PRESS_RELEASE_01.09.1997_Tamilnet): "government troops have suffered 6500 casualties. This is the highest number lost during any single phase of the war. In Eelam War 1, the government lost 797 troops and in the four and a half years of Eelam War 2, it lost 5500 armed forces personnel. These figures were made available recently by the LTTE's statistical division." Kylelovesyou (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bus bombings
"Beginning of the year 2008 the civil war trend turned on civilian targets, plenty of commuter buses and train bombings carried out in most parts of the country, with a many within the suburbs of Colombo."

Is i believe very accurate due to the fact that much of the fatalities in train bombings have happened in Colombo and its suburb of Dehiwala. No major train bombing had happened out side Colombo. In just the last 3 months more than 50 people have been killed in bombings on civilian buses within Colombo. Even the ref states "The attacks tend to be in suburbs and primarily kill and injure civilians where once the rebels used mine explosions to attack army buses carrying soldiers or naval personnel in the east of the island." . One must also take in to account the lager number of bombs that were found in buses in and around Colombo in the last few months the were defused before exploding. Hence I believe the above statement is correct since it notes that bus bombings have happened in all parts of the country, but most have happened in Colombo with much of the fatalities. Nitraven (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be accurate if it wasn't for WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The citation does not say that most attack happen in Colombo. It says that most attack happens in the Suburbs. Watchdogb (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LTTE Emblem
Please do not remove, and re-add back into all other applicable articles, the LTTE Emblem. It is a combatant force; there is no need or reason to remove it. Removing the emblem should be considered vandalism. Mnmazur (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of a non free logo in such instances fail WP:NFCC blatantly. See also WP:FLAG. If you reinsert the images you will be blocked. Rettetast (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "bbc12" :
 * "dm1" :
 * "dm1" :
 * "dm1" :

MoU = CFA?
The following sentence makes it sound as though the MoU and CFA are different:

The two sides formalized a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on February 22, 2002 and signed a permanent ceasefire agreement (CFA).

The pages at

http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=211&id=5389 and http://www.tamilinfoservice.com/exclusive/art/2007/2.htm,

however, make it seem that they are one and the same. Wakablogger2 (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger2


 * The CFA is the correct term. MoU were used inofficially by the parties (the government and the LTTE). Ulflarsen (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Strength
The strengths are given as 111,000 for the Sri Lankans and 11,000 for the Tigers. Following the citation (1) for these figures takes you to a website with these strengths given as being in 2005. Scrolling up the page gives figures for 2007 as 78,000 for Sri Lankans and 7,000 for the Tigers. Only a minor edit but due to it being a bit more complex than I am used to and due to the dispute, I have posted it here for someone to update it if appropriate. Thanks. --Overpet (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

role of India
the page presently states :"..the Indian government hoped to keep the Tamil independence movement divided and be able to exert overt control over it..." but I think "covert" might be more accurate than "overt" ....Feroshki (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

SHould the study be included
The much quoted study by the sunday leader in the BMJ is for data from 1955 till 2002. Ie twenty years before the civil war started in lanka, hence is its validity in the LTTE war can be debated. I propose removing it as the fact that the data predate the current civil war confusion.Kerr avon (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit
I just wanted to point out a few things about the last edit by the last user on this article and make a few requests for edits if anyone would do them:

- first of the user typed <br in the infobox so he has broken the article in that place. Will you please correct that because I am not a registered user and can not edit a protected article

- second, you he typed the number of Tigers killed  after 2006, it should say after 2007 not 2006, will you please correct that as well, thank you

- third, he removed the sourced (referenced) number of overall 80,000 dead from the infobox? An overall number of killed in the war should be put in the infobox. Will someone please, reinsert that, the reference is, put in the third casualties section of the infobox something like 80,000 killed overall (including civilians), thank you

- and fourth, he removed the 2,695 number of security forces killed after 2001, six sources have been given, which he has removed now, when you sum up the numbers of dead in those sources you get 2,695, I know some of you would think that it is Original Research violation but it's not, this number based on these numbers was agreed upon among myself user Watchdogb and several other editors more than six months ago, but if you still won't reinsert the 2,695 number that I ask you to please at least reinsert the reference which says that more than 2,500 have been killed since the start of last year (currently a reference for only 2007 is put with the number of dead at 2,000) the ref for 2,500 dead is ) and if you are still open for compromise over the references put 2,600 instead of 2,500 with the addition of this one more reference Srilanka Assessment 2007which individualy state the numbers of dead for the years of 2002 through 2005 (which is exactly 100), hope you make these edits. Bye89.216.235.147 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Was?
Why is this war referred to in the past tense in this article? The referenced cite does not say the war is over. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Article intro
I have modified the article intro per WP:LEAD guidelines. I made it a brief overview about the last 25 years, focussing a little bit more on what has been happening since 2002. Please remeber this is not Wikinews, so we don't have to list every single town taken by the Army, or the number of casualties/displaced in the recent fighgting. Also, like the BBC, this is not a place for humanitarian appeals.

Please discuss before making any major changes. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Article length
The article is, in my opinon, a little too long. It gives a little too much prominance to the post 2002 period. We already have many sub-articles related to this, so I propose we include only a basic summery of these articles in this main article. Every individual battle etc. does not need to be mentioned in this article. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They should be expanded in each battle as a different article, rather than being a collaberation of articles. Albertgenii12 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing
The article is riddled with inconsistent date formats ("23 July 1983," / "January 2, 2008," / "February 3, 2009") as well as wrong tenses and non-grammatical phrases such as "Beginning of the year 2008 the civil war trend turned on civilian targets".

I am about to copyedit and correct as much as I can. I am assuming that the vast majority of dates quoted are in mmmm-d-yyyy format so I will regularise them to that. Please feel free to review my edits to ensure I do not break the terms of the editing restrictions for this article. --RexxS (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. As long as no controversial information is added, I don't see how it would bother anybody.  C h a m a l  talk 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberation of Civilians = War is Over?
I edited into the article intro the recent statement by the SLA + SL gov. that all civilians had been freed and thus that the war has been won (Rajapaska's assertion). Do we shift the article's verb tenses to past, imperfect and so on? cf: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-17-voa3.cfm

--Johnfloyd6675 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just came across another report: The Tamil Tigers admit their defeat. I my opinion, this effectively ends the civil war. So I think we can put the entire article in the past tense. (It's breaking news right now on CNN, wait a few minutes for a full report). Steinbach (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The report has been published http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/17/sri.lanka.conflict/index.html, but let's be cautious not to change the article to quicky, as "[i]t is not the first time the rebels have called for an end to fighting when backed into a corner by the Sri Lankan military." Steinbach (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to wait until the fighting is actually over to say the war has ended. The LTTE claim to have stopped fighting, but military operations are still ongoing to eliminate the last remaining cadres. There will be an announcement from the President when military ops are finally over. That's when we can say the war has ended. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with snowolf, there are no independent sources saying the LTTE have given up, let alone committed mass suicide. This could be propaganda(admittidly probably accurate itself), or it could be true.  Few more days wont hurt anyone in the article :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The SL govt says its over, and the LTTE admits it too. It's over.Sinhalaa (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
I do not understand why there is a separate article for the End of the Sri Lankan Civil War. This doesn't seem to follow already existing articles on other civil wars where the discussion of the end of the war is inclusive with the article about the civil war. For example: Greek Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Cambodian Civil War, etc... --dashiellx (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is already way too long (~150kb). The more sub-articles it's broken into the better. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 11:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge idea, as Sri Lankan Civil was will be what most people type in to find out about the declared victory. Old Al (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're looking for similar articles, End of World War II in Europe. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can not compare the scale of World War II compared to this war, I feel a merge would be helpful here. What should be done instead is things like a Timeline of the Sri Lankan Civil War and such as that info takes up room on this article too.Knowledgekid87 10:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article End of the Sri Lankan Civil War isn't too long itself., so speaks rohith. 15:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of merging. I don't think the subject matter merits an article of its own, so speaks rohith. 15:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Snow wolf does bring a valid point though the article is long, like I said before though there are things in the article that can be branched out into their own articles that speak for themself.Knowledgekid87 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge things can be branched out from this article, but the end of it isn't the best part to branch out in my opinion. SGGH ping! 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge it can be annoying having these two closely related things apart, its easier to just read it on one article. --Zaharous (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I already made two comments about it above.Knowledgekid87 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge completed --dashiellx (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "liberation" in the infobox
Is it neutral? 96T (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin and Evolution section
I'm far from an expert on this subject and as far as I know, the following paragraph is technically true. I can't see how it can be even close to NPOV based on the wording:


 * The TULF supported the armed actions of young militants who were dubbed "our boys." These "boys" were the product of the post-war population explosion. Many partially educated, unemployed Sinhala and Tamil youth fell for simplistic racist and violent revolutionary solutions to their problems. The leftist parties had remained "non-communal" for a long time, but the Federal Party (as well as its off-shoot, the TULF), deeply conservative and dominated by Vellala casteism, did not attempt to form a national alliance with the leftists in their fight for language rights.

I'd reword it myself but I don't know how to do so while preserving accurate information (assuming it is accurate; it's not sourced). --  At am a chat 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

End
I think it is a bit early to know whether it has really ended. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is over as a "civil war". LTTE still does (or should) have an out-of-country branch that is still operating, but there is no chance of it fielding an actual army on the field again. Even US failed to restart a civil war (Bay of Pigs thing) in Cuba despite (clearly restricted, but still formidable) resources available, and LTTE doesn't have any country near Sri Lanka that will willingly fund and equip them. --Revth (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath
Is it too early for an "Aftermath" section in this article or a seperate article? If done so, it should be noted that "Sri Lanka's stock exchange registered its sixth highest percentage gain ever" be added to it. --LCoolo (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there are reports of Sri Lankin military mopping up that I have read, will find some and post. But the way the people are treated in the camps, I doubt the war has ended. So an aftermath section is too early. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the word "rehabilitation" [camps] is a biased term for the camps where LTTE fighters and suspected LTTE fighters have been held by the government. I am not an expert on this conflict, but I would suggest that the neutral phrase "prisoner of war" camps would be more accurate and appropriate. A bit of info on the controversy over whether there have been abuses (with regard to human/legal rights etc) in the Sri Lankan governments holding of prisoners there and the conditions in the camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.108.123 (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New death tolls
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/20095223465894713.html 6,500, 15,000 and 100,000 -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Was there any discussion about the page move to LTTE Insurgency from Sri Lankan civil war? Fences and windows (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion, and personally, I oppose the move. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 12:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The move has been reverted, also the move that occurred on Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war. Discuss any change in title here, please. Fences and windows (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Disorganised and Over Specific
This article provides little information to people with little to no background on the topic, and is too complicated for most readers to understand. For example, while compiling research for a research paper I recently gave to my students, many of my students said that they were unable to figure out who the Sinhalese were while reading this article on wikipedia. Most of my students said they were forced to read articles on the websites of Al Jazeera and the BBC in order to gain a background on the topic. This article also speaks very little about the origins of the ethenic groups and the reasons for their hostilities. There is also too much emphasis on statistics related to combat, and little on the civilian and economic effects of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.14.66 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is subject to authors on both sides of the war trying to present things in their favour, That's probably why no matter how much it's fixed, it eventually falls apart again. Besides, your students shouldn't be using wikipedia now should they ;)--Icemansatriani (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)