Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lankan Civil War article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

This article lacks a Tamil name or text.

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] 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 [2] 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. --TheFEARgod (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#List_of_sources 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 [[3]], 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)

[edit] 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)