Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:47, 9 September 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Sri Lanka is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 5, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sri Lanka Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 4, 2005, February 4, 2006, February 4, 2007, February 4, 2008, February 4, 2009, February 4, 2010, and May 22, 2010.

Archives

Conversation # 1-30 Conversation # 31-60 Conversation # 61-90 Conversation # 91-120 Conversation # 121- /Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Official Religion

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

Please make appropriate changes to the article. Thank you

Official and recognized language

The Official language of sri lanka is Sinhala.

Tamil is recognized language in which official documents can be requested to be translated into. Please refer to chapter 22 of the constitution. Quote "Sinhala shall be the language of administration and be used for the maintenance of public records and the transaction of all business by public institutions of all the provinces of Sri Lanka"Italic text

Untitled

Hello note that GDP nominal percapita sri lanka is $2399 in 2010 check it on http://www.statistics.gov.lk/national_accounts/Press%20Release/PRESS%20NOTE%20%202010%20Annual.pdf

Sri Lanka belongs the sinhalese....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chencholai bombing

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged War Crime Charges

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

And I have taken it back out. There is an entire article for the war.Shajure (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a "civil war" section in the current article, pointing to the main article on the civil war. This seems adequate.Shajure (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated. Even there are separate articles for Military to discuss in detail of its credentials.Hillcountries (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please consider adding this to the existing section on the civil war. Consider wp:undue.Shajure (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks . I understand your feelings and respect your thoughts and views.Kfir Bomber was there so long time.and Wiki Pedia didnt decide the Kafit Bomber as violence image. Why didnt you ask to move the picture those days? Problem here is not the peace of machine . if you still have problem with Kafir Bomber discuss with United Nations and other relevant authorities .ask them to banned the Kafir bomber ,F16 and other all the War Planes around the world. this all planes do same thing. Eeriyaka (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't visited for a long time Sri Lanka page and didn't give enough notice to the Kfir Bomber.

Kfirs were used to bomb LTTE targets in the North & East of Sri lanka and there were several civilian casualties especially in the last stage of the War. When the victims' kith and kin visit the Sri Lanka page, Kfir won't be a piece of flying machine for them. Again for many it's a Friend of Conquest!Hillcountries (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The argument, the war crimes allegation section is not there in the US page, doesn't validate, it should not be there in the Sri Lanka page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The dispute has already been settled.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me the link where it is settled.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmm now I can't state my opinion in a talk page ? wonderful I was under the impression that there was freedom of speech or is that a just an forgotten word from an by gone era ! Btw how come on one is doing anything about this fellows Edit Waring that he/she is doing right now ??? I say what I said before Changes have been made as per sources provided. Cossde (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is the First Amendment in the United States, not here. Misplaced Pages requires WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL! Your comment wasn't nice, at all. If I see you two edit-warring somewhere else, I'll request you both for a topic-ban. You know that I'm not joking... You've already been warned on that noticeboards, so no further warnings are required.

What kind of source are you talking about that gives you the right to remove other sourced material? Yes, it needs rephrasing, as I mentioned above; but that doesn't give you the right to removed it. Bring me the policy that you imagined your claim on. Both of your arguments, using WP:OTHERSTUFF, is meaningless. ~ AdvertAdam 04:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I do have to agree with you sir, in the US its Freedom of speech, but then the US and its allies may not practice it else where and even jail a wiki-leeks fellow. On the topic at hand I DID NOT remove sourced material even though I may question it. I only removed un-sourced material !!! Pls tell me what is inappropriate in that ? I also agree that it should be reworded which I did and was reverted by HudsonBreeze on some vague reason pls ask him to bring the policy that he imagined he claim on. It is very much clear that certain editors here have an agenda they wish to push and that is not the neutral point. Since the US has been dragged into the topic, look at its it too was complicated as ours and had many....... oh I forgot the word war crimes wasn't in the dictionary back then sorry. Cossde (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone can't scream "FIRE" in a crowded building and call that freedom of speech. Everything has limits. Now, your denial is really starting to irritate me. I've jumped-in and started discussing the continues reverts, where your "I DID NOT" statement doesn't really make sense (unless you forgot this edit). For the third, and last, time: WP:OTHERSTUFF ain't a valid argument and your agenda theory definitely violates WP:AGF. We just use what reliable sources say in each case. As things started to clear here, I want to re-confirm that my above warning is still valid. If I see you two edit-warring again, a topic ban will be the next step. I know you both don't want that, so be civil and discuss things calmly.

As I've closely looked at your recent edits now, HudsonBreeze massively reverted your edits (including a PovFork), which is not good. If I saw it, I would also revert your tweaking (not the rest). For the time being, I see that I already made the changes you intended to do, except for the unsourced material. Whoever objects on removing the unsourced material should source that material this week; otherwise, I'll remove it myself. I think that's fair enough, as it's been tagged since 2010. ~ AdvertAdam 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Ar Ah !!!! "Civil War needs enough coverage in the main page" so that is your end game !!! To gain enough coverage in wikipedia just as your compatriots have gone to great lengths to achieve enough coverage "in almost all the media in the world". I see that someone just let the cat out of the bag ! Cossde (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too happy that you got one thing right, so stop feeding the troll. ~ AdvertAdam 18:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Cossde, which Cat out of the bag? our compatriots have gained enough coverage in the world media under the name humanity and your compatriots for war crime using deadly lethal weapons, banned bombs, rapes and extra-judicial killings?HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I understand that this topic is emotional, but we still need to stick to policies. Please work on the "citation needed" sentences, as they will be removed by the end of the week. ~ AdvertAdam

I think I've said ENOUGH TIMES that WP:OTHERSTUFF ain't a valid argument, and a less-than 4 lines (in my screen) summary isn't too much of content. Look for some other excuse. ~ AdvertAdam 16:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Bosnian_War_.281992.E2.80.931995.29 I find that Srebrinca genocide is described in the Bosnia page.So why not Sri Lanka's genocide in Sri Lanka page?(Arun1paladin (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

I think I've already mentioned above to please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF :p. Channel4's story was highly disputed by more credible sources (which I can provide, if needed). Therefore, we can't bring a story then say a better source said it's a lie. If you have another source, it's welcome; otherwise, please avoid Channel4. ~ AdvertAdam 16:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka is a member of UN.The UN had clearly stated that the Channel 4 videos are authentic.I can give you sources of that.I will do that when I find time.Yet what use?You are going to deny that it's fake like all diplomats from SL.(Arun1paladin (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

I think you should set your wording straight and WP:AGF. Actually, the SL you're talking about are mentioned here. The UN said some Channel 4 reports were fake, and you said some are true (there's different reports for different timings). Bring the UN source you're talking about and no-one can stop you from adding it. ~ AdvertAdam 07:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Now when I wrote things about the Channel 4 videos with source from UN's site,why was it removed?!(202.71.142.219 (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

You're using a shared IP, so I can't track your edits. Can you please provide a history link, to see whom and on what base it was removed? Thanks... ~ AdvertAdam 08:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that my login session got expired at that time.In my last edit.I quoted from the UN site.Why was it removed?(Arun1paladin (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

Hehe, ok. Now I know your IP, jkjk. It wasn't removed, but temporarily moved (in order to avoid a closed-cycle discussion). Please closely read and reply to this section. ~ AdvertAdam 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ar ah !!!!, isn't this what the fighting was all about !!!! If such a relevant detail as the fact that the LTTE is considered a Terrorist organization should not be listed or the fact that they were funded by the Tamil Diaspora is nt noted here why should allegations of war crimes be listed here should it be "better refer on the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War's page" ? Why the double standard ? Is it inappropriate for the image you are trying to create here ? It should be both or nothing at all !!!

PS if you had read the source before deleting them you would have found everything you clam there isn't or maybe you feel free to ignore it too. Cossde (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. ^ Ganguly, Šumit(Author); Michael, E. Brown(Editor) (2003). Fighting Words: language policy and ethnic relations in Asia. The MIT Press. p. 136-138. ISBN 9780262523332. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
2. Schmidt, Bettina(Editor); Schroeder, Ingo(Editor) (2001). Anthropology of Violence and Conflict. Routledge. p. 185. ISBN 9780415229050. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
3. ^ Lakshman, W. D.(Author); Tisdell, Clement A.(Author); Lakshman, Weligamage D.(Author) (2000). Sri Lanka's Development Since Independence: Socio-Economic Perspectives and Analyses. Nova Science Pub Inc. p. 116-118. ISBN 978-1560727842. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
4. Ginsburgh, Victor(Author); Weber, Shiomo(Author) (2011). How Many Languages Do We Need?: The Economics of Linguistic Diversity. Princeton University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0691136899. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
5. DeVotta, Neil(Author) (2004). Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka (Contemporary Issues in Asia and Pacific). Stanford University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0804749244. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)

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

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

That is not the sum of Sri Lanka, highly POV

I reverted for explanation. How those facts can't be sum of Sri Lanka, when they had happened in the very same land of Sri Lanka? Who says those facts are "highly POV"?HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add new sections to the right bottom. I think you wanted it to be after the above section, but it doesn't work that way.

I agree with Blackknight12 that the tone is a bad NPOV violation and unencyclopedic. I also agree with Cossde about being a summary, which the insertion is way too much. I believe the section is already well covered.

Arun1paladin, I've told you above to cite the UN, as you said you'll find, not media over media. ~ AdvertAdam 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Arun1paladin, I've told you above to cite the UN, as you said you'll find, not media over media. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)\\ You mean from UN site?Why shouldn't I add that 'This was reported in media x that person y from organization z said this?(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

Reverting you will add crap-over-crap. Can everyone avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS please!

Now to the point. Let me put it another way. The civil-war section here is based on another article, so your information needs some fixes and can be added there. Most of the old content here is unsourced, so your addition will violate WP:DUE when the unsourced material is removed. I'd suggest keeping your content for one week (Aug 17th) keeping your material in this mediation sandbox because this article has a very high traffic, if someone promises to cite those unsourced materials in the civil-war section. On the 18th, I'll delete it all (old & new) if nothing has been fixed. I authorize anyone to edit the sandbox! Does this seem fair-enough to both sides? ~ AdvertAdam 04:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont see that this has stopped people from doing their own bit on the primary page without proper refs or any meaningful refs at all !!! Please tell me why anyone should contribute to this effort when people with "fixed agendas" are crafting both items with impunity ? Cossde (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

First, please stop your accusations. This is a high-traffic article, and a sandbox will have less stress when editing. You've seen that I haven't been on one side, but just follow policies on what you guys are doing. I never even knew where Sri Lanka is, and I've explained this before. Lets discuss there, to get a draft on the changes. Whoever is pushing a POV there will be dismissed. If no solution is found, then a topic-ban is the only way to go. ~ AdvertAdam 19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a push of POV at both ends here, certain editors seems the want to use this article as an canvas for their objectives. Since one seems to be sticking to the sand box I see that there is no point of it at all. Cossde (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you all the same way, IMHO. Well, you just gave me an extra step to do tomorrow, summarizing between the sandbox and the article (including this edit, of course). We'll see how it goes. ~ AdvertAdam 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Mahanipe, 15 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to further readings: Nihal Perera, Decolonizing Ceylon: Colonialism, Nationalism and the Politics of Space in Sri Lanka (oxford, 1998)

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

 Done GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.246.66.79, 25 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

24.246.66.79 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace Keeping Force

Sri Lankan Defense Ministry's website is not a reliable source.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then Tamilnet also is a reliable source on Tamil's grievances in Sri Lanka. But it is branded as a non reliable source for its use on Misplaced Pages. We can't have double standard on Misplaced Pages. HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr.AdvertAdam ,now what is your stand on this?You find that The Times is an unreliable source.Now what is your stand on the reliability of Sri Lankan government sites.I thin that if SL's sites can be considered reliable then the same can bell applied to www.tamilnet.com(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC))

It all depends on a case-by-case thingy, with a mixture between commonsense and policies. I don't know what this discussion is about, as it will take a lot of time to track the history of 1 month. In general, a SL site is reliable to talk about itself (not defending), and Tamil's site is reliable for their-own content (not defending). Although, none of the two are reliable, alone, to accuse others. I hope that helps. I don't see a reason to consider The Times unreliable, as long as we don't have a stronger source (or future incident) that highly contradicts it. As long as everyone stays calm and avoid warring, consensus can be met :). ~ AdvertAdam 06:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Sri Lanka Matha in Sinhala.ogg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sri Lanka Matha in Sinhala.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Conflict

I have created a new section on "Ethnic Conflict"

History section can't accommodate the issues of Ethic Conflict which is so far not resolved in Sri Lanka. History section is for dead and gone issues.Hillcountries (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The mediation sandbox hasn't been agreed by all editors, so it can't be copy-pasted. Anyways, I'll be working on the article tonight. It should-of been yesterday, but sorry for the delay guys (it's been a crazy week at work :p). I'll look into your point, too. ~ AdvertAdam 17:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

They are not my POV. There are enough WP:RS to support "Sri Lankan Ethnic Conflict started immediately after the independence of Sri Lanka" and "the Sri Lankan Civil War was subsequently after that". We can summarize the "Ethnic Conflict" or "Sri Lanka Civil War" in the main article "Sri Lanka" and then direct to the main article. Again "Sri Lanka is much known by outside world for its Civil War than its more than 3000 years old history." is not a PoV at all because every other country and region has more than 3000 years old history in the world and why they should look at Sri Lanka other than its bloody Civil War or its unresolved Ethnic Conflict. Only those who want to hide the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka only want to hide it on Misplaced Pages also. But that won't work over the time.Hillcountries (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

All I see here is you attempting push our idealism into this article. Further no one wants to hide it, as it has been summeriesed here. However it may not adhere to your objective of blowing it out proportion to create and alternate history of your liking. Cossde (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Seems your doing a very poor job at it. Cossde (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We've dealt together Cossde, and you know that this is not how I work. Give me some time to dig things up... I'm still working on it. ~ AdvertAdam 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced, specifically due to the source you have copy pasted here, these where the sources used during the war, when a another war raged in wiki by the same people we have here, with different guises and aims. Cossde (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you with anything. How can I rephrase my previous comments, "JUST WAIT". All I did is restored your massive deletion (I'm not saying it's wrong nor right!). Now, I'm studying the sources, the content, and how can it be best summarized to qualify for a higher-then "C Class", IMO. When I'm done, I'll open another section below for discussion. So please, stay calm, wait, and read WP:Ownership of articles. ~ AdvertAdam 06:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh ! may I ask your standard for classifying sources ? Cossde (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my standard: WP:RS. AGAIN, I'm not satisfied of this edition of the article, and I'll let you know when I am. ~ AdvertAdam 07:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some one else has to read WP:Ownership of articles Cossde (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You just make me laugh, even though it wasn't funny this time. The only reason I'm pushy here now, is to avoid opening a topic-ban case against both of you. Haven't your realized that you're the only one that's involved in all edit-wars I've seen? You've been warned about this, so please stop and present your concerns here instead of removing anything you don't like. If a part has a problem fix it, but don't remove the whole section. Anyways, can we focus on the content please; below. ~ AdvertAdam 10:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Civil War summary

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

Requested for an citation, hope I dont get banned for that !.

Addition: That the LTTE is an listed terrorist organization.

Addition: War crimes committed by the LTTE during the war since war crimes here are listed on the later stage of the war. All or nothing is only fair.

Consolidation of the later part of the Modern Sri Lanka section since its otherwise just repetition.

Addition: At least one more RS per item to support cotes since all of it is attributed to a single document which is unavailable for verification.

Addition: Current political forms of reconciliation and acceptance of Tamil political parties of a federal solution.

Modification: Menik farm camp situation as it reflects current situation since this was three years ago.

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

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

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

• Good Cossde... let me use the same sequence to be more clear (this message was written yesterday, but I slept before I clicked send ^^):
  1. So what! Is the aim of considering it a terrorist organization in this article to push that they're wrong? Sorry, but that's what I'm seeing now. That statement is clearly stated in the infobox of the LTTE's article, and that's where it belongs. If someone want to read about the two parties, they're welcome to do so. Please don't add irrelevant details that doesn't clarify the war.
  2. Don't sources say that LTTE made war-crimes, and other sources say that the government made war crimes? Therefore, I made a fair statement that they both made war-crimes, where you falsely tweaked it to be US department's claims only. We don't want to go to the same mess, so we DO NOT want to state a list (you know what I mean).
  3. I've been thinking of that for awhile, so I'll be working on it. I'll probably keep the pre-war and conflicts there, to keep the war section for only war-related content (my aim).
  4. Unavailable is a brouad word to use. We can't force multiple sources to verify reliability. Although, I am currently reviewing all sources now, but you need to clarify which ones are you claiming unverifiable.
  5. What are you talking about, as it's all in 2009 and even the defeat of LTTE was in 2009... huh? o.O

I only laugh on your personal comments, sometimes :p, but never on your discussions about content. We're all here for the benefit of Wiki, so all opinions are valuable (out-of edit warring). Cheers... ~ AdvertAdam 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• C-Class Sri Lanka articles
• Top-importance Sri Lanka articles
• WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
• C-Class Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles
• C-Class South Asia articles
• Top-importance South Asia articles
• South Asia articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)