Talk:Sri Lankan civil war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removal of terrorist tactics

Does anybody have any objections to my removal of the words "terrorist tactics"? As has been demonstrated at Talk:Terrorism, the word "terrorism" is basically a charged word used by governments to refer to whomever they do not like. Node 20:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think terrorist tactis and terrorism should be removed. There are always two sides to a civil war, one can't just call the non-government side "terrorists" by DEFAULT.

I agree with that, I think that makes it more NPOV, it is part of the reason we have the 'Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?' section on the LTTE page just to give both sides of the argument.--Realstarslayer 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (BTW shouldn't this go into its own section below?)

What!! It is said in other articles that LTTe is a terrorist group cause it kills civilians and uses child soldiers. LCman

NPOV

1. I don't think genocide is the correct term to describe what happened. 2. The 3rd. paragraph in Backgrounds and Origins seems somewhat overheated. It can be rewritten on a NPOV fashion by someone knowledgeable. Tipu 23:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peoples were grabbed out of streets, houses, cars, marched to HOT TAR pits, and thrown in amongst other Tamil bodies (burning to death). It was a short-lived genocide (intensity of a genocide, but not the duration of other genocides)

---

Someone purposely changed the name of the tamil party to "Federal United Coality of Kurds (FUCK)," then someone else has changed it to "Federal United Coalistion of Superior to Sinhalese race (FUSS)"

Stop playing games please.

Remove NPOV?

I don't see any reason why the NPOV tag should still be there. This article is about as objective it is possible to be objective on a subject like this

59.92.207.114 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like nobody has an issue with the article anymore - at least nobody replied in 2.5 days. I'll remove the tag for now. If someone still sees issues, please explain. — Sebastian 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Education Policies

The link ShareBare quoted is a one from LTTE propaganda, not a neutral source. Let's put that aside: there is no mention in that article that the policies were based on race. The article says "This effectively based university entrance on race.", and ShareBares interpretation that there was in fact a race based law is, at best, a distortion of facts: the article already had the fact that some laws resulted in reduced number of Tamil students, and your citation does not claim anything more than that.

Also, Tamil as a spoken language (including Muslims) is about 18% of SL Population, while Tamils themselves are about 9% [1]. And your cited article says "Less than 15% of university seats were available for Tamils.". How do you claim this as a deleberate plot on Tamils? Greenleaf 03:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Greenleaf, the facts cannot be denied. The university entrance marks for Tamils (as a race, a people) had to be higher than that of Sinhalese. This was based on government's redistribution of university admission based on region and thus effectively race. Look at the data given in the table.

PS It is Share Bear not ShareBare. Please learn to pay a little more attention to details. Share_Bear -Share Bear 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm honestly sorry for the mistake, and I also mistyped Bear as Bare once, there was no way to correct the comment. Although I do not see why a lack of a space in a talk page was taken as an insult or, to that matter, as significant --after all this is not our full-time job and talk pages are not articles-- I do apologise. People think differently. And I hope it would not be too much to ask that you kindly consider indenting your text next time so a reader can easily see which part of it is yours and which is mine.

Facts, when they are present, cannot be denied. But numbers alone would not explain away anything. One can also claim that while the economic policies were less restrictive, Tamils had an Unfair Advantage (in the marketing definition of the term, let's say) by having easily available Tamil books while books published in Sri Lanka in both languages were scarce, (English just gone away) and after tough economic policies and consequent limits on imports, Tamils only lost this edge. She would use the very fact that 50% of medical seats were acquired by less than 10% of the students earlier, to claim that it implies a privilege of some sort rather than merit alone, and to say economic policies for nationwide benefit must not necessarily preserve the extra previlages enjoyed by certain small groups of society. So, numbers alone wouldn't make a theory. Particularly so in this case, as there is no clear suggestion what exactly this law was, which banned Tamil litreature alone.

Second, and coming to the point, I highly applaud your attention to detail, and hope you would accordingly acquiesce in the fact that the website you diligently cited lacked proper support for your claim, which was the matter at hand as far as your edit was concerned.

Hereby I also explicitly relieve you of the burden of paying attention to my name, Greenleaf, as long as you limit the mistakes to such a level that readers can distinguish whom you are referring to. You may use the attention thus saved while reading your citations, as talk pages and histories are read only by a few, articles, possibly thousands. Greenleaf 05:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A post script:

You say, "This was based on government's redistribution of university admission based on region and thus effectively race. Look at the data given in the table." and the only table I see in the page does not have anything to do with region. Could you please be more specific about your mention on region? And if you were referring to the district quotas, please remember, areas such as Colombo and Matara were also heavily affected. Do you explain those cases as statistical phenomenons while case in Jaffna was a diabolic plot, according to the same law? According to some, "admissions controversy and the quota system resulted in a more equitable distribution of opportunities for Sri Lankans in general" - US Library of Congress[2], although some brilliant Tamil students were affected. So were some Sinhala and Muslim students from Colombo and Matara and Kandy, but their loss was not readily visible because of the general Sinhalese increase, which was a result of majority of general population of Sri Lanka being Sinhalese rather than Sinhalese being favoured. Tamil Students from less-previliged Tamil areas such as Mannar and Mulativ would have been benefitted as well. As long as Tamil entrances were never reduced than what can be expected statistically in an ideal equal-opportunity system for whole country, I don't see how you see that as a discrimination. Greenleaf 06:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If 9% of Tamils had 15% of university seats, it implies 91% of non-Tamils had 85% (which is less than their population percentage) of university seats. Didn't non-Tamils claim these reforms were discriminatory against them? -165.12.252.11 07:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The percent of population that the Tamils made up is irrelevant, if they were not given an equal opportunity to compete for a portion of the seats it counts as discrimination. I wouldn't call it racial discrimination though, I think ethnic is a better word in this case. VirafPatel 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

9% figure is understated

The claim that Tamil people make up the 9% of the Sri Lankan population, from the CIA world factbook, is based on incomplete data. According to the Sri Lankan Department of Census and Statistics (warning PDF), the total numbers for Sri Lanka's census only include the 18 districts where the census could be carried out. The Sri Lankan government did not have effective control over the Northern and parts of the Eastern province of Sri Lanka, where most Tamil people live.

According to the 1981 census figures, (available along with historical Sri Lankan census data, in the above PDF), ethnic Tamils (from both the Indian Tamil and Sri Lankan Tamil communities of Sri Lanka), consisted 18% of the population, and at the time the Sinhala-only laws came into effect, and before the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamil population, the total Tamil population was 23% (in 1956), and was more than 25% of the population earlier, at the time when the disproportionate representation of Tamil speakers was much more evident.

None of these figures include the Tamil speaking Muslims known as Moors

Arun 10:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

the latest governemnt census indicate that 28% of srilankan speak tamil as their first language.

Forget facts and fiction

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. Numbers can be made up- the government controls numbers and independent studies have control over their numbers!!! But let me tell you, I know of many tamils who got much higher grades than Sinhalese counterparts (their own friends), yet could not get into the same schools as them.

Worse than this, descrimination even occured within races (amongst different classes), but that's a story for another day.

Please do not rewrite this article without discussions

As of today there was yet another attempt of rewriting this article, and with the rewrite there were accusations that the article was written by the LTTE. I can not see at all that it is the case, and even though the article is not good, it should be extended and improved by discussing the various points we do not agree on. Ulflarsen 16:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions

I would like to try to improve this article. Long ago, for nearly three peaceful years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I lived in Sri Lanka. I made many friends in both communities, and -- as much as humanely possible -- I have tried to avoid taking sides. I realize that it is very difficult to remain objective about this, and some people may feel that I tilting toward one side or another, but at least I am trying not to! Also, I plan to back up all of my assertions with documentation.

I propose to focus on the roots of the conflict section -- that is where my expertise lies -- and add the following:

• • Add overview of Sri Lanka's ethnic communities.
  • Add map showing the communities.
  • Point out that there was little ethnic conflict before Independence.
  • Describe the unitary state created by the British after 1815, with very little regional or local autonomy. This is very important.
  • Efforts to establish a united national government after Independence were half-hearted, at best.
  • "British schools" Actually, most were American, and built by the Wesleyan mission, but in Tamil areas mostly -- the British, fearing subversion, wanted to keep the Americans as far away from the capital as possible. From the late nineteenth century to the 1970s, the Wesleyan mission schools were widely regarded to be the best schools in Asia. (Lesson: It's fine to build good schools, but you must build them for everyone.) With all due deference to my Tamil friends, I believe this is the reason they did so much better in competitive civil service examinations. The Sinhalese were, in the main, simply not as well educated.
  • 1948 Constitution modeled on unitary British state with insufficient attention paid to minority protection. This laid the foundation for conflict: There are too few Tamil speakers to offset any Sinhalese-dominated government in Colombo.
  • Describe election of Bandaranaike in 1956 and the "Sinhala-Only" policy.
  • 1958 Riots. There are no words to describe how deeply these riots shocked and alarmed Sri Lankans in both communities; there was a sense that the country had begun a spiral into chaos from which it could not recover.
  • Lack of progress in Parliament, in which a destructive pattern sets in. Sinhalese leaders try to take positive steps, but they are opposed by extremists, and their party is wiped out in the next election.
  • Formation of Tamil militant groups.

Please let me know what you think. Kind regards, Bryan 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, and seems you cover most of it. I believe its good that one person with some knowledge can take responsibility of the rewriting. I have been a year in Sri Lanka, as an SLMM monitor, and can try to add in. Think that the internal infighting, the "etnic outbidding" on the Sinhalese side, as described in the book "Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka" by Neil de Votta. It is however a minefield you are entering into, I have got some flak myself due to the SLMM article. As you probably well know, the situation is quite locked up and the various groups are fighting hard for their view of the situation. Ulflarsen 15:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's a minefield, but I also know that many people appreciate our trying to bring NPOV to volatile subjects. I recognize that people interpret SL history differently, but that is partly what I am planning to write about. Bryan 18:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds goot to me too - I must suggest that you try to edit the existing article rather than just rewriting it, or in case you insist that it must be rewritten (I agree that the quality of current article is not very appealing) then please open a subpage in the talk page so others can review your article and may be come up with suggestions before we switch versions - in case you want to really turn the article upside down, I guess you are aware of templates in Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance#Articles_undergoing_major_edits. I wish you well, and hope you'd have the neutrality and balance needed to get a reasonable agreement, and, of course, courage to face and calm to address peer critisism.

I'm planning to write only about the "Roots of the Conflict." I really don't know the specifics of what's happened since 1981, the date of my last visit to Sri Lanka.

About "flak"s Ulf mentioned, I was one of the two editors who did not agree with him about an issue (which was not the same issue with the other editor), and Ulf is free to justify his edits and do the relevent changes. I still do not see why Ulf's claim "this all is due to Sinhalese infighting" is relevent to SLMM or critisism thereof, and Ulf, if I remember correctly, still did not explain away protests from quaters such as UTHR, Karuna and Mr Ananda Sangari. Anyway that's a closed issue I guess. :-) Greenleaf 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The main critique on the revision of the SLMM article was from a person not logging in, he added a lot of content that basically adds up to that the SLMM is siding with the LTTE and that most Sinhalese was against it. Strangely then that the SLMM is still there, still supported by the President and the PM and the opposition leader. Strange indeed. The sentence with the "Sinhalese infighting" is connected to the how the two main parties play each other, it seems to have been so since independence and it seems to be a very integral part of the "Tamil problem". When it comes to the SLMM article, frankly I just gave up. The article as today is a mess, the first part is basically what I did, which I believe is rather balanced, and the second is just a long harangue of critique against Norway. Not much of an encyclopedia entry - but I think its best I stay out of that, not the least since I have been with the SLMM and therefore probably would just be stamped as LTTE biased. But the really interesting thing about Sri Lanka is how a country that was on its way to be the first third-world country to enter the developed world, could fail so miserably. It was well ahead of places like South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore. Not so today. If I go back to the beginning "Greenleaf" - to place that failure on one cause, I guess it would be "Sinhalese infighting".

Yes, if you go back to the beginning. But we were, then, at the SLMM article, and that was, for the sake of being an Encyclopedic resource, not meant to address, the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which was a different article in itself. Your ideas are, however much I agree with them, however much they're worth or close to the supposed truth, opinions, by the way, and should be treated as such even in the related article. Greenleaf 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Last but not least, to say it very clear I am (as almost all SLMM monitors) very sceptic about the LTTE, and I think the common view is that it has to reform drastically - and most doubt they can. But the fact is that they control large slices of Lanka, and the incompetent Lankan forces are not able to beat them. That is the fact the people there has to live with.

I don't think I'm biased against LTTE - If you, say, put in the LTTE article that LTTE has to reform drastically and that most doubt they can, I'm opposed to that edit as well, for the same reasons I mentioned previously. It's an opinion of an editor, and however true it is, it's not neutral to say so. In a talk page, it's a different matter altogether, and I did not oppose your arguments in the talk page. Greenleaf 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So no "Greenleaf" - its not a closed issue, but quite a lot of the critique (from UTHR and others) just do not take into account what the SLMM is; a tool for the parties. It can assist the parties if they want to go forward, but can not push them. I believe the close to failure of the current peace process is linked to the same "Sinhalese infighting" that destroyed the possibility of making Sri Lanka a Singapore - and instead has it on its way to becoming a Somalia istead. Ulflarsen 14:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether "UTHR/Karuna/Sangari/Devananda does not take in to account what the SLMM is" has nothing to do with Sinhalese infighting and that, precisely, was my opposition to your reduction. As for what prevented SL from being a Singapore, I don't see why that's really relevent to SLMM either (although, in SL political arena's context, it already became a worn-out cliché by early '80ies). If we want to go to root causes of the whole story, then we'll have to insert a paragraph of psycology to every religion article in wikipedia, because there's a very strong school of thought that says religion was inspired by people for psycological needs. Greenleaf 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason I brought "sinhalese infighting" into the SLMM article was because of the anonymous writer that insisted adding loads of anti Norwegian comments. I see his efforts as fueled by the same infighting that has ruined the country the last 40 years. And, as I try to show by referencing to "Blowback", these are not my own ideas. There seems to be a rather large crowd of people studying the conflict that view it this way. Or about the opposite view; that LTTE is the cause. The LTTE has only been a major player since the middle of the 1980, while the various troubles have been there since the beginning of the 1950.

I am well aware of that I am not supposed to preach my opinions and ideas, and that is why I in the original SLMM article tried to be rather balanced. You can check the history of that article. And that is also why I have not gone against the load of critique that was added by the anonymous contributor, just the parts that was way off and not true. But it seems you have been more interested in arguing against me than his various additions. But if you are happy with the SLMM article as it is I am not the one to change it - I can live perfectly well with it.

Ulf, I entered the scene by correcting (in my view) two edits, one of yours and one his; he did not argue back, but you did, so I was naturally engaged with you in an argument. That doesn't mean that I automatically sanctioned all of his edits. If you see Ranil Wickremesinghe article, you'll see that I have countered pro-sinhala nationalist edits as well.

And no, ideally, I would have been happier if we two could come in to concensus there about my edit that ... critisisms against SLMM as being merely politically motivated (which would include everyone from "Sinhalese" to Sangari to UTHR). You said that it does not make any sense without "Sinhalese infighting" and suggested that the whole sentence be removed. Whether people haven't understood SLMM's role does not automatically mean that Sinhalese infighting is responsible of that. Those 'misunderstood' people include RSF as well - right or wrong, not infighting Sinhalese. I cannot of course force my opinion on you, so, although I tried my best to come to an agreement on this, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Greenleaf 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not enter the paragraphs about my (and almost all SLMM monitors) view that the LTTE has to reform drastically. I wrote it on the talk page to show that I and most SLMM monitors are not pro LTTE as the anonymous cotributor tried to paint a picture of. Again - I know the NPOV policy and I know the difference between articles and talk pages. But if it bothers you I will drop such comments on talk pages as well.

I did not say that you did, I took that just as an example to show that "Sinhalese Infighting" was something similar to that - an opinion. And I did say that I perfectly agree that those kind of stuff are ok in talk pages. I'm really baffled here how you intepreted me. Greenleaf 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As for your last paragraph; I am not so sure that there is not a connection. Part of the "Sinhalese infighting", or "etnic outbidding" as Neil de Votta talks of is that all others are to blame, British, Indians and now Norwegians. If you read the UTHR you see the pattern. What they report on various terror acts by the LTTE is basically good stuff (even though it could be shortened down), but they always end up demanding something from the SLMM that it was not built to deliver. Same goes for lots of the other NGOs, parties in the south etc. The anonymous writer goes over and over on this, his own opinion you might say - and rather POV.

To wrap it up: I dont think I will do any more edits on the SLMM article, not interested in the flak. And I will probably keep away from this article too, for the same reason. The guy that has volunteered to rewrite it seems knowledgeable and commited and I'll leave it to him. Ulflarsen 10:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you and the other contributors will stick around! I'm planning to make changes to the background sections only (see my note above). A note on POV and NPOV: In a contested area such as this one, NPOV can be achieved, I think, only by DOCUMENTING the facts and then accurately and fairly indicating the various ways that a particular event is viewed. Consider the following... Bryan 18:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you decide to stay. I cannot promise that I would never oppose your edits, but in my humble opinion, that's what wikipedia is. In return, you have a right to oppose my edits if you think they are not good. Still, I do value your contributions, and hope you would stay on SL related articles. (To quote Don Barzini for the second time, "we all are reasonable men here" :-)) Greenleaf 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, most of the "documented facts" out there are flawed. During the riots, the government expelled media personnel from SL - that's how far they've gone to hide issues. How difficult is it to misportray facts in documents? I think the best that can be done is use sources that have nothing to do with the SL government. Even outside agencies like BBC have trouble getting true unfiltered details out of SL, so it's better to trust reports that leaked from individuals. I have family members who saw kids being killed during the riots, and others who were qualified but denied government jobs, and yet others who couldn't get into universities because they were held to higher standards than non-tamils (both officially by the laws, and unofficially because the admissions officers could do whatever they want). Don't trust "documented facts." Dig up testimonials and facts from indpendent newswriters who had free access to SL (good luck!).

move

Hi Brian, Ulf, and others to whom it may concern:

I moved your new article segment here because it would facilitate a convenient edit - free from regular noise in talk page. Hope you won't mind and continue to edit there. Thanks.

By the way, are you sure about the spelling of Badi-ud-din Mahmud? I have seen his name spelt Badiudeen Mohamed. And I believe he was a Dr. ;) Greenleaf 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

fixed references. Greenleaf 01:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

LTTE status/title

Moved from main article. El_C 01:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC) The LTTE has been given the horrible title of terrorists. However, it is the singalese majority government that has shown bias towards their own people and do not give Srilankan Tamils rights. The LTTE is a group who is trying to liberate their people from the majority singalese country, hence the name Liberation Tigers. The tigers are trying to fight for their people's rights and the rest of the world is just looking at them and judging them as if they are terrorists. This point of view is not only wrong but unfair to the soldiers who are fighting in what they believe in. It is also not rigth because the LTTE have been at a ceasefire since 2001. The fact that the people of the world still consider the LTTE to be terrorists is unjust and actually cruel. 67.70.12.202

Hi. How would you suggest we word & address these issues in an NPOV way? Regards, El_C 01:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As user "El C" asks, how should we write about it? I can only say for my own that I know, from living one year in Jaffna how difficult this issue is. That also means that not all tamils see the LTTE as a liberation movement, some do see them as terrorists.

The LTTE lead, which I believe I co-authored, reads: The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a guerilla organisation fighting to establish an independent Tamil state, to be called Tamil Eelam, in the north-east of Sri Lanka. Thoughts? El_C 00:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist is the wrong word. This is civil war. LTTE doesn't go out and kill peace loving members of other countries for 'no reason.' It is a shame that the non-government part in any civil war is labelled as a terrorist (not just SL). The people in Jaffna mostly fall into two categories: 1) See the LTTE as a liberation movement 2) Are fed up with the whole issue and think the LTTE should just give in because there is no hope for victory --- Only a very very small percentage truly think the LTTE is malicious

I'm afraid that dosen't respond to my wording above. El_C 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we need to have a balanced view. It is a fact that several countries have banned the LTTE and their record after the CFA does not show that they have dropped violence - on the contrary. There is child recruitment, harassments and a number of killings, just lately close to 20 people killed in Jaffna alone. Add to this the assasination of the FM of Sri Lanka. The world at large is not against the tamils, and they had great support from India, and still does - but all the same India is dead against the LTTE after Gandhi was killed by a LTTE operative. If we are to give a correct view of Sri Lanka and LTTE we need to have information about this - as we have information about the terror and etnic supression the Sinhalese are responsible of, because this is the actual situation. Ulflarsen 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes several countries have banned the LTTE "because" the SL government has labelled them as terrorists. So by default, since the governing body considers them "terrorists" so does everyone else. The LTTE got put into the same category as other terrorists organizations that show no resemblence to the LTTE. Under the CFA, both sides have been taking part in a small "shadow war." The SL government continues to build up its military with foreign aid money, and harassments by SL military officials is widespread. Please realize that is very easy to get good news about government-related activities from a country run by the very same government, and much easier to get bad news about groups condemned by that government. Unless someone has relatives roaming each small town in SL and can relay unfiltered news to any of the authors here, the facts will not be facts.

Indian government used to support tamils? You should read up on some of the things the indian military was upto in Jaffna during their time there. They did everything from raping young girls, to killing adult tamils. They were as bad the SL Military was against Jaffna residents during their stay. Ulflarsen, how many years did you life in Jaffna? Did you have any relatives who actually witnessed any of the events of the past years?

I replied to a contributor that portrayed the LTTE as a movement that only was working for the best of the Tamils: "The tigers are trying to fight for their people's rights and the rest of the world is just looking at them and judging them as if they are terrorists"

Now, not all tamils see it that way, and hence do not the rest of the world either. And the rest of the world DO care about the tamils - that is why EU, the US, Japan and Norway has invested so much time and effort in trying to find a solution. The CFA is now breaking down and that seems to be a joint effort of the LTTE and the GOSL. For an outsider it is interesting that the country that saw itself becoming the next Singapore may instead be the next Somalia.

I lived one year in Jaffna, as a SLMM monitor I had a lot of contacts with the local population and I am well aware of both the IPKF's atrocities, as I am of the ones by the GOSL, and the LTTE. Ulflarsen 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments moved from the main article

I moved this paragraph from the references section of the main article Significant lacunae - differences among Tamils (Indian Tamils, north/east, Muslims), pre-war political history and violence and non-violent actions, peace movement, non-India foreign involvement (e.g. arms sales), JVP's position, women fighters, government deserters -- Ponnampalam 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

World Needs To Learn About Sri Lankan Military's Tactics

The assault on Jaffna town itself, codenamed ‘Operation Riviresa’ (Sun Ray), began on October 17. Heavy fighting raged at several locations. On October 29 Sri Lankan forces overran LTTE defences in Neervely after a pitched battle. Only one major defence line, in Kopay North, now lay between them and a relatively easy progress towards the Navatkuli Bridge. It was the SLA’s battlefield tactics which panicked residents most. As former IPKF commander Lt. Gen. Amarjit Singh Kalkut later put it “[the SLA] followed a strategy of broad front; [it] is a very secure method, but you need large forces, which they have got; it is more time consuming, but they’re in no hurry; and thirdly it causes a lot of destruction.”

He explained: “You are actually steamrolling through the area. Step by step. Do a certain distance first, then clean up, and converge on the next one. Any building from which resistance comes or is likely, bring it down with air bombing or tank fire. You clean up. But then as you pass, you’re leaving rubble behind. So for that problem [the Sri Lankans] have resorted to censorship so that this doesn’t come out. … They have concentrated overwhelming force for a Broad Front and have made sure there is no adverse publicity. World opinion, the press, don’t know what is happening because it is all controlled.”

Informative, but you make it sound like it's a bad thing. If it worked in retaking the city from the terrorists, and people who harbor terrorists, then it was a valid strategy.

And you make it sound like its a good thing. The point he made is clear, SLA used disproportionate force in carrying out a wider government agenda of committing genocide against Tamils. This fact needs to be shown in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.212.19.130 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Broad front is a generic press-name used for a highly regarded military tactic and although the writer here has a slight grasp of the strategy it is not complete and is certainly misleading. As for the genocide, a specific military tactic used to over-run the enemy lines cannot be considered a direct contributor to genocide. If the SL Army desired to commit a genocide, it could have been done with any other battle tactic, as well. What's more, genocide could have been committed better, with a strategy that wouldn't have won the battle to capture this town. 222.165.177.164 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

lead is too long

it should be shortened

New section should be added

I think it would be good if a section of alleged killings committed by both the LTTE and SL military forces was added.

This should also include the killings of Tamils by the LTTE and Sinhala and Muslim people by the SL government.

This would show people that neither side really is whiter than white- also to the deluded people BOTH sides have killed innoccents.

Also make sure that these sources are referred to UNBIASED EXTERNAL SOURCES and not pro-LTTE or pro-government sources.

Ethnic Conflict -The Truth

In the island of Sri Lanka, the record shows that during the past fifty years and more, the intent and goal of all Sinhala governments (without exception) has been to secure the island as a Sinhala Buddhist Deepa. Rule by a permanent ethnic majority within the confines of a single state is the dark side of democracy. The Sinhala Buddhist nation masquerading as a multi ethnic 'civic' 'Sri Lankan' nation set about its task of assimilation and 'cleansing' the island of the Tamils, as a people, by

   - depriving a section of Eelam Tamils of their citizenship,
   - declaring the Sinhala flag as the national flag,
   - colonising parts of the Tamil homeland with Sinhala people,
   - imposing Sinhala as the official language,
   - discriminating against Tamils students seeking University admission,
   - depriving Tamil language speakers of employment in the public sector,
   - dishonouring agreements entered into with the Tamil parliamentary  political leadership,
   - refusing to recognise constititutional safeguards against discrimination,
   - later removing these constitutional safeguards altogether,
   - giving to themselves an authocthonous Constitution with a foremost place for Buddhism,
   - and changing the name of the island itself to the Sinhala Buddhist name of Sri Lanka - appropriately enough, on  the 'tenth day of the    waxing moon in the month of Vesak in the year two thousand five hundred and fifteen of the Buddhist Era'.

When these attempts at ethnic cleansing were resisted by the Tamil people by non violent means and parliamentary struggle, Sinhala governments resorted to violence in 1956, in 1958, in 1961 and again in 1977 - a murderous violence directed to terrorise the Tamils into submission.

The inevitable rise of Tamil armed resistance to State terror was then met with enactment of laws which were an 'ugly blot on statute book of any civilised country', with arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, extra judicial killings and massacres, indiscriminate aerial bombardment and artillery shelling, wanton rape, and genocide - together with press censorship, disinformation and murder of journalists. And the impunity granted to Sinhala armed forces, para military groups, goondas and Sinhala thugs, exposed the encouragement, support and direction given by successive Sri Lanka governments for the crimes committed against the Tamil people.

Today, (in 2006) the President Rajapakse government seeks to pursue the Sinhala assimilative agenda by reneging on the 2002 Oslo Declaration, by refusing to recognise the existence of the Tamil homeland, and by perpetuating a Sri Lankan state structure within which the Tamil people may continue to be ruled by a permanent Sinhala majority. At the same time the genocidal intent of the President Rajapakse government is reflected in the war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces under the President's command and by the Sri Lanka para military. In the shadow of a ceasefire, they have raped, murdered Tamil Parliamentarians, Tamil journalists, executed Tamil students with impunity, arbitrarily arrested and detained Tamil civilians, abducted Tamil refugee workers, orchestrated attacks on Tamil civilians and Tamil shops, bombed Tamil civilian population centres and displaced thousands of Tamils from their homes.

LTTE Accepting responsibility(Rajiv) - Up to interpretation

I have edited the following line as there can be several interpretations to what Anton Balasingham said in his interview, so I feel the interpretation should be left up to the reader which adheres more to NPOV:

(Fifteen years later, the LTTE issued an apology to India for the assassination.)

TO:

In a 2006 interview LTTE ideologue Anton Balasingham stated regret over the assassination but came short of outright accepting responsibility for it.

Following is the quote in question:

"I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon the government of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind," [3]

--Realstarslayer 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1990 - Vandalism / POV issues

Several lines here seem to have been changed to POV without proof or are outright vandalism.

These were often safe havens for terrorists fleeing the air raids and their destruction resulted in a high amount of Tamil civilian casualties

Changed back to original:

These were often safe havens for Tamil civilians fleeing the air raids and their destruction resulted in a high amount of civilian casualties.

Corrected the number of casualties in this line, the ICRC report put it at 65 killed, 150 wounded:

In one particular incident in August 1995, Sri Lankan Air Force jets bombed Navali's St. Peter's church, killing at least 75 refugees

Removed the following line:

On another occasion, Jaffna was actually bombed with human excrement.

Obviously the work of a prankster? --Realstarslayer 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyronen my appologies for removing that last one then, it sounded too fantastical to be true so I assumed it was the work of a vandal. There seems to be mention of it in another source as well the article "Torment of Jaffna" in the London Independent Magazine, 3rd November 1990, so I added this too.--Realstarslayer 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of Tamils killed - Black July

Reverted Tamil casualty figures for Black July.

Dear anonymous user 134.48.245.150, please don't change casualty figures without having some proof to back it up. It is generally accepted that around 3,000 Tamil civilians were murdered during the Black July riots, if you do have sources that can show it was much higher please provide them here.--Realstarslayer 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename article

See the discussion at Talk:State terrorism in Sri Lanka#Reorganization_needed. Basically we need one survey article that covers the rise in communalism and political issues from colonial times, and a second more military-oriented article (this one) that covers the conduct of the war itself.

I propose we rename this article to "Civil war in Sri Lanka" (or even "Eelam Wars"). The more general article could have this name "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" or alternatively "Sinhalese-Tamil conflict".

Tyronen 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ceasefire 'null and void'

Hi Ponnampalam,

It might be a little premature to claim that the LTTE as a whole have officialy declared the CFA null and void, since it was a statement by only one or two LTTE leaders in hte east and we have not heard anything from senior leaders such as Thamilchelvan, maybe just modify it a little and state that some senior eastern LTTE leaders have claimed this. Of course this may be a moot point if this forray into LTTE territory gets more heated.--Realstarslayer 00:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PBP's changes

Hi PBP,

There is a little inaccuracy in your changes, the LTTE's problem, as stated by them, was not travel to the talks, but travel arrangements for their area commanders to meet prior to leaving for the talks. Also the wording of the bus bombing incident makes it sound as if it was concluded that the LTTE carried it out, whereas the SLMM increasingly states that it does not look like the LTTE were involved. It should be clearer that the GoSL launched airstrikes because they believed it to be the work of the LTTE. Regards --Realstarslayer 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What is LTTE?

The article doesnt tell us what is LTTE and how it was formed. Here is the concerned text:

Frustrated by the ongoing politics, Tamil youth started to form militant groups, some funded by bank robberies. In response, the government expanded its military presence in the north. In July 1983, a deadly attack on the military in the north by Tamil groups sparked riots in Colombo, the capital, and elsewhere (see Black July Pogrom). The riots are alleged to have been planned in advance. Between 1,000 to 3,000 Tamils were killed[6], and many more fled Sinhalese-majority areas. This is usually considered the beginning of the ethnic conflict. In 1985, peace talks between the Tamils and the government failed, and the war continued. In 1987, government troops pushed the LTTE fighters to the northern city of Jaffna, which remains a center of LTTE activity to this day. In April 1987, the conflict exploded with ferocity, as both the government forces and the LTTE fighters engaged each other in a series of bloody operations.

--Anupamsr 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anupamsr, I'm not sure we want to get into the details about the LTTE in this article, since there is already an article about the LTTE which is linked here and that has all the details (despite some sections that are still being worked on).--Realstarslayer 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer, I am not asking for the information about LTTE, but the outright mention of the term LTTE without mentioning what it is. As can be seen from the quoted text, it is mentioned that youth started to repel, and then government fought back with LTTE. See the point? We need to metion that LTTE is what youth formed to repel. One or two sentence will do. Since I am not an expert in this feild, I am not adding any sentence like that myself.--Anupamsr 01:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean, well I'll take a look or someone else if they get to it before me. regards --Realstarslayer 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

This is now fixed. Tyronen 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New article ?

I really dont see why we couldnt have a separate article covering the fightning and battles going on currently.. lik "2006 Sri Lanka civil war" or something to that effect. There are more people dying on that island that in Lebanon, and we dont have an article about the fighting going on, or can anybody correct me?--imi2 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

President's Name (Sri Lanka)

Correction looks right, that's how it is spelt on his official website:

http://www.presidentsl.org/data/

--Realstarslayer 04:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading alleged

I removed "alleged" from the following in the Indian involvement section:

The latter was particularly strong in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, where ethnic kinship led to deep sympathy for the alleged discrimination against Sri Lankan Tamils.

If we are to believe any of the evidence presented to this point in the article, clearly there WAS discrimination against the Tamils. To say alleged here unnecessarily weakens the statement and is misleading. Andrew J. MacDonald 06:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (If anyone knows how to unindent this section, please do so...)

I am at a loss too as to why these two sections became indented, they look fine in preview.--Realstarslayer 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer. The reason all the formating was off was Anupamsr forgot to use the </blockquote> tag to end the blockquote above. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 12:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Resumption of Hostilities

Hello user 63.207.55.251, can you explain your changes to this section?

Your version:

The LTTE eventually withdrew from the town of Muttur, and told Norwegian mediators that they would reopen the sluice gates. As SLMM truce monitors and rebels approached the reservoir area, ostensibly to reopen the sluice gates, the Sri Lankan military recommenced artillery attacks. [4]. These actions could lead to even further confrontations between both parties [5].

My original version:

The LTTE eventually withdrew from the town of Muttur and it seemed an end to the stalemate was in sight as Norwegian mediators persuaded the Tamil rebels to reopen the sluice gates. However as SLMM truce monitors and rebels approached the reservoir area, the Sri Lankan military recommenced artillery attacks thus forestalling the expected reopening of the gates [6]. These actions could lead to even further confrontations between both parties [7].

• The Norwegians did in fact negotiate for the opening of the sluice gate, with the condition that they would help address water issues faced by Tamil civilians in rebel areas, why change this factual statement?

• The use of the term 'ostensibly' implies that the SLMM (and the LTTE) may have had some other ulterior motive for approaching the sluice gates, other than opening them? What would this be? Seems like speculation and a little bit derogatory of the SLMM, when Ulf Henricsson clearly stated that they were going there to open the sluice gates.

• And as this is a section on the resumption of hostilities, it is important to point out that the LTTE stated they would consider any further attacks as a declaration of war.

I will leave it for now until you have had a chance to respond, then will edit it back to the original version eventually. Regards --Realstarslayer 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

New article ?

I really dont see why we couldnt have a separate article covering the fightning and battles going on currently.. lik "2006 Sri Lanka civil war" or something to that effect. There are more people dying on that island that in Lebanon, and we dont have an article about the fighting going on, or can anybody correct me?--imi2 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Yes red link Civil war in Sri Lanka created all millitary information of the curent war canbe in it so that this will cease to become too large and too many edit wars201.134.115.98

Hold on. It seems to me we could have three articles:

• 1) Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war covering 1947-83;
• 2) Sri Lankan civil war about the first three phases of the war, 1983-2001;
• 3) 2001 ceasefire about the ceasefire and its breakdown, 2001-present. The last gets the "current events" tag.

This article could then be condensed into a summary.

And that's just a first step. In the long run I'd like to see 2) broken out into separate articles on Eelam War I (1983-87), the IPKF (1987-90), Eelam War II (1990-95), and Eelam War III (1995-2001). Tyronen 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I don't think this article conforms to NPOV, it lists alleged crimes by the SL Government without proof whatsoever. Futher all the "evidencce" it provides seems to come from LTTE websites, which are clearly not neutral sources!Pubuman 00:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pubuman. Which items specifically are you referring to? Tyronen 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For example the instances of civilian deaths caused by the SLG seems very well explained and stressed, although when checking the sources (i.e. BBC Reuters links provided) it seems that these were simply claimed by the LTTE and not confirmed by any indepedent source. Where as civillian deaths known and acknowleged to be caused by the LTTE are not so well explained... that consititutes bias! Pubuman 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Which civilian deaths? What paragraph is it in? Keep in mind that media have very little access to areas near the battlefields in the war; nearly all information comes from either the government or the LTTE, neither of which are neutral sources. That is just the nature of this conflict. Tyronen 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pubuman, if you are not satisfied by the accuracy of the article, please feel free to correct it. This is Wikipedia and you have every right to do so. This article used to be very biased and I corrected as much of it as I could, but if you see something that I've missed, you should immediately rectify it. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Peace talks

I know nothing of Sri Lanka, and there seems to be an ongoing conflict regarding the POV of this article, so I will not intrude. However, I have added a large body of referenced content to Erik Solheim, the Norwegian peace broker and Minister of Internal Development. IMHO that content, found on Erik Solheim#Sri Lankan civil war, can pretty much be copy and pasted here, but I'll leave the decision to users more knowledgable in the subject. Regards, EFG 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

assassination of rajiv

the article says widely held. But recently the LTTE admitted that they assassinated Rajiv. So I am going to go ahead and change the article to indicate that.

unecessary reverts

RaveenS, why have you reverted my edits, anyone is free to edit the wikipedia, it would be better if you would discuss the modifications that I have made rather than wholesale reverting everyone of them. I added cited referenced sources, just because you may not like them, please do not whole sale revert away my additions. If you do not like my additions let us discuss what is wrong with them and then decide.I am reverting in my cited edits which were unecessary reverted for no valid reason. Lets go over my additions... 1. Digampathana - It was a suicide attack against 'unarmed, forces returning home, which is a dastardly thing to do. I have highlighted that fact with numerous sources, so there is no reason to delete it. 2. SLMM is not a legal body to "rule" that gosl was behind it. It can "state" or "claim", so I think it should be worded with one of the latter two words, to be more appropriate. ALso the governments response (keheliya's statement) should be there for a NPOV in response to the SLMM's allegation. 3. It was the LTTE which precipitated the cricis by cutting the water to the villages, vide - cited info. So please do not remove it. If you want you can provide evidence to the contrary.

The other important thing which needs to be mentioned is that this wiki is not yours or mine, or the LTTE sympthisers soapbox, this is a encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, and should have a NPOV, in disputed claims I find that the best thing is to have a NPOV, with both sides statements and let the reader decide rather than censoring information. Once again I hope that a consensus can be achieved rather than needless revert wars.Kerr avon 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Aren't those many links getting more and more confusing? However, I can see that every single one of them offers information from a different point of view which is important. What about putting them into sub-sections like "Official Organisations", "Scientific Reports", etc.? Cheers, Krankman 13:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Chencholai

Linked article to main article on Chencholai

Citations needed

I've added "citation needed" tags to a number of sentences which I think are really dubious. If citations aren't provided soon I will have to delete them. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Over a month, no citations, so I'm removing everything that seems doubtful. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My Edit + IPKF

The fact that discrimination and racism weren't included in the Casus Belli is absolutely ridiculous, If someone wants a referance, I'll have at least several dozen up tomorow.

In a more Wikipedia-worthy discussion, should the IPKF really be in the same slot as the Sri Lankan Government? They were, at least in theory, a independant group, thus derserving an individual space. It should be noted that they were in dis-agreement with the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lankan Government at the time when they left and also had no particular affliction to joining the fighting in the first place. What do you guys think about placing another column for the IPKF in the intro-box?

Shouldn't we keep the terrorist label on? As is said in articles on Wikipedia, the Ltte has commited various attrocities such as killing innicent civilians and using child soldiers. Hell, there shouldn't even be a disscussion on this.LCman

Name change

I changed the name because of an existing WP:MilHist mode of naming. See also:

• Afghan Civil War
• Somali Civil War
• Lebanese Civil War ..etc... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami and Response

I just attempted to clean up the middle section of the Tsunami and Response section but it has no refs. I don't edit wikipedia often - can somebody reread my edits and possibly add some more citations to the section? thanks

Previous version

President Kumaratunga eventually scrapped P-TOMS, and it led to widespread criticism that sufficient aid was not reaching the North and East of the country. however, immediately following the tsunami there was a marked decrease in violence in the North.

Then on August 12, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, a Tamil sharply critical of the LTTE, was assassinated on August 12, increasing the atmosphere of tension on the island. The government blamed the LTTE, but carried out no retaliation against the LTTE.

Edited version

President Kumaratunga eventually scrapped P-TOMS, which led to widespread criticism that sufficient aid was not reaching the North and East of the country. However, immediately following the tsunami there was a marked decrease in violence in the North.

Then on August 12, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, a Tamil sharply critical of the LTTE, was assassinated, allegedly by LTTE snipers[1].

The previous version had the PM assasination blurb as a seperate paragraph, I simply merged it with the following paragraph.

The freddinator 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Images are biased against LTTE The freddinator 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how images can be biased, unless they are somehow altered, which clearly isn't the case here. Unless you think its a bad thing to show the brutality of the LTTE. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the picture of the Buddhist boys a little too horific? Not that I am against showing the perversity of war as an educational tool, does it perhaps need a warning? Jeremy 82.111.240.98 10:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah i agree with jeremy that the picture of the buddhist boys is a little too graphic and that if it cannot be removed there should atleast be a warning about it or maybe it could be in the form of a link..Prateek

IPKF

...should be listed as a combatant. no matter it doesn't exist any more --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about that, FEARgod cos if you mean to list them as a 3rd combatant then it may imply they fought both the other parties in the conflict, when actually they only fought the LTTE. If it is listed along with the government, it would seem the government and India fought together, which again woul not be the case.

And then there is the Karuna faction, which will also have to be included if the IPKF is included, and which cannot be listed as a third / fourth combatant or under the government.

Thats what I'd think anyway. Your opinion? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

A lot of creating elimination of information from this article has taken place. Only one side of the massacres and mass killings have been highlighted all others have been eliminated. Hence this article fails WP:NPOV completely. Important milestones in the conflict such as Muttur massacre and Chencholai bombing have been removed. Thanks RaveenS 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All I really have to say is, read the article, don't just randomly add tags. And that I'm removing all the tags. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I read and you have removed sections which made this article neutral such as information on muttur massacre and chencholai bombing. So it is not a neutral article any more. I will add them back in, tiil then this is not a neutral articleRaveenS 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. READ THE ARTICLE. Both the incidents are covered, and have their own separate paragraphs. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I am sorry, my mistake, I think the incidents are notable and notious enough to have their own sub sections, that has been removedRaveenS 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with adding separate heading for these 2 incidents is then we will have to add headings for all such incidents over the last 25 years, like Aranthalawa, Kebethigollawa, Digampathana and countless others. If we do that, the article will begin to violate WP:Mos and WP:FA guidelines. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK but the hostilities in Muttur as I renamed it is its own incident could be a sub section of Sluice gate opening. Chencholai air strike was an incident on its own unrelated to any other being discussed, why should it be subsumed? RaveenS 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and NPOV

How come ALL of the pictures in this article support an SLA POV, there are two pictures featuring SLA commandos in dress uniform and of them holding the Sri Lankan flag, and two pictures of LTTE massacres. Where are the pics representing the other half of the combatants, the LTTE? Why are there no pictures of Sri Lankan army massacres?

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES: http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/continuingwar/060608vankalai.htm BTAUS 13:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So go ahead. Oh before that, don't forget to take some instructions from your colleague. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Images have to depict only the most significant events in the war. If we have pictures for every single massacre / attack, this really won't be a Wikipediia article. So the pictures are of the massacre of Buddhist monks at Aranthalawa - probably the most notorious massacre of the war, the suicide bombing of the Dalada Maligawa - one of the most notable LTTE suicide bombings, which even led Prince Charles to cancel his intended visit to Kandy (and my high school for that matter), and the Army commandos depict the recent offensives in the east, which, apart from the peace talk which also have their own picture, have been the biggest talking point since the 2001 ceasefire. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article to find out more about the issues and find myself confronted with this horrifying picture of a dead child with its brains hanging out. This sort of picture is unencyclopaedic - it is traumatising, graphic and offensive. It ought to be possible for a child to use Wikipedia but this sort of image would dissuade any adult from letting their child use Wikipedia. Please could one of the editors be so kind as to remove it. I wish to add that I have not yet read the article and have no idea how these people were killed or who killed them. 192.223.158.62 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There really is no sense in having such a picture here. The problem isn't showing corpses but the brain detail. It is a foto disturbing to many people, and it is unnecessary to demonstrate the acual cruelty involved by a picture. Where is the encyclopedic value? E.g. in the articles Rape, Guillotine, Asphyxia and Castration, we don't see pictures of people being raped, beheaded, choked or castrated either, because it is unnecessary to make a point and unsuitable for a serious site like WP. I know there is no real consensus on this (see this discussion), but I feel that a majority of us here will agree. A less graphic picture of victims of the massacre would be something I deem unnecessary but acceptable. But this one definitely isn't. Krankman 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT Censored.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

also Wikipedia is not a battleground so let us have neutrality in everything we do including pictures. Who decides that aranthalawa is most gruesome ?RaveenS 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that Wikipedia is censored. The purpose of this discussion is to ask one of the editors to remove a very gory picture which does not add value to the facts of the article. Everybody knows that modern weapons cause these sorts of terrible injuries. The pictures may satisfy someone's sense of outrage or appeal to sadists but they do not give any further information. If you do not remove it then I will. 89.243.34.4 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT support 89.243.34.4's intention to engage in an edit war. However, the point he has made is correct: No added value; to keep the pic will serve to create bias against the LTTE. And that's not what we are trying to do here. Krankman 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>One of the trademarks of the LTTE campaign during the conflict (especially during the 80s) were there massacres of civilians. They carried out hundreds of them, as covered in the article Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. Thees massacres are probably most remembered part of the conflict during the 80s. Of them, the most notorious, even to this day, is the Aranthalawa massacre. Just like the picture of the girl running away from a Napalm strike during the Vietnam War, pictures of the Aranthalawa massacre are some of the most iconic of this conflict.

On that note, are any of you guys who are so concerned about children viewing these articles ready to take this picture off of the Vietnam War article? otherwise, please don't bring it up here again.

And remember, this is Wikipedia, where we try to create the best / most comprehensive articles possible. Censorship is not permitted, regardless.

And krankman you say a picture can create "bias" against the LTTE. How so? That's just not possible. A picture is as neutral as it gets. Its much more neutral than anything we can write because it shows exactly what happened. They killed 34 monks who were meditating in a temple and this a picture of that. This is the first time I've seen a claim that a picture can create "bias" on Wikipedia. Or are you just trying to hide their atrocities? If the LTTE didn't want to create "bias" against them, they shouldn't have carried them out in the first place.

But that really is a moot point. Simply, the pictures of the massacred monks are some of the most notable of the conflict and should be included in the article. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go w/ removing the picture. I do believe that pictures can promote bias and I believe that such is the case with the picture of the Aranthalawa massacre. I concede that the image linked above in the article on the Vietnam War is graphic, but it is also one of the most famous photos of the 20th century. If you are going to say that the most notorious massacre of the 1980s was the Aranthalawa Massacre, then I would reconsider the image in a section labelled "The 80s" or possibly next to a section about LTTE attacks. As it is, though, the image is placed in the nineties and the article makes no other mention to Aranthalawa. IT does mention LTTE massacres, but it also mentions GOSL death squads and medicine embargos. These facts are overshadowed by the image in question right now. I think that the image should be removed until we can agree that it is relevant - otherwise, it is doing more hurt than it is helping the article. The freddinator 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As per the Autofellatio solution, how's this as a possible compromise? Khoikhoi 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the solution that Khoi has implemented. I'm sorry to have appeared to suggest starting an edit war but I'm afraid that I did not feel that User: Snowolfd4 was exactly being the voice of reason. In fact I have major concerns about his latest response.89.243.34.4 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. The freddinator 02:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Khoi too RaveenS 14:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>Thanks khoi for your attempts to resolve this, but I think using that template is blatant censorship of Wikipedia, and it's use is highly disputed by the community anyway. So I really don't think we should be using it on Wikipedia. And in any case, we aren't talking about a random guy doing something despicable to himself. This is one of the most notorious pictures of the civil war. Take a look at the article Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Normally those pictures would be classified as pornography on the internet, which would be far worse than what is shown here. But those pictures are included, not hidden, because they are really famous pictures and because Wikipedia is not censored.

And about the other arguments, I need to ask a few questions. First, how can a picture be biased? I don't want replies like "I think its biased". Can someone show me actual Wikipedia policy that says a picture can be biased? Because I'm at a loss to explain it. If I write "the LTTE are a bunch of murderous terrorists who have carried out numerous massacres", that would be biased. But a picture? Not possible.

Next, how can it be in the wrong place? The LTTE carried out numerous massacres during the 80s and 90s, and we can either use one picture to represent the massacres of the 80s and one to represent the 90s or one to represent 1984, one for 85 etc etc, or we can choose one picture an let it cover all of them.

In that case should we choose just some random picture, or the most iconic of all massacres? On a Wikipedia article, I don't think that is even a question we should bother to be asking.

And I don't want to bring something like WP:BIAS or WP:OWN into this, but how many people here actually lived in Sri Lanka over the last decade or so? How many of you really know what pictures are the most notable, and have been given the most coverage? American media pretty much dominates the world so everyone has seen the picture of a Kim Phuc Phan Thi, or pictures of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib a hundred times, but how do you know what pictures are most published in Sri Lankan Media?

Wikipedia does not exit to hide such pictures just because some users don't want to see the true brutality of the massacres committed by the LTTE. And I'm sorry by various threats from randoms IPs are not going to change that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf, note the following

1. This is not a matter of censoring Wikipedia, it is a matter of producing a good quality article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are produced through collaboration. You are unilaterally removing edits that everyone else wants. This in itself is bad practice.

2. It is your allegation that this is a notorious and famous picture. As far as I can see this is your original research. And you all but admit to this by saying that only people who have lived in Sri Lanka can attest to which photographs are famous!

3. In fact I would go further to say that your having lived in Sri Lanka disqualifies you from writing in an objective fashion.

4. The picture does not add any information that a sentence such as "In one incident, several young buddist monks were killed in an LTTE attack". But what it does do is induce feelings of revulsion that detract from absorbing the information in the article and prevent one from reading the article. Presumably that is your aim.

5. Inclusion of the picture presents at the very least an impression of bias in the article. This is because presumably there exist pictures of the dead buddist monk-children that is not so graphic. But you chose to include a photograph that is very graphic and gory. On the face of it, your intent is to shock and to give the impression that the LTTE are brutal. While that may be so, you should let the written facts stand for themselves.

6. I would go so far as to say that this is the sort of image that appears in propaganda articles. There is no way that this sort of thing should appear on Wikipedia.

7. You talk about the Abu-Graib images and the fact that they were included. Have you noticed that they are actually blurred out in certain areas? This is certainly some degree of censorship.

I am not happy about your deliberate reinstatement of this image, only because I care about the quality of articles appearing on Wikipedia and you are bringing the quality down considerably. I will be happy if you include a picture of the dead buddist-monk children which is not so gory.

This subject is so horrible that I don't want to identify myself and will remain anonymous. But I regard it as quite important to the credibility of Wikipedia that this terrible picture is removed or replaced by something more acceptable.

89.240.58.90 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before and will say it again, while everyone's opinion is appreciated on Wikipedia, this is all simply what you belive Wikipidia should contain. I've already quoted official policy and given various other examples to back up my arguments, so why don't you show me where it says

1. a picture can induce bias into an article
2. having lived in Sri Lanka disqualifies me from writing in an objective fashion
3. why this picture is labeled as "propoganda" etc.

And why do you think the Abu Ghraib pictures are blurred out? Do you think it was done for Wikipedia? The answer is no. The pictures were release to the public in that fashion and that is the best one we have. And you says

While that may be so, you should let the written facts stand for themselves.

which is completely against normally accepted critera. Pictures are displayed, and the readers can take want out of it because what is written can always be POV.

The gory part of your argument is really inconsequential because Wikipedia prides itself in not been censored in any form.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a very important question

I have noticed that on Wikipedia on most other articles for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom) the claims made by the terrorist groups (or groups identified as terrorists by the international community) aren't represented, at ALL! So why are the LTTE claims constantly pushed through in these articles? This is not a political propaganda machine nor is it a discussion forum for opinion. In the above article I cited, and many more like it, the claims of the US government are pretty much treated as fact. If so why is it that when the Sri Lankan government statements are shown, the counter-claim by the terrorist group LTTE always appears next to it? I'm not saying that the SLGov claims should be treated as fact, what I am saying is there is no place on an encyclopedia for terrorist claims. SO either change the US related articles to include claims by AL-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Hammas, Taliban etc etc, or get rid of the LTTE claims... its about consistency people!!!! Pubuman 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Pubuman says. It just doesn't look normal at all.124.43.224.150 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LTTE air operation

In light of new developments, we should create an article on the Air Tigers (or Tamileelam Air Force??) An expert's contribution is needed. Here is a source: http://www.ipcs.org/whatsNewArticle1.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1733&status=article&mod=b

Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gory Image

The image with child monks is rather gory. I would suggest it being replaced/removed since this article is not about that specific battle. --Voidvector 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We've already tried, but some editors don't agree (see above). :-( Krankman 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As always, can anyone actually show me a Wikipedia policy which would suggest images like this be removed, apart from merely stating your own personal feelings? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 13:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:IUP, quote: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article.". --Voidvector 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, this image was uploaded for use in the article Terrorist attacks by the LTTE and was added here later. But instead of looking at one line in Wikipolicy which anyone can edit, and which I can counter with other policies like WP:NOT#CENSOR which contradict each other in some ways, you're better off looking actual community discussions on these issues like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images, especially Prop C and the one by General Pattern.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not constitute censorship when 1) the event is described in words, 2) there is a more detailed article on the atrocity, 3) the picture is shown in the more detailed article.

What motivated me to discuss here is that when I was reading the article, I was so gross out that I just closed the page and never finished reading the article. Given this article is about the war in general, I see no point in including such a graphical image other than to distract the reader. It is akin to posting the most gruesome images of Holocost, Rape of Nanjing, and Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the World War II article.

I think I have presented my point the best I can. Feel free to do whatever you feel like. --Voidvector 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> "It does not constitute censorship when 1) the event is described in words, 2) there is a more detailed article on the atrocity, 3) the picture is shown in the more detailed article."

All I can say is you need to go through Wikipedia articles and policy a little more. From the rest of your arguments I can see you need to acquire a deeper understanding of the conflict. It isn't only about head on warfare. There are a lot more aspects to this conflict, such as (as is relevant to this picture) civilian massacres, (as is relevant to the Maligawa bombing picture) suicide bombing etc. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have "deeper understanding", tell me what element of this picture makes it so special that we are required to present it? --Voidvector 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY! What is the point of this? So if one finds a less gory image that enhances the quality of the article more then this one, that would be acceptable, right? Those editors are morons. This has NOTHING to do with censorship. It's about making a widely available article for all to read, which is not the case when you see a kid's brains all over the ground. It's editors like these that are ruining wikipedia.

Image:Buddhist Monks

There has been quite a lot of controversy over the image captioned as "Bodies of young Buddhist monks who were massacred by the LTTE in Aranthalawa, Sri Lanka", which portrays several monks who have been murdered, one of whom has been shot in the head, displaying the child's brains.

I'm not particularly disturbed by the picture, movie-based cultural de-sensitisation is a hell of a thing, but I can see why some would find it offensive, however...

How is the picture relevant in anyway to the text?, there's no mention to this massacre in it's attached text and there's no real link or corrolation...Snowolfd4 here raised raised the idea behind a picture from the Vietnam War (a VERY famous picture by the war), however, in the Vietnam War article, that picture is put into context under the use of chemical agents and weaponry on civilians.

If there's no objections within the next 24 hours or so I'll remove the image because it is irrelevant to the article.

--Sharz 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, as I was just discussing this before. --Voidvector 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Krankman 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. The contention that this is somehow a famous picture is original research. It does not add anything to the article (in fact detracts from it). Gerryfarm 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Conditional support:Do what User:Khoikoi suggested, make a linjk to the picture RaveenS 20:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Watchdogb 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't find User:Khoikoi's suggestion, can you please outline it and it's reasoning. --Sharz 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Image per Consensus Please explain this linking idea. --Sharz 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

See sections pictures and NPOV RaveenS 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this picture relevant? Did you not read the text? how many times is it mentioned that the LTTE have carried out massacres? PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION ABOVE. Like I said, Do we include a picture for each massacre or one picture to detail them all?

And come on. You answer the question your self

that picture is put into context under the use of chemical agents and weaponry on civilians.

What more do I have to say? This picture is put into context under the massacres of civilians.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture has become an unessary distraction to an encylopedic article, when one neutral editor after another says remove it or put it aside per compromise or if not take it to mediation. Do you think it is worth while keeping it in here. Beacuse people come to wikipedia to read a well done encyclopedic article. Anyway I suggest that we take it to mediation per Khois suggestionRaveenS 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the text in the Vietnam article is very direct to the specific pictures impact upon the United States Public opinion of the war. There's a very direct connection between the article and the picture. However, with this image of a shot child, there's no real link, only that civilians were massacred...and there's a picture of a civilian, whom has been massacred, whereas our example from the Vietnam article has the picture mention specifically. I hope you understand what I'm we're trying to communicate to you, that the picture is not very specific at all to the article.

"the text in the Vietnam article is very direct to the specific pictures impact upon the United States Public opinion" - false, the article doesn't even mention the picture

"There's a very direct connection between the article and the picture." - And you're saying this pic is not connected to the war?

"However, with this image of a shot child, there's no real link" - Another blatant lie

"whereas our example from the Vietnam article has the picture mention specifically." - further lies

"the picture is not very specific at all to the article" - shall I say it? more lies, when did you think this massacre occurred, and who carried it out?

unless you come up with a real reason to remove this image, I will keep adding it back. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 07:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First up, saying false in big bold letters doesn't actually make it true.

"Thus, the public was shocked and confused when Westmoreland's predictions were trumped by Tet.[64]The American media, which had been largely supportive of U.S. efforts, rounded on the Johnson administration, for what had become an increasing credibility gap. Despite its military failure, the Tet Offensive became a political victory and ended the career of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who declined to run for re-election. Johnson's approval rating slumped from 48% to 36%.[65] As James Witz noted, Tet "contradicted the claims of progress ... made by the Johnson administration and the..."

The section of the article is is pretty much all about the loss of support by the American public leading into the Vietnamisation period of the war under Nixon, including the Media reporting on the conflict that affected the American public, in the article two images are both captioned in CONTEXT about their affect in process to the conflict.

But this is all very much besides the point, discussion and reaching consensus amongst users has most obviously failed due to one User being unmoveable in opinion and hence, other action should be taken. --Sharz 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what all the comparing with the Vietnam picture is about: We are talking about the goriness of the foto of the massacre, and the pic from Vietnam is not gory at all, just sad.

Another thing: putting all my understanding of and sympathy for the Sinhalese point of view aside, I have to say this: Snowolf, by shouting and using words like "lies" in a discussion where everybody has been very polite and modest so far (and that by the way is supposedly not about politics but about one single picture and its appropriateness for a WP article), you are acting against Wikipedia netiquette and are yourself weakening your own position as a credible contributor to this and other articles. Keep that in mind, please. Krankman 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I am trying to take the issue to mediation now.

I find it pretty amusing when people start quoting Wiki policies ahead of things that are pretty much assumed to be wrong under any circumstances. Because I really don't where randomly making up things to support your position is okay. Just a reminder that while this may be Wikipedia, we really do live in the real world.

And by all means take it to mediation. An unbiased editor could help sort this out most of these arguments and save a us a lot of time. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should save ourselves all the discussion and take it to mediation. That should be starting point to untangle many of the still pending unresolved conflicts in other Sri Lankan related articles (thankfully not many). As khoi pointed out, only mediation will resolve these thingsTaprobanus 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

The request has been made. May the following users please visit the page and agree to have the thing mediated:

• Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs)
• Voidvector (talk · contribs)
• Sharz (talk · contribs)
• Watchdogb (talk · contribs)
• RaveenS (talk · contribs)
• Lahiru_k (talk · contribs)
• The freddinator (talk · contribs)

That is the list of "users involved" I put there. If I have forgot someone, I suppose they can still join in. Thanks, Krankman 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I support

I support meditation for this article. Politics rule 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has already begun, and if you would like, you can join the discussion here. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew. Politics rule 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)