Talk:Sri Lankan civil war/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Death Toll in Infobox

@Obi2canibe: @Oz346: The following WP:VD, with no citations, 1006891705 and reintroduced by Obi2canibe in 1009458455 has been reverted. As per obi2canibe's statement during WP:DRN: "If there were obvious errors which were re-introduced as a result of me enforcing WP:BRD Jayingeneva is welcome to correct them but he should not change the thrust of the article vis-à-vis the death toll until the dispute is resolved."

As long as the official UN estimate remains, you are welcome to add a second estimate clearly indicating the source. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not a final official UN estimate. That is an old estimate from may 2009. The UN NEVER repeated that figure in ANY of their subsequent publications after the UN leaks of much higher death tolls for the final phase of the war emerged post May 2009. I don't know why Sinhalese like you are so fixated on reducing the final death toll. The massacre happened, it got covered up and there never will be justice. You have nothing to worry aboutOz346 (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: Since you claim, "That is not a final official UN estimate", please state the final official UN estimate with citations. Off-Topic, what would you consider to be justice? --Jayingeneva (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The point has been repeated to you ad nauseam by others. The UN reports post May 2009 all have figures ranging from 40,000 to 75,000 civilians dead in 2009 alone. Add that to the 70,000 dead figure from pre 2008, and you get least 110,000. And that's not even taking the combatants deaths into account. It is simple maths. Don't act. Justice is what the rule of law says. Murderers and rapists should be held to account. Like what basic rights you enjoy in your host country.Oz346 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: You claim, "The UN reports post May 2009 all have figures ranging from 40,000 to 75,000 civilians dead in 2009 alone." As you already know from the WP:DRN, that is false. The UN Panel report stated, "A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". It appears your earlier assertion, "That is not a final official UN estimate", can not be supported with citations. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: It's a pity that after all the time that was spent on WP:DRN you are resurecting the myth that only 80,000 people were killed, using outdated and comprehensively debunked sources. I will be reverting your edit. Respect WP:BRD.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: In edit 1022318321 you did the following:

• You introduced 100,000 to 276,000 without supporting sources. This was originally introduced without supporting sources by IP address 84.209.141.236. Are you willing and able to explain, with sources, how you arrive at 276,000?
• You removed March 2021 BBC citation that supported the original text that stated 80,000 to 100,000.
• You removed February 2021 Al Jazeera citation provided by another editor. Are you willing to explain why you removed it?
• You introduced claims without a citation that is directly contradicted by the citation that you removed.

Your continued WP:EW is erasing WP:RS information from Wikipedia rather than collaborating by providing information with WP:RS. The WP:DRN was quite clear. Please provide citations/sources to support your WP:POV. Please stop deleting citations from WP:RS. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Jayingeneva the consensus on WP:DRN was quite clear, and you are ignoring it to whitewash the scale of the massacre committed by the Sri Lankan Armed forces .

There is no one 'official UN estimate' as you claim, and you are wilfully ignoring all the other figures which clearly contradict your outdated 100,000 figure.

Wikipedia is not a Sri Lankan government propaganda site. I sense that your stubborn refusal to be reasonable is going to lead to another dispute resolution board discussion, which will waste time for all involved.Oz346 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: You have in the past provided citations, so I will wait and see if you can provide citations to support your edit 1022832126. Didn't you breach the WP:DRN process immediately after it was completed and got told to do a self revert by the mediator? --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: I did not introduce the content you are attributing to me. They were added by some other editor(s). I was merely reverting to the last stable revision as per WP:BRD. It is you going against the agreement reached at the WP:DRN by inserting that only 80,000 were killed. Going forward, the casualties referred to throughout the article need to reflect what was agreed at WP:DRN. And they need to be consistent - we can't have contradicting figures in different parts of the articles.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: WP:DRN concluded with the inclusion of the 80,000 to 100,000 UN estimate in May 2009. You were mostly absent during the WP:DRN, perhaps you should re-read it! Thank you for voluntarily committing to, "Going forward, the casualties referred to throughout the article need to reflect what was agreed at WP:DRN." --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: I'm afraid you're twisting the outcome of WP:DRN to suit your agenda - to push the myth that only 80,000 people died in whole war. The outcome of WP:DRN is stated in the intro - it gives the full picture, including the debunking of the 80,000 myth by two UN reports. Your addition to the infobox deliberately only chose to include the 80,000 myth, without mentioning its rebuke by two UN reports, or any of the other estimates which give higher casualty figures.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Speaking of agendas, what's yours? As hard as you tried to stop it, the WP:DRN concluded with the inclusion of the 80,000 to 100,000 UN estimate in May 2009 because it is supported by WP:RS. Just accept it, move on and find WP:RS that support the mysterious numbers you put in the Infobox. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote on 2 May 2021 when I started the Infobox topic because you don't seem to have comprehended it. I stated, "As long as the official UN estimate remains, you are welcome to add a second estimate clearly indicating the source." --Jayingeneva (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: @Oz346: Can you both please read WP:Verifiability? In particular, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." In your edits 1022318321 and 1022832126 you have demonstrated that you are happy to break the Wikipedia rules with impunity. Why do you think you are not accountable for your actions? --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: At the DRN both Oz346 and myself provided numerous reliable sources which provided higher casualties than your 80,000 figure and also debunked the outdated and flawed 80,000 figure. The moderator has included some of these in the changes that were added to the lede following the closure of the DRN. Your attempt to add only the 80,000 figure in the infobox, excluding all other reliably sourced figures, and pass it off as the final, official death toll shows a clear agenda on your part.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Why haven't you included these WP:RS to support edits 1022318321 and 1022832126 as required by WP:Verifiability? Could it be because there is no WP:RS to support your edits?

Do you realise WP:CIR? I wrote on 2 May 2021, when I started the Infobox topic, "As long as the official UN estimate remains, you are welcome to add a second estimate clearly indicating the source."

You wrote on 7 June 2021, "Your attempt to add only the 80,000 figure in the infobox, excluding all other reliably sourced figures, and pass it off as the final, official death toll shows a clear agenda on your part"

It seems like you are not comprehending what you are replying to. The WP:DRN concluded with the inclusion of the 80,000 to 100,000 UN estimate. In another Article you tried multiple times to delete a quote from a UN report. You keep referring to agendas, what's yours? --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@84.209.141.236: Your edit 1026680246 with a source does not support your original edit 1006891705. Your source states 54,053 casualties. Not the 276,000 casualties that you claimed in your edit. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@2a05:9cc4:7e:a37e::29a0:d65: Your edit 1027985179 has summary: "The UN have claimed more than 40,000 died during the final stages of Eelam War IV. Even few sources have claimed that 179 000 died." That's incorrect, the UN Panel Report states, "A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths." and "Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage.".

Sequence of events:

• On 23rd Dec 2019, Wakari07 (talk · contribs) ensured the text corresponded with the citation that quoted the official UN estimate. i.e. "80,000-100,000"

• On the 5th Feb 2021, I foolishly started a discussion on the Talk Page because the body of the article contained various casualty estimates without citations. I asked, "Why are the references to the death toll contradictory on this page? The UN estimates 80,000 to 100,000 casualties due to the war.".

• Suddenly, on 15th Feb 2021, User:84.209.141.236 made edit 1006891705 with no WP:RS, changing the 80,000-100,000 to 100,000-276,000.

• On 28th Feb 2021, User:Obi2canibe made edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS back to 100,000-276,000.

• On 9th May 2021, User:Obi2canibe made edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS back to 100,000-276,000.

• On 12th May 2021, User:Oz346 made edit 1022832126 with no WP:RS back to 100,000-276,000.

• Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, User:84.209.141.236 made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: Your edits 1029854592, 1029854767, 1029854885, 1029856778, 1029856872, 1029864181 and 1029878506 seem like a series of unnecessary edits. Please note your edit 1029854592 directly contravenes the WP:DRN which concluded that the use of the term "initial" for the UN estimate is incorrect. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: Your edit 1029928933 moved text around incongruently and is inconsistent with your summary, "The 20 May 2009 UN estimate is NOT the sole definitive figure as the DRM concluded. It should not be put as the top figure. The infobox needs to reflect the ambiguity regarding the final death toll, hence why various estimates, and at least 100,000 is put first". During WP:DRN Oz346 emphasised heavily that the UN estimate was made in May 2009. Stick to chronological order. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Your edit 1031954884 demonstrates the incorrect use of citations:

• re: "1983-2009: At least 100,000 killed"

• Citation https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210127-un-rights-chief-seeks-sanctions-against-sri-lanka-generals-1 states "the 37-year separatist war" and does not support your text.
• Citation https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/02/01/open-wounds-and-mounting-dangers/blocking-accountability-grave-abuses-sri-lanka states "The war is believed to have cost over 100,000 lives" but, ironically, the citation in the HRW document states "“Up to 100,000 killed in Sri Lanka's civil war: UN,” AFP, May 20, 2009"!

• re: "1983-2006: 70,000 killed"

• Citation https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/sri-lanka-failure-peace-process states "... in which as many as 70,000 died" and does not support your text.
• Citation https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/sri-lankan-talks-stop-a9-highway published in 2006 states "Sri Lanka has endured 20 years of ethnic conflict that has left an estimated 70,000 people dead and millions displaced" and does not support your text.

• re: "2008-2009: 40,000 civilians killed (UN, 2011)"

• Citation https://www.refworld.org/docid/4db7b23e2.html states "The United Nations Country Team is one source of information; in a document that was never released publicly, it estimated a total figure of 7,721 killed and 18,479 injured from August 2008 up to 13 May 2009" and "a number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" appears to refer to the period January 2009 to May 2009. Again, does not support your text.
• Citation https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/sri-lanka-marks-10-years-civil-wars-end states "Sri Lankan forces have been accused of killing about 40,000 Tamil civilians in the final months of the war" and does not attribute the estimate to the UN. Again, does not support your text.
• Citation http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/28/sri-lanka-startscountingthecivilwardead.html states "According to a U.N. report, as many as 40,000 Tamil civilians may have died in the last few months of the fighting" does not support your text.

• re: "unaccounted"

• My understanding is that unaccounted estimates are based on Sri Lankan government statistics and not independent sources, so they need to be attributed to the Sri Lankan government.

I'll await your corrections to your text and citations. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: Now you are just being vexatious.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Your apathy regarding accuracy in your response and previous edits like 1009458455 & 1022318321 is incongruous with building encyclopaedic content. Please be more diligent and seek assistance if you need help. --Jayingeneva (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Belligerents

The infobox only lists Sri Lanka, India and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam when there were many other factions on both sides fighting in this war (the ENDLF, EPDP, EPRLF, EROS, JVP, PLOTE, TELO, TMVP, ect.). Charles Essie (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Observation on the page

I have just returned from Sri Lanka and, as part of this, read the excellent book "Elephant Complex: Travels in Sri Lanka" by John Gimlette. John is an English journalist who discusses the war in some depth and aims to understand both sides. As discussed by John, this is a complex subject, and while I will not presume to review the Wikipedia article in detail or edit the content, I think that the article is reasonably balanced and detailed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.239.105 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The infobox "support" section needs many countries to be removed

The sources used to claim that certain countries supported each side are extremely flimsy and out of context. The LTTE simply using a port in Cambodia to smuggle arms or buying Chinese-made weapons through third-party smugglers is claimed claimed as the states are supporting the LTTE. This is WP:OR as the content of the sources do not claim a direct support to either side. It appears these countries have been added for the sole reason to inflating the infobox. I believe that outside of India other countries should not be considered relevant and should be reverted to the original state before it was bloated with the flags of all countries most of whom were simply territories used to smuggle weapons or made weapons that were bought through the black market. The black market is not even a real actor to be included in this. -UtoD 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

regarding the black market sales, I agree that it's tenuous to put the official country flags. Those flags could be removed, and maybe a qualification given that it was through the black market of said countries (which is not the same as state sanctioned sales) Oz346 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Even state-sanctioned sales would be irrelevant to be added to an info box which is why the "support" section is recommended to be removed from the conflict infoboxes per the decision a few months ago. This is why the conflict inforbox page states "The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated" and the supported by section has been removed from almost all major conflicts for example the Iran-Iraq conflict, Afghan Soviet War etc while newer conflicts such as the invasion of Ukraine only show Belarus as supporting due to it being used to launch attacks against Ukraine while countries that provide free-weapons and billions of aid to Ukraine is not mentioned but a note being added to the support page. The Sri Lankan infobox has simply missed attention and should be removed per infobox policy. A few other conflict pages may still have support sections that needs to be removed as well. -UtoD 19:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

But this was not a simple 'support' section, the word support was not even mentioned. It just mentioned arms supplies and training? Oz346 (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently infoboxes getting filled up with every country that sold weapons or issued statements etc to a side being shown in the infobox which removes a lot of nuances and context was a issue. A heading in the article body on "Foreign involvement" or some heading like that would be the most appropriate. - UtoD 07:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Eelam War II into Sri Lankan Civil War. 95% of the content in Eelam War II is found in the Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Eelam_War_II_(1990–1995) section of Sri Lankan Civil War, hence as is the content is duplicated. Cossde (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For example, the World War II article does not prevent separate specific articles for specific battles or phases of the war Oz346 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Feel we need separate specific articles for specific battles or phases of the war.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Reply: Agreed on the need to keep a separate article on each phases of the war. However, this article is mear identical to the content on this page. Hence this article needs to be expanded or merged. Cossde (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• We can expand the Eelam War II article there are plenty of sources for the various battles which took in that phase.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  How do you propose we do that? Cossde (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Eelam War I into Sri Lankan Civil War. Much of the content in Eelam War I is found in the Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Eelam_War_I_(1983–1987) section of Sri Lankan Civil War, hence as is the content is duplicated. Cossde (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For example, the World War II article does not prevent separate specific articles for specific battles or phases of the war. Oz346 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Feel we need separate specific articles for specific battles or phases of the war.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Reply: Agreed on the need to keep a separate article on each phases of the war. However, this article is mear identical to the content on this page. Hence this article needs to be expanded or merged. Cossde (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• We can expand the Eelam War I article there are plenty of sources for the various battles which took in that phase.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  How do you propose we do that? Cossde (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Militant support for LTTE

@Oz346 , I've copied all the references and the militant groups from the article Affiliates to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, if they're not reliable then remove them from there as well. I was just copy pasting from there. Anyways thanks for your contributions M Waleed (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fiat Lux - Communicating science to a global audience

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 April 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tiarakw (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tiarakw (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding other supporting countries to the inbox

@M Waleed: and @Lax03333: please read the following discussion, as per updated Wikipedia inbox policies, we do not add all supporting countries to the infobox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War/Archive_6#The_infobox_%22support%22_section_needs_many_countries_to_be_removed

Oz346 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pakistani and Indian troops were actively involved in combat, 20 PAF pilots led a bombing campaign against LTTE in 2008 that's why I think it needs to be placed as a direct combatant. M Waleed (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely, Though I think we should place Pakistan under Military Support as to the very top alongside India and Sri Lanka. It wasn't official Pakistani policy they were at war with the LTTE and they weren't officially at war with the LTTE, hence why I would put it under Military Support which includes Israel, Ukraine and the UK which also led controversial bombing campaigns against the LTTE. I do agree with you though Lax03333 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Military support suggest arms and training going to the LTTE, not the reverse. Oz346 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

2 combat tacticians and explosive trainings were given to LTTE by MILF as the Al Jazeera source mentioned M Waleed (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The countries listed should be listed under the right categories of their involvement in the defeat of the LTTE, of which they clearly are - Military Support and Arms Suppliers. I find it absurd that historical fact can not be mentioned despite it being common knowledge, there should be no need to narrate a conflict with misconceptions of involvement of countries. There are also reliable references for users to research and explore. The countries listed under Military Support played a huge and pivotal role in the defeat of the LTTE hence they should be listed. Those countries listed had direct involvement and often had a presence in Sri Lanka - UK,Pakistan,Israel and Ukraine etc. These countries help to the military defeat of the LTTE has been acknowledged by Sri Lanka.

In response to the previous comment of the other user, he is correct hence why there is no mention of the countries which had been the host of black market sales to the LTTE as it does not represent the official governments stance on the conflict. Hence why it is simply listed as Black Market. On the contrary, Arms supplies to Sri Lanka and Military Support to Sri Lanka was sanctioned by the Official Goverments each country, many having diplomatic, military and political effects in the conflict and wider.

It would be naive to simply mention India and Sri Lankas involvement in the war without mentioning Pakistans, Israels, Chinas and the UKs involvement which had really major impact of the course of the war.

If none of these countries are mentioned it would not allow people to futher research the involvement of other nations in this conflict thus ignorning a large impacting factor of the war. Users should be free to view the extent of the geopoltics in this conflict then being fed a closed narrative of the war. Lax03333 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the policy of wikipedia for conflict infoboxes:

Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

//Consensus to deprecate. With the strength of argument on both sides being equal we assess consensus by considering the level of support among the community, and in this circumstance there is a clear majority of editors in favor of the proposal.

However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes, with even some supporters of this proposal noting that in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted.

However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article.//

If it is to be included then definitely, we would need solid reliable sources. @M Waleed: your last source was neither reliable, nor did it say what you referenced. Oz346 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It said that explosive trainings and 2 combat tacticians were sent ,for MILF M Waleed (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

that not military support for or going to the LTTE , that's the reverse. If true, the LTTE providing support to MILF. It does not have a place in this info box. Oz346 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay but did Libya provide support for LTTE, I couldn't find any suitable reference but in the List of proxy wars , if we see Sri Lankan civil war, Libya is listed as a beligrent on the side of LTTE, could you help in finding a suitable reference M Waleed (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)