Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict

message: Hi Please improve this section, I know there are many involvement by India, specially RAW in training and arming the LTTE. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Involvement Section 

message: I removed the links to Black July and Tamil diaspora as Black July is covered in the Riots and pogroms article, and I don't think Tamil Diaspora really needs to be included in the article because its really a secondary issue. I think we should keep the template as short as possible and not clutter it with too many links. Any opinions on that? --snowolfD4(  talk /  @ ) 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed RaveenS 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agreed at that time, Ihave changed my view with respect to Black July. No Black July no civil war, RAW and Indian would'nt have been able to train thousands of youth to create this mess. So it is an imporatnt event that needs to be highlightedRaveenS 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: RAW and Indians(mainly tamil nadu government) were training/funding tamil militants long before 1983 riots.its wrong to say everything started with the July riots.But it certainly ignited Indian angerIwazaki  会話。討論 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt say Indians were not training before that but they wouldnt have had the thousands and thousands wasted life youth who joined the various groups as easy pray. If no Black July, just few rabble rousers woukd have been their target. Sri Lankan government made it easy for foreigners to recruit their own people by its action (or inaction) during the riots User:RaveenS18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black July and Dispora 

message: Why isn't Karuna on the list of "Major Figures"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The freddinator (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freddinator he is already listed as Karuna Amman under main figures. --snowolfD4(  talk /  @ ) 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karuna 

message: We like the size it was, it fits all the articles well, i dont want it any bigger. Thanks for discussing it Taprobanus 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war on the size

message: The Sri Lankan national flag has been there on this template from the day it was created months ago, I need not reiterate the important roll the template has played to stop conflicts between the two parties, somehow the conflict found it's way to the template that was created to stop conflicts. This is an attempt to establish consensus to have the national flag or not to have it. 
Please sign below without commenting whether you like to have the flag or not.NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how did you decide that the LTTE flag was the symbol of the "other" side?  If you cant explain/demonstrate that, I request that you retract your vote and abstain from voting.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarvagnya, please stop belittling other users and demanding them to retract their vote just because it may be contrary to yours. On another debate, you were trying to discredit the Encyclopedia Britanicca as an unreliable source just because it didn't suite your POV. Wiki Raja 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, Sarvagnya may confuse confusing two issues: whether the symbols of both sides should be included in a conflict template, and who those sides are. As to the latter, I have no special knowledge and would abstain from such a poll. However, this poll is about whether to have one or two symbols.  I appreciate that in the real world, people are suffering and dying in this conflict and this can lead to appropriate emotional responses. But wikipedia doesn't have the charter or ability to affect the conflict, only to document it. I wish all Sri Lankans well and that y'all will stop killing each other ... but that will not be accomplished by any resolution of this poll.  rewinn 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reflection, I would prefer Arvind's suggestion of developing a completely neutral symbol, e.g. a small map of Sri Lanka. Can this be added to the poll/discussion? What would be a policy against it? It seems difficult to resolve the flag issue to the satisfaction of all. rewinn 04:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You are saying that Sebas_raj create his account for the sole purpose of voting on this straw poll? See his edit history before making such claims. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sebas_raj has no significant editing history, has only been active for two days.  One of which is to vote here.  That would still be very suspicious.  Sinhala freedom 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed User:Vashira, User:Ranjith Soysa and User:Thevaraj even before you raise this issue because they are seems to be obvious WP:SPAs. If you suspect that User:Sebas_raj as a SOCK of someone else, then you know where to go! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is a meaningless poll that has no binding validity let alone measure of consensus.  I am not wasting my time on this one.  Sinhala freedom 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So interested in saying so, eh? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 05:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that there is no "both".  There are "several" parties to the conflict - all of them Sri Lankan(whether they like it or not) and only one flag(apart from the Indian and Norwegian flags, of course) that anybody other than the parties themselves recognise.  No matter how much the LTTE delude themselves, they're little more than outlawed bandits holed out in a jungle.  And they're just another of the several parties in the conflict.  And yes, they're Sri Lankan too.  Sarvagnya 10:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the LTTE are not proscribed in Sri Lanka. Secondly there are no "several" parties to the conflict other than the GOSL and the LTTE. As for the minor Tamil parties, they work as paramilitries with the SLA. Yes, the Norwegians are a third party acting as facilitators. However, I do not know where you get the idea that India is directly involved, other than their involvement during the late 1980s. This is about the conflict in Sri Lanka between two major warring parties and not about how nice it would be if everyone were Sri Lankan. Wiki Raja 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  You can't force others to accept or determine their nationality. Who are you? The whole conflict started whether it is led by the LTTE or other Tamil rebel groups over their nationality which might have associated with other components of the ethnic conflicts all over the world. If you read others comments above you will better understand the total conflict instead of your regular POV pushing in Sri Lanka conflict.Nayarthevan 09:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So were the Eritrean flag, E. Timor flag, and Kosovo flags. They were not recognized internationally before and during the civil wars. Don't forget about the Second_Sudanese_Civil_War where the Sudan flag is in the UN, while the flag from the other party is not recognized. Regardless, both flags are presented on that template. Also, the civil wars of Eritrea/Ethiopia, E.Timor/Indonesia, Kosovo/Serbia were all internal wars. Whereas in the case of the U.S. fight against al-queda it is an external war, just like in WWII with the Japanese and the Germans. Furthermore, there is another Sri Lanka conflict template which shows both flags here. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. Wiki Raja 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of its "official" status, it does seem to be representative of the organization as any standard would be. That is the function of its inclusion is it not? --Merhawie 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree. We should take this to Mediation. Wiki Raja 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should. Æetlr Creejl 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting! If this might resolve the issue to no-one's dissatisfaction, why not use it? (I have taken the liberty of moving this thread into its own subsection so that it stands out more).  rewinn 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Æetlr Creejl 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags should(n't) be there? 

message: #NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People who think National Flag should be there

message: #Taprobanus 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People who think National Flag should not be there

message: #Taprobanus 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how did you decide that the LTTE flag was the symbol of the "other" side?  If you cant explain/demonstrate that, I request that you retract your vote and abstain from voting.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 09:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarvagnya, please stop belittling other users and demanding them to retract their vote just because it may be contrary to yours. On another debate, you were trying to discredit the Encyclopedia Britanicca as an unreliable source just because it didn't suite your POV. Wiki Raja 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, Sarvagnya may confuse confusing two issues: whether the symbols of both sides should be included in a conflict template, and who those sides are. As to the latter, I have no special knowledge and would abstain from such a poll. However, this poll is about whether to have one or two symbols.  I appreciate that in the real world, people are suffering and dying in this conflict and this can lead to appropriate emotional responses. But wikipedia doesn't have the charter or ability to affect the conflict, only to document it. I wish all Sri Lankans well and that y'all will stop killing each other ... but that will not be accomplished by any resolution of this poll.  rewinn 20:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon reflection, I would prefer Arvind's suggestion of developing a completely neutral symbol, e.g. a small map of Sri Lanka. Can this be added to the poll/discussion? What would be a policy against it? It seems difficult to resolve the flag issue to the satisfaction of all. rewinn 04:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People who think National Flag and LTTE flags should be there

message: #I was contacted via e-mail about this vote and I have no idea why, having no recollection of editing any articles even vaguely related to this subject. Users please read up on our canvassing policy. Thanks. Katr67 19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People who have no opinion

message: ----
Users Vashira, Sebas_raj and Thevaraj have no significant editing history and appear to be created or used for the purpose of voting for the flag (dare I say voting socks) on the template.  Sinhala freedom 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are saying that Sebas_raj create his account for the sole purpose of voting on this straw poll? See his edit history before making such claims. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sebas_raj has no significant editing history, has only been active for two days.  One of which is to vote here.  That would still be very suspicious.  Sinhala freedom 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed User:Vashira, User:Ranjith Soysa and User:Thevaraj even before you raise this issue because they are seems to be obvious WP:SPAs. If you suspect that User:Sebas_raj as a SOCK of someone else, then you know where to go! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is a meaningless poll that has no binding validity let alone measure of consensus.  I am not wasting my time on this one.  Sinhala freedom 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So interested in saying so, eh? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 05:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that there is no "both".  There are "several" parties to the conflict - all of them Sri Lankan(whether they like it or not) and only one flag(apart from the Indian and Norwegian flags, of course) that anybody other than the parties themselves recognise.  No matter how much the LTTE delude themselves, they're little more than outlawed bandits holed out in a jungle.  And they're just another of the several parties in the conflict.  And yes, they're Sri Lankan too.  Sarvagnya 10:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the LTTE are not proscribed in Sri Lanka. Secondly there are no "several" parties to the conflict other than the GOSL and the LTTE. As for the minor Tamil parties, they work as paramilitries with the SLA. Yes, the Norwegians are a third party acting as facilitators. However, I do not know where you get the idea that India is directly involved, other than their involvement during the late 1980s. This is about the conflict in Sri Lanka between two major warring parties and not about how nice it would be if everyone were Sri Lankan. Wiki Raja 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  You can't force others to accept or determine their nationality. Who are you? The whole conflict started whether it is led by the LTTE or other Tamil rebel groups over their nationality which might have associated with other components of the ethnic conflicts all over the world. If you read others comments above you will better understand the total conflict instead of your regular POV pushing in Sri Lanka conflict.Nayarthevan 09:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So were the Eritrean flag, E. Timor flag, and Kosovo flags. They were not recognized internationally before and during the civil wars. Don't forget about the Second_Sudanese_Civil_War where the Sudan flag is in the UN, while the flag from the other party is not recognized. Regardless, both flags are presented on that template. Also, the civil wars of Eritrea/Ethiopia, E.Timor/Indonesia, Kosovo/Serbia were all internal wars. Whereas in the case of the U.S. fight against al-queda it is an external war, just like in WWII with the Japanese and the Germans. Furthermore, there is another Sri Lanka conflict template which shows both flags here. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox. Wiki Raja 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of its "official" status, it does seem to be representative of the organization as any standard would be. That is the function of its inclusion is it not? --Merhawie 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree. We should take this to Mediation. Wiki Raja 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should. Æetlr Creejl 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: additional discussion

message: I don't have strong views either way on the flag, but wince it seems quite unlikely that there's going to be any consensus on this vote, how about looking for other alternatives?  It seems to me that a map of Sri Lanka, perhaps with the Northeast in a different colour, will both provide the recognition that this is a Sri Lankan issue, and also convey something of a sense of the conflict, especially since the idea of the "traditional homelands" has been a pretty significant bit of the conflict.  One could use :Image:Location Tamil Eelam territorial claim.png, :Image:North Eastern province Tamil Eelam.png, or :Image:Sri Lanka North Eastern Province locator map.svg, or tweak any of them to make a custom map. I imagine one could also do interesting things with :Image:Sri Lanka Native Tamil.svg.  -- Arvind 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! If this might resolve the issue to no-one's dissatisfaction, why not use it? (I have taken the liberty of moving this thread into its own subsection so that it stands out more).  rewinn 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Æetlr Creejl 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: alternatives to flag(s)

message: To admin: It is respectfully requested to have an administrator place both the Tamil Eelam and Sri Lankan flags on the Sri Lankan conflict template and keep it edit protected. Thank you. Wiki Raja 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think the template should be edit protected even if we include both the flags, and it is not something we should do without discussing with all the concerned editors. 
Note to admin: if you think that consensus has been reach please include both the flags, but the rest of the contents may change as the conflict evolves, my personal opinion is it is not required to edit protect the template due to this reason. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 06:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To avoid edit warring it would be necessary to have an edit protection on the template. Wiki Raja 06:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit warring is part of wiki life, edit protecting every single item people are edit warring is not the solution for it. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you encouraging edit warring on Wikipedia? Wiki Raja 07:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a very unwise conclusion, what I meant is edit war is inevitable. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why edit protection is necessary for certain templates that have unusually high edit warring. Wiki Raja 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: admin request

message: Given the recurrent edit-warring, I've reprotected the page in response to a request at WP:RFPP for another 4 days to allow time to talk it over further and pursue dispute resolution instead of edit-warring. MastCell Talk 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-protected 

message: Guys take a look at this. Use of flags. Especially This is what i explianed in this editTaprobanus 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this holy war should be called off. Everybody please let's follow wiki policies and guidelines and move on ? can we. Thanks Nick Taprobanus 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's the policy, we all have to agree with it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do. Æetlr Creejl 03:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy Violation in using Flags

message: I've protected The Wrong Version of this page until there's some consensus here.  Since edit warring began immediately following the last protection, it looks like there's more to discuss here.  --Haemo 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haemo, I think we seem to have consensus not to have any flags based on Wiki rules as above. We do have to follow wiki guidelines. Thanks Taprobanus 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: It is already shown that there is a winning majority by those who want both flags to be shown. Also, be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked. Please read WP:TWINKLE. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Winning majority? Nonsense, you have no right to talk about this issue since you need a serious block for spamming, canvassing and votestacking. Also I know how to use a TW because I'm a frequent vandal hunter and I didn't revert your edit as vandalism. So do what ever you can if you think that your edit is legitimate. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and that's why you were blocked here for sockpuppetry. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, now admins knows who is who and whether I operate socks or not. Try to find another excuse next time. Good luck. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as Military of Sri Lanka, if you continue this nonsense, it will end up on WP:AN/I. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 06:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This so called "nonsense" you state on the Military of Sri Lanka is backed up by official references from the U.S. State Department and the World Factbook. Go ahead and take this to WP:AN/I before I do. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI will not solve any thing, only place to solve it through discussion and that place is SLR Taprobanus (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it has been protected for two weeks in the wrong version, please talk about it hereTaprobanus (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Both flags to be kept

message: The current version was really the WP:WRONG version! It transcluded a page in a user space, , rendering the protection worthless. While I admire the ingenuity of this idea, it is obviously gaming the system. I reverted the page and will add a warning on the user's talk page. — Sebastian 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sebastian, can you please fix the two article under the LTTE section. One says Military attacks and the other Terrorist attacks. Since these two were merged please have them both under "Attacks attributed to LTTE". Watchdogb (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. I also replaced the hard protection with soft protection using the blue box, because I think the edit war has calmed down here. — Sebastian 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted protected page 

message: I feel that the white van abductions are not noteworthy enough to be introduced to the template. Lets try to keep the template uncluttered, and as simple as possible. There are far more noteworthy things worth mentioning related to the conflict rather than the white van abductions.Kerr avon (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Germaine while writing about past tense about the Sri Lankan conflict (that’s what an encylopedic project is) is the mentioning of rampant use of child soldiers, massacre of civilians and POW’s and the enforced disappearances of thousands of civilians. Although  at some point some one(s) will pay for it such acts (ex  Karadjic)  but what we have to do is document it in an encylopdic manner without prejudice. So the templating is missing a link to a comprehensive article on massacre of civilians and POW's other than that, it is doing a good job so far. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I feel that the disappearances can be handled in the "Human rights" section of the template. As such is it needed to clutter it up with the white van abductions. I have reverted it because if needed the white vans can be linked to the human rights article linked too in the template.Kerr avon (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same could be said about the terrorist attack article but it is still there to "clutter" the template. Likewise the terrorist attack article is linked too LTTE article and therefore it does not need to be there. Yet the logic behind it being there, likely the same logic for the inclusion of white van, is that it is a major factor in the Civil war. Watchdogb (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Child soldiers, may bethat should also be handled by the Human Righst section ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO The template should be used to give a person interested in the sri lankan conflict "key areas" of interest. Factors like the precipitating, perpetuating and related factors etc. The minimum of pointers should be used, and the pointers should be major ones. For example the inclusion of black july is uncontestable, so would be human rights and tamil militant groups. Now I ask the question that can white van abductions be given the same prominence as say black july or LTTE or military of sri lanka etc. There is no doubt that white van abductions take place but can you honestly say that it has in a major degree contributed to the course of sri lankan conflict? The loss of life due to direct combat is far greater I feel. I prefer not to get involved in a edit war and if any of you genuinely feel that the white van abductions seem to have had a major impact on the conflict as to be mentioned in the template then feel free to add it. Otherwise a "See also white van abductions", can be added the the human rights section which is already linked in the template.Kerr avon (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO Addition of things such as Child Soldier and Attacks logically equate to the addition of the White Van abduction. Watchdogb (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I disagree is because white vans come under the topic of "forced disapperances", and people have disappeared in more ways than white vans in the conflict. If there is a link to forced disapperances that would be more justifiable rather than the white cans.Kerr avon (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  White van disappearance is one of the most know and important way of forced disappearance. Anyway the white van abduction is as important to the civil war as any other incidents. The argument of cluttering the template is not an argument at all because the template is clearly within the desired size. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The good doctor gives us a way out, I think an article on Forced dissapearances is due abouty the Sri Lankan conflict Taprobanus (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Sri_Lankan_Conflict 

message: White vans are a very interesting topic.. but unfortunately not interesting enough to include it in the template..
I was wondering why it is only WHITE vans, not blue, black, red or any other color.. Are we going to include a link and create a article on every color of the vans used to abduct people? I am not denying the fact that people had been abducted by various groups in war torn Sri Lanka.. but color of the van shouldn't be the important factor to focus on.. it is the abductions that we should focus on.. if anyone creates a article with valid references you are most welcome to include a link in this template. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 06:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because thatis what RS sources say happens in SL, not just any other color. Taprobanus (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: okay I'll leave it as per your wish.. it's not going to change anything in whats happening to the terrorists. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 05:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says that it has anything to do with terrorists ? This is an encyclopedic project not a Battle ground. Taprobanus (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: White Vans

message: I am reverting it back to the old version.It has been so for 3 months.Let us discuss first then revert and not vive versa.Abductions are a major issue in the conflict.BBC,Amnesty,human rights watch all support it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Dear all there has been so many new additions to the template, it has a progressed a lot since I created it. Please also make sure that you give a proper description of the edit you are making and if requires elaboration to make an entry here in the talk page. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: The LTTE and other insurgent groups had been formed generally in 1976 the black July was in 1983 giving more reasons for the insurgents to go into the guerrilla war. If you hold a different opinion please discuss this here. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 05:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion is wrong on two grounds. Firstly, this template may be called Sri Lankan Conflict but its main topic is the Sri Lankan Civil War and it is generally accepted that the civil war began in 1983 (please read the article). It's an arbitrary date but one that has come to be accepted by most people. Secondly, there were many groups who waged an armed war against the civil war and they were formed over a range of years: 1972 (TNT), EROS (1975), 1979 (TELO) and 1980 (EPRLF, PLOTE). To choose 1976 is to suggests that only the LTTE were involved the civil war (btw the LTTE's predecessors were formed in 1972).--obi2canibetalk contr 16:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Your assertion that the template is ONLY about the civil war is completely wrong, it is about the Sri Lankan Conflict, I know this because I created this template (I am not claiming ownership here, just trying to show the intention ), it is not covering only the aspects of the war but the conflict in general. If you wish to change it again I suggest you build consensus for it before you change again, this template had been their for quite sometime and it is used in many article, suddenly taking off 8 years of the conflict would be sweeping the problem under the carpet. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 07:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is about the civil war - the main topic is Sri Lankan Civil War. 1976 is an arbitrary date - one might as well pick 1948, 1815 etc if we are going to include everything that contributed the civil war. There is no sweeping of problems under the carpet: the template includes a number of articles detailing the causes of the war. It is you who is trying to sweep the causes of the civil war under the carpets by having the year the LTTE was founded as the start of the "conflict", thereby blaming the LTTE for it all, erasing all the contributory factors that happened before 1976. I would also suggest you check your facts before laying down the law. The template was created in December 2006 but it wasn't until 20 May 2009 that the dates were first added (by another user). It was you who changed it - without building a consensus - because the LTTE was founded in 1976 (sic).--obi2canibetalk contr 16:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I have changed the dates back to 1976, I stress again the templates intended purpose was to cover the conflict in Sri Lanka in general not just the civil war, LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelaam) was formed in 1976, if there was no conflict at that time there was no need for a "Liberation Force" (.i.e LTTE). We have debated this over a period of 4 years in wikipedia until the end of the war. Moreover I would also like to assert the fact just because the war is over that does not mean the conflict is over, so the indication of year 2009 is highly questionable, but I leave it for the moment. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 12:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of conflict in Sri Lanka 1976? Or 1983?