Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of terrorist tactics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please do not rewrite this article without discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: fixed references. Greenleaf 01:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments moved from the main article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  World Needs To Learn About Sri Lankan Military's Tactics 

message: 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," 
--Realstarslayer 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LTTE Accepting responsibility(Rajiv) - Up to interpretation 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The 1990 - Vandalism / POV issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of Tamils killed - Black July 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ceasefire 'null and void' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PBP's changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is now fixed. Tyronen 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is LTTE?

message: 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)
thread_title: New article ?

message: 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)
thread_title: President's Name (Sri Lanka)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Misleading alleged

message: 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. . These actions could lead to even further confrontations between both parties . 
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 . These actions could lead to even further confrontations between both parties .
* 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)
thread_title: Changes to Resumption of Hostilities

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title: Peace talks

message: 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)
thread_title: unecessary reverts

message: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
replies: text: Over a month, no citations, so I'm removing everything that seems doubtful. --snowolfD4(  talk /  @ ) 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tsunami and Response 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Totally disputed

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have a very important question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LTTE air operation 

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

message: I support meditation for this article.
Politics rule 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation has already begun, and if you would like, you can join the discussion  here. --snowolfD4(  talk /  @ ) 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I support