Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War

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)

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)

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)

Use of advocacy groups as sources

@Oz346, it was clearly stated in the the RSN that advocacy groups such as ITJP statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY source. Hence can not be used as facts in an inforbox. Cossde (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

RSN said that it can be used with attribution, which it has. Oz346 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, you have misunderstood the RSN. It said attribution can be made for their stance - as opinion and not as accepted fact. A inforbox contain facts. Cossde (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said that these figures have all been portrayed as "accepted fact"? This is why we have explicit attribution, to imply that the figure is "according to". I have now added the qualifier "estimates" to make it more clear. Even the UN figures which you re-added can not be regarded as established fact, hence why they are all explicitly attributed. Oz346 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, no, the inforbox is not a WP:SOAPBOX for every advocacy group's opinion. That is why I simplified by keeping only the figures presented by the UN. That meets the WP WP:NPOV requirement. Cossde (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not advocacy nor a soapbox the current infobox. I don't know how anyone could get that impression. Statements by human rights groups and advocacy groups can be cited on wikipedia, if they have been explicitly attributed. And this has been done countless times on Wikipedia. The initial UN estimate regarding the total death toll for the whole conflict (100,000) is less accurate and contradicts their own later, more accurate figures. So the UN figures are certainly not always better in this regard. Oz346 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, so you are saying the UN is not reliable? Cossde (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No i'm not saying that. Oz346 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, you said The initial UN estimate regarding the total death toll for the whole conflict (100,000) is less accurate and contradicts their own later, more accurate figures , as I understand, you are saying that advocacy groups are more accurate than the UN. Cossde (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

no I'm not saying that. Individual statements of a group whether the UN or ITJP should be assessed on their own merits. It is possible for the UN to be more accurate in some statements, and less accurate in other statements (the 100,000 figure for the whole conflict is clearly inaccurate, and has already been discussed here years ago). In any case, the UN also advocates for human rights. By this questionable logic no human rights source can be cited.Oz346 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, No that's not what you said before. You clearly said that UN figures are inaccurate. According to your early statement the advocacy groups have more merit that the UN. Now you are saying the UN is the same as advocacy groups. You are contradicting yourself. Cossde (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

no, I said that the first UN figure of 100,000 for the entire conflict is inaccurate. Their follow up figures of 40,000-75,000 for the final phase in 2009 are more accurate estimates. But it is likely closer to 100,000 for the last phase.

Please read what I have written carefully and aloud, so you do not miss what I say. Oz346 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, there you go again, disputing the UN figures: 100,000 for the entire conflict is inaccurate, it is likely closer to 100,000 for the last phase. So according to you the UN is not reliable and the advocacy groups are. Cossde (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)