Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSri Lanka Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Indian Involvement Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Black July and Dispora[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed RaveenS 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Karuna[edit]

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).[reply]

Freddinator he is already listed as Karuna Amman under main figures. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on the size[edit]

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)[reply]

Flags[edit]

I feel there is no need for flags as it has only decarative value further if sides are at War we need both flags.[1] and Sudanese Civil War [2] and all civil war templates have the flags of both the sides even where it failed like the American Civil War. I can give many more where both sides are listed.Further the Sri Lankan government has not banned the LTTE and is ready for talks offically atleast.Harlowraman 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and it is waste of space and bandwidth. carrying decorative items in a template adds no value. I have already asked an admin to check this edit war out. Thanks Taprobanus 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm yeah I too agree with that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with all of you :-), when I originally added the image the intention was to make it easier to identify the templates subject as related to Sri Lanka. I don't think it is just decorative, I think it is informative. I dont see why we have to suddenly remove it after all these days, the image is very small and doesn't take much bandwidth, it small so does not take space in the article as well. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm yeah I too agree with that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is talking to whom :))) well look we looked at other templates and they all have both the sides in the template or nothing. Why shuld this be any different ? We follow convention in Wikipedia. Do you want to add the flag of LTTE and the Sri lanka on the template ?Taprobanus 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should have flags of both parties or none.Further it adds decartive value alone.Pharaoh of the Wizards 11:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object per one reason. Please mind that this conflict is just not between Tigers and the SL GOV. Didn't got my point? Then have a look on the template. There you guys can see plenty of biographies and number of militant/political groups who involved in this conflict. So If you people wants to add LTTE flag there, then you guys have to add all the flags/symbols of the Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups who involved in this conflict. I know that isn't a practice approach, so hereby I ask from you people to just keep the Sri Lankan flag because this template is about the Sri Lankan Conflict (Conflict for the Sri Lankan soil), not about the Conflict between Sri Lanka and Tamil Eelam. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the conflict has only two major parties,. LTTE and Government of Sri Lanka. Everybody else is a bit player playing on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka. If you disagree take it to mediation. Thanks Taprobanus 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Taprobanus. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raveen,
On what grounds you decided to oppose the flag on the template? it had been around for quite some time now? Why is suddenly irritating to see the Sri Lankan flag? NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 06:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah even you awarded Netmonger with a barnstar for creating the template. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 08:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People can change their mind cant they, I've heard it somewhere else :DTaprobanus 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags should(n't) be there?[edit]

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)[reply]

People who think National Flag should be there[edit]

  1. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Everyone agreed on the version with the flag, users can't arbitrarily decide to remove it. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 07:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am a tamil who occassionally contribute/use the Wikepedia and I am surprised that anyone should attempt to remove this flag, irrespective of the conflict that is going on in SriLanka. Go and look at the flag used at the UN, at the commonwealth secretariate, and in the European office in Brussells. ARE YOU PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE A JOKE OF THE WIKI encycopedia by trying to remove this flag? Such attempts are nothing but a politically motivated act which is glaringly naked and not even subtle. IT IS NOT CONSISTENT with the internationally accepted flag. So, those who disagree with the flag and want to remove the flag should go and agitate at the UN and other international bodies and get it changed and THEN COME HERE, if you succeed in getting your effort legitimized. Until then, the most you can say is that the falg is being politically contested. Until then, the internationally accepted flag stands in an encyclopedia. It is precisely this total lack of repect for justice and fairness that has finally destroyed the Tamil cause in the eyes of the world at large.Sebas raj 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)SebasR[reply]
  5. Sri Lanka a country which is recognized by the "International Community". As per the Wikipedia policies, it is fair the country's national flag to be there in the template.--Lanka07 20:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Of course, the Sri Lankan flag should be there. There is nothing like an LTTE flag that anybody other than the ltte itself recognises. No matter how much ltte deludes itself, what it flies is not a flag, its just a piece of cloth. For that matter, even pirate ships had their own flags! Sarvagnya 05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This whole conflict is based in Sri Lanka and every single individual involved in this are Sri Lankan's. Hence even the question of whether we should keep this or not should not have arisen in the first place. And if we were to add LTTE flag, please be note that there are 100's of other parties who has their own flags too involved in this and , why not have them all too ?? As sarvangnya has correctly pointed out even the pirates have their own flags and should wikipedia recognized all those piece of cloths fying over ships and put it here ? Their is only one flag represent Sri Lanka and that without any question should remain here.thanks Iwazaki 会話。討論 07:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Sri Lankan flag is a national flag accepted by the UN and all other countries in the World. When you talk about an issue related to a particular country, the flag of the country will be there. Some group of people who promote a certain ideology cannot remove a flag of a country from Wikipedia. Thanks! Supermod 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Sri lankan flag is a internationally recognized national flag and to remove it would be laughable and make a mockery of this wiki. People who even contemplate removing a national flag of a sovereign country are showing there bias and hidden agenda of using this wiki to promote the LTTE . I doubt any rational Tamil would object to the prescence of the Sri lankan Flag in this article.Kerr avon 06:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who think National Flag should not be there[edit]

  1. Taprobanus 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Watchdogb 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sinhala freedom 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (The LTTE flag shouldn't be there either).[reply]
  5. CJLippert 02:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (should be flagless, but the names of the factions involved should be more prominent)[reply]
  6. --Fred gregory (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (both should b flagless)[reply]

People who think National Flag and LTTE flags should be there[edit]

  1. Taprobanus 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Watchdogb 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kathanar 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am a Tamil too and disagree that only one flag should be presented in the template. If that is the case, then the Sri Lankan military is fighting an invisible enemy. As mentioned by another editor, many other articles covering similar conflicts present flags from both sides on their templates such as these: American Civil War, Second Sudanese Civil War, and the Eritrean-Ethiopian_War. It takes two to tango in a conflict, therefore both flags must be presented. As a matter of fact here is another Sri Lanka conflict template which shows both flags: Sri Lankan Civil War. Whether a flag is at the UN or not is besides the point.Wiki Raja 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Both the flags should be there since they are the parties in dispute and it is indeed open for all to see the obvious. The very argument that Sri Lankan flag represents everyone in the island itself doesn't arise since if it does then there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. Like Wiki Raja pointed out please look at the other civil war templates. Please do not deny history, what ever party you may side. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 08:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Both. --JuanMuslim 1m 01:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. both or none. if people can't live with "both", let it be "none". This isn't like {{Sri Lanka ties}}, the template is ostensibly about a conflict, and NPOV means that both parties in the conflict are represented. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Both. If both sides are notable and have their own flag and are even warring each other then it is not a bad idea to put in this article the flags of two sides; as this represents a side perfectly. Flags should be reinserted in a manner that satifies the graphical equality; meaning that the size of flags are the same. Özgūr Talk Hist 10:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Both flags should be shown. If both flags/standards are representative of the conflicting parties it convention that both be shown. --Merhawie 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Both. It would seem that both sides are notable and have their own flag. --vi5in[talk] 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Both flags should be shown. We are NPOV.Æetlr Creejl 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Both flags should appear (or neither). Whatever the legitimacy of political claims, or the eventual outcome of the conflict, the conflict is similar to other mentioned (civil) wars in inherently representing conflicting claims of political legitimacy (which would include, as a minor matter, what flag should represent Sri Lanka). LotLE×talk 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Both. As above, this article is about a conflict so there should be symbols of both sides. Of course there is an issue when a central government claims (perhaps justly) that it includes the other side. However, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to judge the central government's claims (nor the other side's either). While presenting 2 rather than 1 may seem to give strength to the non-central government side, let us remember that this is only wikipedia; few if any Sri Lankans are going to switch sides because of this template. (I note that I know practically nothing about this conflict and was contacted by an email arguing one position re this vote.) rewinn 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. Both — or else it would make no sense and sides: probably not the best way to help, even modestly, whatever our opinion would be. In another case I know for 15 years as a reporter: Would you ignore either Russia, puppet government and the Rebels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korenyuk (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where were you, when the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government was negotiating in Thailand, Oslo and Geneva with the support of Co-Chairs which is represented by the U.S., Japan, EU, Norway and other countries. Nayarthevan 09:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Both. T Rex | talk 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Krankman (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC). If not, there should be none at all.[reply]

People who have no opinion[edit]

  1. 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)[reply]

additional discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So interested in saying so, eh? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 05:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how some folks will raise the issue of how the Sri Lankan flag is a national flag accepted by the UN and other countries in the world and how it must be presented on the template. However, they tend to be silent on whether or not to have the Tamil Eelam flag on the same template regardless of the other conflict templates having both flags. Wiki Raja 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)— Nayarthevan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The so-called LTTE flag is not recognised by any country in the world, nor any legitimate institution. It has no legal value as well. By putting a banned terrorist organisations flag on this wiki alongside the national flag of Ari lanka, we are legitimising a illegal flag which has not been recognised by any recognised international body and. The LTTE terrorists flag should not be permitted to be put on this wiki in this context, even for the slightest instance. For example say Bin Laden creates a flag for his al-qaeda, would the wiki permit to have it alongside the flag of america.Kerr avon 06:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment Please check the American Civil War [3].It has both the American and Confederate States flags ,the Spanish Civil War [4] or the Sudanese Civil War [5].Now only one out the 2 flags in each conflict is internationally recognized both the other is also displayed the other .We should have both the flags and if you feel .We can take it to Mediation for settling the dispute.Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. We should take this to Mediation. Wiki Raja 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should. Æetlr Creejl 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternatives to flag(s)[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I like the idea. Æetlr Creejl 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin request[edit]

{{editprotected}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To avoid edit warring it would be necessary to have an edit protection on the template. Wiki Raja 06:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So, are you encouraging edit warring on Wikipedia? Wiki Raja 07:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a very unwise conclusion, what I meant is edit war is inevitable. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why edit protection is necessary for certain templates that have unusually high edit warring. Wiki Raja 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To admin: I respectfully request to have an administrator lock the template page from further editing. Thank you. Wiki Raja 10:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How valid is this poll?[edit]

I was wondering how so many editors who have never edited an article about Sri Lanka in their life came to know about this discussion and voted always to have both flags. Those include JuanMuslim, dab, Özgūr,Merhawie, vi5in and Æetlr Creejl. Apparently WikiRaja has been involved in mass scale vote canvassing [6] and now is attempting to cover it up. [7][8]. That pretty much invalidates half the votes in the above poll. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in editing Sri Lanka related article, at least not more than a few small edits years ago, and was contacted by an editor by email. The editor who contacted me was not one with whom I have had prior contact, and I am not certain why I was contacted in particular. However, the note I received was presented neutrally and factually, and in any case I would make my own judgment about administrative matters regardless of how or by whom I was contacted. I have opined in the above poll, but only did so after reading this entire talk page, including all the previous votes in all directions. I did not bring any a priori opinion to the correct resolution of the template style, nor do I have any bias about the conflict itself. LotLE×talk 20:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was brought to my attention by wikiraja, however, that does not invalidate my suggestion. After all, I too read the talk page and I do actually give a logic. Thank you for your attention. --Merhawie 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that an issue? Is there a rule that says one must have edited the article to have an opinion on it? I was invited the vote, and email I received was neutral. All it asked for me was to vote on the poll and it didn't ask me to choose any particular option. It is possible for editors to come to their own conclusion on the basis of their own judgment. It doesn't matter who contacted me, or how. I gave my input in this matter based on what I, personally thought. I don't see how this invalidates my vote. --vi5in[talk] 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. I have never edited anything about this topic and was contacted by User:Wiki Raja. I don't know if this invalidates the argument, but it is blatant canvassing and User:Wiki Raja should stop.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that you guys have voted for "both" indicates that you are ill informed and shouldnt really be voting. Like I've pointed out above, there just is no "both". This is not a bilateral conflict like the Indo Pak one over Kashmir. There you have two bonafide entities staking claim. Here it is the Sri Lankan govt., verses a ragtag bunch of "Tamil rebel groups". LTTE is just another of the many many "Tamil rebel groups" who have fought over the years and continue to do so. Some have morphed over time into political outfits, some have given up arms, some got massacred by the LTTE themselves... some just died out.. but they all have their place in the conflict. And they all are Sri Lankan. This is out and out an internal affair of the sovereign nation of Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka has only one flag. Sarvagnya 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And do mean to tell me that what you are saying is legitimate? There are only two warring parties in this conlfict which are the LTTE and the GOSL. Regarding the other Tamil groups that you mention, they are working for the government as paramilitaries. As for the Indo-Pak war, that is a war between to countries, not an internal war like conflicts such as Kosovo and East Timor. Lastly, please stop putting down other editors just because they choose to vote for something that is contrary to your POV. Just by reading this whole talk page, anyone can see the amount of biasedness from users who are keen on pushing their POV. Wiki Raja 09:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so I am "ill informed" because my point of view doesn't agree with yours? I didn't vote "both" just because I was contacted. If I felt that there needn't be a flag, I would have said so. The Confederate States of America was not formally recognized by any other country. This was also a civil war and an "internal affair" of the United States of America. However, you still have the Confederate flag displayed. You can also look over the other examples provided. I am no LTTE sympathizer, but I do think that if they have a flag, it should be shown. Regardless of what you may think, this is still my opinion, so even if you disagree with me (which is your prerogative) don't call it "ill informed". At least accord me that respect and don't try to insult my intelligence. --vi5in[talk] 11:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that a Banned Terrorist organisation's (LTTE) flag should not be given the prominence and legitimacy by putting it along with a countries national flag. Please put the LTTE flag in the LTTE page if needed but do not give it the "legitimacy" that it has never had. The problem is that there are many tamil groups and then we should include their flags as well, for example Karuna is a major player, so then according to the twisted logic of some people his flag should be included as well as the LTTE's flag, thus leading to the absurd situation of having every warring factions flag in the box. The only solution is to have the Sri lankan flag only.Kerr avon 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that flags from banned orgs cannot be used on Wikipedia is a weak argument. Can you tell me why the LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka? Also, can you name one group that the GOSL is militarily fighting, other than the LTTE? Wiki Raja 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Vivin pointed out, I didn't vote for both just because I was contacted. Also, how would putting the LTTE flag on the template give it "legitimacy"? Does our article on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus give it "legitimacy"? Æetlr Creejl 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the flag and excluding the flag of the competing entity seem to fulfill other needs rather than what has been articulated so far in arguments. Per NPOV, this should have no flags or both the flags but the wiki flag guideline says no flag at all. So it is crystal clear we should not have any flags in this template. Taprobanus 17:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Editors who voted above based on Wiki Raja'S email, would you please consider retracting your vote? This is only a kind request to you guys to consider. Because I don't know the exact contents of his email, but I believe it could've possibly (not definitely) had an influence on your decision. Also please understand Sri Lankan ethnic conflict is far complicated than it looks to you, unless you have thoroughly read about it there is every possibility that your judgment is wrong (again possibly and not definitely). Please do read WP:Canvassing NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 07:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we know how complicated the Sri Lankan Conflict is. Your (User:Netmonger) history show the evidence to that. You conflicted with User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam on his e-mail password theft and when he posted User_talk:Redux that your credibility should be verified [9] what you did, is, you went for the AFD. - You have already cautioned [10] for your Rfc User:Netmonger/RfC against User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam. - - When you request others to listen you, others also should know about your history and the general complication of the Sri Lankan issues.Nayarthevan 09:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - — Nayarthevan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO Whoever who created this single purpose account, if you have a real back bone why don't you show your true self and make substantive allegations :-) NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 11:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend, this is not a back bone issue. Because we all are anons on wikipedia. If we seriously research the issue you are the bone-less reference to this. On the request of User:Redux, when User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam provided the details of the diffs which were misused by suspected IPs using his usernames on 16th March, 2007, you should have waited for some time. But you went for the AFD on 17th March, 2007. Why was that rush?, Who is really bone-less?Nayarthevan 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First this not the place to bring your personal vendetta against me, second still you are using a single purpose account for trolling, I am not feeding you NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have shown your enlightenment in the very beginning, not at the point where you are compelled to answer something.Nayarthevan 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this request grossly insulting. I've tried to politely point out the flaws of this absurd sort of question in the above discussion. It claims that people who's contribution has been solicited suddenly become non-cognitive zombies who are not able to use their own judgment. Over the many years I've edited on WP, I've had my input on various administrative or edit-conflict issues solicited dozens or hundreds of times. On every occasion, including this one, I used my very own brain and knowledge to reach an opinion about the correct resolution of some editing question... never once did I brainlessly obey the command of whatever editor solicited my opinion. Claiming otherwise, as Netmonger does, is disrespectful. LotLE×talk 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think WikiRaja merely picked random people and asked them to vote here thats simply naive. The fact that of the voters here, everyone who had no other edits related to Sri Lanka before all voted to have both flags proves they were deliberately picked by Wikiraja as he knew they would vote according to how he wanted. You all probably voted at some AFD or participated in a discussion somewhere expressing the same opinion. If you didn't understand that that's what happened, it's just sad.
Also to Josh Matthews, who the hell said you have to have edited an article related to Sri Lanka before to give your opinion here? My point was that the editors I mentioned above (and additional ones now), who have practically no prior edits related to Sri Lankan articles, had absolutely no way of finding out about this straw poll unless they were solicited by someone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What amazing Svengali powers WikiRaja must have to read my mind from thousands of miles away, and with no prior acquaintance with me (actually, for all I know, s/he might live next door to me; but the mind reading powers are still impressive). Even assuming I really did vote on a past AfD to delete a vanity article on a high school club, it would require impressive telepathic or deductive powers to conclude that I must automatically vote in some manner in relation to flags in a military conflict. Instead of asinine insults against good faith editors, like me, why don't you try to advocate the merits of your position on the administrative issue? LotLE×talk 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no wish to argue with people like you so I'll keep it simple. Emailing everyone, for example, who voted, keep in an AFD doesn't take too much "powers", although, apparently, it's out of your capable limits. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've already justified our responses. Perhaps not having people linked to editing Sri Lankan pages might actually be a good thing, because we have no preconceived notions. I provided my reason for having both flags. I have been on Wikipedia for over four years now and have offered my opinions on all sorts of AfD's and polls. In all of them I presented my opinion on the basis of what I sincerely felt. So what if we were contacted? What's the big deal? We came here and we made our edits in good faith. I have no vested interest in this article, or template, or the conflict. I gave my opinion in the hope that some resolution could be reached, and to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Unfortunately some people have their judgment clouded so badly by ideology that they cannot see this. --vi5in[talk] 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the e-mail seemed to be neutrally worded.I just reread the e-mail, and it politely makes a case for having both flags and requests the user vote for both. I only skimmed it because I had no desire to be dragged into something this contentious which apparently had no relation to my interests on Wikipedia. I honestly don't want to expend the brain power taking the careful look into this issue that I'm sure it deserves. And though Wiki Raja seems to have canvassed, which I heartily dislike and is indeed against the rules, I really have no idea why s/he picked me as a target, so accusations of "hand-picking" people seem a little far-fetched. Or ineffective anyway. If s/he indeed thought I would vote the way s/he wanted, I would love to hear why. Not via e-mail though. On my talk page. Katr67 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowwolf, I believe the fact that some of us who participated in the straw poll having never participated in the editing of Sri Lanka page is actually a benefit. After all, at least in my case, it means that I am not wedded to an idea. From everything I have read on this page, I have yet to read a persuasive argument against showing the standard. --Merhawie 01:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a fresh outlook into this matter by those who have not contributed before is better for the project. Taprobanus 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, answering LotLE, I didn't doubt your ability on proper judgment, why I posted the above request is it is against wikipedia policy for anyone to canvass, I qoute from the policy page
And I'd like to quote user Katr67 s/he says "I just reread the e-mail, and it politely makes a case for having both flags and requests the user vote for both." so it is obvious that the man has not been neutral, if he had asked merely to look at the poll it would've been justifiable. It does not matter how long the users have been contributing to wikipedia or how many afds they had given there input, we cannot really substantiate a user as experienced or inexperienced based on the claims and this is not the forum to do that. In the meantime why don't we try to stick to the rules and not game the system by Canvassing. And let me also add that I do not assume bad faith on the editors who voted based on Raja's request NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the LTTE flag even been included in the template? It lends nothing but polemics to our discussion and the encyclopedia as a whole. To compare the LTTE with the Confederate States of America is a red-herring. LTTE has been declared as a terrorist organisation in over 32 countries and does not have any legal status or acceptability as a "national entity". I have reverted to Lahiru's version, since it is the only version that makes sense here. That Wikipedia has "neutrality" as one of its five pillars, the position should not be abused to introduce or give undue weightage to views of dubious authenticity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "LTTE has been declared as a terrorist organisation in over 32 countries and does not have any legal status or acceptability as a "national entity." Can you explain then why most of the countries still request to start the peace talks between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government?Mattice3 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because they have created dissension among an ethnic group of people and have assembled an army to counter the Sri Lankan armed forces. The situation has got ugly in the past with deaths of huge number of people including members of the armed forces and citizens. That other countries have requested the Govt. of Sri Lanka to negotiate with the LTTE does not imply recognition on the parts of those governments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now their endorsement or the ban is not the issue, but the "Equal Players" in the current Sri Lanka Conflict. We can't go beyond that in our discussion here. If so, then the legal nature of the Sri Lankan Government also highly questionable because they have got it when the British, the last European colonial power left the island, which was with three polical entities when the Portuguese accessed the island's territorial dominance. Mattice3 16:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To answer Nick, I believe LTTE is labeled a terror organization in the 31 countries (implying certain action done with respect to the group is illegal) and banned in India. In the other countries, unfortunately it is legal to be part of the group since freedom of political thought and discourse is permitted. Sinhala freedom 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, your arguments against LTTE do not play a role here. SLA has done as much atrocities as the LTTE. Also there are many rights organizations who recognize that the state is a culprit in many non state like (and more terrorist like) acts. So please stop trying to carry away from the point of this discussion which is about the inclusion/ exclusion of both or one flag. Also note there are two sides to a story. Regardless who the "state" is (funny though how state is supposed to be Peoples republic of Sri Lanka) and the seems most tamils are excluded from it even though Tamils are "Sri Lankans") and who the "non state" actor is. Also I suggest you take a look at other Civil war articles and follow the standards (or at least the most adapted) way of representing these templates are. Thanks Watchdogb 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-protected[edit]

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)[reply]

Policy Violation in using Flags[edit]

Guys take a look at this. Use of flags. Especially

Help the reader rather than decorate,Flag icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information in a general context, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration.

This is what i explianed in this edit[11]Taprobanus 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since it's the policy, we all have to agree with it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do. Æetlr Creejl 03:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected again[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both flags to be kept[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yeah, and that's why you were blocked here for sockpuppetry. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reverted protected page[edit]

The current version was really the WP:WRONG version! It transcluded a page in a user space, User:Wiki Raja/Sri Lanka Conflict template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:Sri_Lankan_Conflict[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disapperances are a major part of this War along with the use of child soliders both by the LTTE and Karuna.This is the last one I do understand to keep the template uncluttered.But we cannot miss an important portion of the civil WarPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about Child soldiers, may bethat should also be handled by the Human Righst section ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

White Vans[edit]

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)[reply]

Because thatis what RS sources say happens in SL, not just any other color. Taprobanus (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Revert[edit]

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)[reply]


New additions[edit]

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)[reply]

Beginning of conflict in Sri Lanka 1976? Or 1983?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

How about 1974 because that is when the Tamil conference incident happened? Kanatonian (talk)

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sri_Lankan_Conflict&oldid=1123003377"