Talk:Sri Lanka

Speculations about the "Elu" language.

Early inhabitants did not speak "Elu". The Mahavamsa described the early inhabitants as Nagas(Snake worshipers) and Yakshas(Demon worshipers) which is a Dravidian HINDU tradition. Second, many Tamil sources such as the Mahavamsa have recorded history of the Naga aka Nakar in the coastal areas of Tamilakam (South India and North and North Eastern Parts of Sri Lanka) and spoke Tamil. IT is evident that the early inhabitants such as the Nagas of Sri Lanka were of different origin in linguistic aspects when compared to the present day speakers of the South,central, Sri lanka(Sinhalese). Which is why the speculations of their language should be added in this article.(Tamilan101 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Speculations about the "Elu" language.

Early inhabitants did not speak "Elu". The Mahavamsa described the early inhabitants as Nagas(Snake worshipers) and Yakshas(Demon worshipers) which is a Dravidian HINDU tradition. Second, many Tamil sources such as the Mahavamsa have recorded history of the Naga aka Nakar in the coastal areas of Tamilakam (South India and North and North Eastern Parts of Sri Lanka) and spoke Tamil. IT is evident that the early inhabitants such as the Nagas of Sri Lanka were of different origin in linguistic aspects when compared to the present day speakers of the South,central, Sri lanka(Sinhalese). Which is why the speculations of their language should be added in this article.(Tamilan101 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

HDI update

Sri Lanka's HDI rank is 93rd not 91st that needs to be updated. That's all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Aglo123 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

LEFT HAND DRIVE ?

As it is mentioned Sri Lankan vehicles are not left hand driven but Right hand driven, please correct . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.37.3 (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "Drives on the" line in the infobox, left is actually correct ([1]) since it refers to the side of the road vehicles travel in, and not the driver's seating position. See Right- and left-hand traffic for more information. Chamal ^T•C 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: The existence of a Civil War section

The question in-dispute is whether having a separate section with no duplicated material for "civil war" under "post independent Sri Lanka" similar to this diff, OR not having a civil war section like this diff. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 05:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

After multiple disputes here, there is a need to solve each dispute separately. The first stage is getting the community's opinion about the structure. Some editors prefer the Civil War topic to be included within the "post independent..." section like its current state, while others prefer it to have a separate sub-section under "History" or "post independent...". The Sri Lanka civil war does have its own article, but what I see most challenging is the Civil War's direct relation to the ethical ethnic conflict. The ethical ethnic conflict is wide-spread before and after the Civil War.

I hope others can give their opinions/advice on how to handle the structure, while avoiding detailed political explanations. Again, this is not related to the content of the Civil War, but the article's structure in-particular.

Please indicate Agree or Disagree of having the Civil War content in a sub-section, with your rationale. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

* A spelling correction was fixed (from "ethical" to "ethnic"), which shouldn't change the meaning of this RfC. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 00:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree

• 1. Obi2canibe: This article is about the political entity that came into being in 1972. Its many predecessors (Dominion, British, Dutch, Portuguese, Kandy, Kotte, Jaffna, Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura etc) each have their own article and most have a history section. It is therefore not unreasonable for this article to give more emphasis to post-1972 history. And, like it or not, the civil war has been the defining event in the post-1972 history of the island. In addition, as I've mentioned above, the civil war killed 100,000+, forced hundreds of thousands to flee abroad, displaced millions and caused physical and psychological injuries to hundreds of thousands. No other event in the island's "3,000 year history" can compare with this. I'd suggest that the History section be divided into five sub-sections: Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war (I have used Nigeria, which was also subject to colonial rule and civil war, as inspiration). Some editors have suggested that the civil war should be section on its own right i.e. outside the History section. This would be inappropriate as country articles have standard main sections (etymology, geography, history, government & politics, economy, culture, demographics etc). The civil war also shouldn't be relegated to other sections (e.g. human rights) - it was part of the island's history.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• 2. Adamrce: My views on this dispute after hearing most of the involved editors' previous views on this topic (in this talkpage, edit summaries & DRN), and while focusing on the structure ONLY, I see that (1) "Ethical conflict" is as wide as "Modern history," so I don't believe it deserves a separate section; (2) "War crimes" is a notable topic under the civil war, but it will violate WP:DUE if it had its own heading; (3) "Civil war" is the concerned section now, which the following is the criteria that led me to believe it deserves its own section (under the "Modern history" "post independent Sri Lanka" section):
  • Civil war is a very notable and controversial topic, which can easily be verified by Google Books.
  • It already has its own article, Sri Lanka civil war, which is getting many readers' interest. We're all here to help readers find what they're interested in encyclopedicly, and the civil war article has over 18,000 visitors a month and it has one-day each month that has an average of 3000+ visitors (ONE DAY).
  • The topic itself got tons of international attention, which is a good reason for the International community (non-Sri Lankans) to open the Sri Lanka article and learn about it.

This is the first community-wide comment request, in order to resolve the structural dispute. And then, we can follow by discussing the content structure based on the overcome. Cheers ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 04:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1.Sri Lanka was a colonial creation.It was formed in 1948.Sri Lanka has an ethnic conflict that begand in 1948 and it has not ended till date.

2.The civil war in Sri Lanka existed from 1983 -2011

3.10 of 100s of Tamils were killed by the exclusively Sinhala army of the Sinhalese dominated State of Sri Lanka

4.[LTTE] had killed considerable amount Sinhala civilians.

5.The UN panel report on final months of the civil war had accused that both parties have committed warcrimes and crimes against humanity .It's estimated that 40,000 civilians were killed in the final months of the war and all the victims were Tamils

6.During the war the Head of the Army said that the country belongs to the Sinhalese.

7.After the war ended in 2009, in 2011 the country's defense minister said that political solution for the Tamil people is irrelevant.

Sri Lanka had spent all it's history in ethnic conflict and 30 years civil war since it was formed in 1948.So I think that a civil war section is needed in that article.I am not actually talking about the contents of that section but I insist the there must be a civil war section in Sri Lanka page just as there is a section for Third Reich in Germany page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• 4. HudsonBreeze, I too suggest that the History section be divided into five sub-sections: Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war. But the "Civil War" section should be expanded into Ethnic Conflict, Civil War & War Crime. We can go for a RFC on this expansion. All related issues of "Civil War" should be commenced from the island's independence. If there are overlapping on sections that could be discussed or we should go for a RFC.HudsonBreeze (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• 5. Agree per HudsonBreeze. Kanatonian (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• 6. A genocide by a government by its people should not be ignored, therefore I agree with HudsonBreeze. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

• Astronomyinertia: I have previously discussed in detail why a separate section on civil war is unnecessary in the article. I think the threaded discussion should take into account the arguments I have presented, but I won't repost all of that here because it will consume a lot of space in this talkpage. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Blackknight12: I think sufficient information such as, dates, who was involved, why it happened, how many died, and the effect it had on the country etc. can be included in the article, as well as linked to the main articles and its spin-offs, without being too overstated in relation to the history of the country. Just because this was the most recent and most widely covered war in the history of Sri Lanka does not mean it should have undue weight over all the others.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Cossde: I think the addition of a separate section on civil war would distort the time line of events and would take things out of context as there had been two insurgencies before and during the civil war. Therefore having a separate section would violate WP:DUE (given the two other insurgencies) making the reader unable to comprehend the full situation, if further details are needed, then in line links would direct the user to the relevant articles. Since there is a article on the civil war a reader searching for that article would be directed by a search to that rather than the Sri Lanka article. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• I believe a long paragraph (separate from the Jayawardene one) in the Post independence Sri Lanka section should suffice. It can mention any allegation of war crimes, etc. I would strongly recommend, in any case, not separating war crimes into a subsection (as proposed by one user above). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Chipmunkdavis: Although the information in that section is notable and should go into the article, considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• BoogaLouie: Disagree by a hair. The Civil war was a major event in Sri Lankan history but the article is already quite long, as is the history section. Obviously in the History of Sri Lanka article there should be a big fat section on the war. 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have separate comments on obi2canibe's and AdvertAdam's ideas above. I don't agree with Obi2canibe, that this article is about the political entity that came into being in 1972. True, the name Sri Lanka was substituted in the place of Ceylon in 1972, but the history of the geographical location we are talking about, runs a long time backwards. You are correct that its predecessors also have a history section, but it seems to me that these sections are used together with sections like administration, economy and culture to discuss separate aspects of those eras. A separate section on history is essential to mention the notable events that took place during each era. I'm sorry that I can't agree with your suggestion to breakdown the history section into Early history; colonial rule; post-independence; civil war; and post-war simply because it gives an undue (80%) weight on events that happened after 1505. Instead, I suggest this article should follow the layout of India aricle, because as I've mentioned elsewhere that India is easily the most comparable country to Sri Lanka, and it has always remained within the sphere of influence of India. You may also notice that Sri Lankan history closely follows India's transition from pre-historic to ancient era, medieval to early modern era and early modern era to modern era. Moreover, the geographical area that we today identify as India has been unified under a single ruler only on few occassions. But that hasn't made the details pertaining to those separate kindoms and empires not get discussed under the history section of India article. Regarding Adamrce's views, I also agree that civil war is the single most important issue in the post independence Sri Lanka. I have no doubt about its notability, but my question here is, whether that fact is sufficient to consider it as a separate era of the history. As Obi2canibe observes, civil war is an item belongs to the history. But that should be added to the history section without distorting the timeline. One other way I see as a method to help the readers to find the Sri Lankan Civil War article, is to add it as a sub-sub section under the post independence Sri Lanka, so that the item will appear on the contents box as well. It all also give a chance to include a main article link to the civil war article. Anyhow, my point is that, civil war is not a separate era in the country's history, and the required changes should not distort the timeline of history. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but you actually read, and restored, an older version of the summary before I opened the RfC. This is the current version that was there when you replied. Please review, thanks :) ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I think now the main issue here is to provide readers with an easy way to access the civil war article. In order to reach a lasting solution to this problem, pending the views and suggestions of Blackknight12 and Cossde, I think its fine to add a subsubsection named Civil war (1983-2009) following the sentence It made Sri Lanka the first South Asian country to liberalise its economy... in the current version of Post independence Sri Lanka sub section. But that will kick the Tsunami disaster out of its place. Therefore, I think its better to add another subsubsection called Contemporary era, to deal with the post war details and non-war related details prior to 2009. Does that sound reasonable? Astronomyinertia (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There's an error in the RfC, that's why we haven't received any community input. I'm fixing it now. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 06:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

India is a multi-ethnic multi lingual multi racial multi religious entity that never had something that was called Civil war.There are insurgencies in India but not civil war.In India no religion is given first preference as you give constitutional preference to Buddhism in Sri Lanka.India is quasi-federal.Sri Lanka is an unitary state.The history of land mass of the island on which the Sri Lanka is established is not the history of Sri Lanka as country but the land mass.It's something like British India and India are not one and the same.Even Myanmar,Bangladesh,[Sri Lanka],Pakistan or parts of these countries were a part of British India.In India there were around 500+ princely states that were paying subsidies to U.K.These princely states were merged with British India to form Dominion of India and then Republic of India.India has 1600 + languages and 100s of ethnicities.India can be compared only with Europe and not a single country or some island.(Arun1paladin (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC))

There was a revert mistake right before your respond. Can you please review the RfC again. Do you specifically agree to have "civil war" under "history\modern history\post independent Sri Lanka"? Sorry for the confusion. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceylon or Burma where never part of the British India, and the Republic of India is considered as the successor to the British India, just as the Indian Army was the successor to the British Indian Army. India has had a several insurgencies, riots based on ethnic, racial lines as well as wars with neighbors but it has never been mention in separate sections. In Arun1paladin's logic on what happen in Sri Lanka, then all the insurgencies in India are civil wars. Cossde (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Read your colonial documents if you still have them there in Sri Lanka.You can find in British India page that Burma was a part of British India for some years.

>>The term British India also applied to Burma for a shorter time period: starting in 1824, a small part of Burma, and by 1886, almost two thirds of Burma had come under British India.[6] This arrangement lasted until 1937, when Burma commenced being administered as a separate British colony<< Similarly parts of the tiny island of Sri Lanka were parts of Madras Presidency of British India until that tiny island was made a separate crown colony of the British crown.These things are not related to the article so I wind up these details with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka had its coastal areas briefly controlled by the Madras Presidency from 1796 to 1798, intern the British Government of Ceylon controlled the Cocos Islands from 1942 to 1946 after the fall of Singapore. Just as Cocos Islands is not considered as a part of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka is not considered part of British India. Cossde (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please stick to the structural topic... thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 06:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways to use a "Civil war" heading, for a section solely about the civil war, or for a section about the part of the county's history that is coeval with the war. Without a clear distinction it is hard to judge whether such a heading is appropriate. I would say that if if it is used as a time period the structuring is much simpler, and since there is the main article to refer to on the subject of the civil war, that seems like a good approach. The insurgencies can then be covered in the appropriate sections. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

You're right, any Civil War section should cover all events from the time period rather than just the civil war itself. Any significant event which occurred during the 1983-2009 period (e.g. 1987–89 JVP Insurrection, 2004 tsunami) should be included in the section.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I request clarification from the users User:Grandiose, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:BoogaLouie on their comments to be discussed with other participating editors. These three editors as far as my knowledge never participated previously on the Sri Lanka related issues but after Rfc request and rather than they could come out with comments, they voted strangely with one side which "Disagree" the insertion of the "Civil War" from the "Sri Lanka Page".

The comments of the above Editors with their "Disagree" votes as below;

User:Grandiose

• "I believe a long paragraph (separate from the Jayawardene one) in the Post independence Sri Lanka section should suffice. It can mention any allegation of war crimes, etc. I would strongly recommend, in any case, not separating war crimes into a subsection (as proposed by one user above)."

Discussion

I was contacted by the article request service. I have no in-depth knowledge of this particular situation. I gave the article a close look over before deciding what I believed to be the best course of action. I'm busy in real life and don't have time to do the same again. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You should not have participated at all in a discussion which is highly controversial if you don't have in-depth knowledge of the subject or the situation around, but you went to vote as well. Even if you would have wanted to vote, you should have participated in the discussion for some time at least by observing.

I suggested "War Crime" should be included but that is not the view of the User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile who voted "Agree"; Why we can't consider the suggestions of User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile that "Civil War" should be a subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section? Even that is the view of the User:Rich Farmbrough after Rfc. HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

• "Although the information in that section is notable and should go into the article, considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present."

Discussion

I saw this RfC through the wikiproject country article alerts. This was an RfC, meaning it asks uninvolved users to leave a comment. I left my comment. CMD (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you saw the RfC through wikiproject country article alerts, you should have commented your opinion at Threaded discussion and participated in the discussion with other editors, before you cast your Vote since it is a topic of highly controversial nature.

If you say, "considering just the structure as the RfC header asked, that section would break the flow of the history section, going back to 1947 after we'd hit the present." why we can follow the suggestion of User:Rich Farmbrough.

If the breaking of the flow is the case, then the following subsections can't be survived in the following country article;

• Afghanistan

3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war

• Libya

2.9 2011 civil war and interim government

• Laos

2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75

• Sudan

1.7 Military Coup d'état (1989–present)

1.8 Civil War and Secession of South Sudan

1.9 Abyei situation

1.10 Darfur conflict

1.11 Chad-Sudan conflict

• Nigeria

1.3 Post-independence

1.4 Nigerian-Biafran War

Considering the above, why we can't consider the suggestions of User:Obi2canibe and User:Adamrce mobile that "Civil War" should be a subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section? Even that is the view of the User:Rich Farmbrough after Rfc.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your example subsections are irrelevant as they miss the entire point of my argument. I was commenting on the original civil war section posed by the creator of the RfC. If it can be rewritten to address my concern, then that's a different discussion. If you don't want people to offer a comment, then don't create a Requests for comment. No user is under obligation to do anything more in an RfC, and it is totally inappropriate to demand that they do while baselessly accusing others of canvassing. CMD (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Then better you should have suggested for rewriting at the Threaded discussion rather than Voting, something like of User:Rich Farmbrough. We need suggestions from neutral editors and get involved in discussions to come for a Dispute Resolution than just Voting with one side straight away, and being accused by other parties in dispute that they have been canvassed because in Wikipedia canvassing is very common.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that in the comment. I can not state this any clearer. An RfC requests comments. Users are asked to leave a comment. They are not asked to participate in discussion. Neither are they voting. An RfC is not a vote. No-one votes to a specific side. The inappropriate behaviour isn't the behaviour of the editors who do what they're supposed to do on an RfC. The inappropriate behaviour lies with those who for no reason at all and with no evidence chuck accusations of canvassing around. An accusation without a shred of evidence is a beautiful example of WP:bad faith. CMD (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:BoogaLouie

• "Disagree by a hair. The Civil war was a major event in Sri Lankan history but the article is already quite long, as is the history section. Obviously in the History of Sri Lanka article there should be a big fat section on the war."

Discussion

Like the other two editors I was contacted by the article request service asking uninvolved users to leave a comment. I left my comment. What exactly about "the article is already quite long, as is the history section" do you require clarification about? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have contacted the RfC through wikiproject country article alerts, you should have commented your opinion at Threaded discussion and participated in the discussion with other editors, before you cast your Vote since it is a topic of highly controversial nature.

If the article is too long, we can do the following;

Making a brief "Civil War" subsection under "Post Independence" Sri Lanka Section and link it to the main article Sri Lankan Civil War.

Making the following section brief in the Sri Lanka article

2.1 Pre-historic Sri Lanka

2.2 Ancient Sri Lanka

2.3 Medieval Sri Lanka

2.4 Early modern Sri Lanka

and making fat of the main articles such as Prehistory of Sri Lanka, Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka and Colonial history of Sri Lanka.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the above editors fail to participate in a discussion with other editors who "Agree", I will re-instate the "Ethnic Conflict, Civil War & War Crime" to the main article page in Two Weeks.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry I can not agree with your option nor your arbitrary decision to re add the section. Cossde (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If that is the majority wants, it can't be the arbitrary decision. It is only removed by your side arbitrarily, just before the Rfc/Dispute Resolution started. I am sorry I will re-add the section after "Two Weeks".HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to the comment User:Steven Zhang, "For what it's worth, undue weight is something that has to be considered with a few points in mind, the impact it had, how long it lasted, how significant an event it was in the subjects history. Duration of time is not the only deciding factor, however. The fact that the civil war lasted only 30 years should not be the sole deciding factor." and since the the editors who voted "Disagree" after RFC never turned back for discussion with who voted "Agree" even after Two Months, I revert back to the non-involved editor User:Adamrce's last version on Sri Lanka page on "Civil War" section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought back the "Civil War" section which was removed unilaterally by User:Blackknight12 while the discussion was going on, on "Content" dispute rather than on removal of the Section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered nor replied to any of the issues raised by me or the disagreeing editors. So what's the point of asking the non-involved editors to clarify their position? RfC was intended to bring community input, or fresh ideas to the discussion, which was largely between the long term contributors/edit warriors for the article. Therefore the most important votes here are that of the non-involved editors, who are merely giving their opinion on the matter. Don't intimidate them with orders to clarify their thoughts, just be welcoming and engage with them in the discussion. About your revision; the section you added back largely consists of information already availabe elsewhere, and breaks the flow of the History section. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your so called Non-Involved Editors who voted Agree are mostly Canvassed from you side. On Wikipedia there is nothing called intimidation when we observe some irregularity on voting patterns. We can't welcome those who want to say something when they want to be biased. If they have just voiced their comments rather on voting on different thread, we might have discussed with them. There is nothing breaking the flow the History section, only you want the "Civil War" section should not be included on the Sri Lanka page. If it is really breaks the flow, then we will discuss how we could keep the "Civil War" section without breaking the flow.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well well, your accusation that the non-involved editors "who voted Agree [should be Disagree] are mostly Canvassed from you side" is a blatant accusation on the respected editors who troubled to voice their opinion regarding the matter. Do you have any proof to say so? If I want the details regarding the civil war completely removed from the article, then why did I bother to add chunks of information on the origin, evolution and the effects of civil war, plus the alleged human rights abuses in their relevant sections? Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Since those editors have not come out their comments on the Threaded discussion where other editors might have discussed with them on the subject; they have simply voted "Disagree" elsewhere with brief comment and almost escaped. How they could be respected?

That is your mistake or POV that you have systematically included what should be under the section "Civil War" under the sections of "Sri Lanka under the British rule" and "Post independence Sri Lanka". Following Countries have Sub Sections on "Civil War", "Genocide" or "War" under "History" Section.

• United States

3.3 Civil War and industrialization

• Afghanistan

3.3.4 Foreign interference and civil war

• Iraq

2.8.1 Al-Anfal: Kurdish genocide

2.8.2 Gulf War

• Libya

2.9 2011 civil war and interim government

• Laos

2.3 Kingdom of Laos and war 1954–75

Why Sri Lanka can't have a separate section on "Civil War"? The title matters a lot. Otherwise we are trying hide something in real world and on Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HudsonBreeze Kanatonian (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, this very discussion was held several months back and my suggestion to model a section on Civil War and industrialization of United States was flatly rejected by several users including HudsonBreeze. Attempts by HudsonBreeze and several other users are motivated by external factors and not the betterment of the article. Their time is also very suspicious. Therefore I see this as an attempt to further own objectives rather than create an article on information to the public. Cossde (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not under the influence of external factors since facts stands for ever and Wikipedia stand for ever.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Then Id kindly ask you to stop stating allegations related to Sri Lanka and start stating actual facts.Cossde (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure of your suggestion how we could model Civil War section on Sri Lanka directly in relation to a section on Civil War and industrialization of United States.HudsonBreeze (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

After the long and extensive discussion with your peers, I came to the conclusion that the summarized form section represented the section on Civil War and industrialization of United States is not practical here. Only the current form of time line is practical. Cossde (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't come any agreement why the "Civil War" section under a separate title can't be included on the Sri Lanka page. Even if the section on Civil War and industrialization of United States is not practical on the Sri Lanka page, what about the parallels of other countries which have the tile on "Civil War" on their countries' pages under separate titles?HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Are all civil wars the same ? Cossde (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is anything special on Sri Lankan Civil War, please mention rather than removing the title.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If all civil wars are not the same, stop comparing Sri Lanka with other country pages. Putting a title based on your opinions is PoV pushing .Cossde (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How it becomes POV based you a few Sinhalese editors want the title "Civil" war should not be there. Maybe in Sri Lanka it is possible since you Sinhalese control the Government, but not in Wikipedia.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ HudsonBreeze has once again failed to come out with a rationale for his prime accusation that users Grandiose, Chipmunkdavis and BoogaLouie have been "canvassed" to disagree with the proposal. Hudson, I would like to know whether you still stand by the accusation, or concede that you have lied to the Wikipedia community, to gain additional weight to your argument? I also find your reply to Grandiose: "You should not have participated at all in a discussion which is highly controversial if you don't have in-depth knowledge of the subject.." somewhat threatning and misleading, because what we discuss here is not a controversial historical fact, but a straightforward structural dispute, which any Wikipedian should be able to draw a conclusion with common sense. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not the threatning or misleading observation, that is the evidence that at least he or she might have been canvassed and most probably by you. Let them discuss rather than you come out your own POVs on behalf of them always. Though it is on Structural, the content is about Civil War and War Crime. In Sri Lanka, people have been kidnapped in White Vans and killed by the Sri Lankan Government's paramilitaries extra-judicially just voicing for these atrocities. Then how you could say that is not a controversial subject? HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This RfC clearly asks the Wikipedia community to "indicate [whether] Agree or Disagree of having the Civil War content in a sub-section, with [a] rationale." In no place it is stated that one should participate in a discussion with the proponents of this idea, before, while or after voting. Note that all those non-involved editors have provided their rationale, on which you have repeatedly failed to comment. But you keep questioning their intention and accusing me of canvassing, with no evidence what so ever. Please remember that here, the politics is out of the question, and the concern is merely about a structural dispute of an article. Your additional comments on political issues carry absolutely no weight. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 10:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

People are judged not by their words but by their actions. So as here, Voting after discussion will count a lot than simply Voting with brief statements with no room others to discuss with them. I have commented already and we will get involved in discussion and better you stay away being others' mouth piece. The pattern of Three Editors's Voting "Agree" with brief rationale will create anyone doubt of them. Better you raise this at ANI, RfC, or in Dispute Resolution and get their opinion how do they will think rather than questioning me over my accusation that they have been canvassed.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Page fully protected due to edit warring/content dispute

I have protected the page for 1 month per a request on RFPP. Please discuss all changes and establish a consensus before requesting that the page is unprotected - you can ask any admin to review this an unprotect it when consensus has been reached. Please note, that continued edit warring after protection expires (if the page is not unprotected before then) may result in you being blocked. Thank you, The Helpful One 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What side of the street does the country drive on?

Edit request on 2 March 2012

{{edit protected}}

It's mentioned that Sri Lanka drives on the left side, I have lived in Sri Lanka for 8 years (I'm also Sri Lankan citizen) and I can assure you that Sri Lankan vehicles drive on the right side.

123.231.90.121 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've driven on the right hand side for eight years you must have had lots and lots of head on accidents! Does your insurer know that you stubbornly refuse to drive on the correct side of the road?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012

Add English as one of the official languages |official_languages = Sinhala
[[Tamil language|Tamil]
English Yasiths (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The cia factbook says it's commonly used, but doesn't mention it being official. Do you have a source for this? Tra (Talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam

After war, we should mention that there is a - Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit Request

Just a simple copy-edit request. I think we need a comma after "Sri Lanka". The first sentence should read, "Sri Lanka, officially the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,..." Joefromrandb (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done (will now look at your other request) Tra (Talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Chittagong hill tracts" should be "Chittagong Hill Tracts". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Tra (Talk) 22:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)