Talk:2008–09 Battle of Kilinochchi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2008–09 Battle of Kilinochchi has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 24, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 2, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Sri Lanka (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lankan Civil War articles 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.
 

Years before the title[edit]

Where's the rule that says it? I see a bunch of articles with the year in brackets like Battle of Basra (2008) and more--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone undo the rivisions done by Lupus Solus recently? Thanks in advance.--124.183.129.53 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That article is under by watchlist. I would revert vandalisms by that user time to time until either this article get locked or that user is blocked from further edits. -BiLLa- 21:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Huge LTTE bias[edit]

What the hell? ۝ ۞ ░ 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TamilNet is a news website that provides news and feature articles on current affairs in Sri Lanka, specifically related to the ongoing Sri Lankan Civil War. The website was formed by members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community residing in the United States and publishes articles in English [1], German and French

Its reporting is widely considered to be biased towards the militant Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) organization,[2] and although it is not officially affiliated with the rebel group, it is regarded as a propaganda instrument of the LTTE.[3]

۝ ۞ ░ 05:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


This article is bias and does not contain any valid information on the tactics used by the army in the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.214.164.4 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Huge Government & Sinhala Majority Bias[edit]

Well, If you could say that, then Why I can not say Government websites are biased towards the Government of Sri Lanka and Sinhala majority? (defence.lk) | I hope you people won't vandalize this too and remove my comment. Thank You. -BiLLa- 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That is no argument, saying you can include something because there are others like it. Anyway, I agree the article relies too much on pro-LTTE sources. The battle was followed and recorded by both local and international media, so there is no need to depend too much on either pro-LTTE or pro-Government sources. Remember WP:NPOV. I can try to improve the article and add some better sources when I have time, if you guys are fine with it. Chamal talk 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


defence.lk is a government website, so of course it is biased towards the government. I do not think this article is that biased. 208.105.22.10 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) This comment was written byRiotrocket8676at school
Of course it is. But I'm not talking about how neutral government or LTTE sources are. I just said that it relies too much on pro-LTTE sources when there are enough neutral, independent sources available. The article itself is not exactly biased, I'm just saying that better sources can be used. It wouldn't really hurt to have a few RSs instead of just normal websites would it? And there is more information that could be added to improve the article. If we can go along those lines, we could even take this into a GA, I think. Chamal talk 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I would definitely agree with you there. But, sites like the BBC rely on sites like Tamilnet and the government since many reporters are barred from the Front Lines. It is hard to use "independent" sources since the "independent" sources always end up quoting the Government and the LTTE at the same time.Riotrocket8676 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this article must be locked, and only authorised users should be allowed to edit.--124.183.129.53 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would blocking this Article be productive? Sri Lankan articles sometimes come under vandalism because Pro-LTTE sources clash with Pro-Government. I will put in a Request for some Direction. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't usually protect pages at WP:RPP unless there have been a lot of continuous vandalism daily/ edit wars etc. I don't think this will be protected, and I don't really see a need either. Chamal talk 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Chamal. There is no need to protect it. Its not under vandalism. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Have we come to a dispute consensus? Riotrocket8676 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article[edit]

Guys, I have started adding more info and refs to the article. I think that this can be improved into a GA. I'd appreciate your help and input on this. Chamal talk 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I help in anyway you see fit. Lets do this! Riotrocket8676 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does there need to be SLA commanders names and SLA squad names in this article ? Unless someone can find LTTE squad names and LTTE commander names who are involved in this battle I would argue against adding the SLA names. Also for those who want to use international news to cite this article, please be aware that the international news quotes Sri Lankan Military and so there needs to be explicit attribution in that case also. Though very good job on the article so far guys! Keep it up. Watchdogb (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Will do. I'm still working on it. I couldn't find any reliable sources that mention LTTE commanders' names, but I'm sure they can be found. Chamal talk 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Aren't there names for LTTE commanders on the LTTE page? I am not sure if it's referenced or not, but you can always look. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added some info on this. "Imran Pandiyan and Charles Anthony units have been deployed for the defence under Theepan, Bhanu and Lawrence". Refs from the newspapers Sunday Leader and the Nation. Will see if there are any info on pro-LTTE sites. Chamal talk 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Reaction section's claim that the country celebrated is not totally correct. Only the Sinhalese community celebrated - we can see this by Vavuniya, Jaffna, Batticalo and other places with majority Tamil population not being mentioned in the celebration. Let's not fool ourselves by trying to say that everyone was happy and took to the street to celebrate. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?![edit]

Can we PLEASE remove the Neutrality template on the page?! I think we got it mostly covered. Thanks.Riotrocket8676 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to 2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi[edit]

To fit the emerging wikipedia standard for disambig dates, called Year in Front. This is done to better sort in categories and help with the devleopment of Semantic web tools.--Cerejota (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Cerejota. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits regarding celebrations of the public[edit]

Please stop adding the words Sinhalese public to the sentences describing the celebrations after the capture. The AFP/New York Times ref clearly say "public", whereas the Sunday Times mentions people of "all faiths". I believe "public" is the word that should be used here, since even if tamils did not celebrate (which they did), tamils and sinhalese are not the only people living in the country. Even if you exclude the tamils, that doesn't leave only the sinhalese, hence the word public in general. And btw people of Jaffna also celebrated the capture, I'm adding this now. There is no need for POV pushing here. Chamal talk 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no POV pushing here. You want to add "the public" ? Fine, but let's edit shall we and only say what the RS says ? You claim that the Sunday Times claims people of all faith, but lets see where. It clearly says in Nuverellia (or what ever it;s called). Last time I checked it does not represent the whole population. Watchdogb (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not add the part about all faiths, I'm talking about the public being replaced with Sinhalese public. If people of all faiths celebrated even only in Nuwaraeliya, that immediately makes the "sinhala public" part ridiculous. But that's better now. I'm fine with the present version of things. Facts are balanced now, I think. My apologies if my earlier comment was taken as aggressive. Chamal talk 00:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)