Talk:Sri Lankan civil war

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lankan civil war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 16, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2009.

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 23, 2010, and July 23, 2012.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War Start‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Sri Lanka Top‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal 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.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation articles

On 15 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sri Lankan Civil War to Sri Lankan civil war. The result of the discussion was moved.

Use of advocacy groups as sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Oz346, under "Estimates of civilian death toll" in the infobox, the first three bullets have references which all say "people killed," not "civilians killed." Combatants could be included in that figure. SinhalaLion (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Oz346 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz346, you are yet to confirm on the reliability of the UN. Cossde (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered you, you keep on misinterpreting what I am saying. We keep going around in circles. Please read my replies more carefully, read them aloud if you have to. Oz346 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz346, you don't have to be uncivil by saying "read them aloud if you have to". I am trying to understand why you think that the advocacy groups are more reliable than the UN as a source for figures for an inforbox. Cossde (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Civil War → Sri Lankan civil war – Per WP:NCCAPS. According to ngrams, "Sri Lankan civil war" is the most common way of rendering this title. XTheBedrockX (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - MOS:MILTERMS does allow capitalisation if they are usually capitalized in sources. Although ngrams shows "Sri Lankan civil war" is more commonly used, this only applies to books - what about other sources? WP:CONSISTENT would also apply - every other war article is capitalised.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of non-capitalized similar civil war articles: Abbasid civil war (865–866), East Timorese civil war, Göktürk civil war, Hasmonean civil war, Iraqi civil war (2006–2008), Libyan civil war (2011), Libyan civil war (2014–2020), Marian civil war, Myanmar civil war (2021–present), North Yemen civil war, South Yemen civil war, Sudanese civil war (2023–present), Syrian civil war, Tripolitanian civil war, Yemeni civil war (1994), Yemeni civil war (2014–present). (I'm not saying there are a lot of them – just collecting some data.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per clear evidence that sources don't consistently capitalize it. Obi2canibe's "that's only books" remark makes me laugh, as books are generally the most reliable sources that can be found online. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the evidence clear when it only includes books and ignores all other reliable sources? If Wikipedia was only soured from books it would be fraction of the size it is now and only contain content that interests elitist dusty old librarians.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We wouldn't use (for example) the "American civil war". GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason "American Civil War" is capitalized is that the overwhelming majority of sources capitalize it, and have done so for roughly a century (see here). As it currently stands, the same is not true of a capitalized "Sri Lankan Civil War", which was my rational for this move request. XTheBedrockX (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It is acknowledged above that ngrams show "Sri Lankan civil war" is more commonly used than the current capitalized form, so it is obviously not something "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" (quoted from MOS:CAPS). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and ngram evidence of usage. WP:TITLEFORMAT describes considerations which take precedence over WP:CRITERIA (including WP:CONSISTENT) and TITLEFORMAT includes WP:LOWERCASE. Even so while many civil wars capitalise civil war, a search of WP shows that this is not consistently done - particularly for modern events such as this, where it is not consistently capped in sources (eg Syrian civil war). Where there are other modern civil wars that are capped, this does not mean that they are correctly capped per usage in sources and the prevailing P&G but there is WP:NODEADLINE to correct this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.