Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War

Observation on the page

I am just returned from Sri Lanka and as part of this read the excellent book "Elephant Complex: Travels in Sri Lanka" by John Gimlette. John is an English journalist who discusses the war in some depth and aims to understand both sides As discussed by John, this is a complex subject, and while I will not presume to review in detail or edit the content, I think that the Wikipedia article as written is reasonably balanced and detailed.

Figures of FBI and US state department

the reference to "US state department contradicting FBI" does not support the statement. those reference does not mention "4000 people that were killed by LTTE 2006-2008" were killed by government death squads. article is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilshanheimler (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dilshanheimler: When you use a FBI reference thats propagates an outright lie that the 4000 people killed between 2006-2008, were all at the hands of the LTTE, a claim that even the Sri Lankan government and its cronies did not make. A claim that can be discounted by a simple counting of the well documented LTTE atrocities and killings in the relevant published sources, and even wikipedia pages. When such outright disinformation is mentioned in a reference, it needs to be countered, otherwise, people who do not know better will fall for the lie and take it as gospel. This reference is highly partisan, politically motivated and not worthy of an encyclopaedia. It appears written by a person with little knowledge of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, who seems to have lumped all 4000+ deaths under the LTTE for convenience. The reports of the US State department and human rights groups/NGOs all consistently point to the government for being primarily responsible for the thousands of civilians killed during this time period. The majority of which were clearly Tamil.

From the US state department report 2008:

The overwhelming majority of victims of human rights violations, such as killings and disappearances, were young male Tamils, while Tamils were only 16 percent of the overall population. Credible reports cited unlawful killings by paramilitaries and others believed to be working with the awareness of the government, assassinations by unknown perpetrators, politically motivated killings, the continuing use of child soldiers by a paramilitary force associated with the government, disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, poor prison conditions, denial of fair public trial, government corruption and lack of transparency, infringement of freedom of movement, and discrimination against minorities. Progovernment paramilitary groups were credibly alleged to have participated in armed attacks against civilians and practiced torture, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and extortion with impunity. During the year, no military, police or paramilitary members were convicted of any domestic human rights abuse.

'There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. Monitoring organizations reported that during the year, approximately eight hundred of the several thousand deaths associated with the hostilities between government security forces and the LTTE were civilian casualties as a result of artillery fire into populated areas, aerial bombings, land mines, and other military action.

Allegedly because of government pressure, the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (SLHRC) ceased providing statistics on forced disappearances by state security forces, progovernment paramilitary groups, or the LTTE. According to internationally respected monitoring organizations, after declining in mid-2007, the number of disappearances increased over the year to more than 500. On November 8, the chairman of the Presidential Commission on Disappearances, retired High Court Judge Mahanama Tilakaratne, stated that 1,100 persons missing or abducted in the past two years were still unaccounted for. In March Human Rights Watch (HRW) provided documentation on several hundred cases compiled by local human rights groups since mid-2006. The greatest concentration of disappearances during the year occurred in Vavuniya and the Eastern Province. The HRW report concluded that a crucial factor was "the systemic impunity enjoyed by members of the security forces and progovernment armed groups for abuses they commit."

From the US state department report 2007:

During the year approximately 1,000 of the estimated 3,200 deaths associated with the hostilities between government security forces and the LTTE were civilians, according to public sources. International organizations have documented approximately one-third of these. The casualties occurred in part as a result of artillery fire into populated areas, aerial bombings, land mines, and other military action, but international organizations noted that most of the civilian casualties occurred in "individual incidents," such as extrajudicial killings.

In comparison, there were an estimated 200 such deaths in Tamil‑dominated Jaffna, which accounts for only 3.5 percent of the population.

In none of the US State department human right reports is there a mention of 4000 people being murdered by the ltte. This clearly contradicts the shoddy work the FBI employee did in writing that partisan article. In fact you will not find a single reliable source to corroborate this 4000 figure.

Oz346 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: FBI mentioned that 4000 were killed BY LTTE through suicide bombings and other means. none of the reference you mentioned states that those 4000 people that were killed by the government. there are alleged crimes against the government forces. mention them separately do not connect it to the FBI claim to mislead the article --Dilshanheimler (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dilshanheimler: No it does not! It refers to the 4000 dead within the last 2 YEARS (2006-2008). I lived through this period, you are probably too young to know. But i remember this article very well.Oz346 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: do not write your opinion. your edits are misleading if not im gonna have to have Administrator intervention against vandalism. your reference about allegations against the government has nothing to do with the FBI article. and FBI is considered a valid source regardless of your opinion. wikipedia is not your private property to write your opinionDilshanheimler (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dilshanheimler: Thank you very much, I would love for a neutral admin to get involved. It is very simple. The claim that the LTTE killed 4000 people between 2006-2008 is a preposterous falsehood spread by a partisan employee of the FBI. And any neutral who reads all the sources with a neutral, objective mind can see this self evident fact.Oz346 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: im saying again, you cant write your opinion regardless how simple your reasoning is. none of your reference mention about the FBI's claim. the human rights report and FBI statement are two completely different subjects, they are like apples and oranges

Guys can we calm down and stop the revert wars and decide what encyclopedic content are we trying to document Kanatonian (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kanatonian: this statement was disputed."The FBI described the LTTE as one of the "most dangerous" terrorist organizations in the world, and claimed that 4000 people were killed by the LTTE between 2006-2008. This claim is contradicted by the US State Department's own human rights reports, as well as by human rights groups who attribute pro-government death squads for the vast majority of these civilian deaths and disappearances, most of the victims being Tamil".because the the reference the other editor gave does not mention about the statement of FBI. instead it has allegations against the government which is different than FBI's statement "ltte killing 4000 civilians" Dilshanheimler (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So these are two different sentences. 1. One saying according to FBI, LTTE killed 4000 civilians supported by one reliable source, we probably also need to get other sources to back it up.2. Then another sentence which says the majority of extra judicial killings were by pro government militias, again needs be be cited by number of citations.

These are two sentences right next to each other, if they are speaking about the murder of non combatants in the same time period, then the bigger picture is not about FBI or pro government militias. It’s the death of non combatants from XXXX year XXXX year.

In my view it gives the reader a full view of what happened, LTTE killed non combatants (according to FBI) and millitias killed a large number as well (according Who ever is being attributed) Kanatonian (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Murdered some 4,000 people in the past two years alone"

this line is completely false. It will be impossible to find another source that corroborates this. I personally feel this line was a genuine mistake from a FBI worker who after hearing all the bad things said about the LTTE, and was blissfully unaware of the thousands of Tamil civilians killed and disappeared by government forces, just attributed the total death toll to the LTTE without proper research.

The definition of the word contradict:

"to say the opposite of what someone else has said, or (of one fact or statement) to be so different from another fact or statement that one of them must be wrong"

The total death toll from that period was estimated to be between 3000-4000 from all other contemporary sources:

"More than 3,000 people died in the renewed ethnic conflict in 2006" - BBC News, 20 Jan 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6279017.stm (see label under picture)

All human rights reports (Human Rights Watch, US State Department reports, NESOHR) say that the majority of civilians killed in that period were Tamil civilians at the hands of government forces. Therefore, these two statements are mutually exclusive and contradictory:

1. The LTTE killed 4000 people between 2006-2008

2. The majority of people being killed were Tamil civilians at the hands of government forces in 2006-2008.

So the US state department and human rights group reports are completely contradictory with that FBI line Oz346 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s normal in a Wikipedia project to have contradictory statements, it’s up to the reader to figure out which is what. What I am wondering is why is this being disputed in the civil war article, shouldn’t this be in a more targeted article(s) such as LTTE, attacks attributed to the LTTE and attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan government. What encyclopaedic value are we bringing into this article about the death of civilians during 2006 to 2008. At the most it can be one sentence, saying during 2006 to 2008, anywhere from 3000 to 4000 civilians were killed.  ? Kanatonian talk) 23:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kanatonian: yes, as you are right i told the other user to mention the attacks separately. this was my edit "The FBI proscribed the LTTE describing them as one of the "most dangerous" terrorist organizations in the world."where i mentioned the proscription of LTTE by the FBI referencing the FBI website. the other user wanted to mention about the figures and i asked to mention them separately because it's irrelevant to the paragraph that talks about proscriptions of ltte.

@Oz346: other than the place this "alleged crimes" to mention is irrelevant does any of the sources explicitly say 4000 people killed by ltte were actually killed by government? or that the FBI's statement is wrong? because these 2 reports talks about 2 different things 1. the FBI statement mentioned the reason of LTTE being proscribed as a terrorist organization 2. the other US state dep. and HRW sources mention the alleged human right violations in sri lanka. they do not mention LTTE didn't kill civilians or anything like your reasoning--Dilshanheimler (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No matter how you bold things does not change the truth, the LTTE did not kill 4000 people in the period 2006-2008 (the 2 year period referred to by the FBI), if you want to count yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE,_2000s

And please refrain from straw man attacks, I never claimed that the "LTTE didn't kill civilians".

My issue is with using such a biased source with grossly unreliable figures without qualification (its basically an opinion piece/feature, not a quantitative study or human rights report). This will greatly mislead the readers when they click on those references. The human rights reports all say the majority of deaths/disappearances were Tamil civilians by the government forces (as I have already referred to earlier above in bold.) Once source even recorded the numbers of over 3000 Tamil civilians dead or disappeared in that time period (the report published by holocaust museum). That contradicts the bogus '4000 killed by LTTE in 2 years' figure, a statement which is not supported anywhere else, and is very much a fringe view. Oz346 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: :1. i don't know see the necessity of you to mention about the numbers where talks about the proscription of LTTE as a terrorist organization

2. you and me cannot come to a conclusion or decide that LTTE didn't kill 4000 people and that FBI is wrong or unreliable. we need a clear reference to make such a statement. that wikipedia article does not mention all the attacks attributed to ltte, its incomplete. so please lets refrain from writing our opinions.

3. if you really want to talk about this numbers issue write that in the attacks attributed to LTTE with your explanation about how FBI is not reliable. Dilshanheimler (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"its incomplete."

Nice try. Every known LTTE atrocity or known killing of civilians by the LTTE was recorded in the Sri Lankan media, and that list is far from incomplete. It is impossible to cook up the '4000 in 2 years' figure from any reliable sources unless hallucinations are involved. This outright lie needs to be addressed, and I will collate more neutral sources in the meantime for the death toll in the period 2006-2008, so that no deceitful lies gain prominence in this wikipedia page.

"you and me cannot come to a conclusion"

You sound like you were a young child when all this was happening, but I was following all of this when it was happening as an adult (and i was not subject to Sri Lankan media censorship). So yes i can come to a easy and firm conclusion about what is a lie or not regarding the figures.

Oz346 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

how old i am is not important. the numbers that was addressed by FBI wasn't mentioned in the first place so there is no necessity to write how those figures could be different. yes please find more reliable sources explicitly on deaths happened in 2006-2008 which is relevant to the FBI's statement, and then we can write that information in a suitable place. until then let's not write our opinions or POVs. thank youDilshanheimler (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's right, Oz346, you've overstepped just about enough for my liking with all of the personal comments (age, really?) and unsupported exclamations about some sort of a big lie. If you have actual proof that supports what you're saying, what is delaying you? Personally, I'd trust BBC News over some FBI bulletin (or "news story," whatever it is — it's weird), but how does that "Civil war haunts Sri Lanka again" piece confirm any of what you are saying, about the purported view of the "US State Department and human rights group reports," and so on. I submit to you that this is your WP:BURDEN now to demonstrate. So, less commentary and more sources, if you please, then. And could both of you cplease start taking it easy on the boldface — have mercy on my poor eyes! Also, can both of you be more mindful with how you WP:INDENT your comments? You are making this talk page such a chore to read. Thanks. El_C 01:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I echo the view of Kanatonian.The Sri Lankan Civil War was fought from 1983 to 2009 do not understand why do we need to discuss about the deaths between 2006 and 2008 alone in the article this period and death tool in those 2 years is not significant in the context of the Sri Lankan civil War.It will be WP:UNDUE to emphaise these deaths about this period alone leaving out the remaining 24 years and 96000 people who died.We can add if it for a consolidated period.What encyclopedic value are we bringing into this article about the death of civilians during 2006 to 2008. At the most it can be one sentence, saying during 2006 to 2008, anywhere from 3000 to 4000 civilians were killed.  ? .Note over 100000 people died during the civil War lasting 26 years why discuss 4000 people and 2 years only separtely in the contest of the Sri Lankan civil War.Hence feel it would better not to add it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Valid point. Dilshanheimler, what is the significance of those 2 years, to begin with? Can you draw on any of the historiography for such an emphasis? El_C 01:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

El_C there's no significance in those 2 years. the other editor tried to justify their statement "FBI is pro sri lankan government"(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lankan_Civil_War&type=revision&diff=1003443732&oldid=1003443449) with a long reasoning based on their POV.Dilshanheimler (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Section break

Claim: LTTE "Murdered some 4,000 people in the past two years alone." - FBI, 10th January 2008

Time period correlates roughly to the period 2006-2008 if you take the date of the FBI article.

In 2002, there was a ceasefire between the Tamil Tigers and the Sinhalese dominated GoSL and a peace agreement to discuss power sharing as a negotiated solution to the conflict. However, in 2005, there was a regime change and a Sinhalese nationalist coalition led by President Rajapaksa came into power with a manifesto rejecting the 'power sharing' envisioned in the ceasefire agreement. A low intensity conflict started with killings between the LTTE, Sri Lankan Armed Forces, and pro-government paramilitary groups. Killings of civilians and combatants sharply escalated.

The Nordic Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission stated on 22 Feb 2007:

"Nearly 4000 people have lost their lives in incidents connected to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka during the past 15 months. A large number of persons have been seriously injured, and thousands of families have been fleeing from areas of fighting. In contrast, during the three previous years less than 130 deaths related to the conflict were recorded."

International Crisis Group further stated in a report entitled 'Sri Lanka's Human Rights Criss' on 14 June 2007, page 7:

"According to the SLMM, more than 4,000 people were killed between November 2005 and February 2007. Of these, the SLMM estimates that some 1,500 were civilians. Since the end of February, an additional 650 have been killed, of whom more than 290 were civilians. There are no accurate figures for how many were killed as a result of military clashes and how many were victims of politically motivated killings."

https://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce582,50ffbce5a0,4676979a2,0,ICG,,.html

I believe this is where the FBI got the '4000' figure from. However, the SLMM does NOT attribute all these deaths to the LTTE. The FBI distorted the facts to suit their tirade against the LTTE.

Contemporary US State Department Human Rights (HR) reports from the years in question do not mention anywhere that the LTTE killed 4000 people in that time period. That omission alone contradicts the FBI statement. The HR reports are comprehensive reviews for the years in question, and furthermore imply that the vast majority of civilian deaths and 'disappearances' were Tamils, not people killed by the LTTE (non-Tamils).

"The overwhelming majority of victims of human rights violations, such as killings and disappearances, were young male Tamils, while Tamils were only 16 percent of the overall population. Credible reports cited unlawful killings by paramilitaries and others believed to be working with the awareness of the government," - US State Department report, 2008.

2005 - https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61711.htm

2006 - https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78875.htm

2007 - https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100620.htm

2008 - https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/sca/119140.htm

Likewise Human Rights Watch in it's reviews of the years in question, does not mention anywhere that the LTTE killed 4000 people. That omission again contradicts the FBI statement.

2005 - https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2006/country-chapters/sri-lanka

2006 - https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2007/country-chapters/sri-lanka

2007 - https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2008/country-chapters/sri-lanka

2008 - https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2009/country-chapters/sri-lanka

The much larger Tamil civilian death toll and 'disappearances' from that period (which it attributes to extrajudicial killings by government death squads) dominate the following report:

"Figures released by various governmental and nongovernmental sources suggest that more than 1,500 people were reported missing from December 2005 through December 2007. Some are known to have been killed, and others have surfaced in detention or otherwise have been found, but the majority remain unaccounted for."

"Disappearances" have primarily occurred in the conflict areas in the country's north and east-namely the districts of Jaffna, Mannar, Batticaloa, Ampara, and Vavuniya. A large number of cases have also been reported in Colombo."

"In the great majority of cases documented by Human Rights Watch and Sri Lankan groups, evidence indicates the involvement of government security forces-army, navy, or police."

2008 Human Rights Watch report on 1000+ Tamil disappearances - https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/03/05/recurring-nightmare/state-responsibility-disappearances-and-abductions-sri-lanka

Human Rights Watch, Sri Lanka's Ghosts (2008) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2kpK_g1pdY

There is no equivalent report anywhere whatsoever mentioning LTTE killings of 4000 in that time period.

Published figures on the civilian deaths attributed to the LTTE for the whole period of conflict (from 1983-2009) is itself in the range of 4000+.

Sinhalese scholar Udalagama states:

"It is alleged that between the 1983 riots and May 2009, there were around two hundred individual LTTE attacks on civilian targets, in which between 3,700 and 4,100 civilians were killed. In relative terms, and in the course of a long and bloody civil war, the number of civilians killed by terrorist acts attributed to the LTTE was somewhat modest compared with the estimates of the overall civilian death toll."

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Causes_and_Consequences_of_Group_Vio/jLdKBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=It+is+alleged+that+between+the+1983+riots+and+May+2009,+there+were+around+two+hundred+individual+LTTE+attacks+on+civilian+targets,+in+which+between+3,700+and+4,100+civilians+were+killed.+In+relative+terms,+and+in+the+course+of+a+long+and+bloody+civil+war,+the+number+of+civilians+killed+by+terrorist+acts+attributed+to+the+LTTE+was+somewhat+modest+compared+with+the+estimates+of+the+overall+civilian+death+toll.&pg=PA98&printsec=frontcover

Are the FBI seriously claiming that almost all deaths due to the LTTE occurred in the years between 2005-2008? Because that is the only way to get the bloated figure of 4000 killed in 2 years, which is not consistent with overall figures from scholarly or HR sources.

The cumulative death toll attributed to LTTE between 2005-2008 from the wikipedia article itself is exactly 400 (You can cross check yourself by counting):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE,_2000s

Even if we take it as a non-comprehensive article, that is a mere 10% of the exaggerated 4000 death toll claimed by the FBI.

Now who were the bulk of dead civilians killed in this period? (2005-2008). They were Tamil civilians killed by government forces, mainly in extrajudicial killings, 'disappearances', civilian massacres, or SL army artillery attacks. Unfortunately, it is only Tamil sources on the ground in the Tamil speaking North-East (the theatre of war) that recorded the deaths (and many paid with their lives for doing so and were killed by government forces). Western human rights groups and media did not have the motivation to collate all the figures during 2005-2008.

The Tamil Human Rights group 'North East Secretariat on Human Rights' recorded over 3000 Tamils killed and disappeared in the period between 2005-2008, you can find the figures quoted here in this report published by the holocaust museum in collaboration with a Tamil civil society group (pages 12-14):

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/PreventingAtrocitiesinaStateUnwilling.pdf

Joint Civil Society Report for Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka – May 2008 (submission to UN):

"Killings and Disappearances

12. The gravity of the situation is borne out by figures mentioned above, almost all of which remain unresolved. The National Human Rights Commission has not put out any figures, although some of its branches have released some information to the public through the media.

13. Based on information in these reports, it is clear that almost 80% of the victims are Tamils. The Jaffna peninsula accounts for the largest number of disappearances and killings. Most of the killings and disappearances in Jaffna have place within high security zones and during curfew hours, implicating GOSL forces."

https://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session2/LK/AFMD_LKA_UPR_S2_2008_AssociationofFamilyMembersoftheDisappeared_Etal_uprsubmission_JOINT.pdf

In summary, the claim of LTTE killing 4000 people in 2 years is a big lie, and the FBI article which makes such a bogus, unsubstantiated claim can not be regarded as credible. I personally believe an article with such poor fact checking has no place in a trusted encyclopaedia.Oz346 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I get that you don't agree with the content of the FBI's statement. But the fact that FBI designated LTTE as a terrorist organization cannot be disputed, which was the piece of information I added initially. You can add these information about questioning FBI's credibility in a suitable place. Adding all of these explanations in a place where talks it about the LTTE's proscription as a terrorist organization and attributing those "4000 killings stated in FBI's report" on government forces without any solid evidence is misleading and harmful to the article. It's better to write your opinion on how the content of FBI's statement is questionable respect to the other reports on a separate suitable place.Dilshanheimler (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dilshanheimler, can you please use proper grammar, punctuation and capitalization. This is not a chatroom and your comments are difficult to read. Anyway, if there is no particular significance to those 2 years, there is an WP:UNDUE problem here that you should probably address. Thank you. El_C 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C My apologies, I will pay more attention when I write comments. I believe that the deaths happened in 2006-2008 shouldn't be mentioned as it has no significant importance. Thank you. Dilshanheimler (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oz346 what's your opinion, you were party to this conflict, do we not mention anything about the deaths during 2006-2008 or is it important enough that it needs to be mentioned but in way without giving undue weightage to one citation ? If its is important enough as you seemed to indicate because compared to the previous few years, this was an escalation then how would you structure the sentence. Kanatonian (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with taking out the entire sentence, which has recently been added back by user YaSiRu11 without discussion or consensus. I think it is WP:UNDUE, because already the proscription of LTTE by the USA is mentioned, and the FBI are an extension of the US. Additionally, I think the references will mislead people when they click on it as the Goebellian lie of '4000 people killed in 2 years by LTTE' will be propagated. This was the case back in 2008, when multiple media sources spread this canard, and it was used a justification for the bloody offensive that followed, resulting in tens of thousands of innocent deaths in 2009 (which the government blanketly denied)Oz346 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted YaSiRu11 edits as we are discussing in the talk page as to how to deal with it. Kanatonian (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Oz346 can we keep the opinions to ourselves, and stick to the matter on hand which is do we add that sentence or not ? Looks like the consensus is not to add it. Kanatonian (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue adding the FBI's proscription of LTTE as a terrorist organization since there is a clear reference from FBI and media sources. Lets not add FBI's claim of LTTE killing 4000 people because it has no significant importance Dilshanheimler (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dilshanheimler, what I think you're overlooking is that the FBI is law enforcement. They don't get to actually decide on which group gets designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Perhaps they're consulted —like, maybe alongside entities such as DHS, CIA, NSA, DIA, whomever— but they (all) get their marching orders like everyone else in US law enforcement and intelligence community and armed forces. By law, the decision to designate a foreign organization as a terrorist one is the sole domain of the Secretary of State (according to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965). See also: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations El_C 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Although if I were pedantic (which, of course, I am!), I suppose I would be remiss if I were to fail to note that, per Executive Order 13224 (2001), the Department of Treasury also has the authority to designate individuals and entities as subject to counter-terrorism sanctions (a sperate list maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control). See also: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-sanctions-programs-and-information El_C 01:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think an encyclopedia should give undue prominence to a a propaganda source which indulges in outright lies. Especially, when there is already a concise objective paragraph already describing the LTTE's designation as a terrorist group in the USA in the article lead. This article lead is supposed to be a concise introduction for the entire Sri Lankan Civil War, not a polemic against one side, with unnecessary repetition. An encyclopedia should have editorial standards.Oz346 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What I wanted to include in the article is that the FBI described LTTE as "one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations and deadly extremist outfits in the world"(https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/january/tamil_tigers011008) following the incidents like- continued suicide bombings on civilians, using minors in warfare and attempts to bribe US state department officials (https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2009/nyfo060909.htm). Moreover the FBI reported LTTE as "deadlier than Al Qaeda" (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ltte-deadlier-than-al-qaeda-fbi/articleshow/2693945.cms?from=mdr) as LTTE's suicide attack tactics inspired middle eastern terrorist organizations.. None of these information have been added to these article which is important since these factors inspired US and other countries to proscribe LTTE as a terrorist organization and support the GOSL in "the war against terrorism"(https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG430.pdf). Dilshanheimler (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no evidence to support the claim that these are propaganda sources. In the article, this line which states the proscription of LTTE as a terrorist organization "The tactics employed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam against the actions of Government forces resulted in their listing as a terrorist organisation in 32 countries" is misleading and is not weighted enough.

1. It doesn't mention the fact that LTTE's attacks on civilians lead to it's proscription as a terrorist organization not just attacks on the government, which i already mentioned above under "proscription of LTTE" but the other user kept reverting it as he's constantly trying to leave out information against the LTTE to whitewash it's acts

2. The sentence is very detailed about how only 32 countries designated LTTE as a terrorist organization because of 'tactics used against government attacks' which sort of support the narrative of "LTTE being a freedom fighter" deliberately excluding information about how LTTE was considered as an extremely dangerous organization at that time.

3. The article is very detailed about the warcrime allegations against the government troops, (this is the sentence comes after the line that talks about LTTE's proscription)"The Sri Lankan government forces have also been accused of human rights abuses, systematic impunity for serious human rights violations, lack of respect for habeas corpus in arbitrary detentions, and forced disappearances" and is mentioned across the article multiple times. So I don't understand why the other user is objecting , since the FBI's statement is not an undue weight, there is concrete evidence for FBI's statement, and it has a chronological importance. Dilshanheimler (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"There are no evidence to support the claim that these are propaganda sources."

I have quite clearly shown how the FBI sources spread a big lie regarding "4000 people killed by LTTE within 2 years" which is corroborated no where, and contradicted in multiple sources.

"The sentence is very detailed about how only 32 countries designated LTTE as a terrorist organization because of 'tactics used against government attacks' which sort of support the narrative of "LTTE being a freedom fighter" deliberately excluding information about how LTTE was considered as an extremely dangerous organization at that time."

The attack on civilians can be mentioned, and is also mentioned in the final paragraph of the intro section: "The LTTE gained notoriety for carrying out numerous heinous attacks against civilians".

"the other user kept reverting it as he's constantly trying to leave out information against the LTTE to whitewash it's acts"

This is a false accusation. The mention of LTTE targeting civilians in the proscription section was itself added back by me. I have no problem with adding that. The first revert was an accident due to the constant reverting taking place:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lankan_Civil_War&type=revision&diff=1003385175&oldid=1003384813

"3. The article is very detailed about the warcrime allegations against the government troops, (this is the sentence comes after the line that talks about LTTE's proscription)"The Sri Lankan government forces have also been accused of human rights abuses, systematic impunity for serious human rights violations, lack of respect for habeas corpus in arbitrary detentions, and forced disappearances"

This is not really that detailed at all, it does not mention the tens of thousands of civilians killed by the government forces, nor does it mention the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Tamil civilians from their traditional villages, nor does it mention the widespread torture and rape of thousands etc. It is just a mention of HR violations, and its succinct enough for a lead intro.

"the FBI's statement is not an undue weight, there is concrete evidence for FBI's statement, and it has a chronological importance." The FBI statement is repetition regarding the proscription of LTTE. The 'chronological importance' argument is nonsense. The USA proscribed the LTTE back in 2001, and the EU in 2006. The FBI statement has no chronological importance regarding the proscription of the LTTE.Oz346 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI being a propaganda source of GOSL is just your opinion. In fact, FBI being a 3rd party, that statement has validity. And we don't even have to mention the 4000 deaths happened in 2008-2009 which according to the other user could be wrong.

FBI's statement is not a repetition regarding the proscription of LTTE, FBI named LTTE as one of the most dangerous terrorist organization, its a fact and cannot be disputed. Several news media reported that as well. It's not even a minority opinion to disregard as WP:UNDUE. why this information should be deliberately left out?

As LTTE gained its reputation as a one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations because of those actions, USA and other countries adopted drastic measures against the LTTE (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG430.pdf). so that information has a chronologic importance as well.Dilshanheimler (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When the FBI spread a huge outright lie like "4000 killed by LTTE in 2 years", and then have a deafening silence on the thousands of Tamil civilians murdered and tortured in the same time period as documented in multiple human rights reports, I think the partisan and propagandist nature of their article is clear for any neutral, objective person to see. Without going on too much of a tangent, it is primarily geopolitical and strategic interests which led the US agencies to release statements like this, not a concern for human rights. The Indian media houses which all parroted the propaganda piece is also not an accident. The ruling Congress party were virulently anti-LTTE following the LTTE assassination of their former leader.Oz346 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

The FBI article fails on fact checking with the "4000 killed by LTTE in 2 years" lie. It has credibility issues as a source.Oz346 (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We are not going to add the death toll stated in FBI report. And Oz346 is the only person to claim that FBI's report contain false information. If you think FBI is fake, then sue FBI. We can't decide that here. According to the WP:UNDUE its "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove" Anyway i don't want to mention the information that's in the FBI statement. The only information that has to be added to the article is "FBI described LTTE as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world". Did the FBI make such a report? yes and there is reference from FBI and other media outlets. According to the other user anything could be propaganda. Even in this article, there are information extracted from the books of pro-LTTE journalists, and pro-LTTE websites like "TamilNET" so we have to remove all of those information because they're not neutral. Dilshanheimler (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not only is it WP:UNDUE, it is WP:BALASP, it is unnecessary repetition. I repeat "already the proscription of the LTTE by the USA is mentioned, and the FBI are an extension of the US."

"According to the other user anything could be propaganda."

It is propaganda when outright lies (4000 killed within two years by the LTTE) are peddled as truth, especially lies which make huge unverifiable claims contradictory to genuine neutral sources. Oz346 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not repetition since FBI doesn't decide/ designate terrorist organizations for US. FBI described LTTE as one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations, and FBI is well known across the world, so it should be mentioned.

Your opinion on FBI doesn't change the fact that FBI made such a statement or that FBI is well known across the world. It's only you say that FBI is lying. So do we have to remove all the information in wikipedia that was extracted from FBI because it's statements are not reliable for you? Dilshanheimler (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"So do we have to remove all the information in wikipedia that was extracted from FBI because it's statements are not reliable for you?"

Not at all, provided it does not come from a blatant propaganda piece with outright lies.

I disagree with your contention that it has to be mentioned. This is not a polemic on the LTTE, this is an encyclopaedic article on the Sri Lankan Civil War Oz346 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Section break 2

If I could point out again, more forcefully this time, that that 2004 FBI "news" story reads super-weird today — tone and all. Check out, for example, some of the more recent stories on https://www.fbi.gov/news — they all seem to be written like the sort of normal bulletins you would expect from them (as opposed to an op-ed -like piece). So, what was happening in 2004 there? Who knows. It's certainly curious. What is the value in relying on that 2004 FBI "news story" for this page (for anything)? I'm not sure. That has not been clearly demonstrated to my satisfaction. Not sure how helpful it is to make a broader point about WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, but here goes. Generally, this article needs to carefully and even-handedly depict the armed struggle waged by the LTTE, which at whatever frequency, also used terrorist means (leading to international charges, see: Criminal charges leveled against the LTTE) versus the counter-terrorist response by the Sri Lankan government and armed forces, which at whatever frequency, also used state terrorist means (leading to credible accusations to that effect, see: Sri Lanka and state terrorism). I just get the sense that much of the discussion above has been in a downward spiral for a while now, thus turning into a timesink for all concerned. Maybe this note can throw a wrench in that. Hopefully. A few other links of interest: List of attacks attributed to the LTTE; List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces; Protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War; War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War; Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka; Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. El_C 17:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI being a propaganda is just one's opinion. Anyone can argue just the way you did and tons of information could be removed. FBI in fact, described LTTE as one of the most dangerous terrorists groups in the world, FBI's statement is there. It describes the atmosphere created by the LTTE during the "civil war" so i believe this information has chronologic and encyclopaedic value. All of the FBI's "news publications" back then looked liked that "super-weird" way, they can be seen in the archives. Dilshanheimler (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dilshanheimler, to sharpen this a bit further, my question would be: can we truly say that, in this instance, the FBI during the 2004 GWB admin took a balanced view toward the conflict (LTTE terrorism versus Sri Lankan state terrorism) in that "news story" of theirs? Noting also that this seems to have been, relatively, quite a tangential matter for the US at the time (compared to, say, Iraq, Israel, Russia, Iran, and so on). What I'm saying is that it comes across as a bit of a political (War on terror) posturing, which indeed may have been par for the course back then, but I'm just not sure it meets WP:DUE in the sense that it could be included without some major qualifications — qualifications which would probably go beyond the scope of this page. Hope that makes sense. El_C 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The article was from 2008 not 2004. The sentence that i wanted to include is "FBI described LTTE as one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world"' which explains the atmosphere created by LTTE and the measures which was taken under "global war on terrorism" like I said before. Im not asking to include that LTTE is a dangerous terrorist organization like its a fact, instead Im suggesting that including " FBI described LTTE as..." is appropriate because FBI made that statement and there has been no formal issue about the legitimacy of the statement. Moreover I don't think allegations on Sri Lanka's state terrorism would influence this statement in any way because it is a result of LTTE's brutality. Dilshanheimler (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, Dilshanheimler, 2008 — sorry about that, not sure why I keep saying 2004.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Still the GWB admin, though. Anyway, it would because the US may not have been such a neutral actor here, and the FBI's connection to the civil war does not seem to go beyond dismantling some LTTE US domestic fundraising efforts. Otherwise, I'm just not seeing why the FBI's 2008 stance as seen in that "news story" (whose tone, let's face, reads like an op-ed), in particular, merits inclusion in this article's lead section. My sense is that, if pressed, the FBI's comment today would be far more understated (though most likely, they'd probably simply decline to comment). El_C 19:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not really satisfied with the reason why FBI's statement shouldn't be added. Based on which criteria could we decide that "the US may not have been such a neutral actor". If US was not a neutral actor, should everything the US said become unreliable? FBI was involved much more-

1. LTTE supporters' attempts of bribery on US state department officials (https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2009/nyfo060909.htm)

2. Conspiring to Acquire Anti-Aircraft Missiles and Provide Material Support to the LTTE (https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2009/nyfo012709b.htm)

there are much more FBI's news publications on it's involvement of stopping LTTE's international operations.

You are right, In future, many countries might even remove it's proscription on LTTE as a terrorist organization as because it is defunct and no longer a threat. Does that mean that it should be removed from this article too? This article is about a historical event, history doesn't change. FBI made made that statement about LTTE in 2008, unless FBI officially admits that it was a mistake or something I believe it should be valid. FBI's statement perfectly emphasize the atmosphere in 2008 so it's suitable to fix that void in this article. thank you Dilshanheimler (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dilshanheimler, I said not neutral — that doesn't necessarily equate to being unreliable. Big difference. Though, at times, it may be that, as well (like with the WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq). Does it suffer from such unreliability here, too (like with claims of "4,000 killed" in the span of those 2 years)? I truly don't know. Okay, sure, they also curtailed some bribery attempts and arms purchases. I still don't see what that really has to do with the FBI's position (from 2008 or whenever) as meriting inclusion for the WP:LEAD of this article. Since there is no mention of the US there, at all, the position of it, itself, as a country, sounds like is the thing that should be highlighted, instead. And that means, as decreed by the US Department of State, no? El_C 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C Okay, i just checked FBI's statement "4,000 murdered" in the span of those 2 year is not wrong. FBI does not specify if those killings are civilians or security personnels. If we count all the "people murdered by LTTE" including the security forces, "4000" figure is accurate. This is the link to FBI's terrorism reports (https://www.fbi.gov/@@search?SearchableText=ltte&searchHelpText=To+narrow+your+search%2C+select+a+content+type+option+listed+under+%E2%80%9CMore.%E2%80%9D+To+broaden+your+search+to+other+FBI+sites%2C+select+a+subdomain+listed+under+%E2%80%9CSource.%E2%80%9D&pageSize=20&page=1&sort_on=&sort_order=descending&after=). This includes all the non-combatant deaths which is around 681. In this wikipedia article you can find the combatant casualties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#:~:text=The%20Sri%20Lankan%20Civil%20war%20was%20very%20costly%2C%20killing%20and,both%20sides%20of%20the%20conflict.) which is around 2,639. Overall death toll = around 3,320. So we can exclude the doubt of misinformation containing in this FBI article.Dilshanheimler (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Combatant casualties should be from the Sri Lankan Army (not total which includes LTTE, unless you are saying LTTE killed themselves). The FBI article was published in January 2008. You cannot add the total figures from 2008 to make your cumulative figure. The total figure of SLA deaths is 1325 from those two specific years. Also the Sri Lankan Authorities did not release the army death toll during those years, until after the war end (from memory).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-srilanka-war-idUSTRE54L0YW20090522

This was to prevent reduce morale in the south and amongst the army. So 4000 is still nonsense. It likely a distortion of the SLMM 4000 figure. Oz346 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI's statement gives accurate information about the atmosphere during that time, and it gives context to the drastic measures that was taken by the countries against the LTTE. And it's obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation handled most of the operations against LTTE's international network. The beginning of the article has a tone suggesting that those drastic measures were taken out of the blue, it doesn't give the reader an accurate image about the atmosphere created by LTTE at that time. thank you.Dilshanheimler (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oz346 Obviously I only included the security forces casualties. There are "undetermined number of people died" in the FBI's terrorism reports. Still the figure would be around 4000. FBI's statement is "Murdered some 4,000 people" it doesn't say that the figure is exactly 4000.Dilshanheimler (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dilshanheimler Firstly, your 681 number for non combatant deaths, what pages of the documents is that on? I cannot find any differentiation between non-combatant and combatant deaths in those FBI report. Secondly, even if we take that 681 number as gospel (which I highly doubt after scanning the documents, in fact there are some killings in the report which are attributed to government forces by human rights groups like the 2006 Trinco aid worker massacre), and add to the total army deaths (which were not even publicly released at the time), we get 2006. That's half of 4000.Oz346 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oz346 security forces casualties were issued to the press by the GOSL you can see the news reports on youtube that was telecasted during the final war.Dilshanheimler (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Dilshanheimler Ok how did you work out the civilian death toll attributed to the LTTE from those FBI documents? 4000-1325 = 2675. You need 2675 civilians killed by LTTE to get 4000.Oz346 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok this FBI internal document from 2006 is full of distortions, attributing blame to the LTTE for atrocities well known by human rights groups to have been committed by government forces such as the Vaharai bombing, Pottuvil massacre and 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers. They also mix up combatant deaths with non combatant deaths, such as the massacre of 120 off duty navy sailors (p86 - 2006 report) amongst many others.

The cumulative total for their listed civilian deaths attributed to LTTE is 151 (removing those above 3 massacres popularly blamed on government forces, actually there are other controversial events, but I'm too tired to dig up the contrary evidence for those).

However according to their bar charts on page 12, 627 people were killed in 2006 in SL. There is a huge mismatch between that bar chart figure and this 151 number. I highly suspect they lumped all the known killings to them, irrespective of perpetrator into this bar chart. My hunch is corroborated by the 2005 bar chart for the same thing on page 24, which says 130 people were killed. This perfectly matches with the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission figure of 130 for total deaths due to war by the end of November 2005, committed by all parties, and included civilians and combatants.

For the FBI terrorism report of 2007, again on p26, they claim 241 people died, but do not clearly say who the perpetrator or victims were. Yet again there is a huge mismatch between this bar chart number and the actual number of civilian deaths (including 4 police) attributed to the LTTE in their actual list, which is a mere 61. They also mix deaths of soldiers in the list.

So to summarise, even with all their distortions in these 'reports', the FBI internal numbers of total deaths (868) in those 2 years (which includes massacres of Tamils and SL army casualties!!!) is no where near the "4000 killed in 2 years" lie.

The FBI's own numbers contradicts their propaganda piece from 2008! Absolute farce. Oz346 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with El_C, this FBI article is of low quality and reads like a propaganda piece with a huge lie. It does not satisfy the standards of an encyclopaedia. However, I support the assertion that this article should be accurate, and should mention the full reasons for LTTE proscription including attacks on civilians.Oz346 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Death Toll

Why are the references to the death toll contradictory on this page? The UN estimates 80,000 to 100,000 casualties due to the war. Jayingeneva (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@Jayingeneva: Thank you for your interest in this difficult subject, we usually put a range in these circumstances, because no one really knows. if you think the lower estimate is wrong, lets discuss Kanatonian (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kanatonian: Thank you for welcoming me and taking the time to write on the Talk page. The sections referring to the death toll lack citations. A bit more due diligence appears to be required in this area. Do you have any recommendations on how to proceed efficiently? Is WP:SLR the recommended way to approach this topic? Are these guidelines followed by most Editors on this page? I created this section on the Talk page first to avoid edit warring. However, I note that three edits were swiftly reverted without any explanation on the Talk page. One of which added additional citations. I am aware, "that users who revert frequently tend to revert users who revert rarely.". In such situations, is it better to take the dispute to the WP:DRN sooner rather than later? Jayingeneva (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Please note the following errors in your edit 1005436202

1. The UN Panel report was published in 2011, not 2013.
2. The UN Panel report does not refer to civilian deaths exceeding 100,000.
3. The quote, from the Time article you cite, is from the Policy Research and Information Unit of the Presidential Secretariat of Sri Lanka, not the UN Panel.
4. Your edit removed the citation and the hyperlink to the UN Panel report. Have you read it?
5. For no reason, your edit removed 2 citations to articles by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2011) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (2014).
6. Your edit included death toll figures with no citations that are 50% more than the official UN range.

Please take some time to do some due diligence, and then do a self-reversion. Next time, please look at the Talk page first. Thank you. Jayingeneva (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: What would your advice be? Do I revert Obi2canibe's edit? There has been no response to the list of errors I documented above.

The civilian death is likely much higher than 40,000 in the final stages of the war. Over 140,000 civilians from the Vanni region were unaccounted for following the final phase of the war in 2009.

Quoting estimates from outdated sources in May 2009 is not reliable at all. For example, in late May 2009, the Times newspapers quoted 20,000 dead. Later estimates in the year went up to 40,000. Even later estimates by one of the UN Panel Yasmin Sooka went even higher to 75,000. If a survey is ever done in Sri Lanka (which likely never will happen, as the Sri Lankan government is still intimidating witnesses and is engaged in a cover up), a figure over 100,000 is likely to be met which fits with the census deficits Oz346 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/sri-lankas-dead-and-missing-need-accounting

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=33380

These above articles suggest 100,000+ civilians missing from the 2009 war. Oz346(talk) 00:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: Thank you for joining the discussion on the Talk page. Let us be focused, concise and refrain from tangential discussions about one's opinions and beliefs. Please download the UN Panel report published on 31 March 2011 and read the section "E. The number of civilian deaths". In Paragraph 133, it clearly states that "others" have estimated 75,000 deaths, however, the Panel concludes in Paragraph 137, "up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out". The UN Panel, that includes Yasmin Sooka, appears to disagree with your assertions. Jayingeneva (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva:I have personally been in the audience of Yasmin Sooka, when she herself publicly said to Stephen Sackur of the BBC during the book launch of 'Still counting the dead' in October 2012 that she believed that the death toll was closer to 75,000. Now it is true many government apologists want to cover up the death toll and reduce it as low as possible.Oz346 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: We have to be objective and consistent. The UN Panel report published in 2011, which she was a prominent member of, concluded "up to 40,000" and disregarded 75,000. As you say, what stops a "government apologist" from coming along and saying the death toll is only 7,000 because X, Y and Z said so verbally in a discussion? We end up with a situation where they argue it's 7,000 and you argue it's 75,000. It leads to yet another edit war. Jayingeneva (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kanatonian:, @Obi2canibe:, @Oz346: Is edit 1006099297, by an unknown editor, vandalism? Jayingeneva (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kanatonian:, @Obi2canibe:, @Oz346: Could the description of the death toll be split into 'official UN estimate', 'Sri Lankan government estimate', 'LTTE and affiliated organisation's estimates'? That would increase the encyclopaedic value of this page and allow the reader to understand the complexity of the conflict and the difficulties facing reconciliation. Jayingeneva (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea Kanatonian (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: I don't know if you're a genuine editor or a troll but saying that 80,000-100,000 were killed is unbelievable. The fact is that there is no "official" estimate of the death toll. The Sri Lankan government went to great lengths during and after the war to hide casualty levels. We will probably never know how many died.

The source which you use to emphatically claim that 80,000-100,000 were killed was published before the full horrors of the final months of the war became known. The fact is that a figure of 80,000 killed was being quoted in reliable sources in 2008 before the war escalated (e.g. Guardian). As the International Crisis Group makes clear, the final months of the civil war saw in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. The UN Panel found that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in final stages of the war (September 2008 to May 2009). This excludes thousands of SL military personnel and LTTE cadres. For the record, I have not only read the UN panel report, I wrote the Wikipedia article.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Firstly, thank you for finally joining the discussion on the Talk page. Secondly, name-calling is unhelpful in a discussion. Thirdly, what you find "unbelievable" due to your Point of View is not relevant. You can disagree with the official UN estimate. However, you can not simply pretend that it doesn't exist.

I'm not claiming that 80,000 to 100,000 were killed. I'm stating that it is the official UN estimate. I hope you understand the difference. Don't assume that the team that was calculating the estimate didn't have access to sources that knew exactly what was happening at the time. The author of the Guardian article you cite is a "TV critic" and does not mention anything about a UN estimate.

Please re-read the UN Panel report. You have mixed up the time periods and casualty numbers. Firstly, the time period, August 2008 up to 13 May 2009 relates to the 7,721 verified casualty count by the UN Country Team. The quote, "a number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" appears to refer to the period January 2009 to May 2009.

Furthermore, please note your edit 1009458455 is WP:EW and perhaps even WP:VD. It introduces the following errors:

1. You removed a "Citation needed" without providing a citation.
2. You re-introduced WP:VD made by an IP address. No citations provided. The existing citation directly contradicts the edit.
3. Again, for no reason, your edit removed 2 citations to articles by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2011) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (2014).
4. Again, your edit removed the citation and the hyperlink to the UN Panel report.
5. Again, you have attributed a quote to the wrong entity.
6. The UN Panel report was published in 2011, not 2013.

Please do a self-reversion. Jayingeneva (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe is right. The May 2009 quote from the UN you are using is highly unreliable. It is very suspicious why one would push that source, especially if one has basic knowledge of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

After May 2009, starting with the confidential UN leaks, the true extent of the death toll in the final phase of the war was becoming apparent with tens of thousands of dead. Why would one stubbornly use that May 2009 source, unless they wanted to reduce the extent of the death toll.Oz346 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: As I said above, you can disagree with the official UN estimate. However, you can not simply pretend that it doesn't exist. Can you please elaborate why the UN estimate is "highly unreliable"? Can you please suggest which estimates are 'reliable'? The IDP numbers were also tracked by the UN. Those are the numbers the UN Panel report uses to define a possible range. It seems you don't like some UN stats, but like other UN stats. Also, can you please clarify whether you agree with the 100,000-276,000 death toll that Obi2canibe just re-introduced? Where does this 276,000 number come from? Jayingeneva (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

For the silent readers reading this. The UN were accused of suppressing the death toll during the war to prevent them from looking bad. The article which Jay is stubbornly trying to use is from this period of cover up. This cover up was confirmed by the UN's own internal reports (read the Petrie report and UN report itself.) Anonymous UN whistle blowers reported to the The Times newspapers of at least 20,000 + dead in late May 2009 (estimates later went up to 40,000, 75,000 and even 100,000 + from the census deficits). Jay now appears engaged in continuing this cover up by using the old statistics from the cover up period.Oz346 (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: When death tolls are collated, they are based on confirmed deaths. The UN Panel Report in 2011 clearly states that counting confirmed deaths was not possible in the last week of the war, "The United Nations Country Team is one source of information; in a document that was never released publicly, it estimated a total figure of 7,721 killed and 18,479 injured from August 2008 up to 13 May 2009, after which it became too difficult to count". The official UN estimate was not a range prior to the final phases of the war.

The 2011 UN Panel report also states, "Others have put the estimate at 75,000" and dismisses the figure by concluding, "but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage."

Where did you get the 100,000+ estimate from? From the estimates you have listed, would it be fair to say that 276,000 looks like WP:VD? Jayingeneva (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

if anyone is vandalising or distorting its you. It is clear what your motive is. To cover up the death toll to aid the Sri Lankan government cover up.

"dismisses the figure" You need to learn the definition of dismiss. Because the UN does not dismiss the 70,000+ figure at all. Only Sri Lankan government supporters dismiss that figure. No neutral does. But the silent readers can make their own mind up.Oz346 (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: Can you please provide examples of what you believe to be vandalism? Also, please explain where this 276,000 death toll number comes from? In general, citations and quotes would be appreciated. This conversation is of no value if you can't provide citations. It might be worth reading WP:NPA.

The UN Panel report refers to the 75,000 estimate here:

"133. Some have developed estimates based on the statistics of the injured and dead collected by the doctors, which were collated by the hospitals and the District Disaster Management Unit. One estimate is that there were approximately 40,000 surgical procedures and 5,000 amputations performed during the final phase. Depending on the ratio of injuries to deaths, estimated at various times to be 1:2 or 1:3, this could point to a much higher casualty figure. Others have put the estimate at 75,000, a figure obtained by subtracting the number of people who emerged from the conflict zone (approximately 290,000) from the estimate of the number thought to have been in the conflict zone (approximately 330,000 in the NFZ from January, plus approximately the 35,000, who emerged from the LTTE-held areas before that time)."

The UN Panel then refers to the 7,721 estimate here:

"134. The United Nations Country Team is one source of information; in a document that was never released publicly, it estimated a total figure of 7,721 killed and 18,479 injured from August 2008 up to 13 May 2009, after which it became too difficult to count. In early February 2009, the United Nations started a process of compiling casualty figures, although efforts were hindered by lack of access. An internal “Crisis Operation Group” was formed to collect reliable information regarding civilian casualties and other humanitarian concerns. In order to calculate a total casualty figure, the Group took figures from RDHS as the baseline, using reports from national staff of the United Nations and NGOs, inside the Vanni, the ICRC, religious authorities and other sources to cross-check and verify the baseline. The methodology was quite conservative: if an incident could not be verified by three sources or could have been double-counted, it was dismissed. Figures emanating from sources that could be perceived as biased, such as Tamil Net, were dismissed, as were Government sources outside the Vanni."

The UN Panel report dismisses the 7,721 and 75,000 number by asserting "up to 40,000" in the conclusion of the section:

"137. In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths."

It is clear the section first describes the various estimates and then concludes with what it believes to be reasonable. Jayingeneva (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The UN panel report does not state anywhere that the 75,000 number is unreasonable or not credible. Only Sinhala racists say that to cover up the depraved deeds of their army. Just because the UN panel mention the more conservative 40,000 estimate in their final conclusion, is just that, a cautious estimate. Only someone with an agenda would distort this to mean that the UN panel outright dismiss the 75,000 figure. Especially when we have Yasmin Sooka, one of the UN panel saying on record that she believed the death toll was closer to 75,000.

The follow up UN Internal Panel report in 2012 said on page 14:

'Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

Now maybe in Sri Lanka, where lie means truth, and truth means lie, you would interpret that as a dismissal of the 70,000+ figure. But this is not Sri Lanka, this is wikipedia.Oz346 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: To a native English speaker, "but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage", is a carefully qualified statement setting the maximum limit of the range.

Thank you for providing a quote and bringing my attention to the UN Internal Review report. Again, one needs to read the entire paragraph to realise it describes various estimates and, in this instance, makes no conclusion:

"34. On 19 May, with the death of the LTTE’s leadership, the Government claimed victory in the war. The final phase of the decades-long Sri Lankan conflict was catastrophic. The Panel of Experts stated that “[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths”. Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for."

That paragraph uses the term "deaths" when referring to "as many as 40,000" and uses the term "unaccounted for" when referring to "over 70,000". In a UN document, one would assume the choice of words is very deliberate. Jayingeneva (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"setting the maximum limit of the range."

That is your biased conjecture. They say nothing of the sort. There is no mention of 'upper limits'. You come to that conclusion yourself out of thin air.Oz346 (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A whistle blower in the Sri Lankan Army said the following:

https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone

The Sri Lankan government attempted to cover up such acts by burying the bodies in mass graves, according to “Fernando”.

“Massive numbers of children, women and men were killed in the final stages of the war. When I say massive, in Puthumathalan alone, over 1500 civilians were killed.

“But they couldn’t bury all of them. What they did was, they bought a bulldozer, they spread the dead bodies out and put sand on top of them, making it look like a bund.

“I saw 1500 bodies only in Puthumathalan, but I saw the same happen to more than 50,000 people like that.”

Questioned on the accuracy of the numbers he cited, “Fernando” said: “In the final stage, all that I saw in Puthumathalan were dead bodies. When I entered the last place… it was totally full of dead bodies.

“They wanted to clear them that’s why they brought that big vehicle. All they could do was just put sand on them. In some areas you couldn’t go because there was such a terrible smell of decomposing bodies.”

“They were just innocent Tamil civilians and did not belong to either warring party.” Oz346 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What is more disgusting than mass murdering tens of thousands of civilians, preventing independent witnesses to enter the massacre site, burying the bodies in mass graves, importing bone dissolving chemicals to destroy the evidence, is to try and bury the truth. I repeat this is wikipedia, not Sri Lanka Oz346 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: If you don't like the Guardian source, here are BBC News, Reuters and Al Jazeera reports from 2007 giving a death toll of 70,000 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

You seem fixated on the UN's estimated 7,721 killed between August 2008 up to 13 May 2009 but as the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka found, the methodology used to come to that estimate was "quite conservative: if an incident could not be verified by three sources or could have been double-counted, it was dismissed" and that is was hindered by lack of access. The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (published in March 2011) itself estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in final stages of the war (September 2008 to May 2009). The Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka (published in November 2012) mentions that 70,000 people were unaccounted for. So, we have three different UN estimates with three different death tolls.

Estimates can change, particularly when new information comes to light. And yet you are fixating on one unofficial estimate, which the UN has itself subsequently labelled as conservative, and want to include it in this article as the official estimate. This is clear sign that you are here to make a POV, not build encyclopedic content.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Thank you for admitting your error. The death toll estimate was NOT 80,000 before the final phases of the war, as you previously claimed. As you have now learnt, the UN estimate was 70,000 before the final phases of the war. Thank you for all the citations, they will be useful.

Obi2canibe said, "You seem fixated on the UN's estimated 7,721 killed between August 2008 up to 13 May 2009".

That's incorrect, I explicitly stated earlier, "The UN Panel report dismisses the 7,721 and 75,000 number by asserting "up to 40,000" in the conclusion of the section".

As I wrote earlier, the UN Internal Review report from November 2012 clearly states: "34. On 19 May, with the death of the LTTE’s leadership, the Government claimed victory in the war. The final phase of the decades-long Sri Lankan conflict was catastrophic. The Panel of Experts stated that “[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths”. Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for."

Obi2canibe said, "So, we have three different UN estimates with three different death tolls."

Qué? How did you reach that conclusion? There's the official UN estimate of 70,000 before the final phases of the war. Then there's the official UN estimate of 80,000 to 100,000 after the final phases of the war. Then there's the UN Panel report that concludes, "but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage.". They are logically consistent. You have simply miscomprehended the mathematics.

Obi2canibe said, "And yet you are fixating on one unofficial estimate, which the UN has itself subsequently labelled as conservative, and want to include it in this article as the official estimate. This is clear sign that you are here to make a POV, not build encyclopedic content."

You have simply constructed a Straw man argument. You claim, "You seem fixated on the UN's estimated 7,721 killed ...", and then you argue against it. Unfortunately, that's not my proposition. So, you are essentially arguing with yourself.

My proposition (written on 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)) is,

"Could the description of the death toll be split into 'official UN estimate', 'Sri Lankan government estimate', 'LTTE and affiliated organisation's estimates'? That would increase the encyclopaedic value of this page and allow the reader to understand the complexity of the conflict and the difficulties facing reconciliation."

Please read more carefully what I write, instead of making assumptions. The biggest obstacle in improving the encyclopaedic value of this article, is your WP:VD. -- Jayingeneva (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

OFFTOPIC: @Obi2canibe: The Guardian article you cited, is quite frankly, offensive to Sri Lankan Tamils!

"Historically, Tamils were mainly brought over from India by, of course, Britain, to help run the plantations in what was then Ceylon: they were schooled in governance, bookkeeping, administration, better than the locals. After independence, however, there was resentment from the Sinhalese majority, now at 80 per cent. Tamils were effectively exiled to the north, around Jaffna, yet given little say in their own affairs; hence the liberation fight. And 80,000 dead, about 6,000 in the past two years alone; and today again, far to the northwest, another pitched battle is breaking out on the Mannar peninsula. The Tiger cadres are formed mainly of women and, reportedly, heavily defeated: there is scepticism at government reports, but not too much."

This is the kind misunderstanding and conflation of historical events that needs to stop. -- Jayingeneva (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

'LTTE and affiliated organisation's estimates'?

What do you mean by LTTE affiliated organisations? No one has mentioned any LTTE estimates of the death tolls. Unless you are painting all Tamil sources as LTTE, and all human rights activists like Yasmin Sooka as LTTE. This shows your bias. Sri Lankan government ministers have also called members of the UN and Amnesty international as LTTE (for merely stating the truth).

Your outright lie that the UN 'dismissed' the 70,000+ figure will not stand up to any neutral, third party.

And its hilarious that you can decide what is offensive to us Tamils. I can assure you i have nothing but disgust for the psychopaths trying to hide the scale of the massacre, rather than some ignorant westerner confusing plantation tamils for the native tamils Oz346 (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: OK, it's clear you are here just to waste other editors' time, not make encyclopedic contributions. I'll finish by summarising the facts that this article should include in accordance with WP:CCPOL:

• There are multiple reliable sources which in early 2008 give an estimated death toll of 70,000.

• The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (March 2011) estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in final stages of the war (September 2008 to May 2009)

• Taking the above two we have 110,000 deaths but this excludes thousands of soldiers and LTTE cadres killed during September 2008 to May 2009 as well as all deaths (civilians and combatants) in early/mid 2008.

• The estimate of 7,721 killed between August 2008 up to 13 May 2009 has been debunked subsequently, including by the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.

• There are no official estimates.

• Cherry-picking from multiple, conflicting sources is WP:POV.

--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: It is not clear what you have against presenting the various death estimates and their methodologies to readers. It seems you would prefer to suppress such information being presented to readers and instead only present your WP:POV.

What is clear, is that you have no intention of doing a self-reversion of your WP:VD in 1009458455.

You have had one month to take accountability for the errors you have introduced. Namely:

1. The UN Panel report was published in 2011, not 2013.
2. You have attributed a quote to the wrong entity.
3. Your edit removed the citation and the hyperlink to the UN Panel report.
4. For no reason, your edit removed 2 citations to articles by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2011) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (2014).
5. You re-introduced WP:VD made by an IP address. No citations provided. The existing citation directly contradicts the edit. At no stage have you cited any sources to support your edit.
6. You removed a "Citation needed" without providing a citation.

It seems reasonable to conclude that you have no intention of being a responsible editor on this topic. Jayingeneva (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)