Talk:Sri Lankan civil war/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Citation used for IDPs in Infobox

@Obi2canibe: @Oz346: The Citation used for IDPs in the Infobox, described as "UNHCR Overview: IDPs in Sri Lanka" with hyperlink https://sangam.org/unhcr-overview-idps-sri-lanka/ does not match the original NRC/IDMC published document that is hosted by UNHCR's document repository.

Firstly, it's not a UNHCR overview. Sangam.org appears to have altered the original title but left the disclaimer that explicitly says, "This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.". Secondly, the document itself contains instructions how it should be cited, "Norwegian Refugee Council/Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (NRC/IDMC), Global Overview 2012: People internally displaced by conflict and violence - Sri Lanka, 29 April 2013, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/517fb0516.html"

If there are no objections, I'll cite the actual NRC/IDMC document, "Global Overview 2012: People internally displaced by conflict and violence - Sri Lanka" with hyperlink, https://www.refworld.org/docid/517fb0516.html , instead. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: No objection to infobox being changed to 800,000 IDPs at peak in 2001, as source.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Done. Citation changed from https://sangam.org/unhcr-overview-idps-sri-lanka/ to https://www.refworld.org/docid/517fb0516.html --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:28, 29 March 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)

@Obi2canibe: I have initiated Dispute Resolution because it does not seem possible to improve this article with your persistent/systemic WP:EW. Please participate in it constructively. --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: Thanks for all the time and effort you have put into mediating! Please note, the text is not intended for the "Impact" section. As Oz346 mentioned earlier, it's for the intro to the article, to replace existing text. --Jayingeneva (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Which parts is it replacing? Because there is a lot of information in that lead that does not line up with the new paragraph- and there is no good place it would fit there. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle It was intended to replace the following text, 'For over 25 years, the war caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country, with an initial estimated 80,000–100,000 people killed during its course. In 2013, the UN panel estimated additional deaths during the last phase of the war: "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."' --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The paragraphs have been moved to the correct place. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle Thanks again! --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Oz346: Less than 24 hours after Nightenbelle added the compromise text from the WP:DRN process, you changed it in edit 1015417372. Furthermore, the "final phase" is explicitly defined by the UN Panel report. It states, "At the outset of the final phase, on 13 January 2009," p37. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/POE_Report_Full.pdf --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: Oh dear, once again you are fixating on one statement to misinterpret the source. In the "Mandate, Composition and Programme of Work" section of the report (page 4) it clearly states: "The Terms of Reference require the Panel to advise the Secretary-General about the implementation of the joint statement regarding the “final stages of the war”. The Panel focused on the period from September 2008 through May 2009, which encompasses the most intense and violent phase of the war during which many of the most serious violations of international law are alleged to have taken place".--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

While the DRN is not binding and does not have the power to enforce the decisions- changing something right after it was agreed upon in the DRN is bad form. I would ask that you self revert back to the agreed upon wording that combines information from many sources. Also- the Oh dear above is condescending. Just because the dispute resolution is over does not mean you should resort to incivility here. As the mediator- this whole exchange makes me feel like we failed to make any progress at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: The UN Panel report explicitly defines the start of the "final phase" as "13 January 2009". You quote a different term, "final stages". --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Nightenbelle, the current edit is very much needed. Because the final DRN version is ambiguous. It reads as if the 40,000 and other figures are for the whole conflict, when they are only for the final phase. This is not controversial and was never in dispute by anyone. thanksOz346 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Intro too long?

Putting aside all the debate on the casualties in 2009, as the warning on the page suggests, the intro to the article is far too long. I think we should move much of the information to other parts of the article, but how should it be moved? SinhalaLion (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not too long when compared to similar sized articles (e.g. World War II). The problem is that we have editors trying to push their own POV by adding content in the intro, rather than editing the main body. This has resulted in repetition of content, such as four paragraphs in the intro about how bad the other side was.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the extra long casualties paragraphs can be moved to the casualties section, that would make the intro much more concise.Oz346 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, move the 3 paragraphs, from WP:DRN, starting with "The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated ...". --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)