Jump to content

Talk:Sri Lanka/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

LKA redirect

I was redirected to Sri Lanka when looking for the U.S. Navy ship type "LKA." I don't see any LKA in the article, so I am wondering why this redirect exists. Lou Sander 13:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the three-letter ISO code for Sri Lanka. See ISO_3166-1 alpha-3. 86.0.198.221 19:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[[HDI]

0.751 is not "medium". Which is correct, the number or the word? Drdr1989 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(ශ්‍රී ලංකා in Sinhala/ இலங்கை in Tamil)

Articals in this edition should be written in English.Plus if you dont know both languages rather than having one language and other haviing question marks.Its better not to have both.

Almost all country articles list native name of the country in it's infobox. I don't see any problem with having them here. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is if you dont know sinhala dont use question marks to simbolize the language Sinhala. ??*?? ???? does not mean anything in sinhala.
It may look like that on your computer, but on other people's (including) mine, it appears as Sinhala script. You may want to download certain fonts. —Khoikhoi 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont try to be too smart!You have poor knowledge or no knowledge at all about Sinhala script,you think that you see sinhala script when you see ???????????'s.Dont miuse common Sources!

Huh? All I'm saying is that it works on my browser. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Sinhala Font Guide for more information. —Khoikhoi 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, here's how it looks on my comp:
Sri Lanka
Talk:Sri Lanka
—Khoikhoi 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
In most of the browsers this shows as either ?????? , □□□□□□□□□□ , or ########. You should either have a note saying "to view the Sinhala script please down load the sinhala fonts" and give a link to down load the font. If the font type is not universally supported it really does not make any sense to show boxes and stars as sinhala script! (71.250.70.10 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
And also in the screen shots that you provided Sri Lanks is written wrong in Sinhala script.Please do your research before re posting it again.I will take this part out as it is wrong information.(71.250.70.10 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Ok, I'll add a notice about the font, ok? But removing the fact that the two offical languages of Sri Lanka are both Tamil and Sinhala is vandalism. You know that Sri Lanka has two offical language, so please don't remove Sinhala again. —Khoikhoi 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as you have correct info thats fine.And make sure what ever sinhala fonts that you are trying to provide are universally supported.If not do not have it at all! - (71.250.70.10 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Ok, I hope I did it right. —Khoikhoi 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Its not correct.Plus whers the link you down load the sinhala fonts.?
The link is at the top of the page. And how is it not correct? If you see question marks perhaps you could try downloading the fonts. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


I see where you're coming from .Listen editing other peoples debates and deleating the headers are not allowed here in the discussion page.(71.250.70.10 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Please show me where I did that. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi again. Please don't remove Sinhala until the discussion is over. Also bear in mind that there is a three-revert rule, which means you cannot revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to tell you the same thing!Please dont put it back until you have corrected it! You are misleading the community!!-(71.250.70.10 04:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Can you please explain to me how it needs to be corrected? Besides, look at this this Ethnologue report. It clearly says that Tamil and Sinhala are the two offical languages of Sri Lanka. —Khoikhoi 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
i dont think you and I understand each other.This is NOT a question about how many official languages there are in SL.Its about Sri lanka is written wrong in Sinhala script.In sinhala the word "SRI" is written as "sriyanna" and NOT "Alshayanna" and "Reeyanna".Look at the Sinhala script on top og the flag! Thats how Sri lanka is written in Sinhala and thats how it should be corrected.This is why I told you at the beginning if you do not know sinhala dont disgrace it just drop it.It s better not to have it at all rather that to present what ever you feel like is right.This is not a joke you are trying to represent a unique language that is only spoken and written in Sri Lanka.I understand that it is a difficult to learn and hard to find Language.But that does not mean that you can have any letter up here to resprecent SINHALA SCRIPT.You need to make sure they are correct in this case it is NOT. I will take it off again please dont put it back untill you have corrected it!---(71.250.70.10 18:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
If it's wrong, correct it. You seem to know Sinhala, so why do you want me to do it? Instead of just deleting things, fix it. —Khoikhoi 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


If I had known how to do it I would have done it long time ago. O.k. If you dont wanna fixed it Lets do this Untill I get someone to fixed it for me dont put wrong info back up.O.K. ?(71.250.70.10 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Ok, I suggest you ask User:Mystìc to see if it's correct or not. Just in the meantime don't delete the fact that Sri Lanka has 2 offical languages. I have to go now. —Khoikhoi 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
O.K. also just reminding you that I have not being deleating any facts other than wrong sinhala scripts!---(71.250.70.10 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
BTW, this is the article about Sri Lanka from the Sinhala Wikipedia. Is it the correct spelling? —Khoikhoi 01:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi welcome to wikipedia and the wikiway!!!! As you know wikipedia is open to anyone to edit but is not a place for preposterous argument!! You cannot argue something is not correct just because its not visible to you.. Kindly check whether your browser has the correct fonts and you have installed the correct service packs (In some cases you need to have XP service pack 2 installed) .. check here for instructions or see Wikipedia:Sinhala Font Guide its very easy to follow. I can read and write Sinhala and was educated in Sinhala medium. So take my word Sri Lanka is spelt correctly in the page.. I also welcome you to create yourself a user account, with a user account your discussions have more weight, because many people could share the same IP address.

thanks..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Preposterious arguments???? have a look at the snap shots Khoikhoi sent your self.Is that the way sri lanka is written in Sinhala? (71.250.70.10 02:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
Okay I am sorry I didn't notice the image.. Anyway now I have included the correct text, if you install the correct font you should be able to see it correctly.. I again kindly suggest you to create a user account, Sri Lanka related articles need lot of attention, I think you could be a good contributor. Thanks in advance  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 13:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!I dont see it ....I'll take your word.I just glanced at this page just for curiosity and was surprized and dissapointed with the pic.that it gave ....not only this page but sevaral other pages about Sri Lanka.The saying "Sinhalaya Modaya" is somewhat true as they sleep when rest of the world walks all over them......one thing for sure is that I will never recommend wikipedia to any body.I hope the brave people out there will do their research from other sources to.!!Cheers.I'll be back someday . -A-
IP wrote In sinhala the word "SRI" is written as "sriyanna" and NOT "Alshayanna" and "Reeyanna", which is correct, as can be seen in SrilankaFont.png on top of the flag where there is the ligature in which the "r" is integrated in one sign with the "sii" (to put it somewhat awkwardly). However, since the spelling in the text ("sh" + "rii") yields the same pronunciation, I don't see the reason to get so angry. As soon as somebody figures out how to render the Sriyanna sign as text, everybody will be happy. Let's hope that'll be soon. I'll keep my eyes open. Krankman 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This mes.Is for mrankman."Alshayanna"+ "Reeyanna" does not sound the same.It is not "exactly" the correct pronunciation!!.There's a difference in pronouncing "gayanushayanna" and "sh" + "Rii"!"Gayanushayanna" wich comes in "Sri lanka" is pronounced more like "SRI' just as you write it meaning "PROSPERITY"!!!!!.Yeah....keep your eyes wide open.And take a Sinhala class too!(71.250.70.10 04:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC))
The importance of this one letter (ligature) to the Sinhala people has been demonstrated before, with the so-called "Shri"-conflict (1957) which was one in a series of events that led to the escalation of the ethnic conflict. Anyway, what you say is factually wrong. Compare the Sinhala version: They for sure wish it looked different, but for the moment they seem to be content with the "sh" plus "ri" spelling. It's simply a problem of rendering ligatures. Please do get registered! Krankman 08:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Following the correction, an edit [1] by Hintha had stripped away the ZWJ Unicode character that is required when writing Sri Lanka in Sinhala. I have corrected it. --Harshula 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ruled by india long ago

Hi when you read this you will learn that India use to rule sri lanka.

Have you ever look into Srilanka and india and see that both contries are very alike. Like there gods, the colthes they use, there food, ect.Well that is because India use to rule sri lanka. Wondering why india ruled sri lanka back then.... Well I think India use to rule sri lanka because sri lanka is in the indian ocean.

P.S. If you know more about this PLEASE add to it by clicking edit this page, THANK YOU! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.43.234.213 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 May 2006.

you are compleately out of your mind!!!!!hahahaha...

I guess the writer is referring to the fact that " India & Company" which was the British Colonial management office which was run by British to rule both India and Sri Lanka for managerial purposes. So if the writer think British managing Sri Lanka through an entity established in India is same as India Ruling Sri Lanka, You are DEAD WRONG!!!!

Sri Lanka has never been ruled by India in the written history of more than 2000 years. Some kings from states of India have captured nothern parts of Sri Lanka time to time, but limited to very small areas and to a little time frame, befor being defeated by Sinhala kings from other parts of Sri Lanka. Remains of such 'partial ruling' is prooved by majority Tamils in nothern Sri Lanka, and they've come from Southern India and settled in Sri Lanka.


Please don't post your fantacies on this board.

Well rulled it might be, but in a time that elephants came from india to Sri Lanka, or do we believe that elephants can swim oceans ?
Elephants can swim long distances, and in this case, I'm guessing that they didn't have to, as there is a difference between Sri Lankan and Indian Elephants, genetically, so there was never the need to swim. --Nirmalsuki 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone

There seems to be some doubt about Sri Lanka's time zone. I have changed it back to +5:30. I quote from wwp.greenwichmeantime.com:

A Sri Lankan government directive to reverse the clocks soon after Sri Lankan ended the April 13-14 2006 annual celebrations of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year came following a request by parents that the daylight savings time was affecting their children’s wellbeing. The new Sri Lanka time is 5 1/2 hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) compared to 6 hours + GMT in the past decade.

I hope this clarifies it. Krankman 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Early History

I added some details and removed a few unobjective wordings and false statements. I'd like to add that I have done a lot of reading in this field. (I feel compelled to state this here because by looking at the previous discussions I'm afraid there may be protest coming up.) Let's try and keep this objective. Krankman 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortening of "Ethnic conflict" section

Supermod has cut a lot of text out of this section. The reason he gives is that he removed a "biased POV". In my view, that is not true. The text wasn't perfect, but I don't see what was biased there. One might even argue that mentioning that Tamils are members of the government while leaving out a lot of other stuff is POV now.

Anyway, I support the changes because all the details should be only in the actual article on the ethnic conflict. To me, what's left after this edit is just the right small amount of introductory info that should be in this place. Krankman 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I have also moved this section as thisis a artical about Sri Lanka and all Sri Lankan citizens should respect the fact that the civil conflict is not THE issue in Sri Lanka!Every country has its problems and will be resolved between the parties.


Civil conflict

I have also moved this section as this is a artical about Sri Lanka and all Sri Lankan citizens should respect the fact that the civil conflict is not THE issue in Sri Lanka!Every country has its problems and will be resolved between the parties.


Main article: Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

The ongoing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is between elements of the majority Sinhalese and minority Sri Lankan Tamils. Since 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, mostly between the government (made of all ethnic groups (Sinhalese, being the largest group), including Tamils) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE, who want to create an independent Tamil Eelam state in the northeast of the island. It is estimated that the war has left 65,055 people dead since 1983 as well as causing great harm to the economy of the country. A cease-fire was declared in 2002, but incidents of violence in late 2005 and early 2006 led to fears of a renewed civil war.

There had been high hopes that the devastating Tsunami of December 2004 would force the government and Tamil rebels into a new, lasting dialogue to address the serious effects of the disaster. But these hopes were dashed as almost immediately both sides began to make accusations of bias and favouritism on the part of international aid agencies. In the spring of 2006, deep political unease and suspicion remained between the two factions, which resulted in the sinking of two government gunships by LTTE forces, while trying to sink a ship carrying around 700 unarmed army personnel. The ship was sailing under the flag of the International Monitoring Mission, and there were Peace Monitoring officers on board. In response, the government sank five Tiger vessels and later bombarded Tiger strongholds.


The army is also the largest employer of Sri Lankans according to the army's website.

LTTE is the largest child soldier employer in the world!Its a foolish thing to do to wash dirty clothes in font of the whole international audienc.Dont put yourself,my self and the Sri lankans down this low!!Stick to the topic!

Actually I think that this information is significant because it tells a lot about the current status of the Sri Lankan economy and about the grave influence the ethnic conflict has. I think the information, if it is accurate, is relevant und should be put back up. Krankman 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Army is also the largest widow maker

Isn't the Sri Lanka army also the largest widow maker? both Tamil and Sinhala

Well sure, the SLA and the LTTE make the most widows in SL. But unfortunately, I doubt that the community would want this extremely relevant info in an article. ;-) Krankman 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Which army are you talking about SL Army, US Army, or any Army? Crankman...seriously...how childish can you be...XOXOXO

Genocide of Tamils

I was going to add a section on the genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

From 1956-2006. Before you all jump up with anti-LTTE slogans, the genocide of Tamils started some 25 years before the LTTE came on the scene. In 1956 the "Sinhala Only" law was introduced. Thousands were forced to leave government jobs and hundreds of protesters were burnts alive.

However, I know wikipedia is infested with young liones and lionessses who would want to hide the truth from the world at all costs.

May I kindly request a wiki-senior with a neutral perspective to consider adding a section about the genocide.

The worst thing we can do to the 100 000 victims is to forget them.

Hi,If you are not aware there is a page for this issue and yes you can contibute to this here. Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

Wikipedia management(??) seemed to NOT have a neutral point of view

I got this message from IP address 66.234.227.24.


"Current revision

Stop Vandalising wikipedia pages this is your 1st warning.-Admin//"

BTW why do you not have a username if you are "management" why an unknown IP address??

Hence it seems no one has the right to ASK for a section about the alleged atrocities by BOTH the SL government AND LTTE against Tamil,Sinhala and Muslim people.

If this is the incorrect place for such debates then also delete points 13 though 16 on this page which talk about such things too and relocate them to do the appropriate section or totally remove them.

If you do not do this means that your NPOV should be questioned as it gives the discussion a very one side tilt.Definitely NOT NPOV!


gjghgBandaraUK 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Genocide of Tamils - Link

The genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka is a major part of the island's past, present and future.

I do not think the lions and lionesses who have infested Wikipedia, would allow for a section on the genocide of Tamils within the main article.

Therefore, I am adding an external link to a website that has categorised acts of violence by the state's armed forces against the island's Tamil minority.

If you feel that it is necessary to remove the link, please state your reason below.

Hello,
I am thankful that you have decided to take part in the discussion!
Firstly, let me tell you that there are very few "lions and lionesses" here because the Tamil community abroad is much more numerous than the Sinhalese one.
I for example am not a "lion" but a German who has had a lot of insight into affairs of "ilankai" for the last 15 years. And I don't stand for any point of view. I would just like to keep this article as balanced as possible.
Please, don't answer to this particular point, but I feel the need to state that the Sri Lankan Army as well as the LTTE have committed acts of cruelty, and that that is not something we need to discuss here.
"Genocide" is a term applied to the (attempted) annihilation of a whole people (as my damned forefathers tried to accomplish with the Jews), the likes of which have also taken place in Serbia and Rwanda in the more recent future.
The Tamils however (Thank God!) have not been significantly reduced in population number by the Sri Lankan forces, and no one except for the nationalist Tamil organisations says that there has been a so-called "genocide".
The Tamil community is very much alive up to this day and will continue to be, and there is nothing the Sri Lankan Army can do about that. Please concede that "genocide" is something else. Human rights violations: Yes. Cruelty: Yes. But not genocide.
The Sri Lankan Tamil people will survive, no matter what happens, since there are international gremia watching the situation (I am not talking about the Scandinavians only ).
"Amnesty International" has thoroughly examined the human rights violations by both the Sri Lankan Army and the LTTE, and I feel that that documentation is exhaustive and enough for anyone who is interested in educating themselves on the problematic situation on the island,.
Those who need more (graphic) information can always google these keywords and find all the (partial) information and pictures from all the different viewpoints.
Thank you for reading my argument, Krankman 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Krankman, many thanks for your reply.

You have made some excellent points. I feel that I should put forward my views point by point as well.

– I totally agree with you that both the army and LTTE have carried out atrocities. The LTTE as a guerilla/ rebel / terrorist movement partakes in certain activities; that is no excuse for a state’s armed forces to partake in similar activities. Leaving that to a side and concentrating on Wikipedia, if you look at the LTTE page then you will notice a whole section within the main article outlining alleged human rights abuses by the LTTE. No such section exists within the main article for Sri Lanka. All attempts have been futile as whole sections have been deleted rather than being edited.

- Excuse me but for a community of just four million to have had 100 000 killed and around a million made refugees is in fact a significant number. Sri Lanka’s method is not the same as that of Hitler. However, it is systematic in eliminating the Tamils from being a viable ethnic community on the island.

- “Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, acts of murder committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such are considered as acts of genocide. The evidence points clearly to the conclusion that the violence of the Sinhala rioters on the Tamils (in July/August 1983) amounted to acts of genocide.” The International Commission of Jurists Review, December 1983. I think the quote explains itself. Perhaps you should reconsider your assumption that only Tamil nationalists talk of what is happening in Sri Lanka as genocide.

- Yes I agree with you that the international community is watching. It has in fact been watching for past 50 years as well. Perhaps you should read the articles on East Timor and Rwanda where the international community also watched. The international community will remain a mere spectator in terms of what is happening in Sri Lanka. If anything, they will sell some more destructive weapons to the like cluster bombs to the army and speed up the process so that they do not have to waste more time watching.

- Any one who needs more info can always Google. That statement makes the existence of Wikipedia irrelevant. Genocide of Tamils is a major part of Sri Lanka’s modern history. Thus I feel strongly that at least an external link to a site outlining the genocidal events should be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.188.198 (talk • contribs)

Whatever. Your behavior (particularly also in vandalizing the link to the official government site) betrays the argument that you are only trying to add another perspective. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Continue this behavior and you will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the history of edits it would be clear that I had added the particular link within “others” section a number of times, only for it to be removed without reason.
Only Krankman had the courtesy to leave a message as to why he thought the link should not be provided.
Posting the link disguised as a government link was wrong doing on my part. I totally regret this.
However, I have once again added the “Genocide of Tamils” link to the “others” section, for the reasons given above.
If you feel that this action of mine warrants a ban from Wikipedia you are welcome to block my IP.


I have to agree with Nlu. The mere fact that you sabotaged the official government link gives away your intentions completely. Please do not try to convert Wikipedia into some terrorist propaganda website.
In any case the Wikipedia policy on external links (Wikipedia:External_links) states that links to be avoided include "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". The link you've given to Tamilnation starts off with 2 inaccuracies.

  1. Depriving a section of Eelam Tamils of their citizenship - There are no such place recognised by International law called Eelam and as such there can be no "Eelam Tamils".
  2. Declaring the Sinhala flag as the national flag, - The current Sri Lankan flag is NOT the Sinhalese flag. It is a combination of the flag used by the Sri Lankan kings before the colonization by the British along with 2 colored stripes to represent Tamil and Muslims in Sri Lanka (Orange for Tamil, Green for Muslim).

I won't bother to go through the rest of the website and list all it's inaccuracies here because it will be an utter waste of my time, but I'll also like to add that there are various pictures of dead people on the website with no captions or any sort of proof as to who they actually are and how they ended up dead. This again violates the above condition by making sure there is absolutely no way to verify the authenticity of the pictures.
Therefore I would have removed the link as it doesn't appear to be a credible source of information, but it appears someone has already done it.
Also, can you please sign whatever you write so that there is at least some cohesion as to who's saying what. --snowolfd4 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement, Snowolfd4. However, I'd like to clarify something because I wouldn't want 82.35.188.198 to feel completely misunderstood. I have several Tamil friends, and I know how difficult it is to find a "balanced" or "objective" view needed in WP when you've gone through what they've gone through.
(I'd also prefer to address you by a name instead of using the IP!) So, 82.35.188.198, when Snowolfd4 accuses you of converting WP to a "terrorist propaganda website", I don't completely agree with him because I know that internationally, the human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army have not been widely enough acknowledged; especially so since 2001 because the label "terrorist organization" nowadays is a killer argument sufficient to create the impression with everyone that the other side must be the "good guys". So websites like the one you would like to link to are a legitimate means of trying to convey the "other" point of view to a broader public.
I suppose that you are personally deeply involved in the conflict and feel that you are only seeking justice. But as I have expressed earlier: It is not the right way to bring your view of reality to the public to link from WP to a site that is, as I beg you to admit, unbalanced/biased in the way it depicts the conflict by adding disputable "facts" and phrasings to the information they want to (legitimately) profuse, and a site that does not give (enough) sources for the facts stated, similar to a yellow-press newspaper.
Please be content with the link to the "Amnesty International" report and others which clearly state that the Sri Lankan army has commited atrocities of their own more than once. I don't know if you have read these studies, but they are very clear in their way of describing those misdeeds. Please also accept that these links should only be on the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka page. I am sympathetic with your cause, you can believe it. But please bow to the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you! Krankman 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies
Fair enough, some of the information on the link I have provided may not be backed up by independent verification
In which case, I also propose the removal of the link to http://www.defence.lk/. As at 07:00 GMT, the first title is “LTTE claymore explosion kills a Civilian- Jaffna”, again this is purely an allegation against the LTTE, as the impartial Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission have not verified the claim.
The difficulty with reporting from a war zone, especially the situation in Sri Lanka where essentially the war in between the “government” and a section of the citizens is that the government imposes “censorship” and prevents “independent” individuals and organisations from operating in or reporting from the area.
The link I provided is one of very few websites where press releases from the ICRC with regards to the bombing of St. Peteres Church and Nagarkoil School by “Sri Lankan Air Force” are still available. These are events for which no other independent verification exists.
As in the case of defence.lk, news.lk and a host of other sites linked from here, I feel that the average Wikipedia reader is “able enough” to see the difference between unsubstantiated claims and accounts of real events.

Nope. Nope. Nope. http://www.defence.lk/ is the official website of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense and has been identified as such. This been the Wikipedia page for Sri Lanka, it has every right to be posted along with the other government pages.
Tamilnation is just a webpage with absolutely no credibility. Who runs it? Where have they got most the facts given in it? Who are the authors of their so called reports? It's just unverifiable, plain and simple and so posting it violates Wikipedia rules. So I'm removing it from this page. It just doesn't belong here.

And I get your point Krankman on the "terrorist propaganda website" bit. But you've mistaken my point. Balanced links- Fine. But by sabotaging the official Government link Mr.82.35.188.198 tried to make WP a "terrorist propaganda website". I mean linking the government website to something like Tamilnation is just... I don't know. It just entirely gives his (or her) intentions away.

Also you talk about “human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army" since 2001. According to the ceasefire monitors (the SLMM) the LTTE have committed like 5-10 times more violations than the SL Army. So if you want balanced you really need to include a site on LTTE ceasefire violations and atrocities. But again I agree those all should be in the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka page and not here. So basically the Tamilnation link should not be on this page. --snowolfd4 09:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clicking on the About Us on the relevant page section will tell you who runs the website.
Secondly, Nadesan Satyendra who is the author of the main page linked by me is a renowned journalist. You can once again check his CV as published on the site.
Again with regards to sections you referred to earlier, including that of the lion flag are cited as necessary on Tamilnation.org. You have just checked the title and deemed the site as inappropriate to be linked from here.
Defence Ministry site may be official; however, allegations posted on the site have not been verified by the independent monitors.
Once again I am of the view that the Wikipedia readers are more than capable of making up their minds on reliable and non reliable information.
If necessary, I could post the individual links to the ICRC statement on the bombing of specific civilian targets including the Nagarkoil School and the St Peter’s Church.
Then again, for some people even the ICRC would not be credible enough?
--82.35.188.198 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


OK what the hell does "Again with regards to sections you referred to earlier, including that of the lion flag are cited as necessary on Tamilnation.org" mean? Enlighten me cos I really don't get it.

Are you saying that what I said about the Sri Lankan Flag is incorrect? Are you claiming there is a place called Eelam, as recognized by international law? If you are I really don’t see any point in continuing this discussion.

So again, basically, tamilnation DOES CONTAIN FALSE STATEMENTS (and don't even begin to dispute that without CLEARLY explaining the points I made about the Flag and "Eelam Tamils"). Therefore it should not be included on this page (or on any other page on Wikipedia for that matter) according to Wikipedia policy, as I've explained above.

In regard to what you've said below, even heard of the My Lai massacre? Agent Orange and Napalm? Look I'm not criticizing the U.S or anything cos such stuff happen during times of war. But you don't have links to them on the United States main page. You could have links to them on the Vietnam War page, but that really is another argument.

You also say "Sri Lanka is a land like no other, when it comes to killing of her own citizenry". Man have you ever heard of Hitler? Stalin? The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot? No? My my. --snowolfd4 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, man, looks like you have put Sri Lanka on the correct list “‘Sri Lanka is a land like no other, when it comes to killing of her own citizenry’. Man have you ever heard of Hitler? Stalin? The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot?”.
The point is that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot regimes are in the past. A current article on Germany or Russia would not refer to the atrocities of the time as those country’s are not carrying out the genocide. Ofcourse there are references to those periods in the history section of the relevant countries.
With regards to Sri Lanka, the genocide of Tamils is current. Starting from 1948, it is still on going. Day by day Tamils are murdered by the “security forces”.
Secondly, I have heard of “atrocities” of genocide by Americans in other countries. And you are correct, references to those atrocities are within those countries and not under USA.
So returning to another point by you, as Eelam does not exist, which country was St. Peter’s church in? Which country was Nagarkoil School in? Clearly we can not include the bombings of these places by the Sri Lankan army under an imaginary Eelam can we? They are events that occurred in Sri Lanka. They continue to occur in Sri Lanka. They belong in the article on Sri Lanka.
--82.35.188.198 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


You have yet again failed to explain the blatant lies on the tamilnation webpage about the Sri Lankan Flag and who the hell "Eelam Tamils" are. Before you start blabbering about anything else, you need to explain those.

You also failed to explain what "Again with regards to sections you referred to earlier, including that of the lion flag are cited as necessary on Tamilnation.org" means.

This is it really. I'm not going to bother post anything else unless you come up with some valid points about what I said about the Sri Lankan Flag and "Eelam Tamils". I'll just be removing the link to tamilnation. Sorry but I can't keep explaining the same thing over and over..


And by the way you pathetic SOB (sorry for the language) I just discovered your act of vandalism on the TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal page and corrected it. Did you think no one will notice it? I also reported it to an admin. You'd better watch out.

In case anyone else doesn't know what I'm taking about 82.35.188.198 sabotaged the link to the TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal party webpage and replaced it with a link to the LTTE linked Tamilnet.com. He has also previously sabotaged the link to the Sri Lankan Government website on the Sri Lanka page by directing it to the LTTE (terrorist) linked website www.tamilnation.com (which happens to be his favorite website I believe).

What else have you been up to? You better admit any other acts of vandalism you've carried out on Wikipedia. Seriously don't you have any sense of guilt in doing such things? --snowolfd4 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


First point: Eelam was the name by which Tamils in ancient times referred to the entire island inclusive of the Tamil Jaffna Kingdom and the Sinhala Kotte and Kandy kingdoms.
Second point: TamilNation.org lists the declaration of the Sinhala lion flag the national flag as being a part of the campaign of genocide. Indeed in 1948 when the British left, the flag of the last king of Kandy was declared the national flag. It was used during the independence ceremonies. It was only in 1950, after protest from the Tamils, the green and yellow stripes were added to represent the minority communities. The chronicle of events is listed at the Tamilantion.org page along with citations to texts of speeches made at parliament.
--82.35.188.198 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image ID

Would anyone be able to tell me if this person is Tamil or Sinhalese and perhaps anything about the significance of the dress? Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol! That is Sinhala (added by 82.35.188.198)
The hat is part of the traditional Kandyan royal attire which was traditionally only worn by high nobility, but that is nowadays used by common people to dress up for the popular so-called "up-country" or "Kandyan style" wedding ceremony. I've never seen those ear things, though ... Krankman 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
lol! This is not that costume which was traditionally worn by high nobility. This is the costume of a Sri lankan-kandiyan "classical dancer”. This hat has spicks and the ears are covered. All these jewelry represents something check it out Classical Dancer. --TCWales 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The costume that is worn by the groom for a wedding or the high nobility Sinhala those days is called the “Nilame costume”, which is all covered up and very heavy. That hat does not have spikes on it neither a lot of jewelry like the kandiyan dancers costume. The Kandyan style" wedding ceremony costume looks like this "Kandyan style" wedding ceremony which is also known as the "Nilame costume". Nilame Costume--TCWales 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Othe links to costumes and festivals’ in Sri Lanka.

To the lion or liones that keep removing the external link to tamilnation.org:

until or unless you give a sufficent reason for removing the link, I will keep adding it.

See above discussion with Krankman for reasons I have stated for the posting of this external link.

Population Estimates

The population estimate of the 2001 census is incorrect, so I'm correcting it according to the official government statistics . Note that due to the terrorism problems in the North and East this is the best estimate of the Department of Census and Statistics and not an exact figure.

Also note that the 2005 figure would mean a population growth of approx. 3% which i don't believe is correct. I think it is around 1 - 1.5%. Anyone have any better information??--Snowolfd4 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Snowolfd4's changes

  • I agree with taking out the section on Tamil protests against the name change to "Sri Lanka" in this place. However, I feel that this point has to be explicitly discussed on the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka page. It is not irrelevant at all.
  • Regarding the article Sinhala, I also agree that the number of speakers of Sinhala is much higher than Ethnologue estimates. However, I don't think that just guessing another number and entering it here is the right way.

Snowolfd4, I'd like to caution you not to go on making only changes that could be taken as pro-Sinhala because that might give you a doubtful reputation.

I am watching you! ;-) Krankman 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree about the number of Sinhala speakers, but I believe that that page used to says 15 mil and was later changed to 13 mil according to incorrect information. I only say that 15 million is a much better estimate than 13 mil, according to the reasons I gave (Although IMO it's probably much higher than 15 Million).
BTW shouldn't we be discussing this on the Sinhala page and not here?
Regarding "doubtful reputations", I entirely explained my reasons for making the changes I made. And from what you've written above it appears you agree with them. I'm just making sure that whoever visits Wikipedia for info on Sri Lanka (or any other subject I know of for that matter) is not mislead by people with clearly BIASED agendas.
And if I wanted to be "pro-Sinhala" I could have written an entire thesis on this page about the disgusting acts of the LTTE terrorists... Hmm. Good idea. I might just do it sometime. ;-)
Besides you wouldn't get a link on the United States page to some website run by a terrorist group documenting "atrocities" committed by the U.S. Get my point? Balanced, but not Biased.
And you're watching me are you??? Oh boy, I'd better be on guard :-)--snowolfd4 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If the US had ever bombed schools, churches, homes, hospitals etc.. inside the US, killing 100s of US citizens I would gladly like some links.
Sri Lanka is a land like no other, when it comes to killing of her own citizenry
Leaving that to aside, the paragraph on the names given to the island mentions the name changes the country has gone through. So what is wrong with mentioning the Tamil protest, subsequent riots and the murder of 100s of Tamil protesters? The fact that Sri Lankan Tamils, can not write the name of their country in their mother tongue is a valid point.

POV Edit

I'm reverting the edit by user 62.6.139.11 . It is clearly POV.

Please stick to the facts and keep the article unbiased. --snowolfd4 14:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

bbc news report

I'm sorry, but does anyone in their right mind think that we should keep adding links to every BBC report about Sri Lanka on this page? I'm removing the link to the BBC article on sex tourism.

In any case I think there are way too many links on this page. If you look at articles on United states, Australia, India etc. all external links are to governmnet pages and wikipedia pages (such as wikimapia) only. I suggest we stick to this on this page as well. --snowolfd4 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Post-Independence

Since the early 1980s, there has been an ongoing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka between the Sri Lankan government and members of the Tamil ethnic group in the northeast of the island. A cease fire was declared in 2002, but there have recently been an increasing amount of violence.

Sri Lanka then known as Ceylon, gained its independence from Britain in 1948. On Feb. 4, 1948, after pressure from Ceylonese nationalist leaders (which briefly unified the Tamil and Sinhalese), Ceylon became a self-governing dominion of the Commonwealth of Nations. Theres no place that its stated that there's going to be a "post - independence". This is your POV. Unfortunately Wikipedia is based on facts. Please stick to facts and to the topic.

If anyone wants to incorporate the Ethnic conflict in here this is not the place to do so. Please go to the relevent page and offer your contributions there. By including inappropriate additions here you are confusing the reader and dropping the quality of the aricle also jeopardising the immage of Sri Lanka. I have deleted this and I request you to please stick to the topic.---TCWales 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who you're talking to when you say "your POV"; that paragraph appears to have been present for some time. At any rate, however, the recent conflict is certainly an important encyclopedic topic relating to Sri Lanka; it seems appropriate to have a small paragraph linking to the article on that conflict. I've reworked it, and hopefully improved it, although if you still don't think it's appropriate, then please say so. --Emufarmers(T/C) 02:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
When I said "your POV" I meant who ever is adding it, because it was a anon. user who keeps on adding it. I don’t think its a wise idea to add it here because this page will also end up in an edit war just like the LTTE (mentioned as members of the Tamil ethnic group here). Besides there’s a page for this topic and any contributions related to this should be there. If anyone is looking for an article of Sri Lanka what they are mainly looking for is about the country and not its conflicts. Like USA is not focusing on the threat we have on the country article. Likewise, it should not be the main focused in here.--TCWales 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It was originally added by a registered user, and I, a registered user, re-added it when you removed it. This is an encyclopedia: Not a brochure, and one paragraph on a country's conflits is rather minor in comparison to the dozens in, say, Israel or Sudan. --Emufarmers(T/C) 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing Details

So, how large is the country? How many km (mi) from north to south, and how many east to west?

There are two distinctly different national languages. Which language predominates, and what percentage of the population speak it as a first language? -- Jedwards05 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the info you wanted in the Geography section. Didn't have time to perfect the wording so please correct it if you can.
For languages etc. see Demographics of Sri Lanka (it's also linked to on the main page). --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 09:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, are you sure? I don't see that anything has been added to the "Geography" section. --Jedwards05 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm really sorry. I could have sworn I added that bit. My mistake.
Well its there now anyway ;) --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of external links on this page was getting a little silly so I removed those that weren't directly associated with Sri Lanka. I believe there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere that goes something like "Wikipedia is not a web portal". So stick to government or other very important links only (eg: CIA factbook, Wikitravel etc.). Also links to various government departments are not required since they're all linked to on the government portal. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lankan firsts??

How is it that it's vandalism to state truth?

We are not always the leading exporter of tea.

Also, looking at the statistics for 2005 ... we are second to Kenya. Although PROJECTED to (barely) export more in 2006. But 2006 is not over even over yet!

http://www.pureceylontea.com/Market/Tea%20News%20update%20Vol%202%20No.%201.pdf

Also this article projects China to have the most exports in 2006:

http://www.pacificvillage.org/villagevoices/china/archives/001189.html

We do make the best tea though .. I don't dispute having that there.

Anyway, whatever.

Second point, are we to ignore there were multiple kingdoms within sri lanka at times?

Also, at one time we were a British colony .. how does that make us independently sovereign since the 4th century BC??? Can't any small island nation (eg, in Polynesia , Taiwan) make this claim?

The hospital at Mihintale .. we are to ignore the existence of hospitals in other places at the same period?? What is this based on? The physician Hippocrates (who is really famous for some of his medical works) got training in a hospital (Asklepion of Kos) where people brought their sick for healing in the 4th century BC. We can argue semantics and definitions about the effectiveness or type of treatment if you like. It's better to acknowledge, than have people say "hey wait a second are these guys credible?". See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_Ancient_Greece

Stating "facts" that ignore realities only makes us look idiotic to knowledgeable people who actually verify facts.

Sri Lanka is first country in the world to bomb schools and kill its own children.

Why does Sri Lanka bomb own country and kill own citizens?

I have searched the whole article and can’t find any info as to why Sri Lanka bombs own country and kills its own citizens. Can a lion/lioness enlighten me please? --82.43.168.184 07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To stop Terrorism by a group called LTTE which they have battled with for over 30 years now.Melee Clark 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
USA is trying to stop terrorism but not bombing their own schools and killing thousands of US citizens. Same can be said for UK, Spain etc..
So why is Sri Lanka so unique? Why does Sri Lanka feel it is necessary to kill thousands of its own citizens to fight terrorism? --82.43.168.184 07:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If USA had terrorist camps within the US, there's no two words we will do the same. If our forces bombed two 500 pond bombs to capture one terrorist in another country just immagine if it has to be in the US? similar attacks will have to be implemented. With regard to schools being bombed by the Government of Sri Lanka - I believe what the government of SL says, that they bombed a terrorist camp (which obviously was full of child soldiers) and not an orphanage. I don’t think any Government would just bomb its own citizens for that matter - I don’t believe what you say and this statement of yours is rather silly to me. But its totally up to you, who to believe the government or the terrorists.Melee Clark 04:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
“I believe what the government of SL says, that they bombed a terrorist camp (which obviously was full of child soldiers) and not an orphanage.”
You mean children who voluntarily joined the LTTE, children who were abducted by the LTTE or a mixture of both? I would assume that a responsible government would do its uttermost to safely free the abducted children rather than drop 16 bombs on their heads. Whether they were school children, volunteer child soldiers of abducted child soldiers, the Government of Sri Lanka must have been responsible for their safety and well being and the dropping of 16 bombs on their heads could not be justified.
A soldier could justify shooting at a child soldiers in order to save his own life. As far as I know, based on reports by SLMM and UNICEF field officers, there was no direct threat to the government forces by the children at the time of the bombings.
Not quite sure if the US government would drop 16 bombs on a US school under siege by terrorists.
Nonetheless, I think you have forgotten the bombing of Nagarkoil Central School by Sri Lanka Air Force on 22 September 1995. “Hours after the Sri Lanka government imposed military censorship on press reporting of its bitter and unpredictable war... on 21 September, aircraft bombed a Jaffna school yard crammed with 750 children on their lunch break, killing 34 and seriously injuring over 150 others,” is how British Refugee Council reported it. I also have archived copies of statements released by ICRC and UNESCO, along with video footage taken after the bombing, if a wise guy wishes to claim Nagarkoil to be a LTTE camp as well. --Lankaupdate 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Even India fights Terrorists in Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and couple of other states and Naxalites in states like Andra Pradesh, Bihar, Madya Pradesh but never had resorted to Arial bombing of its own citizens even though Terrorists & Naxalites fight Indian armed forces and police. For that matter no Civilsed country would this.

Fascist Sri Lankan state has only one agenda to completely wipe out the entire Tamil race from the island. Time and again their actions have proved but the pitty is International community is being mute to this arrogant inhuman actions of the racist Sri Lankan Government.--Npnkumar 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed that India is a ‘developing country’ in the true sense of the label. She is moving forward as a multi cultural democracy where river water issues are dealt with via peaceful negotiations and not by air raids of own country.
Nonetheless, I still wonder why the article on Sri Lanka has little or no coverage of why 100 000 Sri Lankans –Tamil is ethnicity, Sri Lankan is their nationality- have been killed by Sri Lankan armed forces in just 30 years.--82.40.185.25 09:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If USA had terrorist camps within the US, there's no two words we will do the same. If our forces bombed two 500 pond bombs to capture one terrorist in another country just immagine if it has to be in the US? similar attacks will have to be implemented. With regard to schools being bombed by the Government of Sri Lanka - I believe what the government of SL says, that they bombed a terrorist camp (which obviously was full of child soldiers) and not an orphanage. I don’t think any Government would just bomb its own citizens for that matter - I don’t believe what you say and this statement of yours is rather silly to me. But its totally up to you, who to believe the government or the terrorists.Melee Clark 04:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"International Educational Development (an NGO on the United Nations Economic and Social Council Roster) is grieved and shocked by the attack by the Sri Lanka air force on the Nagerkoil Central School in the Jaffna peninsula on Friday 22nd September 1995."--Lankaupdate 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Sri Lankan State Terrorism?

Sadly, there is no section on acts of terrorism perpetrated by successive governments of Sri Lanka.

Would it be possible for someone to start a section to include bombing of St Peters Church, bombing of Nagarkoil School, Kumuthini Boat Massacre, I think I can go on with the list for ever. --Lankaupdate 14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You can contribute to this on the LTTE page. If you’re not satisfied there do it on State terrorism page for Sri lanka. If your still not satisfied make up a new page or several pages and create an artical yourself and link it to where ever you think is appropriate.Melee Clark 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it be appropriate to cover Sri Lankan State Terrorism, within the article on Sri Lanka, rather than in one on the LTTE or some other group? As far as I am aware, LTTE did not start up until 1976, and Sri Lankan State Terrorism has a history staring from 1956.--Lankaupdate 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Socialist

Is the country a "Democratic Socialist" Republic, or a Democratic "Socialist Republic"? --the Dannycas 00:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lankan military kills aid workers

The Nordic Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) has accused the Sri Lankan Military of having ‘executed’ seventeen workers of Action Against Hunger, a French charity. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5298470.stm

The information should be incorporated into main article, as it would be useful for any humanitarian worker intending to travel to Sri Lanka. --Lankaupdate 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Citations Needed for Sri Lanka firsts

  • Oldest country in the World within its present borders (the island of Sri Lanka existed as an independent sovereign country as far back as the 4th century BC)
Anyone who knows any history about Sri Lanka smells a problem with this statement. The island only remained united within its present borders for about 130 years(without being under foreign control) over the last 3000 years or so . Most of the time, island was divided into two or more kingdom and/or invaded/occupied by foreign forces. I have left a citation tag to this statement hoping somebody will qualify this statement. Also country or state only began in 1648 with the "Westphelian System of States." Hence calling Sri Lanka the oldest country in the world is highly dubious. The notion of countries only started in 1648. Elalan 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition the following statements also need to be qualified with reputable sources:

  • World's leading exporter of cinnamon; exported to Egypt as early as 1400 BC
  • First female monarch in an Asian country, Queen Anula (47–42 BC) Elalan 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey people. We need to agree on a policy concerning the external links. User:Snowolfd4 has removed the human rights links and the one on child prostitution. (Doing that he called Lankaupdate a vandal, which is against netiquette; he may have views differing from yours, but he tries to seriously contribute here - assume good faith!) Isn't it true that the human rights situation is one of the most important topics in SL today? And that SL has been one of the centres of child prostitution for years? Deleting the links seems to me like trying to whitewash the country's image. Sure, it would be better to have actual sections in the article on these points. Someone should try to write them. Anyway, I think we should have a diverse (yet not too long) collection of links. There are less significant links that should be got rid of instead of the ones removed by Snowolfd4, e.g. lakdiva.org or this single bbc article to sites which seem to lack substance. I don't want to provoke anyone, it just seems that the constant changing the article the one or the the other way doesn't do anybody any good. After all, we're all working on this together. Cheers, Krankman 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Krankman nice to hear from you after quite a while.
I don't know if you know about it, but Lankaupdate was blocked from editing about a day ago due to his "Persistent POV-pushing/spamming" (the admins words - not mine) [2]. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he continues it, then he is a vandal.
Regarding the links, do you see links to "Human Rights abuses" on the United States page? The alleged illegal detentions and prisoner abuses etc. etc. have been in the news a lot lately haven't they? So you could say they are "one of the most important topics in USA today?" Why don't you or Lankaupdate go ahead and add links to "Human Rights abuses" on the United States page? Even the China page doesn't mention human rights or link to it.
So why are you so keen to add links to "Human Rights abuses" on the Sri lanka page. Lankaupdate I get. He just wants to make Sri lanka look bad. You???? Maybe cos Sri Lanka is just another "messed up 3rd world country" for you.
And "SL has been one of the centres of child prostitution for years". I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment.
As for the Lakdiva link please don't make comments about topics you aren't too familier about. The website contains things like the Full text of the Mahavamsa (probably one of the most important books in Sri lanka), other ancient books/article about Sri Lanka etc. I consider those very important.
So Krankman, please read WP:NOT. Its not a colletion of links about this or that. The main article, and important links such as government websites etc.
And Cheers to you too. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Krankman, there should be a more elaborate section on the human rights, civil war and ongoing hostilities rather than links per se. This is valid since there is travel advisories to go to Sri Lanka, there is war risk premium imposed etc. The Iraq page is good template for Sri Lanka rather, China or US. The number of dissappeared and unaccounted for in Sri Lanka trails second only to Iraq. In addition, in both cases government forces have been known to attack the countries minorities. So there is indeed some good resembelance. Elalan 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Horace Hector Hearne

Julien Foster added the following section about Sir Horace Hector Hearne.

In 1936/1937, Sir Horace Hector Hearne, who had been a Puisne Judge in Tanganyika Territory, was appointed a Puisne Judge in Ceylon, and sat in the Supreme Court in Colombo. He stayed there for most of the Second World War. He went on to become Chief Justice and Keeper of the Records in Jamaica, British West Indies in 1945.

To be honest I don't think he's important enough to be included on this page so I removing that text. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lanka/Archive_3&oldid=1140427351"