Talk:Tamil genocide/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Tamil genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Merge proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus not to merge, even after taking canvassing into account. Charcoal feather (talk)
- Consensus not to merge, even after taking canvassing into account. Charcoal feather (talk)
@Beastmastah this page is redundant and I propose it be merged with the existing War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War page, which already addresses the topic concerned.
Now, you, or someone using your username (I'll assume it was you until you deny it), started a recruitment campaign on Reddit to get people to contribute to this page. I don't believe that itself constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy. However, should you try to use them to support you in a debate, it could amount to (or at least border) WP:MEATPUPPET given that you've openly stated "it's important to act swiftly before the page faces potential attacks or vandalism and attacks from Sinhalese nationalist editors/users."
"Sinhalese nationalist editors/users" - I hope that wasn't a reference to me. If it was, I see why you might think that, but remember the age-old advice: Don't judge a book by its cover. Would a Sinhalese nationalist editor dedicate thousands of characters about violence against Tamils by Sinhalese rioters?
What puzzles me is that you've gone outside of Wikipedia to discuss this, but you did not once use the talk page despite the fact that I had invited you to do that. You instead proceeded to undo the revert without seeking a discussion on the talk page, and after my warning, "blanked" your talk page." What you should have done is make an argument for your case on the talk page. If you felt that the content is too vague, you could have just added your own information without changing the article name or making a new page. You could also have gone to the talk page to raise your concerns. There are Tamil Wikipedia users who frequently contribute to Sri Lankan ethnic conflict-related articles that you could have called into the discussion, and I'm sure they'd be sympathetic to you. Heck, you could have just added a section called "Recognition of genocide" or something along those lines, which would have been less controversial and, again, you could have defended in the talk page if needed.
I have opened this merge request, but I am open to discussion because that's what Wikipedia's strength is for contentious topics. Wikipedia makes decisions via consensuses. I've been an editor here for quite some time and I've been in a number of disputes, both successfully and unsuccessfully, but I've accepted the consensus either way. I've never personally needed to get a neutral third-party to opine, but if I did, I would respect that process and consequent decision making. You seem to have put in quite some research into this, and I agree it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia; the question is where. I don't think it belongs on its own page when we have an already established page. So I implore you to engage in discussion rather than be sneaky about this. You've asked Reddit to be swift, but it appears that I was swifter. SinhalaLion (talk)
- FWIW, I think that there are enough peer-reviewed sources indexed by Google Scholar addressing this as the "Tamil Genocide" such that a separate article can be justified. That having been said, a WP:PAGEDECIDE decision to merge is also a valid outcome if editors agree that the information here is most useful to the reader in the context of other articles. Separately from the decision of what to do with the article, discussion should definitely be taken up here, and the canvassing attempts on Reddit linked above are grounds to be blocked from editing if corrective measures are not taken in short order (i.e. delete or amend the Reddit posts, promise not to do it again). signed, Rosguill talk
- How will subsequent discussion and decision-making be handled if we have a stream of canvassed new users supporting one side of the debate? While I want to have an open conversation, the integrity of the conversation has now been compromised (though to be fair, the effects don't seem to have been great so far). SinhalaLion (talk)
- They have not been compromised. This conversation has 3 users and none seem to have come from reddit. The conversation still has integrity and is open. Everyone wants an open and honest discussion. If we have a stream of canvassed new users, I am not sure that break any rules in itself. New users innocently becoming aware of a wiki article and coming to discuss adds to the openness. Just ban the Beastmastah and prevent him from canvassing attempts. ChanakyanFOG (talk) — ChanakyanFOG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- They have not been compromised. This conversation has 3 users and none seem to have come from reddit. The conversation still has integrity and is open. Everyone wants an open and honest discussion. If we have a stream of canvassed new users, I am not sure that break any rules in itself. New users innocently becoming aware of a wiki article and coming to discuss adds to the openness. Just ban the Beastmastah and prevent him from canvassing attempts. ChanakyanFOG (talk) — ChanakyanFOG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- How will subsequent discussion and decision-making be handled if we have a stream of canvassed new users supporting one side of the debate? While I want to have an open conversation, the integrity of the conversation has now been compromised (though to be fair, the effects don't seem to have been great so far). SinhalaLion (talk)
- Oppose Merge There is as noted above enough peer-reviewed sources indexed by Google Scholar addressing this as the "Tamil Genocide" such that a separate article can be justified.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)
- Oppose Merge The Tamil Genocide deserves its own Wikipedia page, separate from the Sri Lankan War Crimes page, for several important reasons:
- 1. Specificity of Atrocities: The Tamil Genocide refers to a series of ongoing atrocities specifically targeted at the Tamil population. These incidents peaked during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and involved mass killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence aimed explicitly at eradicating the Tamil ethnic identity. These distinct and systematic acts of violence against the Tamil people are separate from other war crimes committed during the conflict, necessitating a dedicated space to document and understand their full impact.
- 2.Historical and Cultural Significance: The events categorized under the Tamil Genocide have significant historical and cultural implications for the Tamil community. Recognizing this genocide separately from other war crimes ensures that the specific nature and impact of these atrocities are thoroughly and accurately recorded.
- 3. Recognition and Accountability: A separate page for the Tamil Genocide underscores the importance of recognizing these events as genocide, with implications for international justice and historical memory. This distinction helps in advocating for the rights of the victims and ensures that such atrocities are acknowledged and addressed appropriately.
- 4. Depth of Documentation: There are numerous independent, peer-reviewed sources that document and analyze the Tamil Genocide. These scholarly works provide reliable and objective accounts, underscoring the need for a dedicated page to present this comprehensive and credible information.
- 5. Academic and Legal Clarity: From an academic and legal standpoint, genocides and war crimes, while sometimes overlapping, are distinct categories. Genocide refers to acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The Tamil Genocide fits this definition and should be examined separately to provide a clear understanding of the legal and scholarly implications.
- Maintaining a separate Wikipedia page for the Tamil Genocide ensures that the specific aspects and gravity of these events are properly documented and recognized. It highlights the necessity for justice and accountability while acknowledging the distinct suffering of the Tamil community. This separation is crucial for maintaining the integrity and accuracy of historical records, supported by numerous reliable sources. BussyAnand (talk) — BussyAnand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
*Oppose Merge There are many independent reliable sources and peer-reviewed articles for this to have its own Wikipedia page, that other page is different from this, this page was just created, it is a stub at the moment and has a lot of content to be added and expanded and yeah I will retract the online posts. Beastmastah (talk)
- Oppose Merge clearly a notable topic with many reliable and independent references.Tame Rhino (talk)
- Functionally, I don't see how this new page will be much different from the already-established page. I mean, the introduction paragraph to this page was taken from the other page and just reworded to remove mention of the LTTE's crimes and include some other verbiage that is also, in my view, redundant (e.g., having "sexual violence" and "rape"). As seen on the other page, numerous sources attest to the LTTE's crimes against Tamil civilians during the last stage of the war, so removing mention of their wrongdoing could violate WP:NPOV. It doesn't help that you canvassed two online communities that tend to support the LTTE and whose users, if they came to Wikipedia, would be averse to acknowledging its crimes. Yet if we maintain WP:NPOV and included its crimes, wouldn't this page just be the same as the other? SinhalaLion (talk)
- BTW your r/tamil post is still up. SinhalaLion (talk)
- response: This page is absolutely not redundant as it focuses on the genocide and not just the war crimes. This is like saying a page about Lionel Messi is redundant since we have a page about Argentina FC. The scope is different. This page is focusing on topics like the aftermath and international reaction to specifically the alleged genocide. Facts such as the memorial being built in Canada which has its own history but it wont be relevant to write about it in the War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War page. It is also important to acknowledge the level of controversy that this genocide has and how impactful a western first world country acknowledging the genocide is. the court cases that caused the issue to be discussed and the turmoil should be discussed soon. It will be eventually as we add more info. It is also a great example of epistemic violence and a lot can be written regarding that as well that would have barely any relation at all in the war crimes page. As you said: there are enough peer-reviewed sources indexed by Google Scholar addressing this as the "Tamil Genocide" such that a separate article can be justified. There is a clear justification and this page has and will add more none redundant info as the ones outlined above.
- Therefore, this page is functionally different from any other wiki page available online and I am sure anyone with a neutral, honest perspective can see many relevant, different, and unique topics that can be written on this page that isn't just about war crimes itself.
- Also note: sorry for the earlier rule breaking where I left the comment in the wrong place. I am a relatively new user ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- This is like saying a page about Lionel Messi is redundant since we have a page about Argentina FC. The scope is different.
- This is a false equivalence because Lionel Messi had a life before joining the Argentinian team and will (hopefully) have one after retirement. Similarly, the Argentinian football team existed before Messi, and will (hopefully) exist after Messi's retirement. Bear in mind the intro to this article:
- "Tamil Genocide, also known as the Sri Lankan Tamil Genocide, or Eelam Tamil Genocide occurred during the final months of the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009[11] with 40,000 to 169,769 Tamil civilians deaths by Sri Lankan military. The war crimes include attacks on civilians and civilian buildings; executions of combatants and prisoners; enforced disappearances by the Sri Lankan military and paramilitary groups backed by them; sexual violence by the Sri Lankan military; the systematic denial of food, medicine, and clean water by the government to civilians trapped in the war zone; child recruitment, hostage taking, Denial of humanitarian aid, Summary execution, Rape, Internment, Mass shootings by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]"
- Compared to the other page:
- "War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War are war crimes and crimes against humanity which the Sri Lanka Armed Forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) have been accused of committing during the final months of the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[11] The war crimes include attacks on civilians and civilian buildings by both sides; executions of combatants and prisoners by both sides; enforced disappearances by the Sri Lankan military and paramilitary groups backed by them; sexual violence by the Sri Lankan military; the systematic denial of food, medicine, and clean water by the government to civilians trapped in the war zone; child recruitment, hostage taking, use of military equipment in the proximity of civilians and use of forced labor by the Tamil Tigers.[12][13][14][15][16]"
- So they cover the exact same time period, and nearly identical events. The main exception seems to be the removal of any mention of LTTE crimes. Quite frankly, this new article comes across as a WP:NPOV-violating version of the other.
- This page is focusing on topics like the aftermath and international reaction to specifically the alleged genocide. Facts such as the memorial being built in Canada which has its own history but it wont be relevant to write about it in the War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War page.
- We already have information like that; see War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War#Commentary by notable personalities/entities. You are free to add Canada's actions to that section. You could even make a new section called "genocide recognition."
- It is also important to acknowledge the level of controversy that this genocide has and how impactful a western first world country acknowledging the genocide is. the court cases that caused the issue to be discussed and the turmoil should be discussed soon. It will be eventually as we add more info.
- See above. Also, I'm not sure that Canada's recognition of genocide is as solid as you seem to think it is, though that's another issue to be discussed.
- It is also a great example of epistemic violence and a lot can be written regarding that as well that would have barely any relation at all in the war crimes page.
- I'm not familiar with the concept of "epistemic violence." If you're referring to the Sri Lankan government's denial of war crimes in that time period in Mullivaikkal, we have already information like that on the other page, and again, you're free to add more information. If you're referring to something else, please explain.
- As you said: there are enough peer-reviewed sources indexed by Google Scholar addressing this as the "Tamil Genocide" such that a separate article can be justified. There is a clear justification and this page has and will add more none redundant info as the ones outlined above.
- I urge you to look check out the other page. If you feel that there are scope items to be put on this page that cannot be included there, please list them. However, from what I'm seeing so far, there's nothing on this page that has not already been or cannot be covered by the other page, which covers the exact same events, timeline, and location.
- Finally, I ask you to read my initial comment again. Beastmastah originally tried changing the "War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War" title to "Tamil Genocide" (or thereabouts). I reverted the move on the basis that the change did not follow WP:RMCM. I offered them an opportunity to discuss moving the page on the talk page twice. Instead, Beastmastah not only circumvented Wikipedia best practices by not engaging in discussion, but also broke the rules when they did WP:Canvassing on Reddit. So I'm not intrinsically opposed to a page called "Tamil Genocide;" I just think there's no need for both articles that focus on pretty much the same issue as per the intro paragraph. I've asked for a move to the other page simply because it's the more established one, and there may be a reason it wasn't definitively called "Tamil Genocide" until recently. SinhalaLion (talk)
- This is a false equivalence because Lionel Messi had a life before joining the Argentinian team and will (hopefully) have one after retirement. Similarly, the Argentinian football team existed before Messi, and will (hopefully) exist after Messi's retirement. Bear in mind the intro to this article:
- This is not a false equivalence. Messi had a life before and, yes, hopefully a life after retirement as well. similarly, there is a build up for what caused the genocide and an aftermath. Just because the genocide occurred during the final stages of the civil war, doesn't change that. The two pages having similar topics to discuss does not change that they focus on different things that have different things to mention. Do you want the intro to be better and more organized on the topics to be discussed? I will do it soon, is so.
- We already have information like that; see War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War Commentary by notable personalities/entities. You are free to add Canada's actions to that section. You could even make a new section called "genocide recognition.
- No you have not. you are even suggesting I add details on Canadas political actions on that page since its not there. I wont. I am adding it here where I can write about in detail and mention the nuances of it.
- See above. Also, I'm not sure that Canada's recognition of genocide is as solid as you seem to think it is, though that's another issue to be discussed.
- It has huge ramifications. It was enough to have the Sri Lankan government to respond and reactionary protests to occur. But regardless you are right: it is a topic to be discussed. We would discuss it, in a neutral lens in this article on Tamil genocide. It makes no sense to discuss the impact and strength of Canada's recognition of genocide in detail in the war crimes articles. It definitely would make more sense to discuss it here, as there is alot to write about it.
- Epistemic violence in this context is the ongoing disagreement on whether it was a genocide or not. Topics such as micro and macro-scale oppression. Sri Lanka denying the genocide and the things they have done to hide the alleged genocide can be written in a lot of detail. These topics are barely touched upon in the other article. It is understandable since it's not very relavent to that article. We can also discuss things Tamil people have done to call it a genocide. Such as when did people first call it a genocide, when was the calls of genocide taken seriously by the UN, etc etc. These topics objectively are not mentioned in that article and have no reason to be there either.
- However, from what I'm seeing so far, there's nothing on this page that has not already been or cannot be covered by the other page, which covers the exact same events, timeline, and location.
- I have outlined multiple topics that do not overlap and there are so many more that can be considered. It is not hard to realize that an alleged genocide will have unique topics to discuss even if some overlap with the war crimes article. The page is new, its not going to change overnight but there is a clear justification for the stub and its growth to a complete article
- a reason it wasn't definitively called "Tamil Genocide" until recently.
- Well now it is definitively called tamil genocide and its time to update. progress takes time. The alleged events did not even occur 15 years ago in a third wold country. This article has the potential to be just as long as the other, potentially, with so many factors to consider.
- initial comment again. Beastmastah originally tried ...
- I do not know them. I have nothing to do with any of that. But yea sounds like they were not being very considerate of wiki policies and thats not cool given that wiki is pretty awesome. You sound like you were very reasonable with them. That said, I do not see how that is relavent at all. Ban that person or something.
- So I'm not intrinsically opposed to a page called "Tamil Genocide;" I just think there's no need for both articles that focus on pretty much the same issue as per the intro paragraph.
- it will not focus on only the same issues as outlined above. I mean its a genocide, its pretty easy to think of all the unique topics to be discussed. the "PLO movement and LTTE relations" and the reasons for the alliance is a clear cut example of a unique issue to be discussed. a group that is also calling for a genocide happens to align the tamil tiger terrorists? why? these are great and nuanced topics that will need deep diving, careful credible sources and will be a fun read that just isnt relavent to the war crimes article. finding sources for that will be fun.
- I encourage you to help us make this article especially since I am assuming you are Sinhalese, it will definitely help with neutrality and you seem well versed in wiki rules. I am not calling you a biased nationalist. you seem very fair. I would love your help. I am just an indian Canadian. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- similarly, there is a build up for what caused the genocide and an aftermath. Just because the genocide occurred during the final stages of the civil war, doesn't change that.
- These are both easily covered by the scope of the other article. We have a "Background" section already, and a lot of the article anyways is aftermath.
- No you have not. you are even suggesting I add details on Canadas political actions on that page since its not there. I wont. I am adding it here where I can write about in detail and mention the nuances of it.
- I said we have information "like that" there, not exactly the same. You write that you are "adding it here where I can write about in detail and mention the nuances of it" even though you can easily do so on the other page.
- It has huge ramifications. It was enough to have the Sri Lankan government to respond and reactionary protests to occur.
- What I mean is that a month before the Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, the Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae, claimed that he was not aware of the government of Canada taking an official stand that what happened in 2009 was genocide. Earlier in the video, the MP Garnnett Genuis said that the House of Commons recognizing a genocide does not necessarily imply a similar, official position of the government of Canada. There was also an article published a month later which claimed that "Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry had informed the Sri Lankan government that Canada had not made any finding that genocide had taken place in Sri Lanka." In my opinion, this is just a clash between Canada's domestic and international politics.
- Sri Lanka denying the genocide and the things they have done to hide the alleged genocide can be written in a lot of detail. These topics are barely touched upon in the other article. It is understandable since it's not very relavent to that article. We can also discuss things Tamil people have done to call it a genocide. Such as when did people first call it a genocide, when was the calls of genocide taken seriously by the UN, etc etc. These topics objectively are not mentioned in that article and have no reason to be there either.
- They are very relevant to the other article because they pertain to the exact events defined by the article, and you're free to add those details.
- Well now it is definitively called tamil genocide and its time to update. progress takes time. The alleged events did not even occur 15 years ago in a third wold country. This article has the potential to be just as long as the other, potentially, with so many factors to consider.
- I mean there are already Tamil users on this website who could have done so before but didn't. If this conversation goes nowhere, I may call them in (along with Sinhalese users, to have multiple perspectives).
- That said, I do not see how that is relavent at all. Ban that person or something.
- People of a certain political opinion streaming into discussion on Wikipedia due to being incited to do so is what WP:CAN aims to avoid. I guess you're right in a sense since Wikipedia consensus isn't dependent on majority opinion. 100 users could come in from the canvassing and disagree with me, but if their arguments are poor, then Wikipedia recognizes that 100 x 0 = 0. That said, do you think it's a good idea for random social media users with strong political opinions to flood Wikipedia due to ideological canvassing? Certainly not those from r/tamil or r/eelam, the subreddits that were initially canvassed, and I wouldn't hold my breath for any others unless they prove themselves, including Sinhalese users.
- Right now, our discussion is whether there should be two articles that, in my view, too strongly overlap for the need for both of them. Had Beastmastah taken up my original request, you could actually have the "War Crimes..." title changed to simply "Tamil Genocide." Wouldn't that be just amazing? Yet the opportunity was blown (or at least, made more difficult) because intransigence was the hill to die on for them.
- I mean its a genocide, its pretty easy to think of all the unique topics to be discussed. the "PLO movement and LTTE relations" and the reasons for the alliance is a clear cut example of a unique issue to be discussed. a group that is also calling for a genocide happens to align the tamil tiger terrorists? why? these are great and nuanced topics that will need deep diving, careful credible sources and will be a fun read that just isnt relavent to the war crimes article. finding sources for that will be fun.
- FYI, just because something is "fun" or interesting (or even true and relevant) doesn't mean that it's Wikipedia worthy. If you want to discuss the PLO and LTTE relations, you should find that there are sources that comment on the relationship because as per WP:PRIMARY, we can't synthesize primary sources to arrive at our own conclusions.
- I encourage you to help us make this article especially since I am assuming you are Sinhalese, it will definitely help with neutrality and you seem well versed in wiki rules.
- If the consensus is that this page should remain - and to be clear, WP:CON is not based on majority opinion - I could "help with neutrality." But it may come across as "bothsideism" or "victim blaming." For reference, I've added details on anti-Sinhalese violence by Tamil rioters during the 1956 anti-Tamil pogrom, 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom, 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom and that much of the Sinhalese violence against Tamils was retaliation for those Tamil attacks on Sinhalese. I've given sources attesting to this. Does it sting? Maybe, but I think it's a relevant truth, demonstrated by primary sources at the least and arguably in some secondary sources. Nick Danforth, in a piece about the Armenian genocide writes, "mass killings seldom fit the black-and-white narratives that nationalist historians and their readers crave. The guilt or innocence of individuals can be absolute, but it is not easily tallied along national or ethnic lines," and I believe that the mainstream literature on the Sri Lankan war takes this stance, regardless of what I, you, Sinhalese, or Tamils personally feel about the situation.
- I have outlined multiple topics that do not overlap and there are so many more that can be considered.
- And thank you for demonstrating why it's useless to have two separate pages as things stand now. Despite the fact that this page is called "Tamil Genocide", none of the subtopics you added are directly about what happened in the last stages of the war, and only few of the words are. Rather, your topics pertain to the aftermath, especially politically and culturally, and that too the aftermath of the war crimes in the final stages of the war. Perhaps subconsciously you agree with me that the other article already covers (what should be) the primary scope of this article as per the latter's name: the Tamil genocide. You claimed that there were many topics that would fit "Tamil Genocide" and not the other page, yet you have not added a single one despite having every opportunity to do so. This page would be better named "Recognition of Tamil genocide" given what you yourself have proposed as subtopics.
- Anyways, as per WP:CON, consensus is achieved via negotiation and compromise. I think a much better solution would be to rename the other article as "Tamil Genocide," though be warned, I have some objections even then. An alternative would be to expand the scope of this article to before 2009, though the literature using the term "genocide" tends to focus on 2009. Either way, there will have to be further discussion, either on the other page (if we rename) or this page (if we expand the scope). SinhalaLion (talk)
- you are just going in circles.
-
- Oppose Merge
- Thank you for demonstrating why it's useless to have two separate pages as things stand now.
- Really that is your response to my statement that there is a clear difference between the two articles while also giving numerous examples?
- thank you for showing that you are not engaging in honest discussion.
- These are both easily covered by the scope of the other article. We have a "Background" section already, and a lot of the article anyways is aftermath.
- Not at what would be the same depth and scope. I have started writing about the complete history of TDSB education case in the tamil genocide article. The TDSB case is not about war crimes in the final stages of the civil war. These topics deserve their own page and focus and have enough notable reliable sources to justify a page. I also indicated on the wiki article that I am going to write about art and pop culture inspirations from the genocide. these are unique and not about a historical recount of war crimes like the war crimes article.
- Anyways, as per WP:CON, consensus is achieved via negotiation and compromise. I think a much better solution would be to rename the other article as "Tamil Genocide," though be warned, I have some objections even then.
- No one is asking for that. This article has been made. you asked for a merge. All parties that have opined have stated they oppose the merge but you. It is not a majority vote I know. The right compromise is to leave this article to grow and you can continue editing the war crimes articled. feel free to pitch in here as well. Your offer about renaming the war crimes article " Tamil genocide" frankly sounds absurd. I have no idea why you would offer that, other than for disingenuous reasons. That article is not just about the genocide. The specific war crimes of the LTTE, though ofcourse heinous and need to be discussed that is not the Tamil genocide. So the LTTE crimes should remain on that article with the title of War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. There are many more topics discussed in that article that are super important and powerful but just are not relavent to the genocide. So to rename that article tamil genocide, honestly is illogical and offensive to all affected communities, especially Muslims and Sinhalese.
- FYI, just because something is "fun" or interesting
- I was just saying this to be friendly.
- But it may come across as "bothsideism" or "victim blaming."
- if you can find a direct relation to the genocide and not merely the war then please i would love you to add it. End of the day, the truth is what matters. Its not like I can stop you from editing as long as you are honest anyway.
- Does it sting? Maybe
- I remember you actually from when I edited the war crimes articles some time ago. I know you write good honest stuff. No one is disputing that. Well, I suppose Beastmastah implied you arent good. But it is clear he was in the wrong.
- I mean there are already Tamil users on this website who could have done so before but didn't. If this conversation goes nowhere, I may call them in (along with Sinhalese users, to have multiple perspectives).
- I dont know why you are so against the idea of having a separate page for tamil genocide but, sure. As long as you are allowed to do so and its fair. I do not know all the rules and I thought that BeastMadstah guy was being threatened with a ban over canvassing. If you get the select who gives their opinion, i am failing to see the difference. Additionally, if this is not based on majority vote, what does more opinions even mean to the discussion, it is not like they have veto.
- The administrator said "that a separate article can be justified" and "if editors agree that the information here is most useful to the reader in the context of other articles." I am the main editor and I am saying no to merging as I disagree that the information here is most useful to the reader in the context of other articles. The other editor who contributes said no as well. I am just not even slightly convinced a genocide does not merit its own page or has topics unique to itself. I still believe the war crimes article is important and I oppose the renaming of that article to Tamil genocide even more. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- thank you for showing that you are not engaging in honest discussion.
- Your offer about renaming the war crimes article " Tamil genocide" frankly sounds absurd. I have no idea why you would offer that, other than for disingenuous reasons.
- Please respect WP:AGF. I have not called you dishonest, but I do think you're overlooking things as I have tried to explain.
- So to rename that article tamil genocide, honestly is illogical and offensive to all affected communities, especially Muslims and Sinhalese.
- The article is about 2009 violence in Mullivaikkal, so it's hardly a deviation from its original scope. I would understand your point if I proposed renaming Sri Lankan Civil War as "Tamil Genocide."
- FYI, even if the article is called "Tamil genocide" we can write about the LTTE's crimes, in the same way that Rwandan genocide has a section about RPF crimes, or that the "anti-Tamil pogrom" pages have information on Tamil violence against Sinhalese. It's all about what the mainstream literature says. I can see that mainstream literature is increasingly referring to "war crimes at the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war" as "Tamil genocide," but they wouldn't suggest that the whole civil war should be understood as just a Tamil genocide. So, I am puzzled, to say the least, about your rejection of my compromise.
- Finally, you've ignored my other offer, which is simply to expand the scope to include things beyond 2009 (before or after). We could talk about war crimes against Tamils throughout the war under the lens of them constituting acts of genocide (and I would agree to having the Sri Lankan Civil War page remain as is). We could even go before the war. It depends on what the WP:RS say. You've already alluded to doing this in your arguments re: Bill 104.
- Additionally, if this is not based on majority vote, what does more opinions even mean to the discussion, it is not like they have veto.
- If they engage in discussion with my points and compromise, unlike the other users (not you) who have opposed a merge, I have no problem even if they disagree. I might even concede and move on. SinhalaLion (talk)
- I also want to point out my issue about who is offering their opinions. Many have already come and opined that they oppose the merge. Now you are suggesting more to come. I feel serious concerns about that. You did offer tamils editors could offer their opinion to be more fair. But you also argued that Tamil editors have not bothered to create this tamil genocide page like that means something. The same argument can be laid for these so called "tamil editors" have not bothered to write about the tamil genocide in any reasonable depth in the war crimes article either. there is just a couple paragraphs in the end of war crimes article. Things like bill 104 has been going on for years and there is no mention of it in the war crimes article. = This leaves me to seriously question the point of getting these so called tamil editors to give their opinion. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- Keep in mind that the debate so far is whether we should have two articles. It didn't have to be this way had Beastmastah gone to the talk page of the other article. If they did, the question would be "Tamil genocide" vs. "War crimes committed..." That's a separate discussion, though as others have pointed out, now more than before there's usage of the term "Tamil genocide." Still, I don't know how many official legal bodies have used that term. Perhaps that's why they didn't want to do that. Perhaps they didn't want to get bogged down in a long discussion (there have been a number of disputes that have been referred to conflict mediation on Wikipedia in recent times). Perhaps they felt their time was better spent elsewhere. I don't know, but as I've said, that's why we need discussion. SinhalaLion (talk)
- don't know how many official legal bodies have used that term.
- i think this depends on what you define as legal bodies. a follow up question would be why that even matters as a necessary condition. multiple 3rd party human rights organizations have called it a genocide as well. i think that is a sufficient condition along with the growing body of supporting literature to have a space on wiki given to tamil genocide.
- Perhaps that's why they didn't want to do that. Perhaps they didn't want to get bogged down in a long discussion
- Perhaps, or perhaps its 1 of a million other reasons. we dont know.
- there have been a number of disputes that have been referred to conflict mediation on Wikipedia in recent
- this is another reason I hesitate to change the war crimes article to tamil genocide. i feel as though everyone will be a lot more peaceful if the articles are separated.
- we need discussion
- discussion was had. I actually noticed one of the editor that gave their opinion is an editor of the war crimes articles and even they opposed the merge and said the genocide page is worthy of a page. In the name of discussion, you are attempting to dog pile more opinions which does not seem reasonable. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- Actually, they just gave their opinions and have not addressed my arguments. The only "discussion" has been between you and me. I wanted to bring the usual editors is because they have more background context on the ecosystem of Sri Lankan civil war pages on Wikipedia and are better suited to opine than all other users currently here (save for me and perhaps one other). SinhalaLion (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) SinhalaLion (talk)
- why are we pushing for more opinions instead of just asking Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) and team to elaborate. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- why are we pushing for more opinions instead of just asking Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) and team to elaborate. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- Actually, they just gave their opinions and have not addressed my arguments. The only "discussion" has been between you and me. I wanted to bring the usual editors is because they have more background context on the ecosystem of Sri Lankan civil war pages on Wikipedia and are better suited to opine than all other users currently here (save for me and perhaps one other). SinhalaLion (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) SinhalaLion (talk)
- Keep in mind that the debate so far is whether we should have two articles. It didn't have to be this way had Beastmastah gone to the talk page of the other article. If they did, the question would be "Tamil genocide" vs. "War crimes committed..." That's a separate discussion, though as others have pointed out, now more than before there's usage of the term "Tamil genocide." Still, I don't know how many official legal bodies have used that term. Perhaps that's why they didn't want to do that. Perhaps they didn't want to get bogged down in a long discussion (there have been a number of disputes that have been referred to conflict mediation on Wikipedia in recent times). Perhaps they felt their time was better spent elsewhere. I don't know, but as I've said, that's why we need discussion. SinhalaLion (talk)
- I also want to point out my issue about who is offering their opinions. Many have already come and opined that they oppose the merge. Now you are suggesting more to come. I feel serious concerns about that. You did offer tamils editors could offer their opinion to be more fair. But you also argued that Tamil editors have not bothered to create this tamil genocide page like that means something. The same argument can be laid for these so called "tamil editors" have not bothered to write about the tamil genocide in any reasonable depth in the war crimes article either. there is just a couple paragraphs in the end of war crimes article. Things like bill 104 has been going on for years and there is no mention of it in the war crimes article. = This leaves me to seriously question the point of getting these so called tamil editors to give their opinion. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- To give an analogy, let's say there was an article called "War crimes committed on August 11-12, 1990" and it largely talked about the LTTE massacring Muslims at Eravur and some aftermath. Let's say now someone created a separate article called "Eravur massacre," and the content is about aftermath of Muslims getting massacred on August 11-12, 1990. Would it not make sense just to have the two articles merged? SinhalaLion (talk)
- I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. I am just expressing my frustration with that offer. But I will begin by saying you are starting to make sense to me with these offers so this discussion is worth it as we should continue negotiating.
- Finally, you've ignored my other offer, which is simply to expand the scope to include things beyond 2009 (before or after). We could talk about war crimes against Tamils throughout the war under the lens of them constituting acts of genocide (and I would agree to having the Sri Lankan Civil War page remain as is).
- I do not think I understand this offer. to" expand the scope to include things beyond 2009 (before or after). " We are doing that here. That war crimes articles is about the final "War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War" This is a perfect example of lack of overlap. If you are just willing to change the war crimes artilcle and change the scope, then whos to say someone else wont raise issue with that tomorrow. There are alot of editors on that page.
- "war crimes at the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war" as "Tamil genocide," but they wouldn't suggest that the whole civil war should be understood as just a Tamil genocide. So, I am puzzled, to say the least, about your rejection of my compromise.
- I have to be clear with you here. I will be straightforward.
- I feel bad to the sinhala and muslim communities that have sufferred in the final stages due to the LTTE. If I recall correctly the SL armed forced were obviously brutal, but so were the tigers. As their days became numbered, their attacks became less justifiable and more deadly. To fit those acts under the name of Tamil genocide... i don't know i need more convincing
- You are not the only editor of the war crimes article. what if the other editors take issue? Even I am taking issue and I barely was involved in that article. Thoe guys will understamdly not be happy. What happens if we agree to change the article name and merge, yet suddenly people take issue and ask to change the name again?
- If there is a merge to occur, there must be a change of intro to something similar to what I wrote. I think it is important some changes occur. Such as writing more about how controversial the alleged genocide is.
- Please elaborate on the other offer you have about expanding to things beyond 2009 (before or after). Which article do you wish to expand? how so?
- This page would be better named "Recognition of Tamil genocide" given what you yourself have proposed as subtopics.
- In my literal intro I state about how it is controversial . I have not figured out what to call a section addressing this controversy or what to include in it, but I will. this page is not about the "recognition of Tamil genocide. " it has already been recognised - a page isnt changing that. I am creating this page, for education just like wikipedia is for. A page with the primary focus being the genocide sounds more the reasonable to me.
- Please note: If am i biased and just writing for the recognition of tamil genocide, I would have gobbled up the offer to rename the war crimes article as tamil genocide. My hesitation only adds to my authenticity. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- I feel bad to the sinhala and muslim communities that have sufferred in the final stages due to the LTTE. If I recall correctly the SL armed forced were obviously brutal, but so were the tigers. As their days became numbered, their attacks became less justifiable and more deadly. To fit those acts under the name of Tamil genocide... i don't know i need more convincing
- Which is why I brought up the "anti-Tamil pogrom" and the Rwandan genocide where the title pertains to crimes against one group, but the content can include other violence, including that perpetrated by the otherwise victimized group (in our case, Tamil rioters attacking Sinhalese). I too am bothered by the language of "anti-Tamil pogrom" because it excludes Sinhalese victims, and it's increasingly obvious that the mainstream secondary literature has neglected them to the point of misrepresentation of how these riots unfolded. But I supported the "1958 anti-Tamil pogrom" article to be called such because we're beholden to academic majoritarianism. Hence why I am applying the same standard to this case.
- You are not the only editor of the war crimes article. what if the other editors take issue? Even I am taking issue and I barely was involved in that article. Thoe guys will understamdly not be happy. What happens if we agree to change the article name and merge, yet suddenly people take issue and ask to change the name again?
- Actually, I've barely contributed to that article. But in any case, we would discuss, as painful as that may be. Also, there's no guarantee they won't come here and raise a fuss.
- If there is a merge to occur, there must be a change of intro to something similar to what I wrote. I think it is important some changes occur. Such as writing more about how controversial the alleged genocide is.
- I think we can find a balance between what you wrote and what's already there.
- Please elaborate on the other offer you have about expanding to things beyond 2009 (before or after). Which article do you wish to expand? how so?
- This article would include actions part of the "Tamil genocide" before 2009 or after 2009. You brought up "epistemic violence," but there are still allegations of cultural genocide (e.g., renaming Tamil villages with Sinhala names) which are not directly related to the events of 2009. Of course, if we take this route, the WP:BURDEN would be on you to show that there is a consensus of WP:RS that refer to actions pre-2009 and post-2009 as "Tamil genocide."
- it has already been recognised - a page isnt changing that.
- Wikipedia pages don't promote or disavow views; they just reflect discourse on them. An article called "Recognition of Tamil genocide" would just summarize attempts to promote or deny the view that what Tamils went through was genocide by various parties. Your content thus far, both in words and in the topic skeleton, is better characterized by this title IMO. SinhalaLion (talk)
- Which is why I brought up the "anti-Tamil pogrom" and the Rwandan genocide where the title pertains to crimes against one group, but the content can include other violence,
- Okay fair enough, but in such case the language should be careful not to diminish the actions of the LTTE terrorists and their victims.
- Actually, I've barely contributed to that article. But in any case, we would discuss, as painful as that may be. Also, there's no guarantee they won't come here and raise a fuss.
- You can not really offer this if its not on the table. I think over riding their article will create a much bigger fuss.
- I think we can find a balance between what you wrote and what's already there.
- Okay
- This article would include actions part of the "Tamil genocide" before 2009 or after 2009. You brought up "epistemic violence," but there are still allegations of cultural genocide (e.g., renaming Tamil villages with Sinhala names) which are not directly related to the events of 2009. Of course, if we take this route, the WP:BURDEN would be on you to show that there is a consensus of WP:RS that refer to actions pre-2009 and post-2009 as "Tamil genocide."
- which article do you mean by "this article" ? I am still confused. ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- which article do you mean by "this article" ? I am still confused.
- The article entitled "Tamil genocide."
- I think over riding their article will create a much bigger fuss.
- Just because there's fuss doesn't mean the change is wrong. Some battles just have to be fought unfortunately. SinhalaLion (talk)
- Just because there's fuss doesn't mean the change is wrong. Some battles just have to be fought unfortunately.
- to be frank i do not think I care enough to have this "battle". I am barely convinced the merge is justified, but I will admit you are making some good points. I just dont think its a direction to take. Though, yes there is a growing body of literature that acknowledges it as a genocide, its still a very controversial topic and I am not convinced to label all war crimes in 09 as tamil genocide is good for education. The title will also definitely be caught with constant requests to change by editors. i.e it will not be a one time "battle."
- This article would include actions part of the "Tamil genocide" before 2009 or after 2009. You brought up "epistemic violence," but there are still allegations of cultural genocide (e.g., renaming Tamil villages with Sinhala names) which are not directly related to the events of 2009. Of course, if we take this route, the WP:BURDEN would be on you to show that there is a consensus of WP:RS that refer to actions pre-2009 and post-2009 as "Tamil genocide."
- How is what the TG article is doing right now not this? I made a sub topic about the tamil memorial and wrote about the actions of patrick brown (which took place post 2009).
- If you are referring to things like War crimes or discriminatory behaviour like the sinhala only act or the programs. I am not sure they are referred to as genocide. They definitely helped with the build up to the alleged genocide and can be written as a "background" subtopic. Same can be done with post actions like the occupations of Sinhalese people in tamil areas ( I dont know if this is true yet, just saw it on social media.) This can be linked to the tamil genocide, without being called "part" of the tamil genocide since I doubt research literature will agree. Though, I did see a protest recently by tamils in Jaffna demanding to end the militarization of the North and referring to it as genocide. I saw one poster that read something along the lines of "Jaffna is another Gaza." This seems like it can be included.
- How do you feel about that? ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- The title will also definitely be caught with constant requests to change by editors. i.e it will not be a one time "battle."
- I think you're overestimating how much effort people will put into contesting decisions made on Wikipedia. There are many contentious decisions which have opponents yet they don't change. I've been here for a while, and generally people accept and move on after some time even if they don't like the decision.
- Though, I did see a protest recently by tamils in Jaffna demanding to end the militarization of the North and referring to it as genocide. I saw one poster that read something along the lines of "Jaffna is another Gaza." This seems like it can be included.
- How do you feel about that?
- That works, though if WP:RS don't call it "genocide," you'd have to qualify that it's an allegation made by the protesters.
- I believe Black July was called a genocide by the ICJ, and perhaps the Jaffna library burning is considered "cultural genocide" by literature. These seem better suited, so perhaps this article could be a compilation of events that the literature calls "genocide." SinhalaLion (talk)
- That works, though if WP:RS don't call it "genocide," you'd have to qualify that it's an allegation made by the protesters.
- I believe Black July was called a genocide by the ICJ, and perhaps the Jaffna library burning is considered "cultural genocide" by literature. These seem better suited, so perhaps this article could be a compilation of events that the literature calls "genocide." SinhalaLion (talk)
- Sounds good to me. How about you just arrange some of the subtopic skeletons so that I can get more of a feel for what you want and slowly fill them in with info. e.g a topic for the Jaffna library burning. Ofc, if you dont mind, please feel free to write as well.
- So the compromise we agree on is to continue this page but to expand its topics to pre and post 2009. Things that are alleged to be genocide will be included while taking note that they are mere accusations. We will also continue writing about things just related to the genocide as well. Sounds good? ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- So the compromise we agree on is to continue this page but to expand its topics to pre and post 2009. Things that are alleged to be genocide will be included while taking note that they are mere accusations. We will also continue writing about things just related to the genocide as well. Sounds good?
- Yes, that works. With that, I'll remove the merge request.
- However, I warn you again that other users may come to contest the name of the article. Also, I was doing a review of "Tamil genocide" on Google Scholar and much of the literature itself doesn't apply the term "genocide" but rather describes tendencies of the LTTE or the Tamil community to use the term. So you'll have to add qualifiers that the term is largely used by the Tamil community if the WP:RS suggest as much. I suspect you'll be doing this for much of the article. SinhalaLion (talk)
- appreciate it man. and understood, will do. Can you comment on the citation style if you have a chance. Is it fixed? ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- appreciate it man. and understood, will do. Can you comment on the citation style if you have a chance. Is it fixed? ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- Functionally, I don't see how this new page will be much different from the already-established page. I mean, the introduction paragraph to this page was taken from the other page and just reworded to remove mention of the LTTE's crimes and include some other verbiage that is also, in my view, redundant (e.g., having "sexual violence" and "rape"). As seen on the other page, numerous sources attest to the LTTE's crimes against Tamil civilians during the last stage of the war, so removing mention of their wrongdoing could violate WP:NPOV. It doesn't help that you canvassed two online communities that tend to support the LTTE and whose users, if they came to Wikipedia, would be averse to acknowledging its crimes. Yet if we maintain WP:NPOV and included its crimes, wouldn't this page just be the same as the other? SinhalaLion (talk)
- Actually, you made a number of reposts of your original post on various subreddits, which could also qualify as canvassing since, in the post title, it says "contribute and expand it now." SinhalaLion (talk)
- Actually, you made a number of reposts of your original post on various subreddits, which could also qualify as canvassing since, in the post title, it says "contribute and expand it now." SinhalaLion (talk)
- Merge This is a clear reduncady since its repeating content from other topics with the aim of WP:OR with poor sourcing using primary sources from advocacy groups. Cossde (talk)
- Oppose merge There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article. Oz346 (talk)
- What reliable scholarly sources? Cossde (talk)
- https://www.claritypress.com/product/the-tamil-genocide-by-sri-lanka/
- Here is one such source authored by Francis Boyle. I quote what the admin Rosguill said previously in this discussion:
- "FWIW, I think that there are enough peer-reviewed sources indexed by Google Scholar addressing this as the "Tamil Genocide" such that a separate article can be justified." Oz346 (talk)
- @Oz346, you said that several reliable scholarly sources, however you only produce one, that clearly established that this is a WP:FRINGE. As WP:EXCEPTIONAL would put it is a surprising important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Cossde (talk)
- @Oz346, you said that several reliable scholarly sources, however you only produce one, that clearly established that this is a WP:FRINGE. As WP:EXCEPTIONAL would put it is a surprising important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Cossde (talk)
- What reliable scholarly sources? Cossde (talk)
- Oppose Merge - Anyone who has had any engagement with the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict would know that the topic of Tamil genocide figures prominently. The content of the article has changed since the merge proposal was made and many further improvements can be made. As the administrator Rosguill noted above, there's enough coverage of the topic in reliable sources for its inclusion. --- Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, that may be your opinion, however the sourcing in the article is very poor and doesn't warrant its independent existence.Cossde (talk)
- There is obviously disagreement as others including me believe that the sources are adequate with scholarly sources and does warrant its independent existence. Additionally there also was previous debate taking place where parties (including neutral and opposing parties) conceded that there are potential sources that can be added to further solidify this exact point.
- That said from reading your comments, your main strife seems to be about bias. I agree with that to an extent. if you are willing to have a goof faith discussion (which I must note I am wary of engaging in as I have already called out a place in the talk where you did not speak in good faith) then we can totally discuss and we can make a lot of changes to the wiki page. Thanks :) ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- @ChanakyanFOG, thank you for your offer to discuss good faith and I gladly accept it. However, I feel its difficult to achieve WP:NPOV here since there is no room for good faith editing in this page with clear WP:BATTLEGROUND taking place here [1], [2]. Cossde (talk)
- You are going to need to substantiate the battleground accusations as I disagree. I am still not even clear on you proposal. Please take the time to write it. I see the issues you raise. but what do you want us to do? please be clear. thanks. The other person said deletion is not what is being proposed. So what is it? are you friends with them? please discuss and let the talk page know. thanks ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- @ChanakyanFOG, seems like you have now defined factions when you said what do you want us to do? and accusing me of forming factions are you friends with them? please discuss and let the talk page know. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cossde (talk)
- that is quite a reach. When I say "us" I am talking about you and I. no factions were acknowledged. I view all editors as one "team" as we work to create high quality articles. I believe if you read things in a neutral lens that would have been obvious to you.
- Based on timing it seemed like you may know that other person so I asked. No accusations were made.
- This is no where near WP: battleground criteria. Please read things with a more relaxed neutral lens. If you have any meaningful reasons for why you feel WP:Battlefield is taking place, please let the talk page know. Thanks ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- @ChanakyanFOG, I will be honest, I don't feel your explanation meets your initial comments. I found that you have accused me of colluding with a user who was blocked for disruptive editing. That is a very serious accusation in WP. Cossde (talk)
- @ChanakyanFOG, I will be honest, I don't feel your explanation meets your initial comments. I found that you have accused me of colluding with a user who was blocked for disruptive editing. That is a very serious accusation in WP. Cossde (talk)
- @ChanakyanFOG, seems like you have now defined factions when you said what do you want us to do? and accusing me of forming factions are you friends with them? please discuss and let the talk page know. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cossde (talk)
- You are going to need to substantiate the battleground accusations as I disagree. I am still not even clear on you proposal. Please take the time to write it. I see the issues you raise. but what do you want us to do? please be clear. thanks. The other person said deletion is not what is being proposed. So what is it? are you friends with them? please discuss and let the talk page know. thanks ChanakyanFOG (talk)
- @ChanakyanFOG, thank you for your offer to discuss good faith and I gladly accept it. However, I feel its difficult to achieve WP:NPOV here since there is no room for good faith editing in this page with clear WP:BATTLEGROUND taking place here [1], [2]. Cossde (talk)
- @Petextrodon, that may be your opinion, however the sourcing in the article is very poor and doesn't warrant its independent existence.Cossde (talk)
- Oppose merge as has been discussed by others above, the Tamil genocide is clearly notable with it being addressed in reliable academic sources able to be located through Google Scholar. TarnishedPathtalk
- @User:TarnishedPath, can you please help with listing the reliable academic sources. I already started on it and need help. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I would suggest utilising the Wikipedia Library. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, thank you. However, you mentioned that there are reliable academic sources addressing this topic. Can you please add them to the list and help reviewing the list. Kalanishashika (talk)
- If you're unwilling to do some simple research yourself you might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamil_genocide where others listed references. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, I was told in this talk page that Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and if you need something done you need to do it yourself. Please don't tell me to do the research for you. If you have said that there are "reliable academic sources addressing this topic", I suggest you get off your high horse and start contributing to this topic in earnest if you want to keep it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I suggest you strike that whole comment as it is WP:INCIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, apologies, I lost my temper. I found your comments rather unhelpful. As an Admin, you seem to direct things without helping in the content of the article. That I find not helpful. I recon if you say something like there are sources to keep this article, I would expect you to help the article, rather than tell others to do. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika, firstly I'm not an admin. Secondly, no one is required to do any more than they want around here. Our participation is completely voluntary. Now if you want to find reliable sources I've already pointed you in the right direction of finding them. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, if you are not an admin. Why are you asking me to find reliable sources, when you clearly said you see there are reliable sources. Why cann't you add these and contribute to the article. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You asked me where the reliable sources were. I pointed you in the right direction. You demanding that I add sources to the article is not going to fly here. TarnishedPathtalk
- "not going to fly here", you mean with you? Guess you talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I suggest you strike that comment about me "talks the talk but does not walk the walk". TarnishedPathtalk
- I would, please could you kindly explain why I should. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Your misunderstanding here is that no-one has to WP:SATISFY you with answers to your questions. So your continued badgering comes off as being quite rude and hostile (I'm not saying that was your intent, only that is how it could be perceived). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t°
- That's certainly how I perceived their WP:BADGERING of me. As rude and WP:INCIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk
- Thanks for clarifying that, this was not my intention. As you see the sources used in this topic are complicated and these need to be evaluated individually. If one only looks at the sources from a Google Scholar search, then it's not very effective at all. This topic is far more complicated. And I feel the answer to it is in the sources. It needs to be built up from sources, not from Google Scholar searchers. Kalanishashika (talk) — Kalanishashika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The article was a keep at AfD, meaning a consensus amongst participants was that it passes WP:GNG. I see no further need repeat what was written in that AfD. TarnishedPathtalk
- The article was a keep at AfD, meaning a consensus amongst participants was that it passes WP:GNG. I see no further need repeat what was written in that AfD. TarnishedPathtalk
- Thanks for clarifying that, this was not my intention. As you see the sources used in this topic are complicated and these need to be evaluated individually. If one only looks at the sources from a Google Scholar search, then it's not very effective at all. This topic is far more complicated. And I feel the answer to it is in the sources. It needs to be built up from sources, not from Google Scholar searchers. Kalanishashika (talk) — Kalanishashika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That's certainly how I perceived their WP:BADGERING of me. As rude and WP:INCIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk
- Your misunderstanding here is that no-one has to WP:SATISFY you with answers to your questions. So your continued badgering comes off as being quite rude and hostile (I'm not saying that was your intent, only that is how it could be perceived). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t°
- I would, please could you kindly explain why I should. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I suggest you strike that comment about me "talks the talk but does not walk the walk". TarnishedPathtalk
- "not going to fly here", you mean with you? Guess you talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You asked me where the reliable sources were. I pointed you in the right direction. You demanding that I add sources to the article is not going to fly here. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, if you are not an admin. Why are you asking me to find reliable sources, when you clearly said you see there are reliable sources. Why cann't you add these and contribute to the article. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika, firstly I'm not an admin. Secondly, no one is required to do any more than they want around here. Our participation is completely voluntary. Now if you want to find reliable sources I've already pointed you in the right direction of finding them. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, apologies, I lost my temper. I found your comments rather unhelpful. As an Admin, you seem to direct things without helping in the content of the article. That I find not helpful. I recon if you say something like there are sources to keep this article, I would expect you to help the article, rather than tell others to do. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I suggest you strike that whole comment as it is WP:INCIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, I was told in this talk page that Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and if you need something done you need to do it yourself. Please don't tell me to do the research for you. If you have said that there are "reliable academic sources addressing this topic", I suggest you get off your high horse and start contributing to this topic in earnest if you want to keep it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- If you're unwilling to do some simple research yourself you might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamil_genocide where others listed references. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, thank you. However, you mentioned that there are reliable academic sources addressing this topic. Can you please add them to the list and help reviewing the list. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I would suggest utilising the Wikipedia Library. TarnishedPathtalk
- @User:TarnishedPath, can you please help with listing the reliable academic sources. I already started on it and need help. Kalanishashika (talk)
- i am opposing the merge with war crime ..this is genocide and should be referred as genocide only...only the genocide perpeters want this to be called war crime... Catheven (talk) — Catheven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 'Oppose The genocide is still ongoing but the war is over. The article needs help not merger. Sportsfan 1234 (talk)
- Agree with you, very succinctly put, these are two distinct epochs, one is related to war and the other is related to an ongoing genocide. Both have reliable sources.Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk)
- Agree with you, very succinctly put, these are two distinct epochs, one is related to war and the other is related to an ongoing genocide. Both have reliable sources.Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Enforced disappearances
@Petextrodon, can you please explain how you added this [3] content to the page? The sources you have cited does not mention any reference to genocide. Kalanishashika (talk)
- That's the overview of the issue. Not every single source needs to mention genocide. Analyses of genocide will be provided shortly.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Disagree. Details are in the main article. You have not established the link to genocide in this section. Please establish consensus before adding content. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You still haven't given a policy-based explanation for your removal of that content. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Stop being disruptive.---Petextrodon (talk)
- You still haven't given a policy-based explanation for your removal of that content. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Stop being disruptive.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Disagree. Details are in the main article. You have not established the link to genocide in this section. Please establish consensus before adding content. Kalanishashika (talk)
@Petextrodon, why did you restore content without gaining consensus? Kalanishashika (talk)
- "Please establish consensus before adding content."
- Someone explained to you this wasn't a Wikipedia policy. So please cite the policy you're using to justify deleting content. If you continue to be disruptive, I will have to report you. Know that Sri Lanka is a contentious topic and continued disruptive behavior could result in a topic ban.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Wikipedia:Consensus states that content that is disputed needs to be consensus. Why are persistent in putting this content. Please can you show me where the link to genocide and enforced disappearances is. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You need to dispute it for a valid reason. Your reason is that the given source doesn't mention genocide. I already explained to you I will provide it shortly and that source in question is meant to give a general overview of the issue. Please cite the policy that states Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Kalanishashika For your information, as per Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus":
- "a single editor's objection does not establish "no consensus" for a change. ... the existing text ordinarily remains in place during a discussion and commonly prevails if the discussion fails to reach consensus. ... Reverting solely on the basis of "no consensus" suggests you simply did not like the edit."---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, thank you for sharing that policy. I am sorry I used the term "no consensus", I think I picked that up from you. However, I feel the correct policy would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Kalanishashika (talk)
- No you did not pick that up from me. You "feel" it? That's not an explanation. You still need to justify your use of that policy and your continued revert in more details. This is becoming disruptive.---Petextrodon (talk)
- No you did not pick that up from me. You "feel" it? That's not an explanation. You still need to justify your use of that policy and your continued revert in more details. This is becoming disruptive.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, thank you for adding the link between disappearance and the genocide claim. However, you have not linked the content in dispute with the claim for genocide. Please create the link and add the content. Kalanishashika (talk)
- ONCE AGAIN: Please cite the policy that implies Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.----Petextrodon (talk)
- @Kalanishashika, your latest revert with the explanation "removing primary source content per RSN discussion" makes no sense. You removed the unrelated content. That RSN was about citing the primary source court document by itself, but I didn't cite that. I cited a secondary reliable source reporting Fein's statements. Therefore, you've misused the policy and I encourage you to revert that. That RSN was opened after the now topic-banned user Cossde challenged the primary source and somehow you a new user found that discussion although they aren't the same cited sources. Some of your behavior pattern has been remarkably similar to this user. Perhaps I will be filing a report on potential off-Wiki coordination.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, let me respond to your accusations:
- 1. You don't seem to have read the RSN discussion. I am referring to AndyTheGrump's observations on the People’s Tribunal and I quote "The 'People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka' may or may not have legitimate grounds for alleging genocide, but Wikipedia certainly can't treat documents sourced to them as reliable for every allegation they make to support such claims." which clearly states that PPT cannot be used in this context.
- 2. As to how I found it. I was trying to understand if PPT reports can be directly citied here and wanted to create a RSN thread on it, like this one I did [4] and you have happened to comment on. However, before I did that, I did a search on RSN on "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" to find anything on it and it turned up this discussion. Since AndyTheGrump had explained PPT's place in Wikipedia, I decided against creating a new thread and used it since it was very clear.
- Your accusation of "off-Wiki coordination" is very serious and I believe does not meet Wikipedia:Civility. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika That was YOUR responsibility to specify what you had in mind. If you were referring to that one particular comment, then you should have provided the diff instead. In any case, how does that one off-handed comment under unrelated topic justify your deleting the entire content here? You have misunderstood the Wiki policy. Primary source human rights reports can be cited as long as explicit attribution is provided so you can present them as views of particular sources and not as proven facts. I have already done that. Similar issue was raised about the ITJP and it was agreed for any controversial statement it can be explicitly attributed. Also PPT has been vetted and endorsed by other secondary reliable sources cited here: Short (2016) and Fernando (2014). They are a competent panel of judges with expertise in relevant fields.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, please don't put your failure to read a RSN discussion on me. It is your responsibility to use reliable sources for the content you add. Exceptional claims such as genocide needs high quality sources. You have not proven that Wikipedia accepts PPT as such. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Because the discussion was about an entirely different source and your citing an offhanded comment by one user does not justify your deletion of explicitly attributed content.
- "You have not proven that Wikipedia accepts PPT as such"
- Can you show me the policy which states a source that's cited by other RS and meets the notability criteria must go through RSN before it can be cited here? In fact, I and another user had to frequently deal with this exact issue from user Cossde and it's quite frankly obstructive. Is this pure coincidence?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, please don't put your failure to read a RSN discussion on me. It is your responsibility to use reliable sources for the content you add. Exceptional claims such as genocide needs high quality sources. You have not proven that Wikipedia accepts PPT as such. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika Your account seems to be solely focused on removing reliably sourced content about crimes committed by Sri Lankan government forces. The articles you removed like the BBC are reliable sources. Cited scholarly sources have argued that 'enforced disappearances' of thousands of Tamils are genocidal acts. That has already been made clear by those sources. Therefore, there is a place for other articles on the phenomenon to be cited in this section even if the word genocide is not directly mentioned by them. It is still directly relevant to the topic of 'enforced disappearances', a potential genocidal act, which has a place in this article. Oz346 (talk)
- @Kalanishashika That was YOUR responsibility to specify what you had in mind. If you were referring to that one particular comment, then you should have provided the diff instead. In any case, how does that one off-handed comment under unrelated topic justify your deleting the entire content here? You have misunderstood the Wiki policy. Primary source human rights reports can be cited as long as explicit attribution is provided so you can present them as views of particular sources and not as proven facts. I have already done that. Similar issue was raised about the ITJP and it was agreed for any controversial statement it can be explicitly attributed. Also PPT has been vetted and endorsed by other secondary reliable sources cited here: Short (2016) and Fernando (2014). They are a competent panel of judges with expertise in relevant fields.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Kalanishashika, your latest revert with the explanation "removing primary source content per RSN discussion" makes no sense. You removed the unrelated content. That RSN was about citing the primary source court document by itself, but I didn't cite that. I cited a secondary reliable source reporting Fein's statements. Therefore, you've misused the policy and I encourage you to revert that. That RSN was opened after the now topic-banned user Cossde challenged the primary source and somehow you a new user found that discussion although they aren't the same cited sources. Some of your behavior pattern has been remarkably similar to this user. Perhaps I will be filing a report on potential off-Wiki coordination.---Petextrodon (talk)
- ONCE AGAIN: Please cite the policy that implies Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.----Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, thank you for sharing that policy. I am sorry I used the term "no consensus", I think I picked that up from you. However, I feel the correct policy would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You need to dispute it for a valid reason. Your reason is that the given source doesn't mention genocide. I already explained to you I will provide it shortly and that source in question is meant to give a general overview of the issue. Please cite the policy that states Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Wikipedia:Consensus states that content that is disputed needs to be consensus. Why are persistent in putting this content. Please can you show me where the link to genocide and enforced disappearances is. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I have reverted to the version of Charcoal feather can we please get consensus before adding or removing content.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)
- @Pharaoh of the Wizards, why did you revert to the version of Charcoal feather, keeping the content recently added by Petextrodon and removing the changes done by me, including new content? You have not clearly explained here in the talk page. If your intention was to go back to the stable version you should have reverted to state before Petextrodon added the content in dispute. As pointed out by @Aoidh here [5], according to WP:BRD there is no need to gain consensus to delete newly added content in dispute. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika the 'new content' added by you is not absolutely necessary, and makes the passages more long winded than is needed. What is the point of adding that Wigneswaran led the northern provincial council? The resolution was not solely decided by him, it was voted in by the majority in the council. And the PPT has already been linked to its dedicated wikipedia article. What's the point of mentioning the Irish SL forum and Bremen group? The findings of the PPT were ultimately decided by the panel not the organisers of the event. Oz346 (talk)
- @Oz346,@Petextrodon,@Pharaoh of the Wizards what you guys are saying is that I am not allowed to edit this article is it? We have Pharaoh of the Wizards reverting changes I did and keeping in place content Petextrodon added newly and was contested by me saying that I need to "get consensus before adding or removing content" when WP:BRD says otherwise, while Oz346 is justifying his removal of the content I added as "not absolutely necessary, and makes the passages more long winded than is needed". Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika I did not remove anything. Stop making false accusations. And my reasons for not including that content still stand. I asked you a question, what is the purpose for including those details? Oz346 (talk)
- @Kalanishashika I did not remove anything. Stop making false accusations. And my reasons for not including that content still stand. I asked you a question, what is the purpose for including those details? Oz346 (talk)
- @Oz346,@Petextrodon,@Pharaoh of the Wizards what you guys are saying is that I am not allowed to edit this article is it? We have Pharaoh of the Wizards reverting changes I did and keeping in place content Petextrodon added newly and was contested by me saying that I need to "get consensus before adding or removing content" when WP:BRD says otherwise, while Oz346 is justifying his removal of the content I added as "not absolutely necessary, and makes the passages more long winded than is needed". Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika the 'new content' added by you is not absolutely necessary, and makes the passages more long winded than is needed. What is the point of adding that Wigneswaran led the northern provincial council? The resolution was not solely decided by him, it was voted in by the majority in the council. And the PPT has already been linked to its dedicated wikipedia article. What's the point of mentioning the Irish SL forum and Bremen group? The findings of the PPT were ultimately decided by the panel not the organisers of the event. Oz346 (talk)
- @Pharaoh of the Wizards, why did you revert to the version of Charcoal feather, keeping the content recently added by Petextrodon and removing the changes done by me, including new content? You have not clearly explained here in the talk page. If your intention was to go back to the stable version you should have reverted to state before Petextrodon added the content in dispute. As pointed out by @Aoidh here [5], according to WP:BRD there is no need to gain consensus to delete newly added content in dispute. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I reverted it to the neutral editor Charcoal feather.Now if I have reverted wrongly I apologize and let anyone revert.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)
US Congress resolution
@Walsh90210: I'm not sure if I understand your point. How is a bipartisan resolution, a first of its kind in the US, recognizing Tamil genocide too trivial to be included in a section about political recognition of genocide?---Petextrodon (talk)
- Because it's a nothinburger. Any member of parliament is free to introduce any motion they want, even on a recognotion of Mars and Jupiter.[6][7] But as long as it's not voted on to become law, it's just a worthless piece of paper.
- Same with personal opinions of two US House members. They mean exactly zero in law. — kashmīrī TALK
- Who said it has to become a law to be included in a section about political recognition?---Petextrodon (talk)
- Who said it has to become a law to be included in a section about political recognition?---Petextrodon (talk)
- The introduction of the resolution is here, [8]. Was it accepted? (The text said 2014, not 2024--very confusing.) Drmies (talk)
- It's here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1230/text ---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, this is a primary source and you seem to be analyzing it. Can you use a secondary source that does that. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Helping another user with link to the original material is not analyzing anything.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Yes, you are right. I am sorry. However, it would be if you use it in the article. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Yes, you are right. I am sorry. However, it would be if you use it in the article. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Helping another user with link to the original material is not analyzing anything.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, this is a primary source and you seem to be analyzing it. Can you use a secondary source that does that. Kalanishashika (talk)
- It's here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1230/text ---Petextrodon (talk)
- As Kashmiri said; resolutions that pass the US Congress are generally symbolic rather than impactful. Resolutions that are merely introduced (and never debated) are completely unimportant. Walsh90210 (talk)
Content dispute
@Oz346, the content you have reverted [9] has been disputed under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, however you have failed to address these and seem to level fresh allegations at me and called these edits disruptive edits without engaging in the talk page, which I consider is against Wikipedia:Civility. Kalanishashika (talk)
- 1st revert: No consensus exists for the removal of this reliably sourced content (BBC News, scholarly publication by Springer), and most users have so far opposed your move.
- 2nd revert: Most users at RSN agreed with explicit attribution, not removal.
- 3rd revert: There was no discussion regarding Tamil Guardian at SLR but its status was arbitrarily decided 15 years ago by two users. TG is not being cited here for its own POV but its reporting on publicly verifiable events. There is no controversy that those U.S. legislators officially acknowledged the Tamil genocide. This can be seen from their very own official twitter handles embedded in the article itself: https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/us-legislators-officially-acknowledge-tamil-genocide Oz346 (talk)
- Re. 1, read WP:ONUS. Wikipedia doesn't work on "consensus for removal" but on consensus to include.
- Re. 2, I don't recall a RfC, so not sure how you've counted the votes.
- Re. 3, legislators are people like you and me who may or may not proclaim their personal beliefs. Unless we're talking about official acts of the legislature, unrelated beliefs of its members are of little encyclopaedic value. Of course, personal beliefs held by two US guys have nothing to do with "international recognition" of a historical event in the legal or encyclopaedic sense. Much like information about two US legislators proclaiming a belief in God is of precisely zero worth to the article God nor a proof of God's existence. — kashmīrī TALK
- 1. That reliably sourced content from the BBC and Springer scholarly publication are directly related to the 'Enforced disappearances' section. What is the valid reason to remove it?
- 2. Read the RSN discussion, the majority of users there recommended explicit attribution.
- 3. They are not just two random "US guys". They are US politicians. It is relevant to political recognition. Would you similarly oppose the inclusion of politicians recognising the genocide of Palestinians? Oz346 (talk)
- 1. Sources may be reliable; however, they have no mention of genocide, hence the removal. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This content should go into the article of its own, if not already there.
- 2. RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Infact, one editor went on to say that this was a bias source. How can an article have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with bias sources?
- 3. If this section is on politicians' recognition, then yes, this should be included. But then politicians recognize anything that has votes for them. Kalanishashika (talk)
- 1. Enforced disappearances has been described as a genocidal act by scholarly sources. Therefore, general information on the phenomenon of enforced disappearances has a place in this article, it does not need to have genocide explicitly mentioned in every source. Enforced disappearances are still enforced disappearances. It is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is specifically on 'Enforced disappearances'.
- 2. Reliable sources can be biased. Most sources have biases, that does not determine if a source or reliable or not. In regards to this source, explicit attribution was given, and the source was authored by a scholar.
- 3. I agree it should be included. Oz346 (talk)
- We can only include them if enforced disappearances of Tamils in Sri Lanka have been termed as "genocide" by RS. Most enforced disappearances in the wolrld are not genocide.
- I'm asking for a proof of "majority of users".
- Individual members of the US House of Representatives have no power to "recognise" anything in their official capacity. They can express their personal beliefs, however the power of official recognition is restricted to the entire House through a vote. I object in the strongest terms possible to presenting someone's personal belief (with no legal ramification) as "international recognition". This would be misrepresentation and fake news of sorts.
- — kashmīrī TALK
- Who here has used the term "international recognition"? Political recognition is more open-ended than state recognition so it can accommodate one sentence on US legislators introducing a resolution recognizing Tamil genocide. You make it sound like these are the personal beliefs of some random guys on the street. They recognize Tamil genocide on their political capacity and not as private US citizens.
- What is your point regarding the enforced disappearances revert? Are you saying you agree with the other user on removing Lutz Oette, a human rights specialist, because the publisher of the report is a Tamil organization? There seems to be a conflict of interest in your edit history on this topic where you have consistently taken a stance opposite of the "strongest support possible" you gave to Palestine genocide recognition where you have not similarly challenged the pro-Palestinian sources. Would you say a report on Palestinian genocide written by a western human rights specialist should be excluded even with explicit attribution because it's published by a Palestinian organization? That's essentially what the other user is arguing for. You have consistently challenged my edits even by teaming with them but have not challenged their edits or arguments. This doesn't look like neutral arbitration.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Notably Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources is not the source of truth on community consensus regarding reliability of sources. Such discussions occur at WP:RSN. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Do you say we should review other sources that have been attributed to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation? Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika your view that WP:RSN failed to reach consensus does not necessarily make a source unreliable. Others have stated that their takeaway was that the material relying on the source should be attributed.
- As per whether other sources listed at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation should be reviewed, I can't give you an answer because I only looked at that specific source and an editor closing the discussion from the limited discussion that occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources#http://www.tamilguardian.com with the determination that the source is unreliable is quite frankly lacking in vigor. Without much scrolling though I see other sources where there is only the participation of two editors and then determinations of sources being unreliable as if an RfC had occurred. If you want a better view of whether any particular source is reliable or not, given a specific usage, you should take it to WP:RSN. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, yes, what you say make sense. We can't take the WikiProject classification the source of truth. However, who should take this to RSN? Shouldn't it be editor who introduced it? I am happy to take it RSN, however, I have been called names for doing it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I've also been called names. Only hours ago I had a random IP editing my user talk calling me a "loser". I would suggest being proactive if you thing there is a dispute. TarnishedPathtalk
- I've also been called names. Only hours ago I had a random IP editing my user talk calling me a "loser". I would suggest being proactive if you thing there is a dispute. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath, yes, what you say make sense. We can't take the WikiProject classification the source of truth. However, who should take this to RSN? Shouldn't it be editor who introduced it? I am happy to take it RSN, however, I have been called names for doing it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @TarnishedPath, RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Do you say we should review other sources that have been attributed to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation? Kalanishashika (talk)
@Oz346, you have introduced new content and a source; yet you don't seem to be open to content been used here from the cited source, by removing content you seem to disagree with. Kalanishashika (talk)
@Petextrodon, have you gone back to edit waring on this page? And you seem to have again began pushing your own content without engaging in a discussion. There is a clear content dispute, and it should be on this thread and not a new one, given the recuring pattern. Given your recent revert [10], we need to establish the way things are handled in this page before we can move to content discussion. Clearly you seem to want the disputed content on the page and start discussions, whereas it is clearly said in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that newly added content that is disputed needs to be discussed on before adding into the page. You seem to put it back on and discuss to keep, whereas my understanding is that when content is disputed it needs to be agreed on before it can be added. Which makes more sense. Else someone can just add whatever they want and argue till the second coming and have the disputed content on the page all along. Kalanishashika (talk)
@Kashmiri and @TarnishedPath, please can I ask you to share your views here as well. I strongly feel before any meaningful content discussions can take place, the rules of engagement needs to be established. Else things are just going to into another heated edit war. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Kalanishashika, before a couple of days ago the last comment on this thread was 22/06/2024. There's no need that all discussions concerning all content disputes occur in one thread. It can be better to have separate discussions for separate material. I would suggest since Petextrodon has started a new thread about a specific dispute you have a go at trying to come to agreement, if possible, there. Ps, there's no need to ping editors from previous unrelated discussion and it can be potentially considered to be WP:CANVASSING. TarnishedPathtalk
- @TarnishedPath thanks, yes, I am canvassing. Not to influence the discussion nor the content in dispute, but to clear out the established form of handling a dispute in Wikipedia. The last time the Oz346, Petextrodon and I had a content dispute it escalated into an revert war and we were warrned not to do the same. In order to avoid the same this time, I am reverting all newly added content that is disputed, until the disputed content can be discussed and an agreement reached. @Oz346, @Petextrodon let's try to sort it out in the talk page. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @TarnishedPath thanks, yes, I am canvassing. Not to influence the discussion nor the content in dispute, but to clear out the established form of handling a dispute in Wikipedia. The last time the Oz346, Petextrodon and I had a content dispute it escalated into an revert war and we were warrned not to do the same. In order to avoid the same this time, I am reverting all newly added content that is disputed, until the disputed content can be discussed and an agreement reached. @Oz346, @Petextrodon let's try to sort it out in the talk page. Kalanishashika (talk)
Explicit attribution
Since your edit also concerns the content I added, I will chime in. Next time open a new discussion instead of continuing in old unrelated ones. Were you the recent IP edit?
We have been repeatedly telling you reliable sources don't need that sort of explicit attribution with excess biographic details but you remain undeterred. Fernando was giving his views in a book that was published independently of his involvement in the PPT. We can't synthesize these sources to force an attribute that you favour. Weiss was merely reporting on public statements of a government official that were also reported by other news outlets, and not giving his personal opinion for you to give him explicit attribution since his book is already reliable source. I have now added a different citation that is accessible to an average reader and modified and moved the content to an appropriate section to describe government's view.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, to answer your questions.
- Can you please let me know where it says that reliable sources don't need that sort of explicit attribution?
- Fernando doesn't not have a page of his own, hence I felt that his role in the PPT needs to be included along with his views. His role in the PPT has been deemed important to be listed in his profile in the Trinity College Dublin. This I feel gives context to his views on this subject.
- Weiss was not merely reporting, having presented his views on the last stages of the war, I feel that Weiss's broader views need to be included here. He stats that Rajapaksa indicated that no distinction could be made between combatants and innocent victims, while he also mentions in the same book that civilians were held hostage by the Tamil Tigers, which clear that he holds both parties at fault for the death of the civilians. I believe this what is intended in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- Kalanishashika (talk)
- Fernando is first and foremost a scholar, who is allowed to have his own views independent of his stint with the PPT. Your cherry-picked detail is excessive and irrelevant. The burden is on you to justify it. Weiss was cited just for his reporting, until you or your IP added unrelated details about LTTE's war crimes which is not the focus of this article. Again, your burden, which you have not justified. Shouldn't you have first engaged in this discussion before you went ahead and reverted yet again?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Kalanishashika Why did you revert my Al Jazeera content which you weren't even disputing in the fist place?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I was writing this comment on it. You beat me to it. What you quoted was not Al Jazeera content. The page itself states "The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance." . Therefore, it is as the heading indicates an "OPINION". Hence it would reflect the opinions of Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini. WP:VOICE states "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Gordon and Perugini does not refer to a "Tamil genocide". Kalanishashika (talk)
- That's why I gave explicit attribution to them. Did you not read it before reverting? They nevertheless compared the massacre to Gaza genocide. The wording was clear.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, could you please quote Gordon and Perugini referring to final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to a genocide? Kalanishashika (talk)
- That's not how I worded it, did I? They did however state the massacre had "uncanny" parallels to another genocide.--Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, again, I couldn't find a direct reference to the subject topic "Tamil genocide". Can you please share the quote. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Again, that's not how I worded it, did I?---Petextrodon (talk)
- So you reworded it to create a link to the "Tamil genocide". That is Wikipedia:Original research, is it not. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I didn't create the link; the scholars themselves did by explicitly comparing it to another genocide. If it was compared to the Holocaust, the reasonable inference would be that the massacre has genocidal elements.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I disagree. The author's interpretation could be different. They compared the civil deaths both confects. Without the author's explicitly attributing or referring to a "Tamil genocide", would too much of a reach. I am sorry. I just don't see it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Except that's not how I worded it so it's not a misinterpretation. You assuming otherwise is your own personal original interpretation. It's still more directly relevant to the content at hand than you adding details about LTTE's war crimes.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, and you want to put content that's open to misinterpretation.Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, guess this matter is sorted. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Sorted in what way?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you didn't confirm that you wanted to proceed with a source that's open to misinterpretation? Kalanishashika (talk)
- I have not misinterpreted the content of the article. Any other interpretation is subjective and not my responsibility.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, exactly the point here. You are citing an article prone for misinterpretation or different interpretation. Is that correct? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Any article can be misinterpreted. That's not the responsibility of the editor, which is to accurately represent the content. Have I not done that? Your burden is to justify why you think the content is not relevant enough for inclusion which you have yet to do.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, what you just described as you did is editorializing, as I understand it, this is not allowed. As the editor who introduce new content, it is your responsibility to make sure that the source is clear and not as confusing as what you have introduced here. If you disagree with me, you should get a third-party opinion. Kalanishashika (talk)
- But you still have not explained where I've misinterpreted the content and why it's not relevant enough to be added. I think it's very much relevant since the scholars discuss the massacre in the context of another genocide. It's one small sentence that's not undue weight either.---Petextrodon (talk)
- But you still have not explained where I've misinterpreted the content and why it's not relevant enough to be added. I think it's very much relevant since the scholars discuss the massacre in the context of another genocide. It's one small sentence that's not undue weight either.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, what you just described as you did is editorializing, as I understand it, this is not allowed. As the editor who introduce new content, it is your responsibility to make sure that the source is clear and not as confusing as what you have introduced here. If you disagree with me, you should get a third-party opinion. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Any article can be misinterpreted. That's not the responsibility of the editor, which is to accurately represent the content. Have I not done that? Your burden is to justify why you think the content is not relevant enough for inclusion which you have yet to do.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, exactly the point here. You are citing an article prone for misinterpretation or different interpretation. Is that correct? Kalanishashika (talk)
- I have not misinterpreted the content of the article. Any other interpretation is subjective and not my responsibility.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you didn't confirm that you wanted to proceed with a source that's open to misinterpretation? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Sorted in what way?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, guess this matter is sorted. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, and you want to put content that's open to misinterpretation.Kalanishashika (talk)
- Except that's not how I worded it so it's not a misinterpretation. You assuming otherwise is your own personal original interpretation. It's still more directly relevant to the content at hand than you adding details about LTTE's war crimes.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I disagree. The author's interpretation could be different. They compared the civil deaths both confects. Without the author's explicitly attributing or referring to a "Tamil genocide", would too much of a reach. I am sorry. I just don't see it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I didn't create the link; the scholars themselves did by explicitly comparing it to another genocide. If it was compared to the Holocaust, the reasonable inference would be that the massacre has genocidal elements.---Petextrodon (talk)
- So you reworded it to create a link to the "Tamil genocide". That is Wikipedia:Original research, is it not. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Again, that's not how I worded it, did I?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, again, I couldn't find a direct reference to the subject topic "Tamil genocide". Can you please share the quote. Kalanishashika (talk)
- That's not how I worded it, did I? They did however state the massacre had "uncanny" parallels to another genocide.--Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, could you please quote Gordon and Perugini referring to final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to a genocide? Kalanishashika (talk)
- That's why I gave explicit attribution to them. Did you not read it before reverting? They nevertheless compared the massacre to Gaza genocide. The wording was clear.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I was writing this comment on it. You beat me to it. What you quoted was not Al Jazeera content. The page itself states "The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance." . Therefore, it is as the heading indicates an "OPINION". Hence it would reflect the opinions of Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini. WP:VOICE states "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Gordon and Perugini does not refer to a "Tamil genocide". Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, responding to your questions once again.
- It was Oz346 who introduced Weiss's book to this page as a source. I felt the content regarding LTTE's role mentioned in the book worthwhile to be included in the page since states plight of the dead, giving context to the final stages of the war.
- Do you mean to say Fernando is a neutral source in this topic?
- Kalanishashika (talk)
- And I replaced it with a different source that specifically deals with the crimes of the government. Weiss book is broader in scope but this page is narrower in scope in that it deals with genocide by the government. Other pages exist detailing LTTE's war crimes.
- Do you mean to say Fernando can't hold views independent of his stint with PPT?--Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, replying to you.
- Again, you have quoted an opinion of Ryan Goodman. Why do you say this statement is relevant here?
- Fernando role in PPT indicates that he is an advocate of this topic.
- Kalanishashika (talk)
- Again, not opinion but reporting on Gotabaya's public statements as reported by other reliable sources. Ryan Goodman is a prominent legal scholar by the way.
- Your opinion on Fernando is original research. His primary credential is a professor, not an organizer of PPT.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you are quoting Goodman's words here. Why shouldn't Weiss words be quoted here? Shouldn't we "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". Fernando's UCD profile indicates his role in the PPT, I am not doing any original research. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Where have I done that? Quote the exact words.
- The extra bits you added from Weiss have nothing to do with the genocide or reporting on Gotabaya's public statements. I still don't understand the purpose of why you combined those two statements which seemed forced.---Petextrodon (talk)
- "Fernando's UCD profile indicates his role in the PPT, I am not doing any original research"
- He may have been involved in it, but that making him an "advocate" therefore incapable of holding independent academic views is your personal opinion which doesn't deserve to be featured on Wikipedia.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you are making it very hard to accept Fernando as a neutral source given his role in the PPT and wight this page gives to the PPT. I am sorry, I just don't agree with you on that. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Involvement in PPT and having independent academic views as a scholar are not mutually exclusive. You thinking otherwise is your own problem, not that of Wikipedia's.----Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, excuse me, I have been civil in this discussion. I expect the same from you. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Sorry? Where have I been uncivil to you? Appears to be a misunderstanding as that wasn't my intention at all.---Petextrodon (talk)
- "You thinking otherwise is your own problem, not that of Wikipedia's", what did you mean by this? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Meaning it's your personal view, not that of a reliable source. We go by reliable sources here and none say Fernando can't have academic views independent of his brief stint with PPT. That book in question was not published by the PPT. So to combine sources is unnecessary WP:EXCESSDETAIL.--Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you could have said that without calling it "You thinking otherwise is your own problem" which I feel is uncalled for. Furthermore, what you just said is also your personal view. Hence what you said is clearly applicable to you. Kalanishashika (talk)
- "what you just said is also your personal view"
- What are you exactly referring to?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, "none say Fernando can't have academic views independent of his brief stint with PPT", you have not proved that Fernando is a neutral source. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I cited a reliable source. Unless you can cite another reliable source which states he is not neutral, it's simply your personal opinion thus original research which isn't allowed here.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Wikipedia:Independent sources would answer your question here. It is very clear from what is said there that Fernando has a conflict of interest here, and I have given a reliable source to confirm is role in the PPT. In fact. It was you who removed content cited from a reliable source, not I. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You have not provided a reliable sources which states Fernando having been a coordinator of PPT disqualifies him as a scholar from having views on this topic independent of his stint with the PPT. That would be your own original research.----Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, are you serious? Do you really hear yourself? I guess we are at an impasse. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I'm afraid that's not a valid argument.
- He just co-coordinated the PPT sessions but had no influence over the panel's decision. Once again, he's first and foremost a scholar which is his primary credential and he's allowed to have a scholarly life independent of his PPT stints. To insist otherwise is original research. The focus is on his arguments, not himself to add excess bio details when he's already in-text attributed by name.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Per your own logic have you provided reliable sources which states Fernando is an independent scholar? If not what you said is all original research. Since his own profile in UCD has listed his PPT work. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Why wouldn't a professor at a university not be a reliable source? If you truly thought he was unreliable, you would have removed the whole content. So that's not the issue. Your issue is you think he can't have an academic life independent of his PPT stint. You have not justified this position to add excess biographic details.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I never said that Fernando not a reliable source. I am saying that his role in the PPT, which has been included in this article, requires that it be included to give clarity. I have provided a reliable source that has backed up the written content. You are keen on removing it. Yet you have failed to provide a solid reason. Kalanishashika (talk)
- "requires that it be included to give clarity"
- No, there's no requirement as such; that's simply your personal preference. It doesn't clarify; it misleads readers into thinking he's offering his views as a PPT co-coordinator when that book has nothing at all to do with that organization. The burden is on you to justify why you insist on excess bio details but you have not offered solid reason other than your personal opinion that his PPT stint makes him non-neutral. Prominent scholars like William Schabas offer their expertise in all sorts judicial proceedings but that doesn't automatically invalidate the independence of their academic career. You need to explain why merely being a co-coordinator of PPT makes him non-neutral when he wasn't even in the panel that made the judgement. ---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I never said that Fernando not a reliable source. I am saying that his role in the PPT, which has been included in this article, requires that it be included to give clarity. I have provided a reliable source that has backed up the written content. You are keen on removing it. Yet you have failed to provide a solid reason. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Why wouldn't a professor at a university not be a reliable source? If you truly thought he was unreliable, you would have removed the whole content. So that's not the issue. Your issue is you think he can't have an academic life independent of his PPT stint. You have not justified this position to add excess biographic details.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Per your own logic have you provided reliable sources which states Fernando is an independent scholar? If not what you said is all original research. Since his own profile in UCD has listed his PPT work. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, are you serious? Do you really hear yourself? I guess we are at an impasse. Kalanishashika (talk)
- You have not provided a reliable sources which states Fernando having been a coordinator of PPT disqualifies him as a scholar from having views on this topic independent of his stint with the PPT. That would be your own original research.----Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Wikipedia:Independent sources would answer your question here. It is very clear from what is said there that Fernando has a conflict of interest here, and I have given a reliable source to confirm is role in the PPT. In fact. It was you who removed content cited from a reliable source, not I. Kalanishashika (talk)
- I cited a reliable source. Unless you can cite another reliable source which states he is not neutral, it's simply your personal opinion thus original research which isn't allowed here.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, "none say Fernando can't have academic views independent of his brief stint with PPT", you have not proved that Fernando is a neutral source. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you could have said that without calling it "You thinking otherwise is your own problem" which I feel is uncalled for. Furthermore, what you just said is also your personal view. Hence what you said is clearly applicable to you. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Meaning it's your personal view, not that of a reliable source. We go by reliable sources here and none say Fernando can't have academic views independent of his brief stint with PPT. That book in question was not published by the PPT. So to combine sources is unnecessary WP:EXCESSDETAIL.--Petextrodon (talk)
- "You thinking otherwise is your own problem, not that of Wikipedia's", what did you mean by this? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Sorry? Where have I been uncivil to you? Appears to be a misunderstanding as that wasn't my intention at all.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, excuse me, I have been civil in this discussion. I expect the same from you. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Involvement in PPT and having independent academic views as a scholar are not mutually exclusive. You thinking otherwise is your own problem, not that of Wikipedia's.----Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, that extra bits show how the same author attributed civilian deaths to. To void it would be a one-sided narration here. Kalanishashika (talk)
- But this article isn't about LTTE's war crimes. Are you saying LTTE committing war crimes and the government being responsible for genocide are mutually exclusive? That would be your own original research.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, quoting Weiss is original research? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Did he say there was no genocide because LTTE also committed war crimes? I don't understand what you were trying to do.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Weiss was introduced here by Oz346, which I feel is a good source for this page. As he presents opposing views for the civilian deaths. Kalanishashika (talk)
- The focus of this page is civilian deaths caused by the government, the party accused of genocide. War crimes by both sides is a different topic which is covered extensively by other articles.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, wait I thought the focus of this page is the "Tamil genocide", you mean to say that you are linking the civilian deaths caused by the government, isn't that original research. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Because it's the government that stands accused of committing Tamil genocide, not the LTTE. Remember that genocide does not simply mean mass murder.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Weiss says otherwise. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Weiss says LTTE committed Tamil genocide? No, he said no such a thing.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, who does Weiss say committed genocide? Kalanishashika (talk)
- He doesn't cover that topic at all. I was not the person who added it there. I'm only defending my addition of Goodman article. @Oz346 Do you object to my modification of your sentence?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon I'm fine with your modification of my Weiss content.
- @Kalanishashika government's justifications for killing civilians is relevant to the topic. You didn't dispute its inclusion at first (even calling it a 'good source for the page') but now you deleted it altogether which makes no sense. It looks like you're using dispute as an excuse to stonewall. Oz346 (talk)
- @Oz346, if you feel that Weiss's reference to government comments, then I feel that it is valid to include Weiss's reference to the LTTE's role that led to civilian casualties. As per @Petextrodon, the "focus of this page is civilian deaths caused by the government". The Weiss source you introduced clearly disputes that. It claims that LTTE had a role to play in civilian casualties. Why do you and Petextrodon so keen to suppress this? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Weiss is a former UN official. His views on the last stages of the war are same as the UN reports which blame both sides for war crimes and the government specifically for killing most civilians through indiscriminate shelling. Once again, this article is not an indiscriminate collection of war crimes by all sides but specifically about genocide which only one side is accused of. I don't know how I can make this any more clearer.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Oz346 added the Weiss source to link the claim of genocide to one side. I don't understand your logic here how one side can accused of genocide when the other side was responsible for killings to. I think there is a fundamental problem here. This article claims that large number of Tamil civilians were killed and therefore the government is accused of genocide, yet sources such as Weiss states that the LTTE was also responsible. This needs to be included here per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kalanishashika (talk)
- No, we can't assume the reason for why Oz346 added that. Since Oz346 has now agreed with my modification, I will be only defending my version. I added it to provide government's perspective on the civilian targets as a background detail. I'm not stating or implying anything more than that. It's a relevant background detail to the massacre.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I don't agree with the modification. Oz346's introduced something very important. I believe we need to keep it and expand on it, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Oz346 didn't introduce it. You did, in a forced way that made it look like original research by combining different sentences. Oz346 only added government's justifications. No, once again, this article isn't an indiscriminate collection of crimes by all sides but has a narrower focus, that of genocide by the Sri Lankan government. Weiss book is not about genocide at all. Its scope is much broader. He doesn't describe LTTE's war crimes in the context of genocide. So it's irrelevant to this article.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Oz346 didn't introduce it. You did, in a forced way that made it look like original research by combining different sentences. Oz346 only added government's justifications. No, once again, this article isn't an indiscriminate collection of crimes by all sides but has a narrower focus, that of genocide by the Sri Lankan government. Weiss book is not about genocide at all. Its scope is much broader. He doesn't describe LTTE's war crimes in the context of genocide. So it's irrelevant to this article.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I don't agree with the modification. Oz346's introduced something very important. I believe we need to keep it and expand on it, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kalanishashika (talk)
- No, we can't assume the reason for why Oz346 added that. Since Oz346 has now agreed with my modification, I will be only defending my version. I added it to provide government's perspective on the civilian targets as a background detail. I'm not stating or implying anything more than that. It's a relevant background detail to the massacre.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Oz346 added the Weiss source to link the claim of genocide to one side. I don't understand your logic here how one side can accused of genocide when the other side was responsible for killings to. I think there is a fundamental problem here. This article claims that large number of Tamil civilians were killed and therefore the government is accused of genocide, yet sources such as Weiss states that the LTTE was also responsible. This needs to be included here per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Weiss is a former UN official. His views on the last stages of the war are same as the UN reports which blame both sides for war crimes and the government specifically for killing most civilians through indiscriminate shelling. Once again, this article is not an indiscriminate collection of war crimes by all sides but specifically about genocide which only one side is accused of. I don't know how I can make this any more clearer.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Oz346, if you feel that Weiss's reference to government comments, then I feel that it is valid to include Weiss's reference to the LTTE's role that led to civilian casualties. As per @Petextrodon, the "focus of this page is civilian deaths caused by the government". The Weiss source you introduced clearly disputes that. It claims that LTTE had a role to play in civilian casualties. Why do you and Petextrodon so keen to suppress this? Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, I object to your modification of my sentence. I don't understand why you added Goodman's source since there is no reference to Genocide in it. Kalanishashika (talk)
- It's to add government's POV on the civilian targets. It's meant as a background detail.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Oz346 had already provided Weiss. Why did you remove Oz346 added the Weiss? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Why not? It's an easily accessible article that provides more details on government's POV and editors are allowed to do it.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, ok, then let's keep both. Kalanishashika (talk)
- If you want to divert focus to LTTE's war crimes (for which other articles exist), then this article ceases to be about Tamil genocide by the Sri Lankan government.---Petextrodon (talk)
- If you want to divert focus to LTTE's war crimes (for which other articles exist), then this article ceases to be about Tamil genocide by the Sri Lankan government.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, ok, then let's keep both. Kalanishashika (talk)
- The Goodman sources provides more detailed analysis than the Weiss source (and even mentions the details of the Weiss source, so it does the same job), it is much better. Oz346 (talk)
- Why not? It's an easily accessible article that provides more details on government's POV and editors are allowed to do it.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Oz346 had already provided Weiss. Why did you remove Oz346 added the Weiss? Kalanishashika (talk)
- It's to add government's POV on the civilian targets. It's meant as a background detail.---Petextrodon (talk)
- He doesn't cover that topic at all. I was not the person who added it there. I'm only defending my addition of Goodman article. @Oz346 Do you object to my modification of your sentence?---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, who does Weiss say committed genocide? Kalanishashika (talk)
- Weiss says LTTE committed Tamil genocide? No, he said no such a thing.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, Weiss says otherwise. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Because it's the government that stands accused of committing Tamil genocide, not the LTTE. Remember that genocide does not simply mean mass murder.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, wait I thought the focus of this page is the "Tamil genocide", you mean to say that you are linking the civilian deaths caused by the government, isn't that original research. Kalanishashika (talk)
- The focus of this page is civilian deaths caused by the government, the party accused of genocide. War crimes by both sides is a different topic which is covered extensively by other articles.---Petextrodon (talk)
- Weiss was introduced here by Oz346, which I feel is a good source for this page. As he presents opposing views for the civilian deaths. Kalanishashika (talk)
- Did he say there was no genocide because LTTE also committed war crimes? I don't understand what you were trying to do.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, quoting Weiss is original research? Kalanishashika (talk)
- But this article isn't about LTTE's war crimes. Are you saying LTTE committing war crimes and the government being responsible for genocide are mutually exclusive? That would be your own original research.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you are quoting Goodman's words here. Why shouldn't Weiss words be quoted here? Shouldn't we "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". Fernando's UCD profile indicates his role in the PPT, I am not doing any original research. Kalanishashika (talk)
- @Petextrodon, replying to you.
- @Kalanishashika Why did you revert my Al Jazeera content which you weren't even disputing in the fist place?---Petextrodon (talk)
- Fernando is first and foremost a scholar, who is allowed to have his own views independent of his stint with the PPT. Your cherry-picked detail is excessive and irrelevant. The burden is on you to justify it. Weiss was cited just for his reporting, until you or your IP added unrelated details about LTTE's war crimes which is not the focus of this article. Again, your burden, which you have not justified. Shouldn't you have first engaged in this discussion before you went ahead and reverted yet again?---Petextrodon (talk)
Judgement of the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal
I am asking all contributors to this article, why is Oz346 objecting and removing some content of the judgement of the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal regarding Bill 104? The wording has been quoted from the court judgement, which I understand is permitted under WP:RSPRIMARY that states "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". I feel that this needs to be included in the intro of this article as it articulates the legal position of the Tamil Genocide. Interested to hear your thoughts. Merline303 (talk)
- Canadian Federal Court of Appeal is not an expert opinion on the legal position of Tamil genocide. In fact, it did not even adjudicate on whether a genocide took place or not. It is definitely undue weight to include it in the introduction of an article on Tamil genocide. Secondly, it makes a misleading statement that the International Court of Justice has not found there to be a Tamil genocide, as if the ICJ also adjudicated on the issue. But the ICJ has not even covered the case of Tamil genocide as only states are eligible to submit cases (so the case has no chance of being heard in the ICJ). It is very misleading and akin to weasel words. Regarding WP:RSPRIMARY, it states:
- "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Oz346 (talk)
- @Oz346, why do you say the FCA is not expert opinion on the legal position of Tamil genocide? Merline303 (talk)
- It is not a tribunal on genocide let alone war crimes. And more importantly it did not investigate whether genocide took place or not. It looked into peripheral matters. Oz346 (talk)
- What is the source you refer to that says that only a tribunal can provide an expert opinion genocide? Merline303 (talk)
- 1. It is not a reliable scholarly secondary source which Wikipedia explicitly preferences
- 2. It did not investigate the question of genocide, nor is it qualified to.
- So how can you claim it is an expert opinion? Oz346 (talk)
- You seem to be off track here. The FCA judgement is not on the investigation of a genocide. It is the interpretation of the legal status of the Tamil genocide. As an Appellate court, the FCA regularly renders judgment on cases associated with genocide and as such I disagree with you. In practical terms, if a person request asylum in Canada based on the effects of a genocide, the FCA will make a judgement on it in the appeal process. It is called to give its expert legal opinion on genocide regularly by legal interpretation of judgement of a trial court as an appellate court. That is the review of primary data as a secondary reviewer. Furthermore, this FCA judgement has been confirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court, a third level review. Hence it seems to be a reliable source. The South African application to the ICJ has been cited in the intro of the Gaza genocide page. Therefore, I feel using the FCA judgement here will add clarity to a topic that has more in the legal domain that any other. If you don't like the wording, we can change it to something that is agreeable to you. I am open to suggestions. Merline303 (talk)
- As you rightfully stated the FCA judgement is not relevant to the question of whether genocide was committed or not, and is therefore no way equivalent to the ICJ investigation mentioned on the intro to Gaza genocide, which specifically involves the genocide convention, and the argument that Israel was committing genocide. The ICJ has also previously ruled that the Bosnian genocide was a genocide, and there is a lot of reliable sources which cover this ruling. The ICJ is without a doubt a prominent voice regarding genocide recognition, and is there ample reliable secondary scholarly sources covering this. The Canada specific FCA is no where near equivalent, nor is it covered in reliable secondary sources. It is definitely undue weight to include it in the introduction of this topic. And it certainly should not be used to quote controversial and misleading statements.
- You seem to be off track here. The FCA judgement is not on the investigation of a genocide. It is the interpretation of the legal status of the Tamil genocide. As an Appellate court, the FCA regularly renders judgment on cases associated with genocide and as such I disagree with you. In practical terms, if a person request asylum in Canada based on the effects of a genocide, the FCA will make a judgement on it in the appeal process. It is called to give its expert legal opinion on genocide regularly by legal interpretation of judgement of a trial court as an appellate court. That is the review of primary data as a secondary reviewer. Furthermore, this FCA judgement has been confirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court, a third level review. Hence it seems to be a reliable source. The South African application to the ICJ has been cited in the intro of the Gaza genocide page. Therefore, I feel using the FCA judgement here will add clarity to a topic that has more in the legal domain that any other. If you don't like the wording, we can change it to something that is agreeable to you. I am open to suggestions. Merline303 (talk)
- What is the source you refer to that says that only a tribunal can provide an expert opinion genocide? Merline303 (talk)
- It is not a tribunal on genocide let alone war crimes. And more importantly it did not investigate whether genocide took place or not. It looked into peripheral matters. Oz346 (talk)
- @Oz346, why do you say the FCA is not expert opinion on the legal position of Tamil genocide? Merline303 (talk)
- Furthermore, this FCA judgement has been confirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court, a third level review. Hence it seems to be a reliable source.
- No, that is not how wikipedia reliable source policy works:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Oz346 (talk)
- Yes, the ICJ is the second level that can legally rule on genocide in the world and only when the first level, a local court is unable to do so. The ICJ is not a voice, it is the only international court. Now to answer your question on the reliability of the Canadian FCA as a source in Wikipedia. WP:LAWSOURCES mentions: "court decisions and the majority and some other opinions issued with them" are "examples of primary sources". Please read the foot note on Trial courts and Appellate courts. WP:PRIMARY states that a primary source can be used: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". Therefore, quoting the FCA judgement word-to-word is in line with Wikipedia policy. Merline303 (talk)
- The FCA are not an expert opinion on the topic of genocide unlike the ICJ, and for that alone its statements on the topic should not have any special platforming, least of all in the very introduction of the topic of 'Tamil genocide'. In fact their misleading statement [18] "To date, however, the International Court of Justice has not found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide." suggests they are ignorant of the requirements needed to submit a case to the ICJ. The Tamil genocide simply cannot be submitted to the ICJ. But they have included this statement as if it has some substance, and it implies that the ICJ have considered the case on the some level (which is completely and utterly false). This calls into question whether the FCA is a reputable source to platform its statements on the topic of Tamil genocide recognition. As a compromise, I have included a smaller, less controversial passage derived from the FCA under the Canadian section. Oz346 (talk)
- I appreciate your gesture of compromise, Thank you. However, I can't agree with it. Your attempt to derive a passage from the FCA judgement would break with Wikipedia policy, since it would be an attempt to interpret a primary source. WP:PRIMARY, says "4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Therefore, I propose the following wording:
- The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in 2024 while refusing to decide if a genocide occurred in Sri Lanka, stated "To date, however, the International Court of Justice has not found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide".
- I feel strongly this needs to appear in the introduction of the page, since it provides the legal definition of this topic. The FCA is national appellate court that is called to issue judgements on legal issues related to Genocide since Canada enacted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act incorporating the obligations of the Rome Statute, it played a major role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Therefore, I feel you are wrong in calling the FCA is not an expert opinion on genocide. Merline303 (talk)
- I disagree completely and vehemently with the misleading isolated statement of the "ICJ has not found the SL state responsible for a genocide" from a non-reliable primary source being put in the introduction to this page. And the FCA is certainly not an expert opinion on genocide. So no this questionable source should not be platformed so prominently. Why are you so keen to platform this misleading statement (and that to from a non reliable source) when you know very well that the ICJ cannot investigate a Tamil genocide. The FCA made a statement based on inadequate knowledge of how the ICJ works, as if it was a valid point.
- I have now reworded the passage to accurately reflect the primary source and there is no interpretation there. Personally, I do not believe this source should be here at all, and I only included it as a compromise. You should look for a more reliable secondary scholarly source than this. Oz346 (talk)
- I appreciate your effort to compromise here. However, I can't understand what you are saying. I mean you are saying that the FCA is a non-reliable primary source and then you are going and interpreting it in your own words in the article. Isn't that going against both the WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY? Furthermore, I don't understand why you are saying the appellate court of Canada is not an expert to give an opinion on genocide and also say "FCA made a statement based on inadequate knowledge of how the ICJ works". If what you said is true, this would have been pulled up by the Supreme Court of Canada, which actually confirmed the FCA's judgement. Which indicates that the quoted judgement is reliable and sound. The Canadian superior courts handle cases regarding human rights violations and genocide. Please can you share your source that claims the FCA and the Supreme Court of Canada is not reliable? Merline303 (talk)
- "I can't understand what you are saying."
- Once again, this is a case of WP:BADGERING: "It may be taken as especially disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process with repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained, as if incapable of "getting it"."
- You were clearly explained and as the court document makes it clear, the Canadian court did not even adjudicate on whether a genocide took place. It merely noted in passing that ICJ did not make a finding of Tamil genocide. But it's misleadingly phrased since no state had even submitted a genocide case against Sri Lanka. In order to include such a strong claim about international law in the intro, the topic needs to be substantially analyzed in a secondary reliable source, which would have made it clear only states can submit genocide cases to the ICJ and no state had done it in our case. By insisting on using this misleading statement from a primary source, you're attempting to push a POV. Canadian court's judgement can only be cited to represent its own views in the section concerning cases under its jurisdiction.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, this is the second time you have accused me of WP:BADGER, without due cause. I feel that it's both uncivil and uncalled for. In this case, I was asking Oz346 to explain the edits that Oz346 did without a consensus here. Apart from this unpleasantness, thank you for joining this discussion. You seem to have made the exact point I am trying to make. You quite correctly explained where the Tamil Genocide stands in terms of international law. Shouldn't that be in this article? and in the intro itself? Isn't this useful information for someone who is reading about to Tamil Genocide to know. You know it, but does others know it? They might not have the same understanding you have of international law. That is why I feel, the FCA judgement holds value in the intro. Yes, you are right the Canadian court doesn't have jurisdiction; however, it is fully qualified to present it's opinion on the legal status of this matter. Please let me know which policy says otherwise. However, perhaps you do have a point. I think we need to include the point made by the FCA and then incorporate the points you made to avoid possible misunderstanding both you and Oz346 claims makes here. Let me suggest this:
- The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in 2024 while refusing to decide if a genocide occurred in Sri Lanka, stated "To date, however, the International Court of Justice has not found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide". Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, so it is only possible for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute genocide in Sri Lanka if the UN Security Council were to refer Sri Lanka to the ICC. Merline303 (talk)
- If your true intention was to improve the article, you would not have been insisting on adding a misleading statement but instead would have found a more balanced coverage of the issue in a better source like this one authored by a professor:
- "But because it is not a State party to the International Criminal Court, Sri Lanka is protected from action at the primary international venue tasked with investigating such claims. The only way Sri Lankan officials could be tried in The Hague would be pursuant to a U.N. Security Council referral, an option that veto-wielding Russia and China have said they would oppose and that their Western counterparts have been unwilling to pursue." https://www.justsecurity.org/75510/un-human-rights-council-outlines-sri-lanka-abuses-but-demurs-on-action/
- I had in fact been planning to add something about that in the background section and I will do it later on with other details. It's the ICC that's most often discussed in relation to international justice for Tamil genocide anyway, not the ICJ. In the meantime, the existing misleading, misplaced and poorly sourced statement should be removed. Also, I'm not sure if you have done enough due diligence in accurately representing your sources: It's not Federal Court of Appeal, but Court of Appeal for Ontario as the document itself says.---Petextrodon (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you seem to have misunderstood both my intentions and the meaning FCA opinion carries. However, what was deeply upsetting was how you reported me to the Arbitration committee for denialist pov pushing, without engaging in this discussion. I have quoted the source, nothing more, nothing less. And yes, you are right it's the Court of Appeal for Ontario, my mistake. However, I disagree with your statement here that its "misleading, misplaced and poorly sourced". Canadian Supreme Court upheld it's judgement [11]. Merline303 (talk)
- @Petextrodon, you seem to have misunderstood both my intentions and the meaning FCA opinion carries. However, what was deeply upsetting was how you reported me to the Arbitration committee for denialist pov pushing, without engaging in this discussion. I have quoted the source, nothing more, nothing less. And yes, you are right it's the Court of Appeal for Ontario, my mistake. However, I disagree with your statement here that its "misleading, misplaced and poorly sourced". Canadian Supreme Court upheld it's judgement [11]. Merline303 (talk)
- "I mean you are saying that the FCA is a non-reliable primary source and then you are going and interpreting it in your own words in the article"
- "I was asking Oz346 to explain the edits that Oz346 did without a consensus here"
- I will remove those above edits, and revert it back to the status quo.
- After reading Petextrodon above comments, I do too agree that it is not appropriate to platform these misleading statements from this primary source, and there are better sources that cover the international legal situation (or rather the lack of it). Oz346 (talk)
- I appreciate your effort to compromise here. However, I can't understand what you are saying. I mean you are saying that the FCA is a non-reliable primary source and then you are going and interpreting it in your own words in the article. Isn't that going against both the WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY? Furthermore, I don't understand why you are saying the appellate court of Canada is not an expert to give an opinion on genocide and also say "FCA made a statement based on inadequate knowledge of how the ICJ works". If what you said is true, this would have been pulled up by the Supreme Court of Canada, which actually confirmed the FCA's judgement. Which indicates that the quoted judgement is reliable and sound. The Canadian superior courts handle cases regarding human rights violations and genocide. Please can you share your source that claims the FCA and the Supreme Court of Canada is not reliable? Merline303 (talk)
- The FCA are not an expert opinion on the topic of genocide unlike the ICJ, and for that alone its statements on the topic should not have any special platforming, least of all in the very introduction of the topic of 'Tamil genocide'. In fact their misleading statement [18] "To date, however, the International Court of Justice has not found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide." suggests they are ignorant of the requirements needed to submit a case to the ICJ. The Tamil genocide simply cannot be submitted to the ICJ. But they have included this statement as if it has some substance, and it implies that the ICJ have considered the case on the some level (which is completely and utterly false). This calls into question whether the FCA is a reputable source to platform its statements on the topic of Tamil genocide recognition. As a compromise, I have included a smaller, less controversial passage derived from the FCA under the Canadian section. Oz346 (talk)
- Yes, the ICJ is the second level that can legally rule on genocide in the world and only when the first level, a local court is unable to do so. The ICJ is not a voice, it is the only international court. Now to answer your question on the reliability of the Canadian FCA as a source in Wikipedia. WP:LAWSOURCES mentions: "court decisions and the majority and some other opinions issued with them" are "examples of primary sources". Please read the foot note on Trial courts and Appellate courts. WP:PRIMARY states that a primary source can be used: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". Therefore, quoting the FCA judgement word-to-word is in line with Wikipedia policy. Merline303 (talk)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Oz346 (talk)