Talk:Kokkadichcholai massacre/Archive 1

HRW citation

Sri Lankan authorities appeared more willing than in past years to acknowledge official responsibility for atrocities. On January 31, Sri Lankan army personnel in Batticaloa publicly acknowledged their role in large-scale massacres of civilians in the east, mentioning notorious attacks in Kokkaddicholai, Sathurukkondaan, Vanthaarumoolai, and Batticaloa. In February, the attorney general reportedly issued indictments against more than six hundred police and armed forces personnel implicated in "disappearances" that occurred before 1994--many in connection with counterinsurgency operations against the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) organization. On June 28, two soldiers were sentenced to six years in prison and fined Rs. 2,500 (U.S. $27) each for their role in an abduction and murder in 1989. [1]

again!!

several facts are disputed here

number of deaths
UTHR had clearly stated that 1992 Mylanthanai massacre has been the first attack on Tamil civilians of a comparable scale...so what the hell is this ??
did the army admit the all 232 deaths were caused by them ?? I dont see it in the sources.

Army may have been guilty of killing some tamil civilians here..certainly not the 232 as this articles claims.. --Iwazaki 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You always get my creative juices going, I found one good reference already. Thanks to you this will go from a stub to a full fledged article

[2] [3] [4] Thanks againRaveenS

well my answer ....quite simple ...UTHR had clearly stated that 1992 Mylanthanai massacre has been the first attack on Tamil civilians of a comparable scale...so what the hell is this ?? should i thank you also for helping me to find out bluffs in your articles ?? I'm just using your own sources here..

And 232 is mentioned neither in the UNCHR nor amnesty sources !! And if you use UTHR along to prove these figures , we should dismiss this article anyway..as they have contradicted from their earlier reports..Anyway raveen,thanks for providing these to me ,as this had made my case more stronger..peace--Iwazaki 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a misunderstanding, what UTHR says that Mylantahani is a major incident after resumption of hostilities is because the hostilities had numbers of phases, The initial phases from 1983 till 1990. During that phase UTHR did not report extensively. Only after Chandrika tried and failed to make peace with LTTE after the failure of peace talks did he start reporting extensively. Most of the major atrocities against Tamil civilains happened during this first phase. Of all the leaders of Sri Lanka she did her best to minimize the effects of a Dirty war on Tamil civilians after the war was imposed on her by the LTTE unlike here predecessors and the current one. She was the best Sri Lanka produced under these trying circumstances. Hence think through your statement that prior to Mylanthanai massacre nothing happened. Prior to Mylanthanai everything under the sun happened to Tamil/Sinhalese civilians. Then she stopped it and LTTE imposed the war her again. Then Mylanthanai happened. That's what UTHR refers to. Assuming good faith I am explaining thsi to you. I will not discuss this point hereafter in any other articles. Akkaraipattu and Kokkadicholai and 1984 Mannar massacre all happened prior to her time and a break in hostilities.RaveenS 16:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raveen I went through the article..well, it perfectly says what I have already stated above..I know there are 3 eelam wars ,one from 1983 to 1987, then from 1990-19994 and the last from 1995-to present..I didn't know you personally like chandrika and her policies(you sounded so)..its kinda surprising that you are trying to defend her here, while creating "state terrorism" articles and loading them with incident happened during here time,elsewhere..

Well putting beside, all the likings and disliking and coming back to the point, issues I have raised remain unsolved yet..I doubted the figures as not even the sources you have provided confirm it..the whole incident is kinda disputed , to my knowledge..I hope you can make a neutral article out of this, if this is an actual event..if not I sincerely hope,someone will remove this from our wikipedia.thanks --Iwazaki 13:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All numbers are clearly referenced from a nuetral source UTHR and for the fisrt massacre the number listed by Sangam org which is pro LTTE is 80 but UTHR says 120. I am using 120. In the second massacre sangam says 152 and UTHR says 100 +35 =135 hence I am using 135. Hence thetotal number is 255. If you are saying this incident is disputed then say by whom ? you well you have to publish it to be included here. Infact the SL government accepts via the HRW that I have included here that these massacres did happen. No dispute even from the Sri Lankan government side unless you can find the dispute in WP:RS publications. I have herewith removing the tags. Thanks RaveenS 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

raveen ,sorry ,I don't need elementary level math lessons...I dont want to be mean, BUT what do you want me to do ,laugh ?? though I dont get your maths, I got something from this discussion,

UTHR contradict from their own earlier reports
before 1995 UTHR was extremely pro LTTE and we really don't have to take them seriously ,actually I treated them as same as Tamil net.
the present article is totally different from what you created in the beginning..compare them and see for your self
the whole incident could easily be a thing made up by pro tamil media..
And you have made a huge mess of it and created an image that the whole episode is a hoax..

thats all from me--Iwazaki 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UTHR was never pro-LTTE, either it is WP:RS or not, their founder was killed by the LTTE as soon as they began reporting. I created this article as a stub not an article now it is an article. What is your complain about NPOV now ? anyway the first incident has even more references now The security situation in the country underwent a significant transformation in the first and second quarters of 1987. In the early months of the year, Tigers continued with their well-established practice of landmines and ambush of government forces. The government security forces often retaliated by opening fire and conducting search and destroy operations in civilian areas. In one such incident, on January 28, the STF (Special Task Force), following a landmine blast which killed 12 of its men near Batticaloa, entered a nearby town and captured 83 non-combatant civilians, including 22 employees of a shrimp farm, and took them to an abandoned church, where they were killed. The Sri Lankan security forces began to advance on all fronts against Tamil militants.[5] About the arithmatic, I cant help, just read the disgusting event and you will see the math. If you still have problesm I can help you with that too. I can point out the pages where it is listed.RaveenS 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UTHR was extremely pro LTTE in the 1980's hence they cant be regarded as neutral..PLUS they have already stated that something happened in 1990's is the first major attack on Tamil civilians hence others are questionable..anyway, I have tagged 1987 incident since it is look WP:HOAX and some reference you have given had nothing to do with the incident..And frankly I dont think we can take news paper articles written about 15 years later as an evidence to prove it..finally ,no I don't get your Math..did you understand it your self ?? thanks--Iwazaki 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are removing legitimate citations because as you wrote somewhere it reflects bad on the government. Either UTHR is a RS or not. All what yiu say about them is factulayy wrong. UTHE left jaffna in 1989 and the founder was killed in 1988/89 by the LTTE. So you cant be selective about itRaveenS 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scroll up and read all my replies..You will find I have already answered most of your claims..feel free to invite 3 rd party..But that will certainly not changed the fact the UTHR was extremely pro LTTE in the 1980's and they have contradicted their earlier reports on civilian massacres..raveen,how many times I have to repeat the same answer ?? --Iwazaki 17:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already begun the process. I am summarizing your dispute with this article.

UTHR is not a WP:RS source before 1991. Second Asian Times correponsing reference does not call it a masscare. My response is UTHR has been WP:RS from day one hence the LTTE killed the founder in 1989 and the surviving founders have been living under the protection of the government since 1989, to call them pro-LTTE even before 1991 is factually wrong. Second the Asian Times cite clearly mentiosn this article. The author of that article is theeditor of Asian Tribune which is anti-LTTe and pro-government. Hence even that article is neutral. I am stating my view for record as I am taking it through the wikipedia problem resolution process. Thanks RaveenS 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raveen, the report was written 15 years after the incident and Don't even quote from earlier sources..Whether its pro-government,which i think is highly unlikely, or not is not the matter here,as I am not questioning it as a WP:RS,I would have believed it if it was reported in the 1990's, but suddenly it popped in 2001(2002) ??!!

And about UTHR ,All I have to say is they were extremely pro LTTE in the 1980's and have contradicted their earlier reports on civilian massacres..Feel free to take this anywhere you want,but tags should remain there.thanks--Iwazaki 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for 1987 incient

Looks like the incident in 1987 was better known as Prawn farm massacre. UTHR reference to 1987 incident This was the prawn factory, abandoned since the STF massacre of January 1987. The area then realised a death toil of about 120 which included a number of employees of the prawn factory

Asian Times reference The security situation in the country underwent a significant transformation in the first and second quarters of 1987. In the early months of the year, Tigers continued with their well-established practice of landmines and ambush of government forces. The government security forces often retaliated by opening fire and conducting search and destroy operations in civilian areas. In one such incident, on January 28, the STF (Special Task Force), following a landmine blast which killed 12 of its men near Batticaloa, entered a nearby town and captured 83 non-combatant civilians, including 22 employees of a shrimp farm, and took them to an abandoned church, where they were killed. (my note: in Sri Lanka Prawn and Shrimp are used interchably)

There seem to be other references to this incident from the following statement from Asian Times In his annual report, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment singled out Sri Lanka as a country of special concern. According to the report, "The situation in Sri Lanka, which finds itself caught in a spiral of violence and where civilians are allegedly tortured in order to extract information from them about planned acts of violence by the insurgent, is also a great concern."(need to locate that report)

Infact there is a book on this called 1987 incident called Only Man is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1992, pp.243-244 by William McGowan (I will be ordering it) Any from pro – ltte sites has number of hits if you do a search on Prawn farm massacre or Kokkadicholai massacreRaveenS 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two things..First, the word shrimp is hardly used in SriLanka..We always use prawn,just like the British.Anyone who born and raised in SriLanka aught to know this..Second, who is this William McGowan ??? Is he an expert of something ??? IS he a notable writer of terrorism and international affairs like Rohan Gunaratne ?? If not there is not point bringing him as a source..Imagine, if I write a book saying "there were no mass killings in 1987 and this incident is a fake" ,can i use it as a citation here ?? IF you want to bring something ,it should be WP:RS and acceptable to us.thanks--Iwazaki 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prawn and Shrimp argument has not legs both are same, KTR uses Shrimp because he wrote in in foreign magazine and people outside Sri Lanka dont confuse between the two. But about William Mcgovern, he is senior journalist who has written number of crtically aclaimed books about conflicts around the world and related subjects. About his book on Sri Lankan conflict, in the Library Journal (that is a US publication on all books) Ruth M. Mara, from the Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.wrote Several observers in the book compare the treatment of the Tamils at the hands of Sinhalese extremists to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany. The author himself, however, does not portray Tamil militants as blameless--he documents the ruthlessness of the Tamil Tiger guerrillas against innocent members of all groups who oppose them. It seems a very balanced and neutral book. I have already ordered it.RaveenS 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several observers in the book compare the treatment of the Tamils at the hands of Sinhalese extremists to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany..hilarious but intention is obvious to me !!! sorry, we have enough LTTE propagandist in the names of sangam.com.tamilnet,tamilcanadian we don't need more,raveen..You have disqualified his neutrality and his credibility with your post and NO WAY it can be accepted as WP:RS..Also, I am still waiting for neutral source to back up your claim of 232 deaths !!! please,bring it first before ordering controversial books which equals Sinhalese to Nazis..BTW, what happened to all the Sinhalese who lived in the north before 1983 ?? What happened to the Sinhala majority at east before 1815 ?? I wonder who was playing the Hitlers part here !!!--Iwazaki 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

I am responding to a request for third opinion. I have been waiting for someone more familiar to the topic to respond, but it hasn't happened. SO... could you give me some info from which to form a third opinion? Here's what we'll do: each of you provide me with a brief statement of what the dispute is about, why you hold to your position, and what outcome you would like to see. I will then follow up with a third opinion for you. -- Pastordavid 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Person 1Kokkadichcholai massacres is well known incidents in which number of civilians were massacred in two incidents. The 1991 incident happened after the inception of the internet. The 1987 incident happened during the internet dark age in Sri Lanka but it is notable enough to be mentioned in a book written by a senior neutral journalist William McGowan[6]. It is also mentioned as part a series of articles written by a senior neutral Sri Lankan journalist K.T.Rajasingham[7]. It is mentioned as part of separate entry on Kokkadicholai massacre by the local the neural Human Rights group UTHR [8]. I would like to see the 1987 incident mentioned as part of the whole article under a separate tab to read The first massacre was attributed to the Special Task Force by a local human rights agency called UTHR and others. According to published reports at least 80 civilians [3] were massacred close to a prawn farm on Jan 28, 1987.[3] No reports are available about government investigation in to this event Other less reliable sources for the 1987 incident are[9][10] [11] RaveenS 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Person 2 let me make this brief..there are several incidents disputed here I will list them here BUT its necessary to read the whole talk page to grasp what is/was going here

Sources are disputed..they are either prio-tamil or contradict their earlier reports
Number of death is highly dubious..So far I haven't seen any reliable source and I am totally confused with some math given by the editor if this article.
The article was created in such a POV manner and even with present changes the whole thing is dubious to a neutral observer.
attempts were made by the editor to give neutral sources, but that was written 15 years after the incident and do not give details at all.thanks--Iwazaki 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Regarding Sources. Sources like Amnesty Inter. and Human Rights Watch certainly meet WP Standards of NPOV and RS. Asia Times appears to as well. UTHR and Sangam.org appear to not meet the NPOV standard; both websites describe the associated organizations as explicitly pro-Tamil. In a conflict between Tamil & the Sri Lankan gov't, neither pro-Tamil organizations or government publications could reasonably be described as NPOV. I would say, if such sources must be used, it should only be to supplement NPOV sources, and with caution and reservation.
Regarding COI. Both editors involved seem to have vested interest in describing the Tamil fighters and the Sri Lankan gov't in a particular light. I can't answer the question for you, but ask yourselves whether you can honestly edit such article objectively.
Regarding External Links. ALL of the external links are POV (tamil). Occassionally, this is ok in an article, as long as balanced by links from the other POV and acknowledged as POV... no attempt to do so has been done here.
Scope of the Article. The 1987 Incident is mentioned in the Asia times article ... But I don't know Sri Lankan geography ... the village of Kokkadichcholai does not seem to be mentioned at all (as I read it, near Batticaloa and Kokkadichcholai don't seem to be the same thing). Further, incidents in the broader region are not the subject of this article -- keep the focus on Kokkadichcholai.
Final thought -- "Massacre" can be a POV term, it implies many things -- almost all negative. If the word is used by a NPOV source, then go with it. If, however, an incident is only described by POV sources as a massacre, I would avoid it.

I hope this helps. Further, I see that this edit conflict ranges across a number of articles ... I hope the discussion here does not need to be replayed on every article. I will continue to keep this page watchlisted, and participate in the discussion here. If you need a third party to make some edits to the page as a result of our conversation here, I would be happy to do that as well. -- Pastordavid 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to WP:SLR we are approved to use sources from defence.lk (anti-LTTE) and we can also use pro-rebel sites too. If you disagree then take a look at the Terrorist attacks attributed to LTTE. It has a lot of defence.Ik source and it uses other sources which says "The rebel deny but the army blame them" yet on the article it clearly says "The LTTE did it". Please take a look and then make another decision Pastordavid. Thanks

Pastor, First let me thank you sincerely for your effort, second we should stick to the point of conflict that was raised in the third opinion nothing more because that can only muddy the water.

What was asked in the third opinion is one point of conflict in this article nothing else because we have RFC, RFM and ANI to deal with that.

My question still stands, does the section on the 1987 incident reliably sourced or not? Should it stay or not. The three current sources are,

[12], - is this reliable to a neutral observer ? I did not get an answer on that

[13]. – You have already answered it as a reliable source but you say it did not mention Kokkadicholai directly so it should be removed. - OK I will do that

UTHR [14] – you said this is unreliable. Please see discussion [15]. This is a source that is used extensively by HRW, US state department and the security of its officers is guaranteed by the government of Sri Lanka. How can it be unreliable ? I don’t even have a conflict with Iwazaki about that source. He knows better, his question was that UTHTR mentioned it in passing after many years so how can it be verified ?

So I also included for your information biased sources, namely

[16][17][18] to assure that this is not a hoax.

About COI, also please look at [19] that is part of the reason why I edit Wikipedia. Infact I value Iwazaki’s contributions because it just makes HR related articles that much better. Thanks again.RaveenS 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I have offered here is nothing more than it says -- an opinion -- not a decision. The editors of this page (and others) can pay attention to as much - or as little - of what I say as they like. Yes, I offered an opinion on more than the 1987 section, because the comments here on the discussion page were about more than that. There are obviously guidelines discussed at WP:SLR ... I am not a member of that WP, which is inherent in asking for a 3rd Opinion -- I am an entirely uninvolved commentor.

I said nothing about anyone's behavior. I did, briefly, note other articles, as they are related to the edit conflict here.

Regarding UTHR, I did not say that it was unreliable, I said that it was NPOV, based on their guiding principle "to challenge the external and internal terror engulfing the Tamil community as a whole". Perhaps I read too much into that statement, and obviously they have been agreed on at WP:SLR.

Regarding William McGowan, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I would say Yes, that book qualifies as a NPOV reliable source. If explicitely descibes the 1987 incident, then include it. Back it up with biased sources if necessary, but use the qualifiers suggested at WP:SLR, "The pro-Faction Source reports that..."

Regarding COI ... edit - don't edit, your call; as I said above. I just think it is important to recognize the CsOI that we have, and be aware of them when we are editing.

Pastordavid 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pastor, I have ordered the book because what is published about the incident from the book is from biased sources. So meanwhile, I will remove the Asian Times citation till I get the book I will also desist from editing this article unless some one vanadalizes it. Thanks RaveenS 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first and foremost,the whole third opinion thing,which was requested by Raveen, was needed only because he made a mess of this article by trying to defame the GOSL with extreme bias..Please just go through the original article and then you would know this.
secondly, Any Book can certainly be WP:RS if they are written in professional manner by professionals.So before quoting him,answer following questions ??

Who is this writer??Is he an expert of Sri Lankan issues ??? IS he a notable writer of terrorism and international affairs like Rohan Gunaratne ?? If not there is not point bringing him as a source..Imagine, if I write a book saying "there were no mass killings in 1987 and this incident is a fake" ,can I use it as a citation here ?? Also, I highly doubted whether this book was written in a bias matter and with the sole purpose of "defaming Sinhalese people".I have given reasons behind this assumptions already.

thirdly,Home for Human Rights is certainly not a reliable source..Its former Boss was a tamil politicians and had very close relationship with the LTTE terrorists(after using they killed him,typical terrorist strategy)..Its not even close to being WP:RS !
fourth, UTHR can be reliable in certain cases..Esp when they report things from mid 1990's..They were(are in some cases) extremely pro LTTE and tamil before that time and can never be consider as reliable.
finally, SLR do not have the SOLE authority over issues related to Sri Lanka.. Even though it was started with good faith by Herr Sebestian and I wanted to join it initially, actions by some of its members keeping me away from it.Iwazaki 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]