Jump to content

Talk:Tamil genocide/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 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) 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@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) 13:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  • 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 13:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    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. 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • 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) 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
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. 12:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

*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) 07:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose Merge clearly a notable topic with many reliable and independent references.Tame Rhino (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 12:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    BTW your r/tamil post is still up. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 19:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 07:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 02:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 05:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 11:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 20:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 03:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    why are we pushing for more opinions instead of just asking Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) and team to elaborate. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    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.
    1. 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
    2. 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?
    3. 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.
    4. 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) 17:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 04:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 15:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 19:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    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) 03:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    appreciate it man. and understood, will do. Can you comment on the citation style if you have a chance. Is it fixed? ChanakyanFOG (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 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) 13:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • 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) 14:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • 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) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Petextrodon, that may be your opinion, however the sourcing in the article is very poor and doesn't warrant its independent existence.Cossde (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    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) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    @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) 06:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    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) 19:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    @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) 01:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    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) 01:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    @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) 04:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • 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 12:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@User:TarnishedPath, can you please help with listing the reliable academic sources. I already started on it and need help. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest utilising the Wikipedia Library. TarnishedPathtalk 14:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@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) 14:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
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 14:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@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) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you strike that whole comment as it is WP:INCIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@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) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@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 15:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@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) 15:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
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 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"not going to fly here", you mean with you? Guess you talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you strike that comment about me "talks the talk but does not walk the walk". TarnishedPathtalk 16:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I would, please could you kindly explain why I should. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
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° 22:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
That's certainly how I perceived their WP:BADGERING of me. As rude and WP:INCIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk 05:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
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. 14:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
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 00:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the overview of the issue. Not every single source needs to mention genocide. Analyses of genocide will be provided shortly.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, why did you restore content without gaining consensus? Kalanishashika (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"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) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 02:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
ONCE AGAIN: Please cite the policy that implies Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.----Petextrodon (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 10:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 14:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 15:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 15:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 22:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted to the version of Charcoal feather can we please get consensus before adding or removing content.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 06:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 10:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@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) 15:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
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) 14:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamil_genocide/Archive_2&oldid=1242459532"