Jump to content

Talk:Tamil genocide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petextrodon (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 30 August 2024 (→Explicit attribution: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

US Congress resolution

@Walsh90210: I'm not sure if I understand your point. How is a bipartisan resolution, a first of its kind in the US, recognizing Tamil genocide too trivial to be included in a section about political recognition of genocide?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a nothinburger. Any member of parliament is free to introduce any motion they want, even on a recognotion of Mars and Jupiter.[1][2] But as long as it's not voted on to become law, it's just a worthless piece of paper.
Same with personal opinions of two US House members. They mean exactly zero in law. — kashmīrī TALK 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it has to become a law to be included in a section about political recognition?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction of the resolution is here, [3]. Was it accepted? (The text said 2014, not 2024--very confusing.) Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1230/text ---Petextrodon (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, this is a primary source and you seem to be analyzing it. Can you use a secondary source that does that. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helping another user with link to the original material is not analyzing anything.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I am sorry. However, it would be if you use it in the article. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Kashmiri said; resolutions that pass the US Congress are generally symbolic rather than impactful. Resolutions that are merely introduced (and never debated) are completely unimportant. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

@Oz346, the content you have reverted [4] has been disputed under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, however you have failed to address these and seem to level fresh allegations at me and called these edits disruptive edits without engaging in the talk page, which I consider is against Wikipedia:Civility. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: No consensus exists for the removal of this reliably sourced content (BBC News, scholarly publication by Springer), and most users have so far opposed your move.
2nd revert: Most users at RSN agreed with explicit attribution, not removal.
3rd revert: There was no discussion regarding Tamil Guardian at SLR but its status was arbitrarily decided 15 years ago by two users. TG is not being cited here for its own POV but its reporting on publicly verifiable events. There is no controversy that those U.S. legislators officially acknowledged the Tamil genocide. This can be seen from their very own official twitter handles embedded in the article itself: https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/us-legislators-officially-acknowledge-tamil-genocide Oz346 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 1, read WP:ONUS. Wikipedia doesn't work on "consensus for removal" but on consensus to include.
Re. 2, I don't recall a RfC, so not sure how you've counted the votes.
Re. 3, legislators are people like you and me who may or may not proclaim their personal beliefs. Unless we're talking about official acts of the legislature, unrelated beliefs of its members are of little encyclopaedic value. Of course, personal beliefs held by two US guys have nothing to do with "international recognition" of a historical event in the legal or encyclopaedic sense. Much like information about two US legislators proclaiming a belief in God is of precisely zero worth to the article God nor a proof of God's existence. — kashmīrī TALK 21:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. That reliably sourced content from the BBC and Springer scholarly publication are directly related to the 'Enforced disappearances' section. What is the valid reason to remove it?
2. Read the RSN discussion, the majority of users there recommended explicit attribution.
3. They are not just two random "US guys". They are US politicians. It is relevant to political recognition. Would you similarly oppose the inclusion of politicians recognising the genocide of Palestinians? Oz346 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sources may be reliable; however, they have no mention of genocide, hence the removal. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This content should go into the article of its own, if not already there.
2. RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Infact, one editor went on to say that this was a bias source. How can an article have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with bias sources?
3. If this section is on politicians' recognition, then yes, this should be included. But then politicians recognize anything that has votes for them. Kalanishashika (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Enforced disappearances has been described as a genocidal act by scholarly sources. Therefore, general information on the phenomenon of enforced disappearances has a place in this article, it does not need to have genocide explicitly mentioned in every source. Enforced disappearances are still enforced disappearances. It is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is specifically on 'Enforced disappearances'.
2. Reliable sources can be biased. Most sources have biases, that does not determine if a source or reliable or not. In regards to this source, explicit attribution was given, and the source was authored by a scholar.
3. I agree it should be included. Oz346 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We can only include them if enforced disappearances of Tamils in Sri Lanka have been termed as "genocide" by RS. Most enforced disappearances in the wolrld are not genocide.
  2. I'm asking for a proof of "majority of users".
  3. Individual members of the US House of Representatives have no power to "recognise" anything in their official capacity. They can express their personal beliefs, however the power of official recognition is restricted to the entire House through a vote. I object in the strongest terms possible to presenting someone's personal belief (with no legal ramification) as "international recognition". This would be misrepresentation and fake news of sorts.
— kashmīrī TALK 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who here has used the term "international recognition"? Political recognition is more open-ended than state recognition so it can accommodate one sentence on US legislators introducing a resolution recognizing Tamil genocide. You make it sound like these are the personal beliefs of some random guys on the street. They recognize Tamil genocide on their political capacity and not as private US citizens.
What is your point regarding the enforced disappearances revert? Are you saying you agree with the other user on removing Lutz Oette, a human rights specialist, because the publisher of the report is a Tamil organization? There seems to be a conflict of interest in your edit history on this topic where you have consistently taken a stance opposite of the "strongest support possible" you gave to Palestine genocide recognition where you have not similarly challenged the pro-Palestinian sources. Would you say a report on Palestinian genocide written by a western human rights specialist should be excluded even with explicit attribution because it's published by a Palestinian organization? That's essentially what the other user is arguing for. You have consistently challenged my edits even by teaming with them but have not challenged their edits or arguments. This doesn't look like neutral arbitration.---Petextrodon (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notably Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources is not the source of truth on community consensus regarding reliability of sources. Such discussions occur at WP:RSN. TarnishedPathtalk 04:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Do you say we should review other sources that have been attributed to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation? Kalanishashika (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalanishashika your view that WP:RSN failed to reach consensus does not necessarily make a source unreliable. Others have stated that their takeaway was that the material relying on the source should be attributed.
As per whether other sources listed at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation should be reviewed, I can't give you an answer because I only looked at that specific source and an editor closing the discussion from the limited discussion that occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources#http://www.tamilguardian.com with the determination that the source is unreliable is quite frankly lacking in vigor. Without much scrolling though I see other sources where there is only the participation of two editors and then determinations of sources being unreliable as if an RfC had occurred. If you want a better view of whether any particular source is reliable or not, given a specific usage, you should take it to WP:RSN. TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, yes, what you say make sense. We can't take the WikiProject classification the source of truth. However, who should take this to RSN? Shouldn't it be editor who introduced it? I am happy to take it RSN, however, I have been called names for doing it. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been called names. Only hours ago I had a random IP editing my user talk calling me a "loser". I would suggest being proactive if you thing there is a dispute. TarnishedPathtalk 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz346, you have introduced new content and a source; yet you don't seem to be open to content been used here from the cited source, by removing content you seem to disagree with. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petextrodon, have you gone back to edit waring on this page? And you seem to have again began pushing your own content without engaging in a discussion. There is a clear content dispute, and it should be on this thread and not a new one, given the recuring pattern. Given your recent revert [5], we need to establish the way things are handled in this page before we can move to content discussion. Clearly you seem to want the disputed content on the page and start discussions, whereas it is clearly said in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that newly added content that is disputed needs to be discussed on before adding into the page. You seem to put it back on and discuss to keep, whereas my understanding is that when content is disputed it needs to be agreed on before it can be added. Which makes more sense. Else someone can just add whatever they want and argue till the second coming and have the disputed content on the page all along. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri and @TarnishedPath, please can I ask you to share your views here as well. I strongly feel before any meaningful content discussions can take place, the rules of engagement needs to be established. Else things are just going to into another heated edit war. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalanishashika, before a couple of days ago the last comment on this thread was 22/06/2024. There's no need that all discussions concerning all content disputes occur in one thread. It can be better to have separate discussions for separate material. I would suggest since Petextrodon has started a new thread about a specific dispute you have a go at trying to come to agreement, if possible, there. Ps, there's no need to ping editors from previous unrelated discussion and it can be potentially considered to be WP:CANVASSING. TarnishedPathtalk 01:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath thanks, yes, I am canvassing. Not to influence the discussion nor the content in dispute, but to clear out the established form of handling a dispute in Wikipedia. The last time the Oz346, Petextrodon and I had a content dispute it escalated into an revert war and we were warrned not to do the same. In order to avoid the same this time, I am reverting all newly added content that is disputed, until the disputed content can be discussed and an agreement reached. @Oz346, @Petextrodon let's try to sort it out in the talk page. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit attribution

@Kalanishashika @Oz346

Since your edit also concerns the content I added, I will chime in. Next time open a new discussion instead of continuing in old unrelated ones. Were you the recent IP edit?

We have been repeatedly telling you reliable sources don't need that sort of explicit attribution with excess biographic details but you remain undeterred. Fernando was giving his views in a book that was published independently of his involvement in the PPT. We can't synthesize these sources to force an attribute that you favour. Weiss was merely reporting on public statements of a government official that were also reported by other news outlets, and not giving his personal opinion for you to give him explicit attribution since his book is already reliable source. I have now added a different citation that is accessible to an average reader and modified and moved the content to an appropriate section to describe government's view.---Petextrodon (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petextrodon, to answer your questions.
  1. Can you please let me know where it says that reliable sources don't need that sort of explicit attribution?
  2. Fernando doesn't not have a page of his own, hence I felt that his role in the PPT needs to be included along with his views. His role in the PPT has been deemed important to be listed in his profile in the Trinity College Dublin. This I feel gives context to his views on this subject.
  3. Weiss was not merely reporting, having presented his views on the last stages of the war, I feel that Weiss's broader views need to be included here. He stats that Rajapaksa indicated that no distinction could be made between combatants and innocent victims, while he also mentions in the same book that civilians were held hostage by the Tamil Tigers, which clear that he holds both parties at fault for the death of the civilians. I believe this what is intended in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Kalanishashika (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fernando is first and foremost a scholar, who is allowed to have his own views independent of his stint with the PPT. Your cherry-picked detail is excessive and irrelevant. The burden is on you to justify it. Weiss was cited just for his reporting, until you or your IP added unrelated details about LTTE's war crimes which is not the focus of this article. Again, your burden, which you have not justified. Shouldn't you have first engaged in this discussion before you went ahead and reverted yet again?---Petextrodon (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalanishashika Why did you revert my Al Jazeera content which you weren't even disputing in the fist place?---Petextrodon (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, I was writing this comment on it. You beat me to it. What you quoted was not Al Jazeera content. The page itself states "The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance." . Therefore, it is as the heading indicates an "OPINION". Hence it would reflect the opinions of Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini. WP:VOICE states "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Gordon and Perugini does not refer to a "Tamil genocide". Kalanishashika (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I gave explicit attribution to them. Did you not read it before reverting? They nevertheless compared the massacre to Gaza genocide. The wording was clear.---Petextrodon (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, could you please quote Gordon and Perugini referring to final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to a genocide? Kalanishashika (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I worded it, did I? They did however state the massacre had "uncanny" parallels to another genocide.--Petextrodon (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, again, I couldn't find a direct reference to the subject topic "Tamil genocide". Can you please share the quote. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not how I worded it, did I?---Petextrodon (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you reworded it to create a link to the "Tamil genocide". That is Wikipedia:Original research, is it not. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the link; the scholars themselves did by explicitly comparing it to another genocide. If it was compared to the Holocaust, the reasonable inference would be that the massacre has genocidal elements.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, I disagree. The author's interpretation could be different. They compared the civil deaths both confects. Without the author's explicitly attributing or referring to a "Tamil genocide", would too much of a reach. I am sorry. I just don't see it. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not how I worded it so it's not a misinterpretation. You assuming otherwise is your own personal original interpretation. It's still more directly relevant to the content at hand than you adding details about LTTE's war crimes.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, and you want to put content that's open to misinterpretation.Kalanishashika (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, guess this matter is sorted. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted in what way?---Petextrodon (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, you didn't confirm that you wanted to proceed with a source that's open to misinterpretation? Kalanishashika (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, responding to your questions once again.
  1. It was Oz346 who introduced Weiss's book to this page as a source. I felt the content regarding LTTE's role mentioned in the book worthwhile to be included in the page since states plight of the dead, giving context to the final stages of the war.
  2. Do you mean to say Fernando is a neutral source in this topic?
Kalanishashika (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I replaced it with a different source that specifically deals with the crimes of the government. Weiss book is broader in scope but this page is narrower in scope in that it deals with genocide by the government. Other pages exist detailing LTTE's war crimes.
Do you mean to say Fernando can't hold views independent of his stint with PPT?--Petextrodon (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, replying to you.
  1. Again, you have quoted an opinion of Ryan Goodman. Why do you say this statement is relevant here?
  2. Fernando role in PPT indicates that he is an advocate of this topic.
Kalanishashika (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not opinion but reporting on Gotabaya's public statements as reported by other reliable sources. Ryan Goodman is a prominent legal scholar by the way.
Your opinion on Fernando is original research. His primary credential is a professor, not an organizer of PPT.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, you are quoting Goodman's words here. Why shouldn't Weiss words be quoted here? Shouldn't we "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". Fernando's UCD profile indicates his role in the PPT, I am not doing any original research. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I done that? Quote the exact words.
The extra bits you added from Weiss have nothing to do with the genocide or reporting on Gotabaya's public statements. I still don't understand the purpose of why you combined those two statements which seemed forced.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Fernando's UCD profile indicates his role in the PPT, I am not doing any original research"
He may have been involved in it, but that making him an "advocate" therefore incapable of holding independent academic views is your personal opinion which doesn't deserve to be featured on Wikipedia.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, you are making it very hard to accept Fernando as a neutral source given his role in the PPT and wight this page gives to the PPT. I am sorry, I just don't agree with you on that. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involvement in PPT and having independent academic views as a scholar are not mutually exclusive. You thinking otherwise is your own problem, not that of Wikipedia's.----Petextrodon (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, excuse me, I have been civil in this discussion. I expect the same from you. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Where have I been uncivil to you? Appears to be a misunderstanding as that wasn't my intention at all.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You thinking otherwise is your own problem, not that of Wikipedia's", what did you mean by this? Kalanishashika (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning it's your personal view, not that of a reliable source. We go by reliable sources here and none say Fernando can't have academic views independent of his brief stint with PPT. That book in question was not published by the PPT. So to combine sources is unnecessary WP:EXCESSDETAIL.--Petextrodon (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, you could have said that without calling it "You thinking otherwise is your own problem" which I feel is uncalled for. Furthermore, what you just said is also your personal view. Hence what you said is clearly applicable to you. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"what you just said is also your personal view"
What are you exactly referring to?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, "none say Fernando can't have academic views independent of his brief stint with PPT", you have not proved that Fernando is a neutral source. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a reliable source. Unless you can cite another reliable source which states he is not neutral, it's simply your personal opinion thus original research which isn't allowed here.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, Wikipedia:Independent sources would answer your question here. It is very clear from what is said there that Fernando has a conflict of interest here, and I have given a reliable source to confirm is role in the PPT. In fact. It was you who removed content cited from a reliable source, not I. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a reliable sources which states Fernando having been a coordinator of PPT disqualifies him as a scholar from having views on this topic independent of his stint with the PPT. That would be your own original research.----Petextrodon (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, are you serious? Do you really hear yourself? I guess we are at an impasse. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, that extra bits show how the same author attributed civilian deaths to. To void it would be a one-sided narration here. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this article isn't about LTTE's war crimes. Are you saying LTTE committing war crimes and the government being responsible for genocide are mutually exclusive? That would be your own original research.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, quoting Weiss is original research? Kalanishashika (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did he say there was no genocide because LTTE also committed war crimes? I don't understand what you were trying to do.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weiss was introduced here by Oz346, which I feel is a good source for this page. As he presents opposing views for the civilian deaths. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of this page is civilian deaths caused by the government, the party accused of genocide. War crimes by both sides is a different topic which is covered extensively by other articles.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, wait I thought the focus of this page is the "Tamil genocide", you mean to say that you are linking the civilian deaths caused by the government, isn't that original research. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the government that stands accused of committing Tamil genocide, not the LTTE. Remember that genocide does not simply mean mass murder.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, Weiss says otherwise. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weiss says LTTE committed Tamil genocide? No, he said no such a thing.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, who does Weiss say committed genocide? Kalanishashika (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't cover that topic at all. I was not the person who added it there. I'm only defending my addition of Goodman article. @Oz346 Do you object to my modification of your sentence?---Petextrodon (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon I'm fine with your modification of my Weiss content.
@Kalanishashika government's justifications for killing civilians is relevant to the topic. You didn't dispute its inclusion at first (even calling it a 'good source for the page') but now you deleted it altogether which makes no sense. It looks like you're using dispute as an excuse to stonewall. Oz346 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346, if you feel that Weiss's reference to government comments, then I feel that it is valid to include Weiss's reference to the LTTE's role that led to civilian casualties. As per @Petextrodon, the "focus of this page is civilian deaths caused by the government". The Weiss source you introduced clearly disputes that. It claims that LTTE had a role to play in civilian casualties. Why do you and Petextrodon so keen to suppress this? Kalanishashika (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, I object to your modification of my sentence. I don't understand why you added Goodman's source since there is no reference to Genocide in it. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's to add government's POV on the civilian targets. It's meant as a background detail.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamil_genocide&oldid=1243120385"