Talk:Together Against Genocide: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 71.23.183.231 - "→"Alleged" Genocide?: new section" |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== "Alleged" Genocide? == |
== "Alleged" Genocide? == |
||
Hi, is there a legitimate controversy concerning whether or not genocide against the Tamils actually occurred in Sri Lanka? I'm no expert but it seems to me from what I have read and seen to have been a fairly well-documented event, certainly there's plenty of horrible photographs and survivor testimonies. Surely the presence of a dispute doesn't mean an event is merely "alleged" if it's clear that it did in fact occur. After all, people deny the Holocaust, we don't call it the "alleged" Holocaust, though specifics may be legitimately disputed. Or am I missing something here? If the term itself is problematic, consider revising to something like "the campaign of violence against", which is less disputable. Just a suggestion. Thanks! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.23.183.231|71.23.183.231]] ([[User talk:71.23.183.231|talk]]) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Hi, is there a legitimate controversy concerning whether or not genocide against the Tamils actually occurred in Sri Lanka? I'm no expert but it seems to me from what I have read and seen to have been a fairly well-documented event, certainly there's plenty of horrible photographs and survivor testimonies. Surely the presence of a dispute doesn't mean an event is merely "alleged" if it's clear that it did in fact occur. After all, people deny the Holocaust, we don't call it the "alleged" Holocaust, though specifics may be legitimately disputed. Or am I missing something here? If the term itself is problematic, consider revising to something like "the campaign of violence against", which is less disputable. Or just add a sentence illustrating the nature of the dispute, i.e. "Some people claim reports of the genocide are exaggerated". It seems to diminish the historic importance of the event and the suffering of the victims if it's described as an "alleged" genocide. Just a suggestion. Thanks! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.23.183.231|71.23.183.231]] ([[User talk:71.23.183.231|talk]]) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 01:14, 2 January 2012
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Maryland Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
"Alleged" Genocide?
Hi, is there a legitimate controversy concerning whether or not genocide against the Tamils actually occurred in Sri Lanka? I'm no expert but it seems to me from what I have read and seen to have been a fairly well-documented event, certainly there's plenty of horrible photographs and survivor testimonies. Surely the presence of a dispute doesn't mean an event is merely "alleged" if it's clear that it did in fact occur. After all, people deny the Holocaust, we don't call it the "alleged" Holocaust, though specifics may be legitimately disputed. Or am I missing something here? If the term itself is problematic, consider revising to something like "the campaign of violence against", which is less disputable. Or just add a sentence illustrating the nature of the dispute, i.e. "Some people claim reports of the genocide are exaggerated". It seems to diminish the historic importance of the event and the suffering of the victims if it's described as an "alleged" genocide. Just a suggestion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.183.231 (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)