Talk:Tamil genocide

Potential redundancy?

@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) 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 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 There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article. Oz346 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  What reliable scholarly sources? Cossde (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.claritypress.com/product/the-tamil-genocide-by-sri-lanka/

  Here is one such source authored by Francis Boyle. I quote what the admin Rosguill said previously in this discussion:

  "FWIW, I think that there are enough peer-reviewed sources indexed by Google Scholar addressing this as the "Tamil Genocide" such that a separate article can be justified." Oz346 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Oz346, you said that several reliable scholarly sources, however you only produce one, that clearly established that this is a WP:FRINGE. As WP:EXCEPTIONAL would put it is a surprising important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Cossde (talk) 12:37, 6 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)

Citation and new intro

I still need to complete the citation of some things but i just added some clear stuff that is uniquely related to the genocide. there is so much more topics like this that are to be discussed in detail. Also note I think the history i wrote for the memorial may be a little biased. THis will be fixed when i cite properly and adjust accordingly ChanakyanFOG (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you've been kind enough to engage in respectful dialogue with me, I'll give you some pointers. I don't mean to be rude or nasty, but a lot of what you've written is atypical of how Wikipedia articles are typically written. While you may refer to WP:MOS, I suggest you read some already established pages to get an idea of how articles should be written. Here are mine so far: 1987 Eastern Province massacres, Eravur massacre, 1989 Kandy massacre, and Kurukkalmadam massacre. You can afford to make your writing more concise and objective. I'll give you some specific examples of where you can improve:

• Tamil Genocide, also known as the Sri Lankan Tamil Genocide, or Eelam Tamil Genocide are terms that encapsulate a series of devastating events leading to, during, and following the Sri Lankan Civil War, a complex and deeply tragic chapter in modern history. Cut out "a complex and deeply tragic chapter in modern history" because it's subjective, uncited, and bloated. Also cut out "devastating" - again, an unobjective term.
• The term "genocide" in this context is used to describe the systematic and widespread targeting of Tamil civilians, combatants, and political figures by the Sri Lankan government forces, with allegations of atrocities including mass killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence. The conflict and its brutal end have sparked international debate and led to calls for accountability and justice. No need for the explainer on how genocide is used. Just link to Genocide and let readers explore for themselves.
• The build-up to the genocide can be understood through the lens of post-colonial strife and ethnic nationalism. Unnecessary verbiage.
• In certain Sri Lankan government websites such as the one for the high commission of Sri Lanka in Singapore Ditto.
• A major town in Canada, Brampton, that has a significant South Asian representation, agreed to create a memorial. Just say Brampton or , the city of Brampton in Canada.
• This Bill was not taken lightly by Sinhalese groups who staged even more protests. Could condense it to "Sinhalese groups staged even more protests in response" or something like that.
• You seem to use primary sources to draw conclusions, which isn't allowed as per WP:PRIMARY. For example, you write " the path towards reconciliation and justice remains fraught with challenges, as political, ethnic, and historical complexities continue to influence the discourse around the Tamil Genocide" but cite a statement from the Canadian government. If the statement doesn't itself state or imply it, you can't use it as evidence of the claim. The same could be said for your usage of the UK Parliament.
• The Human Rights Pulse article seems to be written by a student and probably is not WP:RS.

In general, this reads more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article, which is supposed to be a dry summary of mainstream literature on the subject. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks alot for this. I will go over this in detail and review your previous work. This is the first article that is mainly written by me. But seriously thanks alot. You defnitely raised lots of good points. I hope I can reach out to you in the future. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Please remember its against guidelines to delete massive amounts of content without discussion.

@Okiloma I have noticed you have been deleting content. I have looked at your history and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, as you have added meaningful content too. That said, your recent deletion of documentaries was not a copy of content from else and is relevant content here. Regardless, deletion and transferring of that size should have been discussed here first. I think perhaps some of those documentaries could have been moved, but not all. Please be a bit more wary of that. thank you.

Some other guy tried deleting the whole page, Not speaking to you on this part @Okiloma: Please note that at this point deletion of this article is something heavily frowned upon by wikipedia as wikipedia is strongly against article deletion. And deleting a whole article without any discussion adds to the evidence of how badly some people want to hide this genocide, Your attempt at deleting the article is permanently recorded in the edit history, so thanks for that. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This is false acquisitions on me. The ones you pointed out were added by myself. I added that content first as a list of collection to move them into a whole new page which I created; List of films about the Tamil genocide. But later the majority of the data was deleted by a Wiki Admin as they pointed it out that "Wikipedia is not a database to list all the films ever made on the Tamil genocide. Please do not cite the YouTube link as a source as YouTube is not reliable." Also, I moved to a whole new page because, this page does not have enough space for this as this article will be bigger in future. For more insight, read the talk of that particular page. I'm reverting your readded contents as they are just youtube links (Originally added by myself but in that specific page I added bit more stronger sources, still it got deleted!) Okiloma (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as non-controvertial technical request (closed by non-admin page mover) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Tamil Genocide → Tamil genocide – Unnecessary capitalization. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject History, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Sri Lanka, WikiProject Tamil Nadu, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Classical Tamil, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force, and WikiProject Tamil Eelam have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a technical request, have requested here Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests Beastmastah (talk) 18:27, 2 May 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.

Topics that need to be created

This page does not provide enough light on the so-called Tamil Genocide. It looks merely an collection of many wiki pages and doesn't have many of it's own. The following Sections and Sub sections are identified to be created in this section: @ ChanakyanFOG, Petextrodon, Oz346

Under History section:

• History: This topic must be elaborated to give a glimspe of overall genocide.
• Demographic Changes
• Massacres and killings
• Forced Disappearances

UN Response section:

Excessive use of Primary Sources

Claim of a genocide is an exceptional claim, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". The claim of a Tamil genocide has not been established as such. The lead section only consists of sources from primary sources such as advocacy groups. Some of the red flags listed in WP:EXCEPTIONAL found in this article are 1) claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources 2) Claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Cossde (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Much of the article appears to be WP:OR since the claim that genocide started in 1948 is based on very poor sources such as a single advocacy group that has not been established as a WP:RS. Need more mainstream sources that claim genocide took place since 1948 per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Else controval content needs to be removed to avoid WP:OR. Cossde (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Okiloma: You added several more sources today, however they are mostly unusable as they are not compliant with WP:RS – we don't use PhD theses[3] or student-created publications[4], while reports published by small Sri Lankan Tamil nonprofits[5] need to be properly attributed. Please be so kind and remove references to sources unsuable on Wikipedia. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to hurt you. Just stated 'vandalism' because you arbitrarily deleted a source about a well known stuff. You have stated that PhD theses cannot be used, but according to WP:RS "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources.". It's peer reviewed thesis and it fits the above condition. I've removed UNROW. Could you teach me how to properly attribute PEARL's pdf? Okiloma (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Okiloma, I agree with Kashmīrī. The sources you have provided do not meet the requirement of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Simply you are saying that a genocide of Tamil peoples have been taking place in Sri Lanka since 1948, yet you have failed cite any mainstream sources. PhD theses, small Sri Lankan Tamil nonprofits or a bill by an junior MP won't cut it. You need to provide multiple high-quality sources. Cossde (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Okiloma: Firstly, removal of controversial but poorly sourced content from lead is not vandalism. Secondly, for topics like genocide we need strong sources – a student dissertation and a Tamil NGO report are insufficient, we need to demonstrate scholarly consensus about the issue (not unanimity of course, but a rough consensus). For now, there has not even been a case submitted to any of the international courts (ICJ, ICC), not even mentioning a judgement.

Right now, the article as it reads is quite biased, party because you and some other editors have used it for advocacy (in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY), and also partly because of poor sourcing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lanka is NOT a member of the ICC, and every permanent member in the UN security council is pro Sri Lankan government, and has provided weapons and military support to the Sri Lankan government in their war against the Tamils, so an actual referral to the ICC is impossible.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-srilanka-un-idUSTRE73P00Q20110426/ Oz346 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: You are wrong about PhD theses not being able to be cited, you should check what can be cited in Wikipedia policies before challenging them. And the word 'colonisation' does not just mean when a foreign country takes over land of another country. It can refer to processes within a country, and there are reliable sources supporting this:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/abs/colonization-and-ethnic-conflict-in-the-dry-zone-of-sri-lanka/1874C7714FAEDAC337C5FA39F8B272C8

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274386673_Colonisation_Securitised_Development_and_the_Crisis_of_Civic_Identity_in_Sri_Lanka Oz346 (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is very clear in its requirement that exceptional claims of this nature require multiple high-quality sources. If the Tamil genocide is no more than a WP:FRINGE there should be more mainstream sources than a PhD theses. Cossde (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia distinguishes between colonization (creating colonies abroad) and settler colonialism. Sri Lanka case is the latter, if anything. However, a differing view is that all citizens of Sri Lanka are and should be free to live wherever they like in the country. It's a single country after all. Sure, traditional communities might not like it – we see it in Baluchistan, we see it in Kashmir, we saw it in the Brexit agenda. But many argue there's nothing wrong with people relocating within a country in the 20th or 21st century. You'll need exceptionally strong sources that would attest that there was settler colonialism in Sri Lanka which was at least encouraged by the central government, and that its intent was a destruction of Tamil culture or identity. Because the existence of migrations alone is insufficient in any discussion about genocides. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia definitions are not set in stone, and they are based on different sources. We don't reference wikipedia with wikipedia. And even the 'settler colonialism' page refers to 'colonizers'. The word Colonisation clearly has several meanings, and you cannot selectively choose one, especially when there are reliable sources supporting another usage of the term. Your opinions on whether the planned settlement of thousands of Sinhala settlers in these areas is right or wrong, legal or illegal is irrelevant to the discussion. Oz346 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, I disagree, it is relevant. Please be civil and don't turn this into a battleground. Cossde (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it's relevant then? Oz346 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, because kashmīrī brings out a valid point. Which is self explanatory. Cossde (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, agreed. There term colonization has been misused here. As you rightly there is a difference between colonization and settler colonialism. In the same logic the Colombo suburb of Wellwatta can be considered to be colonized by the Tamil community. Cossde (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Colombo historically was a Muslim majority settlement when it was first established. And individual migration to an area without organised state support is not colonisation. Please provide a reliable source stating that individual Tamils buying houses in the capital Colombo is "colonisation". I have provided reliable sources describing the planned settlement of thousands of Sinhala settlers in the north and east as colonisation. Please stick to reliable sources, not your personal (erroneous) opinions. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, Wellwatta was a more Sinhala community than a Tamil or Muslim 50 years ago, before the number of Tamil families increased over the years. I know that since I seen it. But that's beside the point. As kashmīrī said you need to provide exceptionally strong sources to indicate that it was state policy to carryout settlement with the intent of destruction of Tamil culture or identity. Cossde (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Migrations over centuries have shaped nearly all nations and countries, and I'm not sure we need to go back to hundreds of years ago. What's needed is to offer good evidence that the government of Sri Lanka has had in place official policies to support settler colonialism. They should be official policies and high quality sources, much like we have strong sources that evidence the existence of settler policies with regard to Israeli settlements in Palestine. A student thesis doesn't cut it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. Cossde (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources referring to officially supported Sinhalese colonies in formerly Tamil areas. Here is another.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150.2019.1572604 Oz346 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, again a PhD researcher. Cossde (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect.

https://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/person/thiruni-kelegama

https://bartklemresearch.org/ Oz346 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, the source you cited states: Thiruni Kelegama is PhD researcher at the Department of Geography, University of Zurich. Her research focuses on development, militarisation and nation-building in post-war Sri Lanka.. On the other hand the Tamil scholar Manogaran has claimed in his Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka in 1987 that the peasant relocations were initiated in the 1930's and on Crown Land. The state policy was to release pressure from overcrowded Wet Zone lands and it was Tamil politicians who claimed that Sinhalese applicants received preferential treatment. Not exactly the land grab that this article talks about. Cossde (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The first author is Bart Klem. And it's irrelevant if Kelegama was a PhD researcher then. This is a peer reviewed scholarly article in a reliable journal. Oz346 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly the exceptionally strong sources we hoped for. Cossde (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And where does it say that it was state policy to carryout settlement with the intent of destruction of Tamil culture or identity. Cossde (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You get caught red handed here acting obtuse here by not acknowledging who the first author is and your response is "not exactly the strong sources we hoped for?" My friend, its not worth wasting people times engaging in bad faith arguments where you clearly wont accept mistakes. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been readding up on the debate, and I fail too see any proposals or asks. @Cossde can you state them in bullet form and be clear. thanks ChanakyanFOG (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG, are you saying asking for multiple high-quality sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL wrong? Cossde (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop responding to questions with questions, it only shows bad faith unless you think i am asking a "gotcha" question and its pretty clear i am not. I asked a fundamental thing that should only help you. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG, the whole point in this discussion is that the current article lacks proper referencing per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. All you need to do is improve the referencing in the article by adding high-quality sources. I would kindly ask you to spend your valuable time on the article doing so. Cossde (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems as though there is disagreement. Most believe that there are proper referencing. However, majority rule is not how Wikipedia works and we must find consensus. Please state what sources you have issues with. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG, WP:Primary sources namely the advocacy groups and the need for mainstream sources such as the UN, AI, HRW, etc. WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Cossde (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: You may new to the subject but there is a separate article on Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes, the role of the state and it's impact on ethnic relations. It has several high quality sources. Please read them before making general statements.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe, oh you mean the one that Oz346 heavily redrafted last year? Cossde (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacks and battleground mentality. Question the sources editors use, not the fact a particular editor added them. Individuals well-read about the topic know this is mainstream as they come. It's not a speculation but an openly admitted policy of the government. It's advisable for editors to familiarize themselves with the topic before challenging it. This paper was published just last year by none other than the Cambridge University Press: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/lure-of-land-peasant-politics-frontier-colonization-and-the-cunning-state-in-sri-lanka/16906A5ABDD53B95ADC6595F9E90591E

Another good introduction to the topic is the political scientist Robert Muggah's book "Relocation Failures in Sri Lanka: A Short History of Internal Displacement and Resettlement".

Suffice to say, the colonization schemes are infused with the most militant form of ethnic nationalism and the militarized colonies were integral part of the state's war strategy which involved ethnic cleansing of Tamil villagers such as in Weli Oya. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, thank you for joining this debate. I believe the last bit is you personal POV, hence I will not comment on it. In fact the source you proved contradicts what is said in this article. The article claims the land garbing started after Ceylon gained its independence in 1948. However Kelegama and Korf speaks of the settlements in the 1980s at the height of Civil War. This again comes back to Kashmiri's observation that high quality sources stating that it was Government policy was the intent of destruction of Tamil culture or identity Cossde (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. The topic of whether the Wikipedia page is warranted has already been debated in detail and concluded that it shall stand with various parties including a wiki administrator agreeing. Arguing in circles and just disagreeing on interpretation of facts is quite meaningless from both sides.

Please state what you propose so that you are clear. And if it is the removal of the page, goodluck with that. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG, what do you mean goodluck with that? Cossde (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

i just meant then we will have lots to discuss in a friendly way ChanakyanFOG (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG, no I don't think so. And if it is the removal of the page, goodluck with that. your intent was to intimidate. That is uncivil. Cossde (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG: You wrote: The topic of whether the Wikipedia page is warranted has already been debated in detail and concluded that it shall stand with various parties including a wiki administrator agreeing. I'm sorry but that's incorrect, there has never been any deletion discussion with regard to this page. Please state what you propose so that you are clear. Please try to read the discussion, it's in there. And if it is the removal of the page, goodluck with that. Nobody has proposed that. Overall, if you have nothing meaningful or truthful to add, I strongly recommend you consider staying off. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The topic of whether the Wikipedia page is warranted has already been debated in detail and concluded that it shall stand with various parties including a wiki administrator agreeing. - my statement

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- a user above

Oppose Merge clearly a notable topic with many reliable and independent references.- another user above.

there are more quotes I can pull of more people discussing and giving their opinion of whether the wiki-page is warranted

Sir with all due respect, it is very easy to find this discussion, please read thoroughly before accusing others of being wrong on the most basic things and suggesting they refrain from the discussion. poor and bad faith arguments will not be entertained.

And if it is the removal of the page, goodluck with that. Nobody has proposed that. Overall, if you have nothing meaningful or truthful to add, I strongly recommend you consider staying off

Please do not ignore the word "if." This is called an if then statement and in formal logic it is agreed by logicians that when the antecedent can not be false, then the sentence is logically true. That is, it can never be false. In this case, since the antecedent is a command that can not carry truth value "good luck with that," then my if then statement, "if it is the removal of the page, good luck with that." is logically true.

https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/concise-introduction-to-logic/chapter/2-ifthen-and-it-is-not-the-case-that/

https://www.umsl.edu/~blackan/philosophy160/Lesson1.htm

Please take the time to read these if you are unfamiliar with these terms, they are a fun read that I learned it in my intro to logic classes, once upon time.

Lastly I see that there are sprinkles of suggestions and issues raised. Some I think i agree with, but I strongly believe( that just like with any real debate and official meeting ) there needs to be a clear statement of issues and solutions offered. I am not seeing that and I am not interested in guessing and making assumptions on what you want. So please take the time to be straight forward. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG:

1. Wow, that's quite a claim, one that you used if simply as a logical operator – when the context indicated you used it in the meaning 1.c defined here[6]
2. There's a difference between Wikipedia's merge with and merge into (see WP:MERGE). The discussion concerned merging the two topics together to form a single article; however nobody discussed that single article's title or deletion of any content.
3. I'm not saying that the topic should not be discussed on Wikipedia, however there's a clear, repeatedly raised problem with the lack of sufficient sources, and consequently the current title is quite controversial.

Attacking or disparaging editors who raise the problem is not a good way forward. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

1. its not quite a claim haha. Its a simple "if then" statement and core logic theory just to point out I am undeniable right here on how my conditional statement works. That is unless you want to engage in meta theory which would be fun but time consuming haha. I dont know why we are discussing that statement anyway. its was just a friendly remark implying we have alot to discuss, which I already clarified to the person I was responding to.

2. My statement was that there was discussion that the page was justified: "The topic of whether the Wikipedia page is warranted has already been debated in detail and concluded that it shall stand with various parties including a wiki administrator agreeing. " this is what I said. You even quoted it, so I am not going to entertain you refuting that. I never used the word deletion or anything similar once. You twisting my quote into me being incorrect about deletion never being discussion seems in bad faith.

3. This is a controversial topic. Just last week we had a guy trying to delete the whole article without any discussion. So repeated concerns is to be expected as many biased parties are expected to try to manipulate the article. I.e there will always be concerns, but whether they are justified is the question.

Can you point out where I attacked or disparaged you? Why else would you feel the need to say that if I did not attack you? I believe I have been polite. Perhaps straight forward, but I always make a point to call out my interpretation of behavior instead of the editor. For example in this reply I suggested one of your points seem to be in bad faith. I did not call you names or make claims without reasoning. This is comparable to when you said I was mistaken. I am going to need an explanation on this because statements like this is what causes people to unwilling to discuss further. What would you like me to change about the way i am writing to you?

Lastly, Im going to need you to offer some solutions my friend. What is it that you want and how exactly do you want to get it? At the end of the day true and factual info is the priority. Are you asking for a change in the title that is more reflective of the sources? Please be straightforward and we can discuss. As I said, I am not in the business of making assumptions unnecessarily. And again, all formal and official discussion have some sort of breakdown of plans. I frankly feel like I am working too hard just to understand what it is you want, which is a red flag in this discussion. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Re. 2. I'm not sure whether you know how Wikipedia roles work. Rosguill wasn't commenting in their admin capacity, and their Wikipedia access level was immaterial to the discussion. But that's beside the point – the discussion above was a merge discussion, and its participants only agreed not to merge the two articles, arguing that the scopes are different. That discussion does not mean that this article's title, scope, content or sourcing cannot be discussed.

Re. 3. Again, I'm not sure whether you know how articles are deleted. No, there was no deletion nomination, neither last week nor ever for this article. Last week, a vandal simply replaced the text with a redirect, however this was not a deletion nor an attempt at it. Again, that's beside the point – the article's topic is indeed controversial, as you wrote, and editors must pay utmost care to sourcing its content reliably. Which is what the discussion is all about, and I have no idea why decided to wade in with your disparaging comments about others "arguing in circles". — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG, you will be saving every ones time by improving the referencing in the article without wasting time with a pointless argument on logic. Or is it that you simply don't have the sources you claim that exists. Or are you trying to talk your way out? Cossde (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone accuses me of saying something i said is wrong, but I have the education to break down how that I logically am correct, I will do so.

I am talking my way out I have asked numerous times to respond with a proposal. Please state which sources you dont think fit the criteria and we can go one by one from there. You cant ask me about me trying to talk my way out when the whole time I have been begging you to give me a proposal; it is ironic. So please do break that down. Saying the references arent good isnt enough. Take this in a friendly way: You are not a grade school teacher, your a fellow editor. let me and others know which ones you dont like and we can do this the right way. That will be much more effective than me going through each sources myself. Others seem to already disagree with your position so we need to get to the nitty gritty of this. ChanakyanFOG (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

my keyboard seems to be doing this weird thing where it copies and pastes in random places. sorry if the comment above in confusing i will change keyboard. I did not notice until I clicked reply. sorry about that ChanakyanFOG (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChanakyanFOG As a start, I would suggest you review the use of WP:Primary sources namely the advocacy groups, these do not meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And I hope you find a new keyboard soon. Cossde (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Re. 2. You seem to be jumping from point to point every time I address something. I told you are are taking my quote out of context and broke down how. And you dont address that at all. You immediately jump to your next point without disagreeing or apologizing. This is not good faith discussion. though I do understand how Wikipedia roles work and did not say anything that was inaccurate with my statements, I am not going to further discuss more points with you until you choose to actually stick to a point and discuss it. Continuous disingenuous comments are not worth my time. Thanks ChanakyanFOG (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of Weli Oya; however, I'm yet to see a legal argument that the Weli Oya settlement, or even a few settlements of this type in the sparsely populated north of Sri Lanka, were put in place with an intent of deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, quoting the Genocide Convention. I'm not seeing an argument that these settlements forcibly displaced the Tamil majority on such a scale as to threaten the physical survival of the Tamil ethnic group – unlike what we've been seeing, say, in the West Bank for decades; and even there, the question of genocide being committed is not yet decided unanimously. Simply, the threshold to term discriminaton, ethnic cleansing or even atrocities a genocide is very high. We need extraordinary sources for that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

revert by Omegapapaya

@Omegapapaya Hello, why did you revert my recent edits backed by reliable scholarly sources? Your sources aren't all reliable nor do they even mention the word genocide. Your wording doesn't meet Wikipedia standard of WP:NPOV. If you continue to WP:edit war without good explanation of your conduct, you will be reported and could be topic banned as Sri Lanka is designated as a WP:contentious topic.---Petextrodon (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Tamil genocide → Tamil genocide allegation – There is neither academic consensus nor even a mainstream narrative that the persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka constituted a genocide; especially that the article's creator and main author tries to stretch it as far back as 1948. There are very few reliable sources, if any, barring a handful of PhD theses, that would discuss the legal aspect in the terms of the Genocide Convention. The concept of calling the persecutions "genocide" arose fairly recently, predominantly among the Canadian Tamil émigrés – if we run a Google search for "Tamil genocide" excluding "Canada", we get rather few meaningful results.[7]. Add to it the fact that there has been no case, not even a complaint to the International Court of Justice about a "Tamil genocide". Considering all this, Wikipedia should, at a minimum, apply the same rule as in Palestinian genocide accusation, where highly contentious claims are always qualified as accusation or allegation; especially when they are so poorly sourced as in this article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep on mentioning lack of complaints to international courts [8], as if that is a reasonable point. But a recognised UN member state needs to initiate a case. The Tamils of Sri Lanka do not have a state of their own, nor do they have any member states backing them. There are geopolitical reasons why some cases get hauled up to courts, while others do not. For example, the Tamil civilian death toll in 2009 far exceeds the death toll during the Bosnian genocide, and currently exceeds even the recent Gaza massacres. Yet only the latter cases were both referred to international courts. Oz346 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, lack of an ICJ verdict was repeatedly raised as a key argument against moving Palestinian genocide accusation to "Palestinian genocide", so either we try to maintain consistency across Wikipedia or its reliability gets a blow. I agree with your argument about politisation of ICJ cases, however even without a case we need to see an expert consensus at a bare minimum. Besides, this article aims to label 70 years of Tamil history as a one continuous genocide. Well, it's a very poorly sourced accusation; actually, more of advocacy than legal analysis. In my view, limiting the article scope to 2006–2009, a period where more sources seem to agree on the genocide term, would make the title less problematic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE The word 'allegation' suggests an accusation that is done without any proof, which is certainly not the case. Also the claim that the term 'genocide' is only a recent usage is false. As far back as 1983, the term was in use: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ICJ-Review-31-1983-eng.pdf (talk) Oz346 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with accusation instead of allegation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MOVE: The article at best has Tamil advocacy groups and human right advocates (some with connections to the LTTE) that have put forward the claim of genocide, hence at this stage it remains an alligation of genocide since there is no proven case in the International Court of Justice. Much of the claims of genocide since 1948 has been WP:OR writen by Sockpuppets. The International Commission of Jurists is another human right advocatocy group that had links to the CIA. Cossde (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose There are scholarly sources about Tamil Genocide and particurly the Tamil massacre's in 2009 is called Genocide.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The disruptive editors who tried to stretch the application of genocide have now been banned and a more NPOV lede with RS citations now exists. No, the use of the term genocide to describe the persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka did not arise "fairly recently" among Canadian Tamils but has been the mainstream narrative among Tamils and some international observers at least since the 1983 Black July pogrom, which was described by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Indian government and international press as genocidal. Your google search filter is not a good way to evaluate that since anti-Tamil acts have been described as genocidal without the exact phrase "Tamil genocide" as in the 1983 ICJ report. There have been other persecutions which are recognized as genocides without UN's recognition such as Bangladesh genocide, East Timor genocide and Guatemalan genocide. In any case, I don't think UN bodies which aren't politically independent should be the final arbiters.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Genocide denial shouldn't be accepted here. Even then there are many WP:RS calling this a genocide. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Sportsfan 1234: Genocide denial shouldn't be accepted here. Can you clarify? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you are denying genocide, its not welcome at Wikipedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support move or some kind of restructuring at present the article makes it seem like it is a majority view in sources that a large part of modern Tamil history can be described as genocide. Needless to say, the vast majority of sources about these events do not mention genocide. I think if the article is kept, it should be made clear that this is about a viewpoint rather than a series of historical events. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• MOVE Genocide is an exceptional claim and need exceptional sources. As noted on many pages such as the Palestinian genocide allegation and the Uyghur Genocide which was moved to Persecution of Uyghurs in China. Many of the sources and claims in this article are also WP:SYNTH with sources that doesn't mention any genocide accusation being added to connect the dots in the article. -UtoD 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

OPPOSE "Allegation of Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka" implies that the genocide is a claim or accusation, not necessarily a confirmed event. This title introduces an element of doubt or controversy, which might lead readers to question the veracity of the events or the evidence supporting the claim. Therefore, if the goal is to present the events as a factual occurrence, "Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka" is a stronger and more impactful title. Kanatonian (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kanatonian But there's no academic consensus, least evidence, that the persecution rose to the rank of genocide, and the sourcing in this article is exceptionally bad, esp. for such a claim. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic project; articles must be written with reliable sources that support the subject matter, or they should be deleted. We do not host encyclopedic articles on allegations. Renaming an article in this manner is an attempt to reduce its impact because it doesn't meet the threshold for deletion. If your claims are credible, list the article for deletion and let consensus decide. Genocide either happened or it didn't.Kanatonian (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kanatonian We have heaps of articles on allegations, e.g., Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War, Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War, and so on. A titlge "Allegations" is perfectly alright. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of these articles are about current event and some of the titles are contested. The Tamil genocide, like the Armenian and Circassian genocides, happened in the past. It either happened or it didn't. If it didn't, list it for deletion instead of burying it under allegations.Kanatonian (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kanatonian Unsure you're getting the point. Genocide is a legal term with a very precise meaning. Atrocities against Tamils did happen and should be on Wikipedia. What is being debated is whether they rose to the rank of genocide. For now, some scholars say they did, but the majority of scholarly sources call the events violence, persecution, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, etc. This article focuses on whether these atrocities were or were not genocide, with some editors using Wikipedia as an advocacy tool for the term genocide, disregarding the academic debate. However, it's perfectly valid to have articles about academic debates. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a source where Genocide is listed as a legal term? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Genocide Convention and explained by the UN here. Its a specific legal crime.-UtoD 05:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

MOVE I don't think the violence against Tamils has a sort of mass recognition as genocide in the legal or academic world. Even the method of searching the hits on Google Scholar proposed by an editor returns a number of hits that discuss the tendency of the Tamil community or the LTTE to use the term "genocide," rather than call it "genocide" themselves, and some other hits aren't even scholarly sources. Genocide recognition appears to be largely political and advocacy-based at the moment, not up to Wikipedia's standards. I'd like to maintain consistency across Wikipedia pages as described by Kashmiri, and I don't think Tamil genocide fits the bill at this time. SinhalaLion (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis of WP:NDESC. Allegation is a very strong non-neutral word and can cause a lot of confusion with readers drawing their own meanings. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Tamil genocide is real. It shouldn't be described as an allegation. There's a difference between an allegation and an incident.

  Kautilyapundit (talk) 06:39, 23 May 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.

Genocide recognition by Canada

@SinhalaLion, Bob Rae seems to be expressing his personal opinion. Canadian Parliament unanimously adopted the motion. Be cautious about citing pro-government sources like the Daily Mirror known for sensationalism and outright fabrications. Its Editor in Chief is a known Rajapaksa lackey. If I recall correctly, Canada reaffirmed the Prime Minister's statement in a response to this report. I will post the source if I come across it. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Good to know about Daily Mirror, and it's barely a reliable source anyway. However, it's not up to Canada's parliament to decide on genocide designation, besides motions are not law anyway. The only valid conclusion of the motion is that it (the motion) happened. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, found it: http://island.lk/canada-reiterates-genocide-charge-holds-mr-gr-accountable/

Quoting the article:

"We raised the issue in the wake of claim that Canada reversed its earlier stand pertaining to genocide accusations. The Canadian HC spokesperson said Premier Justin Trudeau’s statement issued on May 18, 2023 simultaneously in Ottawa and Ontario to mark the first Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day clearly, reflected the Canadian stand."

So the "ambivalence" seems to be largely manufactured by the shoddy reporting of Daily Mirror.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Trudeau's statement doesn't actually call what happened in Mullivaikkal a "genocide." It calls it the "massacre in Mullivaikkal" and says that parliament deems May 18 as "Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day." Even the sanctions imposed on the Rajapaksas accused them of having "committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during Sri Lanka’s civil conflict, which occurred from 1983 to 2009" - again, avoiding the explicit usage of the word "genocide." Why didn't Global Affairs, Trudeau, or the spokesperson just flat out use the term? I think, far from disputing my point, these statements reify what Rae said (which, by the way, he said in an official capacity and not just his personal opinion).

As for the Daily Mirror, it's listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources as an WP:RS. And I don't think that the spokesperson actually disputed the claim; as with Rae, the lack of clear, direct language calling the massacre a "genocide" just reaffirms the ambivalence of the recognition. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion "Why didn't Global Affairs, Trudeau, or the spokesperson just flat out use the term?"

A more crucial question is, why did the parliament itself recognize the genocide wording of the motion? No point in editors speculating about the negatives as that would be original research.

As for the reliability of Daily Mirror, that was decided in 2009 without any discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/general_2009#Daily_Mirror

The same goes for many pro-state newspapers which weren't properly vetted like how Tamil sources were. In any case, I wouldn't trust Daily Mirror with any "private" information given their penchant for fabrications: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/shortage-of-blood-in-jaffna-daily-mirror-accused-of-planting-fake-story-to-boost-army/ --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if parliament said "we declare what happened in 2009 in genocide," it wouldn't contradict the point that parliament (i.e., House of Commons) can take a divergent stance from the government in a foreign policy, geopolitical sense, as Genuis said. So where does that leave us? 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) SinhalaLion (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, It doesn't have to be "divergent" in the mutually exclusive sense but just toned-down language for the purpose of diplomacy. Instead of speculations, we can go with the available positive evidence: Explicit use of the phrase genocide in the bill "reflected the Canadian stand".---Petextrodon (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Trudeau's statement, which says that parliament adopted the motion, reflects the Canadian stance. In light of what Rae said, your conclusion that the Canadian stand itself is one that Sri Lanka committed genocide is the WP:OR. SinhalaLion (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, if the spokesperson said that the motion itself reflected the Canadian stance, I would agree with you. But they said that Trudeau's statement reflects the Canadian stance, and the statement merely passes the buck to parliament. SinhalaLion (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, What matters here is the fact all parties endorse the bill explicitly mentioning genocide. Sure some confusion occurred but the later statement to The Island clarified that the Canadian government stands by the bill. Shouldn't we go with the most up-to-date evidence? --- Petextrodon (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon For the record, the Canadian bill doesn't even explicitly say that there was a genocide in Sri Lanka. It only establishes a commemoration day. As it stands, the Canadian bill is a really poor source for what effectively should be a legal assessment. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, obviously it's only used to document recognition, not its scholarly validity. ---Petextrodon (talk) Petextrodon (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

And for the umpteenth time, a recognition of genocide by parliament does not necessarily reflect that of an official governmment policy. Trudeau only mentions that parliament declared the day, not the government of Canada. The (relevant part of the) Canadian stand, as defined by the spokesperson, is that, and I quote, "Parliament last year unanimously adopted the motion to make May 18 Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day." That's it. It's a statement of fact and nothing more. I don't know how to make this simpler. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, why then is the Trudeau government endorsing the bill explicitly mentioning the word genocide if it does not necessarily reflect its policy? It could have simply chosen to remember the war dead without explicitly titling the statement as "Statement by the Prime Minister on the first Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day". All evidence indicates the government stands by the bill.

The statement reads:

"The stories of Tamil-Canadians affected by the conflict – including many I have met over the years in communities across the country – serve as an enduring reminder that human rights, peace, and democracy cannot be taken for granted. That’s why Parliament last year unanimously adopted the motion to make May 18 Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. Canada will not stop advocating for the rights of the victims and survivors of this conflict, as well as for all in Sri Lanka who continue to face hardship."

Here, he is saying the parliament adopted the motion because human rights cannot be taken for granted. It's not a simple description of fact but a positive value assessment.---Petextrodon (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion Also note that The Island itself interprets Canadian stance as reiterating the genocide charge, so it's not just my original reading.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If parliament voted unanimously for the bill, he has to reflect that somehow. What's he supposed to do? Not acknowledge parliament's stance? However, it's just parliament. On the other hand, if Bob Rae, the permanent representative to the UN or someone of similar authority says that, yes, the government of Canada recognizes the Tamil genocide as an official policy, then I'll retract my stance. Otherwise, the most we can ascribe to the government of Canada from Trudeau's statement, and even this is being generous, is: "Tens of thousands of Tamils lost their lives, including at the massacre in Mullivaikal, with many more missing, injured, or displaced" and "the stories of Tamil-Canadians affected by the conflict – including many I have met over the years in communities across the country – serve as an enduring reminder that human rights, peace, and democracy cannot be taken for granted." Nowhere in the positive value assessment is the word "genocide" used.

In contrast, here's what Trudeau said about the Armenian Genocide: "twenty years ago, the Government of Canada joined members of the international community in officially recognizing the historic and tragic reality of the Armenian Genocide."

This is the only thing he said "on behalf of the Government of Canada": "I invite all Canadians to recognize the many contributions that Tamil-Canadians have made – and continue to make – to our country. I also encourage everyone to learn more about the impact of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, and express solidarity to all those who suffered or lost loved ones."

But it appears you've added the Island clarification - and it's the content, not the headline (which is probably a reflection of a misunderstanding of how Canadian genocide recognition works) that matters - in the meantime. I have no problem with that provided that what Genuis, Rae, and preferably the Daily Mirror said stays. How about we wait until May 18, when Trudeau issues another statement, to re-examine? Perhaps he'll be more clear this time around... SinhalaLion (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion: "What's he supposed to do? Not acknowledge parliament's stance?"

He's certainly allowed to remember the dead without going out of his way to equate the adoption of the bill to the promotion of human rights and peace.

His annual statements are repetitious, so not expecting anything different soon. It's pointless to speculate on the negatives. What's glaring to most observers, both Tamils and Sinhalese (including GoSL), is the premier's endorsement of the bill explicitly titled genocide which is why they justifiably think Canadian government recognizes Tamil genocide. Bob Rae video speaks for itself but unsure of the accuracy of Daily Mirror allegation. If other (perhaps more experienced) editors feel The Island article contradicts Daily Mirror and is a superior source to an unverifiable allegation, they are free to challenge it, but I will step back for now.---Petextrodon (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the Island, if it was referring to the Daily Mirror claim, technically misquoted the paper. The Daily Mirror said that it had information that Canada "had not made any finding that genocide had taken place in Sri Lanka." That's not the same as "reached the conclusion that no genocide took place here." SinhalaLion (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Audit of quoted sources

On reviewing the referencing of this article, it appears to me that quality of sources is quite poor from an academic sense, reading the sourcing recommendations of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) I found that referencing standards are based on academia. No offense to anyone, as a Grad student, this looks lot like an undergrad essay than an encyclopedia page.

My review of the references listed is as follows:

Secondary sources

1. 5 Books of unrenowned publishing houses, including one called Eelam Research Organisation
2. 12 peer reviewed journals (grade of journal not reviewed, one called Scholarly Undergraduate Research Journal)
3. 1 Academic blog (non-peer reviewed) of the London School of Economics.

Primary sources (self-published)

United Nations (several reports cited)

International human right organizations

1. 1 report from Human Right Watch
2. 2 reports from Amnesty International
3. 1 report from Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
4. 1 report from the International Commission of Jurist

Human right advocacy groups based in Sri Lanka or solely focused on Sri Lanka

1. University Teachers for Human Rights (4 references to it website)
2. Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (1 article)
3. North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESHOR) (Collection of reports)
4. The International Truth and Justice Project (1 report)

Government publications

1. 9 Publications, statements and hearings from Other Governments (including 2 reports from Toronto district school board)
2. 4 Publications and statements from the Sri Lankan government

News media

1. 25 articles from media outlets including international ones (BBC, Guardian, New York Times, etc.) and local ones from other countries.
2. 10 articles from Tamil cultural and media organizations/groups.
3. 4 articles from Sri Lankan media.

Quality of the secondary sources can improve, especially with books from Tier one publication houses, while the number of peer reviewed content can expand. I saw in the talk page of many such sources quoted in searches, appreciate if these could be added.

I need clarification on the use of primary sources. Wikipedia refers to avoiding primary sources as with the case in academia. I understand some primary source can be used as Wikipedia mentions. Like the United Nations, Human Right Watch and Amnesty International, which are internationally accepted publications. Others such as the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and the International Commission of Jurist are less so.

It gets even more complicated when it comes to local human right advocacy groups since these are accepted predominantly primary sources in academia, by the nature of the reports they submit. Are these types of primary sources allowed in Wikipedia?

Government statements, publications and reports too are primary sources in academia. Are these allowed in Wikipedia?

News media, especially international ones I read can be used in current events in Wikipedia. However, with events in this article taking place close to 15 years ago, are these acceptable here? The thinking is that after a few years there would secondary sources that could be used instead. Local media, both Tamil and Sri Lankan fall under the above category as well.

Taking all of these into consideration, can we please establish a list of accepted sources? Kalanishashika (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources#List of sources, many of the sources you have questioned like Amnesty International, UTHR, NESOHR have already been vetted by an admin for use on wikipedia after intensive debate. Also, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the ideal place to take a source if you have doubts (ITJP was regarded as a RS there for example, and therefore can be cited). It is also advisable to discuss sources, case by case, and in the context that they were cited for, in order to assess for suitability. Oz346 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not doubting the reliability; I’m specifically considering the utilization of primary and secondary sources here. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Here from the notification at WP:RSN) I think your questions can be answered by WP:PRIMARY. In general secondary sources are preferred, but that doesn't mean that primary sources can't be used. So reports from government bodies and human rights organisations would be allowed (as long as they are reliable). The same is true of newspaper reports from 15 years ago, a source doesn't become unreliable just based on age. However newer sources are again preferred (WP:AGEMATTERS). So newer reputable academic secondary sources are a gold standard, but under that is a wide area of other sources.
Taking all of these into consideration, can we please establish a list of accepted sources? You can if you wish, I'm sure if you want to list, investigate, and document each source other editors may find it interesting and have their own views and ideas they can input. But everyone here is a volunteer so if you want something done you may have to do it yourself. I would suggest reading the policies and guidelines on reliable sources (WP:Verification and WP:Reliable sources would be good place to start) and learn more on how such ideas are implemented. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're coming to Wikipedia from an academic background you may be interested in reading WP:Expert editors, which offers some advice. Wikipedia sometimes uses similar language and practices to academia, but not always in the same way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, of the remaining sources, I need help listing on meeting Wikipedia standards in this article since WP:PRIMARY says primary sources can be used, however with care and it quotes "because it is easy to misuse them".

News

• Daily Mirror - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - Reliable source
• EconomyNext
• TamilNet - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - Qualified source - pro-rebel
• tamilguardian.com - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - Unreliable source
• tamilnation.org - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - UnclasS
• The Sunday Leader

International human rights groups

• Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
• International Commission of Jurists
• International Truth and Justice Project
• Permanent Peoples' Tribunal
• Human Rights Pulse

Human rights groups focused only on Sri Lanka

• Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka -
• Tamil Center for Human Rights - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_347#RfC:_Tamil_Centre_for_Human_Rights - finds it a primary source affiliated to the rebels
• North East Secretariat on Human Rights - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_353 - Inconclusive / Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - Qualified source - pro-rebel
• International_Truth_and_Justice_Project - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#International_Truth_and_Justice_Project: @ActivelyDisinterested states that it is a reliable source and @Blueboar says that "present their stance with in text attribution - as opinion and not as accepted fact".
• University Teachers for Human Rights - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - Reliable source

Other

• noolaham.net - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - Tamil Times via noolaham.net - Reliable source

@ActivelyDisinterested, how do you think these should be listed. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you investigate each one, and list your findings. Then other editors could add there input. If there are disagreements about any particular source extra help could be sorted at WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, based on my investigations I would class the following sources into these categories.

Reliable sources

• Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre - Harvard University has termed IDMC as "Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) is the leading source of information and analysis on internal displacement, playing a unique role as a global monitor and evidence-based advocate to influence policy and action by governments, United Nations (UN) agencies, donors, international organizations and NGOs." [9].

Sources that can be cited for their opinion (not fact) with explicit attribution.

• International Commission of Jurists - holds consultive status to the United Nations [10], hence appears to be a reliable primary source.
• Permanent Peoples' Tribunal - These appear to be what themselves calls opinion tribunals[11] and seems to lack legitimacy[12]. This RSN states that it can be "cited only for statements that it's author made certain claims".
• International Truth and Justice Project - RSN finds that ITJP can be accepted as a reliable source for its opinion/stance within text attribution and not accepted fact.
• University Teachers for Human Rights - SLR - Reliable as a primary source for its opinion/stance with in text attribution and not accepted fact.

Sources found to be bias - A source that can be used on a subject related to bias faction with attribution (such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself.)

• North East Secretariat on Human Rights - RSN - Inconclusive / SLR - Qualified source - pro-rebel
• Tamil Center for Human Rights - RSN - finds it a primary source affiliated to the rebels
• TamilNet - SLR - Qualified source - pro-rebel

News

• Daily Mirror - SLR - Reliable source
• noolaham.net (only Tamil Times) - SLR - Tamil Times via noolaham.net - Reliable source

Unreliable source

• tamilguardian.com - SLR - Unreliable source

Uncategorised

• Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka
• Human Rights Pulse
• EconomyNext
• The Sunday Leader
• tamilnation.org - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources - UnclasS

@ActivelyDisinterested, need your view on my observations and assistance on how to categorise the uncategorised list. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is something where specific area knowledge would be useful, I've asked for some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, I started listing the Academic sources (books, journals), mainstream media and international organizations.

Academic sources

1950–1980

• Vittachi, Tarzie (1959). Emergency '58: The story of the Ceylon race riots. Andre Deutsch.

1980–2010

• MacDermot, Niall, ed. (December 1983). "THE REVIEW" (PDF). ICJ Review (32). International Commission of Jurists: 24.
• Thornton, E.M.; Niththyananthan, R. (1984). Sri Lanka, Island of Terror – An Indictment. Eelam Research Organisation. pp. Appendix A. ISBN 0 9510073 0 0.
• Patrick Peebles (1990). "Colonization and Ethnic Conflict in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka". The Journal of Asian Studies. 49 (1): 30–55. doi:10.2307/2058432. JSTOR 2058432. S2CID 153505636.
• Wood, Elisabeth Jean (1 March 2009). "Armed Groups and Sexual Violence: When Is Wartime Rape Rare?". Politics & Society. 37 (1): 131–161. doi:10.1177/0032329208329755. ISSN 0032-3292. S2CID 154539643.

2010–Present

• De Votta, Neil (2004). Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780804749237.
• Kingsbury, Damien (2012). Sri Lanka and the Responsibility to Protect: Politics, Ethnicity and Genocide. Routledge. pp. 82–93. ISBN 978-0-415-58884-3.
• Short, Damien, ed. (2016). Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide. London, UK: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-930-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Bogen, Katherine W. (April 2016). "Rape and Sexual Violence: Questionable Inevitability and Moral Responsibility in Armed Conflict". Scholarly Undergraduate Research Journal at Clark. 2.
• Höglund, Kristine (2019-09-01). "Testimony Under Threat: Women's Voices and the Pursuit of Justice in Post-War Sri Lanka". Human Rights Review. 20 (3): 361–382. doi:10.1007/s12142-019-0549-3. ISSN 1874-6306.
• Harman, William (1 July 2021). "Dying to be Remembered: Tamil Warriors' Desecrated Burial Plots (Tuyilum Illam) in Sri Lanka's Civil War". Nidan: International Journal for Indian Studies. 6 (1): 66–87. doi:10.36886/nidan.2021.6.1.5.
• Hasbullah, Shahul H.; Geiser, Urs (2019). "Negotiating access to land in eastern Sri Lanka". International Centre for Ethnic Studies.
• Klem, Bart; Kelegama, Thiruni (2020). "Marginal placeholders: peasants, paddy and ethnic space in Sri Lanka's post-war frontier". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 47 (2): 346–365. doi:10.1080/03066150.2019.1572604.
• Kelegama, Thiruni; Korf, Benedikt (2023). "The lure of land: Peasant politics, frontier colonization and the cunning state in Sri Lanka". Modern Asian Studies. 57 (6): 2003–2017. doi:10.1017/S0026749X22000506.
• Kelegama, Thiruni (10 April 2023). "Development Gone Wrong: Sri Lanka at 75". LSE Blogs. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

News sources

1980–2010

• "Tiger vs Tiger in eastern Sri Lanka". The Hindu. India. 15 March 2004.
• Sengupta, Somini (2009-02-08). "Civilians hit with UN team in Sri Lankan 'no-fire' zone". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
• "Sri Lanka: Satellite imagery of safe zone". BBC News. 24 April 2009. Retrieved 16 September 2015.

2010–Present

• "UN 'failed Sri Lanka civilians', says internal probe". Lyse Doucet. BBC. 13 November 2012. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
• "The broken survivors of Sri Lanka's civil war". Frances Harrison. BBC. 11 October 2012. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
• Macrae, Callum (3 September 2013). "Sri Lanka: Slaughter in the no fire zone". The Guardian. London, U.K. Retrieved 22 March 2021.
• "A monument to remember the Eelam war". The Times of India. 5 November 2013. Retrieved 19 November 2013.
• "A monument to remember the Eelam war". The Times of India. 5 November 2013. Retrieved 19 November 2013.
• "UN calls for Sri Lanka war crimes court to investigate atrocities". The Guardian. 16 September 2015. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
• "Sri Lanka justice: leaked UN document casts doubts". Channel 4. 28 July 2015. Retrieved 24 August 2015.
• "Tamil leaders honor dead from Sri Lankan war at battle zone". Krishan Francis. Yahoo News. 18 May 2015. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
• "How the UN failed Tamil civilians in 2009".
• Haviland, Charles (11 January 2011). "Sri Lanka's war panel arouses strong emotions". BBC News. London, U.K. Retrieved 4 July 2021.
• Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (22 June 2022). "'We want justice, not fuel': Sri Lanka's Tamils on north-south divide". the Guardian. Retrieved 7 May 2024.
• "Gotabhaya Rajapaksa: The wartime strongman who wants to run Sri Lanka". 30 June 2019. Retrieved 2 July 2019.
• "British envoy banned in war without witnesses". The Independent. 14 February 2009. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
• "Sri Lanka Massacred Tens of Thousands of Tamils While the World Looked Away". Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. 11 August 2015. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
• "Sri Lanka: UN says army shelling killed civilians". BBC News. 2011-04-26. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
• Bhugra, Saloni (Feb 28, 2024). "After 3-year delay, Brampton finalizes design for Tamil monument to honour lives lost in Sri Lankan civil war Tamil Genocide Memorial to be built in Chinguacousy Park by 2025". CBC.
• Jabakhanji, Sara (Jan 24, 2021). "Brampton mayor vows to build Tamil monument". CBC.
• "Sri Lanka Tamil killings 'ordered from the top'". Channel 4 News. 18 May 2010. Archived from the original on 23 March 2015.

International Orgernizations

• "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka". Refworld/United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. United Nations. 31 March 2011. p. 41. Retrieved 22 March 2021.
• "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka" (PDF). United Nations. November 2012. p. 28. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
• Darusman, Marzuki; Sooka, Yasmin; Ratner, Steven R. (31 March 2011). Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (PDF). United Nations.
• "Still No Justice on Sri Lanka War Anniversary | Human Rights Watch". 16 May 2023.
• "Sri Lanka: The continuing spectre of "disappearances"" (PDF). Amnesty International.org. Retrieved 19 June 2022.

Kalanishashika (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

reverts by Kashmiri

@Kashmiri, the background/history section is meant to give general overview of the issue. The accusations in the body can't be submerged under that. Perhaps you can introduce a new heading to place them under. Your reasons for renaming and removing content from Political recognition don't make sense. It was to avoid the controversy over whether Canada's stance is official state recognition that we included a more neutral subheading. I don't agree with you that lower levels of political recognition should be excluded. It's just your personal opinion, which is being opposed by two editors. I suggest you stop edit warring and disruptive editing by removing sourced content and stop trying to force your version based on subjective opinion. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

to add to that, the Northern Provincial Council was the largest elected body of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, it was the only elected voice of the Tamil people there (Tamils are denied any significant autonomy in Sri Lanka, not even a federal state). So it definitely has relevance regarding the local voice on this matter. Oz346 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika: why did you remove the 'Cultural destruction' section when other editors have given their reason for its inclusion? And why did you randomly put several sections like land grabbing and pogroms under the "history section? There is no wikipedia rule against having an empty section that will be filled in the future.

There is currently edit warring and a talk discussion taking place which you can clearly see as you have been using the talk page. You should not have further reverted without discussion here. That is disruptive editing that goes against Wikipedia policies of reaching consensus on the talk page when there is heated disagreement. Oz346 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And why did you lump the UN response section with the genocide recognitions? They are very different types of 'reactions'. They deserve to be treated in separate sections. Oz346 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346 excuse me, I was only trying to help improve the quality of this article. I didn't know that can be considered as disruptive editing! Having subtopics with no content looks like a draft and wasn't the objective of having historic content part of the history section? Also, are you and Petextrodon the admins of this page? I see that you two seems to freely add/change content. If anyone else does changes, you two seem to challenge it and sounding as if other editors need your permission or approval? Kalanishashika (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika Thanks for joining. The two are not admins, they've just banded together in this and other articles to support each other's edits and make it difficult for other editors to restore neutral point of view. Your editing is not disruptive, it's them who have added nonsense content and are fighting against its removal, which is very disruptive. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

can you please stick to the content and answer the reasonable questions posed to you. You think its 'nonsense content' to include the recognition of genocide by the Northern Provincial council, which is the largest elected body of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka? Is this not an arbitrary line that you have drawn to say whether something is large enough or worthy enough to be mentioned? The resolution was reported in various news sources, so it's certainly notable. Oz346 (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, thank you for clarifying. Yes, comparing how the Rwandan genocide had been written, this looks like a someone's blog than an Encyclopedic article. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Apt comparison! — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please answer my questions and stick to the content. Avoid personal attacks. If you have a problem with the edits of other editors you are free to discuss them.

There are many articles on Wikipedia such as stub class articles which have incomplete sections that still need to be filled in. They are not just deleted wholesale. It is disruptive editing to remove something when a discussion is going on, and other editors have already objected.

I repeat:

1. Why did you lump the UN response section with the genocide recognitions?

2. Why did you randomly put several sections like 'land grabbing' and 'pogroms' under the 'history section'? But not say 'sexual violence' or 'Massacres'. The history section currently starts abruptly with land grabs and does not read well. It ideally should be a brief historical overview. Oz346 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, I thought that would be very clear. From the way it had been written 'land grabbing' and 'pogroms' appears to be of a historical context. And the UN activity much the same as that by other governments and NGOs. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That does not make any sense because the massacres and disappearances sections are also largely of the past. Yet they are not put under history. Also the UN activity is very different from the other activity. The government and NGO activity is specifically regarding genocide recognition. Whereas the UN response is regarding its actions at the time regarding the unfolding massacres in 2009 specifically. Oz346 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, yes you are correct. The UN activity doesn't cover genocide. Then why is the UN activity written here? Kalanishashika (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The UN activity during the Mullivaikkal massacre (which has been described by some as a genocidal act), has been described by Francis Boyle as acts "aiding and abetting genocide" so it has relevance. Oz346 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your answer regarding this?

"That does not make any sense because the massacres and disappearances sections are also largely of the past. Yet they are not put under history." Oz346 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, if I am not mistaken doesn't what you say fall under Wikipedia:No original research. I mean you seem to be the one drawing the lines here, not a secondary source. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

no it doesn't look like original research, Boyle is directly referring to the UN officials suppressing information of the killings. And it's supported by the references. No original conclusions have been made that cannot be found in the sources. Oz346 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, then why a whole section on the UN? Seems disproportionate. Can just add the Boyle's observations to the event he is referring too. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's disproportionate at all considering that the most killings took place during 2009, and it's the time period/event where the accusations of genocide are made most frequently. Are you going to answer my other question regarding why you put other 'past' sections under history, but excluded the other 'past' sections like 'massacres'? Oz346 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, if you want to put the massacres in the past section I have not issue. However, having a whole section on the UN for a single observation does look disproportionate and original research to me. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of those sections should be put in the 'history' section. The history section should be it's own prose with a historical summary. I disagree that it's disproportionate, considering the central position of the Mullivaikkal massacre in the Tamil genocide accusations. Oz346 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No. All various subtypes of persecution should be at most in level-3 headings. Also, there should be no empty level-2 sections. We have a Manual of Style and we need to abide by that. You are confusing an encyclopaedia with a personal blog or with high school homework, because unfortunately that's the quality of this article at the moment. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, my original view was an undergrade paper. However, I have to agree with you, it is starting to look lot like a high school paper. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess an average university student understands the fundamental difference between official recognition by a government and a MP claiming things. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean look at it, a sub section on the US, because two congressmen shared their views. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, agreed. Mullivaikkal seem to be the focus of many of sources on the genocide accusation. It should be the meat of this article. The rest seems to lack connection via secondary sources. Let me review it and clean it up. I think we can do away with the UN section and move the Boyle's observations the Mullivaikkal massacre. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove the sourced content related to the Mullivaikkal massacre, regarding the UN? Oz346 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I explained it above. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You are removing sourced content directly related to the UN's complicity in the Mullivaikkal massacre, which is directly related to Boyles' analysis. It is relevant and not of undue weight. You should reach consensus before unilaterally removing content under dispute in this discussion. Oz346 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, please mind your tone. It's not an article you own, others have equal right to edit it as they deem fit and they don't have to explain themselves to you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the UN section if there is any issue with the article that be resolved with normal editing after talk page discussions. Please stop reverting without talk page consensus.Dowrylauds (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)