Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Airjordan2k (talk | contribs) at 16:40, 30 May 2024 (Added Keep vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is very good information for Tamils to refer back to...I would object to this deletion...please let's us know how to make this permanent ..

Tamil genocide

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tamil genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a rabid sock puppets abuser after admittedly copying content from War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War.[1]

Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". The creation of this WP:POVFORK is a clear-cut misuse of Wikipedia as per WP:SOAP and WP:RGW.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article may lack thorough sourcing, but discussions on recognising the Tamil genocide are taking place globally. For instance, the Canadian government, the Tamil Nadu government, the provincial government of Northern Province in Sri Lanka, and the Minister of Home Affairs of India have recognized the genocide. The preliminary work on the "Tamil genocide" page shall be enhanced to provide comprehensive and necessary information to Wikipedia readers. ALKBH5 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — ALKBH5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit to put notice on the main page was already requested. Some admin will eventually put it. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, deletion is not a non-controversial edit. Secondly, and more importantly, deletion discussion in principle aims at identifying problems with the given article, and editors usually work to fix them as the discussion develops. Unless it's a case of WP:TNT, editors are unable to address problems when full protection is in place. (Granted, it wasn't possible to work on this particular article anyway because of WP:TAGTEAM). — kashmīrī TALK 07:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: The AfD nomination was already added to the main article hours ago.[2] You should strike your !vote now. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protection does not allow improvement, so my rationale stands. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fully protected until 21:01 on 30 May 2024 UTC, not 3 June. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The claim about copied content by a sock puppet is no longer valid as the article has since been significantly edited and altered by other users and enough reliable sources have been provided to justify its existence. So the claim that "nobody" recognizes Tamil genocide is clearly false and not a conclusion that can be reached by a person who has fully read the entire article or crosschecked the cited sources in the lede itself. It's a work in progress and more improvements can be made, which was what I was trying to do before users started revert warring and got the page protected. May I also remind the admins that there have been two proposals in the past for its merger and rename, both of which were opposed by most users. Furthermore, there is a place in Wikipedia for "genocides" that do not have universal nor official UN recognition, such as Bangladesh genocide, Black genocide in the United States, Guatemalan genocide and East Timor genocide. In any case, complete deletion cannot be justified.---Petextrodon (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear admins: In every May marking Tamil genocide remembrance, there's a spike in interest in this topic mostly from Sri Lankans. So I'm not surprised by their participation here. What's intriguing is the large number of users with no significant prior editing in Sri Lankan topic (but with a history of mostly editing Indian topic, including canvassing each other there) are all suddenly taking the same stance. Not one dissent. Even their wording is similar in that they are all absolutely sure no genocide took place and that no one recognizes it. Admins need to look into potential off-Wiki coordination.---Petextrodon (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A note to admins: There are several users who have cast their vote to keep (1)(2)(3) but in the wrong sections, possibly due to their inexperience.---Petextrodon (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we go through the contribution history of this article, it seems to me that these users User:Oz346, User:Petextrodon, User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya, User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards are working as a group to keep their point of view in the article. I have come across these same editors in other Sri lanka civil war related Wikipedia articles as well. Also, what I have noticed is that whenever there is a discussion going on related to a Sri lankan civil war topic, they collectively come and cast the vote that favors them so that the majority is always favored. It should be also noted that three of the users I have mentioned here User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya have been blocked from editing for reasons such as using multiple accounts. If we look at the profiles who voted in oppose to this rename, they seem not to be neutral editors if we go through their contribution history.Futhermore, Tamil genocide has not been recognized by the UN or any other famous Human Rights Organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty. There is a need for independent neutral Wikipedia contributors to look into this issue and provide a solution. I believe this article should be deleted or at least renamed to "Tamil Genocide Allegation". I hope my observations will be useful for Admins when coming up with a decision. JohnWiki159 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a baseless personal attack. Just because many editors have common interests in pages, does not mean they are all working together. In fact, if you look at the edit history on this article, User:Beastmastah used his sock to make edits [3] which I had publicly opposed on his talk page: User talk:Omegapapaya. Also in previous votes, many uninvolved editors also voted for similar conclusions (you are not an uninvolved editor but have a pro-Sri Lanka edit history and coincidentally became active just today after a hiatus). So you should back up your claims with hard evidence. And regarding UN recognition, there was a clear conflict of interest at the UN and it was not politically neutral in its response. Oz346 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a personal attack. These are my observations and I have presented them here for others to consider. Also regarding the UN recognition, they haven't recognized this. What are you trying to tell by pointing that there was a "conflict of interest at the UN" ? So are you using this point to assume that the UN recognized this "Genocide"? This similar approach has been used throughout this article. What has been done in this article is combine material from multiple sources to reach this "Genocide" conclusion. Even most of these sources don't mention about Genocide. This is WP:SYNTH. Also, the UN and other human rights organization such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported war crimes committed by both sides. They haven't mentioned anything about "Genocide". The article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War is already there which talks about the war crimes committed by both parties. If we take a look at this "Tamil Genocide" article, it is so much biased. The UN panel report says LTTE used civilians as a human buffer, killed civilians who attempted to flee the LTTE, fired artillery from among civilians before quickly moving away leaving the civilians on the receiving end of the return fire, forced recruitment of the children to fight for the LTTE [1]. Aren't these also a "genocide"? Why is only one party being mentioned in this article? Also look at the use of the words. In the article, it says "Sinhala army" instead of Sri lankan army in some places. Unbelievable. Also regarding the "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" decision, the International Crisis Group says "The credibility of the quasi-judicial process was undermined by the absence of any attention to violations committed by the LTTE and the lack of input from representatives or advocates of the Sri Lankan government and military" in this report [4]. JohnWiki159 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a slanderous personal attack when you claim I'm working with these sock puppet abusers "as a group", especially when I have publicly opposed their unreliably sourced content. It's an attempt to smear.
    The UN system is not completely neutral as their own internal investigations have proven. Some UN officials were complicit in the massacres by downplaying and hiding them. To say that there was no genocide just because the UN has not said it yet is ludicrous. In order for the UN to recognise it would require legal proceedings to take place, which no UN member state is willing to initiate (as most are allied towards the Sri Lankan state not Tamils). So the UN as a whole is not a neutral arbiter.
    This is broadly an article on the genocide of Tamils by Sinhalese nationalists, hence the focus on genocidal acts by the Sinhalese dominated government. There are no reliable sources claiming that the LTTE committed genocide against Tamils. So no, their actions against Tamils are not "also a genocide".
    If you have a problem with words like Sinhala army those can easily be changed to Sri Lankan army, it's not a major problem. Finally, the International Crisis Group is a biased western government orientated research group and are not neutral either. They have openly lectured Tamils to renounce separatism. One of their former heads for example was involved in downplaying the East Timor genocide: http://www.etan.org/et2007/august/11/08gareth.htm. ICG's argument that a genocide tribunal against the Sri Lankan government was undermined by lack of focus on LTTE crimes does not disprove genocide. If someone commits genocide, the separate criminal actions of another person does not absolve them of genocide. The Sri Lankan goverment were invited to defend themselves at the tribunal, but they refused, so the tribunal cannot be blamed for that. Oz346 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You raised the question, "Aren't these also a genocide?" The term genocide is defined as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." This definition includes a physical element, which consists of the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
    Killing members of the group
    Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
    Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
    Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
    Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    I am afraid that the acts you claim to have been committed by the LTTE do not meet the criteria of genocide. The actions attributed to the LTTE, while grave and serious if they are true; however, do not appear to fit the specific legal and definitional criteria necessary to constitute genocide as outlined above. ALKBH5 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — ALKBH5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These pages are in watchlist hence editing them ,I have been editing Sri Lankan articles since 2006. The article does have WP:SIGCOV coverage and article with significant coverage cannot be deleted. 58 Editors have edited this page making 726 edits and that is substantial editing by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move:The page was created by a sock who also actively and openly canvassed at least on reddit and is affected by heavy sock and meatpuppetry. The charge of Genocide remains allegations and accusations, with no UN investigation establishing Dolus Specialis. Many of the sources used in the article are WP:SYNTH and references acts that are not Genocide and sources themselves make no mention of Genocide. There is also the issue of WP:TAGTEAM that needs to be addressed as well. -UtoD 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article. Several peer-reviewed sources are indexed by Google Scholar on this topic. The article has already gone through a discussion to merge, and a discussion to rename, and now a discussion to delete (see its talk page). There are several people who do not like the details in this article being seen on wikipedia. But that is not a valid reason to remove.Oz346 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep firstly it is a procedural close as the article is protected.There are scholarly sources about Tamil Genocide and particurly the Tamil massacre's in 2009 is called Genocide.Further G5 is not applicable as there has been that have been substantial edits by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that the 2009 Tamil massacre has its own dedicated article. There's no term "genocide" there. — kashmīrī TALK 08:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G5? It's not a speedy deletion! — kashmīrī TALK 08:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnWiki159 and also WP:SOAP. Wikipedia cannot be used for pushing an agenda. CharlesWain (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This The Peoples’ Tribunal Sri Lanka made a comprehensive ruling that qualified the events in Sri Lanka as genocide against the Tamil populace commit by the Sri Lankan government in accordance with international law. All major parties in Canada have recognized that a genocide took place on the island.@ HereforOnce777 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — HereforOnce777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable scholarly sources discuss Tamil Genocide. It passes WP:GNG. Articles well sourced cannot be deleted. Socking is not relevant as there have been substantial edits by others. 27.4.1.83 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — 27.4.1.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JohnWiki159. I came here from ANI report. This article is clearly making fun of the word "genocide" since no such genocide against the Tamils actually took place. Orientls (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal opinions do not matter. We don’t make up articles from thin air, either it has reliable sources backing up or not. If you ask a Turk, Armenian genocide didn’t happen. Well that is not good enough reason, just because you felt it didn’t happen. Prove it Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move there’s been enough use of the term that it can be acknowledged through an article; however, I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide in the academic or legal worlds for Wikipedia to deem it as such, and those who don’t want it called “allegation” seem to universally misunderstand what we mean when we say “allegation.” We’re not saying that the occurrence of the incidents themselves are “allegations” necessarily but the claim that they amount to genocide is, genocide being a specific legal term for which Wikipedia has certain standards to use. SinhalaLion (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe deleting it and adding the sepcific allegatiosn of Genocide back to the War Crimes page. Large sections of the article have nothing to do with the Genocide allegation and is more about seperate accusations like displacement, settler colonialism etc and many sources don't even mention Genocide as an allegation. Article is excessively bloated by WP:SYNTH. -UtoD 12:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article is very poorly sourced and draws a lot of its content from existing that seem to use the same sources. Advocates of this page [5] claim that there are many academic sources, however they have not assisted in the efforts undertaken to improve the quality [6]. Furthermore, from what I see there seems to be an underlying agenda at play here. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — Kalanishashika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really bad bias and POV. Littered with AI-generated text everywhere, such as "This act of reconstruction not only restored the physical monument but also served as a reaffirmation of the community's commitment to remembering the past and seeking justice. The rebuilding of the statue in Jaffna stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Tamil people and their continued struggle for recognition and reconciliation." Needs to be completely overhauled; blow it up and start all over again, WP:TNT. Florificapis (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Questionable passages like that can easily be removed or rectified without having to nuke the whole page. Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Florificapis: A WP:POVDELETION is, in fact, against WP:NPOV policy. –Konanen (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What a bad faith nomination, littered with procedural errors and personal attacks. A badly written article is no reason for deletion. A contested subject matter is not a reason for deletion. If enough reliable sources said that a genocide happened in Sri Lanka, then as an encyclopedia content creating community we can create an article. If the article is not written from neutral perspective or it is not balanced or uses peacock words we have enough notifications to improve the article. This is total hogwash, speedy close. Kanatonian (talk)
  • Draft-ify the current article is an embarrassment (partially because, per tradition, the The Wrong Version was protected; Special:Permalink/1225326372 is merely bad). It is argumentative, and has no clear topic-boundaries. Other articles, such as War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War, cover (most of) the topic area better. The one exception is about historiography in particular; the post-war discussions of whether the specific word "genocide" should be used are a coherent topic that isn't discussed elsewhere. This needs to be completely re-worked, and doing so in draft-space will hopefully lower the temperature. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Tamil genocide ever happened. War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. We should not trivialize the word "genocide". Lorstaking (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it's some times confusing in most of the world's warring fronts whether it's War Crime or Genocide happend, but there are enough books discuss on Genocide.Lustead (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No genocide against the Tamils ever happened contrary to this POVFORK. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 16:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a personal opinion with absolutely zero back up as to why HereforOnce777 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — HereforOnce777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lorstaking. Created by a sock, the article is sending a misleading message. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka so there is no issue with Wikipedia having an article on the subject. The nominator and others claim that the article is a WP:POVFORK but they haven't said from where - is there an article that says the genocide didn't happen? Others have stated that allegations of genocide can be included in the war crimes article but that article already exceeds size guidelines so it makes senses to have genocide in a separate article. Agree that this is a bad faith nomination by an Indian editor who has had no previous interaction with this article or any other Sri Lankan article. Same with his Indian friends CharlesWain, Orientls, Lorstaking, Pravega and Raymond3023. The only argument these meatpuppets can make for deleting the article is that it didn't happen. However, I do agree with the positive criticism by independent editors that the article is in a very poor shape. It lacks focus. I am open to suggestion of moving to draft space. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, various academic articles and books identifying it as a genocide, and plenty of documentation regarding various crimes against humanity that would constitute the definition of genocide. If the problem is that the article is poorly-written, then improve it to better reflect Wikipedia's standards without denying proven facts. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 11:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Canada has a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, and the article in dispute itself is linking to various pogroms against the Tamil committed in Sri Lanka. A genocide does not have to be successful or accepted by the perpetrators as such to receive the label; attempted genocide is still a genocide.
Konanen (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Canada recognises the Tamil genocide and there are several experts who either see evidence for a potential genocide or recognise it as genocide. The article definitely needs to be heavily rewritten and "Tamil Genocide Accusation/Allegations" would be a more appropriate title, but deleting it altogether would be ignoring history. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rayanblaq14 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canada does not recognise any "Tamil genocide". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it does "actually" constitute genocide or not it seems that there are plenty of sources discussing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 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.
  • Keep Cited sources like Rome-based Permanent Peoples' Tribunal found Tamil genocide happened. Let's respect the views of experts and ignore the personal opinions of nationalist users unqualified to make that judgement. Laxshen (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: several accounts !voting "keep" have either never been active in this topic or have not at all been active in recent months or years. There's a real possibility of off-wiki co-ordination. — kashmīrī TALK 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also an Indian editor, you too an Indian Editor; within an hour of this AfD nomination, you have come out with your comment. You should explain how it is possible. Lustead (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this topic Japanese or Indian? You are targeting people by imagining their nationalities as "Indian" despite the topic being also Indian. You edited after more than 1 year and 4 months only to vote on this AfD for saving this ridiculous article. That's why others believe that you have been canvassed. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has nothing to do with India. Did you even bother to read it before nominating it for deletion? Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is not Japanese or Indian, but Sri Lanka specific but why majority of the "Delete" votes are coming from Editors who have contributed India specific topics. I am involved since 2007 Sri Lanka War related topics, someone can't influence me, vote "Keep" .... but as I mentioned in the Keep vote above there are enough books discuss on Tamil Genocide and it's not ridiculous. A war which happened in the final phase by sending out the UN agencies in the war zone leaves room for War Crime and Genocide.Lustead (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is about Tamils who are mostly found in India. Even if you are going to deny that, then still, there is whole Tamil genocide#India on this article and content related to India has been mentioned a number of times outside that section as well. Your claim that this subject is unrelated to India is entirely false. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation relating with Tamils in India and other issues doesn't give enough justification why majority of the editors involved India related topics are here. You just nominated without any iota, others are just here to support you, that's all.Lustead (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lustead, any further ethno-national personalization will result in immediate sanctions. I've already blocked one user for it, so please be sure you live up to these standards. El_C 01:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who did not previously edit on this topic I want to note I found this AfD like I find many - via a noticeboard on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A cursory examination of Google Scholar demonstrates a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing it. These include [7] very recent work] on the topic of Necropolitics as it intersects with genocide, book chapters, and academic interviews. Considering the extensive and varied nature of the high quality sources on the topic I'm somewhat perplexed that anyone would claim this did not meet the WP:GNG threshold. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preponderance of reliable academic sources? Sanglap is of doubtful reliability, is published by an unknown publisher and has no impact factor. The other two are interviews and can't be used to establish notability (see WP:PRIMARY). Can you provide actual academic sources that can be used on Wikipedia? — kashmīrī TALK 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One is a book chapter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "book chapters" talk about the "Sri Lanka's war crimes" and that has been already covered at War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nominator wrote Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". An absurd statement like that gives me the impression that the nominator didn't even attempt an WP:BEFORE. There is quite clearly a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing the genocide of the Tamil people. The most basic of research would have demonstrated that to them. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to what I wrote above, when I performed a search using Jstor I found [8], [9] and [10] all of which reference the Tamil Genocide. When I performed a search using ProQuest I found [11], [12] and [13] all of which reference the Tamil genocide. As I wrote above a search on Google Scholar locates many more sources. TarnishedPathtalk 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, there are books with "Tamil genocide" in the title: [14] Ravenswing 18:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Book by Francis Boyle who is himself a human rights lawyer, noted for several cranky ideas. Absolutely not a good source when it comes to deciding WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Books by human rights lawyers are disqualified as reliable sources? Hm. That must be a new guideline. Could you link that for me? Ravenswing 04:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Human rights lawyers are well and truly qualified to talk about human rights abuses. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the alleged "cranky ideas" that you hyperlinked, it only confirms why Professor Boyle is indeed a qualified authority on this topic and your attempt to cast aspersions on him is baseless:
    "During the war for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Boyle became the first international-law legal adviser to the first Bosnia-Herzegovinian president, Alija Izetbegovic. Boyle prepared and filed with the International Court of Justice Case 91, also known as the Bosnian genocide case claiming that genocide took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Serbia was responsible for and complicit in that genocide. The final verdict of the case in 2007 stated that while Serbia had not committed genocide, genocide indeed had taken place in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Serbia was responsible for "failing to prevent and punish the genocide which it knew was taking place."---- Petextrodon (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    9 seems to talk about the use of the term genocide by the Tamil community rather than necessarily call what Sri Lanka did a "genocide." 10 is about poetry. 11 doesn't work, and 14 literally only shows one book with "Tamil genocide" in the title. I would even argue that 8 is largely about what the protesters saw as genocide. Hence "Tamil genocide accusation" may be more appropriate given what the WP:RS themselves say. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, even using Google Scholar, [15] refers to the allegation made by critics of Sri Lanka. I don't have access to [16] but I recall somehow coming across it some time back and, if I remember correctly, it said that what happened in Sri Lanka is better described as "proto-genocide" than "genocide." [17] I can't access but seems to talk about the protesters' allegation of genocide. Hence, "Tamil genocide accusation" or "Tamil genocide allegation" may be more appropriate. And this is ignoring that Google Scholar itself returns some hits that wouldn't be acceptable by Wikipedia's standards (e.g., I saw three master's theses). SinhalaLion (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SinhalaLion, It's an incomplete article yet even at this stage there are several competent authorities on the matter who used the genocide description: 1) Kingsbury (2012) 2) Short (2016) 3) ICJ Review 4) Permanent Peoples' Tribunal 5) Harman (2021) 6) Prof. Francis Boyle 7) Israel Charny (1994). I can also add PEARL (before my entire paragraph on sexual violence was unfairly removed due to revert war) although they aren't an academic journal but advocacy group with legal background whose founder has nevertheless published in journals and used the genocide description [1][2]. There are several more scholars who briefly describe the Sri Lankan state violence as genocidal which didn't make the article but can be added later somewhere, although the user Kashmiri already thought it was citation overkill. So, at what point do we say we have enough reliable sources? ----Petextrodon (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried not to remove any scholarly reference that would discuss the events as a genocide. It was rather duplicate references to mass media that I removed. — kashmīrī TALK 11:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response
    So, at what point do we say we have enough reliable sources?
    A lot more than what you’ve presented, to be honest. I haven’t read Kingsbury or Short — do they actually accuse Sri Lanka of genocide? One of the references you cited is an advocacy group airing its views. Even as per your argument, you have “brief” references to “genocidal” and I’m not sure that meets Wikipedia’s standards.
    Anyways, my comment was more to highlight the flaws in the methodologies proposed by other commenters that they claim back their stance. For anyone who actually takes a look, these methods get  thin pretty quickly. I’m also ignoring that Google Scholar returns hits that says that Sri Lanka didn’t commit a genocide. I’d say, overall, the case for Wikipedia call this page “Tamil genocide” is weaker than those of Bangladeshi genocide and Guatemalan genocide, though I’ll concede Black genocide and East Timor genocide I’m not so sure. But perhaps all this is immaterial to the overall question at hand since I’ve already voted to Keep (though I would want this article moved to the draft space for rework and renamed to accusation). SinhalaLion (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also Transgender genocide.
    "A lot more than what you’ve presented, to be honest."
    Isn't that subjective? What's the appropriate cutoff point? As for the aforementioned genocides, some of their sources too may only briefly mention genocide without detailed legal analysis. If dozens of detailed legal analysis by international law experts is the bar you're aiming for, I'm afraid many "less popular" genocides will fall short of it.---Petextrodon (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Transgender genocide is so poorly written and unfocused that I'd be willing to TNT it. — kashmīrī TALK 15:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whether there actually was a planned genocide of Tamils or not, the plain fact is that there are numerous reliable sources either claiming so or discussing the subject. That's enough to sustain an article on the subject, and I'm surprised at the number of non-newbie editors who are for some reason ignoring WP:N here. Aside from that, I won't belabor the disgusting fallacy that one needs to have demonstrated prior interest in South Asian articles to apply the same notability and verifiability standards here as applies to all articles. Ravenswing 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: to all editors voting Keep: since many of you refer to "numerous reliable sources" mentioning or discussing the term Tamil genocide, while providing 2–3 links at most, will you likewise argue to keep an article titled Palestinian genocide, given the existence of an incomparably higher number of sources mentioning or discussing the latter term? Or will you use a completely different yardstick, as the editors there have done? Because the issue of naming consistency in genocide-focused articles is of paramount importance, as it has already used an incredible amount of community time. — kashmīrī TALK 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe there has been a "genocide" against Palestinians, yes, had I participated in the October AfD, I would have voted to Keep, for the exact reason you proffer -- that it's a widely discussed topic with many reliable sources -- regardless of my personal opinion on the subject. Why? Were you expecting otherwise? Do you yourself allow your personal politico-ethnic views to override dispassionate applications of Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Ravenswing 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri, firstly WP:OTHERTHINGS applies here. Each subject should be evaluated on its own merits. Secondly, you can't expect every one who might participate in one AfD to participate in all AfDs. Thirdly, speaking for myself only, I voted along similar lines to what I did here when I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel. Not that it should matter to how I vote here because as I stated above WP:OTHERTHINGS. I really don't see that your question has any validity insofar as what keep voters might or might not do in other discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 05:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri, Yes I would, especially the current Gaza offensive which has striking similarities to the 2009 Mullivaikkal massacre (as several commenters have remarked) but with the reservation that definite wording may be premature as it's an ongoing conflict. That however didn't prevent you from giving the "strongest possible support" to recognizing Palestinian genocide as early as 3rd of March this year, when most of the accusations were about genocidal intent but barely any reliable source explicitly confirming genocidal actions.
As for the "higher number of sources", note that Palestinian genocide lede also includes progressive advocacy groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and a writing by a Palestinian doctoral student Rabea Eghbariah which was rejected by the Harvard Law Review (not that I have issues with them but you have challenged Tamil genocide article on similar grounds). However, it's also true Palestine has a greater media coverage since it has a lot of powerful international backers due to various geopolitical and religious factors, although far more Tamil civilians died in the 2009 Mullivaikkal massacre with UN complicity. Tamils have no such powerful backers, sometimes left forgotten. Even the Indian Hindu nationalists are known to justify persecution of the Tamil people due to their equating the Sri Lankan Tamil issue with Kashmiri separatism and ethnic bias against Tamil Nadu.
In any case, can we not also wonder whether you approach this topic with the same yardstick as you have done repeatedly in Palestinian genocide discussions? Your edit history here and in Tamil genocide article and its various talk discussions speaks for itself.---Petextrodon (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note: To aid the closer, participants are allowed to mark single-purpose and dormant accounts with {{spa}} or {{canvassed}}, respectively. But in the interest of transparency, these need to be accompanied by a sig + timestamp in small text (<small>text</small>) so that it's clear who had placed a given tag when. Thank you. El_C 19:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Genocide was committed by Sri Lankan military assisted by most of the western countries + India, Pakistan, china and Russia. Over 169,000 innocent Tamil people were slaughtered by the Sinhala military. Tamils were prosecuted by Sinhala since the independence of SL in 1948. Tamil genocide page is essential for public knowledge. Canada has acknowledged by the Tamil genocide and multiple US congressmen/women have voiced concern. A resolution was passed for Tamils to exercise self determination and an independent referendum for statehood. This page must not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.140.74 (talk)

  • Keep per sources provided above by TarnishedPath and supporting argument by Ravenswing, as well as other strong policy based arguments scattered throughout this thread. I agree with the criticism that the article needs cleanup, but that has nothing to do with its notability, and I'd be happy to help with said cleanup if we end on "keep". I have no background in this topic, and like a few others found this argument from the admin noticeboard; I'm frankly disgusted by the amount of comments above which ignore policy in favor of their own personal opinions. There's a reason for COI policies, and editors should steer well clear of arguing to delete articles just because they don't agree with what sources say. If reliable scholars are discussing "XYZ Genocide" then it is a notable topic, even if the world isn't in total agreement on the issue. Chiselinccc (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiselinccc 100% on what the reliable sources say, as against what other government recognise. We do reliable sources not original research. Additionally as you note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article can be improved, it's not at a WP:TNT point requiring starting from scratch. TarnishedPathtalk 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted by several "keep" arguments as well, the case of a "genocide" is not clear at all, as such I don't think we should be having article over a dubious subject. Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVOCACY. At best, a section can be created on War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to discuss whether any genocide really took place or not. Currently that article has some content about the "genocide" claims but it can be placed on a specific section. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I think the accompanying notes in this !vote are wilfully misleading, as I personally am unable to find any Keep !vote that actually questions the validity of a case for genocide. After all, it is not our purpose as Wikipedians to question the dubitability of valid sources from our WP:SOAPBOX, but to WP:ASSERT facts in a neutral manner. The topic is verifiably notable enough—by way of numerous valid sources (all linked to within this AfD discussion) confirming or arguing its existence—to warrant the topic’s inclusion to WP as an article. –Konanen (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abhishek0831996, can you please list who those several "keep" voters are who make an argument that the case of a "genocide" is not clear and provide specific quotes to back up your assertion? TarnishedPathtalk 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SinhalaLion said "I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide", Konanen said "attempted genocide is still a genocide,", Obi2canibe said "There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka". This confirms my comment thatthere is no clear case of genocide even according to several "keep" supporters. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As may be, but that's not relevant. The measure of the notability of a subject is that subject's coverage in reliable sources. Ravenswing 05:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I object. That is a misconstruction of what I said in my !vote. My, perhaps poorly worded, meaning was that a genocide does not have to have been successfully carried to completion to be considered as such, which can also be verified in the lead of Genocide:

    acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

     See also Genocidal intent. But, as Ravenswing accurately says, this point is not relevant to the validity and notability of the article. –Konanen (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not see a reason to delete given that 'Tamil genocide' is discussed by a plethora of reliable sources. This alone is sufficient ground to have an article, regardless of whether its status as genocide is questioned or not. Brat Forelli🦊 01:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had closed a recent RM concerning this article. I agree that the topic itself is unsubstantiated and has only passing mentions in sources, let alone passing WP:GNG. >>> Extorc.talk 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a terrible nomination by a user who has either lied about there being no one who recognized Tamil genocide or hasn't read the content he's disputing. The introduction to the article clearly cites several sources that do. The nominator mentioning a banned sock puppet has poisoned the well, and misleads voters, since it has no relevance to the current version. It's a bad faith nomination that makes an extreme claim and suggests an extreme solution.Airjordan2k (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamil_genocide&oldid=1226435838"