This is an archive of past discussions about Tamil genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What's uncontroversial is adding a deletion tag once the AfD has been created. I don't think Ymblanter's full protection should bar someone from nominating the article for deletion - the protection is intended to stop edit warring which a deletion nomination is the exact opposite of, but I'll let them do the honors. * Pppery *it has begun...03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
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 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.
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)
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.
The following discussion 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.
And your account was created in parallel with this page in May. Do you have another account that you have edited wikipedia with? Oz346 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
your first throwaway edits on cricketers/politicians (before you moved on to your main topic of interest, articles on government crimes against Tamils, namely the Tamil genocide page) cited a obscure policy not commonly known to Wikipedia novice editors (BLP:crime). This makes me suspect a more experienced editor. Oz346 (talk) 14:04, 31 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.
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)
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[4] or student-created publications[5], while reports published by small Sri Lankan Tamil nonprofits[6] need to be properly attributed. Please be so kind and remove references to sources unsuable on Wikipedia. Thanks. — kashmīrīTALK21:49, 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 notvandalism. 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. — kashmīrīTALK12:09, 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.
@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:
@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. — kashmīrīTALK12:30, 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)
@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. — kashmīrīTALK13:05, 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)
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)
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)
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.
@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. — kashmīrīTALK13:11, 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.
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)
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[7]
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.
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.
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". — kashmīrīTALK00:26, 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)
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. — kashmīrīTALK16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
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. — kashmīrīTALK21:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
"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."
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).
@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.
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. — kashmīrīTALK21:44, 14 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)
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
5 Books of unrenowned publishing houses, including one called Eelam Research Organisation
12 peer reviewed journals (grade of journal not reviewed, one called Scholarly Undergraduate Research Journal)
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 report from Human Right Watch
2 reports from Amnesty International
1 report from Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
1 report from the International Commission of Jurist
Human right advocacy groups based in Sri Lanka or solely focused on Sri Lanka
University Teachers for Human Rights (4 references to it website)
Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (1 article)
North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESHOR) (Collection of reports)
The International Truth and Justice Project (1 report)
Government publications
9 Publications, statements and hearings from Other Governments (including 2 reports from Toronto district school board)
4 Publications and statements from the Sri Lankan government
News media
25 articles from media outlets including international ones (BBC, Guardian, New York Times, etc.) and local ones from other countries.
10 articles from Tamil cultural and media organizations/groups.
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.
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)
(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".
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."[8].
Sources that can be cited for their opinion (not fact) with explicit attribution.
Permanent Peoples' Tribunal - These appear to be what themselves calls opinion tribunals[10] and seems to lack legitimacy[11]. 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.
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.)
@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. ISBN0 9510073 0 0.
De Votta, Neil (2004). Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford University Press. p. 127. ISBN9780804749237.
Kingsbury, Damien (2012). Sri Lanka and the Responsibility to Protect: Politics, Ethnicity and Genocide. Routledge. pp. 82–93. ISBN978-0-415-58884-3.
Short, Damien, ed. (2016). Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide. London, UK: Zed Books. ISBN978-1-84277-930-9.{{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.
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.
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.
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.[12]. 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. — kashmīrīTALK11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
You keep on mentioning lack of complaints to international courts [13], 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. — kashmīrīTALK13:43, 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 - 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)
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) buidhe05:05, 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. -UtoD16:19, 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. — kashmīrīTALK19:51, 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)
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, ethniccleansing, 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. — kashmīrīTALK20:27, 18 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.
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.
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. — kashmīrīTALK13:33, 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)
I told you several times - a lawmaker believing in something is not the same as official recognition by a country. There are lawmakers believing in UFO, in flat earth, in Virgin Mary, in quack science, etc. Two US lawmakers acknowledging Tamil genocide might be useful from the advocacy perspective, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY and such info is WP:UNDUE, while presenting the acknowledgement as an official recognition by the US establishment is misleading (or, colloquially, nonsense). — kashmīrīTALK19:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
As I already told you, there was a controversy over whether Canada was a state-level recognition which was the reason we renamed the subsection title to political recognition. I'm not going to repeat this over and over again.
"There are lawmakers believing in UFO"
Except they issued the statements in their official capacity as members of Congress.
@Kashmiri, Why did you delete my contribution to the UN response section? Is a major story by the BBC on UN's conduct during the war also undue weight? --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:35, 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)
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)
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)
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. — kashmīrīTALK16:14, 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. — kashmīrīTALK16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
//All various subtypes of persecution should be at most in level-3 headings. Also, there should be no empty level-2 sections.// Where does the Manual of Style say that? Oz346 (talk) 17:04, 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)
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. — kashmīrīTALK14:27, 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)
There is no consensus to remove it and the content is sourced. There was consensus to add it no one opposed it then Dowrylauds (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
No consensus is required to remove incorrect or controversial content, unless there was a prior consensus to add it. — kashmīrīTALK19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe There's no consensus requried to add content, however when that content is being challenged by other editors, a wise way is to follow WP:BRD instead of stubbornly re-adding it. — kashmīrīTALK18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe, can you please explain to me how Wikipedia allows two editors (Oz346 and Petextrodon) to add content willingly [14], [15], [16] (just last week) and then demand that consensus should be reached to removing or changing them while (as far as I can see) one of them Oz346 is clearly refusing to come to a consensus. I mean this does not make sense. It's like you push whatever you want and then stop anyone from changing it or removing it saying go and gain a consensus beforehand and then block that. This ridiculous, is this how Wikipedia works? Kalanishashika (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri and Dowrylauds: I hope both of you are aware of Wikipedia's policy on Edit Warring, especially WP:3RR. Please start a new discussion on this page to get a consensus before making further edits.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: I am sorry - I don't see how that's relevant? And how do you even know I had a previous account altogether? If you are concerned about any relation to this topic, I have not made any recent edits on this or related pages (except reverting obvious vandalisms, if any). My previous account has been WP:RETIRED years ago, and this account was an effort to do a WP:Clean Start as my previous account disclosed identifying information. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I just had this page on my watchlist and noticed the ongoing edit war and decided to intervene. If you are concerned about the warning I issued to you, you should notice that I issued a similar warning to the other involved editor as well. I don't like how you took to making false assumptions about me here and used language that would imply I am lying. I will be taking this matter to a relevant admin noticeboard. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pharaoh of the Wizards, what you have done seems very odd. When I checked your edit history you have gone and reported kashmīrī for edit warning [17] without reporting Dowrylauds who has done a lot of reverting. Then you have gone and reverted a whole lot of changes in the article after Goldenarrow9 asked for page protection [18] which seems to have locked in the changes you did, giving a sort of final say. Are you an Admin? Kalanishashika (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a clear WP:3RR rule. More than 3RR is a offence, not anything less. Dowrylaud only reverted 3 times, as opposed to Kashmiri's 7 reverts within 24 hours. Oz346 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Something doesn't look right here, all the editors (Oz346, Petextrodon, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Goldenarrow9) who seem to want to keep current content that seem to have been added by Oz346, Petextrodon and Okiloma this month have openly opposed changing the name of the article [19] as well. I mean is it me or is this some form of group or coalition? Kalanishashika (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
just to be clear. I've not made any comments for or against any content. Neither have I made any edits to the actual page. My request for protection was filed with kashmiri's changes intact at that point and some other editor reverted the changes before the page protection request was granted. I'm not taking any sides here except highlighting the obvious edit war and personal attacks going on here. I haven't even gone through the changes to have an opinion of it. My participation in the move request is also unrelated (saw it at a wiki project dashboard). Goldenarrow9 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for the others, but I stand by my stance in opposing calling these genocidal acts as mere 'allegations'. Oz346 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Call it a SPA if you want, but I think you need to provide specific evidence and not just a gut feeling before you start throwing around accusations of canvassing. TarnishedPathtalk16:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes I know they are socks. But is it an actual Wikipedia policy that users who use socks are automatically discounted in voting even if they haven't used the socks in the same discussion? ---Petextrodon (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes it is actual WP policy. Socks get no voice and everything they do is acceptable to revert or strike. I was almost considering shutting down a whole RfC last week, but thought better of it, because it was started by a sock. TarnishedPathtalk13:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Behavioural. A user logging in into an old account that hasn't edited in three years, only to comment on a specific AfD has in all probability been canvassed to do that. This one has apparently misunderstood the instruction to type "keep". — kashmīrīTALK14:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
But not the fact the first thing you saw when you entered the article until today was a red banner at the top saying it's been nominated for deletion? Sloppiness could also be evidence of lack of coordination. It doesn't surprise me why people of Sri Lankan Tamil background would show interest in this article. What's intriguing to me is the mainly India topic contributors being hellbent on deleting it.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Your guesses about what is probably the case don't count as the sort of evidence where you can start casting those sorts of WP:ASPERSIONS. If you're going to make those sort of specific accusations against individual editors you should provide specific evidence which uncontroversially supports your accusation. TarnishedPathtalk16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've spent enough time at SPI to recognise SPAs and similar suspicious accounts. I don't intend to discuss all the available evidence when tagging, and it's not the usual practice.
@Petextrodon: Sure, go believe that people get on Wikipedia for the first time, find an orphan article, and register an account only to take part in a deletion discussion. And so many of them one after another.
I see no problem with usage of the SPA tag when an account is newly created and has contribution history showing little edits in other topics. However if you're going to accuse specific editors of being canvased then the least I expect is a link showing that particular editor was canvased. If you provide anything less then you're open to challenge. TarnishedPathtalk13:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Behavioural evidence is evidence. New or resurrected accounts descending en masse on a single AfD out of the blue are undoubtedly canvassed. We don't carry out forensic investigation each time the community processes are blatantly abused. — kashmīrīTALK13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No, they are not "undoubtedly canvassed". By your logic when I participated in RfCs and/or discussion after coming back after a 9 year brake, a year ago, I must have been canvassed. I didn't claim that you need a 'forensic investigation', however you should have at least an ounce of specific evidence. TarnishedPathtalk13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Is a book entitled "Redefining genocide" a good source for claims of genocide?
A sentence like The Sri Lankan military's control and domination of the Tamil population, along with systematic land grabs have been described as part of a "genocidal process that is destroying the land-based political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental foundations" of the Tamil community., sourced to "Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide" is clearly trying to use a POV-pushing source to make words appear to be in Wikipedia's voice. The book is not available on Google Books, but its Amazon blurb describes it as "highly controversial". We should not be quoting it directly like this. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a full quotation, it can be explicitly attributed. Then it will be clear it is not directly in "wikipedia's voice" as you say. Oz346 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
An author attempting to redefine genocide is not the best choice to substantiate claims of genocide. We need to refer to the exiting legal framework, and not to someone putting forth their original theories. — kashmīrīTALK21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri Perhaps reading beyond title helps. Anyway, the editor Damien Short is a competent authority on the matter and it's an academic publishing. Short has been widely cited at Palestinian genocide accusation too. Genocide interpretation, especially its psychological element which in most cases is inferred based on circumstantial evidence, is subjective and genocide scholars have urged going beyond the politically motivated framing of the UN convention. Our only concern here should be whether it's reliably published source. It is however intriguing how you didn't show this concern when you gave the "Strongest support possible" to Palestinian genocide recognition in an ongoing conflict. We will be eagerly waiting for your dissection of sources at Palestinian genocide talk discussions!---Petextrodon (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no problem with studies aiming at redefining genocide, considering a wider range of factors, etc. This sounds like a good material to include in Genocide. But for this article we need evidence that the mainstream academia at all agrees on the genocide label. Like, it's not enough to find 5 authors who think so: we need to present the mainstream view. Currently, the mainstream view doesn't appear to support the "Tamil genocide" concept, and academics prefer to talk about war crimes. — kashmīrīTALK09:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
This is interesting. Damien Short is certainly reliable as a subject matter expert. However, this work of his has been described as "highly controversial and original work" in his own profile in the University of London [20]. It goes on to say he "systematically rethinks how genocide is and should be defined" using case studies in Palestine, Sri Lanka, Australia and Alberta, Canada. Hence this needs to be carefully used since according to Wikipedia:No original research, this might not be "the most reliable source" since it is not a book that was published by a university press. Therefore, if it is going to be used it needs to be very carefully used, by first describing Short's redefinition of genocide, as his classification of the Tamil Genocide is not under the current definition of Genocide as Short's original work is not included in Genocide (correct me, I couldn't find it) and then include in his words how it applies to Sri Lanka. Else there is a fair risk that Short's theory would be accepted as mainstream thinking (which is not, hence the tag "highly controversial") and worse taken as fact, especially if the whole article is based on it. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The term genocide does not have one fixed definition. So talking about it like it is already set in stone does not make sense. There is the original definition by Raphael Lemkin and there is the definition accepted by the UN. Both overlap to a fair degree, but there is some slight differences. And it's an utter falsehood to say that the Tamil genocide does not fall under the current UN or original Lemkin definition as other genocide scholars have adjudicated, most notably in the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal. Oz346 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Oz346, what you said is editorial synthesis. This is what Wikipedia:No original research tells to avoid. This is exactly why we need more high-quality reliable sources that analyze the original thinking by people like Short and the findings/judgements of quasi-judicial bodies like the PPT. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
"and worse taken as fact"
Mass killing of Tamils happened in Sri Lanka. That's a fact. Whether that constitutes "genocide" is subject to interpretation of scholars. This isn't exactly a science and we shouldn't treat it as such. As Short notes, the most frequently cited definitions of genocide are from sociologists and their interpretations of genocide go beyond the UN convention thus can also be "controversial" (e.g. they expand victim category to include political groups). We don't need to concern ourselves with these controversies. What matters for us is whether enough RS literature exists.
Also note that A. Dirk Moses, a leading genocide scholar, writes in "The Problems of Genocide" (pp. 395-396) that Bangladeshi genocide hasn't been generally recognized due to the traditional Holocaust paradigm that treats genocide as a non-political hate crime, thus mass killings in civil wars can't be regarded as genocides. But the article exists in Wikipedia regardless of UN recognition or academic consensus since enough sources support it.---Petextrodon (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Please note that in no place did I suggest that this was or was not a genocide. Also I did not vote yes or no. I keep stressing that we need to demonstrate an academic consensus, which for now has not been done while sourcing in this article remains disastrous. If we see that key sources on the Tamil war agree on labelling it as an act of genocide, I'll be the first in line to support it. But for now we're building an encyclopaedia based on existing sources, and I simply don't see anything close to a widespread scholarly support for the idea. — kashmīrīTALK18:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon, please don't take my comments out of context. When I said "worse taken as fact" I was referring to Short's rethinking on how genocide should be defined, and not mass killings. Kalanishashika (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
As I read the above discussion, I see there being two different terms used here: genocide (involving killings), and cultural genocide. And an enormous temptation to engage in WP:SYNTH by claiming that sources talking about one of those terms proves something about the other term. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Implicit "the ethnic conflict" in the lead
@Oz346: Regarding this revert, the point is that the current usage of the ethnic conflict in the lead implicitly assumes that the reader knows to which conflict (or which ethnicities) it refers. But a specific conflict isn't mentioned up until that point. Sinhalese people aren't mentioned nor linked in the lead (nor even the first section) either.
Thanks. It's also probably worth mentioning the years (roughly), since this article is focused on the mid/late-20th century onwards. — MarkH21talk08:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
