Talk:Tamil genocide

Enforced disappearances

@Petextrodon, can you please explain how you added this [1] content to the page? The sources you have cited does not mention any reference to genocide. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the overview of the issue. Not every single source needs to mention genocide. Analyses of genocide will be provided shortly.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Details are in the main article. You have not established the link to genocide in this section. Please establish consensus before adding content. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't given a policy-based explanation for your removal of that content. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Stop being disruptive.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, why did you restore content without gaining consensus? Kalanishashika (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"Please establish consensus before adding content."

Someone explained to you this wasn't a Wikipedia policy. So please cite the policy you're using to justify deleting content. If you continue to be disruptive, I will have to report you. Know that Sri Lanka is a contentious topic and continued disruptive behavior could result in a topic ban.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, Wikipedia:Consensus states that content that is disputed needs to be consensus. Why are persistent in putting this content. Please can you show me where the link to genocide and enforced disappearances is. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You need to dispute it for a valid reason. Your reason is that the given source doesn't mention genocide. I already explained to you I will provide it shortly and that source in question is meant to give a general overview of the issue. Please cite the policy that states Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika For your information, as per Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus":

"a single editor's objection does not establish "no consensus" for a change. ... the existing text ordinarily remains in place during a discussion and commonly prevails if the discussion fails to reach consensus. ... Reverting solely on the basis of "no consensus" suggests you simply did not like the edit."---Petextrodon (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, thank you for sharing that policy. I am sorry I used the term "no consensus", I think I picked that up from you. However, I feel the correct policy would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Kalanishashika (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No you did not pick that up from me. You "feel" it? That's not an explanation. You still need to justify your use of that policy and your continued revert in more details. This is becoming disruptive.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, thank you for adding the link between disappearance and the genocide claim. However, you have not linked the content in dispute with the claim for genocide. Please create the link and add the content. Kalanishashika (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN: Please cite the policy that implies Wikipedia prohibits giving general overview and all sources must mention genocide.----Petextrodon (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika, your latest revert with the explanation "removing primary source content per RSN discussion" makes no sense. You removed the unrelated content. That RSN was about citing the primary source court document by itself, but I didn't cite that. I cited a secondary reliable source reporting Fein's statements. Therefore, you've misused the policy and I encourage you to revert that. That RSN was opened after the now topic-banned user Cossde challenged the primary source and somehow you a new user found that discussion although they aren't the same cited sources. Some of your behavior pattern has been remarkably similar to this user. Perhaps I will be filing a report on potential off-Wiki coordination.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, let me respond to your accusations:

1. You don't seem to have read the RSN discussion. I am referring to AndyTheGrump's observations on the People’s Tribunal and I quote "The 'People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka' may or may not have legitimate grounds for alleging genocide, but Wikipedia certainly can't treat documents sourced to them as reliable for every allegation they make to support such claims." which clearly states that PPT cannot be used in this context.

2. As to how I found it. I was trying to understand if PPT reports can be directly citied here and wanted to create a RSN thread on it, like this one I did [2] and you have happened to comment on. However, before I did that, I did a search on RSN on "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" to find anything on it and it turned up this discussion. Since AndyTheGrump had explained PPT's place in Wikipedia, I decided against creating a new thread and used it since it was very clear.

Your accusation of "off-Wiki coordination" is very serious and I believe does not meet Wikipedia:Civility. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika That was YOUR responsibility to specify what you had in mind. If you were referring to that one particular comment, then you should have provided the diff instead. In any case, how does that one off-handed comment under unrelated topic justify your deleting the entire content here? You have misunderstood the Wiki policy. Primary source human rights reports can be cited as long as explicit attribution is provided so you can present them as views of particular sources and not as proven facts. I have already done that. Similar issue was raised about the ITJP and it was agreed for any controversial statement it can be explicitly attributed. Also PPT has been vetted and endorsed by other secondary reliable sources cited here: Short (2016) and Fernando (2014). They are a competent panel of judges with expertise in relevant fields.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, please don't put your failure to read a RSN discussion on me. It is your responsibility to use reliable sources for the content you add. Exceptional claims such as genocide needs high quality sources. You have not proven that Wikipedia accepts PPT as such. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the discussion was about an entirely different source and your citing an offhanded comment by one user does not justify your deletion of explicitly attributed content.

"You have not proven that Wikipedia accepts PPT as such"

Can you show me the policy which states a source that's cited by other RS and meets the notability criteria must go through RSN before it can be cited here? In fact, I and another user had to frequently deal with this exact issue from user Cossde and it's quite frankly obstructive. Is this pure coincidence?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika Your account seems to be solely focused on removing reliably sourced content about crimes committed by Sri Lankan government forces. The articles you removed like the BBC are reliable sources. Cited scholarly sources have argued that 'enforced disappearances' of thousands of Tamils are genocidal acts. That has already been made clear by those sources. Therefore, there is a place for other articles on the phenomenon to be cited in this section even if the word genocide is not directly mentioned by them. It is still directly relevant to the topic of 'enforced disappearances', a potential genocidal act, which has a place in this article. Oz346 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version of Charcoal feather can we please get consensus before adding or removing content.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards, why did you revert to the version of Charcoal feather, keeping the content recently added by Petextrodon and removing the changes done by me, including new content? You have not clearly explained here in the talk page. If your intention was to go back to the stable version you should have reverted to state before Petextrodon added the content in dispute. As pointed out by @Aoidh here [3], according to WP:BRD there is no need to gain consensus to delete newly added content in dispute. Kalanishashika (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika the 'new content' added by you is not absolutely necessary, and makes the passages more long winded than is needed. What is the point of adding that Wigneswaran led the northern provincial council? The resolution was not solely decided by him, it was voted in by the majority in the council. And the PPT has already been linked to its dedicated wikipedia article. What's the point of mentioning the Irish SL forum and Bremen group? The findings of the PPT were ultimately decided by the panel not the organisers of the event. Oz346 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346,@Petextrodon,@Pharaoh of the Wizards what you guys are saying is that I am not allowed to edit this article is it? We have Pharaoh of the Wizards reverting changes I did and keeping in place content Petextrodon added newly and was contested by me saying that I need to "get consensus before adding or removing content" when WP:BRD says otherwise, while Oz346 is justifying his removal of the content I added as "not absolutely necessary, and makes the passages more long winded than is needed". Kalanishashika (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika I did not remove anything. Stop making false accusations. And my reasons for not including that content still stand. I asked you a question, what is the purpose for including those details? Oz346 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it to the neutral editor Charcoal feather.Now if I have reverted wrongly I apologize and let anyone revert.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

US Congress resolution

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

Because it's a nothinburger. Any member of parliament is free to introduce any motion they want, even on a recognotion of Mars and Jupiter.[4][5] But as long as it's not voted on to become law, it's just a worthless piece of paper.

Same with personal opinions of two US House members. They mean exactly zero in law. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Who said it has to become a law to be included in a section about political recognition?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The introduction of the resolution is here, [6]. Was it accepted? (The text said 2014, not 2024--very confusing.) Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1230/text ---Petextrodon (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, this is a primary source and you seem to be analyzing it. Can you use a secondary source that does that. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Helping another user with link to the original material is not analyzing anything.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I am sorry. However, it would be if you use it in the article. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• As Kashmiri said; resolutions that pass the US Congress are generally symbolic rather than impactful. Resolutions that are merely introduced (and never debated) are completely unimportant. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute

@Oz346, the content you have reverted [7] has been disputed under Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, however you have failed to address these and seem to level fresh allegations at me and called these edits disruptive edits without engaging in the talk page, which I consider is against Wikipedia:Civility. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

1st revert: No consensus exists for the removal of this reliably sourced content (BBC News, scholarly publication by Springer), and most users have so far opposed your move.

2nd revert: Most users at RSN agreed with explicit attribution, not removal.

3rd revert: There was no discussion regarding Tamil Guardian at SLR but its status was arbitrarily decided 15 years ago by two users. TG is not being cited here for its own POV but its reporting on publicly verifiable events. There is no controversy that those U.S. legislators officially acknowledged the Tamil genocide. This can be seen from their very own official twitter handles embedded in the article itself: https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/us-legislators-officially-acknowledge-tamil-genocide Oz346 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Re. 1, read WP:ONUS. Wikipedia doesn't work on "consensus for removal" but on consensus to include.

Re. 2, I don't recall a RfC, so not sure how you've counted the votes.

Re. 3, legislators are people like you and me who may or may not proclaim their personal beliefs. Unless we're talking about official acts of the legislature, unrelated beliefs of its members are of little encyclopaedic value. Of course, personal beliefs held by two US guys have nothing to do with "international recognition" of a historical event in the legal or encyclopaedic sense. Much like information about two US legislators proclaiming a belief in God is of precisely zero worth to the article God nor a proof of God's existence. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

1. That reliably sourced content from the BBC and Springer scholarly publication are directly related to the 'Enforced disappearances' section. What is the valid reason to remove it?

2. Read the RSN discussion, the majority of users there recommended explicit attribution.

3. They are not just two random "US guys". They are US politicians. It is relevant to political recognition. Would you similarly oppose the inclusion of politicians recognising the genocide of Palestinians? Oz346 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Sources may be reliable; however, they have no mention of genocide, hence the removal. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This content should go into the article of its own, if not already there.

2. RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Infact, one editor went on to say that this was a bias source. How can an article have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with bias sources?

3. If this section is on politicians' recognition, then yes, this should be included. But then politicians recognize anything that has votes for them. Kalanishashika (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Enforced disappearances has been described as a genocidal act by scholarly sources. Therefore, general information on the phenomenon of enforced disappearances has a place in this article, it does not need to have genocide explicitly mentioned in every source. Enforced disappearances are still enforced disappearances. It is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is specifically on 'Enforced disappearances'.

2. Reliable sources can be biased. Most sources have biases, that does not determine if a source or reliable or not. In regards to this source, explicit attribution was given, and the source was authored by a scholar.

3. I agree it should be included. Oz346 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

1. We can only include them if enforced disappearances of Tamils in Sri Lanka have been termed as "genocide" by RS. Most enforced disappearances in the wolrld are not genocide.
2. I'm asking for a proof of "majority of users".
3. Individual members of the US House of Representatives have no power to "recognise" anything in their official capacity. They can express their personal beliefs, however the power of official recognition is restricted to the entire House through a vote. I object in the strongest terms possible to presenting someone's personal belief (with no legal ramification) as "international recognition". This would be misrepresentation and fake news of sorts.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Who here has used the term "international recognition"? Political recognition is more open-ended than state recognition so it can accommodate one sentence on US legislators introducing a resolution recognizing Tamil genocide. You make it sound like these are the personal beliefs of some random guys on the street. They recognize Tamil genocide on their political capacity and not as private US citizens.

What is your point regarding the enforced disappearances revert? Are you saying you agree with the other user on removing Lutz Oette, a human rights specialist, because the publisher of the report is a Tamil organization? There seems to be a conflict of interest in your edit history on this topic where you have consistently taken a stance opposite of the "strongest support possible" you gave to Palestine genocide recognition where you have not similarly challenged the pro-Palestinian sources. Would you say a report on Palestinian genocide written by a western human rights specialist should be excluded even with explicit attribution because it's published by a Palestinian organization? That's essentially what the other user is arguing for. You have consistently challenged my edits even by teaming with them but have not challenged their edits or arguments. This doesn't look like neutral arbitration.---Petextrodon (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Notably Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources is not the source of truth on community consensus regarding reliability of sources. Such discussions occur at WP:RSN. TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, RSN discussion failed to reach a consensus that this is a reliable source. Do you say we should review other sources that have been attributed to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation? Kalanishashika (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kalanishashika your view that WP:RSN failed to reach consensus does not necessarily make a source unreliable. Others have stated that their takeaway was that the material relying on the source should be attributed.

As per whether other sources listed at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation should be reviewed, I can't give you an answer because I only looked at that specific source and an editor closing the discussion from the limited discussion that occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources#http://www.tamilguardian.com with the determination that the source is unreliable is quite frankly lacking in vigor. Without much scrolling though I see other sources where there is only the participation of two editors and then determinations of sources being unreliable as if an RfC had occurred. If you want a better view of whether any particular source is reliable or not, given a specific usage, you should take it to WP:RSN. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, yes, what you say make sense. We can't take the WikiProject classification the source of truth. However, who should take this to RSN? Shouldn't it be editor who introduced it? I am happy to take it RSN, however, I have been called names for doing it. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I've also been called names. Only hours ago I had a random IP editing my user talk calling me a "loser". I would suggest being proactive if you thing there is a dispute. TarnishedPath^talk 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)