Talk:Mullivaikkal massacre

UN panel report on human shields accusation
Here is the verbatim quote from the UN panel report (page 65) which has more weight than the UN Human rights council statement which was politically motivated and not free of controversy:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/27/sri-lanka-un-rights-council-fails-victims

Therefore, it is controversial say the LTTE used human shields, and it should not be put in to the text as if it is a fact:

"1. Using civilians as a human buffer 237. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: Credible allegations point to a violation of Common Article 3’s ban on the taking of hostages insofar as they forced thousands of civilians, often under threat of death, to remain in areas under their control during the last stages of the war and enforced this control by killing persons who attempted to leave that area. (With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))".

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/poc-rep-on-account-in-sri-lanka.php Oz346 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The UN Panel report also doesn't say "large majority" of the civilians were killed by Government forces. It says "majority" of the civilian casualties were caused by Government Shelling. User Obi2canibe in this [|edit] used the same document I used to insert the "large majority" phrase which is a "politically motivated and not free of controversy" document according to you. You had no problem with that edit. But now, when I insert something using that same document, it is "politically motivated and not free of controversy" according to you. Therefore, I am removing the "large" word from the first paragraph and the reference as it is "politically motivated and not free of controversy" to maintain neutrality.


 * Moreover, the Human Rights Watch clearly say they LTTE used civilians as human shields. This HRW report talks about violations by LTTE and Sri lankan Armed forces


 * https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/02/19/war-displaced/sri-lankan-army-and-ltte-abuses-against-civilians-vanni JohnWiki159 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The large majority being killed by government shelling is not controversial regarding the UN documents. The UN panel document does not contradict the petrie report claim. A large majority is still a majority. They are not mutually exclusive. The petrie report just gave more detail on the quantity. So your tic for tac edit is unjustified. However, the human shields claim is DIRECTLY contradicted by the UN panel report. The reality is human rights watch incorrectly used the term human shields, not being familiar with the precise legal definition (the UN panel report settled on the LTTE keeping the population hostage as opposed to human shields). So there is definitely a contradiction there between two reliable sources.Oz346 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"It is in this zone where it is believed up to 40,000 entrapped Tamil civilians were killed"
Illogical to use estimates that include deaths outside of Mullivaikkal in an article with the name "Mullivaikkal massacre".

For the period from 13 January 2009 to the end of the war, i.e. Approximately 5 months, the UN Panel report states, "A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths." and "Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage."

The final NFZ was set on/around the 8th of May 2009.

The following sources do not appear to claim that up to 40,000 civilians were killed in Mullivaikkal:

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-united-nations-justice-war-crimes-inquiry

No reference to 40,000.

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-19843977

"A UN investigation said it was possible up to 40,000 people were killed in those five months alone. Others suggest the number of deaths could be even higher."

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8016965.stm

No reference to 40,000

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20308610

"An earlier UN investigation said it was possible up to 40,000 people had been killed in the final five months alone. Others suggest the number of deaths could be even higher."

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/un-seeks-special-court-to-investigate-sri-lanka-war-atrocities

"An earlier UN report found that up to 40,000 civilians, almost all Tamils, may have been killed in a final army offensive ordered by Rajapaksa in the last months of the civil war, though the government disputes that figure."

[6] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-report-urges-sri-lanka-to-set-up-war-crimes-tribunal-1442410248

Behind a paywall, only partially viewable. The viewable text does not mention 40,000.

[7] https://news.yahoo.com/tamil-leaders-honor-dead-sri-lankan-war-battle-114725796.html

"Hmmm... the page you're looking for isn't here. Try searching above."

[8] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/british-envoy-banned-in-war-without-witnesses-1609188.html

No reference to 40,000.

[9] https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/sri-lanka-massacred-tens-thousands-tamils-while-world-looked-away

"One UN report concluded that as many as 40,000 Tamils may have died, mostly as a result of government shelling."

--Jayingeneva (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is very disappointing, and very telling, that you are now going around claiming that the 40,000 figure to be false. Not only is this figure reliably sourced in number of Wikipedia articles, including Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and Sri Lankan Civil War, it was provided with reliable sources in the WP:DRN and the mediator chose to include the 40,000 figure in the lede. Why are you doing this?--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The name of the article is "Mullivaikkal massacre". Do you agree it is invalid to include deaths outside of Mullivaikkal? If you read and understand the UN documents, then you would know that the estimates by "credible sources" include deaths outside of Mullivaikkal. If you can find a WP:RS that states "up to 40,000 entrapped Tamil civilians were killed" in Mullivaikkal, please, go ahead and add the source to the Article. Introducing rigour into poor citation use in Sri Lankan Conflict articles need not invoke emotive terms like "disappointing" and "very telling". Please focus on the content. --Jayingeneva (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Mullivaikkal massacre is the term used to describe the massacre of civilians trapped in the No Fire Zone. As with many incidents/battles, it was named after the main settlement, which in this case was the tiny village of Mullivaikkal. P.S. It is difficult to "focus on the content" when you go around trying to get editors whom you have disagreements with blocked.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you agree it is invalid to include deaths outside of the Mullivaikkal No Fire Zone? If you can find a WP:RS that states "up to 40,000 entrapped Tamil civilians were killed" in the Mullivaikkal No Fire Zone, please, go ahead and add the source to the Article. Don't blame me if the WP:DRN mediators considered the conduct of editors abhorrent and decided a ban was required. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)