Talk:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka

Attributing primary sources
@Oz346, please detest from WP:Edit waring. WP:PRIMARY is clear in stating "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Which was the conclusion of Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425. That in controversial cases that attribution must be made. Cossde (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources Its a RS, and it has been used with care. It is not controversial. Members of the Sri Lankan security forces have raped. That is the mainstream scholarly consensus, it's not a fringe view. This is a far more reliable source than the Sri Lankan newspapers you cite without explicit attribution (again as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. If this RS is made to be explicitly attributed, then all the Sri Lankan newspapers also need explicit attribution as they have been known to lie and distort (as supported by other reliable sources). Oz346 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:FALSEBALANCE and summarization
@Cossde, Please explain how my recent edits go against wiki guidelines. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am unable to engaged in disscussions with editors who have failed to engage in WP:CIVIL. Cossde (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting removal of cited content from the WP:RS with no attribution per  WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources. Cossde (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dispute isn't about the reliability of UTHR but adding a content that UTHR explicitly describes as a "grapevine" which is again explicitly forbidden on wikipedia as per WP:NOTSCANDAL:
 * "Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for ... promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping."
 * Since you re-added the content, the burden is on you to demonstrate why it should be included.
 * You didn't explain rest of your reverts. I suggest you explain every single content that you reverted and stop edit warring while we discuss it. --- Petextrodon (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You are not making sense here. Are you saying that UTHR is relaiable or not? Cossde (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to edit war while we are in middle of a discussion despite being repeatedly warned not to. Do you reject that you as the user who adds a disputed content have the burden of reaching a consensus in the talk discussion before you brute force your edit?
 * Keep in mind that according to WP:ONUS: "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted...The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
 * Once again, I warn you, stop edit warring and please explain every single one of your reverts since grapevine isn't the only issue here.
 * As for UTHR, let me repeat myself:
 * Dispute isn't about the reliability of UTHR but adding a content that UTHR explicitly describes as a "grapevine" which is again explicitly forbidden on wikipedia as per WP:NOTSCANDAL: "Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for ... promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping."
 * Did you even bother to read the source before you re-added content from it, considering your very first revert after my edit was quick? --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cossde I'm still waiting for your constructive response. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, you failed to gain consensus before removing existing content. I was reverting to return the page to its status quo, before your arbitary dissision to remove cited content, on your personal interpritations. Even your reporting of me did not find that I violated any rules.Cossde (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * is saying that this particular UTHR citation is something that UTHR itself explicitly describes as "heard through the grapevine", and that things "heard through the grapevine" are explicitly forbidden from wikipedia. It is nothing to do with whether UTHR is reliable or not. Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cossde The burden is on the one ADDING it. I gave explanation and you've yet to give a response other than just insisting it's a RS without dealing with the specific content. And no, I wasn't the one who reported and it was about edit warring, not the content. The admin did say: "although I would agree there are issues here." --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, so you are saying that UTHR is publishing content that is un-reliable since it publishes content it hears on the grapevine, that undermines UTHR as a WP:RS. Which means according to you UTHR can not be used as an WP:RS. Cossde (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I second Petextrodon.Cossde Please get consensus.Tame Rhino (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tame Rhino, welcome to WP. Please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Both you and Petextrodon are removing content from WP:RS. Cossde (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it "vandalism" if they engage in the talk discussion? But @Tame Rhino should still explain their edits in the Edit summary. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. What you say makes no logical sense. If it tried to pass "through the grapevine"" as fact then it would be an issue with fact checking. But it isn't. It explicitly says it is through the grapevine. A RS can mention it. That's not a problem. Oz346 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think actually reading the source material before engaging in a discussion over it would benefit all of us. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You know what would be more benefital for all. Selecting a RS properly. You two are saying that UTHR is a RS and then you are saying that its a gossip colume, publishing things on the "through the grapevine". Can you please make up your mide what it is. Cossde (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mentioning something is through the grapevine does not affect the reliability of a source. That's your own personal opinion, not Wikipedia's policy. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. I never once said UTHR was a gossip column. It is undoubtedly a RS as the Wikipedia admin has already independently adjudicated. However, it is Wikipedia's own policy not to mention things from "though the grapevine". Oz346 (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, if as yourself said UTHR has been established as an RS in WP, then it means any content published in it can base considered reliable. Cossde (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * no it does not mean that. If a RS mentions a rumour, the only reliable thing that can be said about it, is that it's reliably a rumour. And wikipedia does not allow rumours as per its policies. Oz346 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it is not, if a source is mentioning rumours it is not a RS as it fails fact checking. If it is an stablished RS, and it publishes content then said content can be accepted as reliable. You can't have it both ways. You have to pick one. @Oz346 what is it going to be? Cossde (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * no it doesn't fail fact checking, because it never claimed it was a fact. Oz346 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * UTHR has published it and what an RS as published can be taken as a fact. If not what use is an RS? Cossde (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * UTHR calls something a rumour ---> then it should be taken as a rumour
 * UTHR calls something a fact ---> then it should be taken as a fact
 * That's how RS works.
 * What you are saying does not make any sense at all. Oz346 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. According to what you are saying unless UTHR explicitly tells that ABC is a fact, ABC is not a fact? Cossde (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am saying this:
 * If UTHR explicitly tells ABC is rumour, it cannot be taken as a fact.
 * Do you still disagree? Oz346 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait you just said "UTHR calls something a fact ---> then it should be taken as a fact" and "UTHR calls something a rumour ---> then it should be taken as a rumour" and now you say "If UTHR explicitly tells ABC is rumour, it cannot be taken as a fact". Can you please make up your mind. Cossde (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have said is contradictory. I am saying the following:
 * FACT = FACT
 * RUMOUR = RUMOUR
 * RUMOUR ≠ FACT Oz346 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * x = x
 * y = y
 * y ≠ x Oz346 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the UTHR article. UTHR doesn't seem to use the term "fact". So that means non of whats said is fact per your logic. Cossde (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It's make factual statements which are to be taken as facts. E.g. if it said "Sally went to the shop on 12th June", that would be taken as a fact.
 * In contrast, if it said 'It was heard through the grapevine that Sally went to the shop on 12th June", that would be taken as a rumour. Oz346 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that your interpretation or can you please show me where in WP its says so. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, waiting for your answer. Cossde (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RS can also describe grapevines that are circulating without passing them off as verified facts. What part of that simple concept that is difficult to understand? --- Petextrodon (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * UTHR says it's a rumour. So it should be taken as a rumour. I can't make this any more simpler. Oz346 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346, yet again I ask you is that your interpretation or can you please show me where in WP its says so.Cossde (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, is that your interpretation or can you please show me where in WP its says so. Cossde (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346 Give your reasons for reverting the recent edits. JohnWiki159 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, waiting for your answer?Cossde (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @JohnWiki159 I was the one who added the "According to the anti-LTTE". It's reasonable for a controversial allegation for which there's no other verifiable source given that the UTHR has been noted for being anti-LTTE and also UTHR itself admitted it published wrong and damaging allegation against the LTTE. See the reception and TRO incident in UTHR's page itself for more information.--- Petextrodon (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon once again is that your interpretation? It contradicts UTHR's classification as an WP:RS in WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources with no attribution. Are you saying the UTHR's classification here is wrong? Cossde (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @JohnWiki159, By the way, adding another source (Elisabeth Jean Wood) which only summarizes the UTHR report doesn't make the claim any more valid. --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, thank you very much for briging this key point. I missed it altogether. This is a very valid point indeed. This is exactly why WP advices to avoid Primary sources stating in WP:PRIMARY "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so". Clearly you Petextrodon and Oz346 are interpreting UTHR and even going far as to claim it as anti-LTTE in your interpretation. JohnWiki159 has done the correct thing here and refere to a Secondary source as stated in WP:PRIMARY. Cossde (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again you obviously didn't even read the source because Wood is merely describing the fact that UTHR issued such reports, not necessarily agreeing with the allegations. Also, UTHR is described as anti-LTTE by other sources as detailed in its own page, and not our personal interpretation as you allege. I'm warning you to stop edit warring while the talk discussion is active. --- Petextrodon (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again you resort to interprite sources. The sources you say that describ UTHR anti-LTTE doenst seem to have effect its WP:RS review in WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources as it has been listed as a RS with no attribution. Therefore, I am sorry but your own interprite here doesnt mean much. Unless ofcouse you feel that the WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation review is wrong. Cossde (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to say, partly due to use of words not found in the English language.
 * RS can be attributed when other RS contradict it. If you read the introduction of this page, you would know even more reputable source like the UN which had more resources to investigate the matter states LTTE didn't commit sexual violence. Unlike the UTHR, the UN didn't call LTTE as "fascist" and falsely accuse it of abduction and murders done by GoSL forces. So there's a conflict of interest here. By the way, unlike the recent sources we vetted through SLR project, older sources (with the exception of TamilNet) didn't go through any discussion at all. In fact, pro-state or state-funded Sri Lankan newspapers (The Island, Daily News) need to have their status revised to QS. Thanks for reminding me. --- Petextrodon (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, you have now openly questioned UTHR as an WP:RS, although it has been established and used in WP for many years. This is not the fourm to have its status changed. You will have to take it to RSN to open a new review and have it changed. This is unfortunate, since any change that would be made to the RS status will effect all the WP articles that it has been cited over the past years. Furthermore I would advice you again to be WP:CIVIL. Cossde (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cossde Read carefully. I didn't question its reliability. I would say the same thing about any established RS when faced with similar circumstances. That's one way to deal with contradictory information in different RS. You also need to stop accusing me of being uncivil without any basis as that in itself is uncivil. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, if you are not questioning UTHR's WP:RS status, why claim it bias? You are not making sense. Cossde (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cossde Your wording in fact violates WP:NPOV. Accusations can't be described as proven facts.
 * Compare the following.
 * You: "a Tamil woman called Nishanthini Shanthalingam (17) was raped and murdered by a Tamil youth Yogarajah Antony (22)"
 * Me: a Tamil youth Yogarajah Antony (22)...was accused of the rape and murder of a Tamil female called Nishanthini Shanthalingam (17)"
 * Your non-neutral wording also violates WP:BLPCRIME, especially considering this person is WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. --- Petextrodon (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Intresting, I don't see you changing any other NPOV wording. Cossde (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

For all editors here, the following warning by the admin at the AN3 may benefit all of us. Note that Sri Lanka has now been designated as a WP:contentious topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Cossde_reported_by_User:Petextrodon_(Result:_Stale) --- Petextrodon (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am restoring the sourced content which has been reverted by this new user "Tame Rhino" without any proper explanations. LTTE should be included in the list of Perpetrators. This should be a neutral article. Not a completely biased, one sided article. JohnWiki159 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @JohnWiki159, so even after seeing the admin's warning, you go straight to edit warring, instead of engaging the active discussion? Note that continued edit warring could get you topic banned. Why did you even remove the Documentaries section, without any explanation, when it's not even part of the current dispute? You also need to address my points about WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:BLPCRIME. Last one especially is a serious issue which if I take it to the WP:BLPN could result in its complete removal than the compromise I suggested. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)