Talk:War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War/Archive 1

I'm glad Obi, out fellow Eazhaammm Thamizz, mentioned the LTTE in the opening sentence. But they seem to lack any mention from then on. Weird.. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire article before making such comments. There are numerous mentions of the alleged war crimes committed by the Tigers.-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The evidence section doesn't even seem to be aware that the LTTE was involved in the war. All it's talking about is the Sri Lankan armed forces. You mention the LTTE only in passing in a few sections earlier. BlueLotusLK (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only contribute things I have knowledge of, things I have read or seen. You are more than welcome to add evidence of the LTTE's war crimes, supported by reliable, independent references.-- obi2canibe talk contr 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of all the evidence against the Sri Lankan army. BlueLotusLK (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Stale discussion, defer to more recent move request below. &oelig; &trade; 07:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Eelam War IV → — Relisted. harej 08:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user has moved War crimes in Sri Lanka to Criticism of Eelam War IV without any discussion.  obi2canibe talk contr 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article focuses on alleged war crimes, not general criticism of the war. The term "war crime" is of course controversial, but it is widely used by the media and independent orgainsations in relation to the civil war .-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Object destination name, clearly POV. Perhaps "Alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka". No one even has filed charges formally. This is the propaganda POV of Tamil diaspora and LTTE aspirants.-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment How about Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War, which would bring it into line with the parent article at Sri Lankan Civil War?  Certainly, I would agree that Wikipedia cannot determine whether war crimes occurred, as suggested by the proposed title.  The allegations are under investigation by the United Nations.  If the investigation finds that war crimes occurred, then we can treat this conflict in the same way that we treat World War II and other conflicts where a determination has been made.  Until then, we can only report that allegations have been made.  Skinsmoke (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No strong objection to Skinsmoke's suggestion but there are a number of war crime articles without the "Alleged" prefix even though, as far as I am aware, they have not been officially recognised as war crimes: Soviet war crimes, Italian war crimes, Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism, British war crimes, War crimes committed by the United States, Allied war crimes during World War II.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as revised. Support Skinsmoke's suggestion of move to Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War as the most pragmatic solution to a contentious issue. I'm sympathetic to your point about other war crime articles, Obi2canibe, but I don't see that this is going to get resolved anytime soon without such a compromise. And strictly speaking, I'd have to agree the "Alleged" makes it a more accurate title anyway, given the lack of judicial or quasi-judicial conclusions to-date. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

*Object: "war crime" accusations are criticism and nothing more at this point. I don't think even putting alleged in front of it is enough to avoid the tacky mudslinging of the Eelamists. They get some credence if the article is dubbed 'war crimes' even if is said to be alleged. They back it up with mock trials that they pay for like the Irish thing but to date their money can only buy so much headlines and the time has passed. BlueLotusLK (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comment. BlueLotusLK's unilateral, undiscussed move of this article away from War crimes in Sri Lanka to Criticism of Eelam War IV was improper, in my opinion. I have no prior knowledge of the conflict or region, but I have to say that I've not seen many articles on Wikipedia that cite their claims as fully and as well as this one does. To dismiss the article's claims and the multiplicity of high-quality sources on which they're based as "propaganda", "criticism and nothing more", and "tacky mudslinging" strikes me as a biased, partisan response that has no value for this discussion. The correct way to dispute a claim on Wikipedia is to introduce well-sourced material that contradicts it, not to fling names and negative characterizations about in this way. Finally, I note that BlueLotusLK is the only editor who has weighed in so far who objects to a title of "Alleged war crimes ..." That's as close to consensus as we're likely to see here, I believe. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the LTTE cite their claims as fully as they can (yet they cannot produce an iota of irrefutable evidence) -- they have all the free time now since they were defeated in Sri Lanka. Obi's probably a high ranking member of the British LTTE lobby group British Tamil Congress. BlueLotusLK (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's possible that your opponent is a member of the group you name. No one here can possibly know. But what might a neutral editor plausibly suppose from your having quite recently proposed this article for deletion, along with at least six other well-documented articles that present information critical of the government of Sri Lanka, and the knowledge that none of those articles ended up being deleted? What partisan group might we reasonably suppose you could be a member of? Do you see? It's easy to try to discredit an argument by attacking the person who makes it. That's the reason for our No Personal Attacks policy, which says, essentially, "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Please try to keep that policy more firmly in mind.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While in my head I can raise arguments against a lot of the evidence presented it's for naught because none of it is taken up by the Sri Lankan government itself. Also since Obi has created articles for British Tamil Congress members (or associates) I think he would like my comparison even if he was not a member.

International Crisis Group unveiled its "groundbreaking" report as if it was unraveling some unheard of evidence and presented what turned out to be basically the same thing as the UTHR report done about six months or so ago (the difference was that ICG had less information than the UTHR report). The ICG which I've never heard of before received no coverage in the United States (as far as I'm aware of) nor did it receive much attention in the rest of the world with the exception of London, United Kingdom where there is a significant 'Eelam' Tamil diaspora. And this too was only on one channel -- Channel 4. Moving on, The Ireland mock trial was paid for by a group of Tamil expatriates. It's a purely attention seeking ploy but on the face of it it seems significant to support an article called "War crimes in Sri Lanka". The US report is not a significant one at all -- in fact the US produces thousands of reports each year with this being one of the least significant ones considering how it got no coverage at all in the United States. The UN formed the most neutered experts panel imaginable and it was delayed for almost 5 months and is said to be just an "advisory panel" not an investigatory one. Significantly none of the Courts that deal with War Crimes have taken up this case. Why then do we need this article? BlueLotusLK (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This move discussion isn't the forum for broad-brush accusations of bias by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. You'd want to take those to WP:RSN. But I'll reply to you further in a separate section on this page, apart from this move discussion. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User BlueLotusLK should not be rewarded for his unilateral, undiscussed move of this controversial article. That certainly consitituted a "bold" edit, to say the least, and the correct response would have been an immediate revert, as per the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. Unfortunately, user Obi2Canibe made a strategic error in choosing to discuss first rather than revert and discuss. A revert at this point would be entierely within Wikipedia policy, as it would just return the situation to what it was before BlueLotusLK's unilateral move. A more conciliatory option, which has the support of everyone here except BlueLotusLK, would be to move/rename the article Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. That's what should be done here, without further discussion. I have nothing more to say in this move discussion. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did try to revert but couldn't because BlueLotusLK had usurped the War crimes in Sri Lanka article name with this edit, making it an article rather than a redirect page. I don't know if this was deliberate or accidental. -- obi2canibe talk contr 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Close Move Request:BlueLotusLK, the only contributor who objected to renaming the article Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War, has relented and moved the article himself.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Accusations of bias re human rights organizations
BlueLotusLk, it's your perfect right to accuse Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, or any other organization of bias against the Sri Lankan government for its findings that the government (along with the Tamil fighters) committed atrocities in the last six-to-twelve months of the Civil War. As I said above, though, the correct forum for making such accusations is the Reliable Sources Notice Board, rather than in the context of any particular article. It seems relevant to observe, however, that you have no problem at all citing Amnesty International reports when they support your POV, i.e. when they accuse the Tamil fighters of atrocities.

I'd like to ask you about such a citation, actually. In this series of edits you summarize this BBC report about this Amnesty International statement with the single sentence: "'Evidence of the LTTE shooting civilians, restricting their movement and using them as human shields has been presented and accepted.'"First, the article says nothing at all about Tamil fighters shooting civilians - although that accusation appears to be documented by other sources. Second, using the passive voice to say that the evidence "has been accepted" begs the question, "accepted by whom? I believe Amnesty in this case, but your language gives the claim a vague and unwarranted air of authority; it's a subtle form of  peacock language in other words. Much more important, though, is that your one-line summary neglects to mention that the source you're citing accuses not just the Tamil fighters, but also the Sri Lankan government of deliberately endangering civilians to gain a military advantage, viz. "Amnesty has accused both sides in Sri Lanka's long-running conflict of deliberately putting civilians at risk to pursue military objectives. ( new paragraph) Nearly 70,000 people were displaced due to aerial bombardment and artillery attacks by government forces in Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi, it said. ... Sri Lankan civilians lack protection and remain at the mercy of two forces with long records of abuse,” Ms. Foster added." So tell me, given the concern you've expressed about bias, do you think your summary is a fair represenation of the article it cites? Do you think, in other words, that your summary adheres to the Neutral Point of View standard that's one of  Wikipedia's five core principles?

I don't, and since (after spending at least two hours reviewing your edits) I find this kind of thing is extremely common in your contribution history here, I'm sorry to have to say I don't see much value in continuing to debate this topic with you. I'm here to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia with editors who are willing to uphold the principles we've all agreed to work by, and I'm sorry, but I don't have time to work with, or debate with, editors who have demonstrated a consistent refusal to honor those principles. –  OhioStandard (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm using what's buffering up this article to also address the LTTE incidents. The source you decided to write a paragraph about was one of the weakest I picked and was chosen quickly. I wasn't trying to represent the source.. I was trying to represent the claim I made. The accusations against the Sri Lankan army is laid out quite clear after my one sentence. Do I need to attribute these accusations when I'm discussing the LTTE as well?

The accusations against LTTE have been accepted considering that no effort has been made to deny them. I probably should have used a better source but I was in a hurry to end this safari on war crimes.

You seem aghast at my "unilateral" move.. '''Obi created this article unilaterally. Where was the discussion on whether this article should be created?'''

Anyway, yes, I've not particularly adhered to a neutral pov and you seem to reject all my contributions in that regard. I've maintained my pov to edit summaries and tried to be neutral in the writing. BlueLotusLK (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I guess there's no point talking to you either considering that I've not been prim and proper to your liking. Three of the six deletion bids worked out to my intentions btw. BlueLotusLK (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You say instead of attacking the sources I should cite other sources to refute them. Well, I can't refute that there are allegations of war crimes. There's no amount of sources I an cite that would make the claims of Human Rights Watch not allegations of war crimes. I can only argue that they are not significant enough to deserve an article. BlueLotusLK (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
not moved. per previous discussion, the two objections noted below, and the unfamiliarity of the name Eelam War IV argument listed below. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War → Alleged war crimes during Eelam War IV — Relisted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As this article only deals with war crimes during the final war which is called Ealam War IV and not the entire Sri Lankan civil war I suggest this move. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Object - This move request follows on immediately from a previous request where there was almost unanimity that the article should be called Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Some of content in the article refers to incidents before 2006 when Eelam War IV started. And evidence may emerge in the future of alleged war crimes in other phases of the civil war.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Object. We just concluded a month-long move request discussion, and the only user who disliked this name has now initiated this new move request to accommodate his preference, his final act before retiring from Wikipedia. That seems gratuitous and even disruptive to me, and it's my opinion that this new move request is improper . Besides, the name "Eelam War" is hardly known to most Westerners who are much more likely to understand the meaning of "Sri Lankan Civil War". Finally, and as Obi2canibe observes, the article includes (and appropriately includes) mention of alleged war crimes before the fourth phase of the Civil War. We certainly don't want a separate article for each of the four phases of that war, and this one title comprises all phases thereof. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed
Reason for the tags. Where do we start?


 * The article is titled "Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War". The Sri Lankan Civil War took place from 1983 to 2009. During the course of the conflict, primarily 4 groups, the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan Military, the IPKF and other Tamil militant groups have been accused of committing war crimes by various parties. This article only covers acts committed by Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers after ~January 2009. And in that, it is disproportionately biased against Sri Lanka. The "Accused" section only contains 2 paragraphs about the Tamil Tigers. The "Evidence" section contains just 2 out of 17 paragraphs related to the Tamil Tigers. The Tamil Tigers have committed numerous acts that have been called war crimes prior to 2008. None of them are mentioned. The IPKF has been accused of "war crimes" during their time in Sri Lanka. None of those allegations are mentioned. Instead the focus is primarily on Sri Lanka.


 * You are quite correct that it focuses almost exclusively on 2009. A lot of terrible things, some which be considered to be war crimes, occured before 2009. This a flaw in the article which has been pointed out before. As you are aware there is much more material available on the events of 2009 than on the previous 30 years. I am not a professional, full time editor. I have neither the time nor the expertise to source material for the earlier period. If other editors do have the time they are ofcourse welcome to add to this article. But please bear in mind that this article is already very long and that any new material ought to be about war crimes as opposed to other criminal acts. Please also remember that there are many other articles which cover similar subjects (e.g. human rights, state terror, disappearances, child soldiers, LTTE) - there's no point in duplicating content.


 * I understand the article is very long, but that is not an excuse to ignore balance/neutrality. Per the definition,  "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity". There are hundreds of such acts committed during the past 26 years that can be classified war crimes. You cannot just write an article about an event, then pick only a certain duration of the event favorable to your POV to be covered in the article. By focusing only on allegations from the last 4 months of the war, this article is inherently biased. --snowolfD4   ( talk  /  @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sections that are contained are clearly biased against Sri Lanka. For example, the HRC section plays down the final resolution almost as a rouge move done by Sri Lanka. It mentions the 17 countries that initiated a move against Sri Lanka by name. Yet in passing only refers to the 29 countries that voted for the final resolution as "China, Russia, India and developing countries".


 * You're timing is awful: the article listed the 29 countries who supported Sri Lanka (as well as those who opposed, abstained) up until last week when I replaced the list with the map. This was because maps are used in other articles to illustrate international voting (e.g. Goldstone Report). If you feel the section is biased please make it unbiased. If you want to list the 29 countries do so. You have already given the vote prominence by placing this section before the UN panel section using the "chronological order" excuse. IMO the UN panel report ought to come first because it has more gravitas than a vote by an institution most of whose members have dubious human rights records.


 * First, your (or mine or any other editors) opinions on the "human rights records" of UN member nations are irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Similarly, your opinion on what is more relevant is also of no concern to the article. And if you take a look around Wikipedia (or pretty much anywhere), chronological order is what articles are written based on. --snowolfD4  ( talk  /  @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Evidence" section contains almost entirely "alleged" "evidence" against Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers are very well documented to have carried out acts that have been called war crimes. Yet none of them are mentioned.


 * In this section I have tried to only deal with evidence that has emerged indpendently (i.e. not through the UN, State Department, ICG, PPT reports). These reports do mention acts committed by the Tigers but to include it in the article would, again, make it far too long.


 * Again, "the article will be too long if we include all points of view" is not an excuse to have a non-neutral article. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a 3 paragraph section about the finding of a "International Crisis Group". There's 4 paragraph section called "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" almost entirely sourced from a single primary source. Whether this "tribunal" is notable enough to merit such a prominent section is debatable considering the dearth of independent coverage.


 * I have tried to summarise the reports findings so I have used the reports themseleves as the primary source. Do you doubt that the reports exist? Or do you doubt the findings of the reports? Here are three independent national newspapers who have mentioned the PPT - DM, SL Is - it happened.


 * I don't doubt that the reports exist. And what I think about their contents is extraneous to this discussion. What I'm saying is the finding of a "Permanent People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka" does not warrant a 3 paragraph summery. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a group of people got together and put out a report that supports your POV does not mean it should be included in an article. If we include every single similar event on their relevant articles, Wikipedia will be an unreadable mess. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the Sri Lankan government has formed a commission to investigate the latter stages of the war. The hearings of the commission received substantial international media coverage, but is mentioned in just one place in the article, as part of the Ban report.


 * As the UN panel points out the LLRC is not investigating war crimes. It is not even investigating the actions of the military during 2009. It is merely looking at the failure of the cease fire and reconciliation. So why include it in an article about "war crimes"?


 * The Ban panel (surprise surprise) is mistaken in this regard. Part of the mandate of the LLRC is "The facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement operationalized on 21st February, 2002 and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to the 19th of May, 2009." If you were following the situation, a number of people have testified regarding the end period of the civil war. Example. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Original research: Sections that contain the POV of Sri Lanka are immediately dismissed by editors of this article. For example,
 * The Sri Lankan government has furiously rejected all claims that its forces committed war crimes. In a June, 2010 speech, President Rajapaksa insisted that his soldiers did not kill a single civilian. “Our troops carried a gun in one hand and a copy of the human rights charter in the other,” the president said. These statements are at odds with multiple independent sources; the United Nations itself has said that at least 7,000 ethnic Tamil civilians died in the first four months of last year, just before the government claimed final victory over the Tigers, and high-level United States officials have said, “The US has strong, credible allegations of evidence of atrocities during the prosecution of the war against the Tamil Tigers."


 * The Sri Lankan government rejected the report but Stephen Rapp, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, subsequently called on Sri Lanka to investigate the allegations stating that sources used in the report "were credible and reliable and that allegations had been corroborated".


 * Basically, the way this article is written, (1) present criticism against Sri Lanka, (2) note few words of the related statement by Sri Lankan (3) immediately try and ridicule it. That is not how you write a neutral article.


 * News: Wikipedia is not a news organization. This is not Wikiquote or Wikisource either. Half of this article is regurgitating news reports or rigorously quoting various "reports" with minute details not suitable in an encyclopedic entry.


 * Weasel: What else do you expect from an article whose title violates WP:WEASEL? A few examples


 * Satellite images of the Safe Zone publishes by the UN, foreign governments and scientific organisations showed heavy damage that could have only been caused by bombardment
 * Who are these "foreign countries"/"scientific organizations"? Why are there no names mentioned?


 * This is just a lazy attempt to criticise the article. If you read on the "foreign countries"/"scientific organizations" are mentioned in the four paragraphs of the "Satellite images" section: US State Department, American Association for the Advancement of Science, UN/UNOSAT, AI, HRW.


 * No, that is not how things work. You cannot have weasel words at the start of the article and expect readers to go through the rest of the article to find out who's been referred to. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tamil civilians died in the first four months of last year, just before the government claimed final victory over the Tigers, and high-level United States officials have said
 * "High-level United States officials"? That's probably a group that includes a million + people.


 * Inaccuracies in Ban report (it is not a "UN report"): The Ban report contains a number of errors that have been pointed out (example they accuse Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa for some hoopla at some point) yet none of those questions have been mentioned here.


 * This is argument is often used by critics of the panel. The report was commissioned by the UN Secretary-General. It has the UN logo on its front page. Yet it doesn't qualify to be a "UN report"? The report was only published in full yesterday. It's just petty to use a typo to dismiss the validity of the whole report and its very serious findings. There are so many Rajapaksas around at high levels of power in Sri Lanka its not surprising the names got mixed up.


 * As has been pointed out in the media, it is not a "UN panel". It is a report prepared 3 people appointed by the UNSG who are unaffiliated with the UN in this regard. It doesn't really matter though, except in the heading. I'm fine with using the full panel name. Also it is not a simple typo. If you're accusing a person of a war crime, and name the wrong person, that's not good. It is also not the only error in the report that has been pointed out in the media. If the panel report is given this much coverage, it's documented criticisms must also be mentioned to maintain neutrality.-<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In summery: This article is an embarrassingly one sided. Considering editors such as "Goslsucks" (Gosl = Gov. of Sri Lanka) wrote it, I'm not too surprised. It has a long way to go to achieve any kind of neutrality expected on Wikipedia. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the article - it's good to see you editing again. As you will see from the discussions during last August the neutrality of this article has been questioned before. An independent editor, OhioStandard, assisted in making it more neutral but clearly you believe it is still heavily baised so I have tried to answer ( in blue ) some of the specific points you have raised. I have not tried to answer for other editors and their contributions.-- obi2canibe talk contr 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article is one sided then I wonder what does it reflect. The article is on war crimes and it means that war crimes planned and executed by Sri Lankan are ethnic in nature. Why are there no Sinhalese complaining about war crimes done by Sri Lankan army? This is a reflection of racist nature of war crimes itself.
 * You can not blame Tamils if war crimes are committed by on Tamils now could you?
 * Is it okay to ignore human rights of Tamils in this fashion by calling this one sided and pass of this ignorance as being neutral?Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you rephrase that? I don't think I'm getting your point. I've mentioned above some reasons why I think the article is one-sided. Also, WP:NPA. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4   ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was wrong there. It was not racist.
 * I am taking two sides mentioned here (as Tamils on one side and Army, Administration, politics, law enforcements and media in Shri Lanks on the other side as two mutually exclusive sides) and a one-sided article would mean that What I would say is that the article is well sources and well edited therefore correctness is not an issue. If it looks embarrassingly one-sided then it means that the facts coming out are one sided ie war crimes are committed against Tamiles(as a linguistic/minority set of people) by the other side(which also means that Army and Administration perhaps ignore Tamil participation). If this looks one sided, then it is a reflection of reality where the otherside is irrisponsible, I just like to point out that Tamils are in this situation where Tamils are devoid of particiation well, as that is what looks to me; and that should not be ignored as well as the fact that war crimes are actively done against just one side ie Tamils.<font color="#FFD700">असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 10:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)


 * Except, as I pointed out, very, very clearly the "other side" has committed hundreds of war crimes prior to Feb 2009, but none of them are mentioned here. Per WP:NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That clearly is not happening here.
 * I'm not exactly sure what you wrote in Hindi (?). Can you clarify? --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * LTTE. Were these mentioned acts of terrorism war-crimes? What is a war crime?<font color="#FFD700">असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 17:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)


 * Snowolfd4 believes there has been a deliberate attempt to make this article one-sided and to exclude/suppress older events. This is not the case - it's just how things have turned out. Snowolfd4 has repeated all the criticism of the war crimes charges that have been in the Sri Lankan media for the last three weeks e.g. the panel isn't a "UN panel", the report has errors so it must be completely dismissed, the LLRC will address all concerns, the actions of the Sri Lankan military/government were justified because the LTTE were ruthless terrorists, others have committed war crimes (and got away with it) so why can't the Sri Lankan military/government, etc. For all of this I can provide opposing views but there's no point as we are never going to agree. Snowolfd4 expects the highest of highest standards, but only for this article. Most this article has been written by me. I am not a full time professional writer and have never tried to achieve these high standards. Others have been very quick to criticise and place tags at the top of the article (the factual accuracy tag is completely unjustified). But they haven't bothered to contribute. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this discussion.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be discouraged by this. It is inevitable that someone will resent this or that so keep up the good work.<font color="#FFD700">.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tags
I have removed the tags because they are irrelevant for the War Crimes by Sri Lanka and the LTTE, which are sourced by sufficient references.Hillcountries (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Related to the maintenance tags, see the section above where I explained in detail some of the reason why this article is not in compliance with Wikipedia policies.
 * Also read WP:NPOV. The opinions of all parties related to this have to be included to maintain nutrality. Your edit summery "Sri Lanka's denial is immaterial" is contradictory with policies.
 * And as I noted above, this article is titled "Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War", as in it covers the entire Civil War (from 1983 onwards). Dedicating half the intro to the last 3 months is a violation of WP:UNDUE. So I moved the US reps reaction to the relevant section. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Already number of editors are in dispute over these tags. You will have to specifically mention where there are POVs. The page is expanded in support of the information on reliable sources which meet WP:RS. If you don't agree with those reliable sources, then you are pushing your own POV. Sri Lanka is allegedly found that it has committed War Crime along with LTTE, with credible evidences. Sri Lanka's only option is to open its way for an Independent Investigation on War Crime charges to prove it not guilty and not by denying it. That is applicable here on Wikipedia as well. I am sorry, I revert back the tags and the content.Hillcountries (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have clearly stated above why I think the article is a violation of certain policies. You are welcome to take part in the discussion. In the meantime, you should not remove the maintenance tags before the issues I brought up are resolved.
 * You have also reverted my edits which I explained above. Your edit summery was ")After Ban's Panel only the World has come to know Sri Lanaka has committed War Crime. Sri Lanka can't deny when there are credible evidences" This is not how you edit Wikipedia. Articles are edited based on accepted policies, not based on your personal opinions. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * EDIT: If you choose not to read the section above, here's some of the issues I have with the article, copied from above. (Note, when there are issues with the entire article, it is permissible to have single maintenance tags on the top of the article)


 * The article is titled "Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War". The Sri Lankan Civil War took place from 1983 to 2009. During the course of the conflict, primarily 4 groups, the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan Military, the IPKF and other Tamil militant groups have been accused of committing war crimes by various parties. This article only covers acts committed by Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers after ~January 2009. And in that, it is disproportionately biased against Sri Lanka. The "Accused" section only contains 2 paragraphs about the Tamil Tigers. The "Evidence" section contains just 2 out of 17 paragraphs related to the Tamil Tigers. The Tamil Tigers have committed numerous acts that have been called war crimes prior to 2008. None of them are mentioned. The IPKF has been accused of "war crimes" during their time in Sri Lanka. None of those allegations are mentioned. Instead the focus is primarily on Sri Lanka.


 * Sections that are contained are clearly biased against Sri Lanka. For example, the HRC section plays down the final resolution almost as a rouge move done by Sri Lanka. It mentions the 17 countries that initiated a move against Sri Lanka by name. Yet in passing only refers to the 29 countries that voted for the final resolution as "China, Russia, India and developing countries".


 * The "Evidence" section contains almost entirely "alleged" "evidence" against Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers are very well documented to have carried out acts that have been called war crimes. Yet none of them are mentioned.


 * There's a 3 paragraph section about the finding of a "International Crisis Group". There's 4 paragraph section called "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" almost entirely sourced from a single primary source. Whether this "tribunal" is notable enough to merit such a prominent section is debatable considering the dearth of independent coverage.


 * On the other hand, the Sri Lankan government has formed a commission to investigate the latter stages of the war. The hearings of the commission received substantial international media coverage, but is mentioned in just one place in the article, as part of the Ban report.


 * Original research: Sections that contain the POV of Sri Lanka are immediately dismissed by editors of this article. For example,
 * The Sri Lankan government has furiously rejected all claims that its forces committed war crimes. In a June, 2010 speech, President Rajapaksa insisted that his soldiers did not kill a single civilian. “Our troops carried a gun in one hand and a copy of the human rights charter in the other,” the president said. These statements are at odds with multiple independent sources; the United Nations itself has said that at least 7,000 ethnic Tamil civilians died in the first four months of last year, just before the government claimed final victory over the Tigers, and high-level United States officials have said, “The US has strong, credible allegations of evidence of atrocities during the prosecution of the war against the Tamil Tigers."


 * The Sri Lankan government rejected the report but Stephen Rapp, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, subsequently called on Sri Lanka to investigate the allegations stating that sources used in the report "were credible and reliable and that allegations had been corroborated".


 * Basically, the way this article is written, (1) present criticism against Sri Lanka, (2) note few words of the related statement by Sri Lankan (3) immediately try and ridicule it. That is not how you write a neutral article.


 * News: Wikipedia is not a news organization. This is not Wikiquote or Wikisource either. Half of this article is regurgitating news reports or rigorously quoting various "reports" with minute details not suitable in an encyclopedic entry.


 * Weasel: What else do you expect from an article whose title violates WP:WEASEL? A few examples


 * Satellite images of the Safe Zone publishes by the UN, foreign governments and scientific organisations showed heavy damage that could have only been caused by bombardment
 * Who are these "foreign countries"/"scientific organizations"? Why are there no names mentioned?


 * Tamil civilians died in the first four months of last year, just before the government claimed final victory over the Tigers, and high-level United States officials have said
 * "High-level United States officials"? That's probably a group that includes a million + people.


 * Inaccuracies in Ban report (it is not a "UN report"): The Ban report contains a number of errors that have been pointed out (example they accuse Defence Secretary Basil Rajapaksa for some hoopla at some point) yet none of those questions have been mentioned here.
 * How is [| this], [| another reference]] not a U.N. panel? More links: [| 1], [| 2], [| 3]. About [| when the report was set up]; [| reports role - U.N. S.G.] "..hopes that this advisory report will make a contribution to full accountability and justice so that..".<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011  18:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you trust D. B. S. Jeyaraj's take on the matter? If you're not familiar with who he is, ask some Sri Lankan editors. He's one of the most respected Sri Lankan journalists around. (BTW I'd recommend anyone interested in Sri Lanka read his articles)
 * "Sections of the media notably some wire services have gone to town describing the report as the “UN Report” and as the “UN War crimes report”. Wittingly or unwittingly this media “spin” has bestowed upon the report a degree of importance which it may not deserve in the final analysis. It has to be pointed out in this respect that the report in question is neither: a UN report nor a war crimes report.
 * The official UN press release of June 22nd 2010 that announced the appointment of this panel stated then as follows –”The Secretary-General has appointed a panel of Experts that will advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka”.
 * It could be seen therefore that this panel of experts is only an advisory body to Ban Ki Moon. Although appointed by the UN secy – gen it is technically not a UN Panel. The report it has prepared may have been commissioned by the UNSG, but it is not a UN report."
 * Report on Sri Lanka by the Ban-Ki-moon Advisory panel
 * In the end though, this is just semantics. You're just focusing on one thing I said, and ignoring pretty much everything else. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just Semantics, semantics have some importance. I have presented the sources that say it is a 'U.N. report', from Mr. Ban Ki Moon too where he 'hopes this report' - that is its significance. As it is, this part I am sure does not lessen importance of other parts.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011  06:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * D. B. S. Jeyaraj is only an Individual whether he is highly respected or not. His views are  irrelevant when there are Nation-States and leading Non-State factors are recommending an Issue. And the UN Report is presented to the world on the following way by the UN: Report of The Secretary - General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Hillcountries (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See this for more: Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on the Release of the UN Panel of Experts' Report on Sri Lanka. Hillcountries (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to comment. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be a waste discussing with you when you want to see the UN Secretary - General in his personal capacity by claiming as "Ban report" how the Sri Lankan Government claims all the way. Even after Satellite Image, Video footages found there are credible evidences for "War Crime", Sri Lankan Government is adamantly denying it. They are against the probe on any international investigation. The United States, European Union along with Human Right Watch, International Crisis Group, Amnesty International have endorsed the UN Panel Report, but Sri Lanka doesn't want. It is obvious why it is. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and it should leverage the value for greater humanity and understanding, than merely defending corrupt and criminal states. I am referring this to ANI, to draw other neutral editors' and administrators' attention. I will revert your edits after that.Hillcountries (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IPKF never cornered a single ethnic group Sri Lankan Tamils into ever decreasing area  which cost 20, 000 - 40, 000 thousand human lives by artillery attacks, cluster bombs and other sort of bombings by super sonic jets, under the guise of humanitarian war to eradicate Terrorism, but the Sri Lankan Government and its Forces did with the help various powers.Hillcountries (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So whether you think it's a waste discussing this with me or not, I'm going to try and reply best as I can.
 * First, I'd suggest that you actually read my post above, so that you know what my issues with the article are. I am not (repeat NOT) arguing with what Ban's advisory panel, HRW, AI or anyone else said. They are completely entitled to their own opinion, and I am not saying they are right or wrong or whatnot.
 * Since it maybe overwhelming to you to reply to all the points I mentioned above, lets take this one by one.
 * First concern. This article covers only the last 3-4 months of a 26 year Civil War. Before that, the Sri Lankan government, the Tamil Tigers and the IPKF (yes, they have been accused of War Crimes, and since this article is title "alleged", all accusations count) have been accused of numerous War Crimes. By not including anything that happened before january 2009, this article is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Your opinion on that? --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 23:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a waste of time, when you want to challenge in the lines of Sri Lankan Government and a few editors against the general world view. You are twisting by quoting various Wikipedia policies then only you can divert others attention on policies rather than concentrating on the vital points how something should be addressed on this page rightfully. I don't think anything wrong in reverting your edits.Hillcountries (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you yourself count the number of war crimes committed by other parties, in seriousness and discuss it here. Apparently Lankan Army committed disproportionately large number of war crimes and that is being reflected here.<font color="#FF9933"> ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011  19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)