Talk:War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War/Archive 3

Channel 4
Channel 4 is a reputed reliable news source from the UK who check their sources carefully, including the identity of their witnesses. They are not some joke media house from a tinpot nation. Using the word alleged just to obfuscate the heinous crimes which have been confirmed by multiple reliable sources including the UN panel is not fitting for Wikipedia.Oz346 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't act like you don't know that the Sri Lankan army raped and killed, and took trophy pictures:

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/new-exclusive-pictures-of-isaipriya-alive-emerge/

'Allegedly' taken. What a disgusting joke.Oz346 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * here is more evidence of Sri Lankan Army members confirming the heinous crimes committed by some of their colleagues, please think as a honest editor of wikipedia, rather than just as a government supporter. Being truthful is very important on wikipedia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/opinion/Sri-Lanka-Rajapaksa-President.html

At least 40,000 Tamil civilians, according to a United Nations tally, were killed in the final days of the war. “We should all fall on our knees and beg for forgiveness for what we did there,” a retired soldier who served on the front lines told me recently. '''“These people were defeated, at our mercy, but we were encouraged to be merciless. We went mad.”'''

Channel 4 is an established reliable major news source from the UK. Standard practise for major western journalists is to check the identity of such sources. They would have confirmed he was a member of the Sri Lankan Army. This is standard practice. This is why they are forthright in calling him a Sri Lankan Army officer. Oz346 (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So, previously in one of your edits you told Human Rights Watch is mistaken => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mullivaikkal_massacre. But you are so sure that Channel 4 is reliable. So, sources that don't suit your narrative are mistaken and sources that suit your narrative are well established reliable sources. Don't you think Channel 4 is mistaken like you said previously ? Double standards? Also Channel 4 has a history of creating fake documentaries. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/channel-4-fined-150000-fake-documentary/42014
 * Channel 4 itself says those are alleged violations. https://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-united-nations-inquiry-evidence-war-crimes-abuse. Also stop engaging in personal attacks by labelling me as a government supporter. JohnWiki159 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is huge difference. HRW said human shields, but the UN report says hostage taking. It is nothing to do with suiting "my narrative". The terminology used to describe that particular war crime has no clear consensus among reliable sources. But the UN report which analysed the crimes more deeply on a legal level disputed the description of human shields, and called it hostage taking. I dont know why you cannot see that. It is NOT my narrative. It is the UN report's own description based on the actual legal definition of 'human shields'.


 * Secondly, that fake documentary you have linked was not created by channel 4 directly, it was by a production company who they blacklisted themselves after finding out of its deception. Now in regards to these news reports, these are reports by Channel 4 News specifically, an in house news channel, which will have high journalistic standards. They check the identity of those they interview, and they do not just accept statements from Sri Lankan people (both Sinhalese and Tamil) without rigorous checks of their identity, a basic procedure for western journalists from reputed news outlets.Oz346 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War → War crimes in the Sri Lankan Civil War – Although much of the discussion of war crimes relates to the last months of the war, in fact war crimes were committed throughout the war (for example, the use of child soldiers by the LTTE). Some of this article's content, notably the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal section, already discusses war crimes that were committed earlier in the war, so the change in title would better fit the article's current scope. Use of "in" is consistent with other articles such as War crimes in the Tigray War or War crimes in the Kosovo War (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * the problem with this suggestion is that the last stage in the war was unique in the sheer scale of atrocities committed, it reached a climax which was significantly different from the crimes committed before it. There is a reason why the UN report only covered this period alone and in isolation. In order to cover the whole period of war, it would be best to have another separate article, but with a subsection linking it to this page. Oz346 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Oz346 there was human rights violations during the 26 year Sri Lankan Civil War not war crimes. War crimes are unique to the last months of the War. That is the what United Nations report covered. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not true that the war was not characterized by war crimes prior to its final months. I gave an example above: use of child soldiers, which is well documented, is a war crime. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if this is a bit pedantic, but war crimes were most definitely committed in Sri Lanka prior to 2009. There might not have been a scorched earth policy enacted before the final months of the war, but the things that occurred throughout the nearly three decades of war went above and beyond human rights violations. Kurtis (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, but the reason we have a separate article dealing with the war crimes committed in 2009 is because the violence during those final few months reached a pinnacle that was hitherto unseen in Sri Lanka. Between the beginning of January and the end of May, up to 40,000 people lost their lives in the violence. More than a thousand people were dying every single day. Kurtis (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Channel 4
Channel 4 is a reputed reliable news source from the UK who check their sources carefully, including the identity of their witnesses. They are not some joke media house from a tinpot nation. Using the word alleged just to obfuscate the heinous crimes which have been confirmed by multiple reliable sources including the UN panel is not fitting for Wikipedia.Oz346 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't act like you don't know that the Sri Lankan army raped and killed, and took trophy pictures:

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/new-exclusive-pictures-of-isaipriya-alive-emerge/

'Allegedly' taken. What a disgusting joke.Oz346 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * here is more evidence of Sri Lankan Army members confirming the heinous crimes committed by some of their colleagues, please think as a honest editor of wikipedia, rather than just as a government supporter. Being truthful is very important on wikipedia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/opinion/Sri-Lanka-Rajapaksa-President.html

At least 40,000 Tamil civilians, according to a United Nations tally, were killed in the final days of the war. “We should all fall on our knees and beg for forgiveness for what we did there,” a retired soldier who served on the front lines told me recently. '''“These people were defeated, at our mercy, but we were encouraged to be merciless. We went mad.”'''

Channel 4 is an established reliable major news source from the UK. Standard practise for major western journalists is to check the identity of such sources. They would have confirmed he was a member of the Sri Lankan Army. This is standard practice. This is why they are forthright in calling him a Sri Lankan Army officer. Oz346 (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So, previously in one of your edits you told Human Rights Watch is mistaken => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mullivaikkal_massacre. But you are so sure that Channel 4 is reliable. So, sources that don't suit your narrative are mistaken and sources that suit your narrative are well established reliable sources. Don't you think Channel 4 is mistaken like you said previously ? Double standards? Also Channel 4 has a history of creating fake documentaries. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/channel-4-fined-150000-fake-documentary/42014
 * Channel 4 itself says those are alleged violations. https://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-united-nations-inquiry-evidence-war-crimes-abuse. Also stop engaging in personal attacks by labelling me as a government supporter. JohnWiki159 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is huge difference. HRW said human shields, but the UN report says hostage taking. It is nothing to do with suiting "my narrative". The terminology used to describe that particular war crime has no clear consensus among reliable sources. But the UN report which analysed the crimes more deeply on a legal level disputed the description of human shields, and called it hostage taking. I dont know why you cannot see that. It is NOT my narrative. It is the UN report's own description based on the actual legal definition of 'human shields'.


 * Secondly, that fake documentary you have linked was not created by channel 4 directly, it was by a production company who they blacklisted themselves after finding out of its deception. Now in regards to these news reports, these are reports by Channel 4 News specifically, an in house news channel, which will have high journalistic standards. They check the identity of those they interview, and they do not just accept statements from Sri Lankan people (both Sinhalese and Tamil) without rigorous checks of their identity, a basic procedure for western journalists from reputed news outlets.Oz346 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View of the article
How is an image of a protest relevant to this article? This severely violates the Neutral Point of View Policy of Wikipedia. Also, content in the banner represent the protesters' Point of View. Furthermore, we don't know whether the content displayed in the banner are real or not. Also, the images in the banner violate Wikipedia's Image content guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_content_guidelines JohnWiki159 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if the content displayed in the banner is real, the protest did happen. Image content guidelines is an essay which is inactive and does not have any consensus in the first place. - SUN EYE 1  16:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Protest did happen, but the content displayed in the banner are controversial. The banner represents the protesters' Point of View. Adding them to the article severely violates neutral point of view policy of the article. Also, to add content to any Wikipedia article, one must achieve consensus with other editors who disagree with the addition as per Consensus. Those guidelines are not limited to Image content guidelines. JohnWiki159 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The content in the banner are not controversial at all. Human right groups and the UN report have confirmed their authenticity. It's only war crimes apologists and denialists from Sri Lanka who deny their authenticity. Its quite laughable for these people to deny photographic and video evidence, they must think everyone in the outside world is stupid.Oz346 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because some people say the Holocaust never happened, does not mean that these fringe, extremist, racist views should be entertained. Same with the denial of the rape and murder of Isaipriya and the execution of Balachandran by the Sri Lankan Army. The images and videos have been authenticated by independent sources and the UN panel of experts. Oz346 (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So the banner represents the "war crimes" done by Sri lankan army only right? What happened to the Neutral Point of View Policy? Also does the UN say "Sri lanka's No Fire Zone was Sri lanka's killng fields"? The banner clearly represent the Protestors' Point of View. One cannot add any image which contain biased content (which only represents one side of the conflict in this case) to any article. Then what is the use of "neutral point of view" policy? JohnWiki159 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)