Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 205

Sri Lankan_Civil_War
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The topic of the article appears to polarize many. I was surprised by the number of writing/journalistic errors in the article. When I tried to correct these, the reaction was WP:EW. In my attempt to avert WP:EW, I tried to document the issues on the Talk page, requested a self-reversion and made suggestions on how to move forward. It seems like there is a concerted effort to suppress information from being presented to potential readers.

Obi2canibe does not permit corrections to writing/journalistic errors in the article. For example:


 * The UN Panel report was published in 2011, not 2013.
 * Attributed a quote to the wrong entity.
 * Removed the citation and the hyperlink to the UN Panel report.
 * Removed 2 citations to articles by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2011) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (2014).
 * Re-introduced WP:VD made by an IP address. No citations provided. The existing citation directly contradicts the edit. At no stage were any sources cited to support their edit.
 * Removed a "Citation needed" without providing a citation.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps someone with journalist training might be able to help explain the importance of citations, how to quote a source, comprehending quotations within news articles, etc. Also, any suggestions/advice on how to be more productive/efficient in such circumstances would be appreciated. Thanks!

Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe
The dispute isn't about the specifics mentioned above by Jayingeneva but is about whether we should include a headline death toll figure in the article and, if so, what number that should be.

Jayingeneva wants to include a headline figure of 80,000-100,000, characterising it as an "UN estimate" (see this edit). His source for this a news report from May 2009. This unfortunately ignores all subsequent sources which give different, contradictory figures.

The UN's own Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (published March 2011) estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in final stages of the war (September 2008 to May 2009). The Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka (published in November 2012) mentions credible information that indicate that as many as 70,000 people caught up in fighting in late 2008/09 were unaccounted for. And let us not forget that the civil war had been going on since 1983 and that in 2007 sources were giving an estimate of 70,000 deaths (e.g. BBC July 2007).

Given that we have contradictory figures and that even the UN can't seem to settle on a figure, I don't believe Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should give any headline figure but mention all the sourced figures and let readers judge for themselves. The fact is that we will probably never know how many died - the Sri Lankan government went to great lengths during and after the war to hide what occurred during the war.

[If there were obvious errors which were re-introduced as a result of me enforcing WP:BRD Jayingeneva is welcome to correct them but he should not change the thrust of the article vis-à-vis the death toll until the dispute is resolved.]

Further comment by Oz364
Jayingeneva has repeatedly claimed that the UN panel had dismissed the figures of 70,000 + dead in the final phase of the war. They have done nothing of the sort.

The follow up UN Internal Review Panel report in 2012 said on page 14: 'Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General%27s_Internal_Review_Panel_on_United_Nations_Action_in_Sri_Lanka

That is not a dismissal of the 70,000+ figure by the UN as Jayingeneva alleges.

The International Truth and Justice Project which covers the human rights abuses in Sri Lanka from 2009 and after, and is run by Yasmin Sooka, a human rights lawyer and one of the members of the UN panel of experts (one of the 3 who authored the aforementioned UN panel of experts report) has recently released this document with the various estimates of the death toll for the final phase of the war:

https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ITJP_death_toll_A4_v6.pdf

As can be clearly seen she has not outright dismissed the figures of 70,000+ dead, nor the estimates closer to 100,000+.Oz346 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lankan_Civil_War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party says that the topic polarizes many editors. That is true.  Numerous areas are subject to battleground editing in Wikipedia because they have been real battlegrounds.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note, the filing editor did notify the other editor on the Talk Page of the article: "@Obi2canibe: I have initiated Dispute Resolution because it does not seem possible to improve this article with your persistent/systemic WP:EW. Please participate in it constructively. --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)". Also note, most of the problems are illustrated in edit 1009458455. --Jayingeneva (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note As stated at the top of our page- an article talk page notification is not sufficient- while appreciated. Each involved user must be notified on their individual talk page. Once this is completed, the Dispute Resolution may proceed. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I've now notified the User on both the Article and User Talk pages. Is there anything else I should do? --Jayingeneva (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm going to review the case now to make sure its something I feel comfortable mediating and if it is, I'll go ahead and get it going. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer's Opening Statement
I am willing to mediate this dispute, however- after reviewing the talk page discussion I need all involved editors to agree to a strict set of rules first. Also, There is a 3rd editor who has been involved in this discussion- I have added them to this dispute and posted a note on their talk page. All involved users must be invited and notified- it is not fair to cherry pick who you want to engage in this dispute with.

The Rules: 1. Absolutely no commentary on the behavior of the other editors- this includes accusations, aspirations, or insinuations. IE- you cannot resort to saying "That's wrong because otheruser is biased." You will WP:AGF during this entire procedure. 2. You will support any additions or deletions from the text with WP:RS 3. If you are arguing against using a specific source- you must support that argument with sources- you can't just invalidate a source because you don't like the information it is presenting. 4. You will be respectful and kind to each other at all times.

I am mandating these four rules because of the WP:Battleground behavior that has been exhibited thus far on the talk page. If you both want to work towards a compromise- I am happy to help you do so. If you want to continue to bicker and attack each other- none of the volunteers here have time for that and you will both need to head over to the ANI and let the admins sort it out. This board is for content only- and I'm happy to mediate this dispute- but on the content only- not the behavior of other editors.

Do you all agree to these parameters? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed! Please note, as far as I can tell, Oz346 did not WP:EW on the Article. --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes.Oz346 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Its not about who edit warred- its about who is involved with the discussion. The DRN is not a reward for edit wars- it is a place to continue discussions that have reached a block. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Statement 1
Okay- to begin- I'm going to ask each of you to post what you want the contested sentence to look like- complete with sources. Please do not comment on each other's sentence- I just want to see how far apart we are to start with- and that will give us an idea of what direction to start moving in. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe's statement
There is no accurate estimate of the number of people killed during the 26 year civil war. Currently it is estimated that at least 100,000 were killed. In 2006, prior to the government launching its military offensive to recapture LTTE held areas in the Vanni, the death toll was estimated to be 70,000. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in the final stages of the war in 2009. Estimates of the death toll in the final assault range from 20,000 to 75,000. The UN has estimated that between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians died during the phase of the war. The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (March 2011) estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed between September 2008 and May 2009. The Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka (November 2012) found credible information that up to 70,000 civilians displaced by the fighting in the Vanni and trapped in the No Fire Zone were "unaccounted for". The Sri Lankan government has claimed that 6,200 troops and up to 22,000 LTTE cadres were killed during Eelam War IV (July 2006 to May 2009).

[The above is my suggestion for the opening paragraph of the "Casualties" section. The lede can summarise this to "There is no accurate estimate of the number of people killed during the 26 year civil war. Currently it is estimated that at least 100,000 were killed. The UN has estimated that between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians died during the phase of the war in 2008-09". For the infobox, I suggest "At least 100,000".]

Oz346's statement
For over 25 years, the war caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war.

In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that over 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll, with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons. The Sri Lankan government itself claims that only 7000 civilians and combatants were killed during the final phase of the war.

Source Review
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2007/10/12/sri-lanka-fighting-claims-lives-2 - reliable source, only supports number, not the rest of the sentence.
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6898002.stm - Reliable source, supports length and number- not hardships
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/srilanka-violence-idINCOL24265920071015 - reliable- supports number of death not hardships

Volunteer Comment  No source supports "significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country" Because these are not expressly stated in the sources. Now- its probably true, but without support it is WP:OR and the writers opinion so it must be removed.

* Mahr, Krista. "Sri Lanka to Start Tally of Civil-War Dead". Time. - reliable source, supports sentence. * https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/sri-lankas-dead-and-missing-need-accounting - Very reliable source per HOWEVER, it says up to 140,000 were unaccounted for- does not support sentence of "over 140000." * International Truth and Justice Project (2021) https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ITJP_death_toll_A4_v6.pdf - Unknown reliability- however- it states 70,000 unacounted for- Does not support sentence of "over 140000."

Volunteer Comment' Based on sources- sentence needs to be changed to Up to 140,0000. Not over.

* https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ENGLISH-ITJP-Press-release-Disappearance.pdf- Unknown Reliability- Severely biased. Does support sentence. Recomend review at WP:RSN * Channel 4 News, 27 Jul 2011, The Sri Lankan soldiers ‘whose hearts turned to stone’, https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone - Cannot access page? Server issues?
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/11042707/Sri-Lanka-to-refuse-entry-to-UN-investigators.html - Cannot access without paid subscription. Cannot review.
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/10606982/Sri-Lanka-rejects-growing-calls-for-UN-war-crimes-investigation.html- Cannot access without paid subscription. Cannot review.


 * International Crimes Evidence Project (ICEP) Sri Lanka, Island of impunity? Investigation into international crimes in the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war. (2014) https://piac.asn.au/2014/02/12/island-of-impunity/ p175 Reliable source- however, this page supports the previous sentence, does not support the sentence it is supposed to support. Please move to after source 9.


 * Trevor Grant, Sri Lanka's Secrets: How the Rajapaksa Regime Gets Away with Murder (2014) Not correctly cited- needs a page number. Not currently acceptable.


 * International Truth and Justice Project (2021) https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ITJP_death_toll_A4_v6.pdf - reliable source, however odes not support this sentence. Sentence needs to be removed.
 * Please read the figures next to this heading: "Enumeration by GOSL9 - civilians and combatants missing." GoSL is an abbreviation for Government of Sri Lanka. So this source does support the final sentence.Oz346 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Revised Paragraph Post Review
For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war.

In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll, with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.

Jayingeneva's statement
For over 25 years, the war caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country, with the UN estimating 80,000–100,000 deaths. In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" in the "final phase" of the war. In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'


 * NOTE: I assumed the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE have a death toll estimate for the duration of the war. I have been unable to find such estimates. If they exist, I would suggest appending them to the above paragraph. Then we would have the belligerents' estimates and the UN estimate. That would complete Phase 1. Phase 2 would require a critical examination of the "Casualties" section. In particular, requiring citations to be added and an explanation of verified death estimates Vs projected death estimates. Or should the "Casualties" section be a completely separate Article? --Jayingeneva (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Comment If you have not yet found a WP:RS that states information- it is not to be included. If you find it in the future- wonderful- but a LTTE published estimate would not be a WP:RS until/unless it received coverage in a secondary source. So discussion on including it is moot at this point since it does not exist. Same with government estimates- we need a reliable secondary source at this point- not primary sources. Discussion of verified vs projected is WP:OR and doesn't belong in the article at all. This article is facts only. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The concise summary at the start of the Article is expanded with details in the "Casualties" section. In the "Casualties" section, would it be prudent to explain which estimates are verified and which are projections? --Jayingeneva (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Comment That is not part of this issue and needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. Its not part of this dispute. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Source Review
•	"Up to 100,000 killed in Sri Lanka's civil war: UN". ABC Australia. 20 May 2009. Reliable Source- supports up to 100,000 number only. •	 "Sri Lanka PM will protect military on UN rights action". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 27 May 2011. Retrieved 5 February 2021. – Reliable Source, supports numbers. •	 "Sri Lanka blocks Tamil memorials amid war parade". British Broadcasting Corporation. 18 May 2014. Retrieved 5 February 2021. – Reliable source, supports numbers. •	 "Sri Lanka crisis: One dead after minister's bodyguard fires at crowd". British Broadcasting Corporation. 28 October 2018. Retrieved 22 March 2021. This source has nothing to do with the subject and should be removed. •	"REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S PANEL OF EXPERTS ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN SRI LANKA" (PDF). United Nations. 31 March 2011. Page 59 Retrieved 5 February 2021. – Reliable source, however the quote is not accurate when examined in context. The report said- “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.” Because you are quoting- you need to be exact. I have added the page number for ease of reference. Does not state Final Stage of the war connected to these numbers. •	 "Report of the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations action in Sri Lanka" (PDF). UN. 14 Nov 2012. Page 14 Retrieved 21 March 2021. – Reliable and supports sentence. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Revised Paragraph Post Review
For over 25 years, the war continued, with the UN estimating 80,000–100,000 deaths. In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.” In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.' Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion related to statements

 * Comment: Jayingeneva, your footnote 5 above links to a document of 128 pages; have mercy on your readers and add a page number. Achar Sva (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Comment Please give me a bit of time to check sources- make sure they are all reliable. In the mean time- if you would like to comment on the other suggestion- please do so here- respectfully. Thank youNightenbelle (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Jayingeneva is using an inaccurate early UN figure from May 2009 for the cumulative death toll for the entire conflict, and ignoring all the exposés that happened since then. The UN's own internal report from 2012 indicates that certain UN workers were suppressing the casualty figures in order to avoid tensions with the Sri Lankan government and to save face.


 * "The report, the work of a panel led by the former UN official Charles Petrie, details how the organisation failed to publicise authoritative data about the human toll of the fighting as casualties mounted."


 * In late May 2009, UN whistle blowers started raising the alarm of a far higher civilian death toll for the final phase (late 2008-2009). The Times newspapers quoted over 20,000 dead. Later estimates in 2010 went up further to 40,000. Even later estimates by one of the UN Panel Yasmin Sooka went even higher to 75,000.


 * That dubious 100,000 figure for the whole conflict (1983-2009) that Jayingeneva has been parroting repeatedly, itself was never heard from again in any of the later UN publications and reports, for the simply reason that it has been discredited by the subsequent leaks and whistle blowers. Oz346 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To add to the above, for the readers who are unaware of what happened in 2008-2009, I recommend familiarising yourself with this documentary: https://vimeo.com/138835059


 * During the final phase of the conflict, the Sri Lankan government ejected international aid organisations from the war zone, and prevented all international media from having free access to the area. This allowed the Sri Lankan armed forces to commit massacres with impunity, away from international eyes. After the end of the war, they carried out mopping up operations to hide and destroy the evidence. Again there was no free access given to independent bodies to survey the evidence. Nearly 12 years on the Sri Lankan government and its apologists are still engaged in a massive cover up, and wikipedia is not exempt from this.Oz346 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Vimeo is not a WP:RS and will not be used for any purpose at this time. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oz346 I'm going to ask you to strike your last paragraph or provide sources to prove it. You are dangerously close to accusing Jayingeneva of being part of a mass government conspiracy- which is contrary to the rules of WP:AGF and strictly against what you agreed to when this case began. Either stick to the paragraph we are trying to fix and use sources, or I will close this. You are not here to WP:rightgreatwrongs you are here to work on a factual representation of the events. This needs to be done without bringing your opinion or anyone elses into this. If you want to persuade people of your point of view- you need to find another venue off WP. We are here to record facts only. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sri-lanka-revisited-whitewashing-war-crime-corporate-lobbyists-9817106.html


 * Members of the Sri Lankan government have openly endorsed the idea of a cyber force to cover up the heinous crimes committed during the war:


 * "The fight today is in cyberspace for example there was an Instagram campaign recently which ran the tag line – I am a Tamil and the genocide is a part of my identity. These things must be monitored closely and countered. You have to have a Counter terrorism Task Force on Cyberspace to monitor these campaigns in Europe and use Sri Lankan (Sinhala) youth as a front to counter these things,” Oz346 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * THank you. I appreciate that. Also, the source Jayingeneva is citing is from a 2011 report, not 2009. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He is citing a 2011 news report which is quoting the May 20th 2009 initial UN figure. This figure is highly dubious and predates the subsequent UN leaks and reports.Oz346 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Oz346 has provided a good example of my concerns with the article. The Following Time article is cited, https://world.time.com/2013/11/28/sri-lanka-to-start-tally-of-civil-war-dead/, with the following paraphrasing, "In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009", however, the quote used by Oz346 is NOT from the UN Panel. The quote, "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000" is from the Presidential Secretariat of Sri Lanka. An accurate description would be: In 2013, TIME quoted the Policy Research and Information Unit of the Presidential Secretariat of Sri Lanka that stated, "A U.N. panel probed the last phase of the war [and] has estimated that around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." A few minutes of searching found the following Presidential Secretariat of Sri Lanka press release published by a Sri Lankan news website, http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=24897 . It seems Oz346 is actually quoting the Sri Lankan government but it is presented as a quote from the UN Panel. --Jayingeneva (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jayingeneva actually- they quote the article directly where it says 'other sources estimate up to 100,000" so- they are not saying the UN said that at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle From the Sri Lankan Government Press Release: "The Director General said officials from the department are currently being trained to identify the family units and collect information from as far back as 1982 to date. The death toll of civilians during the 30-year conflict has not been accurately assessed. A UN panel probed the last phase of the war has estimated that around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." Hence, the extract "Around 40,000 died" is the Sri Lankan government incorrectly paraphrasing the UN Panel and should be attributed to the Sri Lankan government and not the UN Panel. --Jayingeneva (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly.... "other independent reports estimated" Not the UN. So.... not sure what you are trying to say here? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle Apologies for not being clearer. I'm referring to the start of the quote and you are referring to the end of the quote. The issues is the extract "Around 40,000 died" is the Sri Lankan government incorrectly paraphrasing the UN Panel and should be attributed to the Sri Lankan government and not the UN Panel. --Jayingeneva (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But- the UN report does say "The Panel of Experts stated that “[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths” Its on page 14 of the source you provided- exact quote. So this is why I'm confused. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle "As many as 40,000" is not the same as "around 40,000". The former indicates a continuous range up to 40,000 on the number line, but not more. The latter indicates a fixed point on the number line with a margin of error which also includes numbers greater than 40,000. The terms are semantically different and not interchangeable. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will change that in the revised paragraph. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer's 2nd Statement
Okay- that was a ton of work. But I did find a couple of things- there is actually very little difference between what both of you want to say. So I have a sugestion:

Suggested Compromise
For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war. The UN estimats 80,000–100,000 deaths.

In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.

In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.” In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll, with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.

This combines information from both your suggestions, presenting both sides. Will this work? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Compromise proposal
I broadly agree with this compromise, however, I have an issue with this statement.

"The UN estimats 80,000–100,000 deaths.[25][26]"

I do not believe it should be included as it is an outdated figure preceding the subsequent UN leaks and reports. However, if it must be included, then it should be qualified:

"Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.[25][26]"

Other than that, provided the repetitions in this compromise paragraph are ironed out, it seems fine to me. Also please recheck the source I provided with the table of estimates, it has all the figures, the 147,000 unaccounted figure is present in the 3rd row from bottom. thanks Oz346 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * On the Trevor Grant reference regarding the chemicals used to dissolve the skeletons in the mass graves, its page 111:


 * https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Sri_Lanka_s_Secrets/2zXWBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=“+A+special+acid+that+would+dissolve+bones+quickly+was+imported+from+China.+Local++media+reported+that+as+the+international+crescendo”&pg=PA111&printsec=frontcover


 * Oz346 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot see that book at all- I'm sorry, so I cannot personally verify it. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is the quote from p111 of Trevor Grant's book.


 * "The problem for the perpetrators of these atrocities was that the world found it impossible to swallow the fiction of zero casualties and humanitarian motives, given the stark evidence of about 150,000 people missing, between 40,000 and 70,000 of whom had been killed by the Sri Lankan military in one small patch of territory. Thus, the scene of the final thrust in Mullivaikal, where these thousands of civilians died, soon became a target for a military desperate to hide the truth.


 * Something had to be done about the mass graves that had been highlighted in international media and that contained so much evidence. A special acid that would dissolve bones quickly was imported from China. Local media reported that as the international crescendo about war crimes began to rise, the government disposed of the evidence by uncovering these graves and pouring in the acid. Within a short time, bone had turned to dust. Another method was to dig up the graves and dispose of the contents, which the military was still doing in systematic fashion well after the war, according to eye-witnesses working with the government's death and burial registry." Oz346 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * For the 147K- There are 5 different numbers that represent just the uncounted for change in population in that area over the time as counted by 5 different organizations. You attributing that to anything except unaccounted for change is WP:OR and not allowed. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jayingeneva's feedback
re: "For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war. The UN estimats 80,000–100,000 deaths."
 * I suggest substituting "first phase" with "before the final phase", because the "first phase" likely refers to 70s/80s before the Indian Peace Keeping Force arrived in the late 80s.

re: "In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died ..."
 * That is inaccurate. It conflates a quote from a Sri Lankan Government Press Release and makes it appear to be from the UN Panel.

re: "Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone."
 * This is a very good addition. I suggest only citing the Crisis Group as WP:RS.

re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll"
 * This is a good addition too.

re: "with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances."
 * Are there WP:RS to support this assertion? If so, then include it.

re: "Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."
 * Please double check the citation. Does not seem to mention "chemical", "dissolve" or "skeleton". A better wording might be, 'A Sri Lankan Army soldier accused the Army of "burying the bodies in mass graves".

--Jayingeneva (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)




 * 1- done
 * 2- Not done- this statement does appear in the UN Report from 2012 on page 14
 * 3- done.... 1 RS is enough to support the statement
 * 4- cool
 * 5 - Yes, and they are already included. If you want to take this source the the RS noticeboard- you are welcome to do so, but I see no reason to disqualify them.
 * 6- I cannot see this citation at all- its 100% blank on my internet so I cannot make a judgement on it, could someone copy and paste the entire quote here maybe? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle Thanks for all the time you've spent on this, apologies for the following late suggestion! I think the first three paragraphs would read better as follows and I've added a UN citation for the 70,000 estimate:

The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimate of 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war. The UN estimates 80,000 to 100,000 deaths during the war.

In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.” In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.' Other sources, quoting discrepancies in the census figures, state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during the final phase. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You just removed all of the other editor's contirubtions- making this NOT a compromise at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle The first and last sentences are based on his good suggestions. I think we are close to agreeing on the first three paragraphs. The current version of the first sentence reads really badly. Let's try this another way:

re: "For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war."
 * Can we please replace it with something like (include UN citation): The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.

re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[64] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[65]" --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we please split this paragraph? Keep the first sentence there. Move the second sentence to the end of the third paragraph. It should then flow better chronologically.

Nightenbelle obi2canibe's recent contribution is conflating verified estimates with projected estimates. That is comparing apples to oranges. The official UN estimate of 80,000 to 100,000 is based on verified deaths. The other estimates are based on projections. I agree with Oz364 that we need to include both. I strongly disagree with obi2canibe's request to suppress the verified estimates. I suspect you have noticed that Oz364 and I are presenting very similar text. The dispute is with obi2canibe and the attempts to suppress verified estimates. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No i disagree completely with the way Jayingeneva have presented the information, he has deleted my edits and is attempting to downplay the total death toll to a mere 100,000 which I have repeatedly said is a dubious figure. He has also removed all the sentences regarding the cover up the Sri Lankan government has engaged in regarding the final massacres, as well as the mention of the mass graves.Oz346 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

New Updated Paragraph
For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war. Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.

In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.

In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.” In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll, with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.


 * Obi2canibe's feedback on "New Updated Paragraph": Nightenbelle, let me begin by thanking you the work you're doing on this. The "New Updated Paragraph" is a good start as it doesn't claim that 80,000–100,000 was the final death toll for the entire 26 year civil war (which Jayingeneva wanted claim but to me was very problematic as subsequent sources give different, higher figures). I have left my suggestion above which I hope you can review and incorporate as appropriate into the "New Updated Paragraph". Due to work commitments I won't be able to reply until tomorrow night.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Obi2canibe, the "New Updated Paragraph" Nightenbelle has written is much more suitable than the paragraph Jayingeneva has written by removing most of the contributions from other editors.Oz346 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Statement 3
I am going to try to answer all ongoing discussions here- please respond to them in the discussion section under this section- With so many discussions going on at different places its hard for me to keep track of them.

First- in response to Obi2canibe's opening statement- I will first remind you- you agreed to WP:AGF. Saying that Jayingeneva is trying to surpress numbers is not assuming good faith. I would ask you strike that. Also- I want to remind you to provided sources when you claim a source is to be dismissed- as you have with the UN Estimate- the source he uses to support his numbers is from sources as late as 2012. Unless you can find a source that specifically says in no uncertain terms these are false- and that source is more reliable than the UN- then their numbers are just as reliable as the other numbers coming from journalistic sources. So either both numbers must be included- or none. Now- I believe all parties agree there should be a death toll listed- the problem is in which. THe obvious solution is to include multiple numbers and their sources to show there is no agreed upon number- as you said- the true number will probably never be known, so we must do the best we can to present all POVs.

As for the quote saying that the UN failed to publicize information- I think looking at the entire quote is necessary for context "Former UN officials serving in the Sri Lanka at the time say they were forced to make difficult decisions under great pressure. The report, the work of a panel led by the former UN official Charles Petrie, details how the organisation failed to publicise authoritative data about the human toll of the fighting as casualties mounted. It criticises an earlier decision to withdraw UN staff from zones where much of the killing later took place because the Sri Lankan government said their safety could no longer be guaranteed." They were not surpressing numbers- they were acting on incomplete numbers because they could not investigate safely. The difference is important- because it does not indicate wrongdoing on the part of the UN, thus does not indicate they are an unreliable source- it mearly indicates that time provided better information. Its also worth noting that this article is from 2012- just a year after the report Jayingeneva is using- so there is no reason to assume that report is also inaccurate since it was published at the time of this article, yet is not mentioned. Your assertion that they are using inaccurate 2009 information is incorrect. They are using 2011 information directly from a UN report- not from a news report.

I was finally able to view the Trevor Grant source- it does say chemicals were imported and skeletons dissolved- so that statement is supported by a WP:RS. I would suggest adding that "journalists reported " to make it clear that this has not been confirmed by official review- but rather was "uncovered" by reporters. Still valid- but not AS reliable if that makes sense. I will add that to the proposed compromise.

Jayingeneva- their estimates are not based on simple projections- but they are based on inquires and reports completed outside of the UN. Their sources are as valid as yours and have as much right to be included as others- especially because they provide the other point of view.

Is there any disagreement about putting "At least 100,000" in the info box?

I thank you all for your patience and cooperation. I knew absolutely nothing about the Sri Lanken civil war before today, and oh boy have I had an introduction as I've waded through all of the sources. I usually try to read every word of every source in issues like this- there is way way too much to do that in this case- but I have read significant portions of every source. Truly- they are all seeking the same thing- to accurately report the enormous toll this war took on the people involved. And, I believe, that is what all of you would like to do as well. So I'm confident that we will get there soon!Nightenbelle (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Draft of Compromise Paragraph
The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war. Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.

In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”

Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone. In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll, with some reports claiming the government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. Journalists A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.

4th draft Discussion
I re-worked the paragraphs- I do think they flow better this way separating the two points of view more clearly- while still including all the requested information Nightenbelle (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the UN suppressing the figures, there is evidence of this and I will collate the sources for this too in time, here is one: http://www.innercitypress.com/unsri1lanka031809.html


 * This is corroborated by the UN's own panel of experts report, page VI, pages 40-41:


 * "During the final stages of the war, the United Nations political organs and bodies failed to take actions that might have protected civilians. Moreover, although senior international officials advocated in public and in private with the Government that it protect civilians and stop the shelling of hospitals and United Nations or ICRC locations, in the Panel’s view, the public use of casualty figures would have strengthened the call for the protection of civilians while those events in the Vanni were unfolding. In addition, following the end of the war, the Human Rights Council may have been acting on incomplete information when it passed its May 2009 resolution on Sri Lanka."


 * "136. It is worth noting that the United Nations raised casualty figures in private entreaties with the Government, but never publicized its specific estimates. Government officials strongly refuted the figures provided by the United Nations, stating that the numbers were fabricated and that this was not the business of the United Nations. Publicly the United Nations referred to the “heavy toll” of the fighting on civilians, or that the casualty figures were “unacceptably high”, but that the actual figures were not verifiable. The decision not to provide specific figures made the issue of civilian casualties less newsworthy. However, this position was maintained by senior United Nations officials until 13 March 2009, when the High Commissioner for Human Rights publicly stated that 2,800 civilians may have been killed and more than 7,000 injured since 20 January, many of them inside the NFZs.79 Pressure from the Government of Sri Lanka and fears of losing access may have resulted in a general under-reporting of violations by United Nations agencies.80 Some have criticized the failure of the United Nations to present figures publicly as events were unfolding, citing it as excessively cautious in comparison with other conflict situations."


 * https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20Rep%20on%20Account%20in%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf


 * Additionally, it is not just journalists who have reported the mass graves. The channel 4 source you cannot access has an army whistle blower who confirms it:


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20210323065043/https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone


 * Also the island of impunity source also describes hospital workers who witnessed the burying of bodies in mass graves, as well as the destruction of the evidence (page 157, 190). So I think rather than 'journalists', it should be 'others' as it is a broader group of people (and the multiple different references can be used to demonstrate this).


 * Also the addition of the words 'reports claim' that people were tortured and raped, why the need for this wording? It is well established that the Sri Lankan security forces use systematic sexual violence and torture against Tamil dissenters and those perceived as working against the government.


 * If you want to see countless sources confirming this you can read this draft I am working on:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sexual_violence_against_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka


 * I think having "at least 100,000" in the box is a good idea.


 * Thanks Oz346 (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources claim is necessary because there is not an official report that confirms many of the atrocities yet. I believe one will come- but as a neutral encyclopedia- we can't assert as fact what has not been confirmed. IE- there has not been a "trial" and I don't mean official trial in court- but an international examination by an authoritative body. Right now we have individual citizens accusing a government, and a government saying no we didn't do that. Even if we, as individual people, believe the citizens- until there is a formal investigation / decision- they are still just accusations. It may not seem right, but its fair. The UN Security Council Report is the closest we have- and even in that- it often stops shy of saying "This happened" and instead says "Citizens say this happened."


 * I will change the reporters to other sources. Honestly- if the source does say a military whistleblower claims- I think that would be reasonable to put in instead. Lets be accurate.


 * The Inner City Press Source is not reliable- it is an editorial source that exists almost exclusively to undermine the UN - we cannot use them as a source on the UN's reliability. They also don't have any information on their site about them as a company- just how to send them money. So, I'm sorry- this source does not dismiss the UN numbers.


 * Finally- I reviewed the draft you are working on- and there are too many sources on there for me to go through at this time- but there are issues with that draft that will need to be addressed before it is published- Issues I don't want to get into in this dispute- but I recommend you ask for a neutral editor to work with you on that page. Perhaps try the teahouse. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Jayingeneva's feedback on Fourth Draft
Thanks, that is a much better structure! The penny dropped for me! Instead of infinitely discussing on the Talk page to reach a consensus, insert the text with citations that demonstrates that a particular claim is incorrect/contested. If a User then starts a WP:EW / WP:VD, then bring it to the attention of WP:DRN.

re: "Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths."


 * Firstly, is there any problem adding this 2014 BBC article, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27462326, as a citation to support the 80,000 to 100,000 UN estimate? This would avert one particular line of conjecture.


 * There is also a 2018 BBC article, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46010487 that supports it.


 * Can you see a way to elegantly add some of the following from the 2012 UN Internal Review Panel report it states, "The methodology would seem to have been of a standard comparable to best-practice on information collection in other conflict situations." and "The COG would consider a casualty report as ‘verified’ only when it had been corroborated by three independent sources. As a result of this methodology, out of the total number of reports of 17,810 killed and 36,905 injured that the COG received, it was able to verify 7,737 killed and 18,479 injured." pp.114-115, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf


 * Is there way to avoid unsupported insinuations that the UN's verified death estimate has changed? The use of "initially" is problematic. That estimate strived to meet the best-practice standardised across global theatres of war. Hence, it is essential when comparing and contrasting global conflicts.

re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."


 * NOTE: These are projections. The estimates based on projections definitely need to be included in the article. However, please ensure the wording does not conflate the projection based estimates with verified estimates. Unfortunately, the current wording conflates the two types.


 * Is there a way to clearly convey that the 2013 Time article cited, https://world.time.com/2013/11/28/sri-lanka-to-start-tally-of-civil-war-dead/, is quoting the Sri Lankan Government and not the UN Panel report? For example, no where in the UN Panel report does it mention "while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." I may have done a poor job explaining this earlier. If there is no way to avoid this problematic inaccuracy, please add the Sri Lankan Government press release that the Time article is quoting as a citation, http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=24897.


 * Please note the 2011 UN Panel Report, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/POE_Report_Full.pdf, actually states the following:


 * "133. Some have developed estimates based on the statistics of the injured and dead collected by the doctors, which were collated by the hospitals and the District Disaster Management Unit. One estimate is that there were approximately 40,000 surgical procedures and 5,000 amputations performed during the final phase. Depending on the ratio of injuries to deaths, estimated at various times to be 1:2 or 1:3, this could point to a much higher casualty figure. Others have put the estimate at 75,000, a figure obtained by subtracting the number of people who emerged from the conflict zone (approximately 290,000) from the estimate of the number thought to have been in the conflict zone (approximately 330,000 in the NFZ from January, plus approximately the 35,000, who emerged from the LTTE-held areas before that time)."


 * "134. The United Nations Country Team is one source of information; in a document that was never released publicly, it estimated a total figure of 7,721 killed and 18,479 injured from August 2008 up to 13 May 2009, after which it became too difficult to count. In early February 2009, the United Nations started a process of compiling casualty figures, although efforts were hindered by lack of access. An internal “Crisis Operation Group” was formed to collect reliable information regarding civilian casualties and other humanitarian concerns. In order to calculate a total casualty figure, the Group took figures from RDHS as the baseline, using reports from national staff of the United Nations and NGOs, inside the Vanni, the ICRC, religious authorities and other sources to cross-check and verify the baseline. The methodology was quite conservative: if an incident could not be verified by three sources or could have been double-counted, it was dismissed. Figures emanating from sources that could be perceived as biased, such as Tamil Net, were dismissed, as were Government sources outside the Vanni."


 * "137. In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. 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. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths."

re: "Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone."


 * I agree with the inclusion of this sentence. My only suggestion is adding a couple of commas and substituting "this period alone" with "the final phase" because it reads better. e.g. 'Other sources, quoting discrepancies in the census figures, state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during the final phase.'

re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll"


 * The UN Human Rights Council's attempts to establish an international investigation is to investigate allegations of war crimes that the Sri Lankan Government appears to not want to investigate.


 * The two citations https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/10606982/Sri-Lanka-rejects-growing-calls-for-UN-war-crimes-investigation.html and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/11042707/Sri-Lanka-to-refuse-entry-to-UN-investigators.html do not support the claim "to ascertain the final death toll".


 * The Wikipedia Article we are discussing, states clearly, "The Sri Lankan state which is accused of perpetuating war crimes, has reportedly refused to cooperate with the inquiry.[310] In August 2014, the state rejected entry visas for investigating U.N. officials. Two months later, in October, Sri Lankan government banned all foreigners from visiting the former war zone altogether."

re: "with some reports claiming the government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances"


 * The two citations are https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ENGLISH-ITJP-Press-release-Disappearance.pdf and https://piac.asn.au/2014/02/12/island-of-impunity/ . I note that the mediator has deemed the former source, "Unknown Reliability- Severely biased. Does support sentence. Recomend review at WP:RSN". Hence, perhaps only the latter source, which seems to be an academic journal article, is included in the compromise draft? A significant focus of this dispute is to improve citations in this Article.

re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."


 * The citation https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone supports the first half of the sentence. However, it does not support the second half of the sentence. The news article does not contain the words "chemicals", "dissolve" nor "skeleton".

re: Infobox


 * Is it possible to have a separate verified death estimate and a projected unaccounted estimate? I strongly disagree with conflating the two types of estimates into a single number. i.e. X apples + Y oranges does not equal X + Y apples, nor does it equal X + Y oranges.


 * The verified estimate strived to meet the best-practice standardised across global theatres of war. Hence, it is essential when comparing and contrasting global conflicts. As I mentioned earlier, "The methodology would seem to have been of a standard comparable to best-practice on information collection in other conflict situations." and "The COG would consider a casualty report as ‘verified’ only when it had been corroborated by three independent sources." pp.114-115, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf

Thanks again for your Herculean effort! --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ENGLISH-ITJP-Press-release-Disappearance.pdf Source is by the International Truth and Justice Project, a human rights organisation led by human rights lawyer Yasmin Sooka, who was one of the UN Panel of Experts. The other reference with the death toll table is from the same organisation. If this is not deemed as reliable, than what is stopping us from calling the UN panel unreliable too? The reports of this organisation are quoted by several media groups and organisations including the BBC and ICG:


 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35249088


 * It is very much a recognised and reliable source.


 * Regarding your so-called verified figure, there is no evidence what so ever that the 100,000 number is based on your definition of verified numbers, with cross checking by three independent sources. There is no evidence that this was the methodology used for this initial estimate of 100,000 for the entire period of war Oz346 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer's responses
Regarding the BBC source- we have 2 WP:RS- I don't see why a third will make it more true. Multiple sources cite that number from the UN. The fact that the UN said that is well established. More sources will not make it any more true. We don't have to cite every article that discusses this.

Adding the UN methodology would fall under WP:UNDUE. If people want to know about the UN methodology- they should go to the appropriate article, but people who want to know about the Sri Lanken civil war should not have to slog through the methodology for each agency to get to numbers. This is an overview- not the be-all, end-all report. Encyclopedia- not graduate dissertation. :-)

I will change to, in 20xx the UN estimated.... this does give a date- allowing for later changes, but does not have the connotation of "initially"

Your problem with estimates and projections does not make sense to me, I'm sorry. It seems like you are saying your source's numbers of greater value than the others- and I have to say- that's just not the case. The other sources have done as much research and investigation as the UN. They are just as valid numbers. I'm sorry- but I don't think its fair to do anything more to highlight the UN numbers. The other numbers are no more projections than the UN- both sides are estimating. Using the available information to make their best educated guess. An estimate IS a projection- they are synonyms. You look at the facts you have, and make some guided guesses at what the bigger picture is. So, no- I don't think its fair to add any more weight to the UN numbers or pull any weight from the other numbers. I think that would be biased- and we need to present both sides equally.

"Is there a way to clearly convey that the 2013 Time article cited, https://world.time.com/2013/11/28/sri-lanka-to-start-tally-of-civil-war-dead/, is quoting the Sri Lankan Government and not the UN Panel report? " No one is saying that it is quoting the UN Panel. The article says the UN estimate, and then says  other independent sources  that is clarifying that other non-un sources are making other estimates.

"re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll" I will adjust the wording to reflect the sources more accurately.

" "with some reports claiming the government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances"" I will wait to see what the WP:RSN says before I adjust.

"re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."" The source does say the chemicals were poured in the graves to make bodies disappear. This is quibbling over synonyms here. Dissolve, and make disappear have the same meaning. We don't have to quote articles- summarizing them is okay. Dissolve is what liquids do to solids to make them disappear. The source does support the sentence as written.

re: Infobox- you stated earlier you were fine with the number, now you want to add another section? Again- both numbers are verified estimates- they are verified by sources other than the UN- but that does not make them less valid. Its not apples and oranges, its more like Blood Oranges and Mandarin Oranges. Both are oranges- just from a different tree.

"If this is not deemed as reliable, than what is stopping us from calling the UN panel unreliable too?"- This is why I recommended that you take it to the WP:RS noticeboard. My other self-chosen job here on wp is reviewing articles for creation- which is a whole lotta fact checking. I was also an English teacher in another world- so teaching teenagers how to do research was part of my job. So, I'm pretty good with gauging reliability- but I'm not infallible. And some human rights organizations are rigorous in their fact checking and review, and some are more concerned with motivating people. I am not familiar with this one, and I could not find their review process on their website, nor could I find other websites specifically discussing their reliability. Same with their parent company. While yes, the founder has an esteemed background- that does not automatically make everything they publish reliable. So- I recommend you go to WP:RSN and ask their opinion of this source so there is no question. I searched their board before I reviewed- and I do not see any previous discussion of this source. As to what will keep you from saying the UN is not a WP:RS, well the fact that it has already been discussed on WP:RSN and deemed a reliable source is what will keep you from saying that. And that statement is aggressive and unhelpful. Please, this discussion is making progress, lets keep it polite so that we can wrap this up. I think we are getting close. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Draft of Paragraph
The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war. Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.

In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000." The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”

Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone. In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war, with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.

Discussion on 5th draft
Looks good to me. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Jayingeneva's feedback on 5th Draft
Nightenbelle We are almost there!

re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"


 * Can the ":" at the end of the sentence be replaced with a full-stop / period? That would absolutely avoid any possible misinterpretation that the text "while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000" is contained in the UN Panel report.

re: '"“A number of credible ...'


 * There are two double quotes at the start of the sentence.

re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,"


 * Can the "," at the end be replaced with a full-stop / period to complete the thought?

re: "The source does say the chemicals were poured in the graves to make bodies disappear."

Could you possibly be referring to another document? Can you please copy 'n' paste the quote you are referring to, from the cited article, https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone ? In the cited news article, I can not find the words "chemical", "pour", "disappear", "dissolve" nor "skeleton".

re: "Infobox- you stated earlier you were fine with the number, now you want to add another section?"


 * That was not me. :-)


 * BBC Article published yesterday (23 March 2021) about the recent UNHRC Resolution, states, "The UN believes 80,000-100,000 people died in the 26-year conflict with the Tamil Tiger rebel group." https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-56502221


 * My suggestion is:
 * 80,000 to 100,000 (UN estimate)
 * At least 100,000 (non-UN estimate)


 * If only one estimate is allowed, then, perhaps this would be a fair compromise:
 * At least 100,000 (non-UN estimate)

re: "The other sources have done as much research and investigation as the UN."


 * NOTE: The UN verified each reported death. No other source did that. The projected death estimates are simply a subtraction of the population estimate at one particular point in time by the number of Internally Displaced People after the end of the war. e.g. "Others have put the estimate at 75,000, a figure obtained by subtracting the number of people who emerged from the conflict zone (approximately 290,000) from the estimate of the number thought to have been in the conflict zone (approximately 330,000 in the NFZ from January, plus approximately the 35,000, who emerged from the LTTE-held areas before that time)." The projected estimates are to encourage governments to initiate credible investigations to disprove the projections.

Thanks again for your effort! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The UN verified each reported death." This is complete speculation. The 100,000 estimate from 20 May 2009 was for the whole conflict (before the later UN leaks). There is no evidence whatsoever that the UN verified every death from 1983-2009, with triple check methodology. I completely disagree with the assertion that this one (outdated) estimate should be called "UN estimate' or 'verified estimate'. Especially when this predates the later UN leaks of 40,000-70,000 deaths.Oz346 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to agree- the UN did not verify each death- they do not have the names of all 100,000 of those deaths- if they had, they would not be calling their numbers an estimate. The definition of estimate is "an approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something." They did a lot of fact checking sure- but in a situation such as this it is literally impossible to verify every single death. They did an investigation, and made a very well educated guess. Just like the other groups. I'm sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The COG would consider a casualty report as ‘verified’ only when it had been corroborated by three independent sources. As a result of this methodology, out of the total number of reports of 17,810 killed and 36,905 injured that the COG received, it was able to verify 7,737 killed and 18,479 injured." pp.114-115, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf . I'm happy to agree to disagree. :-) --Jayingeneva (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That just means 3 sources said it- its still an estimate- not a list of names/people. If it wasn't an estimate- they wouldn't call it that. I'm sorry- the UN numbers are no more reliable than the other sources. So, we cannot give them more weight and maintain NPOV. You can accept them personally for your own use, but for WP- we have to give all the sources equal weight. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the Infobox, please do give the UN estimate of 80,000 to 100,000 equal weighting by presenting it to the reader. Here's the BBC Article published on the 23 March 2021 to support it, https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-56502221 --Jayingeneva (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point- I'm going to throw the infobox out of this disagreement- because you have changed your mind twice now. So- ya'll will need to discuss that back at the talk page, this DRN was about the paragraph, and that is the only topic I am going to agree to mediate at this point. Does anyone have any further problems with the paragraph or are we good to close? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The COG would consider a casualty report as ‘verified’ only when it had been corroborated by three independent sources. As a result of this methodology, out of the total number of reports of 17,810 killed and 36,905 injured that the COG received, it was able to verify 7,737 killed and 18,479 injured." pp.114-115,


 * This Quote does NOT refer to the 100,000 figure. It refers to an earlier figure from the final phase of the war alone, when only 7737 deaths were recorded. Not even the full period of the final phase of war, when deaths escalated sharply at the end.


 * And just because BBC continues to quote an inaccurate figure out of a lack of carefulness does not mean that its accurate or gospel. The BBC were quoting the 70,000 dead figure for years without change before the final phase of the war (despite 1000s more dying).


 * I agree that the paragraph is good to close in its current form. And that saying "at least 100,000 dead" or "unknown" or "no consensus" in the info box is the most reasonable decision to make. Oz346 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle As per my feedback on 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC), here are the remaining issues with the paragraph:


 * re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"


 * Can the ":" at the end of the sentence be replaced with a full-stop / period? That would absolutely avoid any possible misinterpretation that the text "while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000" is contained in the UN Panel report.


 * re: '"“A number of credible ...'


 * There are two double quotes at the start of the sentence.


 * re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,"


 * Can the "," at the end be replaced with a full-stop / period to complete the thought?


 * re: "The source does say the chemicals were poured in the graves to make bodies disappear."


 * Could you possibly be referring to another document? Can you please copy 'n' paste the quote you are referring to, from the cited article, https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone ? In the cited news article, I can not find the words "chemical", "pour", "disappear", "dissolve" nor "skeleton".


 * The last issue seems particularly egregious. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the trevor grant reference to that sentence mentioning the skeletons being dissolved by chemicals. The link is there. Also I quoted the paragraph in full earlier in the discussion. I will repost it here:


 * "The problem for the perpetrators of these atrocities was that the world found it impossible to swallow the fiction of zero casualties and humanitarian motives, given the stark evidence of about 150,000 people missing, between 40,000 and 70,000 of whom had been killed by the Sri Lankan military in one small patch of territory. Thus, the scene of the final thrust in Mullivaikal, where these thousands of civilians died, soon became a target for a military desperate to hide the truth.


 * Something had to be done about the mass graves that had been highlighted in international media and that contained so much evidence. A special acid that would dissolve bones quickly was imported from China. Local media reported that as the international crescendo about war crimes began to rise, the government disposed of the evidence by uncovering these graves and pouring in the acid. Within a short time, bone had turned to dust. Another method was to dig up the graves and dispose of the contents, which the military was still doing in systematic fashion well after the war, according to eye-witnesses working with the government's death and burial registry."


 * "Can the ":" at the end of the sentence be replaced with a full-stop / period?" That : needs to be there, because it refers ONLY to the final phase of the war, and that needs to be made clear. Oz346 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle Thanks to Oz346 for clarifying the error.


 * re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."


 * It should be, 'A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves. A journalist, Trevor Grant, stated chemicals were used to dissolve skeletons.'
 * --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was NOT just Trevor Grant who makes thats accusation. He himself references other journalists. It should be 'Military whistleblowers and journalists accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.' Or just my initial phrasing "Others accused...", as the mass graves were corroborated by a plethora of people, army, journalists and hospital workers.Oz346 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oz346 OK, so it should be, 'A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves. Journalists, including Trevor Grant, stated chemicals were used to dissolve skeletons.' --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oz346 Why are you editing Nightenbelle's paragraph in edit 1014215420. Am I allowed to edit it to? --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I made minor non-controversial edits like removal of double punctuation and double spacing. No you are not allowed to add your contested changes without consensus or Nightenbelle's permission.Oz346 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You made a citation change in another edit. Also, I think you removed the wrong double quote. There are two types. I think one is preferred by WP. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was NOT just a military whistle blower who accused the government of a cover up. It was multiple different sources who all accused the government of a cover up. So this should be made clear. Not reduced to just one person.Oz346 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What Nightenbelle explained is that the citation has to support the statement. The citation you gave, refers to a military whistleblower. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave 3 separate references in my initial statement which supported the assertion of a cover up. Army whistle blower, Trevor Grant and the Island of Impunity report. All 3 explicitly refer to mass graves and the burying/destruction of evidence which is a part of the cover up process.Oz346 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Jayingeneva's feedback on 5th Draft v2
Noting Oz346's clarification and edits to the paragraph.

re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"


 * Can the ":" at the end of the sentence be replaced with a full-stop / period? That would absolutely avoid any possible misinterpretation that the text "while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000" is contained in the UN Panel report.

re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,"


 * Run-on sentence. Can the "," at the end be replaced with a full-stop / period to complete the thought?

re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."


 * It should be: 'A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves. A journalist, Trevor Grant, stated chemicals were used to dissolve skeletons.'

--Jayingeneva (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 3 separate references which support the assertion of a cover up, mass graves and destruction of evidence.


 * (1) Trevor Grant


 * (2) Army whistle blower https://web.archive.org/web/20210323065043/https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone Nightenbelle, please read this reference, i think you had server issues before, i put it on archive.org for you to access.


 * (3) Island of Impunity report. https://piac.asn.au/2014/02/12/island-of-impunity/ (page 157, 190), full quote below from page 190, SF refers to security forces:


 * "C. Destruction of mass grave sites


 * 14.21 Shortly before this report was finalised, ICEP obtained new eye-witness information in respect of the registration and burial of the civilian dead in the former conflict zone in Sri Lanka during the final five months of the war, and the alleged systematic destruction of civilian mass burial sites in the post-conflict period.


 * 14.22 According to this witness, these burial sites contained human remains from hundreds, and in some instances, thousands of men, women and children who died during the conflict. The precise location of these, and other, burial sites, has been provided to ICEP.


 * 14.23 This witness has alleged that scores of civilian mass burial sites were systematically destroyed after the conflict. According to this witness, the SFs, and specifically members of the Sri Lankan Police and Sri Lankan Army, are directly implicated in this conduct. This witness believes that senior SFs officials knew that graves were being identified for the purpose of exhumation, and permanent destruction, over a period of more than a year. Self- evidently, these allegations are very serious and there is an urgent need for further investigation to determine their veracity."


 * All 3 explicitly refer to mass graves and the burying/destruction of evidence which is a part of the cover up process. Oz346 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * From the quotations you have provided, the allegation of using "chemicals" is only from Trevor Grant's book. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe's feedback on "Fifth Draft of Paragraph": [Due to time pressures I have not had time to read and digest the discussion above so I apologise if my feedback has already been addressed]
 * First paragraph - Would like "before the final phase of the war" replaced with "by 2006". The inclusion of the 80,000–100,000 figure in the opening paragraph is problematic as it is has been superseded. "Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths" should be removed and replaced with "Currently it is estimated that at least 100,000 were killed during the 26 year civil war" (sources have been provided in my opening statement). The removed sentence can be added to second paragraph.


 * Second paragraph - There is repetition of content - any source that refers to UN estimate of 40,000 dead is referring to the 2011 Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Removing the repetition, the second paragraph can look this: "Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. However, in 2011 the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths."" (sources as provided in Fifth Draft of Paragraph)


 * Third paragraph - Again, there is repetition. The "Panel of Experts" referred to by the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka is the Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (2011) which is discussed in the second paragraph so we don't need to mention it again. Suggest third paragraph reads "Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone. In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for. Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000." (sources as provided in Fifth Draft of Paragraph)

--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fourth paragraph - Don't think this relevant to the Sri Lankan Civil War section - there are other sections in the article which deal with abuses.
 * This is not in the Sri Lankan Civil War section, this is in the intro to the article.Oz346 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Note
Please note, I had a personal issue come up this weekend and I did not mean to abandon this discussion. I'm trying to weed through all that has happened and review discussion. I will reply this evening, There is just too much going on today with work for me to focus as I need to with this. But I will reply / try to resolve this tonight. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer's Responses
Response to back & Forth between Jayingeneva and Oz346

Once again Jayingeneva We do not need to directly quote as long as we are summarizing accurately. The channel4 article supports the mass graves and destruction of evidence with the line "'But they couldn't bury all of them. What they did was, they bought a bulldozer, the spread the dead bodies out and put sand on top of them, making it look like a bund.'" With the other source specifically adding the chemical information. So- two sources support two parts of that sentence.

Response to Jayingeneva 2.0-

1. No the : cannot be replaced because it is a direct quote- we cannot change anything within a direct quote.

2. I can change it to a semicolon to show a continued thought- but a period would create one complete sentence and one incomplete one.

Response to Obi2canibe's feedback:

1a. I will change to by 2006. 1b. There is a source that supports the statement of the UN estimate. Leaving it in is part of the compromise with Jayingeneva who wants to ensure UN numbers are included. Removing it would basically undo everything we have discussed until now.

2. I will change the second paragraph

3. I don't see the repitition in the third- there are 3 different numbers cited by three different sources- your version eliminates one of them. Again- this is a compromise, so its best if all proposed number sources be included.

4. Since this is the lead, I'm going to omit this suggestion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

6th Draft
The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006. Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. However, in 2011, The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”

Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone. In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" while some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war, with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances. A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.

Discussion about 6th version
The 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous. The way Obi2canibe worded it below seems fine to me:

"However, in 2011 the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths."

Other than that it seems fine (barring the repeated sentence at the beginning, please read again). Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

re: "The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006."


 * The recent change to "by 2006" is inaccurate. As per the citations, in 2007, the UN estimated 70,000 killed. An accurate statement would be: 'The war was waged for over a quarter of a century. In 2007, before the final phase of the war, the UN estimated 70,000 were killed.'

re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."


 * I agree it is important to be accurate when summarising. Hence, it is essential to make it clear that, 'A journalist, Trevor Grant, stated chemicals were used to dissolve skeletons.'

Almost there, thanks again! --Jayingeneva (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already said before, it is NOT just Trevor Grant who makes that claim. Other journalists also make the claim, which Grant references himself.


 * "Others accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons." My original wording with 'others' would cover all the original sources, whether military whistle blowers, journalists, hospital workers and officials. The specific references can then be clicked on to see further attribution. We can add the full quotes/notes within the citation links to avoid any confusion.Oz346 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Closing Statement

 * Jayingeneva- I don't understand why you are wanting to downplay or minimize the destruction of corpses. But I have said multiple times- it is supported as written by sources. So removing it is POV pushing and that's not okay. The grammar debates are also personal preferences on grammar and just delaying the process at this point. So we are done with grammar preferences. The current version is grammatically correct- and is clear and understandable. We're not going to play with moving words around anymore to delay the process. The "by 2006" is also- arguing semantics when both are accurate- In 2007, the UN estimated 70,000 had been killed before 2006. We don't need both dates in the sentence- its confusing. And we've already argued this and it was okayed by you before. You are changing your mind again. And at this point- I'm going to call this resolved and insert paragraph. This is clear delaying at this point- I don't k now what the reason is, and it doesn't really matter at this point. There is a consensus for the current version. Thank you all for participating. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle Thanks again for your time on this!


 * re: "In 2007, the UN estimated 70,000 had been killed before 2006."
 * That is factually incorrect. The UN estimated that 70,000 peopled were killed before the 12 March 2007. If you use "before 2006", you omit 12 months of 2006 and the first 2.5 months of 2007. I hope I was able to explain it clearly.


 * re: "And we've already argued this and it was okayed by you before. You are changing your mind again."
 * No. What I agreed to was "final phase of the war.", which does not include 2006 nor 2007.


 * re: "I don't understand why you are wanting to downplay or minimize the destruction of corpses."
 * I'm not. Oz346 and the citations clearly state the chemical use allegation was reported by a journalist not a military whistleblower.


 * I'm only seeking accuracy. Sorry if it has taken longer than you expected. --Jayingeneva (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer note I'll change it to by 2007. That is the final change that will be made. This resolution is concluded. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Middle Eastern superheroes
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is tentative agreement that people of Middle Eastern ethnicities should be included in the list. The disagreement I want help with, is should the inclusion criteria defer to the existing consensus in main Middle East page as for which ethnicities are Middle Eastern, or should those decisions be made in the list's talk page?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Middle_Eastern_superheroes#RFC:_Who_counts_as_"Middle_Eastern_Superhero"?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully more voices will help create resolution here.

Summary of dispute by Rsk6400
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of Middle Eastern superheroes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

List of Starship flights
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute on whether SN10's landing was a failure or partial failure. Two of the landing legs broke and the vehicle exploded around 10 min. later. SN8 and SN9 exploded on the moment of landing and they say failure, so many users think that SN10's landing should be marked as partial failure. (Starship is a prototype rocket.)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have changed it to Partial failure, but other people change is tack to failure. Other people have also had the same problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Starship_flights#SN10_outcome

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Maybe you can decide if it should be failure or partial failure.

Summary of dispute by N828335
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jrcraft Yt
There was discourse on the landing outcome of the Starship SN10 flight. After discussion in the talk page. The consensus was that because of the failure of the landing legs, The failure of the helium pressurization system, the failure of the engine to respond to commands, the failure of the vehicle structure which resulted in a methane leak, and the high speed in which the vehicle struck, failing to achieve a soft landing, the fire that was onboard the vehicle, and the fact that the rocket exploded after a hard touchdown. That the landing should be classified as a failure. SpaceX themselves initially claimed success, but later admitted problems throughout the landing that resulted in a reusable rocket exploding. The table includes a note that states "Despite making an intact landing and beginning the detaining procedures, the vehicle suffered an explosion several minutes later destroying the vehicle in the process. SpaceX has claimed it as a successful landing but later admitted problems with engine thrust and that the vehicle exploded." It also must be said that there are no sources to claim a "partial success" for landing. This mater was brought back to discussion by IP 64.121.103.144. Who disregarded the discussion in the talk page, and changed the table, but not the charts which resulted in disparities in the data within the same page. In addition, their edits "broke" the formatting of the table. Leaving the table unreadable. Keep in mind the fact that this table is used on multiple pages. The editor then posted a message in the talk page stating " I think that it should be put as Partial Failure. Unfortunately, people keep changing it to failure, and I have to revert it. SN10 landed successfully, but 2 of the landing legs broke. But it did not explode on landing like SN8 and SN9. SN10 should have some difference than the failure put for SN8 and SN9. " This not only shows the editors failure to maintain a neutral point of view (" I think.") but the blatant disregard for what was discussed previously. I responded to the editor, but received no response. Please see Talk:List of Starship flights for the full conversation. In order to bring a dispute to this page, the editor bringing the dispire must "Have you discussed this on a talk page." This person did not do this, so this dispute should be a non-started. The user did not try to resolve this dispute before coming here, which again, must occor before a dispute is brought here. This should not have been brought here in the first place because 64.121.103.144 failed to engage in any discussion prior. SpaceX admitted that the vehicle had problems which resulted in the total loss and full destruction of the rocket. The landing failed. This was agreed upon, but was altered without any discussion, with personal bias, while runing the table, making it unusable. The combined failures resulted in the explosion of the rocket. It failed to properly land and was destroyed as a result. There is no sugar coating it because you dislike seeing the word failure. The landing was an objective failure. When the vehicle explodes (fails) after an anomalous landing, it's a failure. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Peterstev
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by mfb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Not sure why I was listed here, I made a single comment early on without stating a preference, and that's still my point of view. External sources tend to explain what happened instead of using a single short expression, so we can't just copy them. I don't mind either way. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Osunpokeh
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by AndrewRG10
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by crandles
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by N2e
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Despite the high interest of many editors to try to assign a single success criteria in a table for these test flights of prototype test articles, I don't think it can be done and stay in Wikipedia policy for verifiability and no original research/no synthesis. This kind of tea leaf grading on tests which are (quite naturally) run as proprietary tests by a private company can't be done. Why? The companies simply don't make public what all the test objectives are of any test. We often do not have a reliable basis to be lumping an entire complex development test as even success or failure, let alone splitting hairs on whether it is a success, partial success, partial failure, or failure. We just have a bunch of citizen journalists with cameras pointed trying to judge the entire thing from videos of whether the prototype landed or not, perhaps with a couple of vague tweets from the CEO. The entire "Landing outcome" column in the table is original research and/or WP:SYNTHESIS, neither of which are appropriate in Wikipedia articles.

These are not operational flights, with some sort of single success criteria (the goods transported to the destination were either delivered or were not). Development engineering of new technology pushing the boundaries simply doesn't work that way. With these tests, we don't have a set of robust sources that agree, which could lead to easy consensus on the part of a bunch of Wikipedia editors on each test flight. There is no customer here, and therefore no objective way to measure a test against "successful" or "unsuccessful." That's just humans wanting to keep score.

Just say what happened, with good sources, in the article prose. And leave it at that. The entire "Outcome" column in the table should not even be there, as that requires synthesis for editors to draw some conclusion. N2e (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zerim
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by E.Wright1852
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The last edit I made to List of Starship flights was at 16:32, 19 March 2021. User:64.121.103.144 first made an edit to the same article at 18:38, 29 March 2021, 10 days later. We had a lot of trouble with disruptive editing after SN10 landed and I subsequently requested page protection. A User was blocked for disruptive editing but the page was not protected.

When I reverted their disruptive edits this is the version of the page it went to. On the 14 March I had to again revert disruptive editing as a user changed information to how they wanted it and would not engage constructively on the talk page. It is becoming a problem on this article and page protection is needed to stop disruptive editing. Personally I do think the outcome was a failure. But should the outcome column be there, No I don't think it should. A good description of the flight with good sources and the article would be a lot better. I stopped editing on the article and talk page because of several users not engaging in constructive consensus building as it was not easy to create a good article. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Starship Flights discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Jrcraft Yt just said that I did not discuss it on the talk page. I did. This is about the content of the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - Is this a dispute about the formatting of a table, about the content of a table, or about the content of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about the content. The consensus that was discussed in the talk page was the the landing of the SN10 test vehicle was a failure. I mentioned the table because 1). Thats where the content is. And 2). When User talk:64.121.103.144 edited the table. They broke the formatting of the table. A discussion on the talk page involves back and forth dialogue. Not a single comment without any response or conversation. Simply posting your opinion (you did state that it was only your opinion "I think that") on the talk page does not mean that you superceed any discusion help previously. A partial failure would be where the vehicle lands, but is damaged in a way that it cannot fly again without a repair. SN10 exploded, where do you draw a line for failure then? Do you not consider the total destruction of the vehicle as a failure? Since you don't, what do you? --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to disrupt the table's formatting. I would say that a landing failure would be when it explodes at the moment of landing. And what is being discussed here is whether the landing was a partial failure or not, not whether the vehicle had an explosion.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * volunteer note I also need to ask- what are the sources stating success or failure? I'm afraid I'm only seeing WP:OR and no sources that state success or failure- labeling it thus without supporting sources cannot happen. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are a few.     --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is SpaceX. And SpaceX did say that the landing was a success even after the explosion. SpaceX removes the mission details about a month after it happens, but for an example, visit SpaceX's Starship page 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC) I do not mean SpaceX's twitter account. I mean their website, spacex.com/starship. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer comment I'm sorry- Twitter is not a WP:RS and cannot be used. As for the other sources- they only support the last flight- and none of them state it was a clear success or failure. I'm sorry- as of now- this is all still WP:OR and does not belong on WP at all. Find sources that refer to all the flights status as success or failure, or don't include it at all. Anything else is WP:Synth or WP:OR. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * volunteer comment One of the sources cited above was Elon Musk's twitter account- that was the one I was saying is unacceptable. For the space ex website- I asked you to link to the specific page within the space ex site that listed the flights as successes or failures- because I could not find it by a quick review of the site myself. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Starship flights
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the table, I would like Starship SN15 and BN1 added. When I did so, it was reverted. I did it once or twice more but it was again reverted. I brought it to the talk page. SpaceX has said that they want to fly SN15 and BN2.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have tried to convince them to put back SN15 and BN2. 

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can decide whether SN15 and BN2 should be added before the vehicle is put on the pad or not.

Summary of dispute by El Roih
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by FinTGM
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by mfb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by crandles
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of Starship flights discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Azerbaijanis
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute over whether an image of a few girls should be used in the infobox of an article about an ethnicity. I believe it's inappropriate for a few girls to represent an ethnicity of 30+ million people, consisting of different colours, genders and ages. A third opinion was invited to resolve the dispute, however, the supporters of the image did not agree with the third opinion's conclusion.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User_talk:CuriousGolden Talk:Azerbaijanis

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I imagine the editors involved are respectful enough to agree with the conclusion of a knowledgeable dispute resolver (is that what it's called?).

Summary of dispute by Parishan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe the rationale provided does not apply to the case of a single photo. I also do not think that the role of an infobox image is to represented every colour, gender and age that a people displays. In my opinion, an image is acceptable as long as it is illustrative, non-controversial and properly cited, and all of these criteria seem to be met. Parishan (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ChillManChill
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Brandmeister
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The objection to the image is unconvincing and it was already explained on the talk page why MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply here. As per file info, the infobox image shows Azerbaijani folk dancers, in traditional dresses, the source is Azerbaijan International and there's an OTRS permission. Brandmeistertalk  18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arjayay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ardenter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There was a dispute in the talk page of the user "CuriousGolden" about their removal of an image of five Azerbaijani girls from the Azerbaijanis article's infobox. The user "Parishan" criticized the removal, and after some discussion the dispute was moved to the talk page of Azerbaijanis. A third opinion was requested. I pointed to the No Ethnic Galleries policy, which was only rebutted to with the claim that the policy only applies to multiple images. I again pointed to the Break the Rules policy and that the spirit and consensus of the No Ethnic Galleries policy applies equally regardless of the number of images. Images such as the one in dispute are also non-common among other ethnicity articles. I believe the image is in violation of Wikipedia policy and precedent. Ardenter (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer Note All users notified. Talk page discussion appropriate time and WP:3o has already been done. No clear consensus. The one concern- is six is on the high end of number of participants. Ready for a mediator who is willing to attempt. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Azerbaijanis)
I will act as the moderator. (That's the term for the dispute resolver.) Please read the usual rules. You are expected to follow the rules, so if you are not sure about anything, ask questions. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts are not helpful, and some Wikipedia disputes are complicated by overly long posts. Comment on content, not contributors. Comment on edits, not editors. Do not reply to the statements made by other editors in the space for statements. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the space for the purpose, but I will try to resolve this by having the editors reply to me, and to the community.

This appears to be an image question. If there are any questions other than the image, please state in one paragraph what the issue is.

Also, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their position is about the image or images. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ardenter
I believe the image is in violation of No Ethnic Galleries, as per the consensus discussions on the topic. I also argue that images like the one in question is abnormal among ethnicity articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardenter (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden
I find using a single photo of a few girls in the infobox inappropriate, as infoboxes usually are there to wrap up the general information about the article and using an image of few people would make a lot of readers think that 'this is how most Azerbaijanis look'. In addition, most ethnicity articles do not utilize such images for the controversies that it may create, so it'd be prudent for us to follow the consistency. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  10:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Parishan
I still find many ethnicity articles that do feature such images in their infoboxes and fail to see how anyone would have the impression that half a dozen young women represent the whole of physical types encountered in a certain geographical area. I truly doubt that anyone approaches such articles with that idea in mind. The photo has featured in this article for nearly 14 years and has never been an issue of controversy regarding its illustrative properties. Parishan (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Brandmeister
If "it's inappropriate for a few girls to represent an ethnicity of 30+ million people", then basically all similar images should be removed from other ethnicity articles. It's apparent that no such image pretends to represent an entire ethnicity, yet the encyclopedic value is obvious. In fact, the image in question has not been an issue since 2016, staying in the article for five years now. Brandmeistertalk  09:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Azerbaijanis)
Opponents of the image state that it violates the MOS guideline on images, No Ethnic Galleries. I will ask those editors who support keeping the image to explain why it is consistent with the guideline, or why the guideline is not applicable. I will ask those editors who support removal of the image to state, in one concise paragraph, why they think that the image violates the guideline, AND what they think is the reason for the guideline. Address your replies to me and to the community, not to each other. If you want to reply to each other, you may do it in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Parishan
WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES refers to collages of visuals depicting renowned people (sometimes up to 40) supposedly belonging to the ethnic group in question (example from a different article). The rule was put in place because ethnic galleries created too much controversy as to whether or not specific famous persons depicted in the collage, especially those that lived centuries ago, really did represent said ethnic group or identify with it. The picture in the article Azerbaijanis is not a gallery and does not depict anyone whose identity can be legitimately questioned, hence the policy is not applicable here. Parishan (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Brandmeister
Fortunately there's no ongoing edit war over the image, but I agree with Parishan above. And as I explained in my first statement above, the concern raised by CuriousGolden doesn't warrant the removal of image from the article. Alternatively, the image could be moved out from the infobox down to some section in the article. Brandmeistertalk  08:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Azerbaijanis)
Only one editor has responded to my second request for statements. If you do not respond, I may assume that you are no longer interested in the outcome of the case. If I think that the dispute has subsided to editors withdrawing from the case, I may close the case as resolved, or put the case on hold.

Is there still disagreement about whether to include the picture? If so, please reply as to how the guideline either does apply or does not apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This page begins "The Schutzstaffel was a major paramilitary organization ..." I find this use of the word "paramilitary" misleading. Even though the SS began as a purely paramilitary organization, when the Nazi party seized power, the SS assumed many non-paramilitary roles. By the time the Third Reich fell most of its personnel were soldiers (the Waffen SS fielded 41 divisions with 900,000 soldiers, larger than the US Marine Corps in the same war), police (both political and criminal), intelligence, and prison staff. I believe some more general description is needed.

(The SS is perhaps best known for being in charge of one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. I don't think this counts as "paramilitary," but even if it does it was only one function, among many other evils.)

To be fair, my initial attempts to reword the intro were poorly considered. (If I were to start from scratch, I'd just change "paramilitary" to "uniformed service," a wording I've stolen from Britannica.) But the response to my edits were lacking in good faith. The counterarguments, when given at all (I was reverted several times without explanation) had to do with wordiness. When they finally addressed my reason for the change, their arguments boiled down to "is too a paramilitary force." I won't attempt to summarize these (obviously I'm biased) but I don't think any of them address the simple matter of the small percentage of personnel dedicated to paramilitary functions.

Personal issues forced me to let this drop for a while. When I returned, I decided that trying to resume the argument was pointless, but a Fact or Fiction tag might at least bring more people into the discussion. But this minimal non-content change was met by an angry response and organized dogpiling. Plus (ironically) accusations of edit warring.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Schutzstaffel#Reversion_without_explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Schutzstaffel#Paramilitary_organization_issue_AGAIN

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I need more people (not the three or so people who "own" the page) to weigh in on two issues:


 * Is "paramilitary" misleading in this context?


 * In any case, is my use of the Fact or Fiction tag appropriate.

Summary of dispute by Kierzek
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The editor who opened this thread is looking at it "the wrong way around". The SS began as a bodyguard unit for Hitler, created in 1925. It was expanded and remained a sub-branch under the SA (another larger Nazi para-military organization) until the summer of 1934. The SS became a large organization overall, run through the main branch of the Allgemeine SS, under Heinrich Himmler in his capacity as Reichsführer-SS, from January 1929, forward. He certainly was not a military officer, only one who liked to play general. Within the SS, were the main branches of the Allgemeine SS, SS-Totenkopfverbände or SS-TV and Waffen-SS, there further existed sub-branches, including the RSHA (which had as departments: the Sicherheitsdienst or SD, Gestapo and the Kriminalpolizei or Kripo). Just because the Waffen-SS came to have the most members, it never stopped being a branch organization under the SS umbrella, controlled by Himmler. The Waffen-SS grew out of the SS-Verfügungstruppe or SS-VT, personal political troops for Hitler and the Nazi Party. That aspect did not change, the Waffen-SS remained an armed-wing of political soldiers, always at Hitler's disposal. Also, it must be remembered that by 1944, some 40,000 of the Waffen-SS were assigned to other branches and units of the SS organization. There was also a continuous rotation of Waffen-SS men (and exchange of personnel) with the concentration-camp staff/troops (SS-TV) throughout the war; so, that adds to the SS overall being a para-military organization. Kierzek (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Obenritter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This editor raised the issue of the Schutzstaffel (SS) being characterized as a paramilitary force due to the fact that parts of it later developed into a military force, the Waffen-SS. The editors identified in this complaint have all addressed this matter on the Talk Page, to include demonstrating that RS sources define the SS as "paramilitary". Unsatisfied with this response, the editor who brought this here must assume that RS (academic substantiation) and consensus opinion among well-informed editors are insufficient. It is a non-issue, unworthy of this forum in my opinion, particularly since there was no RS counter evidence disputing the claim that the SS was "paramilitary" aside from the complainant's opinion.--Obenritter (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Diannaa
Isaac Rabinovitch added the template three times in two days, and it was removed by three different editors. Hence the posts on his talk page regarding edit warring; I'm not sure why he describes this as ironic. It's not dogpiling either; it's routine watchlisting and maintenance by regular contributors to our suite of articles on Nazi Germany. My Oxford dictionary defines "paramilitary" as "organized on similar lines as a military force". The Wikipedia article "Paramilitary" says it is "not formally part of a country's armed forces". Both of these definitions describe the SS perfectly, because the entire organization was controlled by Himmler, not the military chain of command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht). Therefore it was a paramilitary organization. — Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
This is an absurd request. There is absolutely no doubt about whether the SS was primarily a paramilitary organization, just as a church which operates a thrift store or a food pantry remains primarily a church. The OP has never presented a citation from a reliable source saying that the SS was not primarily a paramilitary organization. Given the blatantly ahistorical and counter-factual nature of their claim, I will not be participating in this process, as Wikipedia dispute resolution cannot change what is or is not historical fact, nor can it overturn a clear consensus. The request should be rejected out of hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - I have removed the name of one of the listed editors because that editor was banned by consensus at WP:ANI from the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - This is a one-against-many dispute, in which three of the four surviving editors have declined to take part in discussion. The filing editor is advised to consider whether there is a consensus against them.
 * You make a good point. However, I'm not happy with just saying, "This is their page, they get to reject out of hand any changes they don't like." At the very least, I should be allowed to try to bring more people into the discussion. "Consensus" is often Wikipedia code for bullying outsiders into silence, and that's how it's being used here. Standing up to this is far more important than the minor change I'm advocating. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the word "consensus" I just looked at the page Robert linked. When people say "the consensus is against you" they are ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the WP:CONSENSUS. If anyone is interested in addressing this problem in good faith, I would urge them to read this page. I'd also suggest WP:ROWN; that page is not policy, but it does describe a philosophy that greatly reduces the temptation to edit warring. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since part of your role as volunteer is to advise on policy, can I get an opinion as to whether my use of Fact or Fiction was a violation of policy? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Comment Robert may come by and add his opinion as well- but, my reading on this is- those who have formed a consensus have done so in good faith, after listening to the arguments on both side and have formed a majority who have clearly articulated their reasoning. So when they say- the consensus is against you- what they are saying is, that although your arguments may have merit- they do not outweigh the arguments supported by the majority. And that is the case here. Also- no, your use of fact vs opinion was not valid according to policy. It was not unclear whether this was a fact or an opinion this reliable resources supported truth does not match your, (still valid but not source supported) opinion that it is not truth. But that does not change the fact that sources support this statement as truth not opinion- and in no way was there a question that the calling of the SS "paramilitary" was intended to be a fact- not an opinon. In short- yes, your use of that tag was against policy. Or rather- against its intended use. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional Volunteer Comment
Since I was asked by name, I will offer my opinion, although an opinion has already been provided which I am not disputing. Tags are subject to the rule of Bold, Revert, Discuss. User:Isaac Rabinovitch applied the tag boldly. This was consistent with policy. The tag was then discussed, and there was a local consensus against the tag, so the tag was removed. After the local consensus was established, re-applying the tag violated the local consensus, and was edit-warring, and was therefore against policy. The tag is now off the article, and there is a local consensus that "paramilitary" is a statement of fact.

If the filing editor wishes to expand the discussion, they may use a Request for Comments to obtain a larger consensus. The RFC should not be about a tag. RFCs should not apply tags, and should remove tags by resolving the disputes. The RFC could propose to replace the word "paramilitary" was something else. It seems unlikely that the RFC would be successful, because the editors who have already discussed are probably a good cross-section of the community. However, an RFC is the policy-consistent vehicle for further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The SS was a part of the occupying force in Poland and other countries that are in Eastern Europe as normally defined. Tendentious or otherwise disruptive editing is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the Eastern Europe decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the information I was looking for. Since you're a neutral party, I find it easier to accept your interpretation of the rules, even when it goes against me. Some issues:
 * I don't understand the relevance of your "occupying force" comment.
 * I really have been trying hard to avoid tendentious editing. Note that I moved my edits to a scratch page, and invited the other editors to collaborate there. In any case, there obviously no point in my trying to edit this page at all, as long as these other editors remain so possessive of it. (So much for WP:OWN.)
 * I must ask, once again, that people stop using "consensus" to mean "majority." That's not what means in Websters. That's not what it means in WP:CONSENSUS. It might seem like a semantic nitpick, but this misuse of the concept is a central problem for people attempting to collaborate in good faith. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Isaac Rabinovitch -

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take your issues with "consensus" to the consensus talk page or Village Pump Policy. This is an article content dispute, and you are one-against-many.  We also have a strange definition for notability, but it is our definition.
 * Labeling the other editors as "possessive" because they disagree with you is an even stranger definition of "possessive".
 * Some definitions say that Germany is in Eastern Europe, and some say it is in Central Europe. There is more or less agreement that Poland is in Eastern Europe, and that the SS did bad things in Poland.  Therefore disruptive editing of the article would qualify for discretionary sanctions.  So it would be a good idea to accept the will of the majority.

2019 Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

See the Talk page for this story. I get a cannonnade of comments on my edits about being against Neutral Point of View and Original Research rules, but as I read the comments the other editor simply does not read the case and my changes, and/or does not understand the Wikipedia rules. My edits improve the neutral point of view (as the current article by leaving out lots of sources is biased) and are not OR. And as my suggestion for a third-person discussion got no response, now sadly I'll have to follow the DRN route.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As this is about multiple policies, simply have one or two fellow editors, hopefully with some knowledge of governmental issues as this is about those, form an opinion and add to the Talk page. Then let's see whether we can get a consensus on the needed text changes. I notified Kingsif through my response to him on my Talk page.

Summary of dispute by Kingsif
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

2019 Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: now done on talk page, to my knowledge again but sorry if it was not clear enough to the other editor initially. Erikdr (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - Filing editor still has not notified the other party on their talk page. A notice on the article talk page is not sufficient as is clearly stated in the instructions at the top of this page for opening a dispute. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: okay posted it on talk page too. Erikdr (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Statement
Before we begin this- are both involved editors willing to participate in this process? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Warina Hussain
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I replaced the redirect tag and created an article on 3rd April which was reverted by User:GSS, after which discussion took place on the talk page regarding the subject's notability. I extensively described how the subject passes each criterion, while those opposing are not agreeing and this doesn't seem to go anywhere now.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Warina Hussain#Redirect

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By involving the uninvolved editors in the dispute.

Summary of dispute by GSS
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Onel5969
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Warina Hussain discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

List of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Last month there has been a substantial change of format to this page, which has made the section 'Weeks at No 1' rather biased. I have attempted to restore the old format (pre-March 2021) numerous times, however all of my chsnges have been repeatedly and unfairly deleted, and now i have been told that I may be blocked if I attempt to make any more changes.

My reasoning and suggestions on the Talk Page have been ignored and dismissed - I would expect that there would be some reasonable and logical responses given to my objections, to justify the actions of persistent deletion of my contributions.

Therefore, I am requesting a 'Third Opinion (3O)' by an outside objective and unbiased 3rd party, to help resolve this dispute.

Thanks in advance

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players#Table_with_consecutive_weeks

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I have explained my perspective and reasoning on the Talk Page (indicated above). I am seeking a demonstrably unbiased and objective third party to hear my side of the story and help make a fair judgment in order to help resolve this dispute, and make the page in question unbiased again, as it has been for many years prior to March 2021. I would also appreciate the opportunity to edit wikipedia withouth my contributions being forcefully and persistently deleted. Thanks

Summary of dispute by ForzaUV
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Medical device
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

As a new Wikipedia user I added a section to an existing article. Another user indicated some issues with my change. I kept changing the new section according the the advice of the other user. However, the other user kept critisizing my section.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I tried to discuss the issue with the other user and adjusted my text accordingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie#Medical_devices

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The discussion ended with accusations of personal attacks, rather than discussing open questions in a kind manner. You could probably resolve the dispute by having a look at our discussion and give advice to both of us. Thank you for your help.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Medical device discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I think that this is premature for DRN. Medical device appears to have a fair amount of page watchers, but so far the only discussion related to this dispute has been had on user talk pages, and has largely focused on COI concerns. Discuss the matter at Talk:Medical device before coming here. signed,Rosguill talk 16:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)