Talk:List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adding single sourced content[edit]

I tagged highly controversial content has been added on the 26 March 2024, with a single sources used. Per WP:CHALLENGE, editor who added it needs to prove that these are WP:RS. Cossde (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not highly controversial content. Sri Lankan Armed Forces are well known to mass rape, murder and torture. There are countless RS indicating this. You have been constantly trying to remove mentions of SLAF war crimes from multiple pages for well over a decade. This fits WP:NAT editing.
If it is controversial as you claim, can you provide sources saying the contrary? You can not, because these particular incidents are not controversial. There are no reliable sources providing contradictory accounts for these events.
Just because the truth hurts and a fact is not to an editor's liking, does not mean it should be removed. Oz346 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CHALLENGE editor who adds content has "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Hence cited sources need to be proved by the editor who adds content as WP:RS. I don't see you doing that here. Cossde (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde No, I disagree. One RS is enough.--- Petextrodon (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346, please clearly indicate what RS has been used. I can not find any for the recently added content. Cossde (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde Are you contesting the reliability of award-winning Uthayan newspaper? Or the government-appointed commission, another publication of which you used extensively in 1977 Anti-Tamil pogrom? --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uthayan is a clear RS.
It is much more reliable than many of the Sinhala owned national newspapers that Cossde cites. For example, 'The Island' (along with the sun newspaper) have been noted by scholars for lying and falsely claiming that massacres of Tamil civilians were killing of Tamil terrorists in the 1980s:
https://edepot.wur.nl/138278
p.165-166
They have a poor record of fact checking. They have also been described as a pro-government and pro-Sinhala nationalist newspaper by scholarly secondary sources:
https://books.google.com/books/about/To_End_a_Civil_War.html?id=UYqMCwAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=Pro%20government%20the%20island%20newspaper%20sri%20lanka&f=false
https://books.google.com/books/about/Embattled_Media.html?id=pxlBDwAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q=Pro%20government%20the%20island%20newspaper%20sri%20lanka&f=false
Yet these sources are used without attribution. The Uthayan on the other hand has none of these criticisms. Instead it has received international awards: https://rsf.org/en/press-freedom-prize-goes-uzbek-journalist-and-sri-lankan-daily Oz346 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uthayan has not been established as an RS in WP. Please proceed in doing so before claiming it as such. Also you didn't share where the government reports have been accepted in WP as RS. 03:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Cossde (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. In spite of its questionable fact checking, 'The Island' has been cited throughout wikipedia without attribution, and is regarded as a RS on the Wikipedia SL reconciliation project.
2. You have cited multiple Sri Lankan newspapers without attribution, none of which "have been established as an RS in WP" (to quote your exact words) such as The Morning. This is inconsistent and suggestive of double standards.
3. You have not provided any sources indicating that the particular events Uthayan is being cited for are controversial. Just saying "controversial, controversial" without providing contradictory accounts from other sources demonstrating this, is nothing more than a claim without evidence. Oz346 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation of killing of civilians by the state is highly controversial. Per WP:CHALLENGE editor who adds content has "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Since you have added such controversial, please prove here that Uthayan has been established as an RS in WP. Cossde (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you repeat claims with no evidence. Just because you say it's controversial, does not make it controversial. I repeat one final time, the Sri Lankan armed forces are well known for mass rapes, massacres and torture of civilians. and this is supported by countless RS. It is not controversial at all. It is the scholarly consensus. The only people who deny this are the Sinhalese dominated government and its sympathisers. Not reliable scholarly sources. Oz346 (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are beating around the bush without backing up the content you are supporting by proving that the Uthayan and the government reports used here have been accepted in WP as RS. Cossde (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the wiki rule which states an award-winning registered newspaper can't be regarded as a RS unless it goes through WP:RSN? This has long been your tactic to be disruptive but you never managed to cite a wiki rule. As for the government-appointed commission, Sansoni report hasn't gone through WP:RSN either yet you used it as justification for adding an entire background section to 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. Could you explain this blatant double standard in how you use sources? --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are talking of content out of this article. WP:CHALLENGE is clear, the burden of to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Hence the content in question has been cited by Uthayan and government reports. Please prove here that these have been accepted in WP as RS. Cossde (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, cite the wiki rule which states an award-winning registered newspaper can't be regarded as a RS unless it goes through WP:RSN. You also need to explain your blatant double standard in how you use sources. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHALLENGE. Cossde (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the part which states or implies an award-winning registered newspaper can't be regarded as a RS unless it goes through WP:RSN. You also need to explain your blatant double standard in how you use sources otherwise I will have to report you for nationalist editing since this isn't your first time doing this. --- Petextrodon (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHALLENGE : The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
WP:EXCEPTIONAL : 1) Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. 2) Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest.
" award-winning registered newspaper" is your personal opinion. I am asking you where in WP Uthayan and Government reports you have used to cite WP:CONTROVERSY have been established as WP:RS. If you feel that this is WP:NAT, by all means report me as you are free to do so. I am happy to defend my actions in such forum. Cossde (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you question the reliability of a major Sri Lankan newspaper? Award-winning isn't my personal opinion but a fact. A cursory look at its wiki page will tell you that. Once again, cite the Wiki rule which state a source must go through RSN before it can be considered RS. You still have not explained why you cited Sansoni report commissioned by the same government without questioning its reliability. --- Petextrodon (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that 1) Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. 2) Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Your edits are been challenged and you refuse to acknowledge WP:CHALLENGE clear terms of burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Please show me where in WP has Uthayan and the government reports you are citing have been established as RS. Cossde (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its not an exceptional claim. Sri Lankan Army have raped, massacred and tortured thousands. You know this very well yourself. There are umpteenth reliable sources indicating this. There's nothing exceptional about the Sri Lankan Armed forces killing civilians. This list is testament to this itself. Your claim does not fit WP:EXCEPTIONAL at all, which describes exceptional claims as things which are "surprising". There nothing surprising about the Sri Lankan Army raping and killing. They killed tens of thousands of civilians (Both Tamil and Sinhala) during the civil war and both JVP insurrections. Tell me what is exceptional about this Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346, I would think the killing of a citizen by the state or an accusation of such is an exceptional claim. It is evident from what you say here that you are very passionate about what you belive in, however thats no reason to turn WP into a battleground. Cossde (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde On what basis do you question the reliability of a major Sri Lankan newspaper that has won awards? You can't question a source's reliability without a sound basis either. You have a habit of questioning the reliability of all sources, including established ones, when they criticize the Sri Lankan government and its armed forces which looks like nationalist editing. You still have not explained why you cited Sansoni report commissioned by the same government without questioning its reliability. Please explain to us your blatant double standards in how you use sources. --- Petextrodon (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, I am confused, are you citing the Sansoni commission report here or another report? I am simply asking you where in WP has the your sources been established as WP:RS, why are you refusing to acknoeldge WP:CHALLENGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL? This can be considered WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cossde (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde, I'm also confused. How can Sri Lankan government appointed commission become reliable when you cite it but questionable when I cite it? I'm simply asking you to cite the wiki rule which states every major newspaper must be declared as RS by RSN in order for it to be considered RS. What makes you question its reliability, you must have a reasonable basis? We've already demonstrated it's an award-winning respected mainstream publication. Do you dispute that? --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde Why did you remove cited content? The dispute was about additional citation yet you removed the whole content without discussion! --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon you triggered this by adding new content. I have not cited any report in this article. Your are the one that introduced new and controversial content and is refusing the prove the reliability of sources you have cited. I am mealy asking to abide by WP:CHALLENGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which you are refusing and as I see it seem to be engaged in WP:BATTLE. Cossde (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon you have yet again began adding controversial content with WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Per WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS, content needs to be precise and needs to be careful with attribution. Therefore per WP:EXCEPTIONAL please use multiple high-quality sources. Cossde (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you learnt nothing from this topic being classed under contentious topics? Many of the sources you have removed have already been vetted by the Sri Lanka reconciliation project as fit to be cited. You have not provided any evidence that the said events are controversial. It is not exceptional that the Sri Lankan Army rapes and murders, and there are countless reliable sources that indicate this. Trying to remove all reliably sourced mentions of Sri Lankan Army war crimes is blatant WP:NAT editing. Oz346 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346, please note that the sources you mentioned are highly WP:PRIMARY as is with the case of most sources in this article that are failing to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I kindly request that you avoid WP:BATTLE. Cossde (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights reports and books do not fall directly under primary sources, they have analysis and editorial input. They are not simple witness statements, which would fall directly under primary. In any case, the Sri Lanka reconciliation project has verified these sources to be used, and they have been vetted by an admin. You are just being disruptive by continually bringing this up, even after consensus was reached. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia consensus building policies. Oz346 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346, in the [1] it was mentioned that "As with other advocacy groups… caution is needed. Statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY sources… certainly reliable for verifying that they take a given stance on an issue, but not necessarily de-facto reliable for the accuracy of the background material used to take that stance.", hence I am questioning the use of statements by advocacy groups here in this article. Might I remind you reconciliation project verification was limited to QS due to the very fact that these are advocacy groups. Cossde (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde, but you also removed the content that had two sources, UTHR and Routledge scholarly publication. Did you even bother to read before you vandalized my RS sourced content? This is getting ridiculous and borders on censorship. --- Petextrodon (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, in the case you mentioned UTHR is clearly WP:PRIMARY. In fact you have in Talk:Sexual_violence_against_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka#WP:NOTSCANDAL,_WP:FALSEBALANCE_and_summarization claimed it bias based on its reporting of gossip. Which clearly shows that its a Primary source. Cossde (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde Your reply does not address why you removed Human rights Watch and Routledge scholarly publication? They have all been recognized as RS.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am only referring to the WP:PRIMARY. Cossde (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engaged in disscussions with editors who have failed to engage in WP:CIVIL. I have WP:CHALLENGE editors to prove sources they have used to add content as WP:RS, it is their burden to do so. Cossde (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Please get consensus before removing sourced content.Tame Rhino (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces&oldid=1222751491"