Talk:List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unreliable Source

User:Oz346 I noticed in your recent contributions to this article, you have been using an unreliable source(https://pptsrilanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/tag_model_indictment.pdf) published by a group called "Tamils against Genocide" to repeatedly add content to this article. This source is unreliable as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I would like to hear your Point of View on this.JohnWiki159 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable according to who? It's a published source, which was submitted to the US justice department as a legal document, compiled by the lawyer Bruce Fein, who is also a published author:

https://us.macmillan.com/author/brucefein

So it was written by a recognised and prominent legal professional (legal professionals are forbidden by law from submitting false or unreliable information and are held to high standards). If this is unreliable than all NGOs reports can be called unreliable. What evidence do you have to say it is unreliable just because it was published by 'Tamils against Genocide'. It is not a self published source, nor is the publisher known to give false information.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources the published works of reliable authors like Bruce Fein can be used as sources.

Oz346 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Oz346 This document is written with so much bias and extreme hatred against Sinhalese ethnic group and is spreading false information about Sinhalese. This source is full of personal opinions. I will just point out some.

"Sri Lanka’s dominant Sinhalese Buddhist culture celebrates genocide against persons of differing ethnicity or religion, especially Tamil Hindus and Tamil Christians..."

"Sinhalese Buddhists exalt a philosophy of ethnic and religious supremacy over Tamil Hindus evocative of Nazi Germany’s philosophy of Aryan supremacy. A signature Nazi objective was to make Germany racially pure and Judenfrei, or free of Jews. That objective found gruesome culmination in the Holocaust. The corresponding Sinhalese Buddhist objective has been to make Sri Lanka a mono-ethnic and mono-religious state free of Tamils in the Jaffna peninsula or North-East –unless they accepted vassalage with no legal protections. Sinhalese Buddhists are seeking to accomplish their goal of a mono-religious, mono-ethnic state through a Tamil genocide."

With content like these, how can this be considered a reliable source? This is like a compilation of personal opinions. Normal NGOs reports don't contain biased content filled with hatred like these. Furthermore, Bruce Fein has been accused of working closely with the pro-LTTE groups and a supporter of the LTTE. This document hasn't even talked about the crimes of the LTTE. Furthermore, the US justice department dismissed this case. Also Can you provide any reliable secondary sources which talk about the alleged attacks you have added to this article using this source published by 'Tamils against Genocide'? Any Human Rights reports, news articles etc.JohnWiki159 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Scholars are allowed to have opinions, that does not detract from the factual content of the book. The first paragraph, I think he is referring to the Mahavamsa quote of Tamils being equal to beasts, so that they deserve to be killed (he develops on this point in the following pages). He argues that this celebrates killing of Tamils. The second paragraph is much less controversial, there were Sinhala Buddhist nationalists from the early 20th century who compared themselves to superior Aryans and even made comparisons with SWRD Bandaranaike with Hitler. If you know the definition of genocide from Raphael Lemkin, then what Fein is saying is not as far fetched as you think (genocide does not necessary mean you have to kill every single person of the ethnic group). He even quotes this:

“Sinhalese men in whose veins run Aryan blood must stand united to defy and exterminate our common enemy—the Tamil. These wretched and ungrateful blood suckers who have been and are living on our charity from time immemorial are even scheming to destroy us.”

We are going on a tangent here, but if the Sinhala Only law, anti-Tamil pogroms and Sinhala settlement schemes in the north and east had continued with no resistance, then Sri Lankan Tamils would have been been forcefully submerged and assimilated overtime, and they would not exist as a distinct ethnic group anymore (as they would not be able to maintain their culture and society). That would fit with the Lemkin definition of genocide. Some Sinhala nationalists have publicly expressed this wish to colonise all the Tamil areas and forcefully assimilate the Tamils into the Sinhalese.

Anyway irrespective of those opinions which has no bearing on the list of massacres (i'm not citing Fein for his opinions on Sinhala Buddhist nationalism or genocide), Fein has angrily reacted to those baseless accusations of him being LTTE. He has explicitly said that as an USA citizen it is illegal to be a supporter of the LTTE and that those slanderous attacks are defamatory. So those links you cite are just that, libellous and defamatory.

This book was a legal document accusing the Sri Lankan government of committing genocide, so I don't know what the LTTE crimes has to do with it. That is irrelevant. As I have already said, Fein is a reliable legal scholar and published author with other publications to his name, so he satisfies the criteria. Oz346 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Fein reacted angrily to allegations by the pro-Sri Lankan government and anti-LTTE lobby in the US and Sri Lanka that he was a hired gun of the LTTE lobby in the US. "My whole life is a refutation of terrorism. I have had no contact, I receive no money, I do nothing for the Tamil Tigers. If I did, it would be a crime since the LTTE has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the US and anyone in the US associated with it in any way could be liable to civil and criminal penalities)."

"All these people are committing defamation," he said. "They are accusing me of committing a crime by supporting terrorism. Everything I do is open. I tell the FBI everything. So, these allegations are preposterous on their face.

Anybody who knows me, gives a crumb of deference to them (these allegations). What they'll be suggesting is that the Department of Justice should have arrested me when I went over and delivered the genocide indictment because I'm helping out terrorists." And, all I can say, I'll put my credibility on the line against them anytime of the day," he added.

Fein, visibly enraged by these accusations and insinuations, said, "Let me also say, what the criticisms also indicate ad hominem is that they're basically saying, 'Yes, we are guilty of everything you say Mr Fein, but you are a hired gun.' OK, fine, you are guilty as can be. Because, this is what I find intriguing. They never, ever want to address the actual substance of the charges, accusations, the truth of what I am saying. So, fine, then you are conceding that you don't have any rebuttal other than to attack my character."

He challenged his critics saying, "If you can attack my character, fine. If you think you are true, go to the FBI and tell them they should be arresting me. And, I'll defend myself there. But, these are very squalid, sordid-based accusations, which, again, if true, I'd be in jail." Oz346 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

wow i just read that indian newspaper you linked. they defamed him as "a long time supporter of the ltte". what a baseless accusation, Indian newspapers have far lower journalistic standards then western ones. if that was in the west, the newspaper would have to pay him thousands in compensation. Oz346 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Oz346 These statements just show how biased the document is:

"Sri Lanka’s dominant Sinhalese Buddhist culture celebrates genocide against persons of differing ethnicity or religion, especially Tamil Hindus and Tamil Christians..."

"Sinhalese Buddhists are seeking to accomplish their goal of a mono-religious, mono-ethnic state through a Tamil genocide..."

Take a look at one of the sub topics of the document:

"ORIGINS OF SINHALESE BUDDHIST GENOCIDE PHILOSOPHY"

These are direct attacks against a particular ethnic group with lots of misinformation. Also, how are you sure that the list of alleged massacres mentioned in the document are factual? Its just a list. These cannot be added as facts to this article. Furthermore, A U.S. official familiar with this document has said, “That political bias makes it [TAG] hard to take seriously”. I will now note down this extract from the International Crisis Group report.

"For example, Tamils Against Genocide (TAG), a U.S.-based NGO, reportedly raised over $500,000 to retain Bruce Fein, a former U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General, to compile a report charging the Sri Lankan defence secretary and U.S. citizen, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and former army chief and U.S. permanent resident, Sarath Fonseka, with genocide, war crimes and torture. The report, which TAG submitted to the U.S. Justice Department, aimed to initiate a grand jury investigation focused on documenting the alleged crimes of Sri Lankan officials while ignoring evidence of LTTE abuses. The overt political bias of TAG’s project has undermined its credibility rather than promoted accountability. A U.S. official familiar with the report said, “That [political bias] makes it [TAG] hard to take seriously”."

Therefore, we cannot include these alleged massacres taken from this document as facts in this article.JohnWiki159 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No I disagree vehemently with this assertion. Icg are hardly a completely neutral organisation either, they represent the interests of their donor countries in the west like the US (the USA was known to be pro SL during the war, providing weapons and surveillance for the Sri Lankan Armed forces, so they are hardly a neutral observer in the conflict). I repeat it is completely illogical to mention LTTE crimes when the case is against the Sri Lankan government. Likewise, if there was a case against the LTTE, then to mention Sri Lankan government crimes would be equally illogical.

Regarding Sinhala Buddhist genocide culture, I don't know how that can be construed as a direct attack on an ethnic group. When the Nazis were genociding the Jews there clearly was a genocide culture at the time among many Germans. It's not anti German to state the fact. Likewise when Tamils were facing genocide during black July and at the end of the war in 2009 in the Mullivaikkal massacre when unarmed men, women and children were slaughtered without discrimination (as the army own whistle blowers confirmed), clearly there was a culture of genocide in action. It's the extent which is up for debate.

I repeat it's a published source by a reliable published author and legal scholar. It cannot just be censored because some people don't like the truth it exposes. His opinions on Sinhala Buddhist 'genocide culture' are irrelevant to the list of massacres. As far as I know there are no other reliable sources disputing these massacres. In fact I can find evidence from other reliable sources corroborating many of these massacres, including the 'Massacre of Tamils' book and other Tamil media sources like Tamil Times. Oz346 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not about censoring. This is about the reliability of the facts presented in the source. It is obvious that this report published by the group called "Tamils against genocide" is biased. Also, a US official familiar with this document has clearly said "That [political bias] makes it [TAG] hard to take seriously". Your views on ICG and US are your personal opinions. This Wikipedia article itself have several references to a US state department report. ICG and US have reported human rights violations done by both sides. You are saying "As far as I know there are no other reliable sources disputing these massacres". Can you provide any reliable independent secondary sources which talk about the alleged massacres you have added using this document? Also, the 'Massacre of Tamils' book is published by a group called 'North East Secretariat on Human Rights' which was set up by the LTTE. Jo Becker of Human Rights Watch and Rory Mungoven, the UN's Senior Advisor on Human Rights in Sri Lanka has stated that the organization's members lacked proficiency in human rights. International human rights groups have also seen the NESOHR organization as a tool to offset criticism of LTTE human rights abuses. We need other secondary reliable sources to check whether content in that is also factual. Anyway, can you provide reliable secondary sources for each of the attacks you have added to this article from that document published by 'Tamils Against Genocide'? JohnWiki159 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well the only reliable sources that mention all these massacres are this document, the 'Massacre of Tamils' book and the Tamil newspapers/websites like Tamil Times or Tamilnet (the latter which has been defined as a reliable source by wikipedia consensus, but with the qualification that it must be described as pro-rebel). Tamil Times has been critical of the LTTE so it can hardly be called as pro-rebel. Unfortunately, western human rights groups and media have neither the inclination or access to cover all the attacks by government forces on Tamil civilians.

"This is about the reliability of the facts presented in the source."

Not really, it is clear that the Sri Lankan Armed Forces has murdered tens of thousands of Tamil civilians, and that there are countless sources that indicate this. There is no valid reason to doubt these killings. Of course there is a lot of denial and censorship in Sri Lanka itself, but that is another story. There is really no genuine reason to doubt Bruce Fein's list. Bruce Fein also fits the Wikipedia criteria as a reliable source, its irrelevant that the publisher is 'Tamils Against Genocide'.

Bruce Fein as a published legal scholar fits the criteria for reliable author and source. Unless you have any evidence that Bruce Fein is a liar and has made illegal false claim of events (which is a criminal offence in US law), then he should be given the benefit of the doubt, like how we give all other similar published sources. Regarding bias, I dont think there is any sufficient evidence that Fein has biasedly made up false information. Even if we argue that the publisher is biased, that does not qualify the book for exclusion, see wikipedia policies:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

And my next Q to you, why are so concerned with a 'list of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan government forces', and for the removal of these attacks from this source? It is well known that government forces have killed tens of thousands of Tamil and Sinhala civilians during the civil war and JVP insurrections, and even killed a few Sinhala civilians during the recent protests. Why do you want this source and these attacks removed? Oz346 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The publisher is very much relevant. It was Tamils Against Genocide who hired Bruce Fein to publish this document. A US official familiar with this document has also clearly said "That [political bias] makes it [TAG] hard to take seriously". Furthermore, International Crisis Group says that the TAG lacks credibility. Wikipedia doesn't depend only on primary sources. Reliable secondary sources are needed to verify the content in primary source. I am only questioning about the questionable sources used in this article. Both the government forces and LTTE have committed crimes. That is not an excuse for one to add anything they like to a Wikipedia article using any source. Content in the source must be verified with other reliable sources specially when dealing with biased sources and also controversial topics. You still didn't provide other reliable secondary sources for each of the attacks you added to this article. Also I believe if using this source, there must be some indication to highlight the biased nature of the source. Or else it should not be included at all. JohnWiki159 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, its a secondary source, not a primary source, please learn the difference. Its classified as a published reliable source from a reliable scholarly author with a history of scholarly publications as I have already mentioned. I am not "adding anything I like". You talk as if I'm using some random blog or self published website. Its not a controversial topic at all (If you can find reliable sources disputing these killings, then it becomes controversial). It does not become controversial, just because people do not like the contents. In regards to providing other corroborating sources, I'm very busy at the moment, but will add them when time permits. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to accuse Bruce Fein of bias in his work, there is no evidence that he has distorted any factual information in his past scholarly or legal work, or indeed in this publication. The existing citation clearly demonstrates who authored the book, and who published it. US officials are not ethical or moral gods free of bias, or free of self serving foreign policy motives, nor is the ICG, which is a NATO allied NGO, and itself has been accused of serious biases. Oz346 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think the ICG is some balanced and neutral group, then I suggest you research the slimy role its long standing former president Gareth Evans has had in making business deals with Indonesia when East Timorese were being tortured and massacred, which he helped to downplay (watch the 'Death of a Nation: the timor conspiracy'). Likewise, US officials biases are well known, even a cursory glance at various wikileaks will show they have their own interests, they are not some icons for neutrality and justice. Oz346 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, ICG demanded NATO to attack the Serbian army during the Kosovo conflict:

https://reliefweb.int/report/albania/atrocities-kosovo-must-be-stopped-icg-briefing

Now as a Sinhalese Sri Lankan, I think you will understand the significance of this. The Kosovo-Serbia situation is very similar to the Tamil Eelam-Sri Lanka situation. Bear in mind that Kosovo Albanian separatist militants also committed war crimes just like the Tamil LTTE militants. But the ICG demanded NATO to take military action against Serbian forces (in contrast to Sri Lanka, where they were against the separatists in that conflict).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Criticism_of_the_campaign

If you think that NATO/USA were doing this purely out of the goodness of their hearts, and for the lives of Kosovo Albanians, and not for other selfish geopolitical interests, then maybe one day we will find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Oz346 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I agree with @Oz346: here, and I'm someone who quite frequently disagrees with him/her. Most literature on Sri Lanka is partisan and biased, especially sources from the island itself. Foreigners may be closer to neutral, but even assuming they strive to be so, they too have to rely on local sources which have biases. As Oz said, we're not using the TAG document for its two cents on the Sinhala Buddhist genocide culture (which to me is hyperbolic and outright false in some cases), or even on anti-Tamil violence before Black July ("no atrocity perpetrated by Sinhalese Buddhists against Tamils has ever been punished, save for one exception" — seriously?). However, I need to ask Oz: the TAG sources seem to aggregate killings over time in some cases, e.g., Jaffna islets killings span a year. Don't we risk conflation or double counting with the individual massacres in the same area in the same time? SinhalaLion (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion The problem here is that TAG is the only source used here to talk about these alleged attacks added to this article. No other secondary reliable sources have been provided for these content added from the report. Independent sources such as Human Rights Watch reports, Amnesty reports, new paper articles etc were used wherever possible when writing and editing articles revolving around the Sri lankan civil war. When using sources which are biased towards one party, the in-text attribution was used to highlight were it was taken from to maintain the Neutral Point of View. If using this source, I believe that same procedure should also be used in this article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces to maintain the NPOV. JohnWiki159 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"Jaffna islets killings span a year. Don't we risk conflation or double counting with the individual massacres in the same area in the same time?"

There are no further massacres documented in this list or in Bruce Fein's which overlap with these killings. The next killings listed in the islets takes place after this period in September. If any double counting happens they can be removed or merged into one entry. Oz346 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok I misread the year, I've removed one mass killings from islets which potentially could have been double counted. Oz346 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"new paper articles" many Sinhalese run newspaper articles have been used as references without their overall biased nature being overtly mentioned. Many of these newspapers have a history of outright lying or censorship (In the 80s when Tamil civilians were massacred, some of these newspapers would say 'terrorists' have been killed.) If you had just read them you would think the Sri Lankan Army in reality did do a humanitarian mission for Tamil civilians in the 26 year war lol. In contrast, Bruce Fein has not been shown to have poor fact checking or evidence of lying when it comes to the massacre list. There is no valid reason to denigrate the use of this source in this particular instance. Oz346 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, there is a difference between Bruce Fein a recognised legal scholar who has other reliable publications to his name, and say TamilNet which is explicitly pro-LTTE and where attribution is necessary. All the slander that Fein is pro-LTTE are just that, baseless slander. Oz346 (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding the discussion link of reliable source noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_Tamils_Against_Genocide Oz346 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A third party on the noticeboard commented:

"no other reason to flat-out distrust the advocacy org or, more importantly, the person they hired to write their report, it seems like an RS to add items to a list whose criteria only seem to be "attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces"."

Most parties to the discussion on both this page and the noticeboard have not deemed it an unreliable source and I too share the same view. There's no good reason to exclude it from being used as citation. Petextrodon (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-RS: The website clearly fails WP:VERIFY since does not meet WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:N. This has not been WP:PR and listed as a WP:RS in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has not confirmed TAG as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources . Cossde (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we have reached an impasse. It would be better to involve neutral third party to mediate. Petextrodon (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that Oz346 has already taken this matter to the RS noticeboard and neutral third party editors have shared their opinion that TAG and in particular the Bruce Fein's indictment can not be considered as a RS. WP:BURDEN clearly states that "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", hence before any TAG content can be used, TAG needs to be confirmed to be a WP:RS. Therefore, all contested content cited to TAG needs to be removed from this page. Cossde (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

A qualification could be added to the TAG cited rows, similar to how Tamilnet is used as a source on Wikipedia, such as "according to the pro-Tamil organisation TAG..." Oz346 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

in addition to this, I can find other alternative reliable sources to corroborate each of the contested TAG cited rows. Oz346 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the highly controversial nature of the content. Nothing short of WP:RS confirming each of the entries can be accepted. WP:BURDEN is clear on this. TAG refences needs to be removed and with it content cited by it. Cossde (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Majority of the incidents have been collated from external published sources mentioned in the document. I suggest @Oz346 replace the existing citations with those sources. Petextrodon (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

pastor killing was not just claimed by the LTTE. Respected Journalist DBS jeyaraj and Asian Human rights commission and christian charities also point to army involvement. Oz346 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I dont see any of the citations here as WP:RS. Cossde (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

News reports are usually regarded as RS:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070206151000/http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/270

DBS Jeyaraj is a well known news journalist who writes for major Sri Lankan and Indian newspapers.

AHRC is also a recognised human rights group. Finally, Tarzie Vittachi again is a recognised news journalist, and his book is a published source. On wdae grounds are these not RS? Oz346 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

on *what grounds are these not RS? Oz346 (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Links shared are not RS, some are not working. How do we know if these are authentic? Its not from a reputed media organization. Has AHRC been confirmed as a RS in Wikipedia? Cossde (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), whose director Basil Fernando has worked with the UN, is credible enough to be cited by a reputable news agency as Reuters, so yes it's very much reliable and hasn't been deemed unreliable. Petextrodon (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You didn't sign your last reply hence I reply here instead.

According to who that we should not cite a human rights organization which has been cited by reputable news agencies unless it’s been verified as a reliable source on Wikipedia? I checked the reliable sources noticeboard and haven’t found any entry for it. If you feel it’s unreliable, you’re welcome to take it up there. Until then I see no issue with the source. "established organization" according to who? What’s the definition? It’s a registered organization based in Hong Kong. Petextrodon (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

to add to this, there is no Wikipedia policy saying that every single likely reliable source needs to go through a Wikipedia reliable source peer review or notice board discussion. Such a ludicrous rule would mean that Wikipedia would be saddled with unending bureaucracy where every obvious reliable source would need to be vetted on a discussion board before it could be used. Oz346 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

and how is AHRC, a human rights organisation based in Hong kong a primary source for SL based human rights violations? User Cossde needs to reread what a primary source is, and reread the WP policies he himself has been incorrectly citing:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved" Oz346 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It is very much reliable according to who? hasn't been deemed unreliable according to who? I am not questioning the credibility of AHRC, only the fact has it been cleared for use as RS in Wikipedia? AHRC from a Wikipedia prospective can be considered WP:SELFSOURCE and/or WP:PRIMARY at time, it is not an established organization such as Amnesty Intercalation, hence needs to be peer reviewed and accepted as an RS in Wikipedia. Thereafter it can be used.04:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Valayanmadam bombing

@Petextrodon, am I reading this wrong? or does the cited U.S. Department of State 2009 Report to Congress on Incidents During the Recent Conflict in Sri Lanka states and I quote '' "February 19 – An organization’s source in Valayanmadam reported that SLAF aerial attacks killed more than 100 LTTE forcibly recruited children." '', why is that considered [[WP:NOR]]. What is wrong in including whats in the source here? Cossde (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

because the cited source doesn't explicitly mention these children were killed while engaging in combat. To assume that is original research on your part. -- Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde sign your reply as i can't reply to unsigned one. so i will reply here instead.

You wrote: "An organization’s source in Valayanmadam reported that SLAF aerial attacks killed more than 100 LTTE forcibly recruited children." - Yes or No ?"

Yes, but what is your purpose for adding they were forcibly recruited, other than to imply that they were child soldiers killed in combat? -- Petextrodon (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That is your assumption, and it might be from the fact that you knew that the LTTE used child soldiers. Therefore you were quick to assume that this was my intention. When it was not at all. Mine was to simply state what the source said, that these were children held by force by the LTTE. Therefore I don't see anything wrong in including whats in the source itself.Cossde (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that you did mentioned it, there is a link in the soruce itself that states. "For many years there have been reports that the LTTE forcibly recruited children into its cadres." Cossde (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

ok but that general fact is not directly about Valayanmadam bombing. Also, I did NOT suggest you to add "Link to child soldiers of the LTTE" as you accused me of having done so in the latest edit. You should not be reverting while you are engaged in a talk discussion. The latest edit is even worse as you make explicit connection to use of child soldiers although the cited link doesn't say they were used during this particular incident. -- Petextrodon

(talk) 16:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you when you said "ok". Let me revert that. Cossde (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

But this is not an article for that background detail which serves no useful purpose, but a table. - Petextrodon (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Other rows have much more details in this column. Why are you so concerned about adding more details here? Cossde (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Those details have direct relevance to the attacks, unlike your background info. What is the point of adding that detail then, if not to imply something? Readers would assume these were child soldiers engaged in combat since the LTTE is well-known for using child soldiers. Detail should help to clarify and not confuse or mislead. - Petextrodon (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, the details you mentation having direct relevance include facts such as the victims were women, children, little children, etc.. This information is same and it is exactly what is mentioned in the source, word to word. It would be unfortunate that readers would assume these were child soldiers engaged in combat since the LTTE is well-known for using child soldiers. However this is what the source says. Quoting the source word to word does not violate WP:OR nor WP:NPOV. Cossde (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

They just specify the victims, not their past or present affiliation with the LTTE which is open to misunderstanding. Petextrodon (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly that's my point too. The source clearly specify the victims and that has been included word to word here. Do you think the source is wrong? Cossde (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, their gender and age are not comparable to the their affiliation with the LTTE. Yes they might have been abducted by the LTTE but we don't know what their role with LTTE was at the time of their deaths. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I am afraid its not up to you to decide what can be and what can not be included. If additional content such as age and gender had been added before then there is not reason to prevent adding circumstances, especially if its mentioned in the source.Cossde (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we are allowed to decide by discussion what detail is appropriate and what isn't, otherwise, without certain limits, we can go on adding all sort of details indefinitely. Age and gender are physical attributes, which are more stable than association to an organization that forcibly abducted you in middle of a war where circumstances change very quickly. Since we have no information on whether these children were still under LTTE custody and what role they were serving when they died, the detail you added isn't helpful but biases the reader into thinking they were serving as child soldiers. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree, if you go through the list lot more details than age and gender have been included. I don't see you too concerned about it. However, I see that you are very sensitive to the fact that this detail was included here, even when the source clearly states that. To remove this detail would deny the reader this key information. Cossde (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"if you go through the list lot more details than age and gender have been included"

yes, details like the targets of the attacks such as properties, hence have direct relevance.

"To remove this detail would deny the reader this key information."

Why is it a key information? is it directly related to the circumstances of their killings? -- Petextrodon (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The source confirms that incident killed "100+ LTTE forcibly recruited children" that directly relates to the circumstances of their killings. Cossde (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

But were they under LTTE custody at the time of their killings? What role did they serve? We don't know. To imply this link without explicit statements in the cited source would be original research. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No that's where you are wrong, the source indicates that the LTTE had been forcibly recruited children in that area just before this incident. Therefore its clear that they were what the source claimed to be " forcibly recruited children". Cossde (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the timeframe is not explicit in that short statement. Some time could have passed between when they were recruited and when they were killed. They could have been killed outside the capacity of a LTTE role. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. It explicitly says "100+ LTTE forcibly recruited children". Cossde (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's open to interpretation without additional information. They might not have served an LTTE role at this stage. There were several incidents of forcibly recruited children fleeing from the LTTE, only to be harmed by the SL military. We simply don't know the context of this particular bombing. When you add that detail, readers will assume the children died as child soldiers in combat. It's not comparable to details about age or gender or property destruction. -- Petextrodon (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It did when the LTTE forcibly recruited children. Cossde (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

what do you mean by "it did"? -- Petextrodon (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The source states that the 100+ killed were LTTE forcibly recruited children. So it means that at the time of death they were children who had been forcibly recruited by the LTTE. Cossde (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"So it means that at the time of death they were children who had been forcibly recruited by the LTTE"

It just says they had been forcibly recruited, but doesn't specify their exact role at the time of their killings. -- Petextrodon (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not in question here. The sources says that at the time of death these were 100+ forcibly recruited children. Cossde (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It matters in this context because adding it misleads readers into assuming they were child soldiers at the time of their death. It's better avoided for the sake of clarification. This is not an article, but a list. Details in brackets should help clarify, not confuse. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no confusion here, the source clearly states that 100+ LTTE forcibly recruited children were killed in the attack. The source is clear and there is no reason to avoid that information. Cossde (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, given the well-known fact that LTTE used child soldiers, it misleads readers into thinking these children served that role at the time of their deaths. Therefore, should be avoided. - Petextrodon (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What was exact circumstance that these children died in? If it was combat scenario, they would not count as civilians. but again one can argue that they are since they were forcibly recruited by the LTTE. Is there any further sources that explains more about the exact incident? Amrithsvar (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The same source indicates that the LTTE had been forcibly recruited children in that area. At that time, the LTTE was desperately short of carders and had been forcing civilians in to their ranks. I am fine to keep this as the source indicates "100+ LTTE forcibly recruited children", that clear enough.Cossde (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

But this incident is listed under civilian killings section on that U.S. state department report. Had they engaged in combat at the time of their deaths, they would not have been listed as such. These children could have died under many different circumstances where the fact that LTTE had forcibly recruited them some time in the past (days? weeks? month?) would have had no direct relevance to their deaths. That's why I'm suggesting without additional background information this detail should be avoided as it doesn't help to clarify but does just the opposite. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What you say doesn't make sense at all. I didn't say anything about children been engaging in combat! Does the citied source state "February 19 – An organization’s source in Valayanmadam reported that SLAF aerial attacks killed more than 100 LTTE forcibly recruited children." - Yes or No ? 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Singed Cossde (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)