Talk:Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dispute

Obi2canibe, Didn't removed anything. It was directed to where it is belongs. See bunch of list who reacted to the report. What is the reason for keeping Sri Lankan governments responses in separate location ? Other section can't be referenced. They are ideas expressed in the public meeting through TV. Sri Lanka haven't expressed any official thing regarding that. So ideally no one can say about Sri Lankan government response. Also those TV meeting ministers spoke in Sinhala. Please keep that part there since I have stated that it was in public meetings. Readers may believe or not.

Every body who interested about this subject, is should know the result of UNHRC vote in March 2012. There was a proposal to implement LLRC recommendations.

http://www.wsws.org This resolution was forward by USA/India. European union , Australia vote to implement LLRC report recommendation --Himesh84 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes you did. With these series of edits you removed referenced material and added wholly unreferenced material. The fact that you saw the ministers comments on TV isn't an excuse for adding unreferenced material. If the minister truly said those comments it would have been reported elsewhere. Go and find the references. Don't be lazy.
The government's reaction wasn't kept in a separate section. The paragraph in the introduction (lead section) was a summary of the government's reaction detailed in the Reaction section. It was added to the lead to maintain a balance otherwise readers who only read the introduction would think that the Report's findings were a matter of fact and that no-one disputed them. The concept of a balanced view is clearly an alien concept to you.
The UNHRC resolution is mentioned in Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission article. Have you read the LLRC article? The resolution is not mentioned in this article because the UNHRC did not discuss this Report. You are therefore totally wrong in saying that the UNHRC "accepted the LLRC over the Report of UN Secretary General". And have you forgotten that the Sri Lankan government fought tooth and nail against the UNHRC resolution? Now were to believe that the government is all in favour of the resolution because it favours the LLRC over the Report? Once gain Himesh you are manipulating the facts to push your own POV.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It is very much clear UNHRC accepted LLRC over the other article. There were two reports to address things related to Sri Lankan ethnic crisis when UNHRC 2012 March was commenced. UNHRC accepted LLRC.
I read that article. But final official reaction toward two reports are important.
There is no written materials. It was in TV. Since there are copy right issues printing medias can't publish things without a permission. Also in the sentence I have stated that it was expressed in TV. Let readers to decide whether it is correct or not. I think UNHRC response is more suitable here since it represent whole world.--Himesh84 (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not very much clear UNHRC accepted LLRC over the UN report. Unless you can provide reliable, neutral citations to back up this claim it is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Your excuse that "There is no written materials. It was in TV" isn't good enough. Again, if you can't provide reliable, neutral citations you cannot add content.
Your excuse about copyright issues is laughable. If the material really exists you can provide a citation without violating any copyright.
Any why do you insist on putting your additions above others?--obi2canibetalk contr 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You should have common sense to understand it clear. Let me explain. There were two reports to address same thing. First this report and LLRC. If UNHRC chose to go with the implementation suggested by LLRC what it says to your mind ? If there are conflicted things in two reports it must be done in LLRC way because it was the approved way by UNHRC. Got it ? Or lets say this report saying some thing should be achieved by process 'A' but LLRC says process 'B'. If UNHRC says it is LLRC it must be in 'B'. Now you must understand how the LLRC get over this one.
If something is chosen it clearly says other things are not chosen. Best example is marriage. If your wife married to you it says she chose you over others--Himesh84 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your explanation is not a valid one when it comes to a complicated international politics and diplomacy.
Sri Lankan Government was too adamant not to accept the panel since the very beginning and its report as well later on and the report calls for a Independent Investigation on War Crimes in Sri Lanka.
LLRC is a Sri Lankan Government engineered fact finding mechanism to counter the panel to come out with a less sensitive conclusion on the War Crime charges raised by humanitarian organizations. As the humanitarian organizations' concerned over LLRC and its credibility which has come out with a report without the "International Investigation on War Crimes" but many other things are similar to the panel's findings.
UNHRC's options to start with the LLRC doesn't mean that it has rejected the panel's suggestion but go with a less serious one "First" since the Sri Lankan Government was against the panel for its war crime investigation from the very beginning.
As User:Obi2canibe mentioned on the above threads, you are violating the Wikipedia guidelines by these series of edits; you have removed referenced material and added wholly unreferenced material and pushing your Original Research.Sudar123 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I know the guideline and still I haven't violate anything. I haven't remove any referenced materials. If so please write down. But I have relocated it in the reactions section.--Himesh84 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sudar. Lets say this report saying some thing should be achieved by process 'A' but LLRC says process 'B'. After the feedback from UNHRC summit, what should be the correct approach ? Process A or B ? --Himesh84 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Himesh84, putting aside your hilarious analogy, this isn't a blog or even a newspaper. This is an encyclopaedia - we deal with facts backed up by reliable references. This is particularly so if the subject is contentious or disputed by other editors. It doesn't matter if it's clear as daylight that the UNHRC chose the LLRC report over the UN panel's report, if you can't provide reliable references to that effect it's nothing more than personal analysis.--obi2canibetalk contr 17:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I know that. I have given the reliable reference which backed the approval of processing according to LLRC. Is that doesn't mean correct process is LLRC ? Need your answer. --Himesh84 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I have taken this to ANI since your above response and questioning is, more or less twisting things to enable your POV pushing.Sudar123 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Support direct evidence/citation rather than guessing with their choice for your conclusion.Sudar123 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a DRN Case - please don't make any further edits to this article until this is resolved.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone has closed the resolution discussion without asking from all the parties.

Now this has become a English class since Obi2canibe,Sudar123,SGCM don't understand the meaning of English word "Over". [1] - 10. b. In preference to: selected him over all the others. In UNHRC summit, UNHRC asked Sri Lankan government to implement LLRC recommendations http://www.colombotelegraph. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preference - 1.c. Someone or something so chosen. LLRC implementations are the chosen implementations which asked to implement from Sri Lanka by UNHRC. UNHRC didn't asked to implement UNSG's recommendations. Since LLRC is the chosen one (selected one) it have more preference than UNSG's report. So using word over is correct. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As the DRN volunteer and an uninvolved editor, consensus was more than established on the DRN case, which is why it was closed. All the editors (User:Jobberone, User:Obi2canibe, User:Sudar123, User:24.177.125.104, and myself), both involved parties and third party users, with the exception of Himesh84, agreed that, per policy, you will need to find a reliable source that explicitly states the claim that you're making. Passing a resolution is not synonymous with preference, and the two have very different connotations. If it's not mentioned directly in the source, and based on personal analysis claiming that something is implied, then it is considered original research and should not be included in the article.
Himesh84 has written that, "Lets see Obi2canibe's opinion on this. If he is ok with that then we are done." Obi2canibe said that he is, so further filibustering should be avoided. I have no position on the Sri Lankan civil war and favour neither side, but I think that your time would be much better spent on finding new sources instead of arguing for edits that are incontrovertibly not supported by policy. Hopefully, this has been helpful. :) --SGCM (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted back. If he/she continues with pushing OR, I will report at ANI.Sudar123 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You don't have any idea about the resolution. First sentence of the resolution is ; UNHRC urge Sri Lanka to implement LLRC recommendation. 24 voted for implement LLRC recommendation. If they have even voted to implement LLRC how do you say they didn't prefer LLRC ? Voting is best case for showing preference. --Himesh84 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop your Original Research. We have discussed enough at DRN. I am reporting at ANI.Sudar123 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do it. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

For Obi2canibe,Sudar123,SGCM. This is the first sentence in the resolution.... Calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans; 2 4 Countries voted to support the resolution. All of them asking Sri Lankan government to implement LLRC under sentence 1. Even they have voted to support LLRC recommendation. Since they have used their votes they have showed their preference to the LLRC. I can't understand how Obi2canibe,Sudar123,SGCM get understand that. This is not something about wikipedia policy. This is about English. Even I have used my time to search meaning of the English words. Simply over <- show preference <- voting to support it. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Since they have used their votes they have showed their preference to the LLRC." is your Original Research;and nothing to do with English.Sudar123 (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There are two girls A & B proposed for a boy by two different marriage brokers, but only the girl B has finally brought to the family circle who has some say over the boy and there was a debate whether to select the girl B or not and 24 relatives accepted her and that met the majority voice and the marriage is fixed. How you could say they have selected B over A?.Sudar123 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Some more missing facts to the above story - Girl A was found by the brokers who were assigned by an elderly person who is respected by the relatives, but the boy hates her since he suspects whether she will reveal some crimes he was accused by the relatives. But the Girl B was found by the brokers who were assigned by the boy himself. Why the Girl A was not brought to the final selection process by the relatives, no body knows. The final process was whether to select the Girl B or not. And it was NOT whether to select the Girl A or Girl B.Sudar123 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As Himesh84 is unwilling to abide by the outcome of the DRN this has been reported to ANI. I suppose I'm wasting my time if I ask that there are no further edits to this article until this is resolved?--obi2canibetalk contr 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN is an informal, not a binding, process. However, the edit warring by Himesh and Sudar123 should stop.--SGCM (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Noted. I and others have urged Sudar123 not edit war and he has agreed.--obi2canibetalk contr 17:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Response of Wikipedia

Wikipedia did not accepted that UNHRC accepted LLRC implementations over UNSG's panel implementations

This Wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government officially rejected this report. It is clearly linked by Obi2canibe in his edits. UNHRC is the authorized entity and country's final official responses are come to the UNHRC. UNHRC officially asked to implement LLRC recommendations(refereed in my edits). After UNHRC officially selected and urged to implement LLRC implementations , process recommended in this report has no value. But when someone reading this article that person will definitely feel lot of countries currently supporting the implementation method specified in this report. It is completely wrong. Now they officially supporting and asking to implement LLRC recommendations. This Wikipedia page tries to give a completely wrong bad impression about Sri Lanka. People (Obi2canibe) who likes Tamil Ealam (Tamil Ealam is a name proposed for the separated country within Sri Lanka) trying to use this rejected report(by Sri Lanka and UNHRC) to create bad impression on Sri Lanka. That's why current recognition to this report is highly important.

I tried to clarify things very clearly. Obi2canibe was in misunderstanding and write to the discussion. "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". This is only where not using word over is correct. I clearly clarified that LLRC recommended local solution and UNSG's report recommended international solution and LLRC,UNSG's recommendations are completely opposite using facts linked in his version of the article. He didn't accept those are different when it is clearly visible. I asked from him "Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ?" Even he was in misunderstood, he didn't answered to clarify his statement. If so I could further clarified it. Instead answering they or him with multiple accounts closed the discussion. Wikipedia administrators must understand that it is very difficult to agree or gain consensus to a something by Sri Lankan and Tamil Ealam supporter. But correct thing should be in the Wikipedia without creating bad impressions on countries using not supported implementations by UNHRC. Obi2canibe said "Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report". These logic are very much primitive. UNHRC selected LLRC implementations after tabling,voting.... Why to worry about a implementation mechanism not even considered to tabled ? They chose the best one to tabled.That's it

I tried my best to clarify UNHRC urges to implement LLRC implementations even after a voting session in UNHRC. So UNSG's implementations don't have any further recognition by international community who deals with Human Right violations. But Wikipedia (admin JohnCD) didn't agree on my points and asked not to come with my version. Wikipedia didn't accept that the UNHRC accepted LLRC recommendations 'over' UNSG's recommendations even Sri Lanka received letter from UNHRC asking to implement LLRC recommendations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Report_of_the_Secretary-General.27s_Panel_of_Experts_on_Accountability_in_Sri_Lanka --Himesh84 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia advices me "now time for you to accept that you do not have a consensus for the changes you want to make and drop the stick"
Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Wikipedia has failed to built a system so that it says it is. They have built a system which can gathered most number of users and way to get most number of hits. According to this approach initial promoters can publish any thing and not allowed to anyone to edit a page. I doubt whether Wikipedia is a encyclopedia or marketing agency. UNHRC even didn't bothered to consider tabling UNSG's implementations. But Wikipedia company showing a completely wrong picture to the world. Please admit that no one talk about this outdated report except Tamil Diaspora and Wikipedia company ( I don't know who funded this company). Even the person who created this report (UN secretary) now asking to implement LLRC recommendation. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/. Why Wikipedia company not accepting LLRC over UNSG's report while Bank ki Moon , the person who created UNSG's report accepted LLRC is the correct approach ? I am not changing my position since all the countries and even UNSG's author had changed their positions and accepted LLRC recommendations are the correct approach. But Wikipedia site trying to mislead readers. Please revisit your policies and try to implement a good policies to become encyclopedia over most popular view. If it is not possible at least drop the claim Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to prevent readers getting mislead--Himesh84 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I made a lengthy reply to your comments on the WP:ANI noticeboard page, but I'll summarize here. Please make a more careful study of Wikipedia's core content policies (including the "neutral point of view" policy, the "verifiability / reliable sources" policy, and the "no original research or synthesis" policy). The goal of Wikipedia is to give fair and proportionate representation to all significant views that are backed up by reliable sources. This is not the same as deciding (by majority vote or otherwise) which one viewpoint is "correct". The purpose of seeking consensus is not to take a vote and decide which one position will be taken in an article; rather, it is a way to ensure (as far as possible) that people working on an article agree that the content policies are being followed.
Also, Wikipedia is not a monolithic entity; except in limited situations where the Wikimedia Foundation or the Arbitration Committee speak, it really doesn't make sense to say "Wikipedia decided this" or "Wikipedia advises me to do that". Again, the question here is whether the core policies (which insist on fair treatment, even of controversial topics, in a way that doesn't show favouritism to any side) are being followed. And Wikipedia administrators are not authorities whose decisions embody the collective will of Wikipedia; they are ordinary editors who have been given additional abilities in order to keep Wikipedia running properly, but their opinions on content issues are no more (or less) important than those of any other editor. — Richwales 23:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
What you saying is "if you needs to put your input to Wikipedia adhere to it's policies whether you agreed or not "!!. Ok. I got that and no more input from me. But since Wikipedia company marketing it is as an encyclopedia, I have to raise my concern when it is publishing wrong things related to me, my country,...
With this Wikipedia policies anyone can't say Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's orders over Richwales orders. But everyone knows that Pentagon will not accept any orders except Obama's orders. When someone said Pentagon accepted Obama's orders over Richwales orders people like Sudar,SGCM,Obi2canibe,JohnCD will say Richwales didn't considered at the election, you can't say Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's orders over Richwales orders. Pentagon will only consider the one who the selected in the Vote. If Pentagon don't accept Richwales orders why Pentagon giving this much of recognition to Richwales in the Pentagon page ? --Himesh84 (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying, but it sounds to me like you are saying that a position taken by a national government, on any subject pertaining to that country, should by definition be treated as more reliable than other sources. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if this isn't what you mean, please correct me. But I'll proceed with my comments on the assumption that this is what you are saying.
I don't really see this kind of situation as an exception to the general WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies. Any given source needs to be carefully evaluated for its reliability; and we are required to give proportionate, unbiased coverage of all positions substantiated by reliable sources.
In the case of the Sri Lankan conflict, my understanding of the available reliable sources is that there are at least two viewpoints on the situation — one view that favours the positions and actions of the Sri Lankan government, and another view that criticizes / opposes the government's positions and actions. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, both of these viewpoints need to be fairly and objectively represented here, and neither position can be ignored, suppressed, or marginalized.
I'm hesitant to go too far with possibly over-the-top analogies here, but I believe it may be relevant to mention coverage in Wikipedia of the American Civil War of 1861–1865, and to point out that full discussion of the positions and actions of both sides of that conflict (some aspects of which continue to have an impact on US culture and politics to this day) is considered totally appropriate in Wikipedia, even though the war ended in a clear military victory for one side and the suppression of the separatist movement which instigated the war.
And as I said previously, Wikipedia is not a monolithic entity — it is not being "marketed" by a "company" — and rhetoric suggesting that the "Wikipedia company" is not being honest in its "marketing" of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unless articles on a given subject are rewritten to conform to a specific viewpoint is not going to accomplish anything useful. It is certainly OK to discuss the usability (or non-usability) of particular sources in an article, the way in which sources are being used to explain a subject, and whether or not all the principal views documented via reliable sources are being appropriately represented in an article (or set of related articles) — and I would hope that further discussion of the particular subject at hand can proceed along those lines. — Richwales 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to talk anything about Sri Lanka, Civil war, human right violations, ...All are not relevant. Only LLRC, UNSG's reports, UNHRC, UNHRC reaction towards reports is important. My discussion was about only one thing. How some one can write Pentagon should accept Obama's requests over Rachiels requests in a wiki page ? --Himesh84 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, it sounds to me like you are saying that Wikipedia should favour the Sri Lankan government view on this subject because it is the Sri Lankan government view — just as the US military would obviously follow orders from the President rather than follow "orders" from a random private individual. I still stand by my earlier comments: Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy does not work this way. If you feel I am not understanding what you are trying to say, please try explaining again. If you feel Wikipedia's NPOV policy (or my personal interpretation thereof) is unreasonable, there are places you can discuss this, but please understand that the NPOV policy is a fundamental, non-negotiable core policy which all Wikipedia articles and editors are obligated to follow. — Richwales 17:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New effort

Hi. This new addition to the article is, IMO, a reasonable starting point for further work. It's not quite suitable as it stands — primarily because the Sri Lanka Daily News in general (and the cited source in particular) is heavily biased in favour of the Sri Lankan government. We can use this source to illustrate the Sri Lankan government position, but we can not use it to support an objective claim that the LLRC report has gained worldwide approval. I will try tweaking the article in a bit, before I retire for the night. — Richwales 06:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. As long as the origin of the claim, even if it is a biased source, is properly attributed and presented in a neutral fashion, there shouldn't be anymore problems with WP:OR.--SGCM (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sudar123. About this edit. World Socialist Web is in no way a reliable source. Please use reliable secondary sources that don't have an obvious bias. See Wikipedia:RS#Some types of sources.--SGCM (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Richwales and SGCM for your advice. I want to finish my comments on the LLRC issue with this podcast highlight for the time being.Sudar123 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President and Special Advisor on Latin America at the International Crisis Group(ICG), discusses(with Kimberly Abbott of ICG) on the recent visit to Washington of G. L. Peiris, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, and the pressing questions that the minister left unanswered.
The report of the LLRC was just released in December, and Peiris has said that the Sri Lankan inquiry is just now beginning. That’s been his excuse for not allowing any sort of international inquiry into what happened during the war and specifically in the last few months of the war. Is the international community buying this?
No, in fact the clearest evidence of the unhappiness of the international community is the adoption in March, March 22, of a resolution by the UN Human Rights Council. A resolution that was cosponsored by forty different countries and that was approved 24 to 8, that essentially says wait a minute, what are your plans for implementing the recommendations of the LLRC? And then it states specifically that the report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law. And so, it presses the government to come forward and say what it will do to investigate those allegations and to hold people accountable for those who violated them. And remember, what we’re talking about here are very specific allegations of the targeting of civilians, the shelling of no-fire zones. Where the government said this is a no-fire zone, we’re not going to be attacking it, civilians went in there, and then they were attacked. The killing of surrendering LTTE cadres, sexual and gender based violence, disappearances, these are the kinds of specific allegations that the UN Human Rights Council, the Crisis Group, and others have essentially said to the government, you have to investigate, these are violations of international law, these are your international obligations.
Material such as the above may be usable as part of a discussion of international reaction to / criticism of the competing reports. What we (Wikipedia or its contributors) can not do is to present something like this as if it were the one and only settled and unassailable viewpoint regarding the conduct of the parties to the conflict. Anyone working on this article (or other articles dealing with the Sri Lankan situation) needs to write in a detached and neutral fashion — explaining evidence, points, and analysis from both sides, but without taking any side in their writing. This can, to be sure, be a very difficult trick to pull off if one is deeply emotionally vested in the justness of one side and the vileness of the other; and if anyone here finds himself in such a situation, the best action would probably be to steer clear of the relevant articles (or portions of articles) and leave it to other, uncommitted, dispassionate editors to handle the hard stuff. — Richwales 20:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I would like to add here, what I have already added to the ANI discussion, this quotation from Wikipedia:Competence is required: "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate." JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC reference in lead

This reference says: A foreign ministry statement described it as "fundamentally flawed in many respects", and as being based on "patently biased" and unverified material. It does not say: A foreign ministry statement described it as "fundamentally flawed" due to "patently biased" and unverified material.--obi2canibetalk contr 17:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on English. I don't know how to play using English. So I put copied BBC sentence after doing small edit due to copywrite concerns. Complete facts in the sentence was required for the neutrality of the sentense. Please excuse my bad English.--Himesh84 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Your English is conveniently poor when it suits you. Anyway, I have tweaked it again: "being based on unverified and patently biased material" is not the same as "being based on patently biased and unverified material". It now reads exactly as BBC ref.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the report

Qworty, please use brain power. POV and copyright issues are mutually exclusive. You can't raise both at the same time. --Himesh84 13:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)

  • Says who? And at the moment copyright status of your addition isn't really in question; instead, it's that the section duplicates an already existing section "Sri Lanka", and states the position of the Sri Lankan government essentially as a fact. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you can't understand. But "Position" is different than "Issue in the report". Responses are some responses like rejected, accepted, established a committee. But as administrator if you say "possition" is equal to "critisms made" your must hold you/Wikipedia must hold same stand when it comes to Lessons_Learnt_and_Reconciliation_Commission
    • This is the section made by me. Can you please show how bolded content is currently duplicated in current version ?
    • == Criticism of Report ==
    • Specific findings of the Sri Lankan Government.[ref]Government media center citation on MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS[/ref]
    • Illegal report since Darusman panel is just a personal panel of Ban Ki Moon and no backup from inter-governmental or multilateral forum (UNHRC).
    • Implementing recommendations against accountability actions against terrorism and human right violation will again bring the anger, pain will create divisions in the country and future progress of reestablishing peace, national unity, positive momentum, government plans for erase pain and anger of the past will be severely affected.
    • Low creditability and transparency as “sources and materials” has been classify as strictly confidential and punishing accused based on strictly confidential material can violate ethics in civilized society.
    • Pre-determined conclusions as panel had concluded that LLRC has very little creditability while LLRC is on progress
    • Bias as panel had praised LTTE in many ways while LTTE was identified as terrorist group in many countries and involved in tragic terrorist activities, not mentioning about government significant effort to enhance life in these areas, and criticized nepotism in politics without considering background or panel purpose. --Himesh84 05:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: The criticism of the report by the government of Sri Lanka belongs to the "[response by] Sri Lanka" section, there's no need to create a separate section. However, it should NOT be included in this way; your addition essentially states the Sri Lankan position as a fact. (It seems to go even beyond what the document says; where does the document say that the U.N. report praises the LTTE terrorists?)

I believe that as the article stands, it fairly summarizes the Sri Lankan criticism of the report. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Then it should apply to the executive summary too. Content in the report are stated as facts. revealed,found has been used frequently.
  • I don't know about the report. In the ref GL peris quotes Panel has recognized LTTE as "most disciplined ,........ ". I rewrite it in my words due to copyright issue.
  • If you believe criticism by government belongs to response of government section why did you stopping moving critism by human right groups into response of human right groups section. For me it is dual standards. Himesh84 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Report_of_the_Secretary-General%27s_Panel_of_Experts_on_Accountability_in_Sri_Lanka/Archive_1&oldid=1137121419"