Talk:Mirusuvil massacre

Neutrality discussion

from [1] I dont know whether it is in your line of Wiki duty to do neutrality sanity check. I saw you get involved a while ago on a Sri Lanka relatedd bio article om Kumar Ponnambalam. I cretead a new one called Mirusuvil mass grave. I need someone to do a neutrality sanity check before I categorize it and link it to other articles. Any directions will be appreciatedRaveenS 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If I was you, I'd merge it with Mirusivil Massacre. I'm not sure we need two articles for this. yandman 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK good idea but how about the quality of the merged article itself from a neutrality point of view ?RaveenS 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks reasonably neutral. yandman 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is diputed

three reasons

• daily news article is a poem and certainly not about this incident.
• second source ,The British Refugee Council,is established the Sri Lanka Project in December 1987, on the request of international NGOs. SriLanka has several hundreds NGO and Anyone can start and run an NGO here..So this source fails WP:RS.
• Other disappearances section is written as a propaganda here..for further details please look at the chemmani article and its talk page.thanks--Iwazaki 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

found two more reasons

• tamil net is extremely pro LTTE and anything written there can be safely put in to the garbage bin
• BBC link does not work thanks--Iwazaki 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

further;

• how many bodies founded in the grave ??
• how many of them were "proved" as the missing persons ?

thanksIwazaki 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The government prosecutor charged the arrested soldiers for illegally arresting and killing seven Tamil refugees who came to inspect their homes and then burying them at a mass grave at Mirusuvil. case closedRaveenS 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So its just another allegation, isnt it ?? Raveen, could you please care to answer my questions above ?? None of it has been answered yet, and you just reverted the topic without even touching them!! I will happily revert it per my questions..if there is no mass grave , why on earth we need an article for this..Hey,also your link doesnt work.thanks.Iwazaki 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY it says If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The topic is either Allegation of Mirusuvil mass graves or Mirusuvil mass graves. Where is the citation for Allegation title. I have cited 3 WP:RS that directly talk about an established mass grave in Mirusuvil. It is only the court case is pending, who cares if some one is charged ot not. Did the government find the bodies in one mass grave? yes. Is it an allegation ? no. Are the soldiers convicted, no but does it make the mass grave disappear ? 64.201.162.1 13:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I have said months before and its amazing that certain people are anable to fathom it..As long as The British Refugee Council stay as a source ,esp it is the which priparaly accusing the Army for killing civilians,as they saw it by their own eyes,of course living in thousands of miles awaya, THIS ARTCLE IS POV.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 12:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ALSO(look it is even bolded) IF chemmani incident is named as Allegation something, this article should be the same..I've so far failed to see from your sources,other than the highly disputed The British Refugee Council(look its not even bolded) confirmimg that the army actually killed all those 8 people..Let SL judicial system to decide it, after it gives verdict we can proceed with the necessary changes.many thanks

P:S: I am extremely busy these days but I would be happy to answer u,if u bring any constructive and BRIEF arguments Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 12:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See below, started a new section on title 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate citations

They were subsequently murdered by Sri Lankan Army soldiers and buried in a mass grave, about 16 miles east of Jaffna town.^{[[Mirusuvil massacre# note-SLM2000|[4]]]}^{[[Mirusuvil massacre# note-BBCS2000|[2]]]}

This sentenece is totally disputed. First, by no stretch of the imagination is "Sri Lanka Monitor" a reliable source. Citing anything from that website on Wikipedia will merely serve to degrade the accuracy of Wikipedia articles.

And then we have the BBC article. I'll like to remind everyone that introducing factual inaccuracies and misleading citations into articles is bordering on vandalism, and repeating such acts could lead to a community ban for a given user. In this case, I'll like to know where in the BBC article it says "they were murdered by Sri Lankan Army soldiers"? All the BBC article does is report on a panel appointed to cover the deaths of these people. It absolutely does not say who killed them.

I'm not sure who added this false citation, but consider this as a first warning. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whom are you warning, please be specific and what rules did that person break be specific, second it is your personal interpretation as to whether Sri Lanka monitor is not relaiable or not. Why not get community consensus as to what it is ? Warning people for content dispute when no specifics have been noted and when that person has no authority to ban anyone is considered very uncivil. It is very easy, go to ANI and post a question as to whether Sri lanka monitor as a primary source cand be used or not ? Wiki process is very easy as long as wel follw all wiki rules Taprobanus 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the time to go through the article history to find out who added the incorrect citation, so I was merely warning all the editors of this page to abide by Wiki policies, as is standard.

Warning people for content dispute when no specifics have been noted

I suggest you re-read my post again, and and also take a look at WP:VANDAL which states

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

I would think adding false citations would fall under that category.

And it's interesting to see you completely avoided even mentioning the BBC article. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we need athird opinion here, you wrote First, by no stretch of the imagination is "Sri Lanka Monitor" a reliable source. Citing anything from that website on Wikipedia will merely serve to degrade the accuracy of Wikipedia articles.. This is Britis refugee council's research policy.

Sound research evidence plays a key role in the effort to improve policy and provision for asylum seekers and refugees. To ensure that our research has the widest possible impact, the Refugee Council seeks to build bridges between researchers, policymakers and practitioners.[..]

[2]. Hence I conclude that Sri Lanka monitor a British refugee council publication is WP:RS. If you disagree we should take it to third opinion, then mediation, if not to arbitration. Unless Wiki community has concensus on Sri Lanka monitor not a high handed potentially pov position made in Colombo, I will keep using it as a reputable source. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lankan tamil refugees. Not ltte suspects. Pls don't be racist Kokulan bala (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Weasel title

This incident is primarily about a massacre; hence the so called allegation of mass grave title is a weasel word to make the article seem like something else. That it resulted in a mass grave of 8 people that the Sri Lankan military police found with the help of the survivor is also attested by Sri Lankan news papers, court proceedings and even the neutral HRW , British refugee council and other publications.

Please look at Killing fields. It is similar in title a killing spree that results in a mass grave. Mirusuvil massacre is the correct title for this article. I will request an admin to enable me to change the re-direct because it was already established and was redirected to this by me previously. About British refugee council whether it is a RS source or not, I have requested a neutral admin to look over it.

Hence the reason to put a dispute tag is two fold, one is that was using a non RS source (awaiting reply from an Admin) and second the title itself was different. Hence point 2 has been resolved we just have to wait for point one. Based on that we will go forward. Thanks Taprobanus 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mirusuvil massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010083955/http://www.epidemio-ufpel.org.br/proesf/Anaclaudia/Somasundaram.pdf to http://www.epidemio-ufpel.org.br/proesf/Anaclaudia/Somasundaram.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006081536/http://www.brcslproject.gn.apc.org/slmonitor/December2000/miru.html to http://brcslproject.gn.apc.org/slmonitor/december2000/miru.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070414081345/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA370042006 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA370042006
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ictj.org/static/Asia/SriLanka/facade.eng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)