Talk:Mylanthanai massacre/Archive 1

Not a single citation is given

Not a single evidence is given..This is an pure attempt to use wikipedia for LTTE propaganda..--Iwazaki 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First assume good faith WP:AGF then see [1]. The article is also a stub, if you want to improve this article you can add more information. ThanksRaveenS

Raveen, the only reliable source that you able to produce says, Jury finds Mylanthanai massacre accused not guilty, Acquittal. Then why should this article exist in wikipedia. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs if you think this should not exist put it for AFD then see what happens or do the reasonable thing and and do the search yourself. Dont delete proper citations. I will put the citation back myself. ThanksRaveenS

Reversion of edit summarized as "corrected phrases according to citations)"

This edit appears to have a misleading summary. The actual quotes are:

1. Soldiers from Punanai Army camp massacred 35 Tamils, including 15 children, at Mylanthanai in Batticaloa District on 9 August 1992. This was a revenge attack for a landmine assault on Jaffna’s Kayts Island, in which six senior military officers, including Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa, were killed. (from http://brcslproject.gn.apc.org/slmonitor/November02/acqui.html)

1. There has hardly been any expression of concern over the Jury’s verdict in the Mylanthanai massacre case. This is widely seen as a travesty of justice and affects the confidence of a whole community in the system. Apart from general accountability for crimes of the past, even the recent incidents at Kanjirankuda and Trincomalee have been swept under the carpet. The constant message communicated to a minority is that they will never see justice under a ‘Sinhalese government’. The benefits of bringing in the International Community would be nullified if the State and the Sinhalese polity were seen to be incapable of change. (from http://www.uthr.org/SpecialReports/spreport16.htm#_Toc35700799.)

Please explain here if you disagree. — Sebastian 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, you have given me a warning without even giving enough time for me to answer this..Remember, We live in different time zones and I wont be able to as soon as you post..first, yes I admit the fact that I was a bit incoherent with my edit summaries and should have wrote something in the talk page.apologies for that..Okay lets get to the point.

• The whole allegation comes from "Sri Lanka Monitor", and sorry it doesn't look neutral at all..I have several issues with this Organization.

• first : The given source written in 2002 ,10 years after the incident ! And ,this happened in 1990's , and as we all know internet was around from mid 1990's.
• second : This looks like a NGO to me..And I don't think we should take NGO's seriously as anyone in Sri Lankan has the right to start one hence able to write reports as it will.
• third : Sri Lankan is being closely followed by "Amnesty" and they have so far not let a single Tamil death to escape from their surveillance. if so, why its so hard to produce the original report of amnesty ?
• fourth:: This incident looks notable ,and Should have been reported in the international or local news-papers..Esp International media, they never miss these kind of chances..And not a single one is given here ?
• The Government had filed a case and the it was the JURY who acquitted them..And please explain to me, why would some one call this "state terrorism" ?? NOT a single organization but the creator of this article called this "state terrorism"..Also, Not a single incident of Government intervention was reported..So, Author has taken the authority naming this as a "State Terrorism".

Amazing !!!!!!!!!

• UTHR does not give any figure of casualties..So the whole 35 deaths, come from only one source and that as I have shown is dubious !

Here I have analysed my points..Look forward to hear yours.thanks--Iwazaki 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of issues, the properly cited version before it was hacked is [2]]. Second where in the article has it being termed state terrorism? You seem to confuse a template discussion with this article. Keep relevant discussion to relevant pages. We are not discussing State terrorism here. Accorning to discussion on [[3]] your removal of Tamilcanadian is not acceptable to neutral editors. I will restore all the deleted WP:RS citations. Thanks RaveenS

Tamil Canadian may be neutral for you, but not for anyone who carefully study it.The whole site is a big propaganda of LTTE and for a certain extent, tamil people..And Certainly not WP:RS ..And please stop telling stories ..No one hacked your article..You have hacked it by our self by giving citations from Tamil Canadian..Why are you giving secondary sources..Is there problem with finding original ??Here, I was explaining the true intention of the creation of the article..And yes, I strongly believe this was created in a hurry,with twisted details,just to back up your claims of "state terrorism",nothing else.And raveen, I would appreciate is you can address the issues I have raised above.thank you--Iwazaki 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith WP:AGF and no persoanl attack WP:NPA also see credible sources below that back up everything. Other sources about mass killings at mylanthanai

http://www.cpalanka.org/psg/5_April_2001.doc (all neutral people writing about it to the UN)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/2515295.stm (mentions the case)

http://www.uthr.org/bulletins/bul10.htm (mentionas 35 deaths)

Anyway I can edit peacefully now without interuptions now that people are watching these pages. ThanksRaveenS

Raveen If anyone who is not assuming WP:AGF ,I think its you..

And please stop giving meaningless WP:NPA..The whole thing became an issue because of the way you wrote this article in the first place..if anything, blame your self for making a mess of this..You had the opportunity to make a very good article out of this incident..But all you did was, labelling this as a massacre as a part of State Terrorism, though the sources clearly indicated otherwise.. And for your other sources;

cplanka.org...I need time to study this..Also sorry I can't open DOC documents. I use Free-BSD.

BBC does not say anything of involvement of the ARMY..It just reports the Court verdict..And this was written in 2002 too..10 years after the incident!!1

UTHR also claims this has been the first attack on Tamil civilians of a comparable scale..Which makes me wonder of this..I see clear indication of contradiction here !!don't you raveen ??--Iwazaki 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

18 Sri Lankan soldiers accused of massacring a group of Tamil villagers a decade ago Are you reading what I am ? Anyway you said You had the opportunity to make a very good article out of this incident that means you will now let me write a good article ? :-)) Anyway have a great new year. RaveenS 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what the article says " Judicial officials in Sri Lanka say a High Court jury has acquitted 18 Sri Lankan soldiers accused of massacring a group of Tamil villagers a decade ago." . This is exactly the same things Sri Lanka Monitor says..Its all about the acquittal..People can make accusation's but its up to the Judicial system to make decisions.Not for you and me.And ,I don't think you have addressed what I have asked..such as,

• UTHR also claims this has been the first attack on Tamil civilians of a comparable scale..Which makes me wonder of this..I see clear indication of contradiction here !!don't you raveen ??--Iwazaki 20:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then put a Hoax tag on it and see where it goes . Thanks RaveenS

Raveen ,is that all you want to say ?? I was expecting a better answer from you,raveen. Its like admitting what you wrote is HOAX.thanks a lot--Iwazaki 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

The sources cited in this article are no way reliable. What is Sri Lanka Monitor? Can anyone provide any citations to show that it is a recognized publication? It certainly appears to fail WP:RS on many counts and I don't think it should used as a source of any article.

I also added the weasel tag cos of sentences like "much to the shock of Human rights organizations ". Who? Why don't they name them? Can anyone find any actual reports from any human rights organizations that expressed "shock" at the acquittal? Or any reliable news reports saying the survivors expressed "shock"? If not these sentences should be removed altogether as they fail WP:V.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed All Sinhalese jury as it is defamatory to Sinhalese even if the massacre was done by Sinhalese soldiers and the jury was indeed all Sinhalese because after all the SL government brought the case. But left Tamilnet in as the citation, it may be pro LTTE but it reports are primary sources and is used extensively by BBC and other notable media organisations. Please read Wp:RS and Wp:NPOV again, we can argue that Tamilnet can be used as well as Asiantribune to make citations. Thanks RaveenS 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)