Talk:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka/Archives/2023/January
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (It's sources are all nonsense. someone please look them up!) --YaSiRu11 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a draft, although it needs cleaning up, the sources does not look nonsense to me. A good number are from from the University Teachers for Human Rights and amnesty international. The nominator seems to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as most of their contributions from their 6 days old account looks like white washing anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanka. SUN EYE 1 18:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a draft page, where references are from published verifiable sources. The Sri Lankan Army is well known globally for committing mass rapes, and this has been documented in countless human rights reports (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc). This is not a hoax, nor it is a fringe view. It is true that the vast majority of Sinhalese do not believe that their armed forces could commit a single crime. But this is wikipedia not a community forum. I suspect that YaSiRu11 is a sock puppet for User:Kisnueque who has just vandalised the colonisation page. Could someone please look into this and take appropriate action.Oz346 (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- To report an editor for Vandalism, look for pattern, for example number of edit differences, what qualifies as vandalism is non discussed removal of reliably sourced material, introducing content that is not sourced and there are number of such examples. Once an editor indulges in it, you should politely warn them in their talk page, if they continue the behaviour you then take it to the Admin Notice Board and with examples ask for help. An admin will warn the editor first based on the behaviour but if the editor continues the behaviours, they will be blocked for a few days and after they come back, continue the behaviours they will be hard blocked for ever. It works like a charm all the time, have patience and never loose your cool. Any help, do let me know Kanatonian (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Graphic image
The content of the image placed in the article is too graphic and is potentially disturbing to other readers! Would it be possible to take it down? It's really inappropriate. This falls under Wikipedia's types of controversial images: Images depicting death/violence/sexual content. Bekkadn (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Bekkadn The image(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isaipriya_dead2.jpg) is graphic but whether it should be removed or not depends on the consent of the owners. As the pictures depicts about the incident of Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka and the death of Isaipriya it should be there. I'm no one to decide it but let the world know. Instead you can use a warning template(For further information reply me) . Siddartha897 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree the picture should either be removed or put somewhere in later sections. It seems very disturbing at the top. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 13:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Siddartha, the picture is representative of the article, being the most high profile case. It has already been censored of objectionable nudity. A warning template can be added if needed. Also similar pictures of dead people do exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aranthalawa_massacre
Please note Wikipedia policy is not to censor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Inappropriate_Images_on_Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1028857994 Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with z346 Wikipedia is not censored.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Came here from the Teahouse. In the current revision, the first image is File:Isai.png (which is perfectly fine). Considering this image is already here to illustrate the case, I feel the addition of File:Isaipriya_dead2.jpg is WP:GRATUITOUS. The shock value is not that high (it is hardly nudity and the breast is censored, to me the bloody face is more shocking by far); but I do not see what added value it has compared to the first image. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The first picture in isolation does not represent the page topic well (it's just a woman sitting down), whereas in combination with the 2nd picture, it shows indirectly what had happened, which is the topic of the article. Obviously we can't show actual active sexual violence imagery, they do exist in this topic, but they would be too disturbing to include:
https://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-video-war-sexual-violation-tamil-execution-macrae Oz346 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Oz346:, @Bekkadn:, @Lightbluerain:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards: and @Tigraan: By the discussion above I can say the first image File:Isai.png is fine(not graphic) so it can be put in the top, and the second image File:Isaipriya_dead2.jpg is graphic. As both the images together makes the article more informative, so according to WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NOTCENSORED the second image File:Isaipriya_dead2.jpg should be there and not to be removed. Instead I moved the second image File:Isaipriya_dead2.jpg a bit downward. And if you all agree I will place this warning template on the top the article.
 | The Article below may contain graphic and inappropriate content. Viewer Discretion is adviced! |
That's it.Siddartha897 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Should I put the template? (or) If you have a better idea, let me know.Siddartha897 (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would leave this template out, it makes the page look too cluttered. Oz346 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. If it makes the article look too cluttered, there is no need of the template. Siddartha897 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would leave this template out, it makes the page look too cluttered. Oz346 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks I learned a lot from this thread Bekkadn (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Moved the article
The article isn't about sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka but rather a list of incidences. A separate article is needed for the "Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka"
- Can you discuss and please get consensus before moving it. This was a undiscussed move hence reverted it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sahaib3005: please check these reliable sources.
- https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/new-exclusive-pictures-of-isaipriya-alive-emerge/
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwxz4m/death-of-a-tiger-0000710-v22n8
- http://white-flags.org/
- https://www.colombotelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Rape-War-Photos.pdf
- It is quite evident from all of these sources that these photos were crude trophy photos taken by the Sri Lankan Army after they had proudly raped and executed Isaipriya. These are evidence of war crimes and not 'copyrighted' material. Various reputable human rights and news groups have used them with no reference to 'copyright', because they were quite clearly freely disseminated, non-copyrighted trophy videos by the Sri Lankan army. In addition, these pictures have themselves been disseminated widely via social media in Sri Lanka and globally. Oz346 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 14 September 2021
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved.
There is no support for this proposal and three editors oppose it, on the bases that the article has moved beyond a list and that the proposed name is prolix. An alternative proposal was made but has attracted no support (and some opposition).(non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka → List of incidents involving sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka – The article doesn't explain about "Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka" but merely lists a set of incidents. A separate article should be created about "Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka" while this article should be renamed YaSiRu11 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I’d oppose the move, the article has moved considerably beyond LIST requirements. Kanatonian (talk)
- Oppose per Kanatonian has moved beyond a list.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply
- Articles similar to this are Violence against women, Honour killing in Pakistan, Violence against women in Pakistan and Violence against women in India. You can see that compared to those articles, this article's topic is rarely discussed in the body of the article. There should be information about prevalence, causes, types of assaults and statistics. Not a list of incidents. This article's structure is like that of List of incidents of violence against women in Spain, List of terrorist incidents in 2021, which are Lists. That's why a separate article is needed for "Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka" while this should be renamed YaSiRu11 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The article topic is about 'Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka'. Every incident is about 'Sexual violence against Tamils'.
- To further add to this, user YaSiRu11 has already tried to delete this Wikipedia article and has been reported to the administrators for similar disruptive behaviour here:
- Unfortunately, no administrator took action against this behaviour, which included the use of a sock puppet.
Reply
- It seems that you have not Assumed good faith in my proposal to change the title. I only acted according to WP:CRITERIA, which states
- "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles".
- And, Can you help to reach a consensus by pointing out facts why this should be named not opinions like " No separate article is needed. This is quite comprehensive on its own". Amritsvāraya (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is an article on 'Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka'. It includes everything on the topic. All the things you mentioned including 'causes' (e.g. there are clear mentions of Sinhala soldiers punitively raping Tamils thought to be supportive of LTTE, also the recent cases in 2021, the security forces were punitively raping Tamils who were involved in peaceful protests. So motives and causes are included). 'Types of assaults' again are also clearly mentioned in the text below e.g. one favourite of the security forces is to insert a pipe containing barbed wire into the anus to inflict trauma. 'Prevalence' is also alluded to in the text below, with human rights groups describing it as 'systematic'. Statistics on the high prevalence of sexual assault against Tamils in garment factories is also given. These things are all mentioned in the current article which is comprehensive. Oz346 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Following Wikipedia's own policies, the current title is concise, precise, and easily recognisable. It is also a title which users are likely to look or search for. The new suggested long winded title will spoil all the above criteria. In summary, on balance, the existing title is far superior to the new suggested one. I link the wikipedia naming title policies for other users to see:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title Oz346 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka → List of incidents of sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka. Wikipedia has main title headers "Sexual violence against..." as well as main title headers "List of incidents of..." The proposed form, "List of incidents involving..." appears to be infrequently used. Since this article is structured as a list, the form "List of incidents of sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka" would be slightly shorter than the proposed header and appears to be more intuitive than the current header, Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, which would of course remain as a redirect. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - As per the wiki guidelines:
- "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
- The existing title satisfies this and is easily recognisable by readers of this topic. See similar named titles: https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/02/26/we-will-teach-you-lesson/sexual-violence-against-tamils-sri-lankan-security-forces
- "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."
- The existing title fits this perfectly, readers interested in this topic are not going to search 'list of incidents of sexual violence against Tamils', it far too long winded, and not a intuitive title from a search point of view.
- "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects."
- The existing title satisfies this, it is precise enough to distinguish it from other related subjects.
- "Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."
- The existing title satisfies this perfectly, and is not longer than necessary, whereas the proposed title is long winded and unnecessary. Again, people interested in reading about this topic will search the original concise title.
- "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
- The existing title fits the pattern of similar named articles, starting with 'Sexual violence against'.
- In summary, the existing title already satisfies the Wiki guidelines. Making it more long winded is unnecessary and will significantly reduce the readership.
- Currently, the existing title has gained 18,882 views since 12 June 2021, which demonstrates the effectiveness of this title:
Problems
There are more problems here than can be solved in some copy edits. First of all, the writing is, in many places, atrocious. Second, all those names need to go--it's noteworthy that I removed dozens of names of victims, and found only one of an alleged (ALLEGED) perpetrator. Naming the victims can easily be regarded as shaming, and naming alleged perpetrators is obviously also complicated. Third, one wonders whether this article--no, whether this list of events/facts/atrocities is an actual article. I am inclined to scrap the entire list. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Here is one case where a victim went public:
[copyvio redacted] Oz346 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi I appreciate your concern for the naming aspect, however, most of the names were released by the brave victims themselves who waived their right to anonymity in an attempt to seek justice (through human rights groups or independent investigations). Their names are already on the public domain in these reports, and the motive was not to shame, but to give credence to their claim. Many of these cases were high profile cases reported in the media such as Mrs Koneswary. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, there is a culture of denial among the majority Sinhala population, of whom the security forces are from. They regularly deny that any rape was committed by the security forces against Tamil women (check out the first post on this very talk page by one user who frequently removed any mention of mass atrocities and tried to hide rapes against Tamil women in Wikipedia). This is why these brave women went public. The vast majority of victims are too scared or intimidated to come out publicly. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka there is complete impunity, and 99% of Tamil victims of rape have not received justice. It is an issue that the Sri Lankan government itself is trying hard to cover up, and there is complete media censorship in the Sinhalese run media. If you just watched Sri Lankan state TV or read Sinhalese run newspapers, you would believe that the Sri Lankan army were the saviours of the Tamil people who did not harm a single hair on their heads, least of all commit mass rape. Regarding the perpetrators their identities are often not given to the victims for obvious reasons (to evade censure). Hardly anyone knows the name of their rapists in these cases. It would be a disservice to the victims to remove this page, and would aid the perpetrators who have successfully hidden this atrocious issue under the carpet. Oz346 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/srilanka/comments/umcqck/sexual_violence_against_tamils_in_sri_lanka/
This page has actually educated and opened the eyes of some Sinhalese to this horrendous problem. Oz346 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oz346, this is not about whether what's happening there is shameful, and why--of course it is. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is not clear at all that "most of the names" were from people who volunteered their names and their experiences. And it also doesn't address the fact that, simply put, what we have here is not an encyclopedic article, but a chronologically organized list of atrocities, and not a well-written one. The lead itself is as disjointed as the rest of the article. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If you look at the original sources of the named reports, they are from publicly made testimonials by the victims e.g. the sansoni report, which were given to the judge sansoni on his inquiry to the 1977 anti Tamil pogrom. Their identities would never have been released unless they publicly stepped forward. Regarding the article not being fitting for an encyclopedia, there are numerous other articles of a similar nature (lists of events etc). Regarding the quality of writing, when I get time I can re-edit it (right now I'm busy with assignments, but will get to it as soon as time permits). Oz346 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
https://lankafreelibrary.com/2019/10/15/sansoni-commission-1980/
Here is the aforementioned report Oz346 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- We write articles based on secondary sources. Primary sources should be used with caution, and they should certainly not verify the bulk of the article. This article is not a list of events--or at least it shouldn't be. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- The bulk of the sources are from human rights groups reports, followed by news articles and books (which include secondary sources focusing on this topic e.g. Mohan, Rohini (2016). "The Fear of Rape: Tamil Women and Wartime Sexual Violence". In Jayawardena, K; Pinto-Jayawardena, K (eds.). The Search for Justice: The Sri Lankan Papers. Zubaan Series on Sexual Violence and Impunity in South Asia. New Delhi: Zubaan. pp. 237–295.) I'm not sure if the Sansoni commission report can be described as a primary source, as it contains analysis, not just the testimonials. Oz346 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
"not an article that describes and elucidates a topic."
That can be added on to the existing article. It is not beyond improvement. When I get time I can work on it. Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)