Talk:Veeramunai massacres

Background section

@Cossde: The 1954 clash has a lot of relevance being directly related to veeramunai, and is itself recounted in the UTHR source pertaining to the Veeramunai massacre. The other longer history of conflict in east that you have added is excessive and very biased. The Sri Lankan armed forces were massacring civilians in the east well before the tigers did and at a much larger scale, yet the background info that you have added portrays it as only the LTTE beginning raids on civilian targets there. In any case, a huge recounting of all attacks in the war prior is completely undue weight for this article, and it's the reason why we have separate pages for eelam wars and sl civil war pages.

See similar pages like Eravur massacre, background info, there is no elaborate recounting of the whole war history in the east.

i could easily in response add a whole paragraph on the massacres that the SLA committed in the east since 1983 prior to eelam war 2 using references like uthr. But then the article's weighting would be ruined, this is specifically about the violence that occured in 1990 in the district in question, specifically veeramunai in Ampara district, not wider Tamil-Muslims relations.

In addition, the text you added to the 1954 detail, is virtually plagiarised from the uthr text with minimal changing of words. The original paragraph which I had included has sufficiently changed the words and made it more concise. your additions (apart from the detail of the Muslim magistrate, which I have now added) are just repetitions. Oz346 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, you open this article with the Veeramunai massacres, plural. If it was one isolated incident, yes limiting the context to that incident is fine. However, since this is a string of massacres interlinked to each other taking place in very volatile situation the context needs to be clearly indicate. In fact, your original version of this article is very bias indeed. It only outlines the actions carried out by the army and home guards and fails to mention the role the LTTE plays in this situation as instigator and reactionary as clearly mentioned in the sources you have mentioned. In fact I would go on to say that you have cheery picked the content you want from the UTHR to suite your narrative which is clearly WP:NPOV. My intentions are to make the article balance and inline with the natation given in the source. If plagiarism is a concern the wording can be changed. You don't need to hid the fact that all this started in 1954, because to Tamils got drunk and started a fight. Cossde (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

All the sources used for this article focus on the killings at Veeramunai as a plurality over a large time span. It is not my creation. But I agree with their framework, as otherwise there would be multiple separate articles dealing with Veeramunai attacks. UTHR section on Veeramunai for example does not focus on attacks outside of the district, let alone attacks within the district itself such as in Kalmunai or Pottuvil. Oz346 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The UTHR reference states that general situation in the Eastern Province effected local situations. Just to quote a random few:

1. "The situation in Valaichenai became tense following the Kattankudy and Eravur massacres of Muslims on 3rd and 12th August respectively. "
2. "That night an announcement was made over the loud speaker in the Valaichenai Mosque that the LTTE was going to attack them and called upon Muslims to be prepared. In the wake of the Eravur massacre, it is understandable that the Muslims feared an attack."
3. Muslims turned out to be convenient scapegoats. The story was the same everywhere, particularly in the Ampara District. Pottuvil Kalinunai Akkaraipattu, Veeramunai, Karitivu, it was all the same.

Cossde (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a completely separate section referring to the happenings in the Batticaloa district. That section does not refer to Veeramunai. Oz346 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, these extracts are from the UTHR Special Report No. 3, The War And Its Consequences in the Amparai District. They seem to think that its fit to include the "happenings in the Batticaloa district" on a report about the Amparai District since they indicate that all are related or influence each other to some extent. Cossde (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

They did not think it was relevant to mention it in the *Veeramunai section* which is what this small article is focused on. If you want to force every massacre in the larger batticaloa-amparai region into this page then we will be back to square one, and the scope as SinhalaLion has already pointed out will be too broad:

//Yes, they should only include Ampara District attacks against Tamils, and preferably those in or near Veeramunai. I think that we can include brief references to LTTE crimes against Muslims if those crimes can be shown to be a cause of attacks on Tamils in Veeramunai, or, in the case of the "Aftermath" section, it can be shown that the Veeramunai massacres led to an anti-Muslim attack like the Muslim expulsion from the north.// Oz346 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, that's I have been trying to do. If the article on Veeramunai should exist, it needs to take into context the larger situation in the Eastern province. Cossde (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No that's not the same thing, I emphasise:

//we can include brief references to LTTE crimes against Muslims if those crimes can be shown to be a cause of attacks on Tamils in Veeramunai//

Mentioning why home guards were formed is not the same as why Tamils were attacked in Veeramunai.

In any case, the UTHR already has a rationale for why the home guards collaborated in this particular killing, and it's mentioned in the dedicated section on Veeramunai and that can be added. Oz346 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, if you attempt to limit LTTE activity on the pretext of "can be shown to be a cause" you are creating a non-NPOV article by failing to educate the reader of this article of the general situation the area and the heighten tensions that prevailed. Even the UTHR takes into account the general situation and does not exclude the possibility that events such as the execution of policemen and the in the Eastern Province effected the events in Veeramunai, furthermore it is very important to inform the reader why the Muslims were armed and in an agitated state around this time. Cossde (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Upon reading the discussions here, I need to clarify that my initial comments were in relation to the "List of attacks" section. Regarding the "Prelude" section, I'm in agreement with Cossde here that we should mention the creation of the home guards in the same way we've done for Eravur massacre because (1) the home guards were committing these crimes and (2) the home guards were created around the time these massacres started. I propose adding the following lines to the Prelude:

"Following calls by Muslim leaders for protection, the government created Muslim home guard units. A tit-for-tat situation emerged when home guards would attack Tamil civilians in response to LTTE attacks on Muslim civilians and vice-versa." SinhalaLion (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, I would think the first sentence needs to be expanded to include "LTTE raids", from which protection was sorted. Furthermore, LTTE interactions to the Veeramunai villages needs to be included, perhaps in other sections such as the visiting of LTTE carders to the Veeramunai refugee camp prior to the attack on the 12th as indicated UTHR. Cossde (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read the account, the home guards initially had a peripheral presence, and it was the security forces who mainly led the killings and abductions. So for Veeramunai, no you can't say that it was mainly due to the Muslim home guards getting involved to avenge killings of Muslims in most of the stages. Unless you find references for that, it's just conjecture. The security forces were targeting primarily males of fighting age, and the primary reason for that was collective punishment of the Tamil male population due to to the losses they were incurring at the hands of the Tigers who were mainly Tamil males. Uthr also states that one of the motives of the home guards was also local competition and rivalries, and many educated non-tiger civilians were targeted for this reason for elimination.

You are trying to portray a biased and distorted view in the prelude that the LTTE were the only aggressors, raiding villages while the Sri Lankan security forces did nothing. And then you have the gall to talk about NPOV.

If you are going to mention ltte raids, then it's equally valid we include the army raids and massacres on Tamil civilians too, which predate and dwarf the LTTE ones in scale.

And this should not be limited to this article, but should also be in the articles about tigers massacres in the east. Otherwise it's just a biased pro sri Lankan army narration of events with no consistency. Oz346 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Veeramunai massacre was a form/act of protection by the home guards? Oz346 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, can you please get your thoughts to gather without dashing out inconsistent rhetoric and place your own opinions as facts. This is the basis that your edits are non-NPOV. You claim first that "security forces who mainly led the killings and abductions" and the home guards had "peripheral presence", then you said that Uthr says that one of the motives of the home guards was also local competition and rivalries. If you think that I am saying that the "Veeramunai massacre was a form/act of protection by the home guards" then you have clearly failed to understand what I have been trying to tell here. Unfortunately, you went ahead an created an article on Veeramunai massacres and now yourself stats "it's equally valid we include the army raids and massacres on Tamil civilians too, which predate and dwarf the LTTE ones in scale", meaning that you now agree that all these events are interconnected and can not be effectively presented by a single article without giving proper context to the ground situation that was present in mid 1990 in the Eastern Province. In fact, your actions here in Wikipedia seems to be emulating the ground situation 20 years ago, engaging and openly threating to engage in tit-for-tat retaliations. Cossde (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No I don't agree that all the events are interconnected so much to the extent that they should all be mentioned on this one article. I think it's utter hypocrisy for you to add kattankuddy massacre for example, and be silent on say kalmunai or pottuvil massacre at the same time. And it's utter hypocrisy to add historic LTTE raids and not add prior SLA raids too. My issue is with biased SLA whitewashing narratives, and with ruining the weighting of this article. Oz346 (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I see you have removed the list of govt attacks from Anuradhapura massacre 'see also' section, but kept the list of ltte attacks on this GoSL massacre page. When both are exactly the same in nature. your edits are disruptive, blatantly biased, one sided and inconsistent. If you continue to do such biased edits, I will report you to the admins. Oz346 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And where do we stop with the histories in these articles. By the same token, I could add the extensive list of prior Tamil civilian massacres in the northeast committed by the Sri Lankan Army in the Anuradhapura massacre page. Thousands of Tamil civilians were massacred in the north prior to that massacre. The VVT massacre was just the final straw of a long list of massacres which led to the LTTE seeking revenge. Does that mean that should be mentioned in a prelude section to Anuradhapura massacre? If you are adamant to force extensive histories of prior massacres and raids on this article, by the same token, this should be the same standard applied to all article irrespective of perpetrator.

But you are applying one rule for LTTE massacres, and another rule for government massacres. Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't Sri Lanka, so double standards do not apply here. Oz346 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

//You claim first that "security forces who mainly led the killings and abductions" and the home guards had "peripheral presence", then you said that Uthr says that one of the motives of the home guards was also local competition and rivalries.//

How is that contradictory? It was the security forces who mainly did the killings, and the home guards collaborated for one such reason. They are not mutually exclusive. Oz346 (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, you really don't understand what we have been discussing all this time. Its not a pissing contest here. Its about creating a Wikipedia article and the cardinal rule is that its NPOV. However it very evident from what you say, you are far from concern about the NPOV, your comment "VVT massacre was just the final straw of a long list of massacres which led to the LTTE seeking revenge" shows that you seem to be pushing your own POV or OR as it contradicts the claim that it was revenge for a massacre carried out in Prabakaran's or so the provided reference says. Therefore, if you intend to create articles on ensure its NPOV. Cossde (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346 - what do you think of this line to be added to the prelude:

"Following calls by Muslim leaders for protection from LTTE raids, the government created Muslim home guard units. A tit-for-tat situation emerged when home guards would attack Tamil civilians in response to LTTE attacks on Muslim civilians and vice-versa."

I think it succinctly contextualizes the home guards without disturbing the scope or weighting of the article. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

problem with this is that not all home guard attacks and collaborations were tit-for-tat attacks. Some were unprovoked like the 1985 anti Tamil Karaitivu riots. Others were done to settle local rivalries. For Veeramunai it is not so clear in the initial stages til August 12 whether Muslim homeguards supportive role to the security forces in these war crimes was due to reprisals for LTTE attacks done in close proximity. especially considering that the security forces clearly led the assaults. Oz346 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Muslim participants in the 1985 Karaitivu attack were "home guards" per se — they seem to be mobs of local and imported Muslims. Also, for what it's worth, the attack was absolutely not "unprovoked." I hope you're not relying on Phil Miller's laughably partisan recount of events to make this assessment. There had been intimidation, extortion, etc. of Muslims by the Tamil militant groups (though perhaps not the LTTE strictly) in the months leading up to this riot.

My "tit-for-tat" statement is what I see to be the consensus for home guard-LTTE violence in the east and I don't see how or why Veeramunai should be an exception. However, I'll look into revising the statement to incorporate what you've brought up. SinhalaLion (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The pogrom in Karaitivu was orchestrated by the government and was not a spontaneous riot of the local Muslims because of Tamil militant violence. That was the government propaganda line, but there is plenty of evidence of an outside hand. I suggest you read the accounts from Tamil Times, in the April (p.1) and May 1985 (p.4) issues, and the accounts by UTHR. Muslims politicians from the region also pointed their finger at outside interferences at the time:

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/the-east-erupts-mossad-again/

But we digress. Oz346 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read all the sources you've mentioned before, but based on other (non-government) sources I've read on this topic, I maintain that the description of the Karaitivu pogrom as "unprovoked" and nothing more than a state conspiracy to ruin perfect relations between Muslims and Tamils in the East is a complete caricature of the situation. I'll go into this more in-depth if/when a Wikipedia article on this topic is created. You're free to respond as you see fit, but this will be my last word on Karaitivu.

Anyways, here's my revision to the statement, taking your comments into account:

"Following calls by Muslim leaders for protection, the government created Muslim home guard units. However, local rivalries and LTTE attacks led to these units committing or participating in attacks on Tamil civilians."

Given that at least the August 12 incident seems to have been retaliation for LTTE crimes, I think it's ludicrous to neglect mentioning that the LTTE attacks were a cause of home guard violence. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but if I'm not, then I must agree with Cossde that such neglect violates WP:NPOV. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your revised statement is reasonable and nuanced enough to be included in the prelude. I agree it can be added. Oz346 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

UTHR does not need direct attribution in every sentence. Are you going to ruin other articles which heavily source UTHR like the Eravur massacre? Or does it only apply to the army's atrocities, so you can try and put doubt on their dastardly barbaric crimes? Oz346 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Complete double standards! Oz346 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources UTHR does not need direct attribution, certainly not in every sentence, it ruins the flow and reading quality of the article. Oz346 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, might I remind you even WP:RS needs to follow WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If the Wikipedia standards of WP:STRUCTURE does not conform to your liking then it seems that your sole objective of creating this article is WP:CFORK. Cossde (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentences cited are not "biased statements of opinion" as stated in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. You are throwing out whatever wiki policy you can and more importantly constantly distorting them. Refrain from doing that and stop edit warring. I remind you of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. Oz346 (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, you seem to neglect in your revert war, the fact that NESHOR is not a RS listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources hence there is nothing wrong in citing it. Furthermore, a single RS doesn't mean that such serious accusations can be written in such Wikipedia language. It will will create WP:CFORK. Or is that you objective to use Wikipedia to highlight what you termed as "dastardly barbaric crimes" of the army. Cossde (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"Furthermore, a single RS doesn't mean that such serious accusations can be written in such Wikipedia language."

There is no wikipedia policy saying that you need two reliable sources. That is your own Cossde policy, and not only that, your Cossde policy only selectively applies to articles on Sri Lankan Army atrocities for some reason. One RS is suffice. Btw it is well known internationally and in multiple RS that the Sri Lankan armed forces have killed thousands of civilians. They are not mere accusations. they are incontrovertible facts. Oz346 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346 is that your personal opinion and how is that relevant to this article? Cossde (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion (3O), however 3O is intended for discussions between only two editors so that a third opinion can be provided, and this discussion already has three participants. Alternative forms of dispute resolution such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard are available if needed. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Article scope

The article is called "Veeramunai massacres" but the contents include incidents against Tamils well away from Veeramunai. I'm not sure that they belong here. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

actually it was @Cossde: who first added Kattankudy massacre to this page, which I did not think fit in this page. But rather than getting bogged down in another revert war with him, I added the corresponding massacres from Batticaloa district against Tamils. He then added the northern expulsion of Muslims as well. I think all attacks from outside of Ampara District should be removed, because I agree, this article is about Veeramunai and its environs. Oz346 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they should only include Ampara District attacks against Tamils, and preferably those in or near Veeramunai. I think that we can include brief references to LTTE crimes against Muslims if those crimes can be shown to be a cause of attacks on Tamils in Veeramunai, or, in the case of the "Aftermath" section, it can be shown that the Veeramunai massacres led to an anti-Muslim attack like the Muslim expulsion from the north. This is no different to, say, how the Anuradhapura massacre is done with respect to preceding and succeeding massacres of Tamils. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Oz346 (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Or alternatively, we could change the article title to broaden the scope. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

LTTE attacks in the Eastern Province was the reason that the Muslim Home Guard units were created in the mid 1980's, to claim that an incident in 1954 was linked to an incident in 1990 needs to take into account all that has happened between including the general context of the ground situation such as the LTTE raids and the animosity created by it, followed by the arming of villages, reprisals, IPKF and finally the whole chain of events that set of this powder cake. I agree the article title can be changed into make the scope broader. Cossde (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article title should be changed. The scope you want to bring is so large, it will destroy the original purpose of this article, which is to focus on the attacks in Veeramunai. Better to start a separate article dedicated to the larger pattern of killings and counter killings in the larger region if needed, which will be a large undertaking. Oz346 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

See also section

@Oz346, why are you removing the Palliyagodella massacre from the see also section? It is a similar massacre carried out in the same region. Cossde (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a similar massacre carried out by the same perpetrators in the same region, or even in the same time period. It's a massacre carried out by the LTTE in North Central Province in 1992, so why is it in the 'see also' section of an article describing a massacre by government forces in 1990 in Ampara District?

I see you have also added the "list of attacks attributed to the LTTE" link to the 'see also' section. Again this does not have strong relevance to a page describing a massacre by government forces.

Do you understand the precedent you are setting by adding these links to pages describing attacks by the opposing side? Under this logic, I can add "list of attacks attributed to government forces" to the 'see also' section of LTTE massacre pages.

I do not think neither are appropriate places. Oz346 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, my objective is to make this article WP:NPOV as possible. However, from what you just said, your objective is not that.

1. You go can create a poorly orgernized article, cheery picking content to give a non-WP:NPOV narative of a series of massacres carried out over a period of time that saw multiple major incitdents taking place in the Eastern Province which much of the massacres/events having linked to each other either directry or by effecting the sentiments of the local population. You then go and block my attempts to give that context ([1]) by deleting the content I wrotes explaining the origins of the Muslim home guards.
2. After creating an article which has very broad implications as these massacres are not isolated incidents, you try to contain these to a single District, without stating the logic for that parameter or gaining any concenses when there is an active discussion in progress.
3. You removed ([2]) the section I wrote linking the Veeramunai massacres to Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province on the guies of removing "attacks from outside Ampara District", when you had added ([3]) the link to the Veeramunai massacres to the Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province of Sri Lanka.
4. The above is contrary to your adding ([4]) a link to the 1985 Valvettiturai massacre in the Anuradhapura massacre aticle claiming that the latter was the LTTE's retaliation for the former and then you went on to add a link to the Kumudini boat massacre as a retaliation to the Anuradhapura massacre.
5. You went and added the link to "list of attacks attributed to government forces" to all the 'see also' pages of massacres which have been allegaded to have been carried out by the government, after I added see also sections and added links to similar massacres carried out in other parts of the world in some of these.
6. And now in this article when I added the "list of attacks attributed to the LTTE" to allow the reader to follow through, since LTTE related attacks are mentioned and these appear to be (even mentioned in the sources you yourself added) tit-for-tat or retaliatory attacks; you have called it a precedent that you can use to add "list of attacks attributed to government forces" to 'see also' section of LTTE massacre pages, disregarding the fact that these are realted or not.

I see that your editing is bais/POV and centered around the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces article which you have explaned citing predominantly one-sided refrences such as pro-rebal sources which is reaching WP:SOAPBOX. Cossde (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I am happy for the expulsion of Northern Muslims to be included in this article after reading SinhalaLion arguments above. You have not answered my point regarding the unsuitability of Palliyagodella massacre being on the 'See also' section on this article. According to your logic, List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces can now be added to the Anuradhapura massacre page, as that article also includes mention of government attacks. I am not interested in pointless revert wars with you. So what will it be? Personally I want to remove the mention of List of attacks attributed to the LTTE on the 'see also' section of this page, because I still do not think it is sufficiently relevant to the main of the article. Oz346 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde: so what is your decision regarding this? Oz346 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, before you start your negotiations on a see also section, please ensure that this article is WP:NPOV. Cossde (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Explicit attribution

@Cossde it looks extremely inelegant to add "According to..." to every line. As Oz346 mentioned, we'd also have to do this to other articles. But, if we really must go down this route, might I suggest having two sections: one for UTHR-J's version of events and the other for NESOHR's. Though, in this structure, it becomes difficult to incorporate other sources. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

And not only for these sources, all the Sri Lankan newspapers and other sources deemed as RS on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources would then also need "according to". All of Cossde's own articles will be RUINED by this new policy of having explicit attribution for every RS. Oz346 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

A more simpler compromise would be to have explicit attribution in the heading e.g. 'List of attacks (according to UTHR and NESOHR)". But even that is overkill and looks unsightly, and if that is done, then the same will apply for LTTE massacre pages too (including for Sri Lankan newspapers sources). Oz346 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

In fairness to Cossde, this article is unlike the Anuradhapura massacre or Eravur massacre because its structure is a timeline of events over a two-month timespan. Under ordinary circumstances, we could write, "According to X..." and follow it with all information from that source. So with a source like NESOHR that has yet to be deemed an WP:RS, it would be fair to explicitly attribute them. Yet doing so in this structure produces ugly results. So again, going to re-iterate we'll need a structural change. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, this is a direct result of the WP:POV editing undertaken by Oz346. If you look at his edit history it only includes a certain category of edits, all of which are anti-Sri Lanka military, there are no general editing undertaken by this editor. When confronted by his/her WP:POV on this article, he/she has resorted to general and unspecific accusations that doesn't help this article at all. Seems he is upset that his version of this article which was clear WP:POV has been "RUINED" and has even openly threaten that other articles that I edit "will be RUINED". Cossde (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok I have added explicit attribution to the whole section, which is far less ugly and unreadable than adding it to every other sentence. Also, each sentence is referenced normally anyway, so people can see which source cites which line. I think the structural change you are suggesting would also make the article less reader friendly and less straight forward. For example, the articles on 1956 and 1958 pogroms which follow a similar structure of one continuous narrative flow very nicely, rather than being broke up into multiple different narratives depending on the different sources used. Oz346 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde I still don't fully understand why UTHR-J needs to be explicitly attributed here. Could you perhaps explain what you believe a WP:NPOV version of this article would look like? SinhalaLion (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, given that these are very serious statements that is depandant on one source, such as UTHR, it has not been colaborated by another. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, only "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". Given that these content is highly controversial in the abcense of colaborating reliable sources, in-text attribution (WP:INTEXT) is the best way forward. Cossde (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

These killings remain uncontested in the literature. There are no other reliable sources saying that the Veeramunai killings were fabrications and did not happen, so UTHR as SL reconciliation project has rightly said, can be used without explicit attribution. Oz346 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"remain uncontested in the literature" what does that mean? Is that another way to say there is no collaborative sources? or UTHR is the sole source? In that case in-text attribution to the sole source is a must. Cossde (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice".

The factual assertions made by uthr that there were killings in Veeramunai by security forces is not contested. Can you find a RS contesting it? Oz346 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What about NESOHR? its not listed as a reliable source in SL reconciliation project? Cossde (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Then to be consistent, every major Sinhala-owned newspaper should have their status be revised to require "according to pro-state" since I can provide ample evidence they are nothing more than mouthpieces for the state and even whitewashed its crimes against Tamil civilians. NESOHR is far more reliable considering unlike the Sinhala press who only toed the state line they actually interviewed the eyewitnesses and survivors of the massacres. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, thanks for joining the conversation. Where did this "major Sinhala-owned newspaper" come in to the conversion here? In fact how do you say NESOHR can be used as a reliable source in this context given that NESOHR has been described by Amnesty International as "In 2004 the LTTE established the NESOHR to monitor the human rights situation in the north and east. However this body has limited autonomy, and capacity and security constraints restrict its access to the east." in its report [5]. Therefore, NESOHR is a questionable source to cite in a controversial subject of this nature. Cossde (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not the best way forward, it's ugly and reads horribly. My solution is far better, it's explicitly stated at the heading of the section. Oz346 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not agreable. Cossde (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not put it at the top of the section like the way I did for the Sansoni commission report for 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

UTHR report is not a document of public record as the Sansoni commission report. Former is an academic publication based on original research, where as latter is a result of a public inquiry as such on public record which is admissible in court. Given that NESOHR is questionable as a reliable source, this entire article then is based solely on UTHR, then we can explore the possibility of attributing the whole content to it. I an open to the idea, but we need third party opinion on this. Cossde (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

you are making up your own rules again regarding the credibility of RS on wikipedia, none of what you say diminishes UTHR with regards to Sansoni report in terms of wiki policies. Oz346 (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, I was explaining the difference between UTHR report and Sansoni commission report. I didn't say it was a wiki rule. Your are the only one here pushing your opinions as facts.Cossde (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this solution by SinhalaLion, it looks much better, and it's obvious and explicit the text is attributed to these sources. I really do not see any issue with this now. Oz346 (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346, it will have to be done with only UTHR, since NESOHR is not a reliable source due to its affiliation to the LTTE as described by Amnesty International as "In 2004 the LTTE established the NESOHR to monitor the human rights situation in the north and east. However this body has limited autonomy, and capacity and security constraints restrict its access to the east." in its report [6]. Cossde (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

it appears i reverted your edit yesterday. the format suggested by @SinhalaLion looks like a better alternative. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)