Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

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


Terrorist is a contentious term that goes against Wikipedia policies

[edit]

@Alejandroo2234: This is your final warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It has to be encyclopaedic and be written from a neutral point of view. The word Terrorist is a subjective and controversial term. As a result Wikipedia policies advises users to refrain from its use. Familiarise yourself with this WP:CONTENTIOUS policy and stop edit warring. Thank you.Oz346 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 1995 allegation

[edit]

@SinhalaLion, That's the introductory section of human rights violations. Why does it need that many excess details about an issue noted for its general absence? You say Oct 1995 allegation is "mainstream" yet outside the U.S. government source I have not been able to find it verified in any mainstream human rights sources. UTHR just states some media reported it after briefing by the GoSL and Wood (2009) simply refers to UTHR and states she could not find more details about it on the web. I don't see why that particular allegation needs to be highlighted from the rest.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was also in an ICES publication about the massacre. To be fair, I don't think that the line about sexual violence should even be in the introduction section to begin with. It should be its own section.
Also, I take issue with how you've invoked WP:NOTEVERYTHING: to suggest that content should not be on a particular page, not only here, but on at least 2 other articles too. If we're going to be consistent, wouldn't Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, where you and other users have flung in story after story with details galore, be an even more flagrant violation of the policy? SinhalaLion (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If by ICES you mean the Colombo-based International Centre for Ethnic Studies, I believe it was also referring to the aforementioned media reports. But more prominent international human rights organizations covering the massacre didn't mention any rape as far as I know.
I don't think one allegation deserves a section of its own. All other rape allegations happened outside the context of wartime violence. That's why a concise sentence summarizing the consensus view is adequate.
I could have also invoked WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
The consensus of mainstream scholarship and the UN tasked with investigating this very topic is that the LTTE did not use sexual violence as a weapon of war. When you cite a biased source like the U.S. government saying the exact opposite in non-neutral language, it can be considered an extraordinary claim.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who added the negative anyway. You can remove the whole thing if you so desire.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. The negative just makes things confusing because it's a section about things the LTTE did, not what it didn't do. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement on form of English regarding Commonwealth countries

[edit]

Hi. Does Wikipedia have an agreed policy on the style of English which should be used on pages regarding Commonwealth countries? I can see the “EngvarB” tag above the lead, which only appears to indicate that the article shouldn’t use AmE spelling. Given this article is about Sri Lanka, should Indian English be used? I ask as I noticed “organization” in the lead, which spawned my question. Theo Hercules (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]