Talk:Kent and Dollar Farm massacres

Tags

Although not disputing the events itself, I am concerned with the non neutral tone of the articl and the potential use of irrelvant reading material and oroginal research contrary to wikipedia rules. The article needs to be rewritten using appropriate Wiki rulesRaveenS

removed your npov tag..as your have failed to point out a single disputed act...I didnt know you are the "Don" of wikipedia,who has the authority to give orders regarding wiki articles !! My advice for you, why dont you put more effort on your articles as most of them are in totally mess ?? --Iwazaki 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking other wikipedians against WP:NPA. I have warned you number of times and then where is the WP:RS for all the extra ordinary claims made in thsi article ? What is the page number of the book ? Who called the related incidenst as related you or some WP:RS make the citation properly as this is not a blog. Thanks RaveenS 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

stop vandalising wikipedia articles..And dont use wikipedia to express your personal vandetta..Article was created months ago, and its hilarious that you have found disputed things(so far you have not pointed out a single thing) only after i started questioning your articles ,which are in fact in total mess..And please read the references and use common sense..Even LTTE dont dispute this incident..Thats all I have to say.--Iwazaki 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

also ,this beautiful advice came from user raveen, who him self had firmly believed that this attack was carried out by the LTTE.I think he had good reasons for that..

Also your intentions about starting pages on Anuradhapura massacre, Kent and dollar farm massacre and Kathankudy mosque massacre by the LTTE is needed as currently only massacres by the government forces are highlighted. We need a balance of all articles.............. --Iwazaki 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking fellow wikipedains against WP:NPA and also my advice still stands but it does not mean you can write what ever you want because this is not a blog, cite properly and learn to created neutral articles. Infact I will even give you a link[1] that you can use to clean up this article. You have not answered my questiosn properly, so I will revert your edits. Either this is a stub or article. In my view you have created an article without proper citations from reputable sources because so far you have not found any. This article will either improve or go.CiaoRaveenS 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

for the last time, i am kindly asking you not to use wikipedia to express your personal vendetta..All the information is well cited..This incident is clearly written , in the books written by Mr Rohan Gunaratne..Buy them sit back and read..And Frankly I don't know why would you claim spur as a bias site..Well let me guess, if any one hate terrorist, that one becomes bias ?? IS that your logic..Any way, I havent quote anything from the SPUR.I add them only because they had pictures of murdered civilians..Well, again ,again, I am asking you to single out the disputed sections here ?? and please don't revert if you cant find any.peace--Iwazaki 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again stop attacking Wikipedians against WP:NPA If you think that I am unfair take it to mediation or a Neutrality project review. This article is making controversial statements here. I am not questing whether it happened or not, it that simply the article has used non neutral language and written articles without proper citation from the book also a lot of original research has gone on to link many incidents . Do you know how to use cite ? apparently no. Not a single controversial statement is cited properly. I will re tag it again, try to follow the wiki process that is take it mediation, administrator notice of incidents or even RFC or take to a third party like Nina, Black Falcon or Shupniker. Why wouldn’t you not do that because are you scared that this will become truly a neutral article ? We need an article on this incident, I think it is notable currently it fails the following WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V RaveenS 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion pages are not the place to fight out the Sri Lankan Civil War. In my view it does not matter how many articles are on government atrocities, and how many on Tamil Tiger. So long as each article is balanced and verifiable.JohnC (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Reversions

Please tag for citation and give reasonable time before reverting article. Thanks. The Consigliere 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the laughable edits they were immediately reverted..Please care to read the sources,incident is well documented in these. I don't know how it works in your country, my country people have right to settle anywhere and the Government has the right to encourage people to move to uninhabited areas,such as moving tamils from extra-populated jaffna to kilinocchi and mulative in the 1940's and 1950's..AND most importantly sinhalese were the majority on Jaffna for over 1000 years and they were expelled totally from jaffna only in the 15 th century by murder king Sankili,who even beheaded 600 catholic tamils. And for eastern part, it was overwhelmingly Sinhalese majority area till 1818, when british brutally surpressed the Sinhalese rebellion and wiped out all the sinhala majority areas in east..SO your argument about Sinhalese settlements in north and east are hilarious, its like questioning the Jewish peoples right to live in Israel..Next time before even touching these articles get your history books ready ,ohh not to mention ,read the given sources too.--Iwazaki 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The version to which you've reverted posits a single view on the matter. Most of the facts and opinions stated are currently under dispute. I am not saying that they should be deleted. It just means that all sides of the dispute need to be outlined with adequate citation. It is altogether possible that a particular side is correct. But it is not the role of Wikipedia to assert them. Our job is just to document the different views out there and attribute them to the different sides. "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." WP:NPOV

I've checked out the online sources that have been listed and one is an obscure thread in a discussion forum and one is the unreliable SPUR website (which doesn't cite it's sources on this matter either). The Jane's Security article does not contain information about the Kent and Dollar Massacre. It merely describes the suicide bombing methodology of the Tigers. Irrelevant considering that this was not a case of Suicide Bombing.

The ancient history of Sri Lanka that you've mentioned is indeed interesting. If that is a popularly expressed rationale for the GOSL sponsored settlement please consider adding that to the main article, or more appropriately to an article on that specific subject. There is no reason to delete the rationale provided by the other side. The Consigliere 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

hey..how come you missed what is written on the top of the sources?? It says References and further reading,I hope this will clear you up..And there is absolutely no point bringing "settlements" thing,is it ??? I mean, if I can go by your logic, I can add, tamil kicked out Sinhalese from north and east and discriminate them during the british rule, hence we can justify the killings of innocent tamils by Some Sinhalese mobs, including the 1983 incident..doesnt make sense does it ?? this is the article about the cold blooded murders carried out by the LTTE and even them　at that time never disputed this..There are strong evidences,both electronic and printed. If SPUR is unreliable(remember it is used as a secondary source) so are the BBC or Amnesty ,most of them,due to the fact of many tamils working for them, are inherently bias to them..So ,let me guess, do you want to remove every single incident quoted from BBC or Amnesty ??If so, then I am willing to make a compromise..Anyway, without wasting our time here, could you please ,at least show me what is disputed here..Please provide me one things written here which is not cited from the references,then we can proceed..--Iwazaki 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Consigliere version, it is neutral and without unreliable sources but I still think the section Related incidents is not neutral, what about massacres done by the government in the same area, why not mention them too ? Also it is important to mention that it was government sponsored settlement of convicts from the South, a penal colony. Which showed the mentality of the government at that time. RaveenS 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

2 things. One the version by Consigliere is utterly WP:OR without any citations. 2, the original version is completely cited from the book by Rohan Gunaratne. Blanking cited text and inserting uncited, POV commentary is bordering on vandalism so. If you have anything to add, make sure it is cited. And remember this article is not about the history of Sri Lanka, we already have a bunch oh separate articles on that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at revised version now. I have included appropriate citation for what was claimed by Snowolfd64 as WP:OR. Iwasaki, any neutral reader would agree that there is no justification for the massacre. Adding background information is not justification, it is merely information on the viewpoints of parties involved. In an article on the persecution against Tamils it would be appropriate, if not necessary, to provide an indication of motives behind the perpetrators, as long as all opinions are clearly attributed to the party that holds them. The Consigliere 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, What you say here are;

• false..Because Sri Lanka for over 1000 years was the land of Sinhalese and East till 1815 was a Sinhala majority state..PLUS,district of Mulative and Killinochi was created after the Independence hence tamils have absolutely no claims for them..
• not relevant..Because this article is about the "Kent and Dollar farm" massacre, not about the SL history.
• would make all the articles made by raveen heavily disputed

Because,Extremist people could used your logic to justified massacres of Tamils, including 1983 incident..Since SL was a Sinhalese State to start with and Sinhalese were forcefully expelled from Jaffna in 16 th century and from the EAST in 1818, Sinhalese could easily claims that all the tamils do not belong here..Actually most of the tamils here are actually immigrants from the south india !! --Iwazaki 00:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>once again, blanking cited text, adding fact tags to cited text and inserting uncited, POV commentary in its place is bordering on vandalism and will be reverted. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't included any statements of demographics in 1815 so I am not sure what you are referring to as 'false'. Background causes leading up to the massacre is relevant. If you have disputes about the articles raveen made, please feel free to make them over at those pages. raveen seems like an editor who is willing to hear multiple viewpoints.

I would also appreciate some referenced statistic to back up your claim that most Tamils currently living in Sri Lanka had immigrated from South India instead of being born in Sri Lanka. I want to bring some politeness back to this discussion so I will wish you all the best and good luck in your search for such statistics.

snowolf, please read my latest revision as I've asked you to before commenting. I haven't blanked any cited text, haven't added any fact tags to cited text nor have I inserted any POV commentary without attributing it to it's respective source. The Consigliere 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

how many times I have to repeat myself ?? all your claims are answered all ready..even humour has its limit,isnt it ?Iwazaki 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Are the pictures in this article from one of the Rohan Guneratne books? Or is it just from that thread in the Lanka Library message board? Can you verify that it is actually pictures of the Kent and Dollar farm massacres? Photos like these get used by both sides to attribute them to various different events. The Consigliere 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The image I got was from the Sri Lanka Army. I dont believe the guy who posted the images on that forum was at the scene to have taken the pictures. And why don't you stop wasting everyones time with your silly arguments. Do you also think this image was actually taken on the moon? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we should at least label the images as "Photographs distributed by the Sri Lankan army. Claimed to be those of Kent and Dollar Farm massacres." Again, considering the source it is highly unlikely that these photographs are of the actual event. The Consigliere 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please find another way to spend your time till your uni starts? It will be better than making childish arguments. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall we also rename this image "Photographs distributed by American news channel CNN. Claimed to be those of a plane hitting the world trade center"? Considering the WTC was "actually" brought down by explosives, and this is all a big American government cover up, maybe we should. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If you feel the 'controlled demolition hypothesis' is a significant minority view. I suspect that consensus would show that it is not, but feel free to discuss that issue at a more appropriate talk page. There is real dispute over the pictures in this article. Again keep in mind that it is not Wikipedia's job to assert a particular point of view when there is significant dispute.The Consigliere 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf, machan you couldn't have said it better!! significant dispute ??!! This article is only disputed by YOU !! let me guess, some one I knew,few days ago told me 2 is mass, hence if there are two people its correct to call them mass number of people, DO you go by that logic too ?? also ,don't forget the fact that, except for expressing your hypothesis, you have so far failed to point out a single disputed section here..cheerio--Iwazaki 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Machang where's the barnstar for ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY??? There's a few new faces or socks who deserve it!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 05:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The disputed claims in your versions are: a) That the photographs are of this particular incident. b) That it was the Tamil Tigers that did it. c) That it was done for the aim of ethnic cleansing and ethnic cleansing only. Disputed facts however are not the main problem with the article. It is the omission of events, causes, and viewpoints that lead up to the event.

The dispute is significant not because I hold it, but because all the parties that I've cited hold it; Tamil political groups, journalists (Tamil and other), Amnesty International.

Also on a digressive point, if we were to look at just the members contributing to this particular discussion, 2 out of 5 people is significant.The Consigliere 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

This is getting a little embarrassing. Please read and point out individual issues rather than reverting entire article. I won't revert again. Thanks. The Consigliere 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

are you talking to your self !!?? I am still waiting you to show the disputed sections ?? So instead of using wikipedia to show your personal vendetta, why don't you stick to the point,if you have any? you are dead right about the "embarrassing" thing,after all what is more embarrassing that disputing an article because of some photos !! --Iwazaki 12:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead children

Unless the image itself has historical significance, like Image:TrangBang.jpg, it is not needed here.
Wikipedia is not a forum to address social causes or political movements, no matter how awful or how worthy. The paragraph describing the facts (men, women, and children were killed) is fine. The edit warring on this page needs to stop or some hard-ass admin will lock all of you down. Please try to work out compromise language --Knulclunk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is historically significant incident for all Sri Lankans so as those Vietnamese children burned out by the American Napalms. And if you are not dispute with anything except this picture, why did you add the NPOV tag? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to compromise such Sri Lanka related picture disputes on here. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The napalm photograph is not important because of the the screaming children, but of the reaction it got from the American public at the use of napalm on villagers when the photo was taken in 1972. The photo is important to the article, not because of its subject matter, but its own history.

I replaced the NPOV tag because there seems to be debate about this article that is being fought out in the mainspace instead of the discussion page. You can't just remove a NPOV tag because you don't like it.

There are no debate regarding this article..Or if i may add, other than people who write to tamil net and tamil nation(pro-LTTE pro-tamil racists web sites) no one dispute these article. And I have had enough of these people who cant even show a single thing in the article which is disputed. ANd for the photo, this is absolutely necessary. If you think this is not, then I would kindly ask to go and remove similar photos, which can be find all over Wikipedia, esp in the war crimes,genocides, war articles. I am sorry to say this, but your engaging in an act of duplicity.If you are honest, act like a honest person.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The dead monks is even more unacceptable. Yes, when you go into a village and shoot people, the photographs are terrible. --Knulclunk 02:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

guess you are in the wrong place.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, not my fight. I have enough articles to poke at. You may want to add the Sri Lanka massacres to the List of massacres page, just for added impact. --Knulclunk 12:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you dispute the contents of the article please feel free to state here.I am ready for any discussion regarding this matter, esp if it going to help the article to keep it neutrality.Since you seem to dispute the addition of the photos, all I can say, as the first major attack on Sinhalese civilians, this is a significant event, and for the first time south realize that those terrorist means business. So this is as important as genocide,Vietnam war pictures.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The source of those photographs is the GOSL. Has the GOSL been transparent about where they attained those photos? They are prone to using pictures of Tamil civilian deaths claiming that it is in fact Sinhalese. Do you have a third party source that is not either the GOSL or the LTTE? And yes there is a dispute over the neutrality of the article. The Consigliere 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Random tagging

For the umpteenth time, if someone disputes the article, you need to explain why on the talk page. Simply reverting to the version with the NPOV tag and deleting pictures will be considered vandalism and I shall post a report on WP:AN/I if it happens again. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute the Source, the number killed, that the perpetrator was LTTE. The source is not NPOV. This article does not have neutral tone. Also the arguments above :) Watchdogb 17:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cited with you guys favorite, UTHR(J). --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And sangam.org for the casualty number ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Kids were in kent.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kids were in kent.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kent and Dollar Farm massacres. 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/20141030122752/http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2010/11/62400_space.html to http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2010/11/62400_space.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Govt POV"

@Oz346 I'm fine with what you've put for Athulathmudali's justification for the eviction. I have no problem including details about the assaults or reluctance to leave; they just got swept up when I undid your edit. My bad.

However, we still seem to disagree about Herath and what he said. I think calling it a mere "govt POV" is an oversimplification; he attempted to act on it by stirring hatred among the Jaffna and Vavuniya Tamils against the Indian Tamils in the district. Hence, it's an action leading up to the massacres. SinhalaLion (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you reverted both of our edits. I do agree with the other user the weight given to government POV is disproportionate. You cited the views of two government officials with excessive details. You expressed concern about bloated content yet didn't address my point that the details about economic competition and Jaffna traders were bloated.

"he attempted to act on it by stirring hatred among the Jaffna and Vavuniya Tamils against the Indian Tamils in the district"

I see. If that was your intent, it didn't come across that way to me since it's unqualified. I think summary of the RS analysis of actual government motive would suffice but we also gave enough space for government POV hence the "terrorist" threat pretext.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

How about this: Journalist T. Sabaratnam claimed that Herath tried to convince local Jaffna and Vavuniya Tamils that the Indian Tamils were their economic competition. The bloating I was concerned about was regarding something that wasn't directly related to the article and had its own article. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine. Not overly bloated or disproportionate. Oz346 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok fine.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

\\Several Jaffna traders, claimed by T. Sabaratnam to have been instigated by Herath, also echoed this sentiment.\\

The source says it was a few northern traders, not several. How did a few become several? Also if Rajan Hoole wrote that nearly all northern Tamils supported the settlements, then is this not of undue weight? Oz346 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Definition of several according to Google: "more than two but not many." It's not of undue weight — is what most "northern Tamils" think even relevant if the ones actually on the ground felt otherwise? Also, see my reply to Petextrodon. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)