Talk:Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka

Death Toll

The "Report of the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka", on p.14, states:

"The Panel of Experts stated that “[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths”. Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for."

Edit 567198602 by an IP Address on 5 August 2013‎, claimed in the Article:

"The report suggested that more than 70,000 people may have been killed during approximately the last 6 months of the conflict."

As soon as this inaccuracy was corrected by providing the exact quote from the report, User obi2canibe began an WP:EW in Edit 1010845835. --Jayingeneva (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: You never provided any sources for your changes:

• 1. 7 March 2021 No source.
• 2. 7 March 2021 No source.
• 3. No source.

Finally, on 18 March 2021, to support your addition, you copied a source which I had provided on 7 March 2021, 11 days earlier, to support existing content. BTW, the "panel of experts" referred to in the Report of the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka is the Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: The topic of the entire Article is the "Report of the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka". That is the source. Your belated requirement of a citation was well after the WP:EW. Yes, I chose to use your citation to placate you, in the hope the WP:EW would cease. To me, it is obvious that the "Panel of Experts" and the "Internal Review Panel" are different entities. I'm not sure what value your latest edit provides, but at least you seem to have ceased the WP:EW. Thanks! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: I don't require sources, Wikipedia does. It's obvious to me that the "The Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka" and the "Independent Review Panel on Sri Lanka" are different but it's not to you. You were trying to make out the the "Independent Review Panel on Sri Lanka", the subject of this article, was stating that "number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" when in fact the "Independent Review Panel on Sri Lanka" were actually quoting the "The Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka".--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: My edit 995850233, that you reverted, explicitly contained, "The Panel of Experts stated ...". Please read the edit carefully rather than incorrectly assuming the intent of editors. --Jayingeneva (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayingeneva: But you did not wikilink to Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka so readers who were unaware of it would not know that you were referring to "The Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka". They would certainly assume that your "Panel of Experts" meant the "Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka". Misleading.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: If that was your concern, there was no reason to revert my edit multiple times back to the old text, which was not only misleading but also factually incorrect. Simply add the relevant link. It is great to hear that you support correcting misleading text. We can definitely work together to correct misleading text in these articles. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)