Talk:Gonagala massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Contents

[edit] Some neutrality issues

I fixed some POV statements in my last edit. If the article creator has questions then please raise them in the talk page here. I am concerned with the possibility that Words to avoid are being used to convey a partisan bias. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
why this is POV ?? kindly state here .I will remove your tag, and if you can justify having this, then I have no problem having this tag.--Iwazaki 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do not think you can. I put in the nomination tag, not the dispute tag. Thus, the article is to be checked for neutrality. As it is now, the loaded word "massacre" is repeated formulaically to provoke an emotive response from the reader, which is skirting close to POV-pushing. While the media may use the term for sensationalist purposes, that kind of cheap newspaper-selling tactic of tabloid journalism should be avoided in a serious encyclopedia. Therefore, the word massacre should be quoted and the incident called an "incident", which is more dispassionate. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is the issue of needless information. I think an encyclopedia article should report more on the incidents and less on the consequences. As such, the article looks like a human interest piece on how the victims were affected by the incident rather than a report of the incident itself. If this were a class project it would get very low marks on facts and very high marks on propaganda (the version as of now). Also, the article should not become a quote farm of victims bemoaning their losses, another cheap tear-jerking tactic used by supermarket rags rather than by serious reporters. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


engage in duplicity ,dont you ?? The word massacre is used in tons of article and you have found a problem ONLY here ?? amazing..And for your, knowledge the use of the word "massacre" is fully accepted in the case of actual "massacres"..And for neutrality ??!! every single incident is backed up by evidences.Sorry but you have failed to justify your claims here..And I have the feeling that, you are up to some thing here..Unless, you change all the articles in wikipedia which have the word massacre, I have to accuse you for duplicity.--Iwazaki 07:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


this is kinda getting funny..Well, without wasting your time and mine,I would appreciate if you can justify your edits here..So far ,other than ,rumbling you havent come up with a single evidence ! --Iwazaki 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Please Assume good faith. You accusations of duplicity on my part are a violation of this philosophy. Also, please do not make Personal attacks against me. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
amasing this WP:AGF comes from some one who engaged in duplicity !! Once again, disputing use of word "massacre" only in this articles shows your duplicity . Also, failure to see the references and inability to look beyond your pre-occupied concept shows your lack of commitment to work as neutral editor..Once again what is the disputed section in this article?? Please provide them and if you cant stop vandalising this page.thanks--Iwazaki 08:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am off for today.Hope you would take off the unnecessary POv tag asap.esp since you have not prove any thing for your claims.--Iwazaki 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the neutrality project

Iwazaki has agreed to allow me to copy-edit this article for clarity and neutrality. He has worked well with me so far, and I have every confidence that he will continue to do so. For the neutrality project, Nina Odell 14:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I rewrote the article a litte and removed the POV-check tag. Everything appears well cited and none of the wording is anylonger POV. I hope everyone agrees with the article now :) --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, however you've added back language that we've already discussed as being too POV. It's important to keep the language neutral, so that people will believe this actually happened. I'm going to copy-edit again. Nina Odell 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've finished my copy-editing. Now, readers are going to want know what happened next. This event occured over 6 years ago. What, if any, was the response from the government? What, if any, was the response from Foreign States? Was there any compensation for the victims?
If you have read books related to this topic, feel free to insert them as resources. Please make sure to cite them correctly. The references that were moved to external links can be moved back to the reference section when more content is added. I will look at the links myself and try to write a paragraph or two if I can find some new material. We can also add books to the external links category.
I understand that this is a painful topic to us all, but please, let's keep the focus on the article and it's specific topic, for the sake of the victims. Thank you. Nina Odell 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.

The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows:

“ Theere has been some seriously emotive edits in the article, which is being edited by a single user. Any attempts to request for neutrality has been resoundedly rebuffed with incivility and accusations of vandalism. The editor, User:Iwazaki will not allow anyone to even tag it, so intervention by more experienced wikipedians is sorely needed. May require MedCom/ArbCom intervention in the future. The issue of neutrality and using wikipedia as a political soapbox has been raised in the talk page of the article Talk:Gonagala massacre.Some input from neutrality-observant editors is sorely needed. Cheerio. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ”

On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The artcle has been changed significantly since the complain was made.And it looks perfect to me. And if anyone dispute this ,he/she should atleast show what is disputed here.Then we can proceed.Thank you--Iwazaki 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related incidents

Although not disputing the veracity of these incidents what I am looking for is a citation that says that all these incidents are indeed related and are committed by the LTTE or else it is ORRaveenS

have you checked all the citations ?? so could you please tell us what makes you think these were not carried out by the LTTE ?? --Iwazaki 03:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I hoped by now you would have known all basic wiki rules. I am sure LTTE did them all but who says that all of them together were done by the LTTE, you ? then it is OR, find the citation that says all of them were done by LTTE, even if individually they were done by the LTTE. That's how it is done here. I am reverting back to tag positionRaveenS 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Two things prove LTTE this those things.
  • WP:RS given in the individual articles
  • common sense

And please provide the actual disputed sections, before tagging them..And don't use wikipedia to express your personal vendetta.thanks. --Iwazaki 06:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)