Talk:1985 Trincomalee massacres

Disputed

Most of the incidents named here come from the book "Massacres of Tamils". A book made by the NESOHR, which is an organization established by the LTTE; a group which is designated as a terrorist organization in 32 countries. I think only incidents confirmed by secondary sources should be mentioned. — Preceding YaSiRu11 (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC) comment added by YaSiRu11 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

There are enough other reliable sources which corroborate the accuracy of the 1985 Trincomalee massacres (see the other references, particularly the ones in the introduction and lead).Oz346 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Relpy

I'm not talking about the incident in general, I'm talking about particulars of events. For example,

"More than ten people from Anpuvalipuram, who had gone in search of firewood never returned home. Their bulls and carts were found later. And their deaths were attributed to the home guards or the military. "

Are there any other sources to prove this?. You can't use LTTE published materials to prove such an event.YaSiRu11 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well firstly NESOHR are not the same as the LTTE, an armed group, so you can't just make a statement like that with no evidence. Did the members of NESOHR take part in armed conflict like the LTTE?

The head was a Christian priest, who later got assassinated by government forces:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._X._Karunaratnam

And another member was a civilian woman N. Malathy who later wrote a book on her experiences with the organisation, she said this:

"Some leading members of citizens’ committees in Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Trincomalee, and Batticaloa, led by Fr. Karunaradnam, got together and put pressure on the LTTE to create a civilian human rights body. NESoHR was the outcome of these two independent processes, and as such NESoHR retained a level of independence from the LTTE."

As they lived in LTTE ruled areas, they were likely affiliated with the LTTE on a civilian level, but were not active members.

There was a similar wiki dispute regarding the use of Tamilnet as a source, and it was decided by Wiki admins that it was a reliable source, but that any affiliations should be declared when the source is used (e.g. the pro-rebel Tamilnet states...).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

The NESOHR source was published by an independent publishing house, and it still fits the criteria of reliable source.

Anyway, regardless of NESOHR, I don't think a banner over the whole article is justified saying it is disputed, when multiple other reliable sources are there. If there is a problem with nesohr, the problem should be raised with the NESOHR passages, not the whole article, because it misleads people to think the incident in general never happened. When it clearly did. Oz346 (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Background section

@Petextrodon

It's not clear Gassbeek said Anuradhapura caused Tinco violence which actually peaked a month later. More likely it's meant as a backdrop.

I realize now that the citation was only for p. 144-157, but actually on p. 97 Gassbeek says: "This saw Valvettithurai being targeted for violence by the Sri Lankan military (including the massacre that triggered the Anuradhapura massacre in May 1985, which in turn triggered the carnage of May-June 1985 in Kottiyar Pattu)". I didn't say that the entirety of the Trincomalee District attacks were caused by Anuradhapura, but rather there were Trincomalee attacks that were among those that were resultant. I shall make a new citation with the appropriate page and I believe this should resolve the issue.

Regardless, background section shouldn't be larger than the main body. Any disagreement should be taken to the talk page henceforth

I don't see how you can say this with a straight face when you're the one who added over 2,000 characters to the section compared to my paltry 343 characters. SinhalaLion (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

"which in turn triggered the carnage of May-June 1985 in Kottiyar Pattu"

Even RS can be wrong, a student thesis much less. His idea for this seems to be the Karaiyar caste connection between Valvettithurai and Kottiyar Pattu which is speculative. In the absence of other RS making a causal link, not every lone speculation needs to be given space.

"I don't see how you can say this with a straight face when you're the one who added over 2,000 characters to the section"

I did try to condense by removing some lines added by both Oz34 and you.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Another user made a similar argument about Gassbeek's work, that it was just a student's work, but that was quashed I believe. I never thought I'd ever see you make the same argument this particular user made, but here we are. For the record, I too don't agree entirely with Gassbeek's work (or Hoole's for that matter) but I don't see this as a strong argument for dismissing what he says. This feels like inconsistent scrutiny of the source on your part and I feel that you're now engaging in WP:OR.

This is the line I take you're citing:

"The link with Valvettithurai may have been a reason behind the particular viciousness with which Thirukadaloor and the other Karaiyar settlements in Trincomalee District were attacked repeatedly throughout the war."

He's not referring to the 1985 events necessarily, but rather, throughout the war, Thirukadaloor was attacked disproportionately compared to other places in Trincomalee District. It's also not simply a caste connection at play here, as you allege, but also a practical maritime link for seafaring.

I did try to condense by removing some lines added by both Oz34 and you

Yet it's still larger than what we had originally. The inflation of the background section is mostly a result of your work.

I reject all of your arguments for the reasons stated above, but I'm willing to do an explicit attribution for Gassbeek on the VVT-Anuradhapura-Trincomalee nexus if that resolves the issue. SinhalaLion (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thesis is allowed but has less value than secondary RS. Most of his content derive from other RS except this particular interpretation which is his own. There's no evidence Anuradhapura attack provoked the mass displacement elsewhere months later. Even the first attacks per Hoole's timeframe were 9 days later. This wasn't some spontaneous and immediate backlash but planned and organized violence which only makes sense when seen within the context of the strategic importance of Trincomalee which came under the purview of JOSSOP. Neither of the two RS, Hoole and India Today, which extensively covered the events cite Anuradhapura as a cause. As for background bloat, I had to cut down some bits from my original draft and will do more where possible, but ironically you cited the same rationale to cut down on my aftermath details from Anuradhapura article.---Petextrodon (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thesis is allowed but has less value than secondary RS.

As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP there should no problem citing him, especially where there’s no explicit contradiction. You can search the dissertation on Google Books and find plenty of references from scholarly sources.

Also, this focus on value of source is a bit ironic considering you’re using a press report as one of your sources - even lower on the reliability hierarchy than dissertations. This is the Karaitivu debate all over again – I don’t get why you give so much weightage to press sources with obvious editorial stances and biases compared to actual scholarship.

Most of his content derive from other RS except this particular interpretation which is his own. There's no evidence Anuradhapura attack provoked the mass displacement elsewhere months later. Even the first attacks per Hoole's timeframe were 9 days later.

First of all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Second, and more importantly, Gaasbeek’s work would be considered evidence; there's no rule saying that he has to cite an RS for the claim to be included. Third, nine days isn’t that much time (remember there's an entire two years between the 1985 and 1987 incidents which are apparently causally linked). Let me remind you what I clarified earlier: I didn't say that the entirety of the Trincomalee District attacks was caused by Anuradhapura, but rather there were Trincomalee attacks that were among those [attacks] that were resultant.

This wasn't some spontaneous and immediate backlash but planned and organized violence which only makes sense when seen within the context of the strategic importance of Trincomalee which came under the purview of JOSSOP.

A false dichotomy – backlashes can absolutely be planned. If I hold a gun to you and say, “if you move your hands, I’ll shoot you,” I’ve planned a backlash.

It also makes plenty of sense that the violence would come after the Anuradhapura massacre, which had profound impact on the Sinhalese public like no other massacre before. The LTTE effectively told them, “we can brutally slaughter you like cattle even in your heartland.” Imagine how Sinhalese in an adjacent district where there’s an equal-ish Tamil population (and a history of Tamil violence against Sinhalese that both Hoole and Gassbeek understate FWIW) would have felt? I’m not going to add this circumstantial evidence to the article, of course, because it would amount to WP:OR, but I reject your characterization of your explanation as the "only [that] makes sense" (which is, FYI, your own WP:OR). Sorry, but there’s plenty of sense in establishing a causal relation between the Anuradhapura massacre and at least the beginning of the Trincomalee attacks, on both spatial and temporal grounds. I’m not surprised Gassbeek came to his conclusion at all; any reasonable person aware of the context would.

If it’s purely strategic importance, then why did (most of) the attacks begin shortly after the Anuradhapura massacre? Why not any time from October 1983 to before the Anuradhapura massacre, a period of 1.5 years? Coincidence?

Neither of the two RS, Hoole and India Today, which extensively covered the events cite Anuradhapura as a cause.

The India Today is a press report with its own biases that was published in October 1985, mostly focused on Tamil suffering and a more present context - certainly less reliable than a scholarly source like Gassbeek. If Gassbeek’s dissertation is an inferior source to Hoole, it’s not by much given it’s been repeatedly cited both on and off this website, and I don’t see what he said as a contradiction to what Hoole says – just a different perspective.

As for background bloat, I had to cut down some bits from my original draft and will do more where possible, but ironically you cited the same rationale to cut down on my aftermath details from Anuradhapura article.

Only certain details, not the entirety of it, and not even most of it. If the aftermath meets WP:NOTABILITY standards, you could even make your own article about it, thereby not needing to expand in the Anuradhapura massacre article.

On the other hand, you’ve completely removed what I added, have not responded to my offer (which I can only read as a complete rejection), and have not proposed your own offer other than complete removal of what I wrote.

I’ll have to escalate this dispute appropriately if you again ignore or completely reject my compromise. I see your stance thus far as uncompromising deviation from WP:NPOV on your part. The essence of your argument to me is little more than "I don’t like it so it doesn’t belong in the article."

My compromise for the second time: I'm willing to do an explicit attribution for Gassbeek on the VVT-Anuradhapura-Trincomalee nexus if that resolves the issue. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

We aren't here to debate causation but whether a lone trivial mention of a cause, which may amount to a fringe theory, without further elaboration in a thesis is enough to give it space (in an already bloated section), especially when other reliable sources that extensively covered the topic don't even mention it. India Today is a respected news magazine and Shekhar Gupta is an award-winning Indian journalist, so your disparaging is baseless. Not even the government officials it spoke to cited Anuradhapura.

"there's no rule saying that he has to cite an RS for the claim to be included." - WP:SCHOLARSHIP stipulates: "but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources."

"Only certain details, not the entirety of it, and not even most of it."

But the basic principle still stands: Secondary sections should not be given more prominence than the main topic itself which is why I relented.

I think the extant background is sufficient which also mentions attacks on Sinhalese. If anything, the section should be further condensed and not extended. @Oz346, what do you think as the article creator? ---Petextrodon (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

but whether a lone trivial mention of a cause

You've incorrectly applied this non-policy (just advice); it's meant for what's worthy of an article. Note that this page is derived from WP:NOTABILITY, which states "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists." Regarding what it does say about what determines content coverage - I don't think 345 characters really violates WP:DUE or WP:BALASP.

Not even the government officials it spoke to cited Anuradhapura.

It's difficult to determine what those officials mean by "the violence" (I assume you're referring to the Foul Point incident they mention), but Gupta's article seems to place the beginning of "the violence" in August 1985. However, this article pertains to incidents that largely began in late May.

WP:SCHOLARSHIP stipulates: "but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources."

If you read the rest of the policy, it encourages the use of supervised/reviewed theses that are cited in literature, which Gassbeek's dissertation is. Gassbeek's work is both primary and secondary, mostly the latter, so I don't understand your invocation of this policy.

But the basic principle still stands: Secondary sections should not be given more prominence than the main topic itself

You had included very specific details which even the victims of the Anuradhapura massacre, the actual subject of the article, did not have.

which also mentions attacks on Sinhalese

I think there's more validity in having the Anuradhapura massacre mentioned than any of the Mullaitivu District massacres of Sinhalese. I'm not particularly concerned about having the latter mentioned in this article unless there's RS to back it up.

If anything, the section should be further condensed

I'm still astounded that after you caused the bloat, you resort to cutting out other users' content.

Look, if you really want another source, here's something from UTHR (Hoole) - not exactly what Gassbeek said, but I think it supports inclusion of Anuradhapura and VVT in the background section:

"Was there another immediate context to the incident? We do also know that several Sinhalese villages in the area, including Dehiwatte, were abandoned during that period. Dehiwatte was attacked at least once by TELO. May 1985 was a period just before then Indian brokered ceasefire of June when things were very hot in the East. In the North there had been a number of massacres and counter-massacres of civilians (eg. Valvettithurai and Anuradhapura, both earlier in May 1985)."

SinhalaLion (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I improperly cited trivial mention but what I meant to say was the author briefly asserts as a matter of fact without any further elaboration that Anuradhapura caused Kottiyar Pattu violence of May-June. This is not corroborated by other reliable secondary sources. It's purely an original claim of this thesis. Further, the violence commenced on the 23rd in northern Trincomalee before reaching Kottiyar Pattu the next day. Are we to believe only this particular region was specifically chosen for revenge for whatever reason but not others in the district? It's almost as if the author's reason for highlighting it is due to it being his research interest and you're giving unwarranted importance to what may well be an afterthought in parenthesis.

"I'm not particularly concerned about having the latter mentioned in this article unless there's RS to back it up."

Note that, unlike you, I merely provided a backdrop relevant to the conflict over settlements, without making any positive causal connection. Yours is in fact a stronger claim for which there is no evidence. The UTHR quote you cited also merely provides a backdrop without making any causal link.

Should we feature any unsupported and fringe claim simply because a RS mentions it, that too extremely briefly without any elaboration? You have not justified why you insist on including this personal opinion of this one thesis author.---Petextrodon (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's purely an original claim of this thesis.

Not valid grounds for complete removal.

Are we to believe only this particular region was specifically chosen for revenge for whatever reason but not others in the district

Sure; this was an event that covered a span of months and different locations.

Should we feature any unsupported and fringe claim simply because a RS mentions it

He's not just "a RS"; he's written a detailed account and analysis of the events in the Kottiyar Pattu during the war which has been cited numerous times both on and off this website. He's not some random author that I pulled out of a hat. I don't think what he says amounts to "fringe" anyways, but also, even if it was, I'm not asking for any gross disproportion of content coverage for it.

, that too extremely briefly without any elaboration

It's not like he explains that it was a motive among the civilian participants in the violence: "While willingness to avenge the Anuradhapura massacre may have been there among Sinhalese in the area, the 1985 violence was strongly orchestrated from the side of Sri Lanka’s security apparatus." Now, before you accuse him of uncertainty when he says "may," he's probably using this definition of the word (as per Google): "used when admitting that something is so before making another, more important point."

You have not justified why you insist on including this personal opinion of this one thesis author.

As I said, "He's not just "a RS"; he's written a detailed account and analysis of the events in the Kottiyar Pattu during the war which has been cited numerous times both on and off this website." More importantly, there's no explicit contradiction, and I would expect there to be multiple perspectives on an incident or series of incidents like this.

But, if you really insist, I'm willing to cut the causal part, so that it only mentions that the VVT and Anuradhapura massacres as background context. I don't believe the section needs to only contain explicitly causal items. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"so that it only mentions that the VVT and Anuradhapura massacres as background context."

I will do that then and condense my existing bits.--Petextrodon (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll also table for consideration adding that the Anuradhapura massacre triggered violence against Tamils in various parts of the island (without explicitly linking it to Trinco) for completeness' sake, but for now this is it for me. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)