Talk:Prawn farm massacre

message: That is a matter of  your personal opinion and I respect it but it is not from a Tamil source but from a neutral source.Mr. McGowan is a respected person.We cannot edit as per our personal views maybe you should learn from Lahiru .I may feel a book is racist or biased but that is your personal opinion.Books may promoted by anyone look I or you are not the people to decide which book is what in an Encyclopedia.Secondly McGowan has nothing to do with the conflict and he is a neutral person,but you have right to your opinion.Please check WP:RS and this source is okay.Further Tamilcanadian or so cite the BBC,CNN ,Daily mirror and other leading newspapers as the case may be.Now that does not make it racist or so.You are entitled to your opinion  but you do not like his views he cannot become racistHarlowraman 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iwasaki your reverts 

message: This is what notable people who really matter say about him. 
—New York Times Book Review 
Notable Books of the Year 1992
—Newsday
—Publishers Weekly (starred review)
—The Washington Post Book World
—The Wall Street Journal
.
—The Economist
—Foreign Affairs
 
—The New Statesman
—Far Eastern Economic Review
 source Now where is the citation for him being a racist? where is the citation for being an unknown book ? or ist all personal opinion based on I DO NOT KNIOW IT, so it must not be true ?Taprobanus 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is McGowan a racist ?

message: Once upon a time, there was a king who walked naked and still got praised for what he wore!!! So I am not really surprise with all those alleged compliments this book received, considering the fact that great tamil canadian, (to which Taproanus contributes) recommend this as a good reference book !! This book is written in such a neutral manner and thats may be why only tamil racist web-sites promoting this as a good reading book..I am not sure how this editor missed all those crimes committed against Sinhalese people..I am not sure how this editors made the conclusion(or giving impression) that east-north is tamil when Sinhalese dominated those areas long before the arrival of tamils..May be he went to those History classes conducted by Tamil chelvam !!! anyway, a book written by bias unknown person should not be used as a reference in  a encyclopedia..Simply because it makes everything look comical.Iwazaki  会話。討論 05:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminds me the naked kings story !!

message: Some exposition should be provided to link this incident up with the Tamil Civil War. Also, some follow up information would be useful. When were the quotes at the end of the article made?  Was there ever any justice or trial regarding this? --Lendorien 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked for it but came up empty handed. This is the case with the civil war. Watchdogb 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More background needed

message: UTHR is given as the source in the intro and some are arguing its not the primary source. If it is not UTHR , what is the primary source ? And on what that source is based ? From where that source has taken figures ? Iwazaki  会話。討論 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up and read.. according to UTHR, this incident is a FAKE ! and dont forget to sharpen your math too Iwazaki  会話。討論 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does it say that ? It says it is the first attack on a comparable scale. What the comparable scale they are talking about ? I do not know. However, it does not say it is the first attack. Watchdogb 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: for that u need to check a dictionary, Compare the numbers ,and use a bit(portion) of brain.Iwazaki  会話。討論 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refrain from Personal attack. As I said earlier it says that this was the attack of comparable scale. What scale they are using ? I don't know. What attributes are they using ? I don't know. However, I know one thing for sure. They did not say that that was the FIRST attack on civilians. Thanks Watchdogb 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (EC) Iwazaki, again, please refrain from incivility in personal attacks. The UTHR is not primary source for this article; it is only one source of out a total of 6. Moreover, the UTHR source is used to support the sentence about allegations of involvement of the STF. If nothing else, the UTHR is a reliable source for its own allegations. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate personal attacks, but i also hate people keep saying dumb while ignoring the obvious. There is no doubt that UTHR is the primary source here. See the other source, one just mention this incident in one raw, and obvious that author is not a researcher of our problem. I strongly believe all the ohter 5 source have taken their contexts from UTHR. And UTHR is NOT always neutral. for outsiders ,for people who has a only a shallow knowledge of our situation it might look unbiased, but I have shown here how and why it fails here. As you are somewhat familiar with our situation, why don't you give a look to  their report.. I could report other blunders of UTHR here , but I am sticking to the point here. UTHR has contradicted to its earlier report. It is not a position to  be used as a source here. thanks Iwazaki  会話。討論 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have also shown that UTHR is a RS and many others have used what UTHR says. If you "strongly believe" that is ok. Since this is wikipedia and not a BLOG it does not matter what one person believe. It matters if there are RS that say can back you up. If there are none then your believe is just that-Your believe. This does not warrant a NPOV and totally disputed tags. Watchdogb 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me , I can't make Head or Tail of the above post.Iwazaki  会話。討論 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  That's awesome wording. Let's use this version. Rather than what is there now. Watchdogb 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the primary source here ? 

message: Take a look at the citation given for the death toll number. 
The security situation in the country underwent a significant transformation in the first and second quarters of 1987. In the early months of the year, Tigers continued with their well-established practice of landmines and ambush of government forces. The government security forces often retaliated by opening fire and conducting search and destroy operations in civilian areas. In one such incident, on January 28, the STF (Special Task Force), following a landmine blast which killed 12 of its men near Batticaloa, entered a nearby town and captured 83 non-combatant civilians, including 22 employees of a shrimp farm, and took them to an abandoned church, where they were killed. The Sri Lankan security forces began to advance on all fronts against Tamil militants.  Is that enough ? Very sad that innocent people are to unaccounted for. Watchdogb 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malicious tagging going on