Talk:Kilvenmani massacre

Devendrakula vellar (done)

The article on the village Kizhavenmani says: "44 Devendrakula vellar were burnt alive", while this new article says "a group of around 44 striking Dalit (untouchable) village labourers". Wich description is more correct. Please modify on of the links, if you know which one is better. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed wordings as per source in the former article. Gfosankar (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Memorial list

I've removed this list of victims twice since it was both unsourced and definitely the individuals weren't notable in their own right. However Paul Barlow has reverted saying that other such stuff exists. I'm not entirely sure that's right, but either ways, this doesn't belong here IMO. We have to give stats about the dead, but not list everyone and their ages, these were after all private individuals. —SpacemanSpiff 13:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what? I thought "I bet he's going to invoke other stuff exists": one of the most misused excuse-to-delete essay-links there is. You've already misrepresented WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, which says nothing about content specific to an article. Let's be clear, most of the people mentioned in this article are non-notable outside the event. That's true of thousands of people mentioned in articles. Gopalakrishnan Naidu, mentioned several times, is not notable in himself. As for WP:OSE, you will note that there is a section on precedent, which explains that it is reasonable to use precedent of existing articles as a guide for what it is proper to include. The point is that this list of names has become a list of "martyrs" in this story, like the list of names of the Nazi 'heroes' killed in the Beer Hall Putsch which appears in that article, and which were part of the memorials created by the Nazis. The memorial in this case is structured to commemorate each individual victim, and the listing and reciting of names is part of the ceremonial events that the site. It's true, that the list is uncited. But that's a different issue. I did not add it, but I'm guessing it comes from the literature produced by the Dalit groups and CPIM. It may not be easy to access sources in English, but do you genuinely doubt it? Paul B (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely doubt both the veracity and utility of this list and I say that as a person who speaks both languages that coverage of this event is in. And "I didn't add it" is a cop-out, you're the one that's saying it should be there unreferenced. As for misrepresenting WP:NOTAMEMORIAL: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements", emphasis is from the original, that's about as clear as it gets for the multiple private individuals who were killed here. As for the list of names being "martyrs", I disagree, that's common across the board in almost every such massacre. There's nothing that makes it particularly relevant to the article. The background and number of people massacred is what makes the event notable, not their names. Well, when you quote other stuff existing, don't expect it not go challenged.—SpacemanSpiff 15:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed so, but this is not a memorialization of a deceased friend, relatives etc , is it? Note, that that passage is in reference to article creation, not content relevant to a specific article, as I have already said. You have accidentally left out the previous sentence "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place..." It's not about non-notable people mentioned in the content of an article. In this case, the memorialisation is part of the content, central to the design of the monument, and, of course the court cases that preceded it. Yes I know you edit Tamil-related content, though I don't understand how that is relevant to this issue. It would apply to an article on any ethnic group. As you know non-cited content can be removed, but the relevant guideline says that it is better to tag and/or find cites unless one has good reason to believe that the content is false. I cannot imagine why you would think it is. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it may not be friends or relatives, but there's also the "or others" bit that you've not considered. Article creation and content are not entirely different, content is related to the subject of the article, while there's a bit of leeway in subject areas, it can't be that a list of victims is not notable for a separate article, so it should be placed in the main one, we make those editorial decisions regularly. The issue here is that no literature talks of the individuals involved (except the perpetrators), the victims are all treated as part of a group. e.g. Kathleen Gough's Rural change in southeast India devotes a full chapter to this, but is focused on the caste and wage issue, not the individual victims. The issue is that no one outside of Wikipedia, in accessible English or Tamil literature, chooses to discuss the individual victims or name them, thereby they are private individuals and the names are not really relevant to the content of this article. This isn't the same as quoting someone who has done some research or expressed an opinion on a subject. —SpacemanSpiff 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course I considered the "others" (which is just away of ensuring that an editor can't say "I'm not a relative of friend of Mrs. Miggins"), but the language plainly follows from the previous sentence about Subjects of encyclopedia articles. It's telling you not to create an article on a non-notable person. I don't see how it can be read in any other way, as notability policy has never applied to mentioning people in articles. The names are used in the propaganda of the groups who promote the martyrdom imagery. I do find it useful to have a list. It's not so much the names in themselves, but the information about gender, age, and the relatedness of the people that is informative about the context. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And that is the part that I have no problem with: gender or age segmentation should be mentioned along with the caste grouping, and any other reliably sourced statistical data. I am against mentioning names because they were private individuals and most were "involved" purely because they lived in the area reserved for their caste, and my objection is primarily related to your point "The names are used in the propaganda of the groups who promote the martyrdom imagery", Wikipedia shouldn't be falling prey to such groups as they are not beholden to any fact checking process. When any and all literature fails to mention these names, we shouldn't be relying on these sort of sources for this information; while the individuals are dead, they still have family that such publication can impact. —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)