Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 31 July 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

	Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: no consensus, 23 May 2007, see discussion. keep, 12 December 2006, see discussion. no consensus, 25 July 2006, see discussion.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

State Terrorism

I believe some people are in an scheme to point fingers at my homeland. Nirvanatoday 21 May 2007.

Cleanup

I will be creating another article called Assassinations attributed to the Sri Lankan government forces to clean up this article. This is an attempt at assuring that this article ceases to be the point of POV editing regarding these controversial incidents.RaveenS 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemmani

Hi, I reverted the edits you have done to the state terrorism SriLanka article for several reasons..

• You have quoted from an extremely pro-LTTE site..genocide of tamils, is a site full of ,what we call crap.And[REDACTED] don' need crap,do we ??
• you have removed the statement made by the forensic experts..I add it back
• Legal procedure in SL is not smooth..Its very complex and takes a lot of time to proceed a case..It was the same here..
• And till 1995 this area was under control of LTTE. so we don't even know the founded bodies were caused by army..it could well be the LTTE too..
• GOSL started investigations in 1999..If you want I can show you the news-paper

articles. thanks--Iwazaki 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked over your contribs, and you appear to be extremely interested in this subject. When I see an editor that spends so much time editing articles on a particular subject, that leads me to believe that they might be pushing a particular POV. So, let me just state for the record that I really don't care about Sri Lanka, nor do I really have any idea who the heck LTTE is or what their politics are.

That being said, the reason for my edit was because it looked to me like somebody was committing a whitewash of an event, and was basing this solely on the results of a 1999 Sri Lankan government investigation. In order to maintain a NPOV, I made changes to include some information to balance the official government position. The sources for this information included the BBC and AHRC. There was no reason to remove it. The only part I removed was the claim that since the 1999 investigation "only" found evidence for a smaller massacre, that this proves that nothing happened.

None of my edits are personal. I just don't like one-sided articles created by people with a POV to push. -- Big Brother 1984 00:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

without addressing a single issue i have raised here , you have reverted the article back to your POV ... please once again read points I have raised here.. Forensic team have clearly reached a unanimous decision that there are no such graves as originally alleged by the convicted prisoner Somaratne Rajapakse and others convicted of the Krishanthy Kumaraswamy rape and murder case ..And why would you delete that ?? The whole episode is a hoax,just like this.. And didnt i tell you that the legal process in SL for any case ,is complex and slow ?? Do you expect the GOSL to file charges against ,accused in a week or two ?? And thanks for taking an general interest on my contributions..Yes,as a SriLankan I'm genuinely interested at my country,and having seeing a lot of POV targeted against my country, I decided to spend more time to make things look more neutral.. finally ,no one is whitewashing this..Why would anyone do such a thing, when the whole thing did not exist at all !! doesn't make sense at all,does it ? Unless you an come up with proofs, that so called 600 plus missing people ended up in the chemmani grave, there is absolutely no point discussing this matter with you.anyway thanks for the interest taken on this issue.--Iwazaki 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comment, I don't have a POV on this subject. The additions I made pretty much left all of your changes in tact, plus added the opposing viewpoint from sources such as the BBC and AHRC. The only thing that I took away from your addition was the POV that no massacre took place -- I left your comments and links, but explained that this is the official POV of the Sri Lankan government. Your tone made it sound like this POV was the "gospel truth". But since some people obviously dispute this view, a more NPOV is warranted.

I am going to re-instate my edit. If you are not happy with it, I would ask that you add more information to support the official POV instead of attempting to flush the opposing POV (as reported by the BBC and others) down the memory hole. In other words, add to the article, don't take away from it. And try to maintain a neutral tone if you can. -- Big Brother 1984 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let your edits to decide whether you have a POV or not..I ll judge you by your edits not by your comments here..But so far, you have not justified "your neutrality" here..I will certainly revert it back to mine,since you have removed the comments of the forensic experts,and given impression that only the "GOSL and its military deny graves"..I have asked you several times to bring ,evidence to prove there are mass graves in chemmani, bring the "forensic experts reports".And you have done nothing..Chemmani is a clear cut issue..It did not exist !! --Iwazaki 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit seems pretty fair. The phrases "intense investigations" and "eliminating the possibility" seem a bit like OR/POV, but I'm not going to nitpick. I can't promise that another editor won't come along and take issue with your phrasing, but I'm content to leave it the way it is and move on with my life. ^>^ Like I said, my main issue with your original edit was that you had removed too much. -- Big Brother 1984 04:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not take the discussion to Chemmani mass graves Just a question RaveenS 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

disputed

• REMOVED chemmani and other rape incidents as these done by individuals and state did not encourage them to do it...State did not provide comfort women to forces.
• state did not as a whole involve in the 1983 riots, they even helped the victims.
• state did not burn the Jaffna library ..Ministers were in Jaffna to support tamil UNPers who were contesting in the election..And these accusations were never proven, mostly come form tamil propaganda and some sinhalese who are funded by NGO
• World tamil Conference had nothing to do with state terrorism...In fact it has to do with tamil terrorism since it has been proved that tamil militants were there and even made speeches in the event, police had every right to be there..incident was unfortunate, but state has nothing to do with it.

this will do it for now --Iwazaki 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry say that Black July riots was fits the definition of State terrorism and the Burning of Jaffna library too fits State terrorism. About Chammani I agree. Thanks RaveenS 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who has the right to call these State Terrorism ??

• If a random army personal kill,rape,beat his wife,steal bread from a shop, can we categorize it as a State Terrorism ?
• If you german tourist engaged in pedophelia, can we call germany a pedophilic country?
• If a US soldier rape a Japanese girl ,can we add that under State terrorism USA?

Why on earth some editors trying to generalize these,when these are obviuous random actions by some Army individuals ?? Do these editors have inherent bias towards a certain group ? Iwazaki 02:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please cut out the innuendo about accusing users involved in this edit war of being LTTE sympathisers, either state your accusations clearly and find yourself besieged by administrators or do not say it, it is entirely unconstructive to discussion.

As for the idea of State Terrorism, its widely debated and no real agreed upon definition of State Terrorism can be offered by Misplaced Pages.

However, to address your case examples.

• If a U.S Soldier rapes...I would direct your attention to the fact that the U.S Government took action against its own soldiers in the case of Haditha and numerous incidents of self-discipline have been brought to light from the numerous conflicts after 1950. In Vietnam there was the prosecuation of Lt.Calley for the My Lai Massacre, recently, U.S troops in Afganistan have been brought to court-martial for firing upon a town of civilians. It is thusly apparent that the U.S Department of Defence finds such crimes unaceptable in theory and in practise, and general prosecutes those reponsible for alledged war crimes.

In contrast, there are a vast number of massacres and war crimes in Sri Lanka were the culprits have alledgedly deliberatly not been brought to justice, and thusly this indemnity is tantamount to government sponsored terrorism.

Besides that, statics exist (I think that we all are well aware of them?) that state that Sri Lanka has the second highest amount of disappeared people in the world, according to UN states. A seperate stat, endemic to the Batticola region states that some 86% of this disapperances have been attributed to some form of government force, for a single lone ranger in the Sri Lankan Army or Special Task Force to do this would be impossible, it is systematic.

However in defence of your arguement, there is a differance between state terror and the actions of a lone individual, however, when an entire company is engaged in genocidic behavior, or key witnesses to disappearances at the hand of government forces are killed by government forces, state terror must exist. --Sharz 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth is these are not "random actions by some army individuals". These incidents are definitely not random, and are in fact quite frequent. Some of these incidents are systematic and appear to have an element of planning. Even if they are sponataneous reprisal attacks, they have still been conducted by individuals who represent the state! The killings of civilains has been deliberate. And it is not just a few individuals, as large numbers of the Sri Lankan Army have been involved. Thanks. Thusiyan 15:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What I can see is you are trying to promote "random actions by some army individuals = state terrorism". May it's true or may be you are dislike to express that in public. It's your choice hence I'm not trying to interfere that. But I would like to know from you, "random inhuman actions by some Tamil individuals = Terrorism by the LTTE"? Even if you agree with that, but I don't. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now see the thing here is some of the notable things about the LTTE e.g. child recruitment has been claimed to have been done by rogue soldiers or officers in the LTTE, yet the whole organisation has been held responsible, as I believe it should be. If members of the army, while on duty with the army, commit these acts, then the army must be held responsible. The organisation which these soldiers are representing while they commit these acts, must acknowledge that their men took part in these incidents, and that they are responsible for their men. If these Tamil individuals were reresenting a particular organisation while they committed these acts, then I believe the organisation should admit some fault on their part, for allowing these incidents to happen, as well as condeming the individual. But it seems in this case, senior officers in the army openly allowed, if not encouraged, these acts and it seems no sincere effort has been made to punish them. Thusiyan 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Untidy refs

There was lots of unused links cited as the refs here. So I did some cleaning jobs and replaced necessary links as inline references. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 10:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues with sources, yet again!

How is Sangam a reliable source? Also how is NESOHR a reliable source? Pubuman 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute

Shouldnt this article at best be titled ALLEGED State Terrorism, considering all the instances displayed are alegations and never been attributed to the Sri Lankan government?Pubuman 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gory Picture

Hey everybody, hey Thusiyan!

About the picture Image:09_06_06_435.jpg - this is a very interesting story, because the case is the exact parallel and opposite to the quarrel over this picture in the article Sri Lankan Civil War. Whereas over there, pro-Sinhala guys are in favor of keeping the pic whereas pro-Tamil ones want to get rid of it, here it's just the other way round.

Dear people, this is ridiculous. It proves that you are only trying to have these pix included to create a bad image for the respective opponents. Wikpedia shouldn't be a place for your conflicts.

I say: Let's get rid of all the gory pix so that children etc. can read WP articles without getting traumatized. Krankman 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Done isint it ? good Taprobanus 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely! But to keep[REDACTED] neutral, if that photo is shown, why is there opposition to this one? I am actually against both photos being shown, as they are just too gory. If they want to include a link to the photos then fine, but I would like to see the photo removed from The Sri Lankan Civil War article as well. In the interest of neutrality, I believe both should be removed! Thusiyan 14:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We are amenable to discussion, we listen to reason and nuetral editors so we removed it but others have taken it to mediation. It just goes to make the case for us that what we are doing is correct Taprobanus 16:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism accusations

• Picture - If you look carefully to the State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka#Civilian_massacres_2 you will find the complete set of images as an external link. So its not necessary to attach a separate image to the article.

• Jaffna lagoon massacre - Acooding to the ref(which removed) the incident took place on a pre declared prohibited zone. so how can we declare this as state terrorism?

• St. James Church bombing - It was a great mistake. Sorry about that.

PS: You should not remove any {{cn}} or {{or}} tags without citing a proper ref to it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of what is left is someone saying it is state terror no more connecting the dots Taprobanus 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the Jaffna Lagoon Massacre war crime then? Thusiyan 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion someone has to say that it is war crime then it can be a state terror. For example the murder of NGO workers in Trincomalee has an attestation that it is a war crime but we cannot link it yet as the investigation is still on although the international community is fingering the government. With time ifthe investigation goes moribund as all investigations do have a tendency in Sri Lanka then we can include it. Currentky we cannot. Thanks Taprobanus 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if anyone think Jaffna lagoon massacre is war crime, I would like to point out these four articles for them. All of four articles are categorized as accidents but not as war crimes. If anyone think to continue this discussion on the relevant talkpage, WP:BOLD to do so.

* Korean Air Lines Flight 902

* El Al Flight 402

* Iran Air Flight 655

* Korean Air Lines Flight 007 --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Jaffna Lagoon massacre, please see below.

Regarding the image, the same occurs on the List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE with the Kent Farm massacre. Are you going to fix that?

St. James Church... well I managed to find a statement from a Bishop condeming that attack as well as others, as "state terrorism". http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/indict067c.htm yes i know its a tamilnation source, but the whole article is simply a statement that has been released. Thusiyan 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Torture?

Just wanted to raise a point, as to whether torture and rape, committed by people who are controlled by the state, would come under, "state terror"? It's just a question really and wanted to discuss it with others. Any views? Thusiyan 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again someone has to say it, we cannot make the case for the case. It has to be attested as state terrorism in an encylopedia article But if a resercher says that particular torture or rape is state terror then we include it here. What is more important than this major atticle is garss roots articles on each and every war crime and state terror inSri Lanka. We need hundreds of them before a large article like this will ever become stable. Thanks Taprobanus 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations

Who moved the page ? Where is the consensus on this ? There are lots and lots of sources calling state terrorism. So I don't know how it became Allegations instead of actual state terrorism. Do not try to justify this with the quote from the closing admin of AFD. He merely suggest that the article should have been nominated for name change. We need to change it back because this is[REDACTED] and it works by consensus and not with the view point of one editor Watchdogb 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh! pardon me for asking this, could you list your so called lots and lots of sources which are calling those actions as state terrorism? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb

Though does not spell it out it has proof. Check state terrorism (article) in[REDACTED] and see.

22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaffna lagoon massacre

I can see controversy for this, so started a new topic. Actually this is different from all those flight incidents listed above. Let's look at the situation.

These people were pretty much stuck. The army had warned them not to use the lagoon, the LTTE said do not use Elephant Pass. They had a lack of choices. BUT, for about a year prior to the massacre, people crossed the lagoon, within sight of army sentries, occasionally shelled, but for the most part ignored.

2 types of boats were used to cross, for simplicity they could be labelled as fast and slow. A convoy of boats were crossing the lagoon on the night of the incident, as usual. To cut a long story short, people thought to be tiger helpers, who were unarmed (according to witnesses), in a fast boat saw a navy gun boat and sped away. The navy gave chase but gave up and continuosly fired at the convoy for HALF AN HOUR, even though they received NO GUNFIRE in retur. The navy came up to the slower boats, boarded them, SAW THEY WERE ALL CIVILIANS, and proceded to attack them with knives and guns. They even stole jewellery off dead bodies.

Now this is significantly different from those incidents you listed. They did not board the planes, see that they were civilians and massacre them! This information has all been taken from the UTHR report, a NEUTRAL organisation, that has criticised both sides! See here http://www.uthr.org/Reports/Report10/chapter0.htm

Thusiyan 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But did some one call it State terrorism or war crimes ? Taprobanus 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems a bit weird to me that once anyone says it's a war crime, it is one. Just because no-one says it is, does it make it any less of a crime? But I guess a standard is needed... Then how about starting an article entitled "Massacres attributed to the Sri Lankan Government/Army", or even "Attrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Army", that way incidents of rape and torture, as well as other atrocities can be recorded? I can immediately think of many incidents to be noted there which aren't all listed together in an article. Thusiyan 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS

I don't believe that Tamilnet or a tripod website can be taken to be a RS. As for Green Left Weekly, it is not an international org but a leftist newspaper in Australia. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

RS is very clear about this. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen thanks for leaving your non controversal interest in cricket to the nasty world of Sri Lanka conflict. Now like rest of us, you are going to go home everyday thinking about gory civilian massacres and gang raped women rather than beatiful bowling action of Malinga:) Seriously speaking I respectfully disagree with you. I can cite you 3 serious reaserch papers that have analyzed how Tamilnet works. It is no different than a miniature CNN except it restricts itself to reporting on the Sri Lankan conflict of news that is usually censored by Sri Lankan government. I has an editorial board, it has editors (who when named are promptly killed) and field reporters. Its reports are always carried by CNN, BBC, ABC ... usually with the slant that it is pro Rebel. Well if that is true then CNN is pro American and Zee TV is pro Indian. If you wantto continue this discussion please say so and I will post the reaserch papers and by the way can list how Tamilnet in your mind qualifies as a blog ? Thanks Taprobanus 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC, CNN and many other such reliable sources routinely carry viewer reports or stuff from 'featured blog of the day' etc.,. That doesnt mean these trivial sources become 'reliable sources'. If BBC, CNN etc., indeed source their stories from tn.com, I encourage you to cite those sources. Not the tamilnet ones. And as for your research papers, please see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH etc.,. You might get some clues. Sarvagnya 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet passes RS because

• 1. It has an editorial board
• 2. It has an editor
• 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy source
• 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media

organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.

5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)

To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Misplaced Pages. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.

For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.

Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.

I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

This is going to be a small issue (compared to what is written above), but could someone please put a warning on the TamilNet picture of the hanging/killing of the family - it is rather disturbing. Thanks

Reverting without comment

The follwing mass revert and removing number of Rs sources was done withouyt any comment. Why ? Thanks Taprobanus 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons, including it has come from some one who writes to racist tamil web sites.You want to know who ? Iwazaki 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes go ahead, thanks Taprobanus 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You want a hint ? Coz I really like you to guess it.Iwazaki 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do, I want to find the actual reasons for you deleting my additions. Thanks Taprobanus 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

?? Who are they ??

This whole state terrorism allegation things seem to come from 2 sources.One by an unknown writer(claiming to be Sinhalese) and other from prominent but controversial professor. While neglecting that so called Sinhalese writer simply because his existence it self is in doubt, lets take a look at the professor. He is ethnic tamil and a close relative of former TULF leader. Well known for his sympathy towards his own race,which is tamil. Hence I am not sure his remarks can be taken as neutral.His works, such as buddhism betrayed, are heavily promoted in racist tamil web sites,such as tamil canadian for which above editor writes extensively.No wonder he wants to keep his sites here Iwazaki 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason there are only "2 sources" is because you deleted all the other ones, including Chandrika Kumaratunga, who was President of Sri Lanka for 11 years. As for Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, he is a Harvard University professor who specializes in Tamil studies, religion, and politics. Regarding your astonishing attempt to describe him as "Stanley Tambiah whose uncle was a former leader of a ethnic tamil party", please review poisoning the well. I view your outrageous deletions and well-poisoning as mere vandalism; in accord with WP:REVERT#Rollback I am now informing you that I will be using the admin rollback to revert any such edits in the future. Jayjg 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:NOR, which says not that all sources have to be neutral, but that significant views must be represented fairly. Jayjg 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

first, the introduction quote from 2 sources, one by a unknown writer and other by a tamil professor who is related to tamil politicians. And could you please tell me how this become neutral ? he may be a harvard professor, but is that relevant ? Just because he is harvard professors every thing he says become heavenly ? have you read what he wrote about buddhism is his budhism betrayed book ? So even with his anti-buddhist remarks, you still make him valid source to use in Sri-lankan related matters ? Could you please explain how did you come to this decision ? And please tell me, what's wrong sending the army to north? Don't you think is inherently comical to call the action of sending forces to north as state terrorism ? Waiting your replies.Iwazaki 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a Harvard Professor who studies and writes on these topics, and, as such, is considered a reliable source, period. Jayjg 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether its harvard, Todai or university of timbaktu, its not relevant. I have shown you he is not reliable in this case. And all you say is ,since he is harvard he must be telling the truth !!! Is this all you have to say in this matter my friend ? Iwazaki 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't said that he's telling the truth. I don't know if he's telling the truth. However, WP:V is quite clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.". It's the first sentence of the policy. Also, you haven't shown anything that makes him "unreliable", aside from your personal opinion, which means nothing. Jayjg 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg my friend, do you seriously think the following passage worthy enough to be in the article.. I think its amusing and hilarious !! I could count 5+ blunders in this.Because of the Sinhalese army occupation of Jaffna and the state terrorism let loose on the people, hostility began to grow and the emotional division between Sinhalese and Tamils became more acute. A group of highly organized young Tamil militants, first calling themselves the New Tamil Tigers and later the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, emerged in 1976 to confront the government terrorism by bearing armsIwazaki 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Review WP:V. Jayjg 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Needed only 2 minutes. This is what it says,The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.. And how on earth these sources are reliable ? care to explain ? I have already shown you why they failed WP:RS.Iwazaki 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing seriously wrong with the section that would justify its wholesale removal. Although one can make a case that it needs to be reordered, contextualized differently, and/or balanced with opposite opinions, the information itself is stated neutrally and reliably sourced. I would suggest only two changes:

1. The sentence "Experts, such as Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, have termed ..." may need to be reworded as it gives the impression that all or most experts agree with Tambiah's evaluation. This may indeed be the case, but it would have to be supported by a source. I think something like "Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, a leading social anthropologist at Harvard University, has termed ..." is more neutral and still conveys the idea that Tambiah's opinion is an expert one.
2. At some point, the article should also cover responses to these various allegations (perhaps in a separate section) so as to ensure neutrality. Of course, this is another matter and does not justify deleting a whole (sourced) section. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Books published by University presses are generally considered to be reliable. Also, the President of Sri Lanka would generally be considered a reliable source when it comes to statements that Sri Lanka practised state terrorism. Jayjg 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon, appreciate your comment but there're a few problems. For one, "exceptional claims need exceptional sources". Claims like "state terrorism", "ethnic cleansing" etc., are "exceptional claims" and if all they have for sourcing is a lousy statement by a known partisan, I am sorry but it has to be removed even if it is cited. If there is indeed state terrorism, I'm sure BBC and Reuters and The Hindu and others would have called it so. These are the ones who cover the conflict the most and none of them make any such claims. And as for Kumaratunga, her statement(if any) can only be used to buttress a point once it has been established beyond question by non-partisan, non-'political axe to grind', RS sources. And even with such sourcing, it is imperative that the denials and rebuttals are also given space. If that is not done, the article will atleast have to live with a POV tag.

Also, please take a look at other related articles. This kind of POV pushing, UNDUE and WEASELing is a problem on scores of related articles. Iwaziki is one of the very few editors on[REDACTED] who is spending valuable time and patience to keep these articles as clean as possible and it is a little harsh to pull him up for perhaps losing his patience for a moment. Sarvagnya 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, it's true that exceptional claims need exceptional sources, but also keep in mind the scope of this article: allegations of state terrorism. The article itself should not assert the existence of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, but should only report allegations. Personal opinions on the authors aside, the sources noted in the section are reliable. More importantly, all of the content is attributed directly to the authors. I agree that the denials and rebuttals need to be given some space, but that's a matter of adding content, not removing it. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have reverted your two recent edits to the article, where you added "Some groups and individuals sympathetic to Tamil terrorist groups in Sri Lanka" (unsourced POV) and labeled Stanley Tambiah a "pro-rebel anthropologist" (WP:BLP violation in the absence of sources). Black Falcon 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The BLP vios were inadvertant and thanks for reverting it. Anyway, I've rewritten the lead providing context to the accusers' POV. And since you insist that 'various groups' automatically includes 'terrorist groups'(i dont buy that), I have also added a line stating that the govt., has infact proscribed 'some' of the 'various groups' as terrorists themselves. This is required for balance. If you have any issues, please discuss. Sarvagnya 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My main issue is with the second sentence: "They characterize certain instances ...". I think it ought to be removed to improve content flow and for the sake of balance (why emphasise the governments reaction to the JVP uprisings). In addition, do the sources just characterise certain instances as state terrorism or do they claim the existence of a general pattern of behaviour? The sentence implies the former, but my experience with scholarly literature on state terrorism is that it is generally the latter. Other than that, it seems mostly fine. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Give me some time. I will reword or reply or both. Sarvagnya

Original research

All sources used in the article must refer to "state terror". I've removed a bunch of stuff that was based on original research, though there may be more. Please ensure in the future that citations refer directly to the subject of the article. Jayjg 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if a controversal subject such as this needs to become a true article of worth all policies have to be fully applied. Thanks Taprobanus 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Jayjg.Lustead 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, every single source must refer to state terror. Every single one. Any sources that do not refer to state terror will be reverted. That's simple. Jayjg 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Not so fast. See below. Sarvagnya 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And btw, Jayjg, who was it that your 'orders' were meant for? Surely not the 'lankan' editors I hope. Sarvagnya 02:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly that fast. See WP:NOR. Jayjg 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont have to see WP:NOR. I've been here long enough and I know what it is perfectly well. So just stop throwing tantrums and come back to terra-firma. Sarvagnya 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You obviously do have to see WP:NOR, since you are violating its contents. Jayjg 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed citation

From the text,

], a ] social anthropologist specializing in studies of Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Tamils, as well as the anthropology of religion and politics, has termed acts by the ]n state against secessionist supporters during the ], the ] and the ] as state terrorism.<ref>{{cite book | last=Tambiah | first=Stanley | authorlink=Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah| title=Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy | | publisher=] | date=1984 | page = 116 | id=ISBN 0-226-78952-7 }}</ref>

That is totally false as no where on page 116 of the book has he said the Sri Lankan state has committed acts of "state terrorism" during "1971 JVP Insurrection (Sri Lanka), the 1987-89 JVP Insurrection (Sri Lanka) and the Civil war". Hence I added the totally disputed tag. --snowolfD4 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Context to the allegations

I added back the sentence in the lead which describes when these allegations are supposed to have taken place, as the only allegations given here occurred during the JVP uprisings or the LTTE conflict. It's important to note that the government isn't alleged to just alleged to go around killing people. All the allegations occur during the governments handling of members of the terrorist organizations. --snowolfD4 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources just characterise certain instances as state terrorism or do they claim the existence of a general pattern of behaviour? The sentence implies the former, but my experience with scholarly literature on state terrorism is that it is generally the latter. Indeed, allegations of "state terrorism" almost by definition involve accusations of a pattern of planned/organised violence. Black Falcon 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, first of all, all sources must refer to state terror, per WP:NOR. Second, poisoning the well is unacceptable. Third, "terrorist" is a word to avoid. Fourth, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Snowolfd4, I'm putting you on notice, if you make edits like this in the future I will be using admin rollback to revert them. Jayjg 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and All sources must refer to state terror. Jayjg 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hellooo. All sources must refer to state terror - says who? A source will refer to "state terror/ism" only if that was the point it was trying to make. Do not remove sources used as citations to support other facts. If you want a two-bit Uthayan's opinion to find space here, you'd better warn the readers of its leanings. Sarvagnya 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about "state terror". Therefore all sources will refer to "state terror", per WP:NOR. If you want to talk about another topic, find other articles. Jayjg 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding "who fund the Tamil Terrorist LTTE organization and without whom the LTTE cannot survive". This sentence is 1 ) out of the context (how the heck does this relate to the topic at hand) 2) As jay has pointed out, this is . 3) How can you prove the whole community funds LTTE ? 4) Violation of BPL as some of the country that the Tamil diaspora reside in has banned funding LTTE and accusing all of them of funding is unacceptable Watchdogb 12:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who has access to the Piyadasa (1986) and Tambiah (1984) sources please check whether the second sentence of the introduction is substantiated? Do the authors indeed just characterize "certain instances" as state terrorism or do they allege a general pattern of action? Scholarly definitions of state terrorism involve some element of intent and planned action on the part of the state. I've never seen an academic work use the label of "state terrorism" merely for a handful of events. I do not have the books, but I have a hard time believing that the current wording is an accurate representation of the sources. If my suspicions are true, the sentence needs to be removed (or, at least, reworded). This is aside from issues of poisoning the well by adding the adjective "terrorist" before JVP and LTTE. Thanks, Black Falcon 16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting about Piyadasa book because the author is a know Tamil nationalist activist and his book cannot be regarded as a reliable source, but Tambiah only says

"The government (i.e. the "state") ... is not a stranger to this use of organized force (he DOES NOT use the word "terrorism" to describe the government's actions) ... then there is the desperate armed resistance and guerrilla action ... of Tamil youth ... (who are) engaged in terrorism ... Third, there is the deadly terrorism and intimidation practiced by the armed forces.

He makes the distinction very clear that the actions of the armed force (i.e. the military) are often seperate from the government (i.e. the "state" as used in "state terrorism"). Which is derived from the fact that the alleged acts of "terrorism" are not ordered by the government (as what happens in a lot of war time situations à la Canicatti, Mai Lai, Haditha etc.)

The remainder of the allegations mentioned are supposed to have taken place during the civil war or the JVP insurrections. --snowolfD4 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I also took a look at the reference and I am convinced that it does not talk of "state terror". If the text makes claims of "state terrorism", then the citation has to make explicit mention of it. Since this citation doesnt make any such mention, I have removed it. Sarvagnya 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In order to be able to write that the author accused the Sri Lankan government of state terrorism, his book must use exactly those words. If it uses any other words, we must rewrite the sentence or remove it altogether. Black Falcon 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tamil daily Uthayan

I have revised the sentence to include the part about having "close links" to the LTTE, but have replaced the POV "Tamil terrorists" wording with a descriptive/neutral/adjective-free "LTTE". I hope this revised wording can serve as a compromise. As far as the sentence that the Tamil diaspora supports the LTTE, that information is relevant in the articles on the LTTE and the diaspora. In the context of this article, it constitutes poisoning the well (as noted in the section above). Black Falcon 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion, saying Uthayan has close links with the LTTE is okay, but saying the diaspora fund the LTTE is not okay? And in the same comment as well.

If the allegation by the diaspora is to be included, it is important to mention that they are the ones who openly support the LTTE, who are engaged in the civil war during which these acts are alleged to have taken place.--snowolfD4 20:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with stating Uthayan has close links with the LTTE becasue it is a single organisation (i.e., a unitary actor). The Tamil diaspora is not a unitary actor. As for your two most recent additions:

1. Noting that Uthayan is "pro-LTTE" when the sentence already states that Uthayan "has close links with the LTTE" is redundant, and which is why I removed it.
2. The wording of "Many acts associated with the Sri Lankan civil war have been termed as acts of "state terror" by some members of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora who fund the Tamil Terrorist LTTE organization and without whom the LTTE cannot survive" is potentially libelous as it implies that those members of the diaspora who have alleged state terrorism in Sri Lanka fund the LTTE. I'm sure there are those who (publicly) allege state terrorism that do not fund the LTTE and those that fund the LTTE but do not (publicly) allege state terrorism. The part about "without whom the LTTE cannot survive" is original research. Sure, the LTTE is heavily dependent on overseas contributions, but that doesn't automatically translate to "cannot survive" without it. Also, could you please stop adding "Tamil Terrorist" before every instance of LTTE as if it's part of the official name. Black Falcon 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the sentence about tamil diaspora accusing the Sri Lanka of state terror is taken off. Is there something wrong with the sentence ? I know the other wording is incorrect (funding and ect) but the accusation is also taken off. Is there any particular reason ? Watchdogb 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Reactions" section for two reasons. First, the supporting source was by the AHRC and so could do with direct attribution (see this subsequent addition I made). If there is a source that specifically makes mention of the Tamil diaspora, a similar sentence ought to be re-added. Second, the section was one of the focal points of the ongoing dispute and I thought that deleting it in favour of a new subsection (see above link) was the best way to resolve the issue. I hope that explains my removal. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

General comment - If there is reference throwing light on the political stances of the accusers, we have to make sure that it is mentioned in the article. For example, if we were to get a reference indicating that any of the individuals or 'groups' is sympathetic to the rebels(i'm not saying they are), we have to mention it in the article. We just cant pass of biased opinion as an unbiased one. Of course, OR like "...without whom ltte would not survive..." is to be avoided. Sarvagnya 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. However, there is NO WAY anyone can say Tamil diaspora fund the LTTE. Sure, some might but we cannot say who do and who do not. Also there are many prominent people of tamil diaspora. Saying the whole community supports/funds ltte will be violating BPL as there are some that people who are included in wikipedia. Watchdogb 22:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No. If some members of the Tamil diaspora donate to the terrorists, then we have to make a mention of that. Of course, we also have to be careful with the wording so as not to convey any info not supported by the sources. Sarvagnya 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. We should only consider noting that if those members of the diaspora who allege state terrorism in Sri Lanka are the ones funding the LTTE. Since there are people who fund the LTTE but do not publicly allege state terrorism and people who publicly allege state terrorism who we cannot prove contribute to the LTTE, such a statement is unnecessary. This was not the case with Uthayan because it (unlike the Tamil diaspora) is a single entity. Black Falcon 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you and infact that is what I sought to convey in the second sentence of my previous response(above). And while we're being so very politically right, we should also be careful not claim that the entire 'Tamil diaspora' population is dubbing it 'state terrorism'. If only a miniscule minority of the tamil diaspora is calling it state terrorism, then we should only go that far. That said, I dont think it is unreasonable at all to conjecture that a significant number of the ones who are alleging state terrorism are also donating to the terrorists. Of course, to say that in the article, we'd need a citation. Sarvagnya 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Naturally. The claim that "The Tamil diaspora accuses the GOSL of state terrorism" is an exceptional claim and, most likely, untrue. Any statement to that effect must recognise that not all overseas Tamils do this and must, more importantly, precisely reflect the source. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So is it then possible to add the statement about the Tamil diaspora accusing the Sri Lankan state of terrorism. There are substantial allegation going around (specially in NA) to warrant a mention. Watchdogb 00:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude such a statement, as long as it is expressed neutrally and accurately attributed to a reliable source. Black Falcon 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All sources will refer to "state terror", the topic of this article, or they will be deleted. Period. Refer to WP:NOR for more detail. Jayjg 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy and sources

I'll try to explain one last time. For starters, stop trying to throw your weight around here. You're impressing nobody. And secondly, lose your weird logic about sources. And lose it now. If you are going to say that x,y,z called it "state terrorism", in the interest of NPOV you also have to(if you have sources) tell the readers of their political leanings. And the citation you use to prove their political loyalties, need not have the words "state terror". If you think it should, explain why before you start throwing your weight around. Sarvagnya 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you can't ignore WP:NOR, which states right in the opening paragraphs that you must "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". The topic of this article is, in case you have forgotten, state terrorism in Sri Lanka, the requirement is highlighted in the lead for a reason, and this article will adhere to it. Jayjg 03:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn it. Stop harping on NOR. Nobody is doing original research here. The citation is only being used to show the accuser's for what they are. Sarvagnya 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When you stop inserting original research, I'll stop "harping" on it. The policy is quite clear: "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Jayjg 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And can you give me a diff of where I've inserted "Original research"? And what does that have with your vandalising the article by removing cited content? Sarvagnya 06:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were to go by your opinions, we'll soon be blanking half of Misplaced Pages. Fortunately, the community has no place for such ridiculous comments. "Misplaced Pages:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another'". Even read that bit? Or did you just stop reading after seeing the words you like, as in the Thambiah citation?

And, by the way, it may actually benefit you to actually read the topics of articles you attempt to edit. --snowolfD4 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of stuff on Misplaced Pages that should be deleted. WP:NPOV doesn't over-ride WP:NOR, and in any event, your insertions are also a violation of WP:NPOV, which says that all significant views must be "represented fairly and without bias". In fact, it states "This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Insisting that various groups you don't like must be described as "terrorist" not only violates the fundamental rule of WP:NPOV, but also violates the statement that you must Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. That's also bolded in the original. See also WP:WTA#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter, and poisoning the well. Jayjg 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the heading of this section, please review WP:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages, which states Never address other users in a heading. It's also in bold in the original for a reason. Jayjg 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Sarvagnya, I note you have removed this statement and citation on the grounds that "every source must refer to state terror". Please explain your actions here in light of that statement and removal. Jayjg 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you've now stopped reading the talk page as well. --snowolfD4 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First it was "Oh, and All sources must refer to state terror". Then "you must "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Now, "it's a violation of WP:NPOV". What next? If you have any other concerns regarding the wording of the section they can be addressed through discussion. Simply blanking sentences you don't like is vandalism.

In any case, citations which call the LTTE a terrorist" organization are from sources that are a zillion times more notable than those who allege Sri Lanka committed state terrorism. --snowolfD4 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have multiple problems, and thus I have explained all of them. Your response, however, does not deal with your policy violations. WP:NOR says that cited sources must be directly about the topic of the article, which is "State terrorism in Sri Lanka". The topic is not the LTTE. WP:NPOV says that views must be "represented fairly and without bias", that this is "non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Insisting that various groups you don't like must be described as "terrorist" not only violates the fundamental rule of WP:NPOV, but also violates the statement that you must Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. WP:WTA#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter says you should avoid using the word "terrorist" to describe groups. Please respond directly to those issues. Jayjg 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Snowolfd4, a few comments. First, the LTTE's designation as a terrorist organisation is disputed (the fact that you and I consider it as such makes no difference) and so, per WP:NPOV, should be explicitly attributed rather than presented as fact. Second, there is no reason to add "terrorist" before JVP and LTTE. The sentence, as written, did not claim they were the parties alleging state terrorism. Thus, the issue of exposing source bias is not relevant to this case. Third, the second sentence should be deleted in entirety because you stated above that the sources do not actually use the term "state terror". Thus, the statement that "they characterize certain instances ... as state terrorism" is inaccurate. Black Falcon 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Madness. This is utter, complete, and total madness. NPOV does not allow us to designate organizations as terrorist in the articles that we write. Someone has a grave misunderstanding of NPOV. - Philippe | Talk 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is making up the fact that LTTE is terrorist. It is cited. LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation around the world. And in any case, that is not the issue here at all!!! Read before you comment. Sarvagnya 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by about three dozen countries. Even if every single country called it a terrorist group, we should still not label it as such (per NPOV). The term "terrorist" is not sufficiently well-defined as to allow us to apply the label as fact. We can state, "the LTTE, recognised by 30+ countries as a terrorist organisation", but can't write "the terrorist LTTE". That is part of the issue here (with the second sentence of the introduction). Black Falcon 06:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If "terrorism" is not clearly defined, then "state terrorism" is even less well defined!(see state terrorism). We should then be deleting this article!! But that is besides the point. I am talking here about Jayjg's totally ridiculous and unreasonable stance that every citation has to have the article title string in the article!!! In other words, what he's claiming is in an article titled "History of India", every citation in the article should have the string "History of India" in it!! That is NONSENSE!! Sarvagnya 06:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And falcon, as for that "second sentence" I asked that you give me some time. I will remove or reword or explain it myself. There is no need for any rv warring about that. That fake thambiah citation was there for so long and none of you lost any sleep over it. The second sentence in the lead is the least of our concerns right now. If things can be allowed to settle for a bit, I will work on that sentence myself. Sarvagnya 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Jayjg's point is that any source, irrespective of its use, must use the terms "state terror". Instead, I think he means that in order for us to write that a given source alleges state terror, the source must use those exact words. This is to prevent original research, which can become an issue since there is no clear/undisputed definition of "state terror". Black Falcon 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, my point is actually that all sources used in this article must explicitly discuss "state terror" in Sri Lanka. They don't all have to use the exact term "state terror" - for example, they might say that the Sri Lankan government or armed forces engaged in "terrorism" - but they all have to be about "terror" or "terrorism", and about accusations that Sri Lanka engages in it. One cannot bring sources about other topic to construct arguments in this article, as we must be assured that all sources are directly relevant to this topic, rather than some original research conveniently developed by some editor with an ax to grind. Jayjg 16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding things to the lead sentence that has no relation with the topic at hand. Also how can you say "LTTE is terrorists". 33 Countries which is less than 33% of the world labelled them terrorists. Thats not enough to warrant a suffix Terrorist. I also do not think what Jayjg and Falcon are saying is nonsense. Please refrain from WP:NPA. Please comment on the content and not the contributer. Watchdogb 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken off the disputed tags from Involuntary disappearances because no one has said why its disputed. It's very well cited to a NPOV source. Watchdogb 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Uthayan, again ...

The current sentence in the "Involuntary disappearances" section reads:

The pro-LTTE Tamil daily Uthayan, which has close links with the LTTE, has called it "state terror".

This is unnecessarily redundant: either "pro-LTTE" or "which has close links with the LTTE" should be removed. I personally prefer retaining the more concise and less problematic "pro-LTTE" or "pro-rebel", since the part that Uthayan "has close links with the LTTE" may need to be explicitly attributed, further complicating the sentence structure. What does everyone else think? Black Falcon 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a minor question of cpediting. What I want to get out of the way first is Jayjg's unbelievably ridiculous reading of WP:NOR. If you can tell Jayjg that he is horribly wrong and if he can stop vandalising the article for a bit, we can then get down to sorting out issues like this. Sarvagnya 23:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tone-down the debate and keep it within the realm of civility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And you stop removing prose that provides context from the lead. The lead only summarises the article and doesnt have to be cited every word of the way. If you still think some citations are necessary for the lead, feel free to use the {{fact}} tag. Do not vandalise. You dont own this article. Sarvagnya 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would kindly suggest you stop using the term vandalism to attack other editor's edits. See WP:LEAD and WP:V. Add sources and the content can go back. Not before. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hellooo.. If you are going to write a POVfork of an article based on some opinions, you also have to tell the readers where the opinions are coming from. You cant pass off LTTE's or its sympathisers' (like Uthayan) views in a matter-of-fact tone as if it was the opinion of uninvolved, neutral, third parties!! That would be like passing of Al-Qaeda or Taliban's views about the US without letting people know who they are!! And do you need a source to say that the SL govt denies these allegations!! Gimme a break! Sarvagnya 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Look: I do not know you or any other editor, and I have not given you my permission to address me in such colloquial terms. I am here to edit this article, not to discuss editors or the subject of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Look: I've explained why context is necessary. I've explained why its necessary to tell people early on where an opinion is coming from. This is required in the interest of NPOV. Even Black Falcon has agreed with me on that count(see discussions above). So if you are really here to 'write' the article, go and add back the content that you had blanked from the lead. And then, we'll talk. Sarvagnya 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify ... I think noting Uthayan to be pro-rebel is appropriate; I think adding the adjective "terrorist" before JVP or LTTE is highly inappropriate. For one thing, the label "terrorist" is far more vague and disputed than "pro-rebel". In addition, we are noting that Uthayan is pro-rebel because we are discussing their claims. The second sentence of the introduction does not discuss the claims of the JVP or LTTE. -- Black Falcon 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've never myself condoned adding "terrorist" before either JVP or LTTE. But just as we want to be so politically right about it when it comes to 'terror' groups, we also have to be equally, if not more, politically right about democratically elected governments of sovereign countries. SL is a respected state across the world; is a member of the UN, the SAARC and other recognised bodies and we cant simply go against such overwhelming and impeccable credentials and carry out proxy smear campaigns against them(or any such 'bonafide' nations) in the name of NPOV. We cannot use isolated opinions(even if only of respected academics) to unilaterally supersede the good standing that SL commands around the world.
• It is a fact that the LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist outfit not just in SL but by dozens of other countries(amounting to probably half of humanity, maybe more) and it is also a fact that LTTE, JVP and others are involved parties in the conflict. We cannot and should not be passing off their opinions without disclaimers. As for Uthayan, it is a cited fact that it is pro-LTTE and there is no harm in calling them "pro-LTTE". We're not calling them "pro-terrorist". And wherever we use the word "terrorist", I suggest that we wikilink it to terrorist and lets do the same for "state terror" too.
• Also, in the interest of NPOV, we have to note in this article that several other mainstream media including internationally respected agencies like the BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Indian media, etc., (all uninvolved parties) who routinely(and most widely) cover this conflict have never called it "state terrorism". Also no attempt should be made to conflate war crimes and state terrorism; "war crimes", unlike "state terrorism" are fairly well defined in that they're punishable under international laws(see War Crime). And in any case, this is one hell of a POV fork of an article and should be merged asap with Sri Lankan civil war. Sarvagnya 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not allow you to put POV "disclaimers" in front of (or after) descriptions of groups of which you disapprove. Jayjg 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it has nothing to do with whether I approve or disapprove of a group. And secondly, which part of WP:NPOV says that, your highness? WP:NPOV, if anything says that you ought not pass off a biased or 'invested'/'involved' opinion as if it were neutral, uninvolved, third party opinion. Sarvagnya 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, of course it does. And secondly, I've already explained this to you: ] says that all significant views must be "represented fairly and without bias". In fact, it states "This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Please quote the part of WP:NPOV you imagine supports your POVing. And third of all, please read WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 07:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Its simply not upto you to tell me that I disapprove of a group. I'm neither Tamil nor Sinhala. I dont have any axe to grind here. And talking of civility, I'd rather you start off by explaining several of your edits, particularly this one. Being an admin, you should've known better than vandalise somebody else's comment in a bid to misrepresent them. Sarvagnya 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your header violated Talk: page guidelines; I changed it to accurately represent the content of your comments. Now, please abide by WP:CIVIL, and stop changing the subject; please quote the part of WP:NPOV you imagine supports your POVing. Jayjg 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My header didnt violate anything. It is your edit that violated something. Sarvagnya 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it violated WP:TALK, as I pointed out, and your latest comment violated WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The content of this article would be better used at the Sri Lanka civil war article. Propose a merge to avoid an obvious WP:POVFORK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan civil war article is already too big, we can have a section in that article dealing with state terror and main link this one to that. There is enough information to make it an independant article. Thanks Taprobanus 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I'd rather this be deleted altogether. You cant write an article with exceptional claims just based on few academics and partisan media like Uthayan etc.,. Several uninvolved, neutral media agencies have covered this and several hundreds of authors and columnists have written about this conflict and none of them have called it "State terrorism". The whole article is contrived and flies in the face of WP:UNDUE. Sarvagnya 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is not a !vote or a poll. It is a discussion designed to see if there is agreement for such a merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everybody here knows that. Sarvagnya 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support: WP:POVFORK and per Sarvagnya. There's no any exceptional sources to cover-up these exceptional claims. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not a good idea. This is a whole different article altogeather. It's about the accusation of state terrorism. The context of this article will be expanded in the comming days. Beside that, if this was to be merged I suspect a lot of material to be taken off as it does not relate to the Civil war (although it is asumed to be a cause it does not warrant a whole article on this). Watchdogb 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that it has survived 3 AFD. This article had way more content before. Soon it will have much much more content :))Watchdogb 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism is no more exceptional than terrorism. State terrorism in Sri Lanka is a subject that had enough RS sources to write an encylopedic article on its own. It merits its own article because of the notability ofthe subject. See Dirty warTaprobanus 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not exceptional? state terrorism is directly accusing against established governments, not on uneducated thugs. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don’t bullshit by the terms ""Established" and "Democratically" elected governments. We have seen in the world’s history how educated thugs in various ethno-centric governments used statutory powers against the minority groups and acted as worst criminals than the uneducated thugs. I strongly oppose merging this article.Lustead 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the article and not the subject or the editors. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support the merger. It would much more beneficial (and unbiased) to discuss the content in the context of the civil war.Vice regent 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it will actually make way for a lot of these material to be taken off VIA the rule "Stay on topic" or something along the lines. As I already pointed out this article will go through major expansion soon (2 weeks times). If it were to be merged the other article will be very off topic from current civil war (Though it is alleged that the reason behind the war is State terrorism we cannot bring all of the content from this article into the civil war one). Also please note that the President of the country has even said State terrorism exist in Sri Lanka. That claim is exceptional enough to warrant an article. ThanksWatchdogb 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the topic does not warrant an article - it does. But an article with only information about state terrorism (by the government) ignoring the actions by the rebels is unfair. (I mean to say that it represents one particular POV, but not the other). If it were in the "Civil war" article, then due weight could be give to the POVs of both sides. Please don't interpret my comments as trying to downplay war crimes in Sri Lanka. I sincerely believe that war crimes in Sri Lanka (as elsewhere) are a noteworthy issue.Vice regent 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Take a look at other Articles about LTTE for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE here]. It exist as a POV and has existed for a very long time. Should that not be merged ? how come the debate is here and not there ? Taking that into consideration. This article belongs right here.Watchdogb 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Had to remove nonsense again

I've had to remove some nonsense from the lead again, specifically this:

They characterize the Sri Lankan government's handling of the JVP uprisings and the long drawn civil war against against Tamil militant groups as state terrorism. The government on its part denies the allegations.

Many of the allegations listed here say nothing whatsoever about the JVP or "Tamil militant groups" - in fact, one of the sources accuses the government of using state terror against Sinhalese. In addition, the government does not appear to have denied any allegations. Jayjg 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If they arent referring to actions during the govt's handling of JVP and Tamil militant groups, what are they referring to then? Would you mind enlightening us? And note that nobody except you seems to have a problem with the lead. Even Black Falcon only had minor concerns which I fixed. So if you want to remove it, you better get others' consensus to do it. As of now the consensus is that context is necessary in the lead and that my edit provides the necessary context. Sarvagnya 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that some even refer to actions against Sinhalese. Have you actually read the article, and the references? Jayjg 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this conflict? Have you even followed this conflict? Do you even know what the JVP is? Do you know who Wijeweera was? Do you know that they were Sinhalese? Do you know that the govt., fought bloody battles with the JVP? Do you know that several Sinhalese were killed in the course of these battles? What do you know about this conflict, really? Get a crash course in the conflict before you get down to edit warring. And in any case, if there is anything you want to add about 'Sinhala' victims, do that by all means. Just stop removing content especially when you dont seem to have a clue about the subject. Sarvagnya 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what the sources used in this article say, and that's all that is relevant. The article must reflect its sources, not any other agenda. Jayjg 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Since you seem to know what the sources say, would you care to put together a decent lead paragraph to provide context to this POV fork of an article? And need I remind you that making veiled accusations that others have an 'agenda' is a personal attack? Sarvagnya 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The context is that various groups have accused the Sri Lankan government of State terrorism. Once the article is complete, we can see if more context is needed. Up until now the article was a mass of useless original research; indeed, as far as I can tell 90% of the sources used in the past were inadmissible on those grounds, and the vast majority of valid sources have come from me. I've been an equal opportunity deleter, removing the garbage on both sides. As for your claims of "veiled attacks", of course there was no violation of WP:NPA; I encourage you to read that guideline carefully, and quote the section you think applies. On the other hand, continual comments like this are an obvious violation of WP:CIVIL, and I encourage you to both abide by that policy, and re-think your current strategy. Jayjg 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You can remain obstinate all you want. You can imagine incivility where there is none. But I too encourage you to abide by policy and re-think your strategy. Especially your stance that "every citation must have "state terror" in it" is not going to impress anybody if this ever went to an RfC or something. Thanks. Sarvagnya 05:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that saying someone is having "tantrums" is not a violation of WP:CIVIL? As for sources, I imagine the stance that the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article will go over quite well, seeing as it's right there at the top of the policy. On the other hand, your continuing flaunting of that policy, along with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL, will go over extremely poorly. Jayjg 05:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly think that this was not incivil or your insinuating that I have an 'agenda' was not a PA, then yes, I certainly dont think any of my comments were incivil either. As for your understanding of the above policy, I am honestly of the opinion that you have a weird understanding of the policy. First of all, you must understand that "directly related" does NOT mean that the source must have the article title string in its contents. All that it means is that the source has to be related to the contents of the article. Both this article and the sources(the ones used for pro-LTTE) pertain to the ongoing civil strife/war in Sri Lanka. Even if they didnt, the very fact that they both talk about the same Uthayan is enough to establish the connection which is more than enough. You may have been here since the beginning of time, but I've been here long enough too to understand policies, especially ones as basic as this one. If you didnt notice, even Black Falcon seemed to be a little taken aback at your stance about sources. And for once please stop your belligerence and attempts to browbeat me. Thanks. Sarvagnya 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your inference of an "insinuation" of some indirect claim that you think I've made is, well.... enough said. As for the rest, no, it has to be directly related. That means not just about Sri Lanka, not just about conflict in Sri Lanka, not about Uthayan, nor the LTTE, nor Tamils, nor whatever else is peripherally related, but is, in fact, state terrorism in Sri Lanka. That's because the topic of this article is not Uthayan, nor the LTTE, or Sri Lanka, or even conflict in Sri Lanka; in fact, it is state terrorism in Sri Lanka. That means that all the sources used in the article must directly refer to state terrorism in Sri Lanka. I have been here since near the beginning of time, long enough to know exactly what original research is. And finally, please stop making uncivil claims about my "belligerence". Address the content of the article, not other editors.. Jayjg 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And pray tell me, what is the litmus test you use to determine whether a source is related "directly" enough to the topic or not? Also, go easy with your exaggerated font sizes and bold text etc.,. WP:CIVIL doesnt recommend it. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, would you mind taking a look at this coatrack? (

) Sarvagnya 07:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned, I'd just like to clarify that even though I don't object strongly to the temporary presence of those two sentences (in my opinion, the entire lead paragraph needs to be rewritten), I definitely don't support their inclusion. Black Falcon 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I too support that those two sentences of lead paragraph should not be included. Lustead 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree those sentence should stay also the personal attack violating WP:NPA and the uncivil tone violating WP:CIVIL by some editors against User:Jayjg should stop, or I will take this to rfc user conduct. ThanksTaprobanus 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree to take off the two sentence of the lead paragraph. Watchdogb 14:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody care to explain why the word "pro-LTTE" with references were removed describing the stance of Uthayan? It's extremely important to state the political stance of a news media while pulling it's name out of oblivion and accusing state terrorism on a national government. Otherwise the sentence becomes utterly misleading and reads like an agenda. Gnanapiti 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't use the word National Government in Sri Lanka's context, but it is applicable to India. Because in India there are several ethnic groups and almost they reprecent the national government and have equall say in the national affairs. But in Sri Lanka between the major two communities, there is large gap is there in the national affairs. Lustead 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if my usage of words are wrong(which I don't think apparently), why do you pin point on that rather than answering my actual question. Why did you revert again and remove the above said word with references? You asked in edit summary to discuss in talk page. Can you please explain. Gnanapiti 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't find mistakes with your usage of words. But I suggest, better we can come consensus here on lead sentences and then we can go to the article page.Lustead 16:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that source please..

I have removed one source, in which I found (totally) false information,or i would rather call it rubish(es). If the author consider sending army to a area within the borders of Sri Lanka,is state terrorism (!!!), I am kindly asking him to go to the nearest clinic immediately. Also, I am not sure why this editor/s keep repeating the same false information, such as imposing Sinhala only policy in 1970's over and over..Finally and most importantly, why would we give such an authority to one author, when making this kind of controversial remarks..Isn't[REDACTED] an encyclopaedia ? Olso,hats off to sarvgnya and snowolf for their excellent comments here,though what they say here is obvious its interesting to whether these obvious(es) would be consider in the future.Ohh,almost forget this, Sorry for being away from the debate for a while(I was travelling around). Hopefully I may able to(if time permits) contribute more from now on..thanks Iwazaki 11:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if removing the source is the appropriate response since it seems likely to lead to edit wars :(; maybe finding another source that counteracts the claim would be more beneficial to the article. This way nobody is giving "such an authority to one author".

Anyways, the "Viewpoints" section of this article seems to present only one viewpoint, that the government of Sri Lankan not only practices state terrorism, but the magnitude\totality of its "acts of terrorism" even supersedes those of the LTTE's (who I believe are labeled as a terrorist organization in more than 30+ countries). This article likely needs editing to make it more balanced. Just my two cents :).

--Lucifereri 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss before you remove the sources. You posed something on - sending army within the borders of Sri Lanka........... If the majority of those who are living in those areas in a struggle with the state for their political independence, any sort of military presence by the state is violation. The good examples are the Kashmir and Tibet conflicts. Because the China is member country of the UN, doesn't mean that the world has approved its occupation in Tibet. It is only a matter of time, I mean - the right time - which altered the political jurisdiction of the USSR which liberated many of its states into autonomous nations. Lustead 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me (I removed no sources)? Anyways, I disagree with your point. Because an area wants to secede from a country does not mean that a military presence placed there by the government is a "violation". Any government would protect its boundaries; if the people of that area react in a militant fashion, they rebel against the government. (Rebellion is not necessarily a bad thing, but a judgement call whether it is justified depends on one's agenda). The LTTE does not only rebel against the government, it has and continues to commit acts of terrorism.

--Lucifereri 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered to Iwazaki. I disagree with your view that - " Any government would protect its boundaries; if the people of that area react in a militant fashion, they rebel against the government." In a multi-ethnic nature, that can't be always right. Because you see LTTE resorted to terrorism because it is labeled as a terrorist organization in more than 30+ countries. But you should take into consideration that it is not labeled by nearly other 162 countries. Then, shall I take into consideration that still the majority of the countries are endorsing the LTTE's freedom struggle? Lustead 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a genuine problem with debating some people, who would consider,plain terrorist such as LTTE, which has carried out hundreds of cold-blooded massacres and endless suicide bombings(not to mention they keep saying there will me more murders and more suicide bombs on non-combat targets)..Iwazaki 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic so this will be my last post on this part of the thread. I only claimed that the LTTE committed acts of terrorism; it depends on the individual how many "acts of terrorism" it takes to make some organization a terrorist organization. Oh yeah, rebel != terrorist.

--Lucifereri 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my last post on this part as well. I know you only claimed - "LTTE committed acts of terrorism". But you know - It not only depends on the individual how many "acts of terrorism" it takes to make some organization a terrorist organization, but the nature of the goverment with which the rebel organization is fighting for and the State Terrorism by the government against its people (the rebel's) as well.Lustead 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

glad you have stop commenting..None of your comments here, just like the last one above, made no sense at all!! They are extremely incoherent and mind-boggling(?).. Just like our good old friend Rajasingham, who vanishes after

his own BIO got deleted.Anyway I heard he got re-incarnated and appears here with another name, have any guesses ?Iwazaki 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats besides the point. If we have third party calling an act State terrorism then we shall document it in wikipeida. We do not make OR and start to contridict what that the third party has said. That would be the editor making Original Rescarch. Which violates[REDACTED] rules. Watchdogb 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This response, I assume, refers to my orginal question on sources and viewpoints; I take it that viewpoints actually means "allegations of terrorism" from different sources. Why not change the title from "Viewpoints" to "Allegations"?

I do not think that citing two disagreeing sources would be OR (depends on the wording). For example, if there is a source that states both the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE are engaged in terrorist acts, but asserts that the LTTE use it on a greater scale, this source would still be relevant even though it contradicts Daya Somasundaram. Thanks!

--Lucifereri 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.disappearances.org/mainfile.php/articles_srilanka/9/

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles