Talk:Sri Lanka and state terrorism

The main discussion forum for this series of articles is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism

?? Who are they ??

Resolved

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 ^{会話。討論} 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^{会話。討論} 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 ^(talk) 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 ^{会話。討論} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^{会話。討論} 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Review WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 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, Wikipedia 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 ^{会話。討論} 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Original research

Resolved

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed citation

Resolved

From the text,

[[Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah]], a [[Harvard University]] 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 [[Sri Lanka]]n state against secessionist supporters during the [[1971 JVP Insurrection (Sri Lanka)]], the [[1987-89 JVP Insurrection (Sri Lanka)]] and the [[Sri Lankan civil war|Civil war]] 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=[[University of Chicago Press]] | 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 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Context to the allegations

Resolved

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 ^{( talk / @ )} 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(talk) 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and All sources must refer to state terror. Jayjg ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 [[poisoning the well]. 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^{( talk / @ )} 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 ^(Talk) 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tamil daily Uthayan

Resolved

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 ^(Talk) 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 ^{( talk / @ )} 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(talk) 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy and sources

Resolved

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. Fortunately, the community has no place for such ridiculous comments. "Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia: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 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of stuff on Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you've now stopped reading the talk page as well. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 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 ^{( talk / @ )} 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ...

Resolved

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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(talk) 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: [WP:NPOV]] 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 ^(talk) 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)

Just so that everyone knows because the Sarvagyana account holder brought up the issue about the account's ethinicity. This particular account is very active in editing Kannada related articles and is known for conflicts with Tamil language and Tamil people related articles and editors. The account is also very active in conflict related subjects such as Self respect movement and articles about the ethnic group Marathi from India. It should be noted that in India, there are ethnic problems between Tamil-Kannada and Kannada-Marathi also certain caste groups have problems with the protest movements such as the Self respect movement. So the account holder cannot claim to be an impartial third party here. This is brought up solely beacuse the account holder claimed to be non involved Thanks Taprobanus 13:20, 3 August 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 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 ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 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 ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 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/wiki/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)

Once again living in a self created false world.. Could you please care to explain, why that article is POV ? In fact it is one of the best referenced article in the whole Wikipedia. I assume we should quote tamil canadian (for which some of our editors contribute heavily) or tamil net to keep it neutrality, shouldn't we ??Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. According my opinion both should be merged. But I doubt I can get people to agree to that. If there is ever such a discussion please tell me about it.Vice regent 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support Per Sarvagnya.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki, your attempts of insulting others are quite funny. As you end up insulting your self. Anyway that article is not even close to "Well sourced". It's quite the opposit and it's highly based on suspicion by the SLA/SLP. Anyway, discussion here is to merge the article. The reason given is that its a POV fork. If this article is considred POV fork then so should be this. So your votes to merge article are also votes to merge the other article. Thanks Watchdogb 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS . If you feel that another article should also be merged to somewhere else, feel free to start a discussion on its own talk page. Sarvagnya 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a statement for people who say "POV" fork. I have already outlined the fact that this should not be merged. As there are RS from very notable people cited in this article. Also please don't bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in this matter as it is only for deletation. Not for merge debate. Please also stop quoting this as its a policy or guideline because it's not. Thanks Watchdogb 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Had to remove nonsense again

Resolved

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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? ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

[13][14]) 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 ^(Talk) 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..

Resolved

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 wikipedia 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 ^{会話。討論} 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 ^{会話。討論} 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 ^{会話。討論} 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu has already replied for the above comment Here. Lustead 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us assume good faith in Lustead; none of the comments he posted (on this thread at least) are inflammatory. --Lucifereri 06:25, 1 August 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 wikipedia 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)

User:Iwazaki has a habbit of removing sources (see Prawn farm massacre) but wikipedia provides an avenue for him to find out whethger sources are rs or not, acceptable or not (NPOV point of view). All what he has to do is go to WP:RS talk page or the notice board and ask for third party opinion. It is that easy to resolve source issues. Thanks Taprobanus 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Taprobanus, I agree, wiki does indeed provide a suitable avenue to decide how reliabile a source is (I also agree that one should not remove a source just because he\she thinks it is unreliable). I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Classes_of_sources would be a suitable place to decide whether sources such as Uthayan are to be considered NPOV or pro-rebel (and for other sources pro-government). Anyways, to start that part of the discussion off, here are two independent net sources that site Uthayan as pro-rebel: http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2006/5/3/sri-lankan-president-vows-killers-at-newspaper-will-face-justice/ and http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2005-daily/18-07-2005/world/w5.htm. Hope this helps. Thanks.

--Lucifereri 06:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just these references, but two other references had already been given to show the 'pro-LTTE' nature of Uthayan. But the problem is, some people here kept removing it. Though I think its in the present locked version. Sarvagnya 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another direction a neutral title

How about an article about Terrorism in Sri Lanka just like Terrorism in India. The article will merge this one as well as the lsiut of terrorist attacks by the LTTE into one Neutral article ? . Justa question. Thanks Taprobanus 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I want the following to be added to the article please:

UTHR, a local human rights organization , claimed that Tamils faced repeated bouts of state terror. It further asked that the state terror must be recognized and stopped.

The reason for this is to add more content to this article from RS. Thanks very much Watchdogb 05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in the article do you want the addition? --MZMcBride 21:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has been protected 11 days, and the talk page is quiet, so I'm going to unprotect it. If the edit warring starts again I'll protect it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RS

Resolved

Please stop removing RS from this article. Users seem to want to remove a citation from a book that is published by a respected publisher - Stanford University Press. Same thing goes about removing citation from UTHR. Please refrain from this. Thanks Watchdogb 01:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is unprotected now and instead of continuing the discussions here and coming to a conclusion, you have resorted to add back/delete contents which were disputed before. Content you've been changing were the exact reason for page protection. You can't just have your cake and eat it too. Gnanapiti 01:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to discuss when I am clearly following all wikipedia rules ? I am adding things that are backed by RS. Please give arguments on why you oppose the addition of a famous book? Published by a respectable publisher. Watchdogb 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that "Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features" is a know book and have been used for educational purposes. Removing this citation is blatant vandalism. Watchdogb 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka

I have proposed that this article be merged into Human rights in Sri Lanka. Please comment in the discussion at Talk:Human rights in Sri Lanka. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed pagemove

If this article is kept and not merged to Human rights in Sri Lanka (as proposed above), I suggest that it be renamed to State terrorism in Sri Lanka per the NPOV policy, which states:

Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might ... cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

The current title restricts the article's content to allegations of state terrorism, leaving little or no room for presentation of the opposite point of view. Having an article about the general concept of state terrorism, rather than merely one specific POV, would allow the views of the GOSL and others to be presented, thus ensuring a more balanced article. Of course, I'm not suggesting that we assert the existence of state terrorism; allegations must still be presented as just that. However, I think we should encourage the addition of conflicting points of view that deny the existence of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Comments? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently the title makes it clear that it documents "allegations" not actual (for Wikipedia standards) "state terrorism". What that means is by the title of the article we aren't automatically drawing the conclusion that "state terrorism" did exist. I don't see why counter-claims cannot be presented in the article as it currently stands. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just like an article titled "Criticisms of drugs" inherently limits the article's scope to criticisms (and thus hinders NPOV), so does this title. As I noted above, I'm not suggesting that the article assert the existence of state terrorism. However, I think the article should reflect discussion/debate/disagreement about the notion of state terrorism in Sri Lanka rather than merely focusing on viewpoints that allege the existence of state terrorism. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms of drugs" may not be the best article, but "Drugs are bad" would be much worse. A title like "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" pretty much says "state terrorism" exists, before the reader can even go through the article. And again, I don't see why opposing viewpoints which could have been included in a "state terrorism in Sri Lanka" article cannot be included in this one. Also remember the wider community consensus is to have "allegations of ... in ..." articles rather that actual "... in ...", as in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Allegations of Israeli apartheid etc, although personally I think none of those articles are suitably encyclopedic for Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will reply to each of your three points separately:

1. I don't agree that the title "state terrorism in Sri Lanka" implies that state terrorism exists. It just suggests that the article will be about the topic of state terrorism in SL, including discussion of the question of whether it exists.
2. Opposing viewpoints cannot generally be included in this article because they are largely beyond its scope. The present title shifts the focus on the specific allegations of terrorism themselves rather than the general discussion about whether state terrorism exists. It limits the content of this article to allegations of terrorism, exclusive of anything else beyond a general statement that "the GOSL denies these accusations".
3. I don't think there's any sort of consensus as to what to do with these types of articles. Aside from the fact that these types of articles will always be subject to POV disputes, they are generally not of high quality.

The more I look at the actual content of this article, the more I am convinced that a selective merge of this article to Human rights in Sri Lanka, with no prejudice to proper recreation, is the most effective/efficient solution. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, since you brought it up, which would be a better article, "Criticisms of drugs", "Drugs are bad" or something like "Effects of drugs"? (I hope you get the analogies)

• And I disagree with you. Basically
  • "Sri Lanka has committed state terrorism" = State terrorism in Sri Lanka
  • "People have alleged that Sri Lanka has committed state terrorism" = Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Allegations are always disputed, and you still haven't convinced me why opposing viewpoint that could be included in a "state terrorism" article cannot be included in a "allegations" article.
• Given that there doesn't seem to be any page move wars, it appears the community has agreed that instead of having articles like "Apartheid in Israel" (implying apartheid exists) or "State difference in the United States" (implying "state terrorism" did exist) it's best to leave them as "allegations".

Like I said at Talk:Human rights in Sri Lanka, I fully support a merge with that article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I'm not really convinced that a pagemove will solve that many problems (maybe a few), I'll not argue the point. So, I guess I'll just wait to see whether the proposed merge has consensus support. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon, thanks for your hard work so far. I also agree with your suggestion for rename per WP:NPOVTaprobanus 18:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Black Falcon on If this article is kept and not merged to Human rights in Sri Lanka (as proposed above), I suggest that it be renamed to State terrorism in Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lustead (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Tambiah and Somasundaram

Resolved

Snowolfd4, thank you for sourcing the claims that Tambiah and Somasundaram are Tamils. That takes care of WP:BLP issues. The other issue that I mentioned in my edit summary was WP:NPOV: why is it relevant to note their ethnicity? Why don't we note the ethnicity of James and Brenda Lutz, Gananath Obeyesekere, Chandrika Kumaratunga, and Yael Danieli? The addition seems to imply that Tambiah and Somasundaram are, because of their ethnic affiliation, biased. This may very well be true, but I think that such an implication would either need to be sourced or somehow balanced, considering that people can be neutral when discussing issues relevant to their ethnic group, race, country, and so on. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this is an act of poisoning the wall. To be neutral we should mention other's ethnicity also. I do not believe it is very encyclopedic to mention every critic's ethnicity Watchdogb 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If we can take the pains to note in a whole coatrack of articles that every 'alleged' victim of rape, murder, 'forced disappearance' (real and imagined) in SL is/was of 'minority Tamil ethnicity', I dont see why noting that all (almost) those making 'exceptional' claims also happen to be Tamils. If anything, I suggest that you guys go ahead and add to Thambiah and SS also the "Tamil ethnic minority" qualifier. Sarvagnya 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

POV, UNDUE

Resolved

The article is a POV fork and deserves to be deleted. Also, considering the fact that all allegations are either from isolated academics or from political opponents, this article also has serious NPOV and UNDUE problems. Hundreds and thousands of works have been written(by academics) about Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan politics and what we have here is a micro minority of cherry picked sources making tagential arguments about the 'allegations'(sic). If that was not bad enough, we have politically motivated allegations by political opponents being cited! For example, Vaiko's opinion is being bandied sans context sans disclaimers as if it was neutral, dispassionate opinion. For those who dont know, Vaiko is an avowed and open supporter (nothing 'alleged' about it) of the LTTE's cause(sic) and was even thrown into jail for it under the Prevention of terrorism Act - POTA (a bill which he championed himself in the Indian parliament). His support of the LTTE is common knowledge and has been widely documented. Unless these issues are fixed, I will be tagging the article with the appropriate tags. Sarvagnya 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Vaiko's comment and TNA's comments are taken off. So there is no POV in this article. The other problems are baseless and there you fail to show how the so called "mircr minority" really apply to any article. So I am taking off the POV tags. Watchdogb 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is no rule against researching for a article. Thus no rule against "cherry" picked sources. Also how does that warrant a NPOV tag ? Watchdogb 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think as Black Falcon suggested we need to change the title of this article to State terrorism in Sri Lanka or think about Terrorism in Sri Lanka just like Terrorim in IndiaTaprobanus 12:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you claim "cherry picking from a book on cannibalism or something is stll there". Can you point out which book you are taking about ? Further, you said "non-rs sources have been introduced" ? What are the Non-rs that have been introduced ? and why are they unRS for stating a person's view? You also claim "synth is back and weaseling and several probs remain", where ? what exactly are you talking about ? What are the so called several problem ? Watchdogb 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite August 24, 2007

Lead section

Current

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

Proposed Taprobanus

suggestion: Can we have something about state terrorism being used before the civil war ? Watchdogb 14:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you can cite reliable sources to support the claim. I think such quotes would be important, since this article's scope should not only be limited to the civil war. --Lucifereri 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

scope should not only be limited to the civil war why because State terror has been attributed long before the civil war. Infact one of the contributing factors for the civil war is aspects of State terror ?. Thanks Taprobanus 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether acts of state terrorism existed or not before the civil and whether they are in anyway related to the civil war, one must always cite reliable sources :). Thanks! --Lucifereri 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Let's discuss, what is the issue now so we dont have to edit war on this article again . Thanks Taprobanus —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV as it contains only one side of the story, and it also has loads of WP:PEACOCK terms like "Various groups and individuals..." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific please so we can try to resolve one item at a time ? Thanks Taprobanus 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Various groups and individuals is actually in the lead paragraph. If you take a look at the actual body you can see that more than 6 individuals and 3 organizations (and 2 more which is labelled Pro ltte ) have called acts State terrorism. So as per guidelines we can say that "various" groups and organizations have claimed acts state terrorism. PS. How does this article have one side of the story ? What is exactly the other side ? SLG ? We have , in the lead, the following: The government on its part denies the allegations. So the article is actually presenting the governments side also. However, if you feel that something is missing from these allegations, then you can go ahead and say where exactly the the government's word is necessary. Thanks Watchdogb 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Various groups!! We have one guy who is a close relative of the founder of tamil state party, cause for all the problems in SL. And then we have an unknown SL university lecturer from tamil exclusive Jaffna University(where all the remaining Sinhalese students were kicked out in late 1970's by friendly tamil students).I have taught classes at University, does this mean some one can quote me too ??? Also, we have some one named, Kumar Rupasinghe, I don't think I should waste my time talking his neutrality here. So literally there are various sources, but how various are they ?? How neutral are they? I am not sure why we even discuss this kind of blatant POV fork, here. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 04:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We have one guy who is a close relative of the founder of tamil state party, cause for all the problems in SL. Can you please clarify who you were talking about ? Also please show RS that support your comment (if he is alive, then you are violating WP:BLP if there is no RS). And then we have an unknown SL university lecturer from tamil exclusive Jaffna University(where all the remaining Sinhalese students were kicked out in late 1970's by friendly tamil students). Again who are you talking about ? Also, we have some one named, Kumar Rupasinghe, I don't think I should waste my time talking his neutrality here Well I guess you have missed where the citation was taken from. Please take a look at the citation to find out the Neutrality. Last, you have tagged on the OR tags. However, you fail to say what is really OR here. Actually, from your last lines it seem that you are contridicting yourself-- User:watchdogb —Preceding comment was added at 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please add citation to claim that Jeyaraj Thambiah is a biased source. Being Tamil does not make anyone biased. This is false allegation unless there is proof. If you want to add it back, go ahead but only after citation. Another issue is calling The International Federation of Tamils a pro LTTE. There has been no citation since August. Please provide citation with and add it back. I took off OR tags from the article. Please refer to WP:OR and note that this article is cited. It cites every allegation. So it does not have any OR. Last, remember that when a source is considered Bias, then you explicitly mention who claims what. This is the exact thing that is being done on this article. Every allegation is attributed to who says it. There is no need to around adding bias source everywhere because explicit attribute is added to take care of just that. Watchdogb 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RW Statement on terror by regime

I had stayed out of this article, but now that even the main opposition claim Sri Lanka is practicing state terror, I think its controversial to keep the tag. Therefore I am removing it and adding RW quote on the subject. Sinhala freedom (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis?

According to the title, this article should present an overview of the topic "allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka"; however, at present, it is effectively a list of allegations.

An article about the topic "allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

While it is undisputable that there exist allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, this does not automatically make the subject of "allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" a valid one. According to WP:SYNT:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources.

Is "allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" by itself a distinct topic of interest? If so, then this should be demonstrated in the article. If not, then the article should be deleted or renamed and repurposed per WP:SYNT and the notability guideline (after all, a lack of sources about the topic means a lack of proof that the topic is notable). Since deletion should generally be a last resort, I would like to consider the possibilities for renaming and/or repurposing. As I see it, there are three options:

1. Rename to List of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
2. Rename to State terrorism in Sri Lanka and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject
3. Merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government

A list of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

I contend that such a list would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY ("Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics").

It violates WP:NPOV because it gives undue weight to the point of view of those people and organisations who make allegations of state terrorism against the government of Sri Lanka. While it's possible to include statements to the effect that the GOSL denies state terrorism, it would not be possible to do this in the context of a List of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka in a manner that provides due weight to the GOSL's (and others') position.

It violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY because a list of allegations essentially constitutes a list of loosely-associated topics. When different people/organisations allege state terrorism, they do not always apply the same definition, and are often referring to distinct events, incidents, or patterns of behaviour.

An article about the topic "state terrorism in Sri Lanka"

An article about the topic "state terrorism in Sri Lanka" would, in my view, be more viable. Although it is unlikely that "allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" is a distinct topic of interest, "state terrorism in Sri Lanka" likely is. (The literature seems to focus mostly on events and actions, not allegations.)

An article under this title and with this scope could be written from a neutral point of view, since it would be possible to adequately present all relevant views in the context of a general overview of the topic, rather than a directory of allegations.

If the topic "state terrorism in Sri Lanka" is not a distinct topic of interest, or there is not adequate material to justify its existence as a separate article, then the contents of the article should be selectively merged to Human rights in Sri Lanka.

Summary of previous discussions

I have participated in and am aware of two major prior discussions involving these issues:

The first (see Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Proposed pagemove), concerning a proposed pagemove to State terrorism in Sri Lanka, involved only myself and three other editors. In that discussion, I argued for a pagemove per the NPOV policy, which states:

Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might ... cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Snowolfd4 disagreed with the proposal, suggesting that the title State terrorism in Sri Lanka implies that state terrorism actually exists. I do not believe that to be the case, and feel that the article title would simply reflect the name of the topic (e.g. the article title "Human rights in Sri Lanka" refers to the topic, not to the existence of human rights in Sri Lanka). Two other editors supported the pagemove, but the discussion essentially died out without any tangible result.

The second (see Talk:Human rights in Sri Lanka#Merge from Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka), concerning a proposed merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka, failed to develop a consensus for merging. There seemed to be three main arguments against merging:

• The GOSL practices state terrorism: This is, naturally, a point of dispute, and it is not something that can be stated as fact inside articles (per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). In any case, that something exists does not automatically justify the presence of a separate article about it.
• State terrorism != human rights violation: There can be no dispute that "state terrorism" and "human rights" are distinct concepts. However, the existence or absence of state terrorism is a crucial component of coverage of human rights in a country. So, while it would be inaccurate to discuss general human rights violations in the context of state terrorism, it is not inaccurate to discussion state terrorism in the context of human rights.
• Poisoning the well: It was suggested that merging the two articles would diminish the quality of the article Human rights in Sri Lanka. To minimise such effects, and to avoid giving undue weight to a single aspect of human rights in Sri Lanka, any merge should be highly selective, with primary consideration given to suitability of content in the target article rather than merely a desire to preserve content.

I've attempted to apply the lessons from these two discussions by offering a more detailed coverage of the issues involved, initiating a single thread for discussion of these inter-related issues rather than two threads on two talk pages, and establishing a context for discussion that is broader than just merging or renaming and asks: "What should be done with this article, in general?"

Current discussion

I ask that interested editors offer their thoughts and evaluations in this section. (Note: I have posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment of children

Resolved

This sub topic quotes a report from the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) which is based on a report by Allen Rock. Alen Rock was accused as a terrorist and a collaborator by a SL minister and disputed by the GoSL. [15]

The current version also says the Report by the AHRC calls SL armed forces as committing in "war crimes". The report [16] how ever merely states it's a war crime to recruit children and it does not accuse the SLA of war crimes. and needs to be changed to NPOV.

Just because SL Army had collaborated with the TVMP on one occasion it does not mean they are recruiting children. SLA != TVMP. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please read the rules of wikipedia carefully. Here we try to say what RS says. We do not apply our WP:OR and then dismiss the statements made by RS. ThanksWatchdogb (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aspirations for Eelam and Mass Civilians deaths

Aspirations for Eelam

Why is there a seperate title called "Aspirations for Eelam"? What does it has to do with the "allegations of State terrorism in SL"?--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's because of State terrorism that Tamils wanted a Separate State - Clearly stated in the given RS citation Watchdogb (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Navod has a point. The section {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing is already quite long - that's what we have the article Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war for. Per WP:TOPIC, we should see if we can shorten it. The passage in point, however, is directly relevant to allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. But it's just one sentence. Does it even need a headline? On second thought, maybe the section name "{{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing" is not optimal. The point of the section seems to be not so much in describing the origins, as in establishing that reliable sources claim there is terrorism on both sides. — Sebastian 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with with the section names. It's not optimal. That part linking the other two articels should be removed?

State terrorism leading to the LTTE militancy is a POV. Then other sources like this and this which states that the call for a separate state was there as far back as 1949.(when there was no "state terror")--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Then add those source to balance the sentence out but for yiour information they are not even RS, Just one is a Sinhala centric website and another is a regular website will failt RS clearly Taprobanus (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

the quote is not the problem. What does aspiration of eelam has to do with Allegations of State terror? I can then put aspiration for a unitary state in Sri Lanka too. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Very simple Kumar Rupsinghe is saying that the support for Tamil Eelam increased because of State terror. He does not say State terror created aspiration for Tamil Eelam. If you keep massacring civilians, raping the women and killing them in the most brutal manner making them disappear even if they are vice chancellors and use child soldiers hired through para- military operatives then even people who did not originally support the aspiration end up supporting it. If you have a citation that questions it as long as it comes from an RS source, please add it Taprobanus (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If u want to quote a guy who supported Pol-pot it's ok with me. But my point is that does it need to be in this article. That piece dosnt really deserve a sub-heading. shouldn't it be in Tamil Eelam article? do u really need to fill this page with un-related material? --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Kumar Rupasinghe is disqaulitfied as a source because he supported Pol Pot. Just for clarification so we can continue this discussion to its logiocal conclusion. Also tell me what Wikipedia rule supports your point of view. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass Civilians deaths

Resolved

The sub topic mass civilian deaths gives the death of 15 civilians? Is that a "mass" death? how much is "mass"?--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

15 is certainly mass death. Watchdogb (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

While 15 innocent deaths are certainly 15 too many, calling it "mass" is a point of view. I read the first reference, and the Bishop clearly only referred to the Aerial attack on Padahuthurai. So the wording "Military acts such as ..." seems to be a POV addition that's not backed by the actual quote, either. I will therefore rename the section to the neutral, sourced title "{{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing". — Sebastian 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the heading is still as Mass civilian deaths. Shouldnt this be replaced with NPOV title like "civilian deaths". If it's a mass civilian death "Mass" civilian deaths should be given --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad! Something went wrong when I edited this. I agree, "Civilian deaths" is a good title; actually, it fits better in the article than the one I proposed. I will also change the wording now, as I said I would. — Sebastian 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is "mass" a POV ? 15 is a large sum. I highly doubt that you are claiming that even titles need citations. If you do I can find many other articles to bring into question. ThanksWatchdogb (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

After being explained to by someone I highly respect I agree we can call this "Civilian death". Watchdogb (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Moved it to here per SLR agreement Taprobanus (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SL Army in Tamil homeland

There is no such thing called "Tamil Homeland" on Sri Lankan soil. The "Tamil Homeland" exists in South India and it's home to 60 million Tamils. Only some 2.5 million Tamils live in Sri Lanka. That's about 4% of the Tamil population of the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. How can a tiny area of Sri Lanka be the "Homeland" of a populaion that is graeter by a factor of 25, and lives in another country? By comparision, 4% constitues the Muslim population in Germany. They are mostly Turks. Can you call Germany the "Homeland" of Turks? The answer is definitely 'No'. Therefore, the question of SL Army in Tamil Homeland does not arise, as Sri Lanka has not stationed any troops in South India. (124.43.218.113 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Please discuss before blatantly blanking pages. FYI:

“ In “1961, the Sri Lankan government declared a state of emergency and for the first time dispatched military troops to occupy the Tamil areas Northeast of Sri Lanka. This was in the wake of a mass non-violent protest (Satyagraha) in Jaffna, Vavuniya, Trincomalee and Batticaloa causing the entire Northeast to shut down”. ”

BTW: Here is my source info:

• Ponnambalam, Satchi. Sri Lanka: The National Question and the Tamil Liberation Struggle London: Zed Books. 1983. pp. 105 & 106.

Please back up claims with legitimate sources instead of stating "It's a lie..." Wiki Raja (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

where's the "Tamil homeland" part? It says "Tamil areas".

The SLA's occupation in 1961 lasted only 2 years there's a 13 year gap with the formation of the LTTE. It's POV on your part building on the data from your source. Does your source say the SLA involment in 1961-1963 led to the formation of LTTE? so it's a violation of NPOV to say the SLA in Jaffna led to the creation of Tamil militant groups.Pls stick to NPOV --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this source Ching-In Moon and Chaesung Chun, "Sovereignty: Dominance of the Westphalian Concept and Implications for Regional Security", in Muthiah Alagappa, Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, Stanford University Press, 2003, p. 128. ISBN 080474629X< which says

"Because of the Sri Lankan 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 arms."

so we have citation after citation basically saying the same. Government action led to miitant formation, to say the contrary is your OR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at ur first citation "The National Question and the Tamil Liberation Struggle London: Zed Books. 1983. pp. 105 & 106." which can be found here. The book is a publication of Tamil Information Centre and Zed Books Ltd, London - 1983. The time of publication and the publisher makes it invalid under RS. Furthermore ur a little down ur first citation clamis this

"From 1979, because of the Sinhalese military occupation of Jaffna and the state terrorism let loose on the people. hostility began to grow and became deeply embedded in the Tamil people. A group of highly organized young Tamil militants, at first calling themselves the Eelam "Tigers", and then reorganised as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, became active in the northern Tamil areas." that can be seen here

Ur 2nd citation which can be seen here (p. 128) (Sovereignty: Dominance of the Westphalian Concept and Implications for Regional Security) states

"Because of the Sri Lankan 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 arms."

As u can see (imo) one author is copying from the other. Due to publication year of the latter (2003) It's clear that the 2nd author is a plagiarist. and clearly violates RS. Therefor your "citation after citation" are in violation of Wikipedia:RS and are in fact one citation. And I must ask u to refrain from delibratly misguiding the readers. U are yet to prove it's not a violation of NPOV or give any independent research stating the SLA in Jaffna led to the creation of the LTTE.A mis guided book written in 1983(a year when a lot of wrongs were done) published by "questionable" sources (Tamil Information Centre) cannot be consider as a RS and is in violation with Wikipedia:Verifiability --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have to address what's blatantly in everyone's face because you chose to write it in bold: It is not appropriate to accuse other editors of "delibratly (sic!) misguiding readers", unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was indeed deliberate. I have often been amazed how people can not see things that seem obvious to me - even people with the best intentions!

Well after being explained to me i'll take it back. (but just for the record the phrase "citation after citation saying the same thing" did it for me). I just thought it's obvious.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That said, you did do a good research there! You added "(imo)", but it's not just in your opinion. It seems obvious to me, too. With regard to reliable sources, though, it is a bit more complicated than you describe. Reliable sources can be biased. Last year, we worked together (all sides) to come up with the list WP:SLR#QS, which shows what reliability and bias we agreed on for each source. Its seems to me most likely that Tamil Information Centre is a "qualified" reliable source; a source that can be used to show reliably the position of one side says. If that is the case, it could be quoted by saying "The pro-rebel Tamil Information Centre claims that ...". We used to have a chapter on WT:SLR to discuss this, and we could do that again. — Sebastian 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You too are very funny. The citation is RS. Just because navood says that a book is not RS it does not make it so. A pro-Tamil website has the book written on their site. That does not mean that they had anything to do with the publication of the book. So I am not seeing how Navood is doing a "Good job" refuting this source. Removal of this citation will be considered vandalism and reverted more than once per WT:SLR. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the web site. It's about the publisher. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the RS issue. If we're quoting the biased article the source and the bias should be mentioned.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you do it is not calling them biased but calling them by who they are. It is called attribution in Wikipedia. When you cite a fact from an RS source then you dont have to attribute but if the fact is suspect because of the source then you attribute it. All government sources have to be attributed because they arre suspect just like pro rebel sources. 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Non Rs material

Resolved

Anymore addition of non RS sinhala state terrorist chauvinist sites will be countered with Tamil extremist sources. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel anyone added a wrong source, you know what to do: Bring it up on WT:SLR. Threatening Wikipedia is inacceptable. I'm seriously thinking about giving you another official warning for this. — Sebastian 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can if you want but I think I got my point across. Watchdogb (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous Title

This was brought up on the corresponding US page, but was lost amidst all the noise surrounding the constant disputes and the AfD, so I decided to try the less "popular" articles. While I am not completely familiar with the history of these articles, I see there have been several different titles, at least for the American article. I raise issue with the current titles (Allegations of state terrorism by... ) as it does not specify, grammatically, whether the article subject is receiving allegations or making allegations. I know that "Allegations of state terrorism committed by..." is a bit verbose, especially for a title, I'm sure there is some better option than what we have now. Random89 05:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing (although stalled) discussion regarding this issue here that you may be interested in. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)