Jump to content

Talk:Sri Lanka and state terrorism/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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 Origins of the current civil war 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 "Origins of the current civil war" 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 "Aerial attack on Padahuthurai". — 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lanka_and_state_terrorism/Archive_6&oldid=1136231816"