Talk:List of attacks attributed to the LTTE/Archive 1

A similar article already exists
Check out Notable attacks by the LTTE. This one should be deleted. Ulflarsen 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This page has hundreds of LTTE terrorist attacks too minor to be included as a notable attack in Notable attacks by the LTTE Ruchiraw 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia tries to extract knowledge. We dont aim for listing everything, and this includes all attacks the LTTE has done. So I keep to that this article should be deleted. Besides that, I do believe you hurt your standing by defending this article when we allready have Notable attacks by the LTTE. Ulflarsen 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you show me that policy. I believe the Encyclopedia Britannica contains all facts relevant to its topics Ruchiraw 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When you signed up I placed a number of links on your page as a welcome message, one of them was this oneWikipedia:Five pillars. It says:


 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.


 * Adding an article like that when there already is one very similar is not what we try to achieve. Ulflarsen 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not very similar, it has a different focus and there is very little overlap, mayne less than 8 %. When this article is expanded , it will go to less than 2 % overlapRuchiraw 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ulflarsen, the articles should be merged. Addhoc 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist" Nomenclature
Certain editors seem to have unilaterally declared the LTTE a "terrorist" group and (it seems) are forcing that belief on Wikipedia. To remain neutral, I have pointed out the exact number of nations (28 out of 192) which consider the LTTE a "terrorist" group and have clarified that the UN itslef has not declared the LTTE as "terrorists". I have also changed phrases like "a number of attacks", "list is not complete" to make them more accurate. I would also suggest changing the title to Attacks carried out by LTTE, since there is no proof that the attacks were terrorist in nature. If the title is not changed, then we should make an article about Terrorist attacks carried out by the Sri Lankan military, Ethnic cleansing attempted by the Sri Lankan government. Cerebral Warrior 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See the defintion of terrorism on WP
 * "Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate", "targeting of civilians" or executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton and unjustified
 * All of these incidents fall into that category.
 * Also following and AFD this article was kept intact by a nutral admin. You cannot arbitrarily change the name of this article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Until you can provide me with links to court documents convicting the LTTE of the attacks, we will retain the word "allegedly" in the title. As for calling them "terrorist" attacks, did you notice the word "usually" in your definition of terrorism? Cerebral Warrior 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All I have to say is look at your own comment on the page Velupillai Prabhakaran. Seriously  --snowolfD4( talk /  @ ) 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikify
Please somebody who care about this article wikify it so that it does not look like a piece of propaganda, simply a list of activities. If not in the near future some one will delete it because it skating on thin ice as far as WP:NOT is concerned. ThanksRaveenS 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Major military, guerrilla and terrorist style attacks by the LTTE are covered in the related article Notable attacks by the LTTE. military, guerrilla attacks cannot be moved to Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. Only major terrorist incidents are listed on the Notable attacks by the LTTE. Dutugemunu 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have finished moving non-notable terrorist incidents into terrorist attacks page. Only notable incidents now left on Notable attacks page Dutugemunu 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to merge. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

see related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Notable_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE Dutugemunu 09:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

archiving
I just archived most of the discussions into /archive. I kept discussions that fit under "Merge and deletion discussions and votes" and "Discussions of the word "terrorist"" because they seem to reappear on this page. There was a long list of Corrections that need to be addressed, but at least the first few seem to have been addressed since. &mdash; Sebastian 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral title.
The word "terrorism" implies a POV, and hence should not be used. Until the LTTE (or persons who are found to have acted on its behalf) is found guilty of (all) these attacks in a court of law, we will (as is customary) use the term "allegedly". Cerebral Warrior 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How is attacking SL navy a terror attack ? I do not understand this... They were not out of the SL navy when they got killed so how can that be considred as a terror attack ? 74.102.154.231 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

LTTE terrorist?
In the article name LTTE is considered as terrorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid It is not possible to use the term terrorist in an article name for a group which is considered as a terrorist by some countries. This article should be re-namedPaparokan 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edit
Please do not take off the added info as WP:NPOV states that when there is conflicting views you must state both views. Also no source should be given due weight. So please do not remove. Also AGF. Watchdogb 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

don't add dumb sites to wikipedia..If you are insisting on justifying the priest killing then bring reliable source..Please dont make myself repeat the same thing over and over. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My my. Since when is Tamilnet a relaible source? <b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> )


 * Right around the same time as Asiantribute and SATP. Also please show me how it is not a RS? If Asiantribune is RS then so is Tamilnet. Watchdogb 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Iwazaki you do not decide if any site is "dumb". If Tamilnet is not RS then neither is Asiantribune.

I am willing to compromise to put the Pro-LTTE tags for these citations. If we do not allow Tamilnet then we should not allow AsianTribune, SATP (This is a documentation site and it does not even reference its claims). Then we should only include RS such as BBC,Reuters ect. Also I have seen many incidents where the neutral source does not claim that it was done by the LTTE. Then how are we to assume that they did it ? Using a POV site ? well ok if we are going to do that as per WP:NPOV then we should include both sides of the story as per WP:NPOV.

Air attack
WatchdogB claims that the attack against the airbase by the LTTE is not a terrorist attack as s "Attacking the opposite mility side is not terrorist attack". What is important is that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation, and as such it has no legitimacy or international code to justify attacks on Sri lankan targets.

If Al-qaeda attacked the united states army airbase do you think america will say "bin laden attacked our air force base so since it is a military target this is not a terrorist attack but a legitimate attack"? This shows that there is no point in denying the fact that this is a terrorist attack. Several reliable sources "LTTE Launch Air Raid In Sri Lanka - The World's First Terrorist Air Force", and "Three killed and seventeen injured in LTTE terrorist attack- Katunayake" Kerr avon 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct if you are editing a Sri lankan blog page. This is Wikipedia so lets stay on the NPOV stand and say they are rebels. Rebel's legit military attack is not terrorist attack and as such cannot be branded as one. Watchdogb 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The LTTE's actions are clearly classified as terrorism, hence the more appropriate tag would be a terrorist group rather than a rebel group.Kerr avon 07:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. How can you say all their actions are terrorism ? This is wikipedia and we are not bound by any country but rather by all. So if the whole world would classify them as terrorists then the statment would be appropriate. Furthermore the attack has not been condemed by ANY country including India. However, I am not going to nitpick and going to AGF and let it stay. Thanks for the contribution and making things clear on the talk page. Take care Watchdogb 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the air attack is wrong. Bombing a military airport is NOT terrorism, it is part of war. If they had bombed civilians in an attempt to cause terror (terrorism) then it could be considered a terrorist attack. The fact that an organisation is considered a terrorist group by some countries does not mean that its every military action is a terrorist attack. Even look at Wikipedia's own definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants"." -Bombing an airfield is not directed against civilians to create "terror" but against military facilities. Get your definitions right and keep personal bias out of it.

Removal of "Major attacks" section
I have deleted the "Major attacks" section (and the table) for the following reasons:
 * 1) It is redundant to the main text. Everything noted in the table is already noted, in greater detail, in other parts of the article.
 * 2) In my opinion, it is detrimental to the the overall appearance of the page. Of course, this is just a personal preference and may be ignored.
 * 3) I would argue that the classification of these attacks as "major" qualifies as original research. Indeed, the selection of this particular set of attacks over another is rather arbitrary. For instance, I would consider the assassinations of Gandhi and Premadasa as "major" attacks, but they are not listed in the table. Adding them to the table will not solve the issue because any of the attacks could be considered "major", depending on one's perspective.

If the goal of the table was to present some of the LTTE's deadliest attacks, I think a "Deadliest attacks" section listing the top 5 or 10 deadliest attacks would be more viable. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Black Falcon, given the length of the article, I think it makes it difficult for a reader to go through the entire article and find which incidents would be most notorious. For example someone looking to cite a notable attack will have to go through the entire article to find which are the most significant attacks, unless we create a separate article Notable terrorist attacks.. which would be really silly :)


 * I don't think it's against any Wiki policy to list the incident only in a separate section, and then detail it along with the others. I believe it must happen in quite a few other articles.


 * As for concerns that the listing of them in this section is OR, if you want we could do simple Google searches and list attacks that are frequently mentioned in contemporary news reports. For example this 2005 BBC report was a follow up to the Aranthalawa Massacre and articles such as this often mention the more recent Kabethigollawa Massacre.


 * Releted to your edit of removing the Indian flag from the article, I added the flag to highlight the fact that the attack took take place outside Sri Lanka, somewhat like List of terrorist incidents articles. Bar any other concerns, I'd appreciate if we leave the flag, and in fact add one to the Rajiv Gandhi incident.--<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that a listing of "major" attacks is appropriate given the length of the article. However, I am wary of a list created on the basis of the terms "major" or "notorious". For instance, what makes the 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs any more or less "major" than the assassination of Dissanayake or any other attack? I think a list based on the more objective criterion of "# of deaths" would avoid that problem while still providing readers with a summary of the biggest attacks. I will go ahead and create such a section now, so that we can see what it might look like.
 * As for the Indian flag, I didn't realise the purpose it served. I will revert my change and will also add a flag to the entry on Gandhi's assassination. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created the section with three attacks so far ... I'll stop now to await comments. What do you think of the table format and the idea in general? On another note, could we clarify the year in which the Palliyagodella massacre took place. The Guardian source notes 1991, but the UNHCR source places the event in 1992 (both confirm the date of October 15). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's taken this long for me to reply, I wanted to get back to the article but somehow kept putting it off. Anyway I have no disagreements with calling the section "Deadliest attacks" as opposed to "Notable attacks" if that is what you would like.

Right now, I expanded the table to include all the incidents listed here which have their own articles apart from the Gomarankadawala massacre and 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs (which do not satisfy the deadliest criteria). Because for one, as per Wiki guidelines only notable incidents should have their own articles. 95% of the incidents here shouldn't have separate articles on them, and the notability of the incidents that do articles has not been contested. Also, since you suggested we title it "Deadliest attacks", although I didn't really go through the article fully to confirm it, I would think that the incidents with their own articles would be the deadliest listed here - bar the two mentioned above- and we didn't leave any out.

Any suggestions / disagreements about that? --<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * None at all. There's no point to listing an attack that does not have a corresponding article (unless we want someone to create an article about it). It also seems reasonable that those attacks with articles would also be among the deadliest. I'll probably go through the list later on to check and may make a change or two to the section, but I expect that most of my edits to this article will be limited to trying to improve readability and adding references. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Graphic pictures
Hello, don't you think the pictures are a little graphic for an encyclopedia, I know the LTTE did some pretty bad stuff, but younger wikipedians may be get distressed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be there, I'm just saying that there should be a warning somewhere up top. Preferably before the picture of the child with the top half of their body hacked off. Lawnmowers Rock! 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? We thought about that and we already open a mediation request regarding that here. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is rather strong consensus against the idea of adding disclaimers to pages. I realise that some of the images in the article may indeed fall in the range of what most people would describe as "graphic", but the term itself is entirely subjective ... virtually anything can be considered graphic by someone. For more details, please see No disclaimers in articles. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

presenting the view of a POV as fact
September 22 : The citations given say this

'Definitely, it is the handiwork of the LTTE,'' said Brig Udaya Nanayakkara, Defence Ministry spokesperson. []

A bomb blast hit a passenger bus in eastern Sri Lanka on Saturday, killing one civilian and wounding several others, the military said, blaming separatist Tamil Tiger rebels. []

A bomb attack blamed on the Tigers killed one person and wounded two others on a passenger bus in the east, the military said, []

August 20:

Suspected Tamil Tiger rebels opened fire on a police checkpoint in northern Sri Lanka on Monday, killing four village guards and one civilian, the military said

Tamil rebels hurled grenades and fired a mortar on a post manned by women paramilitary guards, killing five people in northern Sri Lanka, a military spokesman said Monday. 

Suspected Tamil Tiger rebels opened fire on a police checkpoint in northern Sri Lanka - on Monday, killing four village guards and a civilian, the military said. 

May 28:

Lt. Col. Upali Rajapakse of the Defense Ministry information center said a truck carrying police commandos to the capital was hit by the blast in Ratmalana, a suburb of capital, Colombo. He blamed the Tamil Tiger rebels for the blast. 

Colombo - At least six civilians were killed and more than 30 injured in a powerful claymore bomb explosion in the outskirts of Sri Lanka's capital, a military spokesman said Monday. The mine set on a building had been triggered as a bus carrying members of the elite Special Task Force (STF) was passing by at Ratmalana, 10 kilometres south of Colombo, he said. Four males and two females were killed, while most of the injured were persons returning home after work. The spokesman blamed rebels of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eleam (LTTE) for blast. 

A remote-controlled mine detonated Monday near a truck carrying police commandoes in a suburb of the Sri Lankan capital, killing six civilians and wounding 25 people, most of them civilian bystanders, police said. Police immediately blamed the attack in the southern suburb of Ratmalana on the Tamil Tiger rebel group. 

Media Minister Anura Yapa said the blast was the work of the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

''Please do not add nonsense from our GOSL and SLA and present it as facts. Thanks'' Watchdogb 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, so I'm not going to waste too much time here. You think editors are stupid enough to fall for this bs? From the first reference you gave above




 * Did you happen to miss that? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mind pointing out which citation that was? Besides that mind explaining why you removed other attribution to Military on the other incidents when only one (supposedly) have been attributed directly ? Watchdogb 19:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop wasting editor's time by feigning ignorance. It's from the FIRST citation you mentioned above. You pasted text from it above ("Definitely, it is the handiwork of the LTTE, said Brig Udaya Nanayakkara, Defence Ministry spokesperson"), so you obviously saw it, but choose to ignore it. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't. Of course that was the main paragraph on the article. The "Suspected" part is elaborated at the main body of the paragraph. So it does say that, however, it explicitly mentioned who "suspects" whom. Also if the news agency indeed made the decision that the LTTE did it, then there are conflicting reports from other citations that are mentioned (IE one claims LTTE did it and the others claim that "Military" claimed that LTTE did it). In this case we should not try to censor wikipedia and choose one side over the other and explicitly mention who says what (at least mention that one source says this but the others say otherwise). Besides this you have not mentioned reason for removing other explicit attribution from a POV source (one side of the warring party).

Watchdogb 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE
I propose that the contents of this article be merged to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE for the following reasons:

First, per Neutral point of view, "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality". For instance, an "article might cover the same material but with less emotive words". The word 'terrorist' is undoubtedly emotive and moreso than terms such as 'separatist', 'rebel', 'insurgent', and so on.

Second, the adjective "terrorist" has no clear definition. I personally do not dispute that the Aranthalawa Massacre, for instance, is a terrorist act; however, we should not label these acts as 'terrorist' in the article without a reliable source to support that contention (even then, it would technically be a "list of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist"). Otherwise, we delve into original research.

Third, this article and the article List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE currently make a distinction between attacks on civilians and "military and guerrilla style attacks". However, it's not always easy to distinguish between the two. For instance, the 28 May 2007 Rathmalana attack was carried out against a military target (a truck carrying STF personnel) but killed civilians. Merging the two lists would eliminate the need to try to make this distinction.

Any thoughts? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a worthy suggestion, use of the "terrorist" just adds to unnecessary problems and I think for the sake of the community we need to stay away from controversy where ever we can. Sinhala freedom 20:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka should be merged into Human rights in Sri Lanka. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ <sup style="color:blue;"> walkie-talkie  |  tool box  15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree because a good proportion of this article has no RS that claim that this was a terrorist attack. As editors we cannot choose what is terrorist attacks and what is not. Since this article is essentially attacks attributed to LTTE we should merge this into List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE Watchdogb 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree, it should be merged. Thanks Taprobanus 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lahiru, I agree, although perhaps for a slightly different reason. The title of the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka article has problems with WP:NPOV; the title of this article has problems with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, in case you didn't know, if you don't like the title, you suggest a move, not a merge.
 * Second, there was a similar discussion at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks whether to use the term "terrorism" to describe the 9/11 attacks. The overwhelming consensus is, since there are so many reliable sources which use the word terrorism regarding the attacks, it should be used in the article. Similarly, there are countless reliable sources which describe these attacks as terrorism.
 * Third, we been down that road before. After an illegal close by a biased admin, the decision was overturn at review and the subsequent AFD ended with community consensus been keep. You should read the discussion in those places to understand why we have two separate articles -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is no September 11, 2001 attacks. It has neither the sources nor the intent about informing the readers in an encyclopedic manner but a propaganda list that is maintained to use Wikipedia as a battleground. Thanks Taprobanus 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly, this list isn't talking about the September 11, 2001 attacks. But it's talking about the list of similar things that happened since November 30, 1984. In my opinion this list should not be merged with the list of notable attacks because, we were careful in choosing the incidents to the list that go with the definitions of the terrorism. Simply, we took only the incidents with the civilian causalities. By going through the list anyone will notice that in all the incidents with security forces causalities, there is at least a single civilian causality. In other sides this list is the most comprehensive and the well referenced list regarding the attacks of LTTE which is an invaluable source for terrorism and other researchers in the whole world. We all used all the NPOV sources with LTTE attacks(lists), available in the cyberspace and even from 2007 we started to use 3-5 neutral sources to each incident. As we all know, more than 1000 civilian causalities and series of bomb attacks attributed to the LTTE reported within this year, but we chose the most notable incidents only. Thanks -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ <sup style="color:blue;"> walkie-talkie  |  tool box  16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Snowolfd, there is nothing that suggests that a pagemove is necessarily preferable to a merge; it's something that depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Please note that I've proposed only merging the lists, not trimming any content.
 * More to the point, your contention that "there are countless reliable sources which describe these attacks as terrorism", overlooks my second point, that the word 'terrorist' has no clear definition. Even if one source described each of these incidents as 'terrorist' attacks, this would still be a List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and described as terrorist. There has to be a general consensus for every incident that it was a 'terrorist' act, however defined (for most of the attacks, I don't dispute the label, but my opinions are not important; it's the sources that count).
 * I would also like your (or someone else's) thoughts on my third point: the difficulty in drawing a distinction between attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets, especially when an attack on a military target causes civilian casualties. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * commentBlack Falcon, pardon me for asking this. What exactly is the problem in this article which you find un-encyclopaedic ? And what exact incident here, you have any doubts about ? And finally, dont you think priority should be given to the blatant POV,HOAX named,allegation of state terrorism, instead of this ? What made you to question this, when there is an obvious HOAX,POV remains within your reach ? Unless, these questions are addressed i think its pointless to discuss about other things. Especially when you deal with bunch of people who write to racist web-sites and violated WP:COI shamelessly, while others using their own user space provided free of charge by Wikipedia, to magnify LTTE!! And if you expect any of those to engage in constructive discussion,you are misjudging the whole situation. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 04:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Iwazaki, I don't think that the list is unencyclopedic; I just think that the current title is problematic. As I noted above, it's not my doubts regarding the classification of these attacks as 'terrorist' that is at issue ... it's whether the consensus of reliable sources chooses to label these attacks as 'terrorist'. I personally would classify most of these incidents as 'terrorist', but that's my original definition.
 * In response to your second (or third) question: I raised this issue because I felt it needed to be raised. I don't know whether priority should or shouldn't be given to any article, but I have various reasons for paying less attention to the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka article, including that I have more of an interest in paramilitary organisations than states, that I know more about this subject than the other, and that I was busy working on Portal:Africa for the past several weeks. In any case, the fact that there may exist an article with more serious problems has no bearing on the problems of this article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * let me start my reply by addressing your last point, which is others(articles) with serious problems have nothing to do with this. Well, I think you have some how forgotten the fact that we are not talking about just an article, here we are talking about the article which has clearly violated your arguments of using the word terrorism and obviously which is the core point of all the problems related to SL issues, and I would even call it mother of all the problems.Here you are clearly stating that the words like terrorism cannont be classified in this article, because we have doubts. And before addressing your doubts, why don't we address the core, and blatant false accusation,which is not only un-encyclopaedic but also a pathetic propaganda against a democratically elected government ?? If you want to have the article merge just because of doubts(and I ll show you there are no doubts ,this in fact a strait forward case), why ,(even you keep saying this is not your interest, since this is the cause of all the issues) don't you address the more obvious POV fork such a the state terrorism article ?? I think we dearly need to know your thoughts regarding this, as evading this would only shows,duplicity or non-neutrality.
 * coming back to the title of this article, so you have once again said you do believe these are carried out by the LTTE, but you do have doubts about the title of the article, I am getting right here ? Okay, if so, lets first take a look at the organization it self. LTTE is a terrorist organization according to 30+ nations ,including the US and EU.And I hope no one would question this obvious. And we have dictionaries and encyclopaedias giving very good definitions regarding terrorism ..And even with doubts ,when we use mother of all the knowledges, which I believe is common sense, it shouldnt be hard to judge an organization like the LTTE. Then lets take a look at the incidents here. Most of them are blatant,barbaric massacres of innocent Sinhalese and Muslims citizens of SL. So here we have a clear cut issue, where terrorist engage in massacres ,cold blooded mass scale murders, and who are we do judge the words and challenge wording ? How do you even challenge the wording,when just the use of common sense, we could clearly see this as a terrorist engaging in terrorist acts ? And the reason we have two separate articles,has been explained various times and I would appreciate if you take a look at those(AFDs and talk pages), before making it an issue here.Thanks  Iwazaki  会話. 討論 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will reply to your comments in turn. With regard to the first, I will reiterate my initial point: two separate articles may have similar problems, but there is no reason that one can't be fixed until the other is fixed. I still think that the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka article ought to be trimmed and merged somewhere, but my suggestion to merge it to what I considered the optimal target (Human rights in Sri Lanka) failed to gain support, for a variety of reasons. I simply haven't had the time to adequately pursue the issue much further.
 * Moreover, the titles of the two articles are not comparable, since the "allegations of ..." articles makes clear that it is about  allegations of terrorism. In order to be comparable, the title of this article would have to be something like List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and alleged to be terrorist. You have misinterpreted my argument if you think that I oppose the use of the word 'terrorist' in any article title; the term can be used, but it should be used carefully. I also believe you misunderstood my comment regarding my interests: I am more interested in the activities of paramilitary organisations (such as the LTTE and the PIRA) than the activities of states (such as Sri Lanka).
 * I think that the explanation I have provided above is more than adequate and should put to rest any suspicions that I am "evading" the question. Moreover, since the place to discuss problems with the "Allegations of state terrorism ..." article is Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, I see no value in continuing this off-topic discussion regarding that article here.
 * With regard to your second comment: I don't doubt that most or all of these attacks were carried out by the LTTE (I write "most or all" rather than "all" quite simply because I haven't examined every entry). However, that is not the issue. I also personally classify most of these incidents as 'terrorist attacks'. However, even that is not the issue, since that classification is based on my personal definition of the term 'terrorism'.
 * You're right that "we have dictionaries and encyclopaedias giving very good definitions regarding terrorism", but the problem is that each gives a different definition. There is no single, agreed-upon definition of the term 'terrorism'. We can't impose our own definitions since that constitutes original research. If we choose a definition from a reliable source, that is somewhat better, but classification still requires a substantial degree of original interpretation, and the choice of a definition would be mostly arbitrary.
 * I have a question: Why do you think the articles shouldn't be merged? Specifically, how do you propose to address the three issues raised in my initial comment (emotive title, unclear definition, and difficulty in separating distinguishing between attacks on civilian and military targets)? – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RequestBlack Falcon, Here for the sake of the discussion, I am asking you to neglect those who have violated WP:COI,and to ignore their remarks and votes here. AS the policy clearly says,and with the great consensus of the community, disputed editors should stay away from the relevant pages. If you want to engage in a constructive discussion, I hope you would at least stand by and ask others to obey this, fundamental rule. Thank you Iwazaki  会話. 討論 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how WP:COI ties into this thread ... but my goal was only goals were to initiate a discussion on the issue and to address any issues with this article. In any case, a merge is not viable unless there is general agreement on it. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say, but It means everything, especially if you want to make SL related articles neutral. How can you expect us to engage in a civil and neutral way ,when there are editors who writes to site whos whole purpose is to condemn our country and our people ? How do expect us to engage in meaningful discussions when we see obvious POV pushers who are trying to kidnap wikipedia, with their blatant hatred towards one group ? Once again, I reiterate, any consensus should be made among the free-wikipedian writers, not some people who does full time writing in racist web-sites and then bring their POV here to defame the good name of Wikipedia.  Iwazaki  会話. 討論 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Constructive discourse and compromise between ideological opponents may be difficult, but it is not impossible. In any case, I consider the on-wiki behaviour of editors to be more important than any off-wiki affiliations or activities. Many editors adhere to one or another political ideology and all have their biases ... that does not mean they can't write neutrally about the ideology to which they adhere. The reason I can hope for 'civil and neutral' engagement is because I think that users should be judged by the quality of their contributions, which is determined by the content of their edits, not the identity of the editor.
 * As for the applicability of WP:COI, I think two points are important to note. First, while the guideline strongly discourages COI edits, "[e]ditors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace". There is nothing to prevent editors with conflicts of interest (and I'm speaking generally, not necessarily in particular reference to this situation) from participating in discussions about an article, as long as they do so non-disruptively. Second, I don't think the COI guideline is intended to be interpreted so broadly as to discourage editing on the basis of political viewpoints or national or ethnic affiliations. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that the involvement of outside editors (i.e. those who do not edit articles related to the Sri Lankan conflict) is necessary, we can file a request for comment for the article. However, I think we should allow the discussion to progress some more; specificially, I'm interested to see what the response will be to this and the last part of this comment. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd second this. I'd just remind people that it's not a conflict of interest to be ideologically opposed to a topic.  It would be helpful if everyone just avoided calling one another "racist", or what-have-you, since it's pointlessly inflammatory.  If you feel that some users are too biased to comment, and that their bias is hijacking and issue, a good solution is to get outside views via the request for comment that Black Falcon recommended.  --Haemo 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Iwazaki your comments are getting to be gratuitously uncivil again (as I have noticed). It would appear you are justifying incivility due to your objections of other wikipedians viewpoint ("How can you expect us to engage in a civil and neutral way ,when there are editors who writes to site whos whole purpose is to condemn our country and our people"). Criticism is a necessary and important attribute of open discourse as in Wikipedia. While blind faith is what is dangerous. You can't just institute a means to ignore the viewpoints of other users, based on your bias and claims. Are we the community to blindly believe everything you write ? What makes your bias and claims any more important than other wikipedians ? The self-defeating tactics being used by you is deeply hurting the content of your arguments and I am not sure how this helps to resolve anything. I am not quite sure why you would want to weaken whatever you have to say in such a pointless fashion and I am positively hopeful you will see that as an error in judgment. Sinhala freedom 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has a lot of incidents that have been accused on LTTE by the Sri Lankan police and Army but mostly to Defence ministry. They are just accusations and there are, aside from some incidents, no citations for the attacks to be called "Terrorist attacks". I am assuming good faith and thus voting to merge to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE rather than some ridicules name or an AFD. Watchdogb 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a lot of discussion as to my ideaological position in wikipedia :))) to make it straight forward, my pov on this particular article is that what I have said earlier. There is room for one article about Terrorism in Sri Lanka. That should be called Terrorism in Sri Lanka, a good neutral tile and very encylopedic. This article as well as the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka should be merged into it. We already have an article called Terrorism in India. Which seems to be coming along O.K given the sensitivity of the subject the number of India specific editors. If this solution cannot be reached currently the next best solution would be to merge this article into Notable attacks by the LTTE. Any thoughts ?Taprobanus 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)