Talk:List of attacks attributed to the LTTE/Archive 2

Scope of this page
I am wondering about the scope of this page. What's the point of distinguishing it from Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE? What about incidents that can't exactly be called "attacks", such as the recent abduction and eventual release of 21 schoold kids? Maybe this page should be renamed, but I don't have an idea for a better name just now. &mdash; Sebastian 03:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This page was broken off from the main LTTE article some months ago cos it was supposed to clutter the main article. This discussion has more info on that Articles_for_deletion/Notable_attacks_by_the_LTTE. Like I said in the AFD [], right now the reason we have two articles is the Terrorist attacks one should list all attacks while the notable attacks one lists only the most notable one for easy reference.
 * But I do like your suggestion. Maybe we could rename it as something like Notable human rights violations by the LTTE? Then we can list the child abductions, as well as stuff like the Expulsion of Muslims from Jaffna. Any suggestions? --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a clarification this page addresses all major attacks on civilians, military camps and politicians. The Terorist attacks attributed to the LTTE page list only terrorist attacks but not all of them are major Dutugemunu — Preceding undated comment added 1:25, January 6, 2007

Sounds good to me. I'd say we'll give it 24 hours to see if there are any arguments against it, and then move it. &mdash; Sebastian 07:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrorist attacks, notable attacks and human rights violation are all completely different issues.  Terrorist attacks can only be attributed also one has to go through each incident to verify whether it fits the definition of Terrorism that is it is attack against civilians  to  cause fear and carnage in general. Notable attacks are attacks that fits WP:N that is there should be enough notability of these attacks. Of all the articles about LTTE, this is the only WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPOV article. The terrorist attacks by LTTE is a mess of an article still although it can be made into an encyclopedic article if the editors want it to be. Human rights in Sri Lanka with a subsection under LTTE already exits. It is again a WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:RS article. Yes one could expand that section then break off it into a main article eventually called Human Rights violations by  the LTTE. But please leave the only article that provides encyclopedic value to readers alone for the time being. Instead of taking a good referenced article and making it a mess like all LTTE related articles are, why not strategize and create a new article called Human Rights violations by the LTTE.  The only logical merge of Notable attacks is with Terrorist attacks, if and when both become compatible not with Human Rights violations by the LTTE as the subject matters are completely different. RaveenS 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points. Let's look at each of them:
 * completely different issues: I disagree. There is substantial overlap. In particular, many terrorist attacks are attacks on civilians, and all attacks on civilians are human rights violations. For lack of a better word, I will call the three collectively "incidents" in this discussion. My main concern with having separate articles for each category is that it only leads to POV wars. This distinction forces every editor to first of all, before he/she can even write the first word about an incident, focus on and defend the incident's classification, which is often a judgement call.
 * Terrorist attacks can only be attributed: This is not a necessary distinction to other incidents.
 * WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPOV : These policies should apply to every article on Wikipedia. While I can imagine that waiving one of them may make sense in specific situations, I am not aware that there has been a decision to do so. We should all work together to raise all articles to these standards.
 * The terrorist attacks by LTTE is a mess of an article: This might have to do with the requirement that one has to go through each incident to verify whether it fits the definition of Terrorism. However, we should discuss that on the article talk page.
 * Human rights in Sri Lanka already exists: Good point! I'll take a look at that article.
 * please leave the only article that provides encyclopedic value to readers alone for the time being: Good point. I won't insist on changing this article for now.
 * why not strategize and create a new article called Human Rights violations by the LTTE: This is certainly an option. I did not consider it for the reasons given above and because I don't see the big distinction that you're seeing.
 * if and when both become compatible not with Human Rights violations: I'm sorry, I don't understand this point. &mdash; Sebastian 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sebastian, I am taking a Xmas break so this is my last no response. I will see you guys after a 10 day break, that is if I can keep away from this Wikipedia:-((, meanwhile do what ever you guys feel about these articles. I know the Wikiprocess at the end always results in good articles, it just takes a bit longer when those have to do with race, religion and politics :-))) RaveenS 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. Enjoy your wikation! This comes a bit as a surprise - I hope you don't feel you have to take a break? Since you were the only active editor of the "other party", I will try to slow down potentially contentious decisions, but it will of course not be possible to wait 10 days every time. &mdash; Sebastian 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Major military, guerrilla and terrorist style attacks by the LTTE are covered in the 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. We can rename Notable attacks by the LTTE as Major attacks by the LTTE.  Dutugemunu 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that the attacks against SLA positions/troops as opposed to civilians belong in this article? The latter being a clear act of terrorism whereas the former is kind of a military tactic. 124.43.38.102 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Consenus to merge
There is consensus to merge this article, here. I've protected it to stop edit wars til the merge. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of the article
Consensus on Wikipedia isn't a bunch of editors creating a Wikiproject, taking a poll about an article, not letting other editors vote on their project, and then claiming their is consensus. For something as major as completely merging an article, discussions should be done on the article talk page, which is there for editors concerned with this article to discuss the article. That's what has been done before.

Currently, I don't see any consensus in the above discussion to merge the two articles, so it seems obvious that is should remain as it is. To gorge further the consensus, concerned editors are encouraged to vote on the following poll. Please enter you opinion, and also your reasons for voting. In line with Wikipolicy, I don't believe any Wikipedia editor should be restricted from voting here.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not determined through votes; it is determined through discussion. This issue has been under discussion for two months, both on the article talk page and at WT:SLR. A note was even posted here, alterting editors of this article of the latter discussion. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The link to the discussion given here was to the "vote" unless you didn't know, and that was used as "consensus". As you can see above there was no consensus to merge the articles, and the discussion was ongoing at WP:SLR as to whether the articles should be merged. You took advantaged of the fact that I didn't reply to the discussion for 4 days due to my finals, to prematurely close the discussion claiming consensus was achieved. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't reply for 7 days, not 4 (you last posted on Dec. 7 and the merge took place on Dec. 14). Also, the lack of response for a week was not the deciding factor for me; it was the fact that, in two months of discussion, the article's problems were never addressed. Even your comment below just repeats your comment of 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC), completely ignoring my comment of 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC) at WT:SLR. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't 4, but 7 days? That's your argument? As for article problems, who says it has problems? You and your one sided Wikiproject? If you disagree with what I said below, you can reply at article talk, where discussions related to articles take place. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read more closely, you will notice the part of my comment that unambiguously states: "the lack of response for a week was not the deciding factor for me"? I only corrected you because you twice mentioned the erroneous figure of "4 days", and it seemed to be a major part of your complaint. As for your insistence that I reply at the article talk page ... surely you can click the provided link to see my response (in case you missed it, it's here). Your argument is unchanged so my response is also the same. Reply to it where you wish, and I will continue the discussion at the location at which you post your comment, but please stop bringing up these trivial procedural issues. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep

 * This article is not original research as every attack here could be cited to reliable sources describing it as a terrorist attack. Whether editors agree with the definition is not an issue. Verifiability rules dictate that what is important is that reliable citations have been given for all sentences, not that editors should agree on whether the citations are right or not.
 * There are also a large number of other article that have the word terrorist in their title, eg: List of terrorist incidents, Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War, Terrorism in the United States, April 2005 terrorist attacks in Cairo, List of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, indicating widespread community consensus that it is acceptable to describe an incident as terrorist, given reliable citations for the fact.
 * The other argument, that this article is like the List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE aritcle is mute. That article clearly covers military style attack, battlefield offensives for example, that the LTTE has carried out, and this one covers attacks against civilians, for example massacres, car bombing and the like. WP:SIZE dictates that if an article is too large, it should be spilt apart into several sub-articles and merging these two articles will also contravene that policy.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: I definitely agree with Snowolfd4's argument. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lahiru, please see this for an explanation of why Snowolfd's points are invalid. As for the WP:SIZE argument, it's a red herring, since the article can be split on other lines besides "terrorist"/"military", and since WP:SIZE guidelines don't override policies on NPOV and OR. Moreover, some simple copyediting can reduce the size of the article: here (5 edits) I remove about 1KB of text from the article without any real loss of useful conent. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Note this discussion is ongoing on WT:SLR. All replies have been made there and a straw poll has been added there. Please refer to. ThanksWatchdogb (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge
 Cut from WT:SLR on a poll that was already taken on this matter
 * To sum up my comments above: for now, I think we ought to do a straightforward merge List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE and List of military attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE; issues of sourcing, inclusion standards, and other merges can be addressed later. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop!
This is an obvious attempt to game the system. After over a month of discussion with over 7000 words on WT:SLR, a majority of editors was clearly for the merge. (See WT:SLR.) Moreover, the last remaining argument against the merge had been refuted for a week before we decided as a community to resolve the issue and do the merge. Snowolfd4 is clearly disrupting the consensus building process and will be given a warning for that.

For WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, &mdash; Sebastian 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

title
As I clearly explained the title is not reflective of the page content. Attacks by the LTTE is so generalized, it can refer to attacks by the LTTE on demonstrators or attacks by its hockey team on the Sri Lankan football team. Please give the page a meaningful title. I am explicitly renaming the page to reflect its purpose and content Dutugemunu (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A consensus was achieved after much debate. Your concern was taken care of on the discussion. Please refer to the relevant section of discussion. Note any further move may result in a block. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

merge
I have finished moving non-notable terrorist incidents into Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. . Only notable incidents now left on Notable attacks by the LTTE. This shoudl clearly distinguish the separate scope of these pagesDutugemunu 13:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should leave it aloneRaveenS


 * I'm happy that you both agree, so I'll drop my objections. [[image:SNive.gif|25px]] &mdash; Sebastian 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We must also start a terrorism page for the terrorism done by sri lankan state. User:Rinothan2 —Preceding comment was added at 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from:. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Issue
The Copyright Issue has been resolved with a rewrite of the sections associated with the cited sources (1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1997). The new article was been re written by both me and Cossde.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you should copy the contents of the temporary page to the main article and remove the copyvio tag.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Seperating civilians attacks from government attack
I think it would be better if the attacks against civilians were separated from the attacks made on the government. (making two seperate pages). Compared to the "List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces", this one looks too clustered and un-organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airjordan2k (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean but frankly there are too many of these lists - we don't need another one. My preference, which I've mentioned before, is for this article to include only civilian attacks, mirroring List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010903_1_n.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615103423/http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2011/6/67843.html to http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2011/6/67843.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615103423/http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2011/6/67843.html to http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2011/6/67843.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050320003919/http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1995_hrp_report/95hrp_report_sasia/SriLanka.html to http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/erc/democracy/1995_hrp_report/95hrp_report_sasia/SriLanka.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626151455/http://www.ceylontoday.lk/71-15434-news-detail-gamini-dissanayake-the-last-of-men.html to http://www.ceylontoday.lk/71-15434-news-detail-gamini-dissanayake-the-last-of-men.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

POW execution during the Battle of Mullaitivu
@Okiloma, please desist from removing cited content and engaging in WP:POV pushing. Cossde (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have readded the Mullaitivu POW execution to the list with addtional ref. Cossde (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the US link. Really helpful. I've also added 2 more links but removed the Chandrika government's propaganda story. Please desist from adding propaganda & non-factual content into Wikipedia as it's against the base rules of Wikipedia.Okiloma (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Okiloma, both the refs you had removed have been recognized in Wikipedia as WP:RS, just as the same way the ref you added. Therefore don't propoergrate your personal views as facts thank you very much. Cossde (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I never questioned the credibility about the newspapers. I only doubted the piece of info that was in the ST, as no one ever talked about those 207 or gave furhter explanation after the battle. The numbers are not accurate as every newspaper gives their own numbers, like a propaganda. But I've come to conclusion that let's leave it without mentioning the numbers. But I'm still strongly against the Hashim, Ahmed's fictional story that the Lankan soldiers recaptured the Mullaitivu camp during the battle. This never happened in the history of Sri Lanka until 2009. I'm strongly against the fictional stories and I'm removing it. Okiloma (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to your removal of a WP:RS. You can not simply remove a RS just because you don't agree with it. So far you have not given any prof of what you claim. Cossde (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to your addition of a non historical non-factual content. If Sri Lankan military has ever done so, kindly show me a claim by the government or the Lankan military where they claimed that they have "recaptured" the M. military base as claimed in that source during the landing. Okiloma (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Okiloma, your opinions are your own even if its right or wrong. In Wikipedia we avoid adding our personal opinions (WP:NPOV) and add content supported by WP:RS even if these give opposing views since in history its hard to know whats fact and fiction. That said, can you tell me in which page of Ahmed's book he says the base was recaptured? Cossde (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)