Talk:Sri Lanka and state terrorism/Archive 4

Removing the 1958 riots
After doing the research to write the Sri Lankan riots of 1958 article, I have concluded that although the state did not to enough to stop the riots, neither did it instigate them, nor did it engage in retaliatory measures large enough to be considered state terrorism. I am therefore removing that section. The Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka page still has a summary of those events, as it should. Tyronen 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kumarapuram Incident
I added an entry for this incident, there are more details here http://www.peacebrigades.org/lanka/slp9603.html, now it seems the GoSL did eventually undertake investigation and punished some soldiers, but it seems the commander who possibly ordered the massacre was also not punished, so it is a grey area if this is state terrorism or not.

Also it seems we have a lot of such cases which are not outright state terrorism but certainly human rites violations, so perhaps we need to either redefine this article or come up with a different article similar to 'notable attacks by the LTTE' which is not restricted to just state terrorism.--Realstarslayer 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it from this list per your comment RaveenS 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nagerkovil school bombing
Please add any further sources or if any of the sources mentioned in the reference can be located would be helpful. Many of them are no longer available on line such as the British Refugee Council newsletters, they only go as far back as 1996 now, or the AP article.--Realstarslayer 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

British Refugee Council Page for the 'Sri Lanka monitor' news letter

The term 'Massacre'
hi RaveenS,

I'm not so sure we want to use the term 'massacre' for each and every incident, for one it comes off as a POV and secondly it waters down the meaning of true massacres. I think it would be better to use a term that describes the actuall attack.. such as church/school bombing, Trincomalee students 'shot and killed' or executed, etc. Likewise for the articles being created for each of the main incidents.--Realstarslayer 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It was also one of the reasons I started the delete request for that 'LTTE Massacres' article too, which was successfuly deleted BTW.


 * See Sabra_and_Shatilla_Massacre, there are lot of articles on masscares in Wikipedia. Lebenese section is full of them. If we google these masscres as I have called them, you will get a wealth of information, so the terms are not original researcg but let us continue this discussion nayway. ThanksRaveenS 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a category called Category:Massacres_of_the_Lebanese_Civil_War, that was my idea, create a category for all these masscres both attributed to the LTTE and the SL government and a sub section on prison massacres when I am done Bindunuwara and kalutara.....RaveenS 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok we can leave it for now then if there is a precedent with other incidents. Regards --Realstarslayer 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice you changed them already, I think that's fine the way it is now, more accurate.--Realstarslayer 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding references
When adding references to this article, please keep in mind to add the same reference to the main article that it links too. Also follw the format established and list them under Source websites and link them up by Thanks RaveenS

Additions removed
I notice that my additions about several events in the 1990s were removed without warning. This does not seem to me appropriate behavior unless the edits were inaccurate, which they were not. They had citations from a neutral source (Human Rights Watch) and were prominent enough to be discussed in HRW's annual reports (more than once, for some of them.) Please in future do not delete material wholesale without discussing first unless it is clearly inaccurate and/or irrelevant. Tyronen 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion in your talk page regarding this. This is about time that an admin will be deciding whether to keep this article or delete. Already people have raised questions as to even the current list has items that can be legally defined as state terrorism. If an Admin deletes this article then there is no point in further discussion. In the to do list let is come up with a strict criteria before any incident can be added. Let' us discuss items before adding because if we are to add all masscres by the Sri lankan government this list will have over 100+ entries. Just like the massacres by the LTTE article it will eventually get deleted anyway. Just my points.RaveenS 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's going to be your attitude, I have changed my position to support deletion of this page and said so on the afd. Tyronen 03:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyronen, not sure if you are misunderstanding his stand? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you would like to with the page? I think all he wants is to make sure that what is added can actually be considered state terrorism, so that it doesn't become a farce like the current 'terrorist attacks of the ltte' page. So I am not sure why you would want this page deleted? Regards--Realstarslayer 04:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I just looked through the history so now I understand what happened. RaveenS I think Tyronen's additions were legitimate and do fall under State terrorism, I think it would have been better not to revert but discuss and change them if needed, in fact it seems I have duplicated one of his additions as well, the Chemmani graves/Somaratne revelations.

Tyronen, though I can understand your frustration at how your changes were handled I don't think deleteing the article helps. What is the alternative then? If something better can come of it then fine, but right now this is the only article on terrorism/human rights violations carried out by the GoSL. If we are going to have a balanced and informative handling of the Sri Lankan conflict we need this article just as much as the Notable attacks by the LTTE one so that both sides of the story are told.

So all I can suggest is to have Tyronen's changes readded and we can discuss each one and tweak as necessary. Regards --Realstarslayer 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I did something bold and did not follow protocol because of the timing factor. Have you noticed why it is taking too long to resolve this AFD versus Syria because incidents in Sri Lanka are not notable enough for many admins and they are legitimately not sure of all these incidents. So my fear is unless we prune this (I even removed Kumarapuram because you said the culprits were found and put in jail) it will get deleted. Adding right now is the wrong thing to do, we should develop the criteria, use the vetting process and then add. Plus the users decision to burn the books because edit decisions shows that we really have to be careful in managing emotions on this list or it will be mess like the LTTE article. I have archived this article so even if it is deleted contents of this can be used to create an counter part to Notable attacks by the LTTE article. Thanks13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See archived of Tyronens additionsTyronen's additions. I have archived it so that we can discuss ho wif they are to be incorporated. RaveenS 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemmani mass graves
I just entered a basic description, but I think this one probably deserves a main article of its own. Also I am not sure what year to put it under, the victims in the grave are thought to be 'disappeared' from 1996, but the graves were discovered in 1998.

--Realstarslayer 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My point would be that it should have it's own entry anyway even if the merits of it in this list can be debated. RaveenS 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of edits
I made some edits at 14:08, 8 August that consisted mostly of reorganization of the text and spelling and grammar fixes. These edits were reverted by an anonymous user. This is the kind of thing that might happen from an edit conflict, but it occurred fully 17 hours after my edit. What on earth is the point of reverting grammar fixes and reintroducing old errors?? I do not know for sure whether this was deliberate or accidental, but either way please be more respectful of others' contributions in future. Tyronen 14:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah that is strange, maybe they didn't pay attention to the actual changes and thought some mass deletes had been made. Oh well. --Realstarslayer 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is anon 64.201.162.1 the same person as RaveenS? I notice that 64 is also the IP that deleted my edits without warning on August 3. Tyronen 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm I don't know any way of telling IP from user name? However I don't think RaveenS would do it? After all he did admit he was mistaken the last time when he removed your edits. Well at least it isn't as crazy as the LTTE article had become so we can deal with these minor issues.--Realstarslayer 16:49, 9 August 2006

(UTC)

Attack on NGO workers in Sri Lanka
It can be a seperate article on its own as we have a pattern of attacks now, starting from the attack on Oxfam during CBK's time to current massacre of a french NGO's workers then that article canbe linked to thsi oneRaveenS


 * The title of the article may be Attack on NGO workers in Sri LankaRaveenS


 * The article also should be linked to NGO article on a subsection dealing with attack on NGO workers in Sudan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka .RaveenS 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who have evidence of State Terrosism by Sri Lakan Security Forces
In all messacure pointed out in the secton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE on the last part there it says no clear evidene ,who wrirtes these articles, does USA has evidene that Binladen is the mastermind of the 9-11 attack. Come on people terrorist wont accept they are engaging in killings Againt lies

Name change
The name of this article is totally biased. None of these cases are proven or acepted by SL athorities. And in the first line of the article it says "ALLEGED" meaning that state terrorism in srilanka is only allegation. Wikipedia doesn't call LTTE, terrorists because it is opinion. In the sameway this article should be named "ALLEGED ATTACKS BY SRILANKAN GOVERNMENT". If no one changes the name I will do it my self. Goodluck coming up with a counter argument. ~suicidebomber~ 21:36 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing in Wikipedia is dicated all is consensus, first make your case well, then let's see. 14:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whaaaa? In english please. ~suicidebomber~ 21:36 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Black July
The claims of 5 deaths and 4 in a point blank range could not be verified as the Associated Press article could not be found..I think here we should stick to the BBC article, which clearly says one death and 40 were injured.Also i added Fact sign to some remarks,in the cases where neither sources were provided nor sources couldnt verified the claims thanks --Iwazaki 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See link It is a neutral source. Not Pro LTTE or Pro SL government. It talks about the 4 people killed by police. ThanksRaveenS


 * actually i made my point about the june 17th incident..Since BBC article looks fair enough i think we should leave it like that.

About the wsw, no i dont think its neutral,may be even worse than the pro-ltte sites..I have been following their articles for a quite a while, and i cant but think that they are too biased towards so-called tamil problems.Sorry, for me its nothing but a another propaganda machine run by PRO-eelamists,whether they support LTTE or not --Iwazaki 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cite credible sources that say that? Or it is simply a personal opinion about WSW. If you think no one was killed then find that credible and nuetral source and add as another point of view. Saying that according so and so no one was killed' then cite. ThanksRaveenS


 * Obviously you have not been following WSW..Okay,just read the aricle which you cited here,and see how starts..Endless criticism of monks and SL government.Though SL govenrment was never invloved in the 1983 riots, WSW accusses it for organizing it !! For them buddhists monks are in the same category of taleban !! They claimed for buddists monks tamils are second class citizens,where are the proofs? ??!! Why they even failed to quote any monks saying tamils are inferior ?? Answer is obvious,its the internet.and everyone having a free ride !!

please,try to find another source to verify their deaths, because WSW article doesnt carry any weight at all. --Iwazaki 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * also,when no one is dead, Newspapers usually dont put them.have you ever seen newspaper headlines like, "bomb exploded, no one is killed" ?? or "jaffna library attacked no one is killed" ?? Either those articles are rare or never get exposed.You are the positive claimant here,and its your duty not mine to give credible sources.


 * See Black July a well referenced article that shows how the government was involved in organizing it. But I will try to get other sources, these incidents happened before the internet age hence little bit diificult. Thanks RaveenS


 * And that is wrong..SL government did not take part in 1983 riotes at all.This dubious claim is never proven and having it as a claim degrades your article by default.So please dont repeat this hypothesis,its totally baseless.

--Iwazaki 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki, please cite credible references for your statments or your hypothesis of lack of government involment in 216.95.23.211


 * you are the positive claimant here,and its your duty to prove things by giving facts,Which so for you have failed to do.Here in this article, which is supposed to show state terrorism against tamils have given 1983 riots as an example,but there is not a single proof which proves its involvement.so the blame your self for hypothesis.Better to say, state ignore the problems or were late in taking actions.Article just echoed the common belief among tamil politicians,attacking people like Cyril Mathew.Also havent you noticed thatno where it says police shot 4 people to death ??.Finally,please sign in ,if you are really interested in having a good debate.Iam not a big fan of anonymous users doing edits in controversial articles.

--Iwazaki 09:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personally attacking the contributer WP:Personal Attack. This is not acceptable in WP. Any one can contribute anonymous or otherwise. It is WP policy. Please stick to subject matter on hand. Thanks RaveenS


 * Please move talk about Black July to here and cite with sources as talk pages are not soap box's. Hope you undertand. ThanksRaveenS


 * no i dont think its necessary.Here in this article you have used 1983 incident to prove state terrorism,so let the talk continue here..This is a discussion page and thats what iam doing right now.Otherwise due to lack of evidence,i would have erased that part already..Still you havent answered by quetions regarding the WSW article, if that article doesnt qualified as a neutral work, i see no point having it here.


 * OK I will state here WSW is not a Pro-Tamil or Pro-Sri Lankan government site. Hence it it is neutral source (see discussion below). Black July is a well referenced article that says it was organized by the government. If you disagree without proper citations then it is your opinion and I have nothing more to say. Please take it to mediation if you prefer, WP policy that that's one way to resolve a conflict. ThanksRaveenS


 * i havent done any personal attack at all..so i dont get what you mean here.I am having a genuine discussion here..There are some flows in the sources and pointing them is not soap box type.WSW is pro tamil site, there is no doubt about it..Didnt you read what i wrote here ?? Didnt you see ,how they start there article by attacking monks and refering them as taleban type !!! I dont know why you keep having this as a source..As for the rest, esp involvement of Gamini dissanayake, i think this is totally baseless..And i will provide evidence you need,please be patient.--Iwazaki 11:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaffna Library
OK ''They burned to the ground certain chosen targets - including the Jaffna Public Library, with its 95,000 volumes and priceless manuscripts, a Hindu temple, the office and machinery of the independent Tamil daily newspaper Eelanadu. Four people were killed outright. No mention of this appeared in the national newspapers, not even the burning of the Library, the symbol of the Tamils' cultural identity. The government delayed bringing in emergency rule until 2 June, by which time key targets had been destroyed.’’  - Nancy Murray, the State against the Tamils in Sri Lanka - Racism and the Authoritarian State - Race & Class, Summer 1984 now Nancy Murray is no Monk hating Eelamist :)) she is Nancy Murray, Director Bill of Rights Education Project in Massachusetts, American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU).'' Thanks RaveenS 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * where does it say, those people were killed by the police ?? you are talking about the state-terrorism, for that you have to prove the direct involvement of the government. Just by quoting things which does not explain SL govenments involvement is not going to prove you at all..Blaming government for its inaction is a one thing,and accussing them for terror is a totally different thing.

--Iwazaki 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The journal article title itself is State against the Tamils in Sri Lanka - Racism and the Authoritarian State - Race & Class, Summer 1984. Now we have atleast 2 instances of references. One the internet article and other journal article. 216.95.23.211 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So ??? WHERE IS THE USAGE OF TERRORISM ?? Are you saying racism and terrorism are synonymous ?? Any racist will automatically become a terrorist ??

for starters,here we are discussing "so-called state terrorism".So please get your path correct,before anything. thanks Iwazaki 09:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Infact the whole quote from Nancy Murray is With several high ranking Sinhalese security officers and two cabinet ministers, Cyril Mathew and Gamini Dissanayake (both self confessed Sinhala supremacists), present in the town (Jaffna), uniformed security men and plainclothes thugs carried out some well organised acts of destruction. They burned to the ground certain chosen targets - including the Jaffna Public Library, with its 95,000 volumes and priceless manuscripts, a Hindu temple, the office and machinery of the independent Tamil daily newspaper Eelanadu. Four people were killed outright. No mention of this appeared in the national newspapers, not even the burning of the Library, the symbol of the Tamils' cultural identity. The government delayed bringing in emergency rule until 2 June, by which time key targets had been destroyed.’’  - Nancy Murray, the State against the Tamils in Sri Lanka - Racism and the Authoritarian State - Race & Class, Summer 1984 Hope this helps. RaveenS 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite. so the alleged involvement of poloce in the killing in not proved.The aricle only says 4 died outright, and dont even use the word police here.And gamini Dissanayake is certainly not a sinhala supremacist,another hypothesis !! could you please give me some proof, other than "she said so" or "he said so" ..And she degraded that article by using the baseless accusations,like supremacist,without giving any facts at all !!! So much for a neutral source !! Iwazaki 09:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Murray is an acredited American lawyer and an ACLU activists and has published number books on State violence. She is not a Tamil or Sinhalese. Regarding the burning of the library she wrote state security men instigated by two ministers burned the library and in the process killed 4 people. WSW says 4 people were pulled by the police and killed. Both the versions says 4 people were killed. Hence we have 2 references saying 4 people were killed. This is without going into the books listed as further reading. Which also state the same. I am amenable to change the sentence to say that four people were killed in the process and leave it to the readers to make up their mind. ThanksRaveenS


 * You have removed the "police" from it..Well i think thats the correct decision as these two articles contradict how those people died.So for time being lets have it like this..

--Iwazaki 11:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
This article has been written from a neutral point of view as all possible points have been cited. It went through and AFD and the discussion was non consensus. There are other series of articles on State terrorism such as State terrorism by Syria and State terrorism by the United States of America. All articles went through AFD and survived. The speedy deletion by a newbie shows that he/she is a sockpuppet who wants this point of view hidden. RaveenS 03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can not justify that Sri Lanka has to have a State terrorism article based the fact that other country's have there own. In fact the USA has funded and carried out numerous acts of violence and rightly so State terrorism by the US article should be available to the public. I have read some of the topics listed on State terrorism in Sri Lanka and would like to give some of my responses.

I would like to site the first sentence on the article:

"Activities that can be termed as state terrorism by Sri Lanka have generally been attacks on alleged supporters of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna or JVP a Marxist and nationalist political party which unsuccessfully tried twice (in 1971 and 1987-89) to overthrow the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka using a violent rebellion..."

This article goes astray even with the first sentence. In your own words these acts of violence were committed by an revolutionary Political party that did not even have democratic strength to over throw the government in 1971. In fact they have not been able to over throw or take control of the democratic process of Sri Lanka even once to date. Other country's do not list a rebellion as a state terrorist act. It is the opposite of the same. It is a terrorist act against the state, be it any ethnic group.

Also you seem to forget that there are two side of this struggle and that if we go deep into the figures and facts of the terrorism by the LTTE...we will be able to fill a separate Wiki.

You should rename this article as terrorism committed against people of Sri Lanka and give balanced facts and details.Vajira K 14 November 2006


 * Thanks for your input, first I think you are a sockpuppet so I will ask a Checkuser on you. Second I failed to see that the first sentence goes astray as you see. If it is a grammatical error let's work on it. All what the article (not me) says is that the first civilian victims were alleged members of JVP. Second please start an article or add to number of articles on terrorism by the LTTE such as Assassinations attributed to the LTTE, Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. How about Civilian massacres by the LTTE ? You should and you can fill Wiki with those articles. Please go ahead and be creative. Until the check user is in I will refrain from further discussion. ThanksRaveenS 15:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Revamp?
Well just going through the article I can see issues that might want to be addressed going into the future, these issues are probably causes for disagreements with other editors about the usefulness of the article and the providence of the editors etc etc.

Well it could just be me or does the article relate to terrorism very mild? I think it requires alot of background knowledge on the conflict and is thus very shallow. Maybe we should delve into causes for State Terrorism and why certain incidents constitute terrorism?--Sharz 11:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Be my guest, go ahead. ThanksRaveenS 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Chemmani
Hi, I reverted the edits you have done to the state terrorism SriLanka article for several reasons.. articles. thanks--Iwazaki 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have quoted from an extremely pro-LTTE site..genocide of tamils, is a site full of ,what we call crap.And wikipedia don' need crap,do we ??
 * you have removed the statement made by the forensic experts..I add it back
 * Legal procedure in SL is not smooth..Its very complex and takes a lot of time to proceed a case..It was the same here..
 * And till 1995 this area was under control of LTTE. so we don't even know the founded bodies were caused by army..it could well be the LTTE too..
 * GOSL started investigations in 1999..If you want I can show you the news-paper


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


 * Your last edit seems pretty fair. The phrases "intense investigations" and "eliminating the possibility" seem a bit like OR/POV, but I'm not going to nitpick. I can't promise that another editor won't come along and take issue with your phrasing, but I'm content to leave it the way it is and move on with my life. ^>^ Like I said, my main issue with your original edit was that you had removed too much. -- Big Brother 1984 04:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not take the discussion to Chemmani mass graves Just a question RaveenS 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

disputed
this will do it for now -- Iwazaki  会話. 討論 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * REMOVED chemmani and other rape incidents as these done by individuals and state did not encourage them to do it...State did not provide comfort women to forces.
 * state did not as a whole involve in the 1983 riots, they even helped the victims.
 * state did not burn the Jaffna library ..Ministers were in Jaffna to support tamil UNPers who were contesting in the election..And these accusations were never proven, mostly come form tamil propaganda and some sinhalese who are funded by NGO
 * World tamil Conference had nothing to do with state terrorism...In fact it has to do with tamil terrorism since it has been proved that tamil militants were there and even made speeches in the event, police had every right to be there..incident was unfortunate, but state has nothing to do with it.


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

Who has the right to call these State Terrorism ??
Why on earth some editors trying to generalize these,when these are obviuous random actions by some Army individuals ?? Do these editors have inherent bias towards a certain group ? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 02:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If a random army personal kill,rape,beat his wife,steal bread from a shop, can we categorize it as a State Terrorism ?
 * If you german tourist engaged in pedophelia, can we call germany a pedophilic country?
 * If a US soldier rape a Japanese girl ,can we add that under State terrorism USA?


 * Firstly, please cut out the innuendo about accusing users involved in this edit war of being LTTE sympathisers, either state your accusations clearly and find yourself besieged by administrators or do not say it, it is entirely unconstructive to discussion.
 * As for the idea of State Terrorism, its widely debated and no real agreed upon definition of State Terrorism can be offered by Wikipedia.
 * However, to address your case examples.


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Issues with sources, yet again!
How is Sangam a reliable source? Also how is NESOHR a reliable source? Pubuman 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Gory Picture
Hey everybody, hey Thusiyan!

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

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

I say: Let's get rid of all the gory pix so that children etc. can read WP articles without getting traumatized. Krankman 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done isint it ? good Taprobanus 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


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


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

vandalism accusations

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


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


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

PS: You should not remove any cn or or tags without citing a proper ref to it. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of what is left is someone saying it is state terror no more connecting the dots Taprobanus 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Well if anyone think Jaffna lagoon massacre is war crime, I would like to point out these four articles for them. All of four articles are categorized as accidents but not as war crimes. If anyone think to continue this discussion on the relevant talkpage, WP:BOLD to do so.
 * * Korean Air Lines Flight 902
 * * El Al Flight 402
 * * Iran Air Flight 655
 * * Korean Air Lines Flight 007 -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Jaffna Lagoon massacre, please see below.

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

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

Torture?
Just wanted to raise a point, as to whether torture and rape, committed by people who are controlled by the state, would come under, "state terror"? It's just a question really and wanted to discuss it with others. Any views? Thusiyan 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again someone has to say it, we cannot make the case for the case. It has to be attested as state terrorism in an encylopedia article But if a resercher says that particular torture or rape is state terror then we include it here. What is more important than this major atticle is garss roots articles on each and every war crime and state terror inSri Lanka. We need hundreds of them before a large article like this will ever become stable. Thanks Taprobanus 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * 
 * Watchdogb
 * Though does not spell it out it has proof. Check state terrorism (article) in wikipedia and see.

22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thusiyan 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


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


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

WP:RS
I don't believe that Tamilnet or a tripod website can be taken to be a RS. As for Green Left Weekly, it is not an international org but a leftist newspaper in Australia. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RS is very clear about this. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen thanks for leaving your non controversal interest in cricket to the nasty world of Sri Lanka conflict. Now like rest of us, you are going to go home everyday thinking about gory civilian massacres and gang raped women rather than beatiful bowling action of Malinga:) Seriously speaking I respectfully disagree with you. I can cite you 3 serious reaserch papers that have analyzed how Tamilnet works. It is no different than a miniature CNN except it restricts itself to reporting on the Sri Lankan conflict of news that is usually censored by Sri Lankan government. I has an editorial board, it has editors (who when named are promptly killed) and field reporters. Its reports are always carried by CNN, BBC, ABC ... usually with the slant that it is pro Rebel. Well if that is true then CNN is pro American and Zee TV is pro Indian. If you wantto continue this discussion please say so and I will post the reaserch papers and by the way can list how Tamilnet in your mind qualifies as a blog ? Thanks Taprobanus 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BBC, CNN and many other such reliable sources routinely carry viewer reports or stuff from 'featured blog of the day' etc.,. That doesnt mean these trivial sources become 'reliable sources'.  If BBC, CNN etc., indeed source their stories from tn.com, I encourage you to cite those sources.  Not the tamilnet ones.  And as for your research papers, please see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH etc.,.  You might get some clues.   Sarvagnya 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tamilnet passes RS because


 * 1.	It has an editorial board
 * 2.	It has an editor
 * 3.	It reviews its news reports for accuracy source
 * 4.	It is used as a primary source by notable media
 * organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.
 * 5.	It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)


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


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


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


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

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

Reverting without comment
The follwing mass revert and removing number of Rs sources was done withouyt any comment. Why ? Thanks Taprobanus 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many reasons, including it has come from some one who writes to racist tamil web sites.You want to know who ? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes go ahead, thanks Taprobanus 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You want a hint ? Coz I really like you to guess it. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do, I want to find the actual reasons for you deleting my additions. Thanks Taprobanus 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC