Talk:Sri Lanka and state terrorism/Archive 5

?? Who are they ??
This whole state terrorism allegation things seem to come from 2 sources.One by an unknown writer(claiming to be Sinhalese) and other from prominent but controversial professor. While neglecting that so called Sinhalese writer simply because his existence it self is in doubt, lets take a look at the professor. He is ethnic tamil and a close relative of former TULF leader. Well known for his sympathy towards his own race,which is tamil. Hence I am not sure his remarks can be taken as neutral.His works, such as buddhism betrayed, are heavily promoted in racist tamil web sites,such as tamil canadian for which above editor writes extensively.No wonder he wants to keep his sites here  Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason there are only "2 sources" is because you deleted all the other ones, including Chandrika Kumaratunga, who was President of Sri Lanka for 11 years. As for Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, he is a Harvard University professor who specializes in Tamil studies, religion, and politics. Regarding your astonishing attempt to describe him as "Stanley Tambiah whose uncle was a former leader of a ethnic tamil party", please review poisoning the well. I view your outrageous deletions and well-poisoning as mere vandalism; in accord with WP:REVERT I am now informing you that I will be using the admin rollback to revert any such edits in the future. Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, please review WP:NOR, which says not that all sources have to be neutral, but that significant views must be represented fairly. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * first, the introduction quote from 2 sources, one by a unknown writer and other by a tamil professor who is related to tamil politicians. And could you please tell me how this become neutral ? he may be a harvard professor, but is that relevant ? Just because he is harvard professors every thing he says become heavenly ? have you read what he wrote about buddhism is his budhism betrayed book ? So even with his anti-buddhist remarks, you still make him valid source to use in Sri-lankan related matters ? Could you please explain how did you come to this decision ? And please tell me, what's wrong sending the army to north? Don't you think is inherently comical to call the action of sending forces to north as state terrorism ? Waiting your replies. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He's a Harvard Professor who studies and writes on these topics, and, as such, is considered a reliable source, period. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether its harvard, Todai or university of timbaktu, its not relevant. I have shown you he is not reliable in this case. And all you say is ,since he is harvard he must be telling the truth !!! Is this all you have to say in this matter my friend ? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't said that he's telling the truth. I don't know if he's telling the truth. However, WP:V is quite clear that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". It's the first sentence of the policy. Also, you haven't shown anything that makes him "unreliable", aside from your personal opinion, which means nothing. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg my friend, do you seriously think the following passage worthy enough to be in the article.. I think its amusing and hilarious !! I could count 5+ blunders in this.Because of the Sinhalese army occupation of Jaffna and the state terrorism let loose on the people, hostility began to grow and the emotional division between Sinhalese and Tamils became more acute. A group of highly organized young Tamil militants, first calling themselves the New Tamil Tigers and later the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, emerged in 1976 to confront the government terrorism by bearing arms Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Review WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Needed only 2 minutes. This is what it says,The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.. And how on earth these sources are reliable ? care to explain ? I have already shown you why they failed WP:RS. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing seriously wrong with the section that would justify its wholesale removal. Although one can make a case that it needs to be reordered, contextualized differently, and/or balanced with opposite opinions, the information itself is stated neutrally and reliably sourced. I would suggest only two changes:
 * The sentence "Experts, such as Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, have termed ..." may need to be reworded as it gives the impression that all or most experts agree with Tambiah's evaluation. This may indeed be the case, but it would have to be supported by a source. I think something like "Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, a leading social anthropologist at Harvard University, has termed ..." is more neutral and still conveys the idea that Tambiah's opinion is an expert one.
 * At some point, the article should also cover responses to these various allegations (perhaps in a separate section) so as to ensure neutrality. Of course, this is another matter and does not justify deleting a whole (sourced) section. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Books published by University presses are generally considered to be reliable. Also, the President of Sri Lanka would generally be considered a reliable source when it comes to statements that Sri Lanka practised state terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon, appreciate your comment but there're a few problems. For one, "exceptional claims need exceptional sources" .  Claims like "state terrorism", "ethnic cleansing" etc., are "exceptional claims" and if all they have for sourcing is a lousy statement by a known partisan, I am sorry but it has to be removed even if it is cited.  If there is indeed state terrorism, I'm sure BBC and Reuters and The Hindu and others would have called it so.  These are the ones who cover the conflict the most and none of them make any such claims.  And as for Kumaratunga, her statement(if any) can only be used to buttress a point once it has been established beyond question by non-partisan, non-'political axe to grind', RS sources.  And even with such sourcing, it is imperative that the denials and rebuttals are also given space.  If that is not done, the article will atleast have to live with a POV tag.
 * Also, please take a look at other related articles. This kind of POV pushing, UNDUE and WEASELing is a problem on scores of related articles.  Iwaziki is one of the very few editors on wikipedia who is spending valuable time and patience to keep these articles as clean as possible and it is a little harsh to pull him up for perhaps losing his patience for a moment. Sarvagnya 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, it's true that exceptional claims need exceptional sources, but also keep in mind the scope of this article: allegations of state terrorism. The article itself should not assert the existence of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, but should only report allegations. Personal opinions on the authors aside, the sources noted in the section are reliable. More importantly, all of the content is attributed directly to the authors. I agree that the denials and rebuttals need to be given some space, but that's a matter of adding content, not removing it. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have reverted your two recent edits to the article, where you added "Some groups and individuals sympathetic to Tamil terrorist groups in Sri Lanka" (unsourced POV) and labeled Stanley Tambiah a "pro-rebel anthropologist" (WP:BLP violation in the absence of sources). Black Falcon (Talk) 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The BLP vios were inadvertant and thanks for reverting it. Anyway, I've rewritten the lead providing context to the accusers' POV. And since you insist that 'various groups' automatically includes 'terrorist groups'(i dont buy that), I have also added a line stating that the govt., has infact proscribed 'some' of the 'various groups' as terrorists themselves. This is required for balance. If you have any issues, please discuss. Sarvagnya 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My main issue is with the second sentence: "They characterize certain instances ...". I think it ought to be removed to improve content flow and for the sake of balance (why emphasise the governments reaction to the JVP uprisings). In addition, do the sources just characterise certain instances as state terrorism or do they claim the existence of a general pattern of behaviour? The sentence implies the former, but my experience with scholarly literature on state terrorism is that it is generally the latter. Other than that, it seems mostly fine. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me some time. I will reword or reply or both.  Sarvagnya

Original research
All sources used in the article must refer to "state terror". I've removed a bunch of stuff that was based on original research, though there may be more. Please ensure in the future that citations refer directly to the subject of the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, if a controversal subject such as this needs to become a true article of worth all policies have to be fully applied. Thanks Taprobanus 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Jayjg.Lustead 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat, every single source must refer to state terror. Every single one. Any sources that do not refer to state terror will be reverted. That's simple. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Not so fast.  See below.  Sarvagnya 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And btw, Jayjg, who was it that your 'orders' were meant for? Surely not the 'lankan' editors I hope. Sarvagnya 02:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly that fast. See WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont have to see WP:NOR. I've been here long enough and I know what it is perfectly well.  So just stop throwing tantrums and come back to terra-firma.  Sarvagnya 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously do have to see WP:NOR, since you are violating its contents. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed citation
From the text,

That is totally false as no where on page 116 of the book has he said the Sri Lankan state has committed acts of "state terrorism" during "1971 JVP Insurrection (Sri Lanka), the 1987-89 JVP Insurrection (Sri Lanka) and the Civil war". Hence I added the totally disputed tag. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Context to the allegations
I added back the sentence in the lead which describes when these allegations are supposed to have taken place, as the only allegations given here occurred during the JVP uprisings or the LTTE conflict. It's important to note that the government isn't alleged to just alleged to go around killing people. All the allegations occur during the governments handling of members of the terrorist organizations. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do the sources just characterise certain instances as state terrorism or do they claim the existence of a general pattern of behaviour? The sentence implies the former, but my experience with scholarly literature on state terrorism is that it is generally the latter. Indeed, allegations of "state terrorism" almost by definition involve accusations of a pattern of planned/organised violence. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As explained above, first of all, all sources must refer to state terror, per WP:NOR. Second, poisoning the well is unacceptable. Third, "terrorist" is a word to avoid. Fourth, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Snowolfd4, I'm putting you on notice, if you make edits like this in the future I will be using admin rollback to revert them. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and All sources must refer to state terror. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hellooo. All sources must refer to state terror - says who?  A source will refer to "state terror/ism" only if that was the point it was trying to make.  Do not remove sources used as citations to support other facts.  If you want a two-bit Uthayan's opinion to find space here, you'd better warn the readers of its leanings.  Sarvagnya 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about "state terror". Therefore all sources will refer to "state terror", per WP:NOR. If you want to talk about another topic, find other articles. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from adding "who fund the Tamil Terrorist LTTE organization and without whom the LTTE cannot survive". This sentence is 1 ) out of the context (how the heck does this relate to the topic at hand) 2) As jay has pointed out, this is poisoning the well]. 3) How can you prove the whole community funds LTTE ? 4) Violation of [[BPL as some of the country that the Tamil diaspora reside in has banned funding LTTE and accusing all of them of funding is unacceptable Watchdogb 12:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone who has access to the Piyadasa (1986) and Tambiah (1984) sources please check whether the second sentence of the introduction is substantiated? Do the authors indeed just characterize "certain instances" as state terrorism or do they allege a general pattern of action? Scholarly definitions of state terrorism involve some element of intent and planned action on the part of the state. I've never seen an academic work use the label of "state terrorism" merely for a handful of events. I do not have the books, but I have a hard time believing that the current wording is an accurate representation of the sources. If my suspicions are true, the sentence needs to be removed (or, at least, reworded). This is aside from issues of poisoning the well by adding the adjective "terrorist" before JVP and LTTE. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not commenting about Piyadasa book because the author is a know Tamil nationalist activist and his book cannot be regarded as a reliable source, but Tambiah only says
 * "The government (i.e. the "state") ... is not a stranger to this use of organized force (he DOES NOT use the word "terrorism" to describe the government's actions) ... then there is the desperate armed resistance and guerrilla action ... of Tamil youth ... (who are) engaged in terrorism ... Third, there is the deadly terrorism and intimidation practiced by the armed forces.
 * He makes the distinction very clear that the actions of the armed force (i.e. the military) are often seperate from the government (i.e. the "state" as used in "state terrorism"). Which is derived from the fact that the alleged acts of "terrorism" are not ordered by the government (as what happens in a lot of war time situations à la Canicatti, Mai Lai, Haditha etc.)
 * The remainder of the allegations mentioned are supposed to have taken place during the civil war or the JVP insurrections. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also took a look at the reference and I am convinced that it does not talk of "state terror". If the text makes claims of "state terrorism", then the citation has to make explicit mention of it.  Since this citation doesnt make any such mention, I have removed it.  Sarvagnya 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In order to be able to write that the author accused the Sri Lankan government of state terrorism, his book must use exactly those words. If it uses any other words, we must rewrite the sentence or remove it altogether. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tamil daily Uthayan
I have revised the sentence to include the part about having "close links" to the LTTE, but have replaced the POV "Tamil terrorists" wording with a descriptive/neutral/adjective-free "LTTE". I hope this revised wording can serve as a compromise. As far as the sentence that the Tamil diaspora supports the LTTE, that information is relevant in the articles on the LTTE and the diaspora. In the context of this article, it constitutes poisoning the well (as noted in the section above). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So in your opinion, saying Uthayan has close links with the LTTE is okay, but saying the diaspora fund the LTTE is not okay? And in the same comment as well.
 * If the allegation by the diaspora is to be included, it is important to mention that they are the ones who openly support the LTTE, who are engaged in the civil war during which these acts are alleged to have taken place.-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with stating Uthayan has close links with the LTTE becasue it is a single organisation (i.e., a unitary actor). The Tamil diaspora is not a unitary actor. As for your two most recent additions:
 * Noting that Uthayan is "pro-LTTE" when the sentence already states that Uthayan "has close links with the LTTE" is redundant, and which is why I removed it.
 * The wording of "Many acts associated with the Sri Lankan civil war have been termed as acts of "state terror" by some members of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora who fund the Tamil Terrorist LTTE organization and without whom the LTTE cannot survive" is potentially libelous as it implies that those members of the diaspora who have alleged state terrorism in Sri Lanka fund the LTTE. I'm sure there are those who (publicly) allege state terrorism that do not fund the LTTE and those that fund the LTTE but do not (publicly) allege state terrorism. The part about "without whom the LTTE cannot survive" is original research. Sure, the LTTE is heavily dependent on overseas contributions, but that doesn't automatically translate to "cannot survive" without it. Also, could you please stop adding "Tamil Terrorist" before every instance of LTTE as if it's part of the official name. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that the sentence about tamil diaspora accusing the Sri Lanka of state terror is taken off. Is there something wrong with the sentence ? I know the other wording is incorrect (funding and ect) but the accusation is also taken off. Is there any particular reason ? Watchdogb 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Reactions" section for two reasons. First, the supporting source was by the AHRC and so could do with direct attribution (see this subsequent addition I made). If there is a source that specifically makes mention of the Tamil diaspora, a similar sentence ought to be re-added. Second, the section was one of the focal points of the ongoing dispute and I thought that deleting it in favour of a new subsection (see above link) was the best way to resolve the issue. I hope that explains my removal. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

General comment - If there is reference throwing light on the political stances of the accusers, we have to make sure that it is mentioned in the article. For example, if we were to get a reference indicating that any of the individuals or 'groups' is sympathetic to the rebels(i'm not saying they are), we have to mention it in the article. We just cant pass of biased opinion as an unbiased one. Of course, OR like "...without whom ltte would not survive..." is to be avoided. Sarvagnya 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. However, there is NO WAY anyone can say Tamil diaspora fund the LTTE. Sure, some might but we cannot say who do and who do not. Also there are many prominent people of tamil diaspora. Saying the whole community supports/funds ltte will be violating BPL as there are some that people who are included in wikipedia. Watchdogb 22:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. If some members of the Tamil diaspora donate to the terrorists, then we have to make a mention of that.  Of course, we also have to be careful with the wording so as not to convey any info not supported by the sources.  Sarvagnya 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree. We should only consider noting that if those members of the diaspora who allege state terrorism in Sri Lanka are the ones funding the LTTE. Since there are people who fund the LTTE but do not publicly allege state terrorism and people who publicly allege state terrorism who we cannot prove contribute to the LTTE, such a statement is unnecessary. This was not the case with Uthayan because it (unlike the Tamil diaspora) is a single entity. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I disagree with you and infact that is what I sought to convey in the second sentence of my previous response(above). And while we're being so very politically right, we should also be careful not claim that the entire 'Tamil diaspora' population is dubbing it 'state terrorism'.  If only a miniscule minority of the tamil diaspora is calling it state terrorism, then we should only go that far.  That said, I dont think it is unreasonable at all to conjecture that a significant number of the ones who are alleging state terrorism are also donating to the terrorists.  Of course, to say that in the article, we'd need a citation.  Sarvagnya 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Naturally. The claim that "The Tamil diaspora accuses the GOSL of state terrorism" is an exceptional claim and, most likely, untrue. Any statement to that effect must recognise that not all overseas Tamils do this and must, more importantly, precisely reflect the source. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So is it then possible to add the statement about the Tamil diaspora accusing the Sri Lankan state of terrorism. There are substantial allegation going around (specially in NA) to warrant a mention. Watchdogb 00:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to exclude such a statement, as long as it is expressed neutrally and accurately attributed to a reliable source. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All sources will refer to "state terror", the topic of this article, or they will be deleted. Period. Refer to WP:NOR for more detail. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy and sources
I'll try to explain one last time. For starters, stop trying to throw your weight around here. You're impressing nobody. And secondly, lose your weird logic about sources. And lose it now. If you are going to say that x,y,z called it "state terrorism", in the interest of NPOV you also have to(if you have sources) tell the readers of their political leanings. And the citation you use to prove their political loyalties, need not have the words "state terror". If you think it should, explain why before you start throwing your weight around. Sarvagnya 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, you can't ignore WP:NOR, which states right in the opening paragraphs that you must "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". The topic of this article is, in case you have forgotten, state terrorism in Sri Lanka, the requirement is highlighted in the lead for a reason, and this article will adhere to it. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn it. Stop harping on NOR.  Nobody is doing original research here.  The citation is only being used to show the accuser's for what they are.  Sarvagnya 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you stop inserting original research, I'll stop "harping" on it. The policy is quite clear: "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And can you give me a diff of where I've inserted "Original research"? And what does that have with your vandalising the article by removing cited content?  Sarvagnya 06:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were to go by your opinions, we'll soon be blanking half of Wikipedia. Fortunately, the community has no place for such ridiculous comments. "Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another'". Even read that bit? Or did you just stop reading after seeing the words you like, as in the Thambiah citation?
 * And, by the way, it may actually benefit you to actually read the topics of articles you attempt to edit. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of stuff on Wikipedia that should be deleted. WP:NPOV doesn't over-ride WP:NOR, and in any event, your insertions are also a violation of WP:NPOV, which says that all significant views must be "represented fairly and without bias". In fact, it states "This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Insisting that various groups you don't like must be described as "terrorist" not only violates the fundamental rule of WP:NPOV, but also violates the statement that you must Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. That's also bolded in the original. See also WP:WTA, and poisoning the well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding the heading of this section, please review WP:TALK, which states Never address other users in a heading. It's also in bold in the original for a reason. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Sarvagnya, I note you have removed this statement and citation on the grounds that "every source must refer to state terror". Please explain your actions here in light of that statement and removal. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've now stopped reading the talk page as well. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First it was "Oh, and All sources must refer to state terror". Then "you must "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Now, "it's a violation of WP:NPOV". What next? If you have any other concerns regarding the wording of the section they can be addressed through discussion. Simply blanking sentences you don't like is vandalism.
 * In any case, citations which call the LTTE a terrorist" organization are from sources that are a zillion times more notable than those who allege Sri Lanka committed state terrorism. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits have multiple problems, and thus I have explained all of them. Your response, however, does not deal with your policy violations. WP:NOR says that cited sources must be directly about the topic of the article, which is "State terrorism in Sri Lanka". The topic is not the LTTE. WP:NPOV says that views must be "represented fairly and without bias", that this is "non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Insisting that various groups you don't like must be described as "terrorist" not only violates the fundamental rule of WP:NPOV, but also violates the statement that you must Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. WP:WTA says you should avoid using the word "terrorist" to describe groups. Please respond directly to those issues. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) Snowolfd4, a few comments. First, the LTTE's designation as a terrorist organisation is disputed (the fact that you and I consider it as such makes no difference) and so, per WP:NPOV, should be explicitly attributed rather than presented as fact. Second, there is no reason to add "terrorist" before JVP and LTTE. The sentence, as written, did not claim they were the parties alleging state terrorism. Thus, the issue of exposing source bias is not relevant to this case. Third, the second sentence should be deleted in entirety because you stated above that the sources do not actually use the term "state terror". Thus, the statement that "they characterize certain instances ... as state terrorism" is inaccurate. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Madness. This is utter, complete, and total madness.  NPOV does not allow us to designate organizations as terrorist in the articles that we write.  Someone has a grave misunderstanding of NPOV.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making up the fact that LTTE is terrorist. It is cited.  LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation around the world.  And in any case, that is not the issue here at all!!!  Read before you comment. Sarvagnya 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by about three dozen countries. Even if every single country called it a terrorist group, we should still not label it as such (per NPOV). The term "terrorist" is not sufficiently well-defined as to allow us to apply the label as fact. We can state, "the LTTE, recognised by 30+ countries as a terrorist organisation", but can't write "the terrorist LTTE". That is part of the issue here (with the second sentence of the introduction). Black Falcon (Talk) 06:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If "terrorism" is not clearly defined, then "state terrorism" is even less well defined!(see state terrorism). We should then be deleting this article!!  But that is besides the point.  I am talking here about Jayjg's totally ridiculous and unreasonable stance that every citation has to have the article title string in the article!!!  In other words, what he's claiming is in an article titled "History of India", every citation in the article should have the string "History of India" in it!!  That is NONSENSE!!  Sarvagnya 06:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And falcon, as for that "second sentence" I asked that you give me some time. I will remove or reword or explain it myself.  There is no need for any rv warring about that.  That fake thambiah citation was there for so long and none of you lost any sleep over it.  The second sentence in the lead is the least of our concerns right now.  If things can be allowed to settle for a bit, I will work on that sentence myself.  Sarvagnya 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think Jayjg's point is that any source, irrespective of its use, must use the terms "state terror". Instead, I think he means that in order for us to write that a given source alleges state terror, the source must use those exact words. This is to prevent original research, which can become an issue since there is no clear/undisputed definition of "state terror". Black Falcon (Talk) 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my point is actually that all sources used in this article must explicitly discuss "state terror" in Sri Lanka. They don't all have to use the exact term "state terror" - for example, they might say that the Sri Lankan government or armed forces engaged in "terrorism" - but they all have to be about "terror" or "terrorism", and about accusations that Sri Lanka engages in it. One cannot bring sources about other topic to construct arguments in this article, as we must be assured that all sources are directly relevant to this topic, rather than some original research conveniently developed by some editor with an ax to grind. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from adding things to the lead sentence that has no relation with the topic at hand. Also how can you say "LTTE is terrorists". 33 Countries which is less than 33% of the world labelled them terrorists. Thats not enough to warrant a suffix Terrorist. I also do not think what Jayjg and Falcon are saying is nonsense. Please refrain from WP:NPA. Please comment on the content and not the contributer. Watchdogb 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken off the disputed tags from Involuntary disappearances because no one has said why its disputed. It's very well cited to a NPOV source. Watchdogb 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Uthayan, again ...
The current sentence in the "Involuntary disappearances" section reads: "The pro-LTTE Tamil daily Uthayan, which has close links with the LTTE, has called it 'state terror'." This is unnecessarily redundant: either "pro-LTTE" or "which has close links with the LTTE" should be removed. I personally prefer retaining the more concise and less problematic "pro-LTTE" or "pro-rebel", since the part that Uthayan "has close links with the LTTE" may need to be explicitly attributed, further complicating the sentence structure. What does everyone else think? Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, this is a minor question of cpediting. What I want to get out of the way first is Jayjg's unbelievably ridiculous reading of WP:NOR.  If you can tell Jayjg that he is horribly wrong and if he can stop vandalising the article for a bit, we can then get down to sorting out issues like this.  Sarvagnya 23:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please tone-down the debate and keep it within the realm of civility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you stop removing prose that provides context from the lead. The lead only summarises the article and doesnt have to be cited every word of the way.  If you still think some citations are necessary for the lead, feel free to use the  tag.  Do not vandalise.  You dont own this article.  Sarvagnya 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would kindly suggest you stop using the term vandalism to attack other editor's edits. See WP:LEAD and WP:V. Add sources and the content can go back. Not before. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hellooo.. If you are going to write a POVfork of an article based on some opinions, you also have to tell the readers where the opinions are coming from. You cant pass off LTTE's or its sympathisers' (like Uthayan) views in a matter-of-fact tone as if it was the opinion of uninvolved, neutral, third parties!!  That would be like passing of Al-Qaeda or Taliban's views about the US without letting people know who they are!!  And do you need a source to say that the SL govt denies these allegations!!  Gimme a break!  Sarvagnya 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look: I do not know you or any other editor, and I have not given you my permission to address me in such colloquial terms. I am here to edit this article, not to discuss editors or the subject of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look: I've explained why context is necessary.  I've explained why its necessary to tell people early on where an opinion is coming from.  This is required in the interest of NPOV.  Even Black Falcon has agreed with me on that count(see discussions above).  So if you are really here to 'write' the article, go and add back the content that you had blanked from the lead.  And then, we'll talk.  Sarvagnya 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify ... I think noting Uthayan to be pro-rebel is appropriate; I think adding the adjective "terrorist" before JVP or LTTE is highly inappropriate. For one thing, the label "terrorist" is far more vague and disputed than "pro-rebel". In addition, we are noting that Uthayan is pro-rebel because we are discussing their claims. The second sentence of the introduction does not discuss the claims of the JVP or LTTE. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never myself condoned adding "terrorist" before either JVP or LTTE. But just as we want to be so politically right about it when it comes to 'terror' groups, we also have to be equally, if not more, politically right about democratically elected governments of sovereign countries.  SL is a respected state across the world; is a member of the UN, the SAARC and other recognised bodies and we cant simply go against such overwhelming and impeccable credentials and carry out proxy smear campaigns against them(or any such 'bonafide' nations) in the name of NPOV.  We cannot use isolated opinions(even if only of respected academics) to unilaterally supersede the good standing that SL commands around the world.
 * It is a fact that the LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist outfit not just in SL but by dozens of other countries(amounting to probably half of humanity, maybe more) and it is also a fact that LTTE, JVP and others are involved parties in the conflict. We cannot and should not be passing off their opinions without disclaimers.  As for Uthayan, it is a cited fact that it is pro-LTTE and there is no harm in calling them "pro-LTTE".  We're not calling them "pro-terrorist".  And wherever we use the word "terrorist", I suggest that we wikilink it to terrorist and lets do the same for "state terror" too.
 * Also, in the interest of NPOV, we have to note in this article that several other mainstream media including internationally respected agencies like the BBC, CNN, Reuters, the Indian media, etc., (all uninvolved parties) who routinely(and most widely) cover this conflict have never called it "state terrorism". Also no attempt should be made to conflate war crimes and state terrorism; "war crimes", unlike "state terrorism" are fairly well defined in that they're punishable under international laws(see War Crime). And in any case, this is one hell of a POV fork of an article and should be merged asap with Sri Lankan civil war. Sarvagnya 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not allow you to put POV "disclaimers" in front of (or after) descriptions of groups of which you disapprove. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, it has nothing to do with whether I approve or disapprove of a group. And secondly, which part of WP:NPOV says that, your highness?  WP:NPOV, if anything says that you ought not pass off a biased or 'invested'/'involved' opinion as if it were neutral, uninvolved, third party opinion. Sarvagnya 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, of course it does. And secondly, I've already explained this to you: [WP:NPOV]] says that all significant views must be "represented fairly and without bias". In fact, it states "This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Please quote the part of WP:NPOV you imagine supports your POVing. And third of all, please read WP:CIVIL. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its simply not upto you to tell me that I disapprove of a group. I'm neither Tamil nor Sinhala.  I dont have any axe to grind here.  And talking of civility, I'd rather you start off by explaining several of your edits, particularly this one.  Being an admin, you should've known better than vandalise somebody else's comment in a bid to misrepresent them.  Sarvagnya 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so that everyone knows because the Sarvagyana account holder brought up the issue about the account's ethinicity. This particular account is very active in editing Kannada related articles and is known for conflicts with Tamil language and Tamil people related articles and editors. The account is also very active in conflict related subjects such as Self respect movement and articles about the ethnic group Marathi from India. It should be noted that in India, there are ethnic problems between Tamil-Kannada and Kannada-Marathi also certain caste groups have problems with the protest movements such as the Self respect movement. So the account holder cannot claim to be an impartial third party here. This is brought up solely beacuse the account holder claimed to be non involved Thanks Taprobanus 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your header violated Talk: page guidelines; I changed it to accurately represent the content of your comments. Now, please abide by WP:CIVIL, and stop changing the subject; please quote the part of WP:NPOV you imagine supports your POVing. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My header didnt violate anything. It is your edit that violated something. Sarvagnya 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it violated WP:TALK, as I pointed out, and your latest comment violated WP:CIVIL. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge
The content of this article would be better used at the Sri Lanka civil war article. Propose a merge to avoid an obvious WP:POVFORK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sri Lankan civil war article is already too big, we can have a section in that article dealing with state terror and main link this one to that. There is enough information to make it an independant article. Thanks Taprobanus 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - I'd rather this be deleted altogether. You cant write an article with exceptional claims just based on few academics and partisan media like Uthayan etc.,.  Several uninvolved, neutral media agencies have covered this and several hundreds of authors and columnists have written about this conflict and none of them have called it "State terrorism".  The whole article is contrived and flies in the face of WP:UNDUE.  Sarvagnya 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this is not a !vote or a poll. It is a discussion designed to see if there is agreement for such a merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everybody here knows that. Sarvagnya 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: WP:POVFORK and per Sarvagnya. There's no any exceptional sources to cover-up these exceptional claims. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not a good idea. This is a whole different article altogeather. It's about the accusation of state terrorism. The context of this article will be expanded in the comming days. Beside that, if this was to be merged I suspect a lot of material to be taken off as it does not relate to the Civil war (although it is asumed to be a cause it does not warrant a whole article on this). Watchdogb 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that it has survived 3 AFD. This article had way more content before. Soon it will have much much more content :))Watchdogb 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * State terrorism is no more exceptional than terrorism. State terrorism in Sri Lanka is a subject that had enough RS sources to write an encylopedic article on its own. It merits its own article because of the notability ofthe subject. See Dirty warTaprobanus 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not exceptional? state terrorism is directly accusing against established governments, not on uneducated thugs. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don’t bullshit by the terms ""Established" and "Democratically" elected governments. We have seen in the world’s history how educated thugs in various ethno-centric governments used statutory powers against the minority groups and acted as worst criminals than the uneducated thugs. I strongly oppose merging this article.Lustead 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the article and not the subject or the editors. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support the merger. It would much more beneficial (and unbiased) to discuss the content in the context of the civil war.Vice regent 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it will actually make way for a lot of these material to be taken off VIA the rule "Stay on topic" or something along the lines. As I already pointed out this article will go through major expansion soon (2 weeks times). If it were to be merged the other article will be very off topic from current civil war (Though it is alleged that the reason behind the war is State terrorism we cannot bring all of the content from this article into the civil war one). Also please note that the President of the country has even said State terrorism exist in Sri Lanka. That claim is exceptional enough to warrant an article. ThanksWatchdogb 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that the topic does not warrant an article - it does. But an article with only information about state terrorism (by the government) ignoring the actions by the rebels is unfair. (I mean to say that it represents one particular POV, but not the other). If it were in the "Civil war" article, then due weight could be give to the POVs of both sides. Please don't interpret my comments as trying to downplay war crimes in Sri Lanka. I sincerely believe that war crimes in Sri Lanka (as elsewhere) are a noteworthy issue.Vice regent 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Take a look at other Articles about LTTE for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE here]. It exist as a POV and has existed for a very long time. Should that not be merged ? how come the debate is here and not there ? Taking that into consideration. This article belongs right here.Watchdogb 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again living in a self created false world.. Could you please care to explain, why that article is POV ? In fact it is one of the best referenced article in the whole Wikipedia. I assume we should quote tamil canadian (for which some of our editors contribute heavily) or tamil net to keep it neutrality, shouldn't we ?? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Strong Support Per Sarvagnya. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki, your attempts of insulting others are quite funny. As you end up insulting your self. Anyway that article is not even close to "Well sourced". It's quite the opposit and it's highly based on suspicion by the SLA/SLP. Anyway, discussion here is to merge the article. The reason given is that its a POV fork. If this article is considred POV fork then so should be this. So your votes to merge article are also votes to merge the other article. Thanks Watchdogb 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS . If you feel that another article should also be merged to somewhere else, feel free to start a discussion on its own talk page.  Sarvagnya 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


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