Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. When the debate is primarily ten people, each accusing everyone of bad faith except themselves, it's hard to pick out cogent points. The consensus is a little weak, but does favour delete (particularly as there is some very fishy (sockpuppetty) 'keep' votes). And, as the discussion has become less about the merits (or lack) of this article than into an incoherent shouting match, the main reason for my going with deletion is the fact that the article is a collection of external links, thus failing WP:NOT, anyway. Proto :: type  15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE



 * I wish to recuse myself of this vote. Due to lingering doubt raised in this case, this the *right* thing to do.  Trincomanb 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish to recuse myself of this vote. Due to lingering doubt raised in this case, this the *right* thing to do.  Trincomanb 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: Article has now been moved to Attacks attributed to the LTTE. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I have moved the article back to the original title pendidng the completion of this AFD. Renaming the article before the AFD is complete was not in good faith. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article has nothing to do with the AfD, and in fact, might actually have helped the keep side in the debate, as its new title more properly reflects what the article is, and therefore less a reason to delete it as POV. There was absolutely no bad faith in such an article rename. └ OzLawyer / talk</i> ┐ 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You completely bypassed the AFD, which is a key concept of Wikipedia, and decided to rename it yourself without taking into account the views of other editors. If you want the article to be renamed, cross out your "delete" vote and change it to "rename to ...". Please do not change the name arbitrarily. --<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 18:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is wrong. No AfD is needed to rename an article.  If it's named wrong, it should be renamed.  Period. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment As i kindly asked you before, please refrain from changing the title.If you have a question about using the phrase,terrorist attacks, post them here,and let others know about it. Also,i would appreciate if you do the same in every single article given at the bottom by user-snowolfd4.If you don't, you are only showing your biases.You cant have two opinions about a same issue,can you ??--Iwazaki 20:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't changed it again (well, I did, but just to correct a mistake in someone else's move).  As for your concern about my hypocrisy, it's a false argument.  First off, nobody has said this will not be dealt with elsewhere.  I just don't have the time to deal with everything right now.  We can take this one day at a time, kay?  But even if I didn't want to correct the problems elsewhere, that wouldn't be any evidence that I'm wrong here.  If I beat my wife it wouldn't make it any less true that you shouldn't beat your wife if it came out of my mouth. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * *comment This is what i call duplicity ! What ever the excuses you have given here, does not justify your present attitude,which is very much biased.If you,as i said, are genuinely interested at removing the phrase "terrorist attacks" ,you should do it equally in every article.By picking up this article alone,and neglecting the others just shows your duplicity.--Iwazaki 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete I wanted to mention this is littered with allegations that are misrepresented as facts. Many of the incidents show no proof LTTE had any part in it, but its completely misrepresented in the article. In addition many incidents rely on a Sri Lankan government letter sent to the UN citing incidents.  Its hardly a credible source of information and could just be propaganda material.  Title is hardly NPOV.  There is hardly verifiable evidence to indicate and prove its "Terrorist attacks carried by the LTTE".  Elalan 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment title is fully WP:NPOV.And it is obvious to every one that, LTTE has carried out all the terrorist attacks mentined in the article as many have pointed here. There are more than enough proof here !! And, if you are questioning any incidents here, i would like to take them one by one and discuss with you.And remember, LTTE have never denied most of the stated terrorist attacks --Iwazaki 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The current title "Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE" is certainly POV. LTTE has not accepted responsibility for all of these attacks. Most of the accusations have been made by the Sri Lankan Government, and it is very likely that their version is full of exaggerations. Merging the article content under the title "Attacks attributed to the LTTE" is a better solution. utcursch | talk 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment I totally disagree.The article is not only WP:NPOV it is also one of the best referenced article i've ever seen in wikipedia.Your case against this is very weak, i would rather say.Most of the accussations comes from every corner of the world,And most importantly from the people who suffered from their brutality.And to claim,since LTTE dont admit this must be false,is infact your POV..And the fact that, LTTE never denied most of this accusations should be noticed here.please tell me ,why would they never denied these allegations when they were first made ?? Since most of these terrorist attacks were carried out in mercenary type or in suicide mission, unless dead people come from their graves,one must say we never know the absolute truth of this.But what we know is, LTTE have every reason to terrorise sinhalese and even muslim people.They want sinhalese/muslims out of their mythical homeland by any means..And even this,article actually do not carry every single terrorist act of them.The list is,sadly huge!!.And none of the attacks were exaggerations by GOSL,and i would really appreciate if you can come up with any. finally i would like to state, that this article has not violated any of the wiki policies.And arguments against are "amazingly weak",and simply can be put into various "logical fallacies". --Iwazaki 14:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This article lists impeccaable sources for each attack. It is one of the best referenced articles on wikipedia Dutugemunu 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Apart from SL govt sources, not much of credible information is available on this issue. The ones which are clear like Rajiv Gandhi Assasination and others do not need a template at all, as they are all isolated incidents which might not actually be categorized as one template! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment You mean one article. RaveenS 13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * commentnay..I think he means some template,somewhere.hence above opinion has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion,and should be directed to the proper place. --Iwazaki 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be WP:Civil and let the user answer his/her question. ThanksRaveenS


 * Please be WP:Civil enough not to issue meaningless warnings to fellow users.And please be WP:Civil enough not to take my right to challange and answer comments made by others.thanks--Iwazaki 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the articles have only GoSL sources and some of them have reliable sources. Taking GoSL's view on this matter is not acceptable as it is a party involved in the conflict. there is no need for a separate template for this at all, as it is completely POV. With regard to Iwazaki's civility....nay, let me not explain it to someone who has a great record of 'civility'. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment again engage in a logical fallacy of "Since GOSL are invlove in this crisis what they say cant be true"..If we apply this logic, then we must dismiss every source which comes from tamil sides,LTTE or NOT, because they too are a party of this crisis.Also, we should ruled out any comments made by the norwegians too.As peace keepers they too,are involve in this.So,we can simply reject their claims using the above logic.Finally, we may end up with nothing,since the above logic simply ruled out "a good portion of the sources". And speaking of civility, its amazing that those comments comes from someone"who deleted his own talk page just to cover himself up".someone who uses words such as "goons", "stupid" ,"kid" ,"immature" to describe fellow wikipedians and yet hasn't done a single apology at all!!

--Iwazaki 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: and merge salvagable contents with Notable attacks by the LTTE. This article fails WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:POV. Thanks RaveenS 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you clarify why it fails all of those? The article claims it is based on several secondary sources (aside from the government letter, perhaps). The incidents I checked seem to have a reliable source. shotwell 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bot comment - This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   --  Agεθ020  ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are plenty of sources for this article. A careful look at the reference list shows Amnesty, BBC, HRW and other international organisations. Some of the details are sourced from Government of Sri Lanka which is a legal government AFireUponDeep 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete: Blatant POV fork with most source emanating from GOSL letter to UN. Salvadge remaining content with notable attack by the LTTE. Don't get me started with title. Trincomanb 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have recused myself of this vote due to lingering doubts based on false allegations raised by snowolfd4. Trincomanb 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. The reason mentioned for deletion is invalid. If title is NPOV, move it to Terrorist Attacks attributed to LTTE. The article is neither WP:NOR, nor WP:POV -- it cites sources for each incident mentioned. It doesn't fail WP:V either, as all the sources cited are online, for everybody to verify. The article has 115 sources from letter to UNHCHR, 19 from BBC.co.uk, 8 Amnesty, 4 from Frontline, 2 from University Teachers for Human Rights, 2 from state.gov and 1 from CFR, ICT, CNN, PRIU each. There are 9 sources from a tripod page, which should be removed. When the article is moved to Terrorist Attacks attributed to LTTE or merged with Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE, I don't think there should be any problem with citations from Sri Lankan Government's letter to the UN. Even now the article mentions: "Please note that since some of the incidents were contained in a letter authored by a Sri Lankan government official, it's contents may or may not be neutral." utcursch | talk 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Sri Lankan govt letter to the UN is not a WP:RS. That is the biggest problem with this article.  Where is there reliable. neutral, authoritative source to indicate this is a "terrorist attack."  Hence 115 events have to removed to start with  In this it claims "LTTE" did it.  It has no substantiation to make this claim.  A Sri Lankan govt. letter to UN is hardly of any substance and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Are we starting to publish everyone's letters on wikipedia ?  The way it is worded, there is apparently proof the LTTE did, but this is complete misrepresentation coming from clearly a propaganda letter.  The article is the boldest example of WP:POV, it relies on what is a propaganda source to advertise that these events were true.  Where it relies on other sources of evidence, its got show that its "a terrorist attack".  If that wording is not in the source then its WP:NOR (original research).  Elalan 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment So,elaln,if LTTE didnt do it ,who did ?? obviously it wasnt done by the "ordianry tamil people",was it ?? It is obvious that from all the sources given here(which you seem to have missed) these brutal acts of terrorism were done by the LTTE.And even LTTE, has not denied of these cases, esp none of the masacres carried out by them..And in case you havent noticed, there is a clear verdict against prabhakaran on his involvement of central bank bombing jail sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs)


 * I am not saying that LTTE carried out all these attacks. The article Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE has "attributed" in the title (and no word like "terrorist" in it). Plus, there is the notice: "Please note that since some of the incidents were contained in a letter authored by a Sri Lankan government official, it's contents may or may not be neutral.". By mentioning these incidents, we are not saying that LTTE committed these acts. We are just saying that they were attributed to LTTE by some organizations/governments/news channels, and we are providing sources. The reader may check these sources and exercise his/her own judgment. Moreover, the article can be expanded to include LTTE's denial of these attacks or information about possible involvement of non-LTTE parties in these attacks. utcursch | talk 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment This is question to utcursch: In all fairness, does the Sri Lankan government letter to UN constitute a reliable source ? Please see WP:RS.  If its not, it cannot be referenced in the encyclopedia and hence all those entries have to be deleted   That is explicitly stated.  Elalan 23:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment The statement that are attributed to the Sri Lankan government letter to the UN also failed WP:V, since its a self-published source of dubious reliability by the government. There is specific explanation set in stone by the Wikipedia rules on this.  Please see it.  Elalan 23:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment LTTE did carry out every single attack stated in the article and a lot more not in this article.And these are acts of terrorism.And even in the wikipedia they have an separate template titled infobox terrorist attacks .Which is work of an administrator named Tariqabjotu.So the word "terrorist attacks" is not POV at all according to wikipedia.You may have a case against calling them terrorist,but not against the use of "terrorist attacks"..And if you have any questions regarding cited incidents, i would like to take every single incident and discuss with you.And,finally, i would like to tell you that the ,LTTE have not categorically denied most of the massacres stated in this article. --Iwazaki 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentReply to User:Utcursch, Terrorist attacks attributed versus Notable attack as a tile. If the former, then each and every attack has to fit the definition of Terrorism page, attacks aginst military instalations cannot be included. If the title is latter then the attacks have to be notable ingoring the troubles associated with terrorist attack definition, hence my preferance to Notable attacks by the LTTE. ThanksRaveenS 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. Zarbat 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge for the same reasons given by utcursch. shotwell 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I dont think the this page should be merged into the Notable LTTE attacks page. The combined pages would be too long. We shouldnt be looking to create massive wikipedia articles which will take hours just to go through Melissahutchison 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC) — Melissahutchison (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. utcursch | talk 13:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment Please do checkuser on this profile. This profile also appear to be sock puppet used to vote on this page.  Elalan 04:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I dont see a justification to delete this page. I agree with the suggestion to change the title to "terrorsit attacks attributed to the LTTE". LovesEverybody 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) — Melissahutchison (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. utcursch | talk 13:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * commentPlease do a checkuser on this profile. This profile has only been used to vote to keep this page and clearly appears to be a sockpuppet. Elalan 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The notable ones are already in the notable attacks article, the rest are unreliable, as the source is solely the Sri Lankan government. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment a couple of questions to the above user
 * Have ever read this disputed article, before making above conclusion ??
 * could you please point out the unreliable terrorist acts in this article ?--Iwazaki 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The reason they're unreliable is that for a great many of them, their source is solely the Government of Sri Lanka. The GoSL has certainly been known for lying about these incidents (indeed, it has even been accused--in some cases likely justifiably--of blaming its own soldiers' crazed attacks on the LTTE).  Therefore, reports of LTTE attacks whose only source is the GoSL are inherently unreliable.  Third party reports from reliable neutral parties is an absolute must for such an article.  This cannot be remedied with this silly "some of the incidents were contained in a letter authored by a Sri Lankan government official, [so] it's contents may or may not be neutral" note.  If they're not known to be reliable, they cannot be included.  To work the way that is being suggested with such a note is like writing an article of fiction and having it pass muster because you note at the top "this article may be lies".  Sorry, but we obviously cannot work that way.  In addition, the entire article is POV.  The reason we have Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE is twofold.  First, is so that only attacks that are notable enough for an encyclopedia are included.  Are these attacks notable?  If they are, they can go into that article.  If not, then they don't belong in an encyclopedia.  Secondly, it is properly named.  Simply "attacks" and "attributed".  This entire article is WP:POV and a violation of WP:RS. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all, i would kindly request you not to change the topic of this article.This is a clear violation of wiki policies and i call this vandalism. Good, now i'll get back to your points.Though you have defended your side of the story here, you have mysteriously failed to touch the questions for which i was expecting an answers from you.In case you haven't notice them,let me phrase it again
 * could you please point out the unreliable terrorist acts in this article since you seem to have a fair good of knowledge in this matter, i would like you to point out incidents, you think ,are not done by the LTTE. then you have said ,"The GoSL has certainly been known for lying about these incidents (indeed, it has even been accused--in some cases likely justifiably--of blaming its own soldiers' crazed attacks on the LTTE)".
 * could you please provide any evidence to back up your claim Otherwise, i have to ignore this as a red herring made by you. The whole accusation of yours is based on your strong criticism of the letter sent by the GOSL. Except calling it unreliable, you have done no effort to examine the details written in the letter nor your have questioned any single incident there.We have given evidence and you have given no counter evidence at all !!!  so, i believe ,rightly so, you have engaged in a logical fallacy and things written here by you is nothing more than your POV. Hence the article, is valid and totally NPOV and should be kept.--Iwazaki 18:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki, whether the claims in the letter are correct or not, the source of the letter is biased. I will not provided evidence for what cases are not true.  That's not the point at all.  If the source is unreliable (and it is, since it is clearly biased to the pro-GoSL point of view), it cannot be used.  If what's contained in the letter is correct, you should have no trouble finding it printed in an independent reliable source. The sooner you understand that this is how we write an encyclopedia, the sooner we'll be able to get on with actually writing it. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * reply could you please tell me why the source is biased ?? As i said before, your argument is totally based on the fact that "since GOSL said so this cant be right",which is a logical fallacy,and totally irrelevant .Since we have given evidence, why dont you give evidence against it ?? Your failure to give any credible source only strengthen my side of the story,and nothing else. Since we have given our evidences, it is your turn to find "reliable sources" which questions the validity of the GOSL letter.unless you cant find any contradictions in the letter, all your claims would become rather pointless. talking about terrorist attacks, i have found an excellent article which gives a very good picture of LTTE suicide missions(which is called terrorism in english). So, the LTTE have carried out more terrorist attacks than,hamas and hizbulla put together,this is what the experts says. Hence, the article should be under the title "Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE"..And the article is fully WP:NPOV --Iwazaki 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Okay, this is the last time I'm going to bother responding to you, since you seem to be intentionally ignoring my actual point. There is no "evidence" that this time the GoSL is lying.  However, it has to be accepted that the GoSL is not a reliable source on the LTTE because it is so involved in the conflict with that group.  That's the whole definition of reliable source - a source that is neutral to the issue.  It is not "our" turn to find reliable sources to question the validity of the GoSL letter.  It is your responsibility to show what is an inherently unreliable source (a source so close to one side in an incredibly heated conflict) is actually the truth.  Basically, both the LTTE and the GoSL have to be excluded from your fact-finding mission (except where they are reporting on their own actions, and even then they have to be examined carefully).  Both sources are obviously suspect to a great degree, to the point where we cannot accept them.  If what GoSL is claiming in the letter is truthful, then there will be no problem finding reports from neutral parties on the same incidents.  So go searching for the obvious truth.  This is an encyclopedia--don't expect your articles to be handed to you fully-formed by Sri Lankan officials.  └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * * comment It is somewhat disappointing to see, even in this last comment,supposed be the last response to me,you have failed to address any of the points directed at you. You have failed to point out a single attack,which couldn't be pointed out to the LTTE. And surprisingly you still question the validity of the article !!! When its people are dying from the acts of terrorism,and there are over 200 such acts carried out during 1980-2000,GOSL had every right to made complains to the relevant international bodies.Every incident stated in the article is carried out by LTTE for obvious reasons,ethnic cleansing..And for my knowledge they have even not denied most of them !!

if you are claiming GOSL sources are biased, you should prove it..And provide counter arguments for it..Just because GOSL is engaged in a war against LTTE, we cant dismiss every single claim made by the GOSL.We should take, every case carefully and analyse it thoroughly before making any conclusions.And in this case,you havent done any of it.Also the article has given non government sources too,but you still want to delete it,and merge into a different article,which says nothing about terrorist attacks !! so i have the feeling that this isnt about evidences after all. Finally, except for giving classical examples of logical fallacies,such as Appeal to Ignorance,you have done absolutely nothing to justify your position here. --Iwazaki 21:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * strong keep. As a fellow editor had already stated,this is one of the best referenced article in wikipedia. All the incidents are definitely carried out by the LTTE and so far i have failed to see any proper argument against this.And for the merging, i strongly oppose the proposed idea by fellow editors.As for reasons i have given under comments..Also, bear in mind there is clear ethnic cleansing going in north and east against sinhalese/muslims and LTTE historically have shown that they are willing to do anything to expel those communities from their mythical land of eelam.finally i would like to add the following link ,where you can see one of the survivors of the most brutal terrorist attack ever carried out against the Buddhist monks in the history of the world. I had the opportunity to met ven monk, and even to say this was not carried out by LTTE, is an insult to all the 32 monks who perished in that incident.Please try to stop your tears, when you look at this        ,i say this because i couldn't. --Iwazaki 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.
 * Strong Keep The nomination is flawed in the 1st place as POV is not a reason for deletion. As per WP:DP
 * This article has a wealth of information that is not contained anywhere else in Wikipedia. As pointed out, what is wrong with using statistics of a national government about dead citizens? What is the nutrality dispute there? When someone is killed, it is the duty of a government to go through the incindet and file a report about it.
 * The word "terrorist attacks" is not POV and is widely used in Wikipedia. As Iwazaki pointed out, there is already a template called Template:Infobox terrorist attack and a number of other articles including
 * List of terrorist incidents
 * List of terrorist attacks in Canada
 * List of terrorist incidents in the U.S.
 * List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom
 * List of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia
 * Terrorism against Israel
 * List of Terrorist Attacks Against Israel Before 1967 etc. etc. If anyone disagrees with the use of "terrorist" in this article, they should nominate all of these other articles for deletion, to avoid duplicity in their conduct.
 * Also, a look at the articles that link to the terrorist attack template shows how many notable attacks have been labled as terrorist attacks. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing article starts off

The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist attack on April 19, 1995, in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a U.S. government office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was destroyed, killing 168 people.
 * 9/11

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States on September 11, 2001.
 * And the article should not be merged with the notable attacks article as that primarily focuses upon the military attacks by the LTTE and the terrorist attacks article focuses on the Terrorist, ie attacks against civilians. Also, as this article is very long already, and as per WP:LENGTH we strive to break apart long articles due to readability and compatability issues. --<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're claiming that because there are other articles which go against Wikipedia guidelines that that's evidence that this article should also?  Isn't that some sort of fallacy?  As for the wealth of information the article contains--is that wealth of information encyclopedic?  Does Wikipedia have a List of murders in Los Angeles article?  As for POV not being a reason for deletion, if the article cannot be anything other than POV, that is, if the entire issue is POV from the start, (the way this article is named is undoubtedly POV that cannot be allowed to stay), then, yes, POV is a reason for deletion. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The other articles prove that there is a wide consensus within the Wikipedia community that the word "terrorist" is acceptable. Just because you don't like it that does not mean that it shouldn't be used. Again, if you dispute that, you do not have to go through the articles, simply nominate them for deletion as they contain the word terrorist in the title. Your need to delete this article ONLY and your unwillingness to take engage in any other article with the title terrorism or the "terrorist Attack" template clearly displays your bias and duplicity in this matter. And we aren't talking about 1 or 2 murders here. If we listed all the murders carried out by the LTTE we'll get a really, really long list. Only the notable incidents where at least about 4 or 5 people were killed are listed. Comparably, there is an article subsection list of serial killers in the US List_of_serial_killers_by_country. -<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> /  <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 19:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Oh, goodness gracious.  First off, those articles don't prove anything--you'd have to also know how many articles that could use the word "terrorist" but don't in order to get any idea whatsoever of how widespread and accepted its use is (plus, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia out to publish facts in a neutral way, and if something's wrong with 95% support, it's still wrong).  Secondly, I explained quite well on your talk page why I am currently dealing with this article.  And I did not say I would never go deal with the other articles, which, BTW, might not require deletion--if they're only POV in their naming, then they just need renaming.  This article, however, is POV in its entirety, using GoSL propaganda as its main source, which is clearly against WP:RS.  As for your argument that this article only includes notable incidents, do you mean it only includes incidents that the people maintaining Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE don't think are notable?  There's already an article on notable incidents, so why you'd be arguing that this article is about notable incidents, I do not know.  Clearly, it's a POV fork from Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE, an attempt to include as many "incidents" as possible, including all sorts of incidents that are reported by the GoSL and the GoSL alone, because those level-headed individuals maintaining the other article didn't want it turned into the huge POV mess this one is.  This article certainly doesn't make any mention of notability, and, in fact, someone from this AfD has been adding it to article "See also" lists as Comprehensive list of terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per, and  - 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment and i'm not surprised at all.Even if those arguments are "logical fallacies" you still stand by them.And its good to know, like Sudharsansn ,you also want to delete a certain template
 * further,according to experts,LTTE have carried out over 150 suicide missions during the 1980-2000 period, which is more than Hizbullah and hamas put together !! And,even to call these are not done by the LTTE,is an insult to all those who perished there,just like the innocent monks here,

 --Iwazaki 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC) attacks on civilians can obviously be called "terrorist attacks". Hence, this article is totally NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.241.205 (talk • contribs), has four edits in total, and, if you take a look, hits return in the middle of responses like only Iwazaki has done in this AfD (most of his edits have been cleaned up by me, but check the one just above).
 * strong keep Those arguing for deletion have not presented credible evidence to support their claims. The LTTE is considered a terrorist group by the US goverment, therefore,


 * Comment: Iwazaki, you can't vote a million times, vote once and respond to other statements as comments. This is truly uncivil to drag in the names of Wiki editors in every comment you make like the one above the previous fake vote of yours. I am not looking at deleting a template as you have mentioned above, but it is more likely that you are getting very frustrated and losing temper because the pages you cried out against including the State terrorism template are all being confirmed to be perfectly WP:5P So respond to points in a fair and civil way than just cry out and hit out at everybody against you.

Inspite of repeated requests and warnings you still haven't changed, not just with me, but with anyone who has a stance against that of yours. Instead of trying to understand that they are talking about a context, you think they are out to get you and prove you wrong. I am posting this very specifically because you have been too much for quite some time, meddling with my talk page, posting uncivil comments and the list is endless and all the warnings and messages in your talk page testify it.

I'm specifically making this point here because you have dragged in my name for no reason here as italicized: And its good to know, like Sudharsansn ,you also want to delete a certain template and this is totally uncivil. This kind of a hitting out behaviour is definitely uncalled for and it definitely violates Civility norms. Please let us talk about the subject matter than hitting out at fellow editors and trying to drag in their traits. I sincerely hope you understand. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * *Comment totally unrelated.Dont make this AfD a soapbox.pls show me where i have voted million times ?? If you dont, I want you to take back this ugly accusations directed at me.And for the rest,since nothing carry any importance,i prefer to ignore you completely.

--Iwazaki 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * *note to administrators The user Sudharsansn is engaged in cheap personal attacks on me here and he is taking the attention away from the topic.If he has any problem with me, kindly ask him to take it to the appropriate places and NOT HERE

--Iwazaki 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I expected this from you, your usual words and terms like Soapbox, nothing new. I have pointed out to your uncivil ways in my posting when you actually dragged in my name in one of your comments in a very maligning way as italicized: And its good to know, like Sudharsansn ,you also want to delete a certain template. This is totally uncalled for and to begin with that is what diverted focus from the topic to this so I am only strongly telling you that this is not how it is done here. Let us get back to the topic and though I know that you will once again want to have a trivial last word, I refrain, unless and otherwise warranted. I am sure the admins who are reading this understand completely. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * comment glad that i fulfil your expectation.In case you havent noticed yet, we are discussing about an article here, not a template.SO please take your tirade somewhere else,becasue its totally irrelevant to here.

--Iwazaki 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * strong keep: Per and .   ♪ ♫ Ľ ą Ħ ĩ Ř ǔ _ Қ ♫ ♪  (Ŧ) 11:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: The LTTE is recognised as one of the most ruthless terrorist groups in the world, classified as a terrorist organisation by 29 countries including the US, and the LTTE has has been responsible for the most heinious and brutal murders of women and children in Sri Lanka. The relevant article has extensively referenced sources for every quote. There is a group of people with vested interest like the LTTE sympathisers who want to expunge this information in order to whitewash the LTTE hence their objection to this article in the wikipedia.

The Government of Sri Lanka is a reliable source WP:RS, for the main reason that as a government the statements that it(Goverment of sri lanka) makes carry a inherent sense of responsibility. A goverment's comminiques are carefully considered statements which are reliable sources which do not contravene any WP:RS guidlines.

It should be noted that the main people unhappy with sourcing from the Government of Sri Lanka are LTTE sympathisers or antigovernment forces who are quite happy to use pro eelam websites such as tamilcanadian.com, tamilnation.org, Tamiltigers.net as sources for there potentially libelous orchestrated attack on the Sri lankan goverment  via the wikipedia artcle State Terrorism in Sri Lanka yet cry foul when a Goverment source is used to substantiate a LTTE attack.

I wish to make a strong point, if the government of sri lanka cannot be used as a reliable source, then coversely none of the pro eelam sites or LTTE sympathisers and LTTE fronts like tamilnation.org can be used either, and thus would justify a swift call for a strong deletion of articles like State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, which use multiple pro eelam sites (ex : "Sri Lankan State terrorism by Tamiltigers.net") to substantiate their allegations.

This article uses multiple cited reliable sources like the goverment of sri lankas official communiques, amnesty international's reports. US state department's reports etc to highlight the ghastly murders including the killing of Buddhist monks done by one of the most murderous and ruthless terrorist groups to appear on the face of this earth which pioneered the concept of suicide bombing. It is NPOV and should be allowed to stay as a article in accordance with the wikipedia policies. There should be no whitewashing allowed for a classified terrorist group like the LTTE.

I also urge the people who question the statements made in this article to highlight the relevant sections that in there opinion are disputed so we can discuss and find other sources to substantiate the claims if needed.

I urge the ruling admin to strongly consider the importance of this article, and the neutrality and the mutiple reliable source used to substantiate the claims and continue to let this article exist.

It would be interesting that a similar debate regarding the infinitely more libelous and defamatory template against the Sri Lankan government called Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka ended up in a "no consensus" ruling .Kerr avon 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Kerr avon, those articles/templates should also be deleted as being based on unreliable sources. This AfD is going to end up as no consensus as well, since the majority of the votes, on both sides, are based on emotion and not appeal to Wikipedia policy, and there are sockpuppets (both confirmed and not) on both sides.


 * Now, as for your statement that WP:RS says that since it is from government it is reliable, that is a misrepresentation. It says that "Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public."  This is clearly a case where the government is far too involved as a partisan in the conflict to be considered reliable. └ <b style="color:blue;">OzLawyer</b> / <i style="color:black;">talk</i> ┐ 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.