Jump to content

Talk:Sri Lanka and state terrorism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Rename

Moved it to here per SLR agreement Taprobanus (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SL Army in Tamil homeland

There is no such thing called "Tamil Homeland" on Sri Lankan soil. The "Tamil Homeland" exists in South India and it's home to 60 million Tamils. Only some 2.5 million Tamils live in Sri Lanka. That's about 4% of the Tamil population of the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. How can a tiny area of Sri Lanka be the "Homeland" of a populaion that is graeter by a factor of 25, and lives in another country? By comparision, 4% constitues the Muslim population in Germany. They are mostly Turks. Can you call Germany the "Homeland" of Turks? The answer is definitely 'No'. Therefore, the question of SL Army in Tamil Homeland does not arise, as Sri Lanka has not stationed any troops in South India. (124.43.218.113 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Please discuss before blatantly blanking pages. FYI:


BTW: Here is my source info:

  • Ponnambalam, Satchi. Sri Lanka: The National Question and the Tamil Liberation Struggle London: Zed Books. 1983. pp. 105 & 106.

Please back up claims with legitimate sources instead of stating "It's a lie..." Wiki Raja (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

where's the "Tamil homeland" part? It says "Tamil areas".
The SLA's occupation in 1961 lasted only 2 years there's a 13 year gap with the formation of the LTTE. It's POV on your part building on the data from your source. Does your source say the SLA involment in 1961-1963 led to the formation of LTTE? so it's a violation of NPOV to say the SLA in Jaffna led to the creation of Tamil militant groups.Pls stick to NPOV --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What about this source Ching-In Moon and Chaesung Chun, "Sovereignty: Dominance of the Westphalian Concept and Implications for Regional Security", in Muthiah Alagappa, Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, Stanford University Press, 2003, p. 128. ISBN 080474629X< which says

"Because of the Sri Lankan 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."

so we have citation after citation basically saying the same. Government action led to miitant formation, to say the contrary is your OR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets look at ur first citation "The National Question and the Tamil Liberation Struggle London: Zed Books. 1983. pp. 105 & 106." which can be found here. The book is a publication of Tamil Information Centre and Zed Books Ltd, London - 1983. The time of publication and the publisher makes it invalid under RS. Furthermore ur a little down ur first citation clamis this

"From 1979, because of the Sinhalese military occupation of Jaffna and the state terrorism let loose on the people. hostility began to grow and became deeply embedded in the Tamil people. A group of highly organized young Tamil militants, at first calling themselves the Eelam "Tigers", and then reorganised as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, became active in the northern Tamil areas." that can be seen here

Ur 2nd citation which can be seen here (p. 128) (Sovereignty: Dominance of the Westphalian Concept and Implications for Regional Security) states

"Because of the Sri Lankan 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."

As u can see (imo) one author is copying from the other. Due to publication year of the latter (2003) It's clear that the 2nd author is a plagiarist. and clearly violates RS. Therefor your "citation after citation" are in violation of Wikipedia:RS and are in fact one citation. And I must ask u to refrain from delibratly misguiding the readers. U are yet to prove it's not a violation of NPOV or give any independent research stating the SLA in Jaffna led to the creation of the LTTE.A mis guided book written in 1983(a year when a lot of wrongs were done) published by "questionable" sources (Tamil Information Centre) cannot be consider as a RS and is in violation with Wikipedia:Verifiability --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I have to address what's blatantly in everyone's face because you chose to write it in bold: It is not appropriate to accuse other editors of "delibratly (sic!) misguiding readers", unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was indeed deliberate. I have often been amazed how people can not see things that seem obvious to me - even people with the best intentions!
Well after being explained to me i'll take it back. (but just for the record the phrase "citation after citation saying the same thing" did it for me). I just thought it's obvious.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That said, you did do a good research there! You added "(imo)", but it's not just in your opinion. It seems obvious to me, too. With regard to reliable sources, though, it is a bit more complicated than you describe. Reliable sources can be biased. Last year, we worked together (all sides) to come up with the list WP:SLR#QS, which shows what reliability and bias we agreed on for each source. Its seems to me most likely that Tamil Information Centre is a "qualified" reliable source; a source that can be used to show reliably the position of one side says. If that is the case, it could be quoted by saying "The pro-rebel Tamil Information Centre claims that ...". We used to have a chapter on WT:SLR to discuss this, and we could do that again. — Sebastian 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You too are very funny. The citation is RS. Just because navood says that a book is not RS it does not make it so. A pro-Tamil website has the book written on their site. That does not mean that they had anything to do with the publication of the book. So I am not seeing how Navood is doing a "Good job" refuting this source. Removal of this citation will be considered vandalism and reverted more than once per WT:SLR. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not about the web site. It's about the publisher. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the RS issue. If we're quoting the biased article the source and the bias should be mentioned.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The way you do it is not calling them biased but calling them by who they are. It is called attribution in Wikipedia. When you cite a fact from an RS source then you dont have to attribute but if the fact is suspect because of the source then you attribute it. All government sources have to be attributed because they arre suspect just like pro rebel sources. 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

Non Rs material

Resolved

Anymore addition of non RS sinhala state terrorist chauvinist sites will be countered with Tamil extremist sources. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel anyone added a wrong source, you know what to do: Bring it up on WT:SLR. Threatening Wikipedia is inacceptable. I'm seriously thinking about giving you another official warning for this. — Sebastian 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You can if you want but I think I got my point across. Watchdogb (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous Title

This was brought up on the corresponding US page, but was lost amidst all the noise surrounding the constant disputes and the AfD, so I decided to try the less "popular" articles. While I am not completely familiar with the history of these articles, I see there have been several different titles, at least for the American article. I raise issue with the current titles (Allegations of state terrorism by... ) as it does not specify, grammatically, whether the article subject is receiving allegations or making allegations. I know that "Allegations of state terrorism committed by..." is a bit verbose, especially for a title, I'm sure there is some better option than what we have now. Random89 05:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing (although stalled) discussion regarding this issue here that you may be interested in. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "Sri Lanka and state terrorism" is an appropriate tile as it implies Sri Lanka has something to do with state terrorism. The article is actually a collection of allegations by various parties. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions to the article

If material is to be added ti the article, it has to mention the word state terror. Wikipedia editors cannot decide if individual incidents are "state terror" or not.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no: for example, if reliable source A calls incident X "state terror", and uses argument Y to "prove it", then a separate reliable source B that supports argument Y might be used, even if it doesn't directly speak of "state terror". Likewise, if reliable source C criticizes argument Y, again with no mention of "state terror", they we can also use it. Also, even when there is no controversy per-se, you might want to use sources that provide supporting information, such as proving the existence of organizations or laws. Your perspective, I am afraid is a narrow one.
In other words, while the narrative should be around precisely source who do explicitly use the term, there are many instances where sources can, and probably need to, be used that do not explore the concept itself. Lastly, even when the phrase "state terror" is not used, but the article is clearly about the topic, it might be included. Rather than a blanket prohibition in the abstract, we should have a discussion on inclusion in the concrete for each instance.--Cerejota (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

Sri Lanka and state terrorism is a more descriptive and relevant title. "Allegations" is a WP:WTA, but furthermore has a decidedly un-encyclopedic flavor to it. Encyclopedia cover topic as subjects, better described without adjectives, adverbs, or other such qualifiers. For example, when we list people, we shouldn't say "List of famous people", we should say "List of people". The community in general agrees with this format. To be certain, as a veteran of POV wars over titles, I will offer that the blander and more neutral the title, the better the editing gets.--Cerejota (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed Taprobanus (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:WTA? Maybe we should delete the word "terrorism" then. Besides that, this article documents "allegations", and allegation alone. XYZ said this, and ABC said that. That's what the article is made of. "Sri Lanka and state terrorism" is a really ambiguous title. What state terrorism? By whom? And if that was defined, who is saying any of these are really state terrorism? That's WP:POV. The most neutral title would point out that everything included in this article are merely accusations. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I strongly support the title Sri Lanka and state terrorism. It is the title that has been used for similar articles, for Iran, the United States, etc. and it is more neutral.--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree Taprobanus (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This article documents "allegations", and allegation alone. XYZ said this, and ABC said that. That's what the article is made of. "Sri Lanka and state terrorism" is a really ambiguous title. What state terrorism? By whom? And if that was defined, who is saying any of these are really state terrorism? That's WP:POV. The most neutral title would point out that everything included in this article are merely accusations. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
All other articles of this type don't use the term allegations in the title. See Iran and state terrorism, Terrorism in Russia, United States and state terrorism. The name of the article needs to be changed so it fits accepted wikipedia style. Round the Horne (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is racist

Right there in the first section it suggests that the Sinhalese populace engages in terrorism. A whole group can't be lumped in together like that. HumanFrailty (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Child Soldiers and recruitment

Obi2canbe has reverted my edit 4 times and want to have a section heading called "Recruitment of children" listed under "Specific allegations". I see this an attempt to deliberately mislead the readers, as the article is structured as follows:

Sri Lanka and state terrorism :
Specific allegations :
Recruitment of children :

Therefore the wording Obi2canbe want in the article will be read and understood as follows:

'==> 'Sri Lankan state recruited child soldiers. !!

This gross distortion of facts cannot be accepted. You (Obi2xcanbe) have tried to push your edit by giving poor reasons such as:

  • "wording ",
  • "sections headings should be brief summary of the contents of the section, this section is about "Recruitment of children""
  • "give the reader some credit - they don't just read the section's heading, they read its content as well."
  • "the facts are there in the article" - Here (Obi2canbe) is refering to the disputed content itself  !!

It is evident by your (Obi2canbe's) poor reasons themselves, that you are aware that it is a falsehood you are trying to push, and that in my view is a clear admission of POV and bad faith. Accuracy cannot at any cost be put aside in favour of shorter headings. Also, whether the readers read the whole article or not is not my concern, my concern is that in one place in the article there is this false construction (i.e. ignoring several other false claims in the article for the moment). As you very well have admitted by your own edit summaries, you know that there are no credible allegations of the govt recruiting child soldiers, but trying to desperately paint a distorted picture. The reference given describes in length why the authour(s) place such an allegation, namely because he/she/they accuse the Sri Lankan govt of aiding or turning a blind eye to TMVP recruiting children, not that the Sri Lankan state has recruited child soldiers. Simply put - the whole allegation is about inaction by the govt in the case of TMVP's recruitment of children, and not what you are trying to imply by your distorted version. Therefore your edit is a synthesis and distortion of published data and cannot be accepted, and I have reverted your edit on the basis of that it is a clear and deliberate attempt to distort facts, as your own edit summaries show. WP:IGNORE. If you still want your version of the edit in the artcle please present your arguments here or seek dispute resolution. If you revert my edit, I will seek dispute resolution myself, in addition to posting a complaint about your disruptive editing, as I have described in your user page.--SriSuren (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

This whole article seems to be a creation by somebody who identifies as a citizen of Eelam operating from UK, which is an imaginary state of mind of a group of terrorists called Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. I am amazed that Wikipedia allows this kind of liars to publish garbage in piles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.184.111 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

^ More attempted government coverup? Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view and show issues on all sides. Nazi governments like Sri Lankas will be exposed too. 76.116.118.216 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Sri Lankan Government supported terrorism in history. It is worthy to discuss in a scholarly platform. But bias ideas from editors such as hypothetical Ealaam citizens cannot be comprehended. The constitution of Sri Lanka is Democratic Socialist Republic so it has a relation to National Socialism. Right now Sri Lanka is running with a conventional Govenment. I believe Ealaam was a creation of emperors to overseer a major failed state Ceylon in the past.Salmanlla (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sri Lanka and state terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lanka_and_state_terrorism/Archive_7&oldid=1245536073"