Talk:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

See /archive for discussion prior to 2007.

Contents

[edit] Merge and deletion discussions and votes

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-26. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


[edit] LTTE terrorist?

In the article name LTTE is considered as terrorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid It is not possible to use the term terrorist in an article name for a group which is considered as a terrorist by some countries. This article should be re-namedPaparokan 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A similar article already exists

Check out Notable attacks by the LTTE. This one should be deleted. Ulflarsen 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This page has hundreds of LTTE terrorist attacks too minor to be included as a notable attack in Notable attacks by the LTTE Ruchiraw 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia tries to extract knowledge. We dont aim for listing everything, and this includes all attacks the LTTE has done. So I keep to that this article should be deleted. Besides that, I do believe you hurt your standing by defending this article when we allready have Notable attacks by the LTTE. Ulflarsen 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me that policy. I believe the Encyclopedia Britannica contains all facts relevant to its topics Ruchiraw 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
When you signed up I placed a number of links on your page as a welcome message, one of them was this oneWikipedia:Five pillars. It says:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.
Adding an article like that when there already is one very similar is not what we try to achieve. Ulflarsen 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Not very similar , it has a different focus and there is very little overlap, mayne less than 8 %. When this article is expanded , it will go to less than 2 % overlapRuchiraw 22:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Ulflarsen, the articles should be merged. Addhoc 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge discussion

Major military, guerrilla and terrorist style attacks by the LTTE are covered in the related article Notable attacks by the LTTE. military, guerrilla attacks cannot be moved to Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. Only major terrorist incidents are listed on the Notable attacks by the LTTE. Dutugemunu 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have finished moving non-notable terrorist incidents into terrorist attacks page. Only notable incidents now left on Notable attacks page Dutugemunu 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to merge. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

see related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Notable_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE Dutugemunu 09:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions of the word "terrorist"

[edit] "Terrorist" Nomenclature

Certain editors seem to have unilaterally declared the LTTE a "terrorist" group and (it seems) are forcing that belief on Wikipedia. To remain neutral, I have pointed out the exact number of nations (28 out of 192) which consider the LTTE a "terrorist" group and have clarified that the UN itslef has not declared the LTTE as "terrorists". I have also changed phrases like "a number of attacks", "list is not complete" to make them more accurate. I would also suggest changing the title to Attacks carried out by LTTE, since there is no proof that the attacks were terrorist in nature. If the title is not changed, then we should make an article about Terrorist attacks carried out by the Sri Lankan military, Ethnic cleansing attempted by the Sri Lankan government. Cerebral Warrior 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See the defintion of terrorism on WP
"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate", "targeting of civilians" or executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton and unjustified
All of these incidents fall into that category.
Also following and AFD this article was kept intact by a nutral admin. You cannot arbitrarily change the name of this article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Until you can provide me with links to court documents convicting the LTTE of the attacks, we will retain the word "allegedly" in the title. As for calling them "terrorist" attacks, did you notice the word "usually" in your definition of terrorism? Cerebral Warrior 09:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
All I have to say is look at your own comment on the page Velupillai Prabhakaran. Seriously [1] --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 13:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral title.

The word "terrorism" implies a POV, and hence should not be used. Until the LTTE (or persons who are found to have acted on its behalf) is found guilty of (all) these attacks in a court of law, we will (as is customary) use the term "allegedly". Cerebral Warrior 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How is attacking SL navy a terror attack ? I do not understand this... They were not out of the SL navy when they got killed so how can that be considred as a terror attack ? 74.102.154.231 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New topics in 2007

[edit] archiving

I just archived most of the discussions into /archive. I kept discussions that fit under "Merge and deletion discussions and votes" and "Discussions of the word "terrorist"" because they seem to reappear on this page. There was a long list of Corrections that need to be addressed, but at least the first few seem to have been addressed since. — Sebastian 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last edit

Please do not take off the added info as WP:NPOV states that when there is conflicting views you must state both views. Also no source should be given due weight. So please do not remove. Also AGF. Watchdogb 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

don't add dumb sites to wikipedia..If you are insisting on justifying the priest killing then bring reliable source..Please dont make myself repeat the same thing over and over.Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My my. Since when is Tamilnet a relaible source? snowolfD4( talk / @ )
Right around the same time as Asiantribute and SATP. Also please show me how it is not a RS? If Asiantribune is RS then so is Tamilnet. Watchdogb 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Iwazaki you do not decide if any site is "dumb". If Tamilnet is not RS then neither is Asiantribune.

I am willing to compromise to put the Pro-LTTE tags for these citations. If we do not allow Tamilnet then we should not allow AsianTribune, SATP (This is a documentation site and it does not even reference its claims). Then we should only include RS such as BBC,Reuters ect. Also I have seen many incidents where the neutral source does not claim that it was done by the LTTE. Then how are we to assume that they did it ? Using a POV site ? well ok if we are going to do that as per WP:NPOV then we should include both sides of the story as per WP:NPOV.

[edit] Air attack

WatchdogB claims that the attack against the airbase by the LTTE is not a terrorist attack as s "Attacking the opposite mility side is not terrorist attack". What is important is that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation, and as such it has no legitimacy or international code to justify attacks on Sri lankan targets.

If Al-qaeda attacked the united states army airbase do you think america will say "bin laden attacked our air force base so since it is a military target this is not a terrorist attack but a legitimate attack"? This shows that there is no point in denying the fact that this is a terrorist attack. Several reliable sources [2] "LTTE Launch Air Raid In Sri Lanka - The World's First Terrorist Air Force", and "Three killed and seventeen injured in LTTE terrorist attack- Katunayake" [3]Kerr avon 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct if you are editing a Sri lankan blog page. This is Wikipedia so lets stay on the NPOV stand and say they are rebels. Rebel's legit military attack is not terrorist attack and as such cannot be branded as one. Watchdogb 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The LTTE's actions are clearly classified as terrorism, hence the more appropriate tag would be a terrorist group rather than a rebel group.Kerr avon 07:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. How can you say all their actions are terrorism ? This is wikipedia and we are not bound by any country but rather by all. So if the whole world would classify them as terrorists then the statment would be appropriate. Furthermore the attack has not been condemed by ANY country including India. However, I am not going to nitpick and going to AGF and let it stay. Thanks for the contribution and making things clear on the talk page. Take care Watchdogb 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Talk%7ETerrorist_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE_cf5c.html"