Talk:Sri Lanka and state terrorism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Adding NPOV and Factual tags

I have added this tags as I know most of the information about Sri Lanka to be false or irrelevant. I have pointed out the false and irrelevant information and deleted it , but someone keeps on reverting it.

This should be for Sri Lanka only not for the entire article. RaveenS 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i have argued that it lies in the nature of the word that this situation will come up again and again, see the edit war about the us section. i propose again to delete the whole country list and stick with the definition, and maybe give a few examples that show how the term is used. --trueblood 19:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not delete but recreate the list as a seperate articles, even better we will recreate this list as individual articles by country and all the POV partisans can fight out in their own neibhiurhoods like they don anyway Huracane 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

you mean there would be one article called us american state terrorism and another one called bolivian state terrorism?? i am not convinced but whatever. i feel the edit warriors are in the majority on this article.--trueblood 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion

This article consists of large number of inaccuracies and incidents not relevant to its title. Only one section is correct and its covered in "State terrorism" which hyperlinks to "Black July.". If you remove the tag (according to Wikipedia policy) within 5 days, you can be tagged as a vandal

So far an Admin has commented to keep this article. No luck pal in hiding history. Wikipedia becomes a better place as you challenge it

I thing there are good reasons to make such an article. The problem in Sri Lanka is that the state is dysfunctional, and much of the reason why the LTTE has managed to expand is due to the failed Sri Lankan state. So even though I dont vote for all in this article I dont think it should be deleted. Ulflarsen 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Most users including the admin have a problem with the title of the article as i doesnt compare with its contentsRuchiraw 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Achieving NPOV

Essentially, the main problem with this topic is that Sinhalese and Tamils interpret the various events very differently, and are never going to agree on how they should be interpreted. It seems to me that, though, that despite that, it is actually quite easy to get to a point which everyone can agree on as being NPOV from the position the article is in right now, by simply stating that Tamils see the actions of the GoSL as being State terrorism, whereas Sinhalese don't, then presenting both points of view dispassionately, and letting the reader make up his or her own mind. What I'm envisaging is an opening paragraph along these lines:

One of the major factors behind the worsening of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has been the Tamil perception that the Government of Sri Lanka has engaged in state terrorism against them. The Government of Sri Lanka, and most Sinhalese, disagree strongly with this assessment. This article presents a list of incidents which Tamils see as being evidence of Sri Lankan state terrorism, and explains why Sinhalese interpret the incidents differently.

One would then have separate headings for each of the incidents, where one first factually outlined what happened, then explained why the Tamils see it as state terrorism, and finally why Sinhalese disagree. I give below (in italics) an example - based on an incident chosen at random from the article - of how this might work:

1970

In 1970, Sri Lanka banned the importing of films, books, journals, and other media and literature in the Tamil language from Tamil Nadu in India. At the same time, it banned the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a political party based in Tamil Nadu, and the Tamil Youth League, and introduced foreign exchange restrictions which prevented Tamil students from going to India for university education, and from appearing for examinations for external degrees from the University of London.

Sri Lankan Tamils saw this the media ban and the proscription of the two Tamil Nadu-based organisations as an attempt to culturally isolate them from the Tamils of India. Going to India for higher studies was a long-established practice amongst Sri Lankan Tamils, as was studying for a degree from the distance education division of University of London, and stopping this cut them off from their traditional educational opportunities. This, taken together with the other restrictions imposed by the government on Tamil education, was seen by the Tamils as an attempt to snuff out Tamil culture in Sri Lanka.

The Sinhalese, however, see it very differently. They argue that the Sri Lankan government of the time was strongly socialist, and followed policy aimed at achieving total self-sufficiency. As a result, they banned almost all imports, including food, and did not just target Tamil media. Additionally, they argue that the ban on imports extended to all ethnic communities, including Muslims and Burghers, and cannot therefore be categorised as aimed against Tamils. Finally, they argue that since there was no evidence of violence or coercion, this policy cannot be considered state terrorism.

I don't propose to get involved in this article - I've been dragged into too many Sri Lanka related articles as it is, and I'd like nothing better than to extricate myself. Is this approach something that the editors who work on this article feel is a good way of moving forward, and something they can sign up to? -- Arvind 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Arvind , I think the existing entry for Sri Lanka in [state terrorism] page is sufficient as it hyperlinks to Black July page . Forget the issue of whether everything is true (should be referenced) or not. The main point here is that other incidents simply do not fit the title of the page because they do not meet the criteria for state terrorism. See the following definitions

State terrorism is a controversial term (see:State terrorism. Confines and definition), which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state.

Care should be taken to differentiate state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents which are not specified by government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not considered state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action.

I suggest merging the factual and verifiable incidents into Sri Lanka history page.Ruchiraw 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

However, national government or proxy state does not mean it has to be included in a bill passed in the parliment. If you keep reading the state terrorism article, you'll find that a lone policeman going nuts is not state terrorism, but an organised incident can be organised at a lower level than the national level and still qualify. WilyD 13:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi WilyD. Of the incidents listed only the last one(church in 2006) has been carried out by government forces. I have searched but cannot find any evidence it was organised. It appears to have a spur of the moment attack by some of the local soldiers.

Perhaps, but that's your conclusion and inadmissable under WP:OR. Jehan Perera of the independent National Peace Council (for example) disagrees with you on this point, so we cannot merely chuck it out. Rather, we just fairly and judiciously list the conflicting claims, and let the reader figure it out for themselves. WilyD 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications

It's quite possible none of 1950, 1970 or 1971 really qualify as state terrorism, even if true exactly as alledged. WilyD 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition

Some, such as Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, view particular political systems as instances of state terrorism: "State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance."

By this point of view even local level organized violence against civilains can be contrued as State terrorismHuracane

How low level do you mean, Huricane. Even if 10 soldiers assault or murder civilians without orders, is it state terrorism (Eg:- Abu Ghraib)Ruchiraw 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Specific orders? General orders? Assumed orders? What were their intentions? What was the government's response? WilyD 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Government intentions can only be gauged by the reaction to the alleged incidents and the intensity, volume and pattern of such incidents. Obviously no modern government leaves a paper or policy trails when dirty war tactics are used. See Massacre in Trincomalee. We can term it State terrorism, if NGOS such AI, HRW, UTHR(J) and local eye witness accounts allege that it was carried out by the military, planned at least at the local level and the perpetrators are not brought to justice even if they are identified (which usually does not happen). Also if there is credible threats against witnesses as there is on this case and the threat is carried through inspite of what Ngo’s plead and no one is again held responsible. Of course sometimes it is difficult to find the perpetrators but there should be evidence presented by the government that a fair effort was spent in identifying the culprits. If not it is State terrorism.Huracane 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So would you then say that Rodney King was not a victim of state terrorism, while Dudley George was? WilyD 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that is very good question, if you put the requirements for state terrorism down in an environment where the governments have all the power and resource to cover it trails. Then we can only define incidents based on

• Pattern of incidents
• Volume of incidents
• Impunity of those who commit it
• Corrective actions taken or not such as transfers, disciplinary actions, policy changes after incidents
• Protection given to witnesses
• Stand taken by NGO’s such as AI, HRW, UN, IRC….
• Statements made by persons of political, administrative and judicial power regarding these incidents as a response to the allegation by the above
• Reasonableness of the effort to catch the perpetrators

If you look at all these conditions then both the incidents potentially (border line with the benefit of doubt given to the victim not the government) qualify as State terrorism against powerless minority groups, dont they ? Huracane 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The officers who beat King were charged with some sort of crime - police misconduct or something. The were acquitted, but I don't think it's fair to blame the government for that. WilyD 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is difficult to find patently State terroristic actions in the West. Dddley George stands out when we find out that Mike Harris was quoted as saying I want the funcking indians out and the police took it as an order to evict them by any means. But when the west goes east such as the war in Iraq, these things seem to change:-))Huracane 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get a handle on what is/isn't concensus here, and these seem like two good example to question on. Ruchiraw seems very interested in the level of government where the decision is made, as I read it, but I'm more convinced the important points are whether it's done organisedly or alone, and what the person's motivations are, as well as how the state reacts. It's thus clear to me, for example, that a Shawinigan Handshake is not state terrorism, even though it's done at the highest level of government, because it's an individual acting alone, and not really to further the objectives of the state. WilyD 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dudley George clearly is state terrorism Huracane 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some argue that Abu Ghraib is American State terrorism. But in Sri Lanka it is endemic and with impunity. Not one single soldier is held responsible since 1958, unlike the US which did cover up only to find the cover blown. That's the difference between a Democratic state with checks and balances and another without such protection.Huracane 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1981

The citation doesn't seem to address the issue it appears to be referenced by - can you elaborate here? WilyD 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who put that citationRuchiraw 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference is no longer pointing to the article it sourced. See below some references

• [1]

  [2]

  [3]

  [4]

Huracane 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I switched it to the Unesco one, which I judged reasonable WilyD 15:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be added to this list

Lets discuss

• Trincomalee massacre of students