Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oz346 (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 20 April 2024 (→‎Terrorist is a contentious term that goes against Wikipedia policies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Women's participation

Mam1220 amd Krv1325 A very larges section about Women's participation gives a WP:Undue weight.I am inclined to agree with Oz346. Saturnrises (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about undue weight. I think the topic deserves its own page, actually. So it could be shortened to one main paragraph on the LTTE page, with a link to its own page. Mam1220 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krv1325:, @Mam1220: Oz346 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of other ethnic groups title

@Cossde:, the 1987 Eastern province massacres have not been described as 'ethnic cleansing' by any reliable sources. Ethnic cleansing is a contested concept that emerged in the 1990s without a legal definition under international criminal law. The cited source for the 1987 Trincomalee expulsion of Sinhalese doesn’t mention ethnic cleansing. See for example the article on the expulsion of northern Muslims, which has had far more references mentioning ethnic cleansing, yet even its title remains the more objective "expulsion of...".Oz346 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz346: the subject page Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province of Sri Lanka deals with the LTTE's systemactic attempts to anaged in ethnic cleansing, it has the relavant RS. I sugges you read it.Cossde (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to the expulsion of Muslims, that is a strawman argument. I am referring to the 1987 Eastern province massacres, no reliable sources have described those incidents as ethnic cleansing, so it can not just be put under an ethnic cleansing section without reliable sources supporting that contention. Oz346 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde Ethnic cleansing and expulsion are not "one and the same" as you stated. Expulsions can happen without the goal of ethnic cleansing, which seems to refer to "the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas".
It's a controversial term which is why even the recently cited Human Rights Watch report puts "ethnic cleansing" alone in quote marks unlike other crimes.
On its controversy, Encyclopedia Britannica states:
"Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide."
See source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing
Please engage in consensus building before you publish your interpretations. Petextrodon (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde @Oz346
NOTE as per WP:Consensus: “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.”
I’m fine with the title “accusations of ethnic cleansing” (although it’s unclear if it meets WP:NDESC and looks too WP:POVNAMING based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION for such a strong charge), as long as the 1987 Trincomalee bits are removed. Since the cited source for the 1987 case doesn’t refer to it as “ethnic cleansing”, it should be moved here as per WP:IRRELEVANT. Is this acceptable?
On a side note, there’s good reason to suggest the primary goal of LTTE in expelling the Sinhalese settlers in Trincomalee was to counter government’s stated policy of undermining Eelam territorial claim, rather than creating an ethnically pure Tamil province, which is contradicted by LTTE leadership's official statements from the 1980s to the 2000s. But it’s for experts who specialize in this field to decide whether it amounted to “ethnic cleansing”. Petextrodon (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the reference referring to the civilian death toll caused by the LTTE does describe it as a small proportion. Finally that che Guevara comparison is in the reference. why do you not check the references before making edits? That should be a basic first step before making controversial edits. Oz346 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and please refrain from personal attacks, accusing me of "whitewashing". Oz346 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal ojbectives of "whitewashing" the LTTE and tanishing Sri Lanka seems very clear in the edits you have been doing. Take these edits for example. You purpously added the text "a small proportion" for a number of deaths in their thousands to lessen the number or justify the number beening small or relative. Where as you are more than happy to keep an single article from a regional magazine in the header to claim links to a revlutionalry ideloligy of man that every stooped to such dispicalble tactics. If this is not "whitewashing" what is? Please your words don't fool us for we saw with our eyes what that the blood and bodies on the ground due to their handy work.Cossde (talk)
and please discuss before making any reverts, Wikipedia works on consensus building, especially regarding controversial topics. Thanks Oz346 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, you could have done that in the first place.Cossde (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference clearly states that the civilians death toll due to the LTTE was a small proportion of the overall civilian death toll. You are being completely obstructive by refusing to read the actual reference which I have pointed out twice. This is now the third separate time I am telling you to read the reference. It is not my own personal opinion. Secondly, you should refrain from your personal attacks and keep to the facts. Oz346 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quoting verbatim from the reference which you have constantly disregarded and falsely accused me of white washing and putting my own personal opinion into the text. This is disruptive behaviour, I should not have to tell you 3 TIMES that it is in the reference cited and for you to constantly ignore it:
"In relative terms, and in the course of a long and bloody civil war, the number of civilians killed by terrorist acts attributed to the LTTE was somewhat modest compared with estimates of the overall civilian death toll."
Hawdon, James; Ryan, John; Lucht, Marc (6 August 2014). The Causes and Consequences of Group Violence: From Bullies to Terrorists. ISBN 9780739188972.
I am re-adding the text you have deleted now. You have seen my replies (I know this because you have done other edits on other pages since) but never answered them. Oz346 (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modest definition:
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/modest Oz346 (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objective of comparing the LTTE killings and deathtol? To show the killings are low? Is it to justyfy that the LTTE is the lesser of two evils? Or to indicate the number killed by the LTTE? I say YOU want to "whitewash" the LTTE by putting the number in relative terms and take out the wegiht of the fact that they killed thousands. It is an insult to the dead.Cossde (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with Cossde here. I don't see why we should be diluting a section called "Human rights violations" in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam page with references to state or state-backed violations, whether explicitly or implicitly.
Just reading the section, it looked like the pro-LTTE crowd (not making any accusations against any users, just saying what it would look like to an external reader) couldn't handle a section about LTTE human rights violations and felt the need to put in their own grievances against the state as a counter.
Yes, there were morally complex reasons behind why the LTTE did what it did, but unless the argument is that those reasons somehow make its actions not human rights violations, they should not be included here. This is not a place to be getting into deep, nuanced discussions about the moral complexities of the war; this is a black-and-white SUMMARY of the LTTE's human rights violations. What happened to Tamils beforehand, or how many more civilians the state/IPKF/paramilitaries murdered are beyond irrelevant and, in my view, do not belong here. They can be included in pages about specific LTTE violations (like the 1987 Eastern Province massacres discussing the 1985 Trinco massacres). This also goes for the Muslim expulsion; what certain Muslims may or may not have done to support the state is irrelevant to the fact that, in the end, their expulsion was a grave human rights violation. Or do you think that the existence of pro-state Muslims renders the expulsion a non-human rights violation?
You wouldn't go to a memorial for the Anuradhapura massacre and say, "it was retaliation for the VVT massacre." You wouldn't go to a memorial for the Aranthalawa massacre and say, "the state killed way more Tamils." Whataboutism to the state's crimes, whether explicitly or implicitly is actually deeply inappropriate.
But, I expect that my arguments have fallen on some deaf ears, so I ask that a neutral third-party be brought in to opine. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This information is not irrelevant. And its presence certainly does not mean that the subsequent LTTE attacks were not human right violations. E.g. we would not remove the LTTE attack on soldiers in Jaffna from the Black July page. Oz346 (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We would not remove the LTTE attack on soldiers in Jaffna from the Black July page." Yes, I agree. However, if there was a page or section called something like "Human rights violations of the Sri Lankan state," you might not include it, or do so in a very limited fashion.
Even if I conceded that there should be some contextualization is necessary for the "Attacks on civilians", I take note that out of 358 words in this section, 105 (29%) are dedicated to the state's actions at Weli Oya. I don't see why this much attention needs to be given to the state, again, on a section about LTTE attacks on civilians. It's not like Weli Oya was the only place where Sinhalese civilians were attacked.
Then, in the "Accusations of ethnic cleansing section", the 1987 Eastern Province massacres is followed by "where Tamils had previously been driven out by security forces and Sinhalese mobs in 1985." While I added the bit about 1987, someone else added in the "particularly the Trincomalee district" + the 1985 piece with 3 citations (whereas I only put 1 citation for the actual LTTE crimes). This seems like a blatant dilution to me, and is better suited for the 1987 page itself (side note, did the LTTE actually claim that 1985 was the reason for the Trinco attacks?) rather than on a section about the human rights violations of the LTTE. There's also a lot of background for the Muslim expulsion that seems unnecessary and, again, in my view is better for the specific page.
Anyways, I realize I haven't been quite clear about what I think is acceptable or not, here it is. I'm fine with "Attacks were often alleged to be carried out in revenge for attacks committed by the Sri Lankan Army, such as the Anuradhapura massacre which immediately followed the Valvettithurai massacre.[note 2]". I'm also fine with "According to Hawdon et al around 3,700 to 4,100 civilians were killed in LTTE "terrorist acts", a small proportion of the overall civilian death toll during the war.[276]". Given that we've already established that LTTE attacks were believed to be retaliatory and a small proportion of civilian casualties, I'm not fine with the whole section on Weli Oya, "particularly in the Trincomalee District, where Tamils had previously been driven out by security forces and Sinhalese mobs in 1985.[304][305][306]", and a lot of the background of the Muslim expulsion. SinhalaLion (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's deal with each topic one by one. Regarding the Trincomalee violence, the HRW report you cited itself situates Tamil mobs' resentment in previous anti-Tamil violence by Sinhalese mobs (see the footnotes). It provides contextualisation of the event not a moral justification of it. I will remove two of the references from that sentence to make it more balanced. Oz346 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the section on Muslims, I think the entire penultimate paragraph can be removed, it's excessive. And regarding the preceding paragraph to that, after the sentence "The eviction of Muslim residents happened in the north in 1990, and the east in 1992.", everything could be removed apart from Yogis quote, which I think is the genuine reason for the expulsion and is straight from the horses' mouth (not mere speculation). Also some of those preceding sentences are just contradictory, for example, one minute it says Muslims did not support the LTTE, then the next minute it says there were Muslim cadres. Its not coherent, as well as the fact that it has too much detail which is already developed on in its main page. Oz346 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t make sense of LTTE’s actions without placing it in the context of the government's stated policy of undermining the Eelam territorial claim with Sinhalese settlements. It’s a very crucial detail that needs to be provided. Petextrodon (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be reworded and summarised without excess details to make it more balanced. There is repetition in that paragraph, for example:
"The state-sponsored settlements of Sinhalese in the northern and eastern parts of the island which the LTTE considered to be the traditional homeland of Tamils became "the sites of some of the worst violence."
"The continuous inflow of Sinhalese settlers in Tamil areas since the 1950s had become a source of inter-ethnic violence and had been one of the major grievances expressed by the LTTE." Oz346 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest deleting the existing paragraphs? What’s "excessive" is that more than half of the article is dedicated to the negative portrayal of the subject, which isn't neutral and is undue weight. -- Petextrodon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights violations section takes up almost half of the article with individual subsections and excess details but we aren’t allowed to provide any relevant background information? That is one-sided. Contrast that to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces counterpart, a paltry 3 sentences on war crimes, that too blaming both parties. Providing an explanation on why an incident occurred isn’t same as providing a moral justification of it, which is your own personal interpretation. Even human rights NGOs provide such explanations. As the other user noted, the HRW report that you cited does the same when it places the resentment of Tamil mobs in the previous anti-Tamil violence by local Sinhalese mobs as per the notes on pages 51 and 55. You’re the only one here who is engaged in a moral discussion which should be avoided as per WP:NPOV.
What’s excessive is that more than half of the whole article is dedicated to the negative portrayal of the LTTE (if you count in the proscriptions, suicide attacks and assassinations sections). What’s needed is addition of the other perspective, definitely not less. Anything else goes against WP:NPOV.
Also I feel undue weight is given to this 1987 Trincomalee incident since unlike the Jaffna Muslim expulsion it is not widely described as “ethnic cleansing”, a strong and contentious charge that might need analysis of experts who specialize in this field than a simple passing reference which even the cited HRW report doesn’t include. -- Petextrodon (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oz346: I'm fine with your modifications to Weli Oya and the Muslim expulsion. Regarding Trincomalee, again, I think mention of the 1985 events is better suited for the page itself. I could understand your point better if there was no page for the 1987 events already. Regarding the HRW source, yes, I saw those footnotes, but only the first one alludes to 1985, and that too in a tacit fashion and not from an LTTE member.
@Petextrodon: First of all, by trimming down all this bloating as Oz346 suggests, we'll be reducing the overall size of the human rights violations section. The problem is that, in the past, people have tried to fit oversized summaries of events (like Weli Oya and the Muslim expulsion) that are better suited for individual pages. The other way to decrease the proportion of negative coverage of the LTTE is to add positive things they did in another section. As for the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page, I have not personally opposed a section about its human rights abuses.
Second of all, when I said "unless the argument is that those reasons somehow make its actions not human rights violations," I was not referring to morality, but legality. For example, I've come across people who claim that, if the Sinhalese settlements targeted in attacks were on lands stolen from Tamils, then those settlements were legitimate targets in war. Hence, this is not about subjective morality, but rather objective, legal human rights. Of course, such people would probably not view those attacks as moral crimes (or very weakly moral crimes), but that's not the point I'm making. You mention, "you can’t make sense of LTTE’s actions without placing it in the context of the government's stated policy of undermining the Eelam territorial claim with Sinhalese settlements" — yes, which is why I'm fine with the proposed change to Weli Oya which still includes mention of the issue. The other issue is that the provided context to Trinco and Weli Oya is not simply Sinhalese settlement, but Sinhalese settlement through Tamil displacement. Sinhalese settlement, before the war, was not (usually) done by expelling Tamils, and even during the war, I doubt every settlement created was formerly occupied by Tamils, or that only the settlements formed via displacement were attacked. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources which point to the events of 1985 having a direct effect on key Trincomalee LTTE members and their resulting attacks in 1987.
From chapter 5, Broken Palmyra:
"By the end of 1985, those of the Tamil residents of Trincomalee district outside the city who were alive, had become refugees. The L.T.T.E. leader Pulendran, who came to be feared by Sinhalese, is said to have seen most of his family killed by Sri Lankan forces before his eyes. In such a situation the killing and counter-killing of Tamil and Sinhalese civilians became the order of the day."
If the HRW report thought it appropriate to touch on this background, I don't see a good reason why it should not be mentioned here too. Its not excessively long either. Oz346 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've conceded Weli Oya and the Muslim expulsion, I'll concede Trincomalee. Keep it as it is. I think we've come to a resolution, unless anyone else objects. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the reduction of citations, of course. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on FBI notice

A long thread of arguments that has not been active since June 2023
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have previously shown the FBI notice to be unreliable with poor fact checking, for example, its claimed death toll contradicts it's other publications. it is not directly related to the proscription either. Oz346 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding FBI source poor fact checking and unreliability:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#FBI_Press_Release_and_Potential_Clash_of_Numbers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War/Archive_4 Oz346 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can say the same about Karen Parker.Cossde (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you? Can you please point out a factual inaccuracy in the Karen Parker reference? Because the FBI notice has an incorrect death toll figure which contradicts their own publications and conflates the entire civilians death toll (due to all parties) with just the LTTE. Oz346 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Parker? An indivedual! who seem to have a diffrent opinion on the LTTE and uses an argument of its convencional warfare cablaiblity as means to claim its an armed force. Yet Parker forgets how it got there by enageing in terrrorit acitivities. In fact by saying the LTTE kills civilians, Parker justifies the kiling of civilians by armed forces. Where as the FBI artcile is used to cite not the figures here but share its anaylisis.Cossde (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a secondary scholarly source directly dealing with the U.S. proscription. FBI’s primary source notice is redundant and it doesn’t deal with the proscription of foreign groups. Its role is to crackdown on the domestic activities of groups that the state department proscribes. So when you cite the FBI notice, it makes it look like the FBI’s 2008 claims were the reasons why the state department had proscribed the LTTE in 1997. It is original research to connect FBI’s claims to the terrorist designation since the notice itself doesn’t explicitly connect LTTE’s terrorist designation to its claims of "among the most dangerous and deadly extremist outfits in the world".
As for Karen Parker, she stated other governments should stay neutral in civil wars, though she didn't explicitly deal with the proscriptions by governments specifically. Both can be removed. Petextrodon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde @Oz346
NOTE as per WP:Consensus: “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.”
I would like to address a point the other editor made: “the FBI artcile is used to cite not the figures here but share its anaylisis.”
If the analysis isn’t based on facts and figures cited in the same notice, what is it then based on? “amongst the most dangerous and deadly” description could only refer to the kill count. By the way, the notice wasn’t meant as an “analysis”. It was just a notice warning people to be vigilant of LTTE fundraising activities which explains the sensationalism. As another editor already noted in that 2009 noticeboard: “it's essentially a pep talk to make police aware of LTTE.”
Since neither FBI nor Karen Parker explicitly connect their statements to the proscriptions by governments, citing them here is WP:OR and/or WP:IRRELEVANT, therefore should be removed. Is this acceptable? Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde Hello, could you address my points directly? Also sign your replies next time. Petextrodon (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, thank you for reminding my typo in the signature. Its fixed. I don't HAVE TO address you. If you want you can take off Karen Parker's statement. To begin with its a personal opinion at the end of statements by Governments. Therefore, event if its there it has little to no worth. As appose to a government agency that has been hunting down terrorists since J. Edgar Hoover.Cossde (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well you have to address the editors in the talk discussion in order to build consensus, that's how it works. Could you show where in the FBI notice the claims "amongst the most dangerous and deadly extremists" is explicitly connected to the terrorist proscription, in order for you to include it under the section on government proscription? Petextrodon (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cossde I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Petextrodon (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, you are free to file a complaint against me in ANI, however please remember that you are removing content cited that has been in this page for a long time and that has been been debated in the past this can be considered WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, might I remind you it was Oz346 that removed it from its original place in the HR violations [1], without consensus after it had been there for a long time and now you remove cited as well. Since you feel that this content is not suitable in this section I will move it to the lead and place it along side the similar AisaWeek comparison to Che Guevara. I have also added other RS that has citied this reference. Cossde (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War/Archive 4 a similar issue was raised on this page regarding use of this sensationalist source in the lead, and an admin @El C: ruled in favour of its removal. It is wikipedia undue weight, already there is mention of the LTTE as being labelled as terroristic and designated a terrorist organisation (including by the USA). An equivalent to this on the other side would be to get multiple sensationalist sources saying repeatedly that LTTE are freedom fighters. Already this contradiction has been summed up succinctly on the intro (guerilla vs terrorist). Adding this FBI quote is definitely not NPOV. Another third opinion seems necessary. Oz346 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the debate in the past was regarding its erroneous figures, which I have since conclusively shown to be false. There was no real consensus on that discussion in that link, instead one editor Wikireader41 who is a self proclaimed fan of the CIA and other intelligence agencies was firmly supporting the FBI (hardly free of bias that particular opinion - see his profile page), when in actual fact the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission is a far more reliable agency for the death toll figures. Oz346 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should first engage in the discussion on the validity of the source and its claims before adding it into the introduction which can be considered undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. Remember what you had stated elsewhere: "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Petextrodon (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's farcical, this FBI source has been conclusively shown to distort and amplify crucial figures like the total civilian death toll attributed to the LTTE in the prefinal phase of the war by many thousands, and is a source with proven poor fact checking. It is sensationalist and seems to have been written by a staff member with poor research skills. It really is not suitable for a high quality referenced encyclopaedia. If any source can be described as highly questionable it's this. Oz346 (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a matter of "poor research skills" but an active propaganda campaign meant to support the police crackdown on LTTE fundraising activities right after the Sri Lankan government had pulled out of the ceasefire agreement and launched the final military offensive against the LTTE. As The Economic Times stated of the FBI notice: "the timing of the advisory comes as an indication that the Bush administration is openly siding with the Sri Lankan government in its war against the LTTE." It's a clearly biased source, not suitable for the lead section. Petextrodon (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about that. It’s like citing the FBI’s Red Scare propaganda notice on the introduction to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It is certainly not WP:NPOV for an introduction into the subject matter. https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare Oz346 (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)::::::It is also undue weight to include it, as one of the agencies of the US government has already been used to rationalize the proscription (which has far more relevance). Oz346 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of FBI as a source has been debated in the past. Something to do with their view of the LTTE links to terrorism dont seem to sit well with those who want to whitewash them. FBI meets WP the criteria for RS. If you look at the list of approved RS for Sri Lankan Civil War topics such as the Tamil Net and News media, get figures wrong at times and does a lot of sensationalize. So if we are to drop an official FBI article, lets by all means drop Tamil Net. Cossde (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide evidence that Tamilnet which is noted for fact checking: TamilNet#Criticism and Counter-Criticism has made a distortion of figures as huge as what the FBI have said. The FBI in their sensationalist propaganda war have erroneously attributed the total 4000 civilians death toll of that phase of the war (the vast majority of which were actually due to Sri Lankan government forces) to just the LTTE, when the Sri Lankan Monitoring mission said that the figure was due to deaths by all parties. Oz346 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamilnet has already been discussed no need to discuss again.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it has been listed as a Pro-LTTE RS. Cossde (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the FBI notice does not fit the criteria for RS and has clear evidence of poor fact checking with false information and figures, that contradict it's other publications as well as other reliable sources such as ICG which quote the figures from the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission.
Not to mention it's clear sensationalist language.
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
Wikipedia own policies on the reliable sources article I've quoted above clearly indicate that it unsuitable to be used to make contentious claims against 3rd parties. It should be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that needs to have quality control. Not to regurgitate unreliable sources with proven evidence of poor fact checking and sensationalism. Oz346 (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree with one thing, this might not be suitable in the header, therefore the history section would be most appororiate. All else what you said is good, if only there was RS to prove your hypostasis. You forget that you are refering to the principal federal law enforcement agency of the United States, I find it hard to belive that per Wikiepdia standards it can not be considered a RS. Furthermore, the Hindu and the Times of India has quoted the statement of the FBI and has arrested and procecuted several persons linked to LTTE over the past years. Therefore I don't see why this content was removed from this page to begin with.Cossde (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no useful purpose for its inclusion other than purely for its propaganda value. Enough U.S. state agencies have been cited against the LTTE and to add this would give undue weight to a party (U.S. government) who by its own words wasn’t neutral in the conflict but according to Sri Lankan government officials contributed significantly to the Sri Lankan government’s war efforts against the LTTE. FBI's crackdown on those linked to the LTTE only reinforces the notion that it's a biased source. As The Economic Times article that you cited stated regarding the FBI notice: "the timing of the advisory comes as an indication that the Bush administration is openly siding with the Sri Lankan government in its war against the LTTE." FBI may be “the principal federal law enforcement agency of the United States” but it’s still a government agency engaged in counterintelligence with a notorious history of discrediting the political opponents of the U.S. government. The purpose of its warning notice is NOT objective scholarly analysis but to serve the political objective of the U.S. government. Petextrodon (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have RS confirming that FBI is engaged in propaganda for the U.S. government in support of the Sri Lankan government? If not there is no reason to state that this is propaganda. Even if is there are many pro-LTTE sources quoted here, some of which are clear propaganda. If what you say is correct, then these need to be removed to maintain WP:NPOV. WP:PARTISAN states "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. In fact Provisional Irish Republican Army page covers FBI activity in blocking IRA's arms supply from America. Furthemore, statements by US officals and other US Agenices have been included or citited in this page, even by you. Therefore, given that this content is properally citied, you have no clear grounds to object or remove it. Cossde (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of propaganda:
"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."
Yes this is clear propaganda. It has cooked up a false astronomically inflated figure of the civilian death toll due to the LTTE, and this is proven by it's own FBI yearly reports which have contradictory numbers (which incidentally are also full of sloppy errors and distortion), as well as the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War/Archive_4 Oz346 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you have RS confirming that FBI is engaged in propaganda for the U.S. government in support of the Sri Lankan government?"
The Economic Times article that you cited connects FBI's notice to the U.S. government's open support for the Sri Lankan government. Therefore, it is a political statement in support of one side of the conflict, not a neutral analysis as you think.
"Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Yes, but only when you cite it accordingly, and not as a neutral analysis comparable to scholarly literature. But enough U.S. state agencies viewpoints have already been cited. You have now agreed that its inclusion to the introduction is inappropriate. Where do you then hope to add it and for what purpose?
"In fact Provisional Irish Republican Army page covers FBI activity in blocking IRA's arms supply from America."
But it's just a matter-of-fact statement describing an action by the FBI, not citing FBI's warning notice with contentious words like "most dangerous and deadly extremists" as a serious analysis. Petextrodon (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That I can agree with, that this would not be situable in the lead, however it would be suitable in the history section under the subsection of military defeat, in addition to the FBI warring, content on FBI operations to precure weapon in the US can be included in it.Cossde (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you seem so insistent on adding this particular notice when better reliable sources could be used for the same purpose? I realize its sensationalist claims have had much warm reception in Sri Lanka among the government and its supporters but for the purpose of a neutral encyclopedia its weight ought to be much less. Petextrodon (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I do realize that it has not sat well with the LTTE or its supporters. Perhaps the US's stance and this view taken up by the FBI had played some part in the LTTE's downfall. I don't have any reference to claim it. However, it remains an historic fact that the FBI did make such a statement, when it did and had not retracted it since. Therefore, it is all but fair to include it in Wiki. Given that its cleary stated that its from the FBI, hence will not effect neutralality since, the US Governement had decalared the LTTE a terroirst orgernization well over a decade before.Cossde (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My final stance on this issue is that we already have enough viewpoints of U.S. state agencies, therefore any more addition from yet another U.S. state agency is just excessive at this point. Let's see what a third party opinion that you requested has to say. -- Petextrodon (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that you have adopted a final stance. However I am not surprised. I don't agree with your view since 1) this is an official FBI statement that has been republished by RS 2) I feel it does not violate WP:NPOV since there are many pro-LTTE sources cited in this article. If your logic is followed, then these need to be removed as well. 3) There is no Wiki rule limiting citied content on the basis of what you call "yet another U.S. state agency is just excessive at this point". This war has had involvement of multiple countries over the years. One can argue that there is enough reference to India or the EU here in this page, however such content still remains. Finally, your stance is not on adding of new conntent, but the removal of content that have been in this page for a long time that had been removed by Oz346 without common agreement.Cossde (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"One can argue that there is enough reference to India or the EU here in this page, however such content still remains."
You're adding viewpoints, not simply describing an action of a state agency. If your real priority were just about describing FBI's crackdown on fundraising, there would be no need to add excess details about alleged influence on Al-Qaeda because even if the LTTE hadn't used the suicide tactic the U.S. policy would still have favoured the Sri Lankan government.
"Finally, your stance is not on adding of new conntent, but the removal of content that have been in this page for a long time that had been removed by Oz346 without common agreement."
The content was removed from sections unsuitable for it, which is why you have now suggested to include additional paragraphs to the history section just to accommodate this content. -- Petextrodon (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who and how was it determined that it was unsuitable? Cossde (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to opine on the issue surrounding the FBI. So far, the FBI's claims seem fringe and inconsistent with other sources (including, I believe, Sri Lankan government accounting). At best, we should put something like, "the FBI claimed...".
As for the broader implication, as alluded to here, of whether the LTTE's lower casualty level makes it more moral — not necessarily. I mean, I could just say that the Sri Lankan security forces were better at defending their people (Sinhalese, Muslims, and even Tamils to an extent). If you had to choose between two protection forces: one under whose watch 4,000 died, or another under whose watch 200,000+ died (according to the highest estimates), whom would you choose? SinhalaLion (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to opine on the FBI issue would agree with Petextrodon and FBI's claims seem fringe and inconsistent with other sources and hence better sources can be used.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

Does this section have any meaning at all? It has been crafted in a way to share blame and then when specific allegations are added, its been removed saying that it needs to be summarized? And that its a general article about the LTTE and then there is a whole load of WP:OR comparisons with the LTTE. This section needs to be rewritten to include exactly what the source content indicates without a watered down "summery". Cossde (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then the editors remove similar balanced content additions to the SLAF page stating that "explanation on LTTE article". Cossde (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting, when the same editors remove unfavorable content from the SLAF page stating "This section already blames both sides, no need for excess details on an unrelated organization". Cossde (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article does not have a dedicated human rights violations section with detailed subsections and subtopics taking up more than half of the page like the LTTE article does. It only has few sentences on war crimes by government forces which also blame the LTTE yet you want to add even more details about the LTTE which is clearly undue weight. As for the LTTE article, either we summarize or cut down on the entire section if you insist on bloating it up even further, in order to maintain some balance. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean hid the human rights violations of the ltte? Cossde (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean human rights violations section should be summarized without excess details for each subtopic. Even another Sinhalese editor agreed in the past the section was excessive. Yet you insist on bloating it up even further, although you won't allow the same for Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What have you been doing in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces section for well over a decade?
[2]
[3]
[4]
Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence
Is this not hiding?
You were removing reliably sourced minor mentions of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. Mere single sentences. This is a far cry from the overly long human right violations section here, that takes up half the page on this article, with multiple subsections and personal accounts. Definitely, wikipedia's current coverage of both parties to the conflict has double standards. Oz346 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you Petextrodon say "Sinhalese editor agreed in the past" are you bring in ethical bias to this wiki discussions? And may I remind you Oz346, that it was Petextrodon who threatened to "cut down on the entire section", hence my question, why Petextrodon wants to "cut down on the entire section" and human rights violations of the ltte. Cossde (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple reason: it's about balance. When one controversial section is given more weight that it takes up half or more of the whole article, it's not balanced but POV pushing. You would not allow that on Sri Lanka Armed Forces article, would you? --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore you want to "cut down on the entire section"? I don't understand your point. Cossde (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they need to be condensed and not further expanded as you're doing. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what you said before. You said "either we summarize or cut down on the entire section". Cossde (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist is a contentious term that goes against Wikipedia policies

@Alejandroo2234: This is your final warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It has to be encyclopaedic and be written from a neutral point of view. The word Terrorist is a subjective and controversial term. As a result Wikipedia policies advises users to refrain from its use. Familiarise yourself with this policy and stop edit warring. Thank you.Oz346 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]