Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 4

Changes to New Intro - July 29th Onward

Discuss changes still left to be addressed on the new intro here, for example ethnic cleansing.

For my part I find several sources that support the claim that the LTTE no longer carries out any ethnic cleansing type activities for example the same link I used above [1] also had this to say:

Recently the leader of the Tamil Tigers, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, accepted that grievous harm had been done to the Muslims, and invited them to come back. (note this is an article from Oct 2002).

At the same time I am not sure the GoSL's current actions would also qualify as ethnic cleansing either, sure aerial bombardment of Tamil civilian areas is causing mass displacement but can we characterise that as cleansing? --Realstarslayer 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to talk about both ethnic cleansing and genocide. Genocide is when you are trying to destroy an ethnic group, like the Nazis did to the Jews. Ethnic cleansing is when you don't want to destroy the group but want to force them to leave, like the Serbs did to Kosovo. How can it be both ethnic cleansing and genocide? I think we should only use one term, otherwise it removes credibility and makes it look just like ranting and stupid groundless accusations. I don't think any senior LTTE leader has recently said the Sri Lanak government is committing ethnic cleansing, and in Tamil circles also we usually only talk about what has happened as genocide, not as ethnic cleansing so I think that is the correct thing to say when we talk about what we accuse the GoSL of doing. Ethnic cleansing would be if they were trying to force everyone from Jaffna and everywhere else to leave Sri Lanka which is the wrong term. To the Sinhalese people here - please, I am not saying we should say the GoSL committed genocide, only that we should say that the LTTE is accusing them of genocide. --Ponnampalam 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As you say I don't think there is much evidence for ethnic cleansing today from either party. However the past has shown that both ethnic cleansing and genocide can be practiced at the same time, of course no where near the scale of Nazi Germany or the Serbians, but localised instances of both have been perpetrated by the GoSL and ethnic cleansing by the LTTE. So perhaps change the line as follows:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. Accusations of attempted ethnic cleansing have also been traded by both parties in the past.

--Realstarslayer 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the statement you have proposed. I think it is the most compact,yet accurate assessment of the two views (Government and Tamil Nationalist forces). Johnathan1156 18:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have added that change and we'll see how it reads now, as always everyone please list any comments or changes here before implementing them in the article. Thanks.--Realstarslayer 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is fair. Congratulations, I think you have reached a wording which should satify everyone. --Ponnampalam 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the intro does a very good job of maintaing NPOV. I have a few comments as follows and i have added in a few statements that we were discussing and whihc is needed to maintain NPOV.

Added in the number of countries whcih have banned LTTE

Rearranged second and third para to give a meaningful flow.

It would be POV to accuse anybody of anything but not mention if it is proved or not. UN or any country have not substantiated these accusations. I have added in that fact as well .

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. Accusations of attempted ethnic cleansing have also been traded by both parties in the past.

Factually the bans in India,Malaysia , US and UK predated any attempts at a negotiated solution so this is an LTTE claim which is factually incorrect. Even the EU ban was triggered by Kadirgamars murder and the attack on the naval convoy. I have included the facts here

The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors as a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE intends to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.

Ruchiraw 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, I'm not sure why you insist on making changes before fully discussing them, please give others a chance to even comment first. I have reverted to just before your changes. Now to address your changes:

• The various pogroms carried out either with government complicity, e.g. 1983, or with the government looking the other way, e.g the pogroms of the 1950's can be considered genocidal acts by definition.

Genocide (noun) -the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Look I fully hate the 1983 and 1958 riots.

But this is the province of the UN to level claims of genocide. It is a bit cheeky of the LTTE to take over the role of the UN, especially as its own human rights record is not spotlessly white. Genocide as defined on Wikipedia has a loose definition which can even be applied to the treatment of Mexican immigrants in the US. Do I ask you to delete the LTTE claims of genocide , NO no no. I ask you to include the fact that no neutral UN or government body has actually supported this claim. How , how , how can including this fact be POV. It is a fact and Wikipedia supports the use of facts to extablish NPOV. Ruchiraw 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Factually all the bans you noted took place after rounds of peace talks, all but the Indian ban can be viewed as attempts by the various countries as efforts to push the LTTE towards more talks, in fact the EU stated this as their goal[2], so I am not sure where you have a problem with this statement? The timeline is below taken from BBC timeline and the section of this very page with dates of the various bans:

1985 - First attempt at peace talks between government and LTTE fails.

1992 - India Bans the LTTE

1994 - President Kumaratunga comes to power pledging to end war. Peace talks opened with LTTE.

1997 US bans LTTE.

2002 February - Government and Tamil Tiger rebels sign a permanent ceasefire agreement, paving the way for talks to end the long-running conflict. The peace initiative is sponsored by Norway.

2006 EU Bans LTTE

--Realstarslayer 01:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me one statement by the US , UK and Malaysia governments that they have banned the LTTE force it to peace table. They do not care 2 hoots about the LTTE or the people of Sri Lanka. They ban the LTTE at the same time as they banned dozens of other groups known for terrorist acts after the Oklahoma and Omagh bombings.Even the EU ban was triggered by Kadirgamars murder and the attack on the naval convoy. Ruchiraw 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well according the Amb. Lunstead (American Amb. to Lanka), the ban was indeed to force LTTE to negotiate with the GOSL [3]. Here is the paragraph of interest in his farewell press conference (Johnathan1156 13:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)):

QUESTION: Last question: is there an effort to form a contact group within the context of banning the LTTE, including the U.K., India, and America. Is this contact group formed?

LUNSTEAD: The U.S. and others have discussed that one of the important things that can be done is to find ways to, since in the U.S. and many of the other countries for instance, it’s illegal to contribute to the LTTE, to find ways to cooperate to see that that type of ban is more effective. So we do discuss this with other countries and we continue to discuss it and look for effective ways to enforce the law. Again, as I would say, you tend to confuse means and goals. The goal is not to ban or not ban the LTTE. The goal is not to get or not get money to the LTTE. The goal is for the LTTE to enter the political process, to negotiate with the government. And the result, if that happens, if they give up violence and do that, will be a different kind of relationship with outside actors. Organizations that are banned can be un-banned. The United States has removed organizations from the Foreign Terrorist List. In fact, that’s what our goal is – our goal is to get the LTTE off the list, not to put them on the list. Because if they came off the list it would mean that things were going well. That’s what we would like to see happen, is that for the LTTE to change its behavior to come off the list so we and others can engage, do development assistance in the conflict-affected areas of the Northeast which have been so deprived for so many years. That’s what we’d like to see happen.

Johnathan1156 13:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, the first paragraph of the link I gave you above clearly states the EU position on the ban, since you don't seem to have read it I will quote it here:

The European Union listed Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organization in a bid to push the separatist movement back to peace talks and avert a full resumption of the South Asian island's two-decade civil war.

--Realstarslayer 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, the changes may have been discussed, however there is no consensus on their implementation and I do not believe they add to NPOV, in fact they tilt the intro the other way. So I for one do not agree to the changes (my reasons are noted above), so please refrain from making them before we reach a consensus and please do not start reverting them back into place as well.

I am not going to revert it back until others have had a chance to discuss this further, I urge you not to add any more till we resolve this phase, otherwise as above we end up disucssing all different parts of the intro without sorting out the current issue first.

I should clarify though, the intro only gives us what the LTTE claim, just as the intro also gives us what the GoSL and several other governments claim, i.e. the LTTE are terrorist, since this is also your POV you do not see that as a POV, however you repeatedly want to eliminate statements that are only listing the LTTE 'claims' and are clearly noted as such, since this does not fall in line with your POV. This is not helping to make a NPOV intro.--Realstarslayer 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Claims must be supported by facts. 1 Some governments claim LTTE is terrorist. Fact Some governments have banned LTTE as terrorist 2 LTTE claims Sri Lanka practises (as in STILL does so, not what happened in 1983) Genocide and ethnic cleansing. FACT IS there independent (UN, Amnesty, Any government)support to this claim , Yes or no.Ruchiraw 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw you are not helping the situation. You are repeteadly imposing your version of the intro on others as has been mentioned by other users. You are not allowing others to discuss your intro nor critique here and its imposed on the page. Thats just no right! You are consistently trying to impose your POV and calling it NPOV. Hence I reverting back the intro which has the agreement of atleast six people in this forum. Johnathan1156 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ruchiraw - "The international community has not accept the charges of genocide and state sponsored terrorism against the Sri Lankan government." There is an allegation agaisnt the Sri Lankan government, and there is nothing wrong with pointing out a fact. Supermod 06:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnathan1156, Even if this version has the support of 6 million people, if it POV, it will still be POV. I am not changing any version , I am adding facts (as recommended by Wikipedia) to show the true picture as opposed to claims. That is why for the seventh time , I suggest the use of mediators as in the dispute resolution procedure. Ruchiraw 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the text so that it reads ..traditional Tamil regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka.. Just to make things perfectly clear.

Fine by me, makes it clearer.

Also chnged GoSL to Sri Lankan government. (Pretty sure it may confuse people)

Yeah I was thinking that should be changed too at least for intro so cool.

Changed the text to read "being the main body with whom the government must negotiate with to end the long-running conflict in Sri Lanka."

Ok this one, maybe it was getting late for you =) but it doesn read quite well, too many 'with's so I just replaced it with 'in order' to end the...

Also can someone please clarify why it matters to include the words " is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries, most of which have a minority Tamil population." I'm not sure of what use it is. --snowolfd4 08:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well not sure if it matters, but the point is that the major powers who have banned the LTTE did so partly to curtail their funding, and that was because of the large Tamil populations in their territories, US, EU, Canada, etc. Either way I am not too concerned if it stays or goes.--Realstarslayer 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it unnecessarily complicates the intro so I'm removing that bit. --snowolfD4 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POV in current intro

This is quite POV.

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority.

Then we could have a sentence saying

The Sri Lankan government in turn accuses the LTTE of genocide, indiscriminate political assasinations, gun running, drug trafficking , organised crime , massacring settlers, etc:-

Do you see my point . If we have a litany of claims , instead of facts we could spend pages on claims, See foll. para from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

Ruchiraw 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As I replied on my talk page, I do not agree with your point, because the statement clearly says this is what the LTTE claims, and not whether this is fact, just as the statement just before that states what the GoSL claims, i.e. the LTTE are terrorists, however again this does not mean it is fact, just what each side claims. That is all you can do to maintain neutrality, state each side's claims in such a case where it is a clash of POVs. Since the Tamils being protected by the LTTE would feel they are freedom fighters and the GoSL are terrorists, and vice versa, so you cannot place one claim above the other but only state both claims. However it seems you are hellbent on passing judgement on the LTTE claim while supporting the GoSL claims in the intro no matter how much we try to accomodate your requests with a neutral entry; this is clearly POV. To quote the very section you urged us to read:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

Its certainly radiating a stance now. Suggest we get impartial mediation to see if it isnt Ruchiraw 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You feel so only because of your own POV, while most others see a neutral intro that lists both sides claims.--Realstarslayer 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since this is an article on the LTTE, the oponents in this case would be the GoSL, so to place a counter GoSL claim to every LTTE claim would go against the principle above, even though we have compromised and allowed both LTTE and GoSL views in the intro to exist equally.--Realstarslayer 15:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I ask you to source GoSL . Ruchiraw 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No you are asking to add even more GoSL claims, whether source quoted is the GoSL or not, what you are requesting are still the beliefs of the GoSL.--Realstarslayer 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the present introduction has been agreed on by the several people who have been active on the Discussion page lately, it is not (in my opinion) an improvement on the version that was there a couple of weeks ago. It's wordy, awkward and repetitive, putting too much emphasis on the LTTE-vs.-Government slanging match and too little on the reality of the LTTE, and it omits some useful fragments of fact that used to be there. I'm getting out of here for a while (and I notice with interest that Ulflarsen, who has been the most diligent and reasonable editor of this page over the past months) and will see how things look when I have time to check in again. Credmond 15:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you Credmond the intro was fine, but we have tried this latest exercise to try and reach a compromise, unfortunately it doesn't seem one is possible... --Realstarslayer 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine put back the previosu intro but then IT will have to be edited to make it NPOV. If you like we can have mediation on whether any of the proposed intro ARE NPOV. This whole issue comes about because whenever me or other users try to make teh intro NPOV, Trincoman reverts it. He is engaging in a disruptive pattern which does not let us get to the NPOVRuchiraw 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also supportive of the original intro that existed a couple of weeks ago. This new intro was conceived to get everyone on board, but this one user has been persistently holding out on all compromises statements. In fact what I am seeing is that user is changing his stance as well from time to time trying to force his POV. This user claims POV of the following statement The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority., yet this user had the following to say 2 days ago .

(Johnathan1156 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)):

I am not the only user who feels the previosu intro was POVRuchiraw 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It violates POV and verifiability to accuse Sri Lanka of ethnic cleansing while ignoring the LTTE's own efforts at this, specially as this is an article on the LTTE . I don't see why we have to mention ethnic cleansing at all in the intro anyway but since some users want to keep it , lets make it NPOV at least.

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of ethnic cleansing, genocide and state-sponsored terrorism on its Tamil minority. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors has been a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE intends to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.Ruchiraw 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So shall we say "contends LTTE practises ethnic cleasing in order to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state".The rest sounds fine. Ruchiraw 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This user said everything else was fine then and now comes back and say its not. Johnathan1156 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are getting confused. Read what I said again Ruchiraw 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That is why I am getting exasperated with this whole thing, it seems even though Ruchiraw claims to be for an NPOV intro he is being disingenous and will not be satisfied until a GoSL tilted intro is implemented.--Realstarslayer 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATE . There are mechanisms for dispute resolutionRuchiraw 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity comitted by GOSL and listed by Impartial Observers

I am gathering evidence of claims of genocide by impartial observers to the conflict.

Here is an urgent appeal sent in 1998 by the well respected Asian Human Rights Comission together with the International Federation of Tamils that is titled Sri Lanka: Investigate Crimes Against Humanity: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/1998/38/?print=yes

It is mentioned as part of this appeal that "the genocidal war against the people of Tamil Eelam be ended."

The International Federation of Tamils (LTTE front organisation) urges that in the meantime, the Sub Commission brings to an end the suffering of the Tamil people and the continuing genocide, by calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Sri Lanka armed forces from the occupied areas of Tamil Eelam.

Your statement that IFT is an LTTE front organization is without evidence. The CSIS report you refer to later in this page only refers to an organization "International Federation of Tamils UK". The IFT mentioned here is believed to be from Switzerland. Trincomanb 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

'Peace and Justice' are inseparably interlinked. The International Federation of Tamils urges the Sub Commission to recognise that the building blocks for peace are the building blocks of justice and justice demands

1. that the genocidal war against the people of Tamil Eelam be ended

2. that the Sri Lanka war criminals be brought to justice

3. that the Sri Lanka army withdraw from the Tamil homeland

4. that the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom be recognised; and

You are being a bit careless here . This is an open forum on which anyone can post an urgent appeal. I am going to post a letter now accusing the LTTE of all crimes it committed. I am going to CC to to Kofi Annan , George Bush and Vladimir Putin as well .Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is false Trincomanb 02

50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an explanation of the Urgent Appeals desk:

AHRC has an Urgent Appeals desk that operates around the clock.

AHRC issues Urgent Appeals on behalf of persons or groups whose human rights have been violated, and for whom some immediate intervention by people around the world may lead to a remedy or official reaction.

This appeals network is connected to other networks, and it has tens of thousands of contacts throughout Asia and other countries.

This page includes all Urgent Appeals released by the AHRC since late 1997.

Here is a link to the document titled "Forced Disappearances in Sri Lanka Constitute a Crime Against Humanity" sent on behalf of the Asian Human Rights Comission.

http://www.disappearances.org/mainfile.php/articles_srilanka/9/

95 % of disappeared are Sinhalese in 1971 and 1989 uprisings. Hardly genocide against Tamils . No MENTION of genocide Ruchiraw 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the actual letter sent to Secretary General Kofi Annan.

http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2000/356/

Show me teh link where teh AHRC ITSELF accuses Sri Lanka of genocide . No mention of genocide .Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

These letters and documents indicate that impartial observers contend GOSL commits a 'genocidal war and crimes against humanity'

Further evidence of mass killings and human rights abuses:

by UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON EXTRAJUDICIAL, SUMMARY OR ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/16F8C22F9FB1E05EC125715E0037176E?opendocument

Mass killings but no mention of genocide Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of an instance of anti-Tamil pogrom in Trinco (2006) by Human Rights Watch

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/25/slanka13262.htm

Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Where is the para mentioning genocideRuchiraw 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of more than "16,305 past cases of disappearance by security forces" and gross human rights abuses from the US State Department human rights report on Sri Lanka (2005)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61711.htm

95 % of disappeared are Sinhalese in 1971 and 1989 uprisings. Hardly genocide against Tamils Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More to follow.

Johnathan1156 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This must be an honest mistake on your part Johnathan1156 but 95% of these 16000 diassapeared are sinhalese. Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No doubt there has been a lot of terror against the tamil population in Sri Lanka, but when you check with Genocide I can not see that term is relevant to what happend and still goes on there. Ulflarsen 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Tamil Nationalist side, the Asian Human Rights Commission (respected,impartial human rights organization) and other individuals including members of the Sinhalese community [4] too believe genocide occured/is occuring. The Asian Human Rights Commission (based in Hong Kong) has repeateadly claimed the Sri Lankan government has comitted crimes against humanity. That is a key point to remember. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on anything but its a fact that not just that the Tamil nationalist side believes genocide occurred/is occuring.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (based in Hong Kong) has repeateadly claimed the Sri Lankan government has comitted crimes against humanity. Show me where the THE AHRC ITSELF says genocide. Surely if genocide is occurring DMK would not stay silent as it is Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference:

The definition of genocide is given as follows (taken from http://www.genocide.org.uk/genocide/):

Genocide (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide New York, 9 December 1948)

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the term as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Sri Lanka 12 Oct 1950 (Accession)

The Legal Definition of Genocide

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1)the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and 2)the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called “genocide.”

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Johnathan1156 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To address user Ruchiraw's concern that only Tamil nationalist are screaming genocide, we should have the following paragraph to make everything clear.

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission also maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minority [5] and crimes against humanity [6].

You are being a bit careless here . This is an forum on which anyone can post an urgent appeal. I am going to post a letter now accusing the LTTE of all crimes on earth and then I am going to cite it in WIkipedia. Just joking but now you see my point. NB: Anyone whose child was whipped can post an urgent appeal at this site . You can CC it to Kofi Annan , George Bush and Vladimir Putin as well . See http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/support.php?ua=UA-253-2006

 Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the web pages

1. The AHRC ITSELF nowhere said genocide.Its an appeal BY a different organisation So following is NOT factual . An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission also maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minorityRuchiraw 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We can add a sentence. No independent organisation has actually accused the Sri Lankan government of genocide .Ruchiraw 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC) This is still factual . There ALL kinds of human rights abuses BUT NO MENTION OF GENOCIDE except in a letter posted on a form where ANYONE can post . Look at this urgent appeal http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1880/. Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The only proper way to cite http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/1998/38/?print=yes and to avoid Wikipedia sactions for putting attributing false statements to international organisations(which I would bring to the notice of AHRC and admins in Wikipedia ) is to modify following statement

An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission also maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minority [7] to be An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission has posted a letter in which the International Federation of Tamils (suspected LTTE front organisation) maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minority. Ruchiraw 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Its amazing Ruchiraw how you jump all over this AHRC issue, when just a day or so ago you were touting the so called UNHCR's list of LTTE terrorist acts, however it too turned out to be nothing more than the posting of a letter sent to the UNHCR by the GoSL.--Realstarslayer 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not make false claims saying the UN has drafted this indictment. I always explicitly mentioned it is AUTHORED by GoSL which everyone agres is a democratically constited governmentRuchiraw 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This page only contains information about terrorist attacks by LTTE. It aims to list all terorist incidents(numbering several hundreds) including minor ones. Already contains dozens of incidents not listed in Notable Attacks by the LTTE because they are not "Notable attacks" but minor terrorist ones. Source is the UNHCR website. Merging several hundred minor terrorist attacks into Notable Attacks by the LTTE would make that page not meaningful considering its title and purpose. It is not a spin off from Notable Attacks by the LTTE , it is factual and NPOV and is addresses a different topic, purpose and facts than Notable Attacks by the LTTERuchiraw 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You clearly stated there in your initial post that the source was the UNHCR website, without any statement that you meant it was a GoSL letter posted on the UNHCR website, you were using that as a reason for claiming that page was NPOV since it was an 'independent' body listing the acusations, which as it turned out wasn't the case. Anyhow I don't want to drag other discussions into here, we already have quite a bit going on. BTW everyone would also agree that what the GoSL has to say on this conflict cannot be considered NPOV, anymore than press releases from the LTTEPS.--Realstarslayer 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I say the source is the UNHCR.Think over that one Ruchiraw

Then by your reasoning we can start by de;eting the following sections of the intro sinc eit sourced from LTTE

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the traditional Tamil regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority.

The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors as a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE intends to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.

I wont even comment how much of teh body of teh article is sourced from the LTTE. Whats your suggestion Ruchiraw 02:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First as I said I don't want to start cross posting other discussions here, but your clear implication was that since it was the UNHCR the list of items was NPOV, only after several users myself included pointed out that it was not the UNHCR but a letter by the GoSL, did you switch tracks and start defending the fact that even a GoSL letter should be considered NPOV, which is laughable. So for someone who did that previously to be getting upset over a similar situation with this AHRC thing is just a little hypocritical.

Now on to your second point; we are going around in circles here, the fact is that the LTTE does claim the items listed there, since this is a page about the LTTE it behooves us to list a factual description of their claims. The statement is not about whether those claims are true or not, only that the LTTE makes those claims.--Realstarslayer 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) Do you have qualifiable evidence International Federation of Tamils is an LTTE front organization ? Otherwise you are comitting defamation which can lead to yourself getting sued! This should also be mentioned to that Wikipedia admins and the impacted organization. Are you claiming just because its got Tamil in its title, its an LTTE front organization ?

see Canada Security Intelligence Service report. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com77.asp. Ruchiraw 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

After having read the CSIS report, it shows that the International Federation of Tamils UK is suspected to be a front organization. However the International Federation of Tamils refered to in the report I believe is based from Switzerland and is NOT mentioned in the CSIS report.

International Federation of Tamils (IFT)

18 Rues des Paquis, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland,

tel/fax +22 7320831, email: ift@bluewinch Trincomanb 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See http://lankapage.wordpress.com/2006/02/20/

(2) Although, AHRC was not the original author of the letter, it indeed supported it, therefore it is signatory/part to it. It is usual with these appeals for a local organization to draft the letter and other organization lend their support to the appeal, but that can be further verified.

- :: Where does the AHRC say that it supports claims of genocide. This is not verifiable.I have emailed them to ask if they do so and I will post the reply here . Do tehy support EVERY word in evry letter. There is also difference between genocide and genocidal war. Ruchiraw 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an explanation of the Urgent Appeals desk:

AHRC has an Urgent Appeals desk that operates around the clock.

AHRC issues Urgent Appeals on behalf of persons or groups whose human rights have been violated, and for whom some immediate intervention by people around the world may lead to a remedy or official reaction.

This appeals network is connected to other networks, and it has tens of thousands of contacts throughout Asia and other countries.

This page includes all Urgent Appeals released by the AHRC since late 1997.

In otherwords AHRC distributes these letters on behalf of its network of organizations. Trincomanb 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(3) You are attempting make a mockery of the Urgen Appeals Process.. The Urgent Appeals is manned and verified by the AHRC staff. Again you can't just take some case of beating that occured against a child and make a joke of it. This is really crass.

See point aboveRuchiraw 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(4) You claim 95 % of the disappearances were of Sinhalese, yet I don't see any citations of this. I am hereby challenging you to back up your claim. Otherwise its another made up number by you.

Where does it say how many were tamils.You cant claim genocide against tamils unless you know all the number of Tamils who disappeared. Search for JVP on wikipedia and you will see how many were SInhalese. 20 million disappeared in UUSR. Do I hear teh Chechens claiming all 20 million were Chechens and claiming genocide . Ruchiraw 02

07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you are evading the question. This second reference is about crimes against humanity. The following sentence has no reasoning behind it. "You cant claim genocide against tamils unless you know all the number of Tamils who disappeared". Claim of genocide and whether all those who dissappeared are Tamil or not is irrelevant. The definition of genocide covers for destruction of 'whole' or 'part' of a certain community. Trincomanb 02:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Claim anything you want . Just add the facts as well. FACT: No independent accusations of GENOCIDE Ruchiraw 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This statement is also false. Just as an example Australian Federal Member of Parliament Paul Zammit also condemned the genocide of Tamils in Lanka [8]. This is an example of an independent accusation of GENOCIDE against GOSL. Trincomanb 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian Federal Member of Parliament Paul Zammit not an organisation. Idiot politicians can say what they want to get votesRuchiraw 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Uniting Church of Australia also condemns genocide in Sri Lanka [9] Trincomanb 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is from Tamilnation. Where is the Uniting Church citation. Ruchiraw 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian Senewiratne (relative of CBK) [10] accuses SL Government of genocide against Tamils (June 2006) Trincomanb 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When did Brian Senewiratne become an independent organisation. I think he had a few comments about teh LTTE as well Ruchiraw 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is your 95 % citation ? Trincomanb 02

26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be an acceptable source for you as to ethnicity of those missing described in Amnesty reports. 95% is based on my knowledge of teh fact that there were much less than 5% Tamils in teh JVP. Ruchiraw 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is your " majority of disappeared persons are tamil " citation. Ruchiraw 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned this. You are making false statement and you are cornered! Trincomanb 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless,according to your arguments above you should have no problem accepting the following:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing crimes against humanity [11], including on its Tamil minority. Trincomanb 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above link does NOT show that Asian Human Rights Comission maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing crimes against humanity. The article is a paper written by someone. "The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. However, the international community has not accepted the charges of genocide and state sponsored terrorism against the Sri Lankan government." There is an allegation agaisnt the Sri Lankan government, and there is nothing wrong with pointing out a fact to dispute it. Supermod 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro 31 July onwards

I have added this fact

"The international community does not support the charges of genocide and state sponsored terrorism against the Sri Lankan government. "

I have come to the conclusion taht many users on this page are intereted in pushing the statements made by LTTE without regard to facts. There does not appear to be any intention for compromise or consensus here but rather an insistence on edit and revert wars. 1 We can follow teh dispute resolution procedurew which I have requested at least 8 times. Since no-one is interested in this , I do not know how to proceed, Ruchiraw 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That statement would be quite false Ruchiraw, the genocide component might be true, but there are many international actors who would support the claim that the GoSL is responsible for many instances of State Terrorism, just do a search on the AHRC website on their statements about Sri Lanka, there a several pages of statements criticizing SL's human rights record. Besides this goes against the very item you were asking us to read as I pointed out to you above, you had no response to that, yet you go ahead and make changes without consensus.

My objections are with regard to the genocide mainly . I have seen no international org/community use the words state terrorsim with regard to Sri Lanka

Now as always it only seems to be you who does not wish to compromise, despite repeated requests you still unilaterally make changes, and constantly come up with new objections even after we strive to gain consensus and add your earlier points in a fair and neutral manner. Further all your objections are always to insert your/GoSL POV into the article, so who is trying to tilt this article?

There is no need for mediation when it is only one user who is disrupting this article.--Realstarslayer 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

International community refers to countriesRuchiraw 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont use weasel words

Be careful with weasel words The term "weasel words" refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged." While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias, since claimed implies that the claim may not be true and that there is some reason to doubt it. For example:

...is widely thought to be the work of... (good) ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad--It's quite possible the people described were forced from their homes. ) Ruchiraw 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This single user is trying to force his way and insert GOSL POV statements. Now his arguments are becoming laughable. Then this user trys to weasel out by finding ridiculous excuses. Claims IFT is an LTTE front, then backs down after finding out its only IFT UK. Then finds a blog site to claim IFT is a front organization. The user first says, there is no independent organization that accusses SL of genocide, yet there is and so decides to change it to international community. The point is that a balanced article cannot satisfy a person with an extremist POV and it shouldn't. If this user is not satisfied, I think its time to ignore him and work with everyone else. As Trincoman had put forward this following statement should be fine according to user Ruchiraw's logic, yet this user is ignoring this because of one reason, it looks bad for his side (GOSL), eventhough its true. This user has completely the ignored the accusation of crimes against humanity and comes up with 95 % Sinhala number which he has no citations and forced to admit so:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing crimes against humanity [12], including on its Tamil minority. Johnathan1156 15

20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This single user is trying to force his way and insert GOSL POV statements. Now his arguments are becoming laughable.

wHY DONT YOU WANT MEDIATION Ruchiraw 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Then this user trys to weasel out by finding ridiculous excuses. Claims IFT is an LTTE front, then backs down after finding out its only IFT UK. Then finds a blog site to claim IFT is a front organization.

They were banned in UK and moved to Geneva . See

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/154Ruchiraw 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Asiantribune a reliable source of information ?

LTTE Commander Bahnu seriously injured [13], reported by Asian Tribune, yet flip over to TamilNet and I see Col. Bahnu perfectly fine and taken today SL time [14]. If it was the New York Times, there would be some head rolling, yet for the Asiantribune it seems its all in the days work. Trincomanb 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The user first says, there is no independent organization that accusses SL of genocide, yet there is and so decides to change it to international community.

Independent organisation or community Ruchiraw 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that a balanced article cannot satisfy a person with an extremist POV and it shouldn't. If this user is not satisfied, I think its time to ignore him and work with everyone else. As Trincoman had put forward this following statement should be fine according to user Ruchiraw's logic, yet this user is ignoring this because of one reason, it looks bad for his side (GOSL), eventhough its true. This user has completely the ignored the accusation of crimes against humanity and comes up with 95 % Sinhala number which he has no citations and forced to admit so:

This is the percentage of Sinhalese in JVP to which the 16000 diasppeared figure refers between 1988-1992

There is no mediation necessary when you have one spoiler, who is acting in bad faith.

Johnathan1156 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reluctance for mediation is entirely showing your biasRuchiraw 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And your reluctance to compromise is showing yours... You would at least need to go through an RfC process first before thinking about mediation, however I still maintain that you are the only one being difficult here and it is not a case of two opposing camps, thus mediation does not seem necessary. We changed a perfectly fine introduction to accomodate some of your concerns in a neutral manner, however you still refused to be statisfied with that and kept bringing up more and more 'concerns'.--Realstarslayer 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation. Ruchiraw first learn the phrase 'cooperative writing.' Trincomanb 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We should all remember to be civil, humble and to remember that just the fact that we manage to discuss this peacefully is a great achievement. The article will never be finished, but its improving, and I dont think either side (LTTE or GoSL) can claim that it is favourable to them. And as usual, the truth is somewhere in between. Ulflarsen 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ruchiraw - "The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. However, the international community has not accepted the charges of genocide and state sponsored terrorism against the Sri Lankan government." There is an allegation agaisnt the Sri Lankan government, and there is nothing wrong with pointing out a fact to dispute it. Supermod 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermod as I mentioned above (below? I'm lost now..) I have no problem with the genocide part of that, but you cannot lump state terrorism in there since that is a factual accusation. So how about this:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. While the international community has not accepted the charges of genocide many human rights groups have leveled accusations of human rights violations against the Sri Lankan government.

--Realstarslayer 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

I would like to respectfully remind all contributors of the Three Revert Rule, which some are in danger of exceeding. There are many admins who are quite pro-active about enforcing this, and the last thing anyone wants is to be blocked for 24 hours. It also seems to me that the gap here is very small. Would everyone be happy tacking on ", an allegation the Sri Lankan Government in turn rejects" to the sentence stating that the LTTE accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism? This is on par with the way the accusation of terrorism against the LTTE is treated, and seems to me to be a reasonable way of resolving the very small disagreement that remains. Just a suggestion, take it or shoot it down as you will. -- Arvind 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am agreeable to what you have suggested, though written as the following to maintain factual accuracy:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority,an allegation the Sri Lankan Government in turn rejects. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing crimes against humanity [15], including on its Tamil minority. Trincomanb 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it as follows just to shorten it a little, but note the link added to the SL state terror page, so readers can go there for more details.

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority, an allegation the Sri Lankan Government in turn rejects despite some evidence to the contrary[16].

--Realstarslayer 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... that link doesn't seem to support the claim made in the sentence - it doesn't mention either genocide or state-sponsored terrorism, and talks instead of "crimes against humanity", which is not quite the same thing (genocide and sst are two types of crimes against humanity, but there are also several others). It seems to me that if you want to keep the link in here, you should change the accusation to "crimes against humanity", so it's actually supported by the link ("...despite some evidence of it having committed crimes against humanity"), or replace it with one which supports the allegation of genocide and sst. Again, just my opinion. I don't plan to be actively involved in editing this article for the foreseeable future, so I have no strong opinions on how it should end up reading. -- Arvind 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arvind, yes I agree with you, my contention was the statement entered in by Ruchiraw that no international actors have accused the GoSL of genocide nor state terrorism is false, the genocide claim is true however there is plenty of evidence for state terrorism from international players, maybe that link is not the best example. However as I stated above a quick search of the AHRC page gives many other examples, so we could change the wording that's fine. Besides the point that he seems to mis is that this is only a statement of what the LTTE claims and not whether this is fact or not.--Realstarslayer 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Lets say this statement appeared on your website UserXXX is accused of murder but he denies it. Wouldnt it be bit more NPOV to say whether judicial proceedings have been initiated , whether UserXXX has been convicted. In short the Complete picture.NB:-crimes against humanity is different from genocide. We need to clarify teh picture a bit more to make it NPOV Ruchiraw 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

TrincomanB , here is the GoSL accusation of ethnic cleansing.http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP93230.htmRuchiraw 12:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is laughable since that land was taken by 'ethnically cleansing' the Tamils there first, besides the GoSL can call it whatever it wants that is their POV. Now to your point above, this is not a situation that is as cut and dry as a single murder, in your view it maybe since you already hold the GoSL POV, however if you are trying to be neutral then the way the intro is now, or even with the addition above is the way to go. Even leaving that aside, it is an intro, you don't include so many details in the intro. When writting an essay do you place all your main points in your intro paragraph and explain and expand on them there? What Happens to the body of the essay then?--Realstarslayer 13:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree , what the LTTE accuse the GoSL of can be discussed in the body. You can't have accusations listed in the intro without relation to facts . The international community DOES not recognise that Sri Lanka is committing genocide. This is in contrast to genocide of Armenians which 21 countries have recognised. Not even one country has accused SL of genocide. The UN likewise recognises teh Rwandan Genocide as follows. No genocide has been recognised by the international community in Sri Lanka

Meanwhile, the United Nations set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, currently based in Arusha, Tanzania. The United Nations Tribunal has jurisdiction over high level members of the government and armed forces, while Rwanda is responsible for prosecuting lower level leaders and local people. Tensions have arisen between Rwanda and the United Nations over use of the death penalty.[citations needed] Ruchiraw 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above to Arvind, this is only a statement of what the LTTE claims, it is not a statement as to whether this is fact or not.--Realstarslayer 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out before , it is a major unsubstantiated accusation. At least some mention shoudl be made as to whether it is accepted by other countries or the international community. Ruchiraw 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said I have no problem with you mentioning that the genocide term is not supported but you cannot lump in state terrorism with that since Sri Lankan state terrorism or 'crimes against humanity' commited against Tamils are well documented by international players.--Realstarslayer 04:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To address what user Arvind had mentioned, I think the following would suffice:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority, an allegation the Sri Lankan Government in turn rejects despite some indepedent evidence of crimes against humanity [17]. Johnathan1156 15:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you specify international community has not recognized genocide occured/is occuring in sri lanka then I believe that statement is false. So far, countries have not publicly stated genocide has occured etc., but individual organizations and people have made independent accusations of genocide against the SL government (see [18],[19],[20].

These are pro-LTTE sites and do not express the consensus of the world community. Ruchiraw 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the definition of the "international community" on Wikipedia [21]. According to that definition, 'international community' can refer to people of the lands all over the world. In the end the international community is made up people, both state and non-state actors. The statement therefore at least is biased because it excludes non-state actors/orginzation from the term international community. Trincomanb 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the way IC is usually used . See http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/smallarms/presskit/sheet1.htm. However we can say no country has acknowledged genocide, Ruchiraw 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edit to intro - ' democratically elected '

This is an uncessary qualification and is just adding length to the intro without any benifit. If on the other hand the idea of this entry was to somehow legitimize the position of one actor over the other, then the statement should be completely truthful and be written as 'democratically elected Sinhala government of Sri Lanka' as Tamils have had none to very little say or power in the Sri Lankan government for several decades now. For example the main Tamil party was not even invited to the 'All Party Conference' to discuss solutions to the Tamil ethinic problem.--Realstarslayer 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the millions of Indian Tamils and Muslims and South Tamils who votedRuchiraw 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems you will argue any point, the party in power are Sinhala, the party in opposition are Sinhala, please show me where the Tamils have any say in the GoSL. If they did there would not be a mini war going on in the east over water towers not being built in Tamil areas.--Realstarslayer 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sample NPOV intros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei

Accusations against OpusDei in intro

Since its foundation Opus Dei has been subjected to criticism and opposition. Jesuits were among its most vehement early critics, the most famous of which was former Jesuit and theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. Opus Dei's opponents point to its secrecy, its clandestine financial dealings, its elitism, its ultraconservatism, its support for the extreme right-wing in politics, its misogyny, its cult-like recruitment regime and its violations of basic human rights [1].Ruchiraw 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal in SAME intro

CNN's Vatican analyst, John L. Allen, Jr., and also Vittorio Messori, both Catholic journalists, stated that most of these accusations are mere myths that grew from a misinterpretation of Opus Dei. In 1994, Dr. Massimo Introvigne, a sociologist of religion and conservative Catholic scholar, stated that Opus Dei had been the target of secularists intolerant of what he saw as a "return to religion" in society. In his view, Catholic liberals and certain ex-members had unfairly stigmatized Opus Dei. Many Catholics invoke the sign of contradiction in order to explain Allen's description of Opus Dei as the most controversial force in the Catholic Church. Ultimately Opus Dei remains the subject of much political criticism both inside and outside the Catholic Church.Ruchiraw 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A non controversial intro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein

Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti (June 18, 1964 Baghdad – July 22, 2003 Mosul) Arabic: عدي صدام حسين; also transliterated as Odai) was the eldest son of Saddam Hussein and his first wife, Sajida Talfah. He was for several years seen as the heir apparent of his father. He produced the newspaper Babel as well as the youth radio station Voice of Iraq (which ran American pop songs). His erratic behavior and troubled relationship with his father and brother were well-publicized in the media both before and after he was killed at age 39 by U.S. military forces following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Now saying that Uday was a homicidal maniac would have caused controversy and debate in the intro itself. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral factual tone. Ruchiraw 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Millions died in Armenian Genocide but they manage a NPOV view

The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) or the Armenian Massacre – refers to the forced mass evacuation and related deaths of hundreds of thousands or over a million Armenians, during the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 in the Ottoman Empire. Some main aspects of the event are a matter of ongoing dispute among the academic community and between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government and several international historians reject that it was genocide, and claim that the deaths among the Armenians were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.Ruchiraw 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it better to have perfection on this page Ruchiraw 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the Intro - Aug 2nd onward

Ok folks, so I have had no negative feedback to the last suggested wording for the remaining problem section vis-à-vis genocide etc. So I am going to implement that, however if there are any issues please discuss them here and we will try to work them out. Modifications as below:

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. While the international community has not accepted the charges of genocide many rights groups have leveled accusations of human rights violations against the Sri Lankan government [22].

--Realstarslayer 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that is a factual accusation? Any elected government has to defend the country and its citizens. Therefore, SL government has launched offensive strikes agaisnt LTTE. It is true there have been civilian casualties, but it is true when you are in a war. Look at the US situation in Afghanistan. So just because there are some civilian casualties, you cannot say there is a factual accusations agaisnt a democratically elected government. And the link you have provided is a search of Sri Lankan related articles. It says some incidents happened during J.R administration, which is more than 2 decades ago. I do not think it qualifies for the into. This is what it should be:

"The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. However, the international community has not accepted these charges against the Sri Lankan government."

Supermod 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can state that exactly because it is factual, no one is talking about collateral damage here but outright crimes against humanity committed against Tamil and Sinhala civilians (various massacres, extrajudicial killings, disappearances all documented by human rights groups, JVP uprisings) by various Sri Lankan governments. There is no argument on this point, that is why it cannot be included in the same sentence as the ‘international community doesn’t accept genocide’ that may well be so, however they do acknowledge human rights abuses by the GoSL.--Realstarslayer 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The following statement presented earlier I believe is accurate and maintains govt. denial and independent evidence. The statement above is false as had been shown earlier. I think the statement presented below is the best compromise that could be achieved and no one has given reasoning to disapprove it, so I will make the changes.

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority, an allegation the Sri Lankan Government in turn rejects despite some indepedent evidence of crimes against humanity [23]. Trincomanb 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb all the other intros about genocide on Wikipedia have a statement about whether it is a recognised genocide or not. It is factual that these allegations of genocide and state terrorism have not been accepted by any country. Ruchiraw 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While the allegations of genocide may be unfounded, those of state terrorism perpetrated by Sri Lankan governments are quite true and well documented. So you cannot add 'and state terrorism'. By even arguing this point your bias is clearly showing through.--Realstarslayer 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we remove the last bit of that section altogether? For one, it doesn't seem everyone here can agree on a final wording. And in any case we can fill a whole encyclopedia with allegations traded by both sides (although maybe not Wikipedia;-). So I think we should just leave the important facts in the intro only. --snowolfD4 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some accusations have been made of the LTTE and the denial plus counter accusation has been deleted in your version. This getting to be worse. You should have a valid reasoning for going with your version. The last version that I had displayed is factually correct and does allow all sides a denial response etc. Trincomanb 22:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt present the complete picture. Thus in a sense its not NPOVRuchiraw 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how that or my earlier version does not give a balanced perspective? Unless your definition of NPOV is something like now just disregard everything the LTTE says because only what the GoSL says is true.--Realstarslayer 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

An alternate workable solution is to remove all accusations and controversial words in the intro, including accusations against the LTTE and the Government, removal of the word terrorism etc and removal of ban/proscription etc. All of these facts obviously should not be removed from the article but simply from the intro. Trincomanb 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about LTTE and you want to remove the fact that 1.5 billion people have banned it as a terrorsity group from the intro. That makes the intro meaningless. This is wikipedia , we are here to present NPOV facts. Look at other articles and get a sense of whats going on there. Ruchiraw 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the traditional Tamil regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the Sri Lankan Government and several international players contend this claim is false and feel that the LTTE alone cannot be considered as such [24]. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in order to end the long-running conflict in Sri Lanka.

The LTTE primarily consists of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing. However, it also exercises some, but not all, civil functions in territory under its control, including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural functions, but excluding monetary, educational and some administrative functions. It is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Trincomanb 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

LTTE has also committed crimes against humanity

See

Although it was not established that the appellant had personally committed crimes against humanity, he was responsible for crimes against humanity committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) because of his leadership position within that organization and his continuing participation in it.

http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1994/pub/v1/1994fca0318.htmlRuchiraw 02:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the Facts section, the reasoning for crimes against humanity allegation is not "murderous persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people", as being the criminal offense above all other, but rather individual cases of extra-judicial killings of suspected government informants and members of rival militant organizations . The 'crimes against humanity' reffered to here [25] and the one in the International criminal law are quite different in definition as can be seen in the case above. Whats in your article is 'crimes against humanity' based on the definition in International Criminal Law, which doesn't imply "acts of murderous persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, as being the criminal offense above all other" but rather could include tactics used in a violent insurgency that don't constitute as mass killings but break the law of a country (see http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html for more details).

Johnathan1156 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

LTTE and mass media

I wonder if we should add a subsection on LTTE and mass media? The LTTE has put much weight in using mass media, and has an extensive network of newspapers, websites, TV and radio stations it controls, it also places photo and videoteams up front in the campaigns it fights. Like it or not, but its pretty impressing, when I was serving in Jaffna pictures from a hartal I was trying to cool down was on Tamilnet before I got back to office. If there are no objections I could try to write a few lines. Ulflarsen 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, media is an important tool for both sides of the conflict so should be discussed in more detail.--Realstarslayer 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing about LTTE's use of media is that it's rather advanced, they assign scarce resources to covering events, to the point that several of their mediateams have died on the battlefields. They put a lot of effort into it, and like it or not - it should be in the article about the organisation. Ulflarsen 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulf when you are back I would still be happy to help you with creating this 'media' page.--Realstarslayer 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Introduction to LTTE Article

There has been an ongoing debate and discussion surrounding the wording of the introduction to this article. Since this is a controversial topic with strong views on both sides the idea was to give a balanced statement of the views held by both parties to the conflict, i.e. the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka. However some users had complained that there should be counter arguments to the claims of the LTTE, then others had claimed that there should be counter arguments to those GoSL claims in turn. Eventually several version of the introduction were written all attempting to be neutral, however the users involved kept bringing up new points and making edits without consensus and it seems no consensus is possible with these users. Thus the RfC as a first step to finding a solution.

Please see some of the pertinent discussion sections:

Changes to New Intro - July 29th Onward

POV in current intro

Intro 31 July onwards

Changes to the Intro - Aug 2nd onward

05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Submitted for RfC

I have submitted this article to the RfC page. I think this is the only way we are going to get a solution here since it seems Ruchiraw has no genuine will to find a compromise and is not going to let it go until his own POV is written into the introduction. Every time we finally come up with a neutrally worded introduction he will find something new to complain about.--Realstarslayer 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I truly believe it would be better to go back to the introduction as it stood a week or so ago:

[26] Credmond 11:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem possible, if you just take a look at the editors running amok now with this article, they will not be satisfied until it has become a GoSL propaganda piece. I am not going to bother anymore till we have some outside input, since the individuals concerned show no respect to other editors nor to consensus and neutrality.--Realstarslayer 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Support your initiative in requesting some outside help. No use in engaging in discussions when one of the participants have a POV agenda. This article has indeed suffered from that from both parties to the conflict. Ulflarsen 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to compare with Al Queda page

Why don't we all look at a page for another terrorist organization like Al Queda. The intro doesn't go into various allegations by and towards Al Queda. Instead it sticks to some basic facts only and covers everything in detail in the later in the text.

Similarly I think the intro on the LTTE should focus on 3 main points.

• What it is
• What it's fighting for
• International reaction

For example

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the traditional Tamil regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the Sri Lankan Government and several international governments contend this claim is false and feel that the LTTE alone cannot be considered as such. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in order to end the long-running conflict in Sri Lanka.

The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries (see List). Accusations of attempted ethnic cleansing have also been traded by both sides in the past. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors as a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international governments contend the LTTE intends to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.

The LTTE primarily consists of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing. However, it also exercises some, but not all, civil functions in territory under its control, including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural functions, but excluding monetary, educational and some administrative functions. It is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

--snowolfD4 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So where is the 'what it is fighting for'? This is why we have the statements about state terrorism, the LTTE was not formed because a bunch of Tamil students got bored one day and decided it would be cool to start a rebel movement, this version completely leaves out those acusations so for someone who does not know the subject they would be left wondering. Other than that it works for me, however this has become the new problem now after all.--Realstarslayer 12:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the LTTE fighting? READ the first paragraph VERY VERY CLEARLY. As it says, .. in order to secure independence for the traditional Tamil regions... Did you miss that part? That is the main idea behind the LTTE and so should be what is included in the intro. Other allegations by the LTTE come later in the article. --snowolfD4 05:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but why do they claim to need an independent state do you not think that is important in describing who they are?--Realstarslayer 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Snowolfd4. The intro should focus on the known facts. Any claims , conterclaims etc:- should take place in the body of the article. Ruchiraw 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement itself shows your POV bias, if you have already concluded that the LTTE are terrorists how can you write a neutral introduction? The only facts are that the GoSL and some in the international community consider the LTTE as terrorists, and that the majority of the Sri Lankan Tamils consider them as freedom fighters, so both views should be presented equally, however it seems you only want the GoSL POV throughout.--Realstarslayer 12:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Like they say, you need to take a good look at yourself in a mirror before you start throwing around allegations all over the place. You obviously think that the LTTE are freedom fighters, so in that sense how can you write a NPOV intro? And come on, were you serioulsy thinking right when you wrote this? Because according to what you say everyone who considers Al Queda a terrorist organization shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the intro on Al Queda. That'll work out real nice wouldn't it? I can just imagine. --snowolfD4 05:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? I challenge you to show me where any of my edits have not been neutral? It seems for some people with a POV even being neutral is seen as a POV just as it happens with the SLMM and accusations leveled against them by both sides. It doesn't matter what your POV is as long as you can work towards nuetraility with a good faith effort, however this has not been the case. --Realstarslayer 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How about looking at your contributions list. I'd say you'd find a whole lot there. I frankly cannot be bothered.Though from what I remember on of the the most notable would be when you said Muslims spoke Tamil and so they were Tamil. (I'm still laughing at that one). As for the rest of what you've said, it completely contradicts what you said above. Case in point

First if you have already concluded that the LTTE are terrorists how can you write a neutral introduction?

Then It doesn't matter what your POV is as long as you can work towards nuetraility (sic)

And listen, I can think of a hundred better thing to do than argue with you cos it's a complete waste of my time so unless you've got something valid to the discussion to say, do so. But STOP personal attacks. That's all I'm really going to say on this. -snowolfD4 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I challenge you to show me exactly where any of my contributions to articles have not been neutrally written and cited properly? If you cannot, I consider your vague accusations and hand waving to be a personal attack. You must be clutching at straws if the best you can do is hold up a mistake I made in the course of a discussion about whether Tamil speaking muslims are Tamil or not as a POV bias, please try harder. In case you missed my point earlier let me reiterate it for you, everyone has a POV, but when you let that POV get in the way of working towards a good faith and neutral article then there is a problem. In fact you have not really been guilty of this so that comment wasn't even directed at you but at Ruchiraw who has repeatedly shown this trait of letting his POV get in the way of neutrality. --Realstarslayer 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not our conclusion. the fact is that the LTTE is banned in over 30 countries and its activities interdicted in many other countries because it has committed terrorsit actions. You willl find attacks on Anuradhapura Sri Maha Bodhi,Dehiwela train, Kattankudy mosques and on Sinhala villages meet the following criteria from terrorism specifically violence and deliberate targetting of non-combatants for achieving of political objectives. The intro for LTTE starts saying it is a military and political organisation so what are you complaining about. "accused of terrorism" mentioned int the intro is also not the same as concluding that the LTTE are terrorists. Perhaps you do not feel that massacring hundreds of unarmed civilians(including women and children) in temples, mosques, trains, villages etc:- are not terrorist actions. That is not the view shared by most people.However I agree the LTTE combine conventional warfare with terrorist actions and both aspects need to be mentioned. Ruchiraw 22:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone give me an independent reference where Sri Lanka has been accused of state terrorism. As far as I am aware this accusation is only made by LTTE and its media outlets to cover up the fact that most of the world regards it as a terrosist organisation Ruchiraw 22:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are just arguing over semantics now, besides the intro states that rights groups have accused Sri Lanka of human rights violations not state terrorism. Definition of state terrorism taken from state terrorism:

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. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict.

Have various Sri Lankan governments or proxy agents committed violent acts against civilians? The answer is a resounding yes, thus various Sri Lankan government have been and are guilty of 'state terrorism' by the definition above. Perhaps you want to go and change that definition too? So human rights violations by a government is state terrorism or are you going to split hairs on this distinction?

As for links here you go again:

• Amnesty
• HRW
• even SPUR gets in on it
• US DoS
• AHRC

You are missing my point . No independent sources have accused Sri Lanka of state terrorism. This accusation is only levelled by the LTTE as an attempt to equate itself with a democratically elected government. This has to be mentioned. Ruchiraw 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a very informative paper here that I suggest you read, it discusses the topic of terrorism versus state terrorism [27]. I also suggest you note the difference between state terrorism and a terrorist state, a state may still practice terrorism (against its people) without being a terrorist state.

Have they labelled Sri Lanka as terrorist state, some of these definitions can fit Japan as well. This is teh LTTEs interpretationRuchiraw 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And here is some more on the subject: www.reference.com article, note what they state as the methods of state terrorism:

Although state terrorism is an almost universal social phenomenon, instances of state terror usually fall into certain categories. Unfair trials, torture, and extrajudicial execution are said to be common practices of state terror, often used to terrorize domestic populations by sovereign or proxy regimes.

Various Sri Lankan governments have been accused or proven to have committed such acts.

--Realstarslayer 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

it is only the LTTEs new tactic to extrapolate these human rights violations as terrorism. India has definitely committed more in the Punjab and Kashmir insurgencies and noone is pinning this label on them. Ruchiraw 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to keep all the allegations by the LTTE in the intro, then all allegations against the LTTE should also be included in the intro. Such as Child Recruitment, eliminating rival Tamil politicians and a whole lot more. And that'll should make the intro very easy to read, wouldn't it? --snowolfD4 05:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sending chldren under 15 into battle is defined as a war crime by the UN. Perhaps because immature children are easily brainwashed into biting cyanide pills and having a life ambition of blowing themselves into bits. This should be mentioned at least. Somehow this gets deleted all the time. Also these accusations are made against the LTTE by the UN and neutral countries like Canada and are credible

How about adding following sentence

The UN Rapporteur on human rights is investigating continued recruitment of child soldiers by the LTTE.

Why dont they get grown men or women for gods sake. I feel sorry for children having to choose who to kill instead of which school to go to

Ruchiraw 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You should ask the GoSL why they are violating the CFA and not vacating schools and other civilan building so that these children can in fact go back to school? You should also ask them why they blocked tsunami aid to these children so that they were easy prey for the LTTE recruiters? Further can you show me some evidence that human rights abuses by a State do not consititute state terrorism by the definitions given? I have provided citations to back my arguments above so until you can do likewise and come to a consensus stop adding 'state terrorism' as not being recognized in the intro - I will change this back yet again now.--Realstarslayer 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snowolfd4, while I have no problem adding 'child soldiers' to the intro since it is fact you must ask yourself what exactly the intro is? It is to give an idea of who the LTTE are why they fight and counter claims to their major arguments. So are you telling me that the major reason the GoSL opposes the LTTE is because of Tamil child soldiers? Hardly, the major reasons are that they consider the LTTE to be terrorists and they want to ensure the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, just as the major reasons for the LTTE is the goal of independence due to perceived or real genocide and state terror. Both of these claims are addressed in the intro. The further details are already well covered in the body of the article. So should we start getting into the minutiae of LTTE accusations in the intro as well? Such as claims of rape, torture, extrajudicial killings, etc. against Tamil civilians by the GoSL? These cases too are just as much fact as ‘child soldiers’?--Realstarslayer 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to get a clear idea of what an "introduction" is. It's to give the basic facts on a certain point only. If you want to include all the LTTE claims, arguments against it, what they are, their history an all that, why write an entire article. Just put everything we've got on this page into the Intro! That should look nice:) You tell me anywhere that I've said anything like "the government opposes the LTTE is because of Tamil child soldiers" and I swear I'll shoot myself or something like that. If not, just explain, what made you thing that? The government did not just start fighting the LTTE. As the intro I proposed says "(The LTTE) has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence". The LTTE didn't start off by accusing the government of genocide etc. Those allegations have come later on in the conflict. --snowolfD4 01:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear, I did not state that you were saying such, all I was saying is that the intro should contain the main points about the issue at hand and that child soldiers was not a main reason why the GoSL was fighting the LTTE, just as we do not list every little detail of LTTE accusations such as rape, torture etc in the intro. These details are covered in the main body, but anyway as I said I have no major concern with including the child soldier statement. As for securing independence why did they want independence from the 1970s, this has to be addressed in some capacity? We cannot just say they wanted independence, what for? --Realstarslayer 04:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Accusations and facts

I suggest we remove all the claims and counterclaims and stick to known issues from credible sources

LTTE (UN, AHRC, US, EU , Canada, Amnesty)

1. Runs some administrative functions and is a military force
2. Banned as a terrorist organisation in 29 countries
3. Practises Child soldier recruitment
4. Ethnic cleansing rsulting in pure tamil population in areas under its control
5. Most number of suicide bombs by any group in the world
6. Assasinates all democratic Tamil opponents
7. Fascist setup in areas it controls (murders all opponents)
8. Involved in organised crime , drug smuggling, arms smuggling
9. Links to other terrorist groups
10. Extorts money from Tamil expatriates
11. One of few groups to carry out international suicide bombings

Sri Lanka(Amnesty,AHRC, UN , EU, US), Democratically elected government, 2/3 of tamils and all Muslims prefer to live in SL government areas than under LTTE.

LTTE backed party holds 25 seats in Sri Lankas parliament in free elections held in Sri Lanka

Human rights violations

ANyone want to add to this list FROM credible sources. Ruchiraw 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok now this could be a way to do it but let us list all the facts then and decide what should be included in the intro. For example you break down many of the LTTEs activities which would be classified as 'terrorism' into individual categories but only mention the GoSL activities as human rights violations, so it should either be 'terrorist activities' for the LTTE or expand 'human rights' violations, perhaps a list as follows:

• anti Tamil pogroms[28]

• torture in custody see Sri Lanka sectionAHRC

• extrajudicial killings US DoS[29] - can be used for both sides.

• rapeAIAI

• attacks on civilians - (various bombings and massacres) citations for more recent incidents available but if we are looking for earlier ones harder to come by, but examples would civilians killed during the Jaffna offensive, the blockade of Jaffna prompting India to air drop food, etc. these are common knowledge.

HRW - can be used for both side's abuses.

Other items to be considered

• sidelining of Tamil political aspirations - changes to constitution etc - Read series of articles at Asia Times on line - 'Sri Lanka: The Untold Story' I only give the sangam link since it is not well indexed on the actual Asia Times page[30]

• Sinhala only act (could be part of the above) -common knowledge

• standardization/educational changes - also contained in Asia times articles

• state sponsored colonisation of Tamil areas - same as above

will provide links to individual articles when I have some time.

So with a complete picture we can decide which of these should be included in an intro?--Realstarslayer 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your list of accusations is a clear farce. You have finally unmasked your POV intentions for the article. You want to turn a encyclopedia article into a propaganda piece. Dream on.. Trincomanb 10:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you Trincomanb in that Ruchiraw's list is a farce. The one point I have not seen valid sources for is organised crime and drug smuggling, the rest has lots of sources. But then, at the same time the article intro needs to present that the LTTE still has rather huge support, and the reason for that is due to the way the sinhalese have treated the tamil minority. Ulflarsen 11:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did some small changes to the list to tighten it up. If it changed the meaning do change it back. Ulflarsen 11:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User Ulflarsen, if you indeed don't think the list is a farce, I challenge you to show evidence for the following. Your credibility is on the line! It seems you have seen lots of *neutral* sources to add:

1) Ethnic cleansing rsulting in *pure tamil population* in areas under its control

2) Assasinates *all* democratic Tamil opponents

3) Fascist setup in areas it controls (murders *all* opponents)

4) *2/3 of tamils* and *all Muslims prefer* to live in SL government areas than under LTTE

5) One of few groups to carry out *international suicide bombings*

Trincomanb 11:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I leave it to Runchraw to provide links that support the list he made. When it comes to the points you have its a fact that everyone knows that have been in Wanni that there are no sinhalese or muslims there, neither in Jaffna except from the sinhalese forces. Regarding assasinations the LTTE has a impressing list of people it has assassinated that opposed it, even though it has not taken responsibility for all. Fascist setup; there are some close resemblance between LTTE and european fascist movement (one leader/one people, death cult, terror against everyone who oppose the party line etc). When it comes to 2/3 of tamils living outside Wanni I believe that is also a fact, you have all the tamils in Jaffna, around Colombo, in Trinco etc. And finally, LTTE murdered the late PM in India, Rajiv Gandhi, even Bala has admitted that now. But then again, the interesting fact here is also: How was a peaceful and resourceful community as the Ceylon tamils transformed into supporting one of the deadliest best trained separatist groups in the world?

Talking about credibility; I do not support either of the two sides (GoSL or LTTE). My symphaty goes to all the people in Ceylon/Sri Lanka, the ones that tragically is involved in the downward spiral of a country that once was believed by many to be the first ex-colony to join the ranks of the developed world. Nowadays it seems more likely that instead of being the next Singapore, it will be the next Somalia; and as I have been all three places I pity their bad fortune. And, needless to say, I also support Wikipedia as I have done for the last two years. Honestly, I think you both should try to listen to one another; and try to discuss until we can agree on the article, that would give a hand to all those who want to learn something about the conflict, and it would prove that even though there is conflict in Lanka, we manage to solve it here... Ulflarsen 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ulf, that is why I think it is important to mention the LTTE's claims, whether perceived or real, in the introduction, as just stating 'they want independence' does not give the whole picture as to why.--Realstarslayer 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulflarsen, you have completely sidestepped the issues. You believe in the Ruchiraw list, but you are answers is a classic example of hand waving. Wanni always had majority Tamil population. You haven't backed up the statement about a *pure tamil population*. You have agreed LTTE kills *all* democratic Tamil opponent. How come Anandasangaree (TULF) leader was never attacked by the LTTE ? Do you have proof LTTE murders all its opponents ? The point is that you have your POV, myths and fairy tales you hang onto and your are entitled to it, but you hardly have list of evidence to show for it on an encyclopedia. You are hand waving you way out of answering the questions. 2/3 Tamils and all Muslims prefer to live in Govt controlled areas ? Do you know Tamils are tagged,photographed and fingerprinted like animals at the local police stations in Sinhala areas. This is like how the Nazi's put yellow stars on Jews before the holocaust. Do you honestly thinks Tamils like to live in Sinhalese south, they could be faced with another wave of genocide at anytime. Will your SLMM and Norway even raise a voice in case that happens ? I doubt it. Look what Norway and your SLMM colleagues are doing now, when hundreds of unarmed Tamil civillians (particularly women and children) get killed ... dead silence... nothing. There is no point of talking morality and credibility with Norway, SLMM and the like when they do such a hollow job. Yes I believe LTTE did kill Rajiv Gandhi, but they have apologized for it. India has taken note of LTTE's apology and hence the chapter is closed. Nevertheless to be specific this was carried out by LTTE affliated group in Tamil Nadu, not the LTTE itself. Are you really suprised average people will support a violent insurrection when faced with more than 30 years of embargoes, occupation and economic, cultural genocide ? If Southern Sri Lanka turns into a Somalia, I am sure Tamils will not take pity on them, considering what they had to endure for more than 50 years. Trincomanb 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to move your comment after mine. LTTE needs to be placed into context, but on the other hand the intro should not be too long. That is a challenge to us. Speaking about the conflict and LTTE, I can highly recommend the book "Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka", it is not kind on LTTE, but at the same time gives a background for how the LTTE evolved. About the article, honestly I believe we are getting somewhere. Its expanded, its not kind on the LTTE and at the same time it is not a propagandapiece from JVP/JHU. That is some achievement we all should be proud of. Keep up the good work guys! Ulflarsen 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read this comment in Atimes [31], seems it has a good overview of the military capacity of both sides. Believe we should incorporate it here and possibly also in other articles. Will be on holiday for a week so will probably not be active for some days. Enjoy and keep a civil tone all of you! :-) Ulflarsen 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem on moving my comment my bad formatting after all =) The link above seems to go back to the discussion page? Perhaps you pasted the wrong one? If you could give us the right link would be appreciated, sounds like a good read. Thanks --Realstarslayer 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, corrected the link. The article has a interesting list of the sources each side has. I do believe the LTTE has more resources though. Ulflarsen 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ulf, enjoy your holidays!--Realstarslayer 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ruchiraw that we need to stick to credible sources only. That means leaving out all of the various websites biased towards either side.
And SOMALIA? Really Ulflarsen, I know thing aren't ideal around here and it's a real shame that we haven't been able to resolve this conflict long ago and it's seriously destroying the country but Somalia type bad? Emm. I certainly hope not anyway :-)
And I can't agree more. We should keep everything civilized and reach consensus on this article through discussion (now I sound like a politician don't I?), and avoid personal attacks. Remember this is Wikipedia by the way. --snowolfD4 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, remember verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Are we agreed on including the list of named issues into the intro. I can provide credible references for the list I have described. Upto Realstarslayer to apply credible references for his list.

Somalia does not even have a police force, banks, juduciary or central infrastructure. Sri Lanka is not even as bad off as Nepal right now. Even Pakistan has relinquished control of Baluchistan because it is too difficult to fight groups which mingle in with civilians. There are many countries such as Georgia which have temporarily lost control of parts of the country. Even Russia lost control of Chechnya for several years. The LTTE holds mostly jungle. Sri Lanka is still a stable democracy which Somalia never was. Ruchiraw 07:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added some citations and notes above. As for the Somalia thing, I think Ulf just means if this keeps going someday it could be that bad, however I agree with you the situation is not early that dire yet, and it seems things are getting back to normal again in the east so there is hope yet.--Realstarslayer 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

conflict resolution

whether its two people two groups or two nations the way to resolve conflict is:

1. calm down only speak when you are in a calm state.

2. remember that your side has done bad things... apologise for those bad things, and offer compensation.

NOTE:once you apologize for what you've done wrong the other side can no longer use it to justify their bad actions.

3. tell the other side, in an UNEMOTIONAL scientific tone, you did X to me and that has upset me.

NOTE: dont use an emotionally charged word like: "you arrogantly bulldozed my house and massacred my children." just say calmly say "you bulldozed my house, and killed my children".

4.1. If they apologize accept the apology immediately without further talk and ask politely for a reasonable compensation.

4.2. If they do not apologise after you've done all the previous things correctly, give them a week to apologize, if they do not do so, kill them and their families, eat their livers, use their skulls as trophies and its totally ok with me.--Esmehwk 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV/Vandalism

There's a fine line between A Neutral Point of View and Vandalism, I know most people here toe the line but there's alot of hit-and-run edits to express their own political veiws etc and for once there's a decent article on this group so I'm suggesting this article be Vandal proof

International community does not recognize 'state terrorism'

Ruchiraw I have asked repeatedly for you to show me evidence that human rights violations by a state actor do not consititute state terrorism, I have given you ample citations why in fact it does, however despite you not providing any evidence you continue to vandalise the article. I say vandalised since despite repeated requests you continue to redo your changes, thus it is no longer in good faith but vandalism. So I am asking you again provide some proof here. For the time being I have added a disclaimer.--Realstarslayer 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What may seem like state terrorsim to you may not be recognised as state terrorism by independent sourcesRuchiraw 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb it seems you changed the intro before I could add the disclaimer, any how please hold off the changes until we can solve this issue.

Ruchiraw, if you insist on including 'or state terrorism' then the following must also be included:

However, it can be argued that human rights abuses by a state or their proxies can in fact be considered as acts of state terrorism [32].

--Realstarslayer 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said who else other than the LTTE supports this charge Ruchiraw 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, I just gave you one example above, which is not from the LTTE that state human rights violations can be considered acts of state terrorism. BTW there are many non LTTE Tamils who also see things this way, unless you wish to lable all Tamils who take offence to GoSL abuses as LTTE?--Realstarslayer 17:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize you were editing, while I was about to neutralize the POV vandalism that has been going on. Please go ahead and/modify as you see fit. Trincomanb 16:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed part of the meaning of the intro which I will correctRuchiraw 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We are continously seeing drive-by POV vandalism from one user who is acting in bad faith. Trincomanb 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am mentioning that some users such as Trincoman are constantly neutralising attempts to make this intro NPOV. I am proving my good faith by listing this page for mediation. Ruchiraw 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't go for mediation until the RfC process has been tried, I have already nominated it for RfC, as you see above.--Realstarslayer 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Karuna and the GoSL

Ruchiraw before you get all upset with my edit, here is a direct quote from the SLMM Geneva report:

There are a number of indications that the GOSL is actively supporting the Karuna group. Known Karuna supporters have been seen moving to and from SLA camps, and it is evident that the security forces and police in some areas are not taking action to prevent armed elements from operating.

SLMM Geneva Report

--Realstarslayer 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename Article to - GoSL Description of the LTTE

A read of the intro as it stands now shows that this article has become a sad joke thanks to the efforts of a few users, let's just rename it the GoSL description of the LTTE and be done with it, I don't think I am going to bother contributing to this article any more since the so called attemtps at NPOV editing have become a laughable farce. So have fun whomever is left still working on this.--Realstarslayer 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I had precisely warned that this would happen, but no preventative actions were taken and some users maintain (the one that has gone on holiday) that the article is going in the right direction. What a real farce! Trincomanb 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliance

Until people become more co-operative, this article will continue to go to the dogs. So be it. I have added a message that this article is not compliant with Wikipedia's policies. These are the issues where it is not compliant:

• The introduction is not written from a Neutral Point of View. It is very clearly written on the assumption that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation. That may be your opinion but it is not how articles on Wikipedia should be written.
• It includes material which is unverifiable. For example nobody knows how many Muslims and what propotion of Tamils live in LTTE territory because the LTTE has not done a census. The same it ture for a lot of the terrorist attacks blamed on the LTTE. In some cases like Rajiv Gandhi an official enquirey has established that it was LTTE's responsibility but in most other cases it is just an allegation. We may be convinced of things but it has not been objectively proved.
• Everybody is using this as a soapbox to list their favourite grievances against the other side. The introduction is completely filled with allegations, which has made it just propoganda. This is the real reason it violates the NPOV policy. Just because you say you have included propoganda from both sides the article doesn't become neutral. The only way to make it neutral is to remove all propoganda for all sides. This is what things were like two weeks ago, but with the attitudes now I don't think it will be possible to agree on a propoganda-free article. -- Ponnampalam 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page due to ongoing disputes and edit wars. Please use this talk page to discuss issues at hand, and once you have reached some sort of consensus, list it on WP:RFPP or drop me a line on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection - timetable for resolution

Can I suggest the following way forward:

• We work on a revised introduction on this talk page.
• We give ourselves a definite period of time (I suggest five days) to arrive at a wording that everyone can live with.
• If we are unable to achieve a consensus within that timeframe, we seek mediation.

Is this something everyone is happy with? -- Arvind 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But with the size of this page and everone writing things all over the place its hard to figure out what the propoosed intro actually is. So we should also agree on one fixed place we can discuss this.

Also, VERY IMPORTANT, I suggest we stay away from personnal attacks and stick to discussing the article only. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 10:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction - discussion

Here is the introduction as it stood before the edit wars began which, in my opinion, is the best place to start working again. This is because this way, we avoid getting bogged down in the history of the recent disagreements:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also exercises civilian functions -- legislative, judicial, police and cultural -- in the territory it controls, even though those areas remain dependent on the central government for some essentials.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran. It accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority, and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. It is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict — particularly as many rival Tamil voices have been silenced or eliminated by LTTE action. Furthermore, its tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries.

I think the best way forward is to start by figuring out exactly what the problem with this formulation is. So, could I ask everyone who has an issue with this wording to specifically list each of their problems in the relevant section below, using bullet points? If you think the introduction is not NPOV because it is pro-LTTE, please list your issues under the first heading. If you think it is not NPOV because it is pro-GoSL, please list your issues under the second heading. If you particularly want to point out things that make the introduction balanced, please point them out under the third heading. Could I please request that we not start discussing whether we agree or disagree with points raised by others here as yet. Let's just start by letting each side list their points, and refrain from stating agreement or disagreement for the moment, and move on to discussing the issues once this has been done. I strongly feel it will be more productive to discuss the issues once we've given everyone the time to make the points they want to. -- Arvind 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is not NPOV and favours the LTTE

• your point here

• Ruchiraw's comments

• genocide and state terrorism - This is an accusation only by the LTTE made in inflammatory language and should not be treated in the introduction. Tell me , why should we only mention claims made by the LTTE .I thought the main purpose of the LTTE is independence for tamils. That is covered . The stuff about genocide, sole representative, state terrorism are LTTE claims. If so , all accusations against the LTTE by the UN and international community should also be treated in the intro Ruchiraw 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

and state terrorism. There are not accusations supported by anyone except the LTTE. Dont try ot make this a question of what GoSL and LTTE said. Look at the facts as well. Otherwise the intro will be too bloated. Ruchiraw 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. - Not acknowledged by anyone Ruchiraw 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, its tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries.-- This is tucked away at the bottom as an afterthought. It should be with first paragraph as thats where examine teh nature of the LTTE. You cannot ignore teh opinion of one fourth of the worlds population and the UN bcos u dont like it. Please see http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/persons_entities/2_proscribed_entities_10dec2001.html to see how UN resolutions oblige its member countries to proscribe the LTTE Ruchiraw 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is not NPOV and favours the GoSL

• your point here

• Sharz's comments

• Well in your template lies a fundemental differing point, why should the fact that they're cosidered terrorist by some be in the opening at all? shouldn't it have it's own section of the article? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

The introduction is balanced

• your point here

• Realstarslayer's comments

Arvind, against my better judgment, out of respect for your efforts to try and salvage this article I will take part at least in this much:

• The intro tells us who the LTTE are.
• Tells us that while they conduct some civilian functions they are dependant on the GoSL for others.
• It tells us their claims, again their claims which does not imply that it is fact or not fact.
• It tells us why they are considered terrorists by some.

Thus I consider this to be balanced because it gives us the major arguments of both sides without a judgmental tone towards either. If additions are to be made to the accusations presented in the intro it must maintain this same neutral tone. --Realstarslayer 00:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction needs improvement

your point here

• snowolfD4's comments

I wouldn't say the intro is entirely NPOV, but I think it needs some improvements.

• change "in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka" to "in order to secure independence for the Tamil region in the North and East of Sri Lanka" - It will make things clearer to anyone who isn't perfectly familiar with the topic.
• change " it also exercises civilian functions" to " it also exercises some civilian functions" - I think this was agreed on about a week ago.
• remove " It accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority" - for three reasons. One, the LTTE didn't make allegations of genocide etc. when it started the war. Its main objective is independence, and this is stated in the 1st paragraph. Two, if you do include these allegations, something in the line of "the government rejects these allegations and they're not supported by intl. community" should also be included. Three, If you keep these allegations by the LTTE you will also need to add allegations such as child recruitment, ethnic cleansing etc. against the LTTE.
• completely change " Furthermore, its tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries.". First make it a new paragraph, then change it to "The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries including The United States, The European Union, India and Canada. (see full List)."
• Therefore, the early draft of my proposed intro reads as

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region in the North and East of Sri Lanka. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also exercises some civilian functions -- legislative, judicial, police and cultural -- in the territory it controls, even though those areas remain dependent on the central government for some essentials.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran. It proclaims itself to be the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. It is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate with to end the long-running conflict — particularly as many rival Tamil voices have been silenced or eliminated by the LTTE.

The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries including The United States, The European Union, India and Canada (see full List).

• It's not perfect, so suggestions are welcome. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 10:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh yeah one more thing. If you ask most people around the world what the LTTE is famous for they'll say "Suicide Bombings". Its their trademark. So I think that should also be included somewhere in the intro cos it's pretty important.. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 11:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Snowolfd4, If this part is there It proclaims itself to be the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. , we need to mention that

The international community and Sri Lanka do not accept the LTTE's claim to be the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan TamilsRuchiraw 12:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But I still think as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should specifically not carry claims by either party in the intro. Instead it is better to mention facts. Also the third para(terrorist ban) shoudl be included in the first para(military/political) as is done with all other contentious organisations such as Hezbollah. I suggest everyone reads the intro to hezbollah and Al Quaeda which are well balanced and not even tagged as POV. Even Islamic parties , Americans and Jewish people have come up with an NPOV intro and we shoudl be able to do so too [User:Ruchiraw|Ruchiraw]] 12:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• ulflarsen's comments

The rise of the LTTE is closely linked to the repression of the GoSL towards the tamils and the various pogroms against them. When we take such a step to rewrite the article I believe there should be some sentence regarding that, as that historical background is the reason for lots of tamils to support the LTTE. To say it in short, very bluntly: The LTTE was created by the infighting and outbidding of the main political parties of the south. I leave it to Arvind to add a sentence about that, but I believe it should be in the intro as a good intro will summarize what the article is about, and this is truly about how the LTTE came to existence. Ulflarsen 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should be removed almost entirely

Nearly all the edit wars have been over the introduction, which is just a small part of the article. Looking at it, perhaps the best we can do is take everything out, leaving just the first sentence Arvind posted above:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka.

That's it. Nothing else. Any other verifiable material should go in the main body of the article. We should stop trying to squeeze every conceivable argument into the introduction. Tyronen 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Discussion Aug 5 onward

Unfortunately it seems I am proven right in my misgivings, the same user partially responsible for the complete breakdown of this article cannot even contain his venom and follow simple instructions to just state his points and not debate anything here, how can anyone work towards a consensus with someone so obviously hostile to any debate or any form of consensus opposed to his POV --Realstarslayer 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Realstarslayer, lets set some base rules here. Are we going to mention claims made by GoSL or LTTE. Either yes or no. Why only admit claims made by the LTTE and ignore comments by the UN, Amnesty, HRW, US, EU , Canada, India, Australia , Singapore etc:-. This is teh fundamental point to reach consensus on and it must be justifiable. Ruchiraw 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

First I see you removed your comments above, thank you for that, but I did not want you to remove them completely just post them somewhere else so we can leave the section above only for points for/against/or neutral. Now I have explained my view on this numerous times before, we state the LTTE claims that they are fighting because they feel there has been genocide or state terrorism against Tamils, again note this statement only tells us that they claim so, not that what they say is fact. Likewise we also state that they are banned as terrorists because they have committed human rights abuses, killings etc and this is why the GoSL is fighting them, so I am not sure why you think there is no balance? The LTTE and the GoSL are the two parties to this conflict, other countries added the LTTE to terrorist lists at the instigation of the GoSL, thus the GoSL view is sufficient to represent the views of these other 3rd parties in the introduction. If we want to add each and every claim for both sides in the intro we end up with the mess that is there right now. Those things should be and are covered in the main body of the article, if you just scroll down to the 'terror' section I think it is pretty clear about all the charges against the LTTE. As I said I have repeated this explanation to you on many occasions so this will be the last time I do so. So I have stated my views above, let everyone else comment and then that will be that.--Realstarslayer 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You have got my point. This intro focuses too much on what teh LTTE claims rather than about what the LTTE has actually done. LTTE's main aim is Tamil Eelam which is already covered in the intro as

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka.

The other claims are beside the point.LTTE is fighting for tamil independence and thats clear and does belong in the intro . As to what it accuses teh government of , this may belong in the section on origin of LTTE where it can be discussed. There are many claims the LTTE have made over 20 years to justify their war. As I said dont put accusations or claims here. Just leave the bare facts and we can work the accusations into the rest of the article.

I believe most countries have added the LTTE because of the suicide bombings, child soldier recruitment and civilian massacres. if we are going to details such as LTTE motivations for starting their struggle , we will need to expand why they are considered terrorist by many countries as this gives a fuller view of the LTTE, motivations and actions. Ruchiraw 03:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The following sentence in the introduction states that Janes defence weekly, Amnesty International , HRW, Canada, US , EU, India and the UN have accused the LTTE of certain wrongs because they need satisfaction from child-sex tourism

pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], civilian massacres and bombings (resulting in cumulative death toll of thousands of civilians) and assassination of elected politicians.

As it is not cited and plainly a libel, someone may want to consider removing the words ( that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism) as it implies that the governments of 1.5 billion people want to keep Sri Lanka as a haven for child sex tourism. Ruchiraw 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the words (relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency) in the following sentence in the intro is not supported by its citation and is a libel placed by a vandal

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency Ruchiraw 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole lot of slander and libel stuff in the intro as it stands. This is both against the LTTE and the government. Although the above user is selectively picking out slanderous stuff about the Sri Lankan govt., he doesn't make any reference slanderous accusation made against the opposing side, because it was he who had inserted them. Accusations of LTTE involved in organized crime, as pointed out by one user above is a case and point. THe LTTE involved in organized crime is about a bunch of Tamil who happen to be supporters of the Tigers. The user I think is trying to imply if a person is Tamil and LTTE supporter, then that person is part of the LTTE etc. Citation trying to link LTTE to drug smuggling is another farce [33]. It was an accusation made by personnel from the US Drug Enforcement agency on their own accord to a political hearing, although there was no evidence shown to back this up. According to the law in LTTE administered areas, if person is charged and found guilty of drug usage and smuggling in a court of law, the punishment is death (as is the case in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore). If this user insists on this, this not based on stated facts but hear ( a slippery slope for an encyclopedia) say which is given undue prominence and merely dressing up his SL Govt. POV.

I would urge the admin to maintain the protection on this page and not allow any changes, until we have a fair, balanced intro that is not a propaganda piece for the govt. side and that gains the consensus of all users acting in good faith. Trincomanb 16:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

TrincomanB , I have too much respect for the RCMP to argue with their findings . See teh following para from their report which has been cited in the intro

Almost every terrorist group in the world today is involved in organized crime. Almost all terrorist groups around the world use organized crime to pay for their operations.Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers have also used proceeds of crime to finance politically motivated violence."It's one of the reasons we took steps and initiatives against the Tamil Tigers to protect, certainly, the good people in the Tamil community and all Canadians," said Day. "It's happening. We are aware of it. And our law enforcement and security people are, let's just say, keeping track of it and minimizing the risk.Ruchiraw 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is hearsay from a politician. No charges have been laid, let alone anyone found guilty who is directly/proven linked to LTTE. So your insistence on sneaking in unverifiable POV statement is clearly being exposed. Trincomanb 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no references to child sex tourism as a foreign currency earner for Sri Lanka in the citation specified in the intro. If you remember the LTTE is still detaining Sri lankan officers who went to arrest a British pedophile. Pedophiles receive 5-20 years jail term in Sri Lanka according to the citation in the intro itself. Nothing about revenue generation from child sex at the citation in the intro.Ruchiraw 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement. I wwanted to edit the statement about "relies on child sex tourism" because it was unsupported and it seems inflamatory. --Blue Tie 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I too am in agreement this is just getting silly, no one can prove either way whether the child sex trade is a GoSL tool to generate revenue, it is an unfortunate occurance in many countries in the region Thailand comes to mind (where it very well may be a tourist "attraction"). Besides this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand the LTTE are not fighting for independence because of Sinhala child prositutes in the south and the government isn't fighting the LTTE for that reason either.--Realstarslayer 03:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

---

snowolfd4 In response to comments by Ulflarsen @ 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) above:

Yeah but if you add those stuff, then you've got to add everything about child soldiers and ethnic cleansing etc. by the LTTE to make it NPOV. And then someone will want denials by the LTTE of those accusations etc. etc. and hey guess what? We're right back where we started. So I maintain I think we should keep to a few basic facts only.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the repression of the Tamils by various GoSL is a core issue that defines the conflict and the rise of the LTTE, 'child soldiers' are a symptom of that conflict and so not at its core, thus no need to cover it or various other accusations, by both sides, in the intro, only the main points are needed. Anyway I hope you don't mind but I am going to move this down below, since we want to keep discussions out of this section.--Realstarslayer 01:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks to everyone for outlining their objections in bullet form above. I will wait till tomorrow to see if anyone else has anything else to say, and if not, summarise them so we can take a constructive discussion forward. -- Arvind 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Bias Infomation

29 countries (see list) have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist group, although 161 countries including UN have not declared this organization a terrorist group. The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) and pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates First off, I checked the source for 'organized crime' the source itself seems to be about a group of Tamils in Organized crime that ALSO support the Tamil Tigers, there's no real correlation Secondly 'failed state index' besides the fact that Jarred Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) has cited Sri Lanka as a nation that will grow rapidly whence peace has been acheived due to natural positioning etc, The failed state referance AND the child sex tourism to generate SOME of its foreign currency is irrelevant to the arguement and is close to flaming.

Also still uses acts of terrorism in an attempt to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state[27]. Although the Sri Lankan itself has lifted the ban on the LTTE. Mono-ethinic? this can easily be refuted, seeing as many of the leadership of the Tamil Tigers are Tamil Christians. It seems this entire article to reach a neutral point, just swings to the tamil side, then swings back to the Sri Lankan goverments side again to balance it out. --Sharz 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Answers to Ulflarsen's questions to me

Havent got any resoponse from you so I thought of moving this topic here as the older topic is archived and also you might have missed it as user Realstarslayer have replied for them. I want to know if you read my comments already and ignored them...---RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem with the name of the LTTE's leader. Is it Prabhakaran or Prabakharan? The Wikipedia article about the man himself uses the former (but there is a redirect from the latter). We have both forms at various points in the LTTE article itself. I know very little about the conventions of transliterating from Tamil, but maybe somebody can give us a definitive answer? Credmond 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In Tamilnet he is mentioned as Velupillai Pirapaharan [34]. In the SLMM website intro to the CFA he is called Velupillai Prabhakaran [35]. BBC uses Velupillai Prabhakaran [36] Ulflarsen 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, Tamil names of Sanskrit origin were transcribed into English based on their Sanskrit form. Under this system, his name would be "Prabhakaran". Some nationalists have begun transcribing them into English based on the way they are written in Tamil. That makes it Pirapaharan. Prabhakaran is the most commonly used form, so it's the one this article should use. -- Arvind 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• You seems to have a problem not only in your leaders name but every detail in this artical.How sure are you that its not "Osama Bin Laden"?--RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Prabhakaran is not my leader. Regarding the article - if you believe it is full of information that is not correct then please forward evidence regarding that, But a lot of the disagreement here connects to various POV (point of view), like labeling the LTTE a terrorist organisation. Even though the LTTE is banned by around 30 countries it does not mean it fits the label. One side is that it is not banned by Sri Lanka itself - as the government's view is that it needs to deal with it. Neither is it on the UN list of terrorist organisations. Last but not least, the LTTE still have a significant support from tamils, both within and outside Sri Lanka.

On the other side, the LTTE has a lot to answer for - and the most vital info regarding that is listed in the article, even information that LTTE supporters do not like to hear (child subscription, murder of Gandhi, forced contributions etc). But still it is in the article, as it shows how the LTTE operates in a manner that is often against human rights. So again - please come forward with your ideas, critique etc so the article can be improved. Ulflarsen 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page this is argued by many users over and over agin pointing out the evidence! It is pointless for me to repeat them again as you have a history of argiung with what you belive is true, wich is POV. "sigh" "the aim of Wikipedia is to produce articles that are as correct as possible, with a focus on neutral point of view - NPOV".you are certainly not honoring this! Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia which propel on facts and not a news media.I hope you will keep this in mind. RavenS 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That a statement has been repeated over and over again does not mean it is true. A lot of the evidence you mention above is just that. Again, if you can forward proof that the LTTE is a terror organisation, like Al-Qaeda I will support you in stating that in the article. The problem is however that there are rather wide differences between the two. Al-Qaeda is actively supressed by US, EU and other countries, while the ban on LTTE more serves to deny the organisation money and to cajole it back to negotiations.

What about Sri Lanka not banning the LTTE? What about that neither EU, India, USA or Japan sends soldiers to Sri Lanka to exterminate the LTTE? Could it have something to do with that the LTTE for sure is a organisation that use terror, but not has terror as its sole aim - as Al-Qaeda and other such organisation seems to have... Or does the fact that Sri Lanka do not ban the LTTE has a connection with that the government knows (as it has repeatedly been told by its foreign supporters, India, EU, USA and Japan), that the current political system in Sri Lanka is not fair - and needs to be changed - so that the LTTE is not the problem itself, but the symptom [37]? When the current president of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapakse does not ban the LTTE as a terrorist organisation - does that mean that he is a supporter of terrorism? Or not a true Sri Lankan patriot - or both? It is very easy to say this and that - but we try to build Wikipedia on facts, so please engage in that. Ulflarsen 17:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC

• LTTE was a banned rebel group in Sri lanka till 2002. Due to the Cease-fire the ban on them was taken off. It probably will be re-imposed very soon.-RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that, if the GoSL wants to have even some semblance of being for peace, since you obviously cannot negotiate with a party that you have just banned, which was the original reason for the lifting of the ban.

• The GOSL have not pleaded for that kind of a help from any of the organizations or countries yet. GOSL still thinks that this is a internal civil issue that can be sorted out internally where they are dead wrong. Your suggestion of getting help from a military of a 3rd country would be the best choice for GOSL now. Peace talks with the LTTE is a laugh!-RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I try to keep abreast of both sides of the issue and a quick read of Lankaweb, which is made up of JVP and JHU type supporters will always show some editorial or opinion peace where they would like to see foreign military involvement, I admit it is conjecture to assume the GoSL also wants this, but many of the hawks in the GoSL are of the same mindset as those found on Lankaweb.

• There is no similarity with Al-Qaeda and LTTE??? Are you serious here ulflarsen?? Though the LTTE did not invent the terror practice like suicide bombing (that honor goes to Hezbollah) they did perfect it. No terrorist group in the world have mastered suicide bombing like the LTTE and that’s a fact!--RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no similarity, since as Ulf noted above the LTTE are the symptom of the disease. Also no one is negotiating with AQ and no one has a CFA with them either, these things came about because of ground realities, the CFA came about because the GoSL was unable to militarily defeat the LTTE and vice versa, the LTTE also held on to significant areas of land with support from a majority of the populace in those areas, all great differences when compared to AQ.

   "Prabhakaran came to the conclusion that a group, which was faced with an enemy having overwhelming military superiority, could inflict maximum damage at minimum cost only through the deployment of suicide bombers." 

Are you aware of this or willing to deny that as well? - Or does it sound familiar? It should.!!! It is the same excuse used by supporters of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc. I am even surprised that you raised a question like this!!!!

I don't think anyone is denying this, this is the stated fact so I'm not sure what your point is, sucide bombers are used to balance the greater military might of the GoSL.

The point was to show UlfLarsen the similarity between the LTTE, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.--RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• If the current political system is not fare, the solution is to change the government! Genocide of Sinhala people is not going to work. Plus GOSL invites the LTTE to come forward as a democratic party, they can very well use this offer and change the government byt they boy cot it! have you raised the question as to why? Well the answer is very simple because they are terrorists! By what the LTTE have done so far the tamil people themselves have lost faith in the LTTE and does not accept the LTTE as a responsible political leader. The LTTE now has no option but to keep fighting.-RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this is laughable, the Tamils had no say in the GoSL even before the LTTE, since the Sinhala majority created an environment where they could perpetuate control over the government and laws of the land, this is fact not opinion [38]. This is what the international community refers to as the need for drastic political changes, this can only be done by the government in power, the Tamils do not have enough political power to enact any changes, this was seen clearly in even trying to get minor deals such as P-TOMS passed.

• Yeah its very easy to say this and that by being out of Sri Lanka, like you and me. Go there and see the real picture. Go to the poor villages like vavunia and ampara and many other places that the LTTE have murdered civilians and ask those people what the LTTE do.--RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing, I'm pretty sure the hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians living as IDPs are not having a rosey time of it either. Besides Ulf has actually been there, a claim that I cannot make and it seems you neither, so going by your own statement we should take his word over yours.

• LTTE is a terrorist group, they use suicide bombing, they kill innocent civilians, they use axes and swards to kill innocent people are all facts. They practice sporadical mass murders like Pettah bombing, Dehiwala train bombing and frequent innocent civilian murders and genocide of Sinhala which they deny! Proof - right there’s no proof, because the LTTE are the masters of liars as well. At least Osama Bin Laden makes a clean breast that he will kill all Americans and drain our money. But the LTTE denies what they do, makes up stories and maneuvers the listeners and readers to get the sympathy of the international community and the support of the entire Tamil family which I feel is an extremely cowardly act. Wikipedia is based on facts not fantasies, sadly its not honored here. It is surprising to know that the wikipedia editors are closing their eyes on this by allowing deviation to their policies!!!-----RavenS 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And this is your POV and you are perfectly entitled to it, however you cannot use that as the basis for a factual encyclopedia. Responses in-line by me.--Realstarslayer 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Realstarlayer, this is not my POV they are facts:

• LTTE is a terrorist group is a fact (www.satp.org) (MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base) (Infoplease)
• LTTE have mastered and execute suicide bombing and rates at no. one in suicide bombers is a fact (Hindustan) (www.satp.org) (www.satp.org)
• LTTE kills political leaders is a fact (www.spur.asn.au) (2)
• LTTE kill innocent civilians is a fact (asiantribune) (yahoo news)
• LTTE implement mass murders in civilised areas is a fact (asiantribune) (2) (3)
• LTTE lie, is a fact (Hindustan) (2)

I guess this would be disputed as well -- RavenS 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed your comments but my response was for Ulf Larsen and his questions to me! I await his response. By the way are you the same person??? I realized that users in this page are playing games with two three user names?---RavenS 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I realize they were for Ulf, but I wanted to address some of them myself. I'm sure he will reply as well if he wants to. Also what do you mean am I the same user? You mean Ulf? No I am not obviously??? Also not sure what you mean about users playing games with names? I know there have been a few anonymous users doing silly things but everyone else is who they say they are?--Realstarslayer 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K. one more time.If you look at the talk page this is argued by many users over and over agin pointing out the evidence! (Stating and arguing are two different things). So it is pointless for me to repeat them again as YOU have a history of argiung with what YOU belive is true, which is POV. "sigh" "the aim of Wikipedia is to produce articles that are as correct as possible, with a focus on neutral point of view - NPOV".you are certainly not honoring this! Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia which propel on facts and not a news media.I hope you will keep this in mind. RavenS 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC

I asked you several questions and you dont seem to bother to answer them. So one more time, why is LTTE not banned by Sri Lanka? How come president Mahinda Rajapakse still want to discuss with what you call a terrorist organisation? What about the departing US ambassador's comments - as I left a link above? And what about all the information in the article regarding facts that are negative to the LTTE? Does that have any value? Does that help to give a NPOV article? I challenge you to engage in this article - to develop it! Ulflarsen 20:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ulflarsen, I have added the comments to your questions, If your challenging me to engage in this artical you have to have a NPOV 1st. Whithout you having that dont invite others to join in as a team. Because that a waist of their time since you keep reverting them to what you feel like is true or beleiving what you are being told. ( probably by your friends Vadakkan aka Arvind, Super-Real star layer , etc - this was a assumption now) One last question - Do you have any Sinhala friends?-----RavenS 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear RavenS you are not adding much credibility to your accusations by your behaviour, baseless attacks against Mr. Larsen and ‘drive by’ critiques of the article certainly do not display a NPOV on your part. If you feel there is something wrong with the article please point them out and offer your corrections with facts to back them up. If you cannot then it seems rather hypocritical for you to be going on about NPOV. As for earlier discussion here if you read them all you will see that all questions have been answered with appropriate facts and changes that were required have been made with no favoritism being displayed for one side or the other. --Realstarslayer 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have studied this page quietly and this is my second comment here. I am not a Sri Lankan but, I have followed civil conflicts in Middle East,Africa and South Asia. I could clearly say that this page is "Owned and operated by die hard supporters of LTTE,hence seriously lacks the NPOV character". Looks like that there have been some new commers to correct parts of the article to give a NPOV and been attacked by the full time LTTE writers who had a total control over the content of the page.Greglewis 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Greg if you could point out some specific areas would be helpful in addressing the issues and trying to make the article better. regards --Realstarslayer 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Comments added ----RavenS 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:RavenS is NOT User:RaveenS. Looks like an attempt at user name misuse. RaveenS 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a goofy imagination!My name is Raven Sears. Born to a American father and a Sri lankan mother.Do you have a problem with that? Besides this is the 1st time I've seen Raven spelled with 2 E's. You should check the spellings of you name-----RavenS 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for editprotected

Please remove the statement relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency from the intro . The citation mentioned discusses child sex tourism but does not refer to it as a foreign currency generator so this appears to be a false unverifiable statement

It is in the following sentence on para 3 of the introduction

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] )

Ruchiraw 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact: Sri Lankan govt. relies on all forms of tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [39],[40][41].

Fact: Child sex tourism is a subset of the tourism industry.

Hence by logic the above statement in dispute is true.

To delete this statement that is factual and an embarrasment to the SL Govt. indicates a user's POV. The SL Government, certainly hasnt made an effort to stop it since it needs to fund the war, until the UN stepped in. Elalan 00:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As Elalan has admitted he is inserting original research , please remove the statement relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency Ruchiraw 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't original research, there are numerous sources that document this whole thing. Elalan 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me one which says the government relies on child sex tourism for foreign exchange Ruchiraw 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here it is from [42] http://www.tchr.net/civil_and_pol_right-child.htm.

This paragraph is also of interest:

As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, Child rights suffer pathetically at the hands of politicians. Instruments are used selectively and the international community, international NGOs, local NGOs and others are smartly manipulated by the government of Sri Lanka to promote it agenda.

A typical example of this are the two Optional Protocols (OP) to the Convention on the rights of the Child (CRC): (1) OP CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflicts (2) OP CRC on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Both optional protocols were adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession on 25 May 2000. Sri Lanka signed the first OP - on the involvement of children in armed conflicts - on 21 August 2000 and ratified it on 08 September 2000, whereas the second OP – on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography was signed on 08 May 2002 but has never been ratified until today.

When we look at the reality of the situation in Sri Lanka, it is very sad to note that Sri Lanka is known as "Paradise for Paedophiles". According to media and NGOs, nearly 100,000 Children are involved in child prostitution in Sri Lanka. But there is no outcry by the government and some NGOs because this business generates massive income in foreign currency. Also as this business is run by those who have strong links with senior government officials, the problem in not raised and pressure is not exerted on Sri Lanka to ratify the "Optional Protocol on child prostitution and child pornography". Elalan 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2 points 1. This is not the citation you used

2. This organisation you have quoted above TCHR was refused entry to the NGO body because it was a front for a terrorist organisation. You should not start quoting terrorist mouthpieces on WikipediaRuchiraw 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable how you mention that TCHR is a terrorist mouthpiece, when you have access to flimsy Lankan govt. propaganda. Anytime the truth is brought out of the plight of the working class people in Lanka, these must be foreign imperial agents or agents of the LTTE. These conspiracy ideas dont belong on Wikipedia.. In any event, TCHR is accredited by the UN, see the following page for details: http://www.tchr.net/aboutus_achieve_detail.htm Elalan 02:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I forgot to add this citation

http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/tamil/000518tchr.htm

,its carried on a pro-LTTE site also and shows teh TCHR was refused consultative status at teh NGO forum because it is a front for terrorists. NB:- What is on the TCHR web site may or may not be true but I would like to know whether it participates in any UN activities. I cant find anything on teh UN website about them Ruchiraw 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It is so biased in favor of the propaganda and political arguments from the group under discussion it's shameful. The writers clearly have no interest in objectivity or balance, and are merely using the otherwise outstanding Wikipedia project solely as a means of spreading propaganda. This article needs to be completely revised immediately before Wikipedia acquires an even worse reputation for spurious scholarship and a lax application of ethical standards.

Absolutely Discraceful!

||||Wikipedia's deadlock||||

I am very happy to know that wikipedia failed to establish an extensive article with a neutral point of view in the subject of srilankan tamils's fight for self determination.This is conveying a message to International community that 'your resolution methods will not work' in srilanka.Wikipedia is a successful Global encyclopedia except coverage of srilankan tamil conflict. International community failed infront of pathological ideology of srilankan rulers and followers.Anyway many people believe its better to remove article other than keeping 'tags' for long time.I hope Tamils will establish their Indipendent Homeland soon and arise as major international players in near future! nayaka.07/08/06

The prize for "worst article in Wikipedia" has substantial competition, this article at least has some information about the relevant conflict. Articles about the Israel / Palestine conflict also have problems, but featured articles have emerged from disputed articles such as this. Personally, I hope there is a peaceful settlement to the conflict involving self-determination. Addhoc 15:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear nayaka Glad to see your neutrality by the sentence International community failed infront of pathological ideology of srilankan rulers and followers.. Perhaps you consider whether there is a reason for 30 countries to ban the LTTE before you talk about pathological tendencies of democratically elected governments. LTTE leader is also wanted for terrorism by Interpol Ruchiraw 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, look at the posts carefully, that was not Adhoc's comments but another poster (whom I think doesn't know how to sign yet). I'm not even sure what that line means "pathological ideology...". However as Ulf pointed out the various governments of Sri Lanka have given rise to, and perpetuated the conflict in Sri Lanka for their own shortsighted political expediencies, this was proven yet again just recently as with this whole Mavil Aru business, since the GoSL couldn’t afford to lose face to their extremist supporters in the South they couldn’t bring themselves to allow the rebels to open the sluice gate, since it would then beg the question how the Sri Lankan military were unable to do so after more than a week of offensives. So rather than allow for a peaceful resolution they opted for war, in the words of the SLMM Head Ulf Henriksson "No water. War instead of water. Not a good idea, not a good solution," [43]. These kinds of political maneuverings have been the bane of Sri Lanka for many decades, long before an LTTE even existed, it was one of the reasons for such alienating actions such as the ‘Sinhala Only Act’. So even though the poster is not being very articulate there is quite some truth to what he says.--Realstarslayer 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1. How do you know they will not close the sluice gate whenver they feel like it.

I thought the important thing was the poor farming famillies who have now been without water for over 2 weeks? So if that was what was important I think you would let the water flow first and then figure out how to take the land, not the other way. And it seems most diplomats and the SLMM feel the same way:

But the LTTE offered to open it and review teh situation after 4 weeks. If GOSL has not built a water tower in 4 weeks, then tehy have to start the offensive again in teh face of fortifications that the LTTE has built in last 4 weeks. Thats not reasonble. LTTE could have opened teh sluice gates in teh forst one or two days of hostilities instead of after days of fighting. Ruchiraw 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nordic truce monitors and diplomats are exasperated by the government's decision to continue a military campaign despite the Tiger offer to open the sluice. The rebels have already pulled back to their original positions after the first ground battle since a 2002 truce.[44]

--Realstarslayer 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

When the Nordic people are doing teh fighting or live in that area , then tehy can talk. Ruchiraw 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Come now Ruchiraw, that is too funny; so international opinion only matters to you when it supports your views? Then why not say the same thing of all the bans, "When the EU are doing teh fighting or live in that area , then tehy can talk". Then by that argument don't you think the GoSL should be paying more attention to the needs of the Tamil people who are living in that area?--Realstarslayer 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that Nordic people have not lost many soldiers in attempts to capture this area and then to be told to retreat at the last moment is too much. Please remember the massacre of 13 public utility workers sent to work in LTTE areas this year. I dont think the government will be too happy about sending more people to be massacred while building public utilities in LTTE areas expecially it is a de-facto state which the LTTE are taxing. If the LTTE can imprrovise armored cars etc:- they can build a simple water tower on their own. Ruchiraw 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2. You and I both know that prabhakaran has asked his cadres to kill him if he gives up teh idea of an independent Eeelam. As even DBS Jeyaraj pointed out in a recent article , the best chance for peace was the Indo Lanka accord. For whatever reason it is only the LTTE which did not accept it. Now the LTTE holds sri lanka and the tamil community hostage for an unealistic aim. I know the LTTE can defeat the Sri Lankan army a few times but do you seriously think the Indian government will allow an independent Tamil state governed by the LTTE. The Indian army behaved much worse than teh Sri Lankan army in 1989. The only people who are bearing the brunt of this conflict are the poor farmers and fishermen in the NE, not the Tamil diaspora who comfortably fund the war from the security of the West. this is a hopeless war which will probably end in the destruction of the Northeast of Sri Lanka. Somehow I dont see the Indian government allowing an Independent Tamil Eeelam which would fuel separatism in Tamil nadu. Nor do I know what Prabhakaran is going to do with 2 million muslims and Sinhalese living in the East. Only time will tell whether so many have died in vain. this whole situation started with election of JR jayawardena but if you remember well , he murdered many SLFP sinhalese when he was elected in 1977. he did teh same thing to the tamils in 1983 but this is not the fault of teh Sinhalese , it is teh fault of a man who is now dead. More and more deaths , there is no end to this but one thing is clear , the leaders of both countries are not putting their children to the warfront. Stalins son died at the warfront and so did Maos. The new breed of leaders are more selfish. Ruchiraw 03:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The NE is is pretty much destroyed anyway as compared to the rest of the country, I agree with you that this war is not helping anyone and I also agree with you that its not the fault of the Sinhala people. It is most certainly the fault of politicians who care more for their hold on power than the people or their country. However it is still the GoSL who holds the solution they need to bring forth real solutions for the Tamils. You are forgetting that the LTTE were willing to give up their demand for independence and settle for autonomy as part if the CFA. This solution is already working in so many places around the world, Spain, Kosovo, etc. Thus the simplest way to move forward is to abide by the CFA, but the GoSL cannot even do this much without risking falling. Have a read of the CFA its linked on the main article. The GoSL does not want to or has been unable to follow through on most of it, not all their fault BTW because they are held hostage by the extremist nationalists to a certain extent too, as was seen with the previous government's efforts such as P-TOMS or the ISGA both of which were brought down by the extremist nationalists. Until there are real solutions to the problem the LTTE is still going to enjoy support amongst the Tamils and poor Sinhala youth are going to continue to die for some politicians in Colombo.--Realstarslayer 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo was 90% albanian, now it is 99% Albanian. The eastern province without which Eeelam is useless, has only 33% tamil population.Spain is offering much limited powers than were offered in teh Indo Lanka accord. And look at this article in a South Indian paper http://newstodaynet.com/guest/0708gu1.htm. Even if you want an Eelam, the regional superpower will not tolerate an LTTE governed one. Kosovo , Kurdistan etc:- were all possible because of US intervention. Prabhakaran was correct to be suspicious of India , tehy will never allow an Eelam if they are in their right senses. Eelam will mean the breakup of India. As for the CFA may I point out that the LTTE has been systematically eliminating the Long Range Patrol Group and Army Intelligence well before teh Karuna split. Also the LTTEs CFA violations are 30 times more than teh armys. If you mean the current offensive , please dont forget the LTTE initiated the action at sea as well as bumping off Army Leadrs Ruchiraw 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Indo-Lanka accord was more to do with India cementing their influence over Sri Lanka than it was to do with solving the ethnic problem. That is why it was not just the LTTE who had missgiving about it, so did many Sinhala politicians including the prime minister, and eventually, so rumours have it, the GoSL itself helped the LTTE drive the IPKF out. There are two good articles here on the whole time period and the background [45][46]. But you mis my point entirely it is not what level of autonomy has been given these regions, but the fact that their parent countries were politically mature enough to consider autonomy in the first place and make an honest attempt to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of those people. Something that the various Sri Lankan governments and leaders have been unable to do for many decades, long before there was any LTTE or any civil war. In fact, doing just the opposite, they used such issues to further their own political power creating an us vs them mentaility, Sinhala vs Tamil, etc. This intransigence of the Southern polity is the root cause of so much bloodshed and heartbreak in Sri Lanka, and there will be no solution until it is overcome.--Realstarslayer 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If teh LTTE wanted a negotiated solution , tehy would allowed teh Tamils to vote for Ranil. now LTTE is moaning that this is a hardline government when tehy caused its election knowingly. This is a classic case of how teh LTTE manipulates the tamils to engage in war. This reinforces my point , India will let the Tamils and Sinhalese fight it out and when both sides are exhausted they will intervene on so-called humanitarian grounds. I think it is simplistic of Tamils to expect to create an independent secure state which is so blatantly against the interests of the neighbouring regional powers. Take a look at the section in LTTE ar globalsecurity.org and see the map of Greater Tamil Eeelam. As for intransigient , you know the LTTE proposal was for then to take over the Nort East for 10 years and tehn decide on a final solution. No country can be that stupid. may I compare this to the idea of KLA taking over kosovo and montenegro for 10 years at the end of which to decide on a final solution. Sri lanka is an island. There is nowhere for the Muslims and Sinhalese to go from the East. tehy are sure to stand and fight. The best you can hope for is a partial Tamil Eeelam consisting of the Tamil areas of NE and always under teh threat of India. I know how East Timor was split off but remember it was done with international approval. there is zero chance of international approval of an LTTE governed independent state. Even karunanidhi has turned against the LTTE now. Prabhakan is a warrior but so was Napoleon. Napoleon ended up with his country destroyed and Prabhakaran will do the same to Sri Lanka. Ruchiraw 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greglewis hope you don't mind I deleted that obviously a typo I'm assuming? =)

Glad page is protected. But JUST BEFORE the page was protected, a lot of material that is unprofessional and biased towards LTTE have been added to the intro. Please consider deleting the latest additions by the users "Elalan" and "Trincomanb" just before it was protected:

1. (cur) (last) 22:32, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs)
2. (cur) (last) 22:20, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs) (more facts)
3. (cur) (last) 22:18, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs)
4. (cur) (last) 22:10, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs) (some relevant facts about GOSL)
5. (cur) (last) 21:46, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (proscription facts.)
6. (cur) (last) 19:14, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (rewording)
7. (cur) (last) 19:13, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (other edits)
8. (cur) (last) 18:49, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs)
9. (cur) (last) 18:49, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (minor edit)
10. (cur) (last) 18:48, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (added more facts of accusations of genocide by SL state)

Thank you! Supermod 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats your point ? I felt it was my duty to highlight the child sex tourism issue. I wasn't writing stuff biased towards the LTTE. The plight of 100,000 children is at risk. The last thing the Lankan Government should do is tell what to do or not do. Look why don't you consider the fact that people (children) are affected. This needs to be highlighted. Elalan 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

hi Elalan , can you please quote even one reputable source such as UNHCR which says child prostition is encouraged by the Government of Sri lanka Ruchiraw 02:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You and I know UNHCR is a sad joke. These guys burn millions of dollars doing nothing and they are very corrupt. Heard of the UN Oil for food scam. They come to Lanka for the hot sun and weather. They are not here to help and improve the country. They are out here to ensure Lanka stays a beggar nation. They don't say anything about the Lankan govt. because if they do, they are person non grata. The sooner the people here understand it the better. The foreign aid agencies are not here to help, they are here to fool us all! Tell me one country that has benefited from all these aid agencies from the UN. Look at East Timor (prime example). In this case, I am on the ground I know what is happening. Govt. supporters will feel this is propaganda meant to embarrass them, but the shame must come out for sake of the children. Elalan 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the only reliable source on child prostitution in Sri Lanka is the LTTE(and associated organisations) which is well known for teh use of child soldiers. I admit there is child prostitution in Sri Lanka but child sex is a huge problem around teh world. The fact that 25% f children in some western countries have been sexually abused , does not make the government of these countries sponsors of child sex abuseRuchiraw 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before it is pointless to discuss the child sex trade in Sri Lanka it has no bearing on the ethnic conflict and is not helping to make this article any better. Now it is a serious issue so someone can start a page on that topic, thought there probably is one in existance already, so these discussions would be better served there. Also there is no proof that the GoSL knowingly advocates the child sex industry, so it is not very neutral or very relevant to mention this in the article here.--Realstarslayer 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the LTTE and the ethnic conflict. Like Ruchiraw and Realstarslayer pointed out, it is useless to talk about child sex here. Where does it says Government of Sri Lanka encourages child sex? It is problem in the whole world. Furthermore, LTTE is a group that has been accused of child recruitment to the war. Citations: [47], [48], [49]. Supermod 07:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I suggest that the current 3rd paragraph of the article to be replaces with the following:

Many countries (see list) have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist group. The Sri Lankan government and the international community have also accused the group of crimes against humanity [50], ethnic cleansing [51], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000 [52], narco-terrorism [53], organised crime [54], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates [55], and other notable terrorist attacks. The UN has accused the LTTE [56] and the Karuna group (which the LTTE alleges to be receiving some government support) [57] of continued recruitment of child soldiers. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. While the UN or any of its member countries have not accepted that the Sri Lankan government has committed genocide or state terrorism , pro-LTTE organizations and individuals have accused the government of comitting genocide ([58],[59],[60]), an article written by an individual and reproduced by an independent human rights organization has accused the government of committing crimes against humanity [61]. Accusations of attempted ethnic cleansing have also been traded by both parties in the past. However only Tamils live in areas under LTTE control, while over half of Sri Lanka's Tamils and all of its Muslims, Sinhalese and Burghers live under the control of the elected government of Sri Lanka. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors is a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement [62], while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE deserves to be labelled terrorist, while it still uses acts of terrorism in an attempt to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state [63]. Supermod 07:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi All , In the case of facts we should keep them. Its a fact that GoSL has committed grave humans rights violations and thats certainly relevant. However the LTTEs involvement in various illegal activies must also be kept bcos its factual and after all (gee whillikins) this intro is about the LTTE. However we should not include material from LTTE or its fronts or the JHU/JVP websites. There are all sorts of wild claims made in such websites which shoudl not be on Wikipedia. Ruchiraw 14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction, 9 August onwards

Thank you all for making your points calmly and briefly. From the discussion, I gather that the main sticking point is that some editors object to listing the allegations (state terrorism, genocide) which are only made by the LTTE against the GoSL (on the grounds that few other countries have formally recognised this), while others insist that they are necessary to give context to why the LTTE is fighting. Here is my attempt to balance both:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organisation that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE was formed as a reaction to repeated outbreaks of violence targetting the Tamil minority, and the failure of the political process to stop these or address government policies which discriminated against Sri Lankan Tamils. However, the tactics it has employed in its campaign have led to it being listed as a terrorist group in a number of countries, including the US, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India.

This summarises what the LTTE wants, why it wants it, and why it is controversial - which gives a broad overall context and, in my opinion, is all the introduction needs. Details of the allegations can then be discussed in the article, giving each allegation sufficient specific context. The points raised above seem clearly to indicate that it is the attempt to introduce details in the introduction with insufficient context which is leading to an edit war - if we can make the main points in the introduction without details, we should do so especially given the requirement of summary style.

Comments below, if you could please make them pointwise as you did above, and take discussions to a separate section, that would be useful. -- Arvind 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This version is not NPOV, and favours the LTTE

• Whether we like it or not LTTE is a TERRORIST organisation. What that means is that LTTE useses Terror,i.e. killing Tamil opponents,using suicide bombs in densely populated areas in Sri Lanka,uses terror in recruting children as soldiers to their armies. It may very well have political objectives howerver its strategy is to use terror to achieve them. This is a FACT and not my opinion and SHOULD BE THE FIRST LINE in the introduction. It is mileading not to mention this fact on the very top. If you dont like this Tough Luck!!Greglewis 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was reading the comments and just tried a google search on "LTTE" and the results were "The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan ... As a result, for the next three years the LTTE was the main Tamil force in ..... which is and excerted part from wikipedia LTTE page and the linked to this page. It is completely misleading not to mention the fact that LTTE is a Terrorist Organisation at the beggining of the introduction. After all if LTTE has no shame to use terror in its day to day life ,what is wrong in stating the simple fact that " LTTE is a Terrorist Organisation". Why are these Pro-LTTE non NPOV writers so scared of mentioning it on this page? SamanBandara 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This version is not NPOV, and favours the GoSL

I believe the latest intro written by Arvind is still leaning towards the GOSL side (based on one sentence). The rest of it is fine. The problem statement is the ban. Is it necessary in the intro ? Is the ban in some countries a major issue in the conflict ? In both count, think a person with a balance view would say now. LTTE after all is officially not an international organization. Next even if the ban should be mentioned, should you have a list of countries ? How about the list of 161 countries including the UN that didn't ban the LTTE ? Trincomanb 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no biased in poiting out a fact that the LTTE is banned in some countries and including the list. Regarding your argument about 161 countries that not have banned the LTTE, please note that some countries even do not maintain a terror list. And some countries do not care about the LTTE as they do not have a tamil population or interest in Sri Lankan politics. But the countries that have banned the LTTE are major and super-powers. So it should be in the into. Supermod 05:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

• Hi Arvind, that intro sounds fine to me, it is neutral and gives both sides of the arguments and as an intro, it does not delve into too many details.--Realstarslayer 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I thought Arvind's into was an improvement, the current version is too long. The sex tourism claims should be discussed on the talk page and included only after secondary references are found. I consider the current version to be reasonable, the discussion of the terrorism label towards the end is appropriate. I would prefer more detail of the efforts by Norway to agree a settlement, but after the article is unprotected, this should be possible. Addhoc 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Arvind's proposal is a good one. It is not flattering for the LTTE, or the other side, and mentions the major facts about the organisation as it should be in the intro. So I support that it should be the new intro. Regarding LTTE as a terror organisation "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - not much more to say about it. The more important point of LTTE being listed as a terror organisation, by several countries is enough. I dont think we should underestimate our readers. Saying LTTE is a terrorist organisation is an opinion - stating that it is banned by the US, India and EU is a fact, let's leave it there. Ulflarsen 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• A few changes

• Change Military to militant or Paramilitary. Military makes it sound official (ie belonging to a government)
• Add word Majority – the North and East is not exclusively Tamil.
• Typo targeting not targetting
• Just like the comments regarding whether the LTTE is a terrorist org or not are based on one’s POV, the allegations of discrimination is the Tamil POV and I think it should be stated as such. So the mid part should read something like

The LTTE was formed as a reaction to intermittent outbreaks of violence targeting the Tamil minority and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies which discriminated against them.

• The LTTE is all about Prabakaran. Add the sentence “The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran” at the end.

So my suggested intro is (with other minor changes highlighted)

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the majority Tamil regions in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE was formed as a reaction to intermittent outbreaks of violence targeting the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies which discriminated against them.

However, the tactics it has employed in its campaign have been widely condemned and they have led it to be listed as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the US, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but for example Norway has condemned both sides and the UN hasn't condemned the LTTE, so possibly a little strong. I would prefer to say an armed struggle and not use words like militant. Addhoc 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for 'Introduction, 9 August onwards'

Now for Greglewis and SamanBandara, that the LTTE use terrorist attacks is listed in the intro already and the rest of the article, but to pigeon hole the LTTE as being only 'terrorists' would be quite inaccurate. After all this is an encyclopedia and we should be trying to inform readers not misinform them. As I pointed out to another user (I think RavenS) if you have issue with the LTTE being listed as a political and military entity, then you should start by confronting the CIA, because here is the listing from the CIA World Fact Book for Sri Lanka [64]:

Political pressure groups and leaders:

Buddhist clergy; labor unions; Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE [Velupillai PRABHAKARAN](insurgent group fighting for a separate state); radical chauvinist Sinhalese groups such as the National Movement Against Terrorism; Sinhalese Buddhist lay groups

Also it is disturbing that we seem to go around in circles with certain POV issues. This whole issue came up before and was dealt with, now when we sort out another issue it is brought back to the forefront.--Realstarslayer 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists and terrorism always bring about Political Pressure. Thats inevitable and the CIA information is acceptable. This does not nullyfy the FACT that LTTE IS A TERRORIST Organization. This is quite interesting how the Pro-LTTE writers like to conceal the FACT that they are supporting a Terror Organization. There is no way to sugar coat a Terrorist organisation.Now it may be possible that they give up on Terror and get in to political stream. I will give the benifit of the doubt to LTTE. But,presently they are a Terrorist Organisation.Do not misrepresent the FACTS on this PAGE!!! SamanBandara 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing you view. You could say it is a fact the US Government regards the LTTE as terrorists. Or you could say that out of 190 UN member countries, 29 consider they are terrorists. In this context, I think the current version, which discusses this issue towards the end is appropriate. Addhoc 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with SamanBandara more. Addhoc "Think" that current version is appropriate. Unfortunately what you "Think" should not be on this page.This is not a place for your fantacies.Also the fact that rest of the countries have not listed the LTTE as a Terrorist organization DOES NOT MEAN that they consider LTTE as a Political Organization. Its just that they are not interested in publishing their views on this issue or they are too busy with their own problems. Further, world's most populated countries like INDIA,USA,EUROPEAN UNION (A collection of 25 countries) and others like Canada,UK, Australia have listed LTTE as a Terrorist group. Are these countries Insane? Or are they stupid? Nope,the Fact Remains that A If you use Terror and Live by the rules of Terror on day to day basis,You are a Terrorist. Finally It should be mentioned that LTTE is a Terrorist Organisation, Not towards the END but AT THE BEGGINING of the Article!!! Greglewis 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As Ulf pointed out above stating that the LTTE are terrorists is one POV, however the view of thousands of Tamils in Sri Lanka would be that the LTTE are freedom fighters and their defenders, which is their POV. So the way to proceed to present a neutral article is to state the established facts, that LTTE are a political and military organization - fact. They are banned by some countries as terrorists - fact. End of story.--Realstarslayer 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Greg the hostile tone you are taking towards some users and the topic, makes one wonder if you are really what you claim to be, after all this is the internet and I could say I was Elvis for all you know. This is bordering on the 'personal attack' area, likewise SamanBandara.

Who I am is not important here. All my comments are based on FACTS excerted from reliable sources. It is an injustice to people of Sri Lanka to let the Pro LTTEers sugar coat LTTE as a political organization,....etc while, clearly time and time again they are proven to be a Terrorist Organization. This is wherer the Anonymous writer and all other Pro Ltte writers go wrong,They Dont Look at Facts ,they look at who is writing the comments,is it a Pro-LTTE er on Not. If the writer do not support LTTE views ,they tend to get upset and ,try to intimidate the writer etc.This is not a property of LTTE or Pro-SLGovernment Writers., This a place where you write the FACTS and back them with sources if needed.Greglewis 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greglewis, SamanBandara: Aren't you guys being excessive? Arvind's intro proposal has the LTTE's being listed as a terrorist group in the very first paragraph of the article. Not happy with that, you want it to go in the very first sentence. This makes it sound like the entire basis and purpose of the LTTE is terrorism, which is clearly POV. Right now, even the Al Qaeda article doesn't call the group "terrorist", merely that it has been labelled as such. The LTTE article already has two entire sections about the terrorism, with a total of 8 paragraphs. Is that not enough? Tyronen 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greglewis your opening comment is very telling; there are millions of Tamils in Sri Lanka who support the LTTE so do they not count as ‘people of Sri Lankan’ too? That is why we just need to take a neutral stance and list the facts without trying to tilt the argument one way or the other, and that is what the intro does.--Realstarslayer 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Those millions of Tamils (I doubt the number.....) in Sri Lanka obviously know that LTTE is a Terrorist organisation ,but they are affraid to say that in public. Same goes to most of the wrtiters on this page ,who knows that LTTE is a Terror organization but do not have the stomach to write it on paper.I am repeating my self here, LTTE usese terror on a regular basis ,yet Pro-LTTE writers keeep denying it. This is exactly the same strategy used by Paul Joseph Goebbels (propaganda minister to Adolf Hittler of Germany).i.e. lie, lie and keep denying ...... so when you repeat this process even the sound minded men and women would start believing in the denial and they will start seeing the lie as the truth. This is hardcore propaganda and that's exactly what most Pro-LTTE writers are doing on this page.I would like to see the Pro-LTTE definition of the word"TERRORIST" . Anyone..... Greglewis 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are so concerned and supportive of LTTE and believe it as your sole (and Soul)SAVIOR, Why do you care about the world opinion

Can we please, please, please stop personal attacks against each other. This is Wikipedia and we should keep things here as civilized as possible. And considering the animosity amongst most contributors on this page, we should make sure we stick to discussing the article only. And that especially means stop calling each other POV and stuff like that. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Snowwolfd4's points in section above:

Mostly in agreement save these two points:

• The discrimination and human rights abuses as well as political sidelining of Tamil's in Sri Lanka is not a Tamil POV but a fact, thus not just a 'perception', so that most certainly has to be included in any article about the LTTE, since it was these practices that finally gave rise to the LTTE many decades after said discrimination was perpetuated against the Tamils. Just as it is a fact that several countries have labeled them as terrorists, note the difference between wikipedia making a statement that they are terrorists and stating the fact that other nations have labeled them so. Thus Arvinds original statement is more accurate than the changed one.

• Military does not necessarily mean belonging to a government but is more descriptive of their capabilities, and again it is a fact that the LTTE is able to go toe to toe against the Sri Lankan military in conventional warfare as well, most recent example being the inability of the Sri Lankan military to take Mavil Aru in over two weeks of ongoing operations. Thus the term military is more accurate than militant. Paramilitary would imply they were working for the government like the Karuna group.--Realstarslayer 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Trincomanb:

• The ban is a fact so I see no problem mentioning it in the intro. The intro should not tilt one way or the other, the ban is a significant fact in the conflict and must be mentioned. Just as other significant facts I mentioned above. Regards --Realstarslayer 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Response to Realstarslayer

• In that case, realstarslayer (or shall i call you rss? a lot easier:) I could say that all the hundreds of suicide bombings against civilian targets, thousands of murders of innocent civilians (including Buddhist Monks) and political opponents, etc. etc. etc. (a very long list) all constitute terrorism.

According to the

• Oxford Dictionary - 'terrorist n. (often attrib.) person using esp. organized violence against a government '
• Wordnet - '(n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)'

So in that case, FACT, the LTTE is a terrorist organization, and FACT, every attack against the government is an act of terrorism.

The argument that the government failed to address discrimination against Tamils is in your opinion. I, or someone else, can argue that the Government tried to remove the discrimination, but the Tamils didn't agree or something, and the the perceptions amonst them remained that they were discriminated against (I'm not explicitly saying that, what I mean is that it can be argued as such)

So the case to say that discrimination is a fact is much weaker than that to say the LTTE are terrorists. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that may be so, but these attacks are a symptom of the problem, the cause of the problem is the well documented discrimination and persecution suffered by the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and which they still continue to suffer e.g. blocking of food convoys to LTTE areas for displaced Tamils. Also we are talking about the intro, for sure this attacks must be mentioned, but not in the intro - the intro is only for the main points and an over view, which is exactly what we have now. (oh and rss is fine).--Realstarslayer 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr.rss ;), my point is the intro is all about compromise and trying to get a wording everyone can be reasonably satisfied with (or all the moderate people anyway). I can argue the LTTE is a terrorist organization and that Tamils were not discriminated against. You can argue that LTTE are freedom fighters and that Tamils were discriminated against (I'm not saying that either of us say any of that exactly, but just for arguments sake...) We really won't get anywhere.

So compromise.

• I say that simply saying LTTE is banned as a terrorist orgainzation in a number of countries is agreeable.
• I say that saying the Tamils feel they were discriminated against is agreeable. Also remember I have no problem with saying there was violence against tamils cos that is a proven fact.

Remember, compromise is the name of the game here. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Military as defined by

• Wordnet - the military forces of a nation
• Oxford Dictionary - n. (as sing. or pl.; prec. by the) the army

Militant is militant —adj. 1 combative; aggressively active in support of a cause. 2 engaged in warfare. —n. militant person..

I think its more suitable word.

And if you say Ol' Karuna is a paramilitary since he is supported by the SL government (I don't agree though) , the LTTE should also be a paramilitary since it was given significant arms and training by India (and RAW).

And regrading Mavilaru, although its not relevant I'll also just say, there is a saying in Sinhalese translated something like "when a beggars' wounds are healed he can no longer beg". Basically as long as the gates were closed the Sri Lankan Military was able to bomb LTTE targets at will citing the blocking of water as justification. If the gates are open, that probably will have to stop. Now I'm not entirely sure who opened them, but if it was the LTTE, it shows how absolutely desperate they were to stop the incessant attacks against them, which seems to have caused them very heavy casualties. Not really relevant here, but since you brought it up... --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As for government support, I don't see the LTTE opening any political offices in Colombo, let alone the politcal cadres even moving in government areas (yet another CFA violation by the GoSL), leaving that aside there is the Geneva Report from the SLMM as well. I think government support for Karuna is a moot point. As for RAW support I am pretty sure they gave that up quite some time ago, so obviously they cannot be called paramilitary now.

Now as for military take a look at the wikipedia page for it, excerpt below:

While military can refer to any armed force, it generally refers to a permanent, professional force of soldiers or guerrillas—trained exclusively for the purpose of warfare and should be distinguished from a sanctioned militia or a levy, which are temporary forces— citizen soldiers with less training, who may be "called up" as a reserve force, when a nation mobilizes for total war, or to defend against invasion. The term military is often used to mean an army.

By that definition the LTTE certainly are a military organization. As for Mavil Aru, the gates are confirmed to be open by the SLMM, now of course the GoSL is making some contradictory claims, first I read it was opened by an air strike (I'm sure the farmers appreciated the sudden flood), then it was said they still needed to secure the area so that the LTTE couldn't block it again (which begs the question how does one close sluice gates that have just been blown up by an air strike?) all in the same news article. That was this morning, now latest press reports claim the government is still consolidating the area (which on various days we have been told that they were only a 10 minuets walk away from or down to a 100 metres away, then LankaWeb had some interesting items about them having the west side and only needing to get to the east or vice versa). Finally they are still shelling the area which they a supposedly consolidating again I don't think the troopers on the ground would be too happy about that. So on a more serious note the government is trying to save face after failing to deliver the water in the promised '24 hours', most everyone knows this, diplomats and SLMM alike, in poker the term would be "pot committed", the GoSL should just fold this hand. If as you say the LTTE opened the sluice gate from a position of weakness, why has a 3-5,000 strong modern military with air support been unable to take the area from them in over two weeks? As I recall the army chief on his return claimed there were only 2,000 LTTE in its entirety (and as per UN reports then 1,300 of them would be child soldiers at that), even if they were all in the Trinco area they are still outnumbered, should be a walk in the park no?.--Realstarslayer 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the same reasons that LTTE has failed to take Jaffna which were trying to do since 1996. Ruchiraw 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is what I mean by going toe to toe, they are on equal footing with the Sri Lankan military, that is why most observers feel there can be no military solution to the conflict. Since neither side can make any significant gains against the other, however civilians continue to suffer in great numbers. OK I saw Arvinds note too late, so I will desist from further off topic discussion so we can focus on the issue at hand. Regards.--Realstarslayer 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to remember Wikipedia is NOT A DICTIONARY (WP:NOT). It is a great soure of information on topics accross the board, but in a place like this there is absolutely no way we should be reling on WP for an accurate definition, or even specific (uncited) details on controvosial topics. Highly regarded dictionaries like Oxford and Wordnet - YES. Wikipedia - NOPE.

As for karuna opening an office in Colombo, this is a free country (apart from LTTE held areas). Anyone who wants has every right to open whatever they want wherever they want (as long as its not illegal that is). I think even the LTTE proxy TNA also have officers in CMB. And no one has conclusively proven Karuna is supported by the Government. Only accusations. And don't LTTE cardes move in Government areas? If not, I wonder who carried out the suicide bombing in colombo tuesday. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know we should be talking bout the intro only, but this is just to clarify some stuff, so really sorry Arvind.

I don't believe the Government said it opened the sluice gates thru an air strike. What was meant was following an air strike against the LTTE (that probably killed a whole lot of em) the army was able to reach the area an open the gates. Beside, come on, if the gates could be opened with an airstrike it'll have been done long ago!

It is normally said to be a 10 min walk but since the area was mined it definitely will have taken longer. And you missed my point completely (but OK I admit the idiom was not the best). What I said was that while the troops could have taken control a lot sooner, they didnt cos they'll have lost the excuse to bombard the LTTE. The fact that the LTTE were desperate to open the gates and stop the attacks proves this.

Oh and you really need to think about stand up comedy or something. Shelling the area the troops are standing on? :)) They are shelling LTTE areas, I believe mostly around Sampur.

And the government trying to save face??? Dude you gotta be kidding. The government said it will open the sluice gates without any conditions from the LTTE. The LTTE tried to save face by agreeing to open the gates on Sunday, since they knew were gonna loose control pretty soon. The government rejected the conditions, kicked the LTTE out and opened it themselves (as it seems now). So basically - LTTE put forward conditions - they didn't get anything. Government said they were going to open the gates - they opened them.

Conclusion - LTTE humiliated. Government - shall I say wins this round. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to go too far off topic, but I have a question for you; if the government already controls the area and the LTTE were so weakened that they were compelled to open the sluice gates, why are hospitals in the area overflowing with military casualties today [65]? And obviously they are not bombing their own troops, I was just being salacious to highlight the absurdity of some claims, anyway I digress lets focus on the article. Regards --Realstarslayer 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I said weakened, not destroyed. That means they can still fire motars. But that's pretty much it.

And yeah, I agree we shouldn't get off point here. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and outstanding issues on the 9th August draft

Could I gently remind everyone of the point, at the top of this page, that this page is not meant as a place to generally discuss the LTTE or the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Sorry to be a pain, it's just that I think we'll move forward faster on this introduction if we focus specifically on it.

From the discussions so far, the following suggested changes to the draft don't seem to have been opposed:

• qualifying the North-east as "majority" Tamil rather than simply "Tamil",
• referring to "intermittent" outbreaks of violence (rather than "repeated"),
• stating that the LTTE's tactics have been widely condemned, and
• mentioning VP in the introduction.

The following are the sticking points. I've listed the arguments for and against as I've understood them from this discussion, and attributed them to the users who I think made them:

• (1) Should the word terrorist be used in the first sentence to describe the LTTE?

Points for (SamanBandara, Greglewis): The LTTE has committed acts which are of the type generally recognised as terrorist acts.

Point against (RSS, Tyronen, Ulflarsen): Describing an organisation as a terrorist organisation, as opposed to reporting that it has been designated a terrorist organisation, is generally seen as being POV on Wikipedia ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"). Articles on groups such as Al-Qaeda, ETA and the IRA use the latter formulation.

• (2) Should the LTTE be described as a paramilitary organisation, or a militant organisation?, rather than as a military organisation?

Points against "military" (snowolfD4): "Military" is generally used to describe the official armed forces of a nation, rather than a group such as the LTTE.

Points for "military" (RSS): Wikipedia's entry on military suggests that the distinction between "military" and "paramilitary"/"militant" relates to the organisation's capabilities and structural setup, rather than to its relationship to a state, thus making the LTTE a military organisation.

• (3) Should the statement about the failure of the political process to stop anti-Tamil violence and discrimination be qualified as perception of SL Tamils that the political process failed to stop etc.?

Points for qualifying (snowolfD4): That the political process failed to address these issues is as much a perception as that the LTTE is terrorist.

Points against qualifying (RSS): Saying that the political process failed to address these issues is akin to reporting that various countries have listed the LTTE as a terrorist group.

• (4) Should we mention the ban and, if we should, should we list the countries?

Against (Trincomanb): The ban is not a central issue in the conflict. No purpose is served with the list of countries - why not then list the countries that have not banned them?

For (RSS): That the LTTE has been listed as a terror group in various countries is a fact, and this fits with the way similar groups have been dealt with on Wikipedia.

I'd like to reach a consensus wording on these points, but I think there needs to be some more debate here as I can't see any possible compromise wording on any of these issues at the moment. Points (1) and (4) are related, and it seems to me that Wikipedia practice on applying the NPOV policy in relation to other terrorist groups argues in favour of the current wording (though, obviously, that depends entirely on what the consensus here is - I'd particularly to hear Ruchiraw and SnowolfD4's views). Points (2) and (3) need resolution, though. -- Arvind 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the point (1)-Everyone has the right to their opinion on LTTE but it does not count here. Based on the very definition of the Terrorist, it is obvious that LTTE should be designated as a Terrorist Group on this page. There is no need and room for any negotiations on this point. Reason being that LTTE may very well be a freedom fighters in the eyes of some people and that's fine,but if an organisation continues killing their political opponents( Rajiv Gandhi of India,Lakshan Kadiragamar of Sri Lanka and Tamil members of PLOT,TULF EPDP etc and much more!!),Continues to kill unarmeed innocent civillians as recent as year 2006( Massacre of Buddhist Monks in Aranthalawa,Massacre of 70+ plus children,women in Kebithigollawa in 2006 and killing of 12 innocent people in Welikanda just to name a few) and bombs civilian institutions ( Airport (attacks in 2001) Central bank of SL,Bomb blast in Fort ,Colombo killed hundreds of innocent people to name a few) and use of Suicide bombers every now and then are act of TERROR and those who carryout these attacks are a threat to a civil society and are TERRORIST. This is a FACT and non negotiable. i.e cannot be adjusted to one own will. Now if one "Thinks" or "Believes"the LTTE are freedom fighters ,I have no problem with that and they can write books on that subject if they like. But remember Just because you "Think" or "Believe" LTTE are freedom fighters DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE LICENSE TO KILL AND CONTINUE ACT OF TERROR. I strongly suggest that we put " LTTE is a Terrorist organisation that uses acts of terror in achieving their stated political objectives" SamanBandara 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arvind. I agree there has been widespread condemnation of the LTTE's tactics. However, also some countries, including Norway, have been even handed in their criticism and this should be mentioned. Describing LTTE as a political and military organisation is ok, saying they are militant is less so. Again, stating they are considered a terrorist organisation by the US and EU is ok, provided the views of other countries are included. For example Norway advised the EU not to consider them terrorists. Also the UN position should be explained. Any comment regarding the lack of success regarding the political process should also explain who holds this view with appropriate citations. Addhoc 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, No one is denying the LTTE has many facets. However Norway has also not said that the attacks on Central Bank and ciivlians are not terrorist attacks. Therefore Norway is negotiating with the LTTE in the hope it will stop these attacks . But that does not mean Norway or any other country approves of the LTTEs actions. Ruchiraw 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arvind, I would agree that "reporting that LTTE has been designated a terrorist organisation," would be fair Ruchiraw 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, I would comment that Norway is attempting to prevent a continuation of the armed conflict on both sides by facilitating a political agreement. Norway has clearly indicated on several occasions that it does not approve of many actions on both sides of this conflict. Addhoc 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Norway asked the EU not to ban the LTTE, on the grounds that such a ban will affect the peace process. The Norwegians have not told the EU, that they have made a mistake in designating the LTTE as terrorist. Ruchiraw 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I fully agree with your first sentence and would like to include this comment in the article with appropriate citation. The second sentence is factually accurate, because Norway didn't say this. However, I don't think they said the LTTE were terrorists either. I agree with your earlier comment that reporting that LTTE has been designated a terrorist organisation (by specified countries) would be fair. Addhoc 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ban is central, both the GoSL and the LTTE place a lot of weight on it, so it should definitely be in. Like it or not, but that some 30 countries agree to ban LTTE is of serious concern for them. The failure of the political process is a fact and not POV; if the political process had been working Lanka would have been a different kind of country and not on the verge of being a failed state. On the two others I have either stated my opinion earlier or dont have any. Ulflarsen 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the political process is continuing and we agree that so far this process has not been successful. Addhoc 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So I have already included most of my views on the points listed above, but just to focus on 2) and 3) here:

* 2 - 'Military organization' is more descriptive of the LTTE structure than militant, my reasons why I feel so - they have an army, navy and fledgling 'air force'. Their regular army is trained to a 'professional' level, by this I mean combat capability and skill level of individual cadres. They have a military chain of command - ranks etc. The can engage in conventional warfare. Naval group has been highly effective.

* 3 - This is twofold, the failure of the Sri Lankan political process to address minority rights is a continuous one, whereas attacks and incidents against minorities have not been continuous but cannot still called 'intermittent'. Repeated is more descriptive, because the continuous political failure was punctuated by regular incidents of violence against minorities.

Well that's all I have to add on that. Regards --Realstarslayer 15:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm with ruciraw on points 1 and 4. Only saying the LTTE is banned by U.S, EU etc. is agreeable.

Points 2 and 3 are been discused somewhere above.

And also thanks Arvind for bringing some order to this discussion. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A few points

Should the word terrorist be used in the first sentence to describe the LTTE? What is the LTTE’s stated objective? Is it to terrorize the Sinhala people? Does the LTTE want to kill or terrorize as many Sinhala people as possible? On the contary, LTTE has a widely stated objective of a separate sate –independent or federal- in the predominantly Tamil North-East province+Puttalam district of the island of Sri Lanka. Hence, LTTE is a separatist movement. Again one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. The west once referred to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Wikipedia can not describe Nelson Mandela as a terrorist just because the west once did so.

This reply is for IP --82.40.185.85 in LONDON ,UK

I could care less of what the West has to say. Mere fact that some 29 countries have listed LTTE is just a confirmation of the FACT that LTTE is a Terrorist organization ,BUT not what I base my factual writing on. Obviously the FACT that the list has been on an increasing trend (not decreasing) itself is evidence of that most of the countries in the world are opening their eyes wide and seeing the Terror of LTTE and voicing their concern by way of listing them as terrorists. This is apperant from the lates move by the LTTE stronghold Canadas decision to list the LTTE as Terrorists. Canada is a country which habored LTTE terrorists and financed them in a big way to kill Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This was evident by the doucuments found in the latest raid on WTM(World Tamil Movement)in Canada. Finally, The Fact that 29 countries have banned the LTTE as a Terrorist group is secondary, We in Sri Lanka have seen and witnessed and documented with evidence what amounts to Masscares of Sinhalese by the LTTE terrorists and That should be would be more than enough evidence to Support the Fact that LTTE is a Terrorist Group with Political objectives.Period! SamanBandara 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SamanBandara the fact that 29 countries have listed the LTTE as terrorists is just that; a fact that 29 countries have listed the LTTE as terrorists, nothing more nothing less and that is all Wikipedia should be listing, if instead Wikipedia labels the LTTE as a terrorist organization, then that is taking a POV.--Realstarslayer 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Realstarslayer on this point. The fact that 35 countries have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation remains a fact, as does the fact that over 100 countries have not proscribed. Individual interpretations could be drawn from the varying degrees of proscription imposed by the different nation states.

However, as Wikipedia is concerned I think its best to stick to “separatist” because that is their stated objective and that is what all their actions point towards.

Iran is reffered to as a terrorist sate by USA, Israle and some others. This does not mean Iran is introduced as a terrorist state by Wikipedia.

I feel that much of SamanBandara’s comments are emotionally charged and are not really suitable for an Encyclopaedia. --82.40.185.85 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the LTTE be described as a paramilitary organisation, or a militant organisation?, rather than as a military organisation? The LTTE is a politico-military organization. Why? Because LTTE uses both political and military means to achieve its stated objective. LTTE has both political and military divisions within its structure. Over the decades the LTTE has participated in several bi-lateral and multi-lateral peace talks. The mere fact the peace talks failed, does not make the LTTE a non-political organization. Just as merely loosing a general election does not turn a political party into a non-political party. Next point is that several people are of the misconception that to be referred to as political an organization needs to contest in general elections which the LTTE has not done. I suggest that those people do some reading on political organizations.

I quote from Wikipedia; “A military or miltary force (n., from Latin militarius, miles "soldier") is a collective of men, machines and equipment that form an army. While it can refer to any armed force, it generally refers to a permanent, professional force of soldiers or guerrillas—trained exclusively for the purpose of warfare. The doctrine that asserts the primacy of a military within a society is called militarism.” Thereby it is obvious that military is a descriptive word and is not exclusively found in states. LTTE was once a militant organization, but as at 2006 with their regimental structure, naval and air forces they more than qualify for the status of military.

Should the statement about the failure of the political process to stop anti-Tamil violence and discrimination be qualified as perception of SL Tamils that the political process failed to stop etc.? A point to note here is that the ethnic conflict began as soon as Ceylon gained independence from Britain. The removal of citizenships from over a million Tamils of Indian origin –Tamils who hade been in Sri Lanka for as long as white-Australians had been in that country- is thought of as the first step of the conflict. Sinhala only, standardization and many of the riots were from years prior to inception of the LTTE. Banda-Chelva, Banda-Sennayaka etc.. pacts and talks ended in failure, leading to a “fight fire with fire” attitude amongst the SL Tamils. It is an essential part of the history of LTTE. The roots of the organization must be clearly explained. The leaders are the post 1956 generation who spent their childhood days witnessing the learned ones in their community being stripped and burnt on the roads in various ethnic riots. These are facts of history. Had a viable solution been reached in the period between 1958 and 1983 there would be no LTTE today.

Actually the issues existed even before independence, leading Tamil politicians of the day such as Sir Ponnampalam Arunachalam or Dr Visuvalingham were already advocating a Tamil nation as early as 1918 given the direction in which the laws of the land were forming under British stewardship [66]. So it clearly must be mentioned in some capcity as the root cause of the conflict.--Realstarslayer 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Realstarslayer, It is a FACT that Tamils from India tried to invade Sri Lanka as far back as 3rd B.C. During the time of King Walagamba and also during 137 B.C. During the time of King Dutugamunu (Notorious Elara,The Tamil King) and all the Tamil invasions were DEFEATED by the Sinhala kings and expelled the enemy forces from the island .Now this is almost 2800 years ago. Not just befor independence. So all along Tamils have sought a homeland but have utterly failed.The latest group is the LTTE is continuing the same tradition and trying to terrorize Sri Lanka inorder to achieve a seperate homeland and by far the Terrorists have not been able to achieve it causing more and more terrorist activity on the part of LTTE. So the ROOT CAUSE OF the present conflict lies at Tamils Demanding a piece of Land from another sovereign country,which cannot be accepted. So the tamils of Sri lanka and south India were the ROOT CAUSE of this problem,not Sinhalese,and Terrorizing a countr ,just becasue you like to have a piece of the coutry is Clearly TERRORISM.SamanBandara 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so lets solve the problem; let both the Tamil's and the Sinhala move back to India where they came from and leave Sri Lanka to the Veddhas, who are the aboriginal inhabitants of the island. While we are at it lets ask all of North America to move back to Europe too and leave the land to the native tribes, then we can start with other parts of the world and I guess eventually we will all have to squeeze into Iraq or somewhere in northern Africa.--Realstarslayer 17:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Realstarslayer: That's fine with me ,but these information and your wild imaginations are off-the topic on this page. Please be attentive. LTTE should be mentioned as a TERRORIST GROUP at the begginging of the Intro.69.203.201.72 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is SamanBandara (you forgot to sign in) the only thing that should be mentioned is that the LTTE are banned as terrorists by a number of countries, you cannot state that the LTTE are terrorists. And to make that the first point of the intro is putting the cart before the horse. The article is about the LTTE so until you explain who the LTTE are there is no point in stating they are banned as terrorists? To take a silly example it would be like stating a car has 4 wheels before we even explain that a car is a mode of transport.--Realstarslayer 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I agree with Realstarslayer on this one. We should be careful not to get facts mixed up with the Mahavamsa and other myths. A description of the political climate that led to a medium in which LTTE could grow from strength to strength should be fully accounted. The history of the organisation is very important. --82.40.185.85 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we mention the ban and, if we should, should we list the countries? A mention of the fact some countries have banned the LTTE as a proscribed terrorist organization –along with the total number of countries- would be sufficient. It makes the point clear. To list every country would give undue prominence to what is essentially a minor issue in respect to the LTTE as an entire organization. If countries were to be listed, then people may want to list events, names and dates with regards to a number of other issues. Again, LTTE is a separatist organization consisting and funded by the Tamils. They do not rely on any other country for anything other than mediation in peace talks. In this regard the significance of listings is very minimal. --82.40.185.85 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with most of the points you have raised. Addhoc 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its unanimous that the bans must be mentioned, this is an important fact.--Realstarslayer 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ban must be mentioned but it would be an overkill to name every single country that has imposed the ban. It can further complicate the issue as not every country has imposed a similar level of ban. --82.40.185.85 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember everyone that this is only an introduction. Most of the points people are arguing for are already made in the main body of the article. We don't have to cram everything into the intro. That means:

• we don't need to put terrorist in the intro - there is a section for that;
• we don't need to tie ourselves in knots over which adjective to prefix to "organisation" - the article already has a detailed exposition on the LTTE's structure and activities;
• we don't need a detailed analysis of the LTTE's history and motives in the intro - there is an entire section for that (spot the pattern here?)
• we don't need to mention the ban and its countries - there's an entire section for that too.

The intro really need not be more than one or two sentences. Tyronen 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it could be. However WP:LEAD provides guidance that it should be longer. Addhoc 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ban should be mentioned in the article somewhere but I don't believe it should be mentioned in the intro at all. If *all* controversial words and accusations are removed from the intro that is acceptable I think. Prominence should be given for a non-controversial description of the organization and a little bit of its history. Trincomanb 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello user 82.40.185.85 , and welcome, it seems you are making a more constructive contribution than the usual 'nameless' IP addresses who pass through here, so you might find it more rewarding to register a user name, that way you can continue to participate and all your contributions will be noted as such. Regards --Realstarslayer 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

LTTE- Political or military

I have got another point. Various people describe the LTTE as terrorist , as rebels , as insurgents, as political , as military etc:- My point is why should use the words "LTTE is a political and military organisation" when not everybody agrees on this. This violates the rule for describing LTTE as opposed to reporting about it.

I propose we use somthing like this "The LTTE is an organisation fighting for ......... it has been variously described as a military , political , insurgent or terrorist organisation. "

This would give us a NPOV view as we are not fixing either military or terrorist tags to the LTTE but simply reporting on what it has been described as. Ruchiraw 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro from 8/11/06 onwards

If this is the proposed intro., its misleading and confusing.

• You cannot use "political" here when its not a political organization. The more appropriate word should be paramilitary organization. This describes both that its a military and an organization fighting against a government. So its very clear to the reader and does not confuse them.

It is a political org. they have a political wing and they carry out several civil functions in their area.--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• It should also say that its fighting for a Separate state for the majority Tamil regions. When it says its fighting for independence or independence for the majority Tamil regions in the north and east, it means like there is no freedom for Tamils in Sri Lanka which is clearly misleading the reader. There are Tamil political parties representing the GoSL, there are Tamil political leaders representing the GoSL, there are Tamil government workers, there are Tamil mercantile executives, and there is the Tamil general Public - working and living very comfortable lives in all parts of the Island except for the regions controlled by the LTTE. ( This had been pointed out by a user to the contributors of this page much earlier -- [Discussion].(I guess that was ignored as well - as usual.)

This is just a statement of their own goals, I think we can take the LTTE's own words for their own goals, don't you?--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• LTTE was NOT formed as a reaction to intermittent outbreaks of violence targeting the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka - this is clearly inaccurate The cause of the beginning or formation of the LTTE was the limitation the Tamils had in the Universities in Sri Lanka.

That is just plain wrong, the LTTE and many other Tamil militant movements came grwe out of decades of discrimination and abuse at the hands of various GoSL, the university issue alone was not the sole reason. Besides its getting to specific in the intro.--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Terrorists or not they are the masters of suicide bombing in the world, which is the main reason why they have been condemned as terrorists, this should be incorporated in to the intro.? If users are been offended by this, that clearly shows that they are biased and does not maintain a NPOV.

PLEASE ALL, WIKIPEDIA is based on 'FACTS'!! This has been repeated over and over again on this page – but nobody wants to adjust or obey these rules. We have to respect these simple rules! 'FACTS !!' How simpler can it get? If anyone’s trying to incorporate their POV here as NPOV that is being immature and disruptive.

And that is why the intro mentions they are banned as terrorist in several countries.--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where doesn it say that its banned as terrorists... I dont see that.---RavenS 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right here, I know with all this discussion could be easy to mis, but this is the intro we are currently discussing: Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Introduction.2C_9_August_onwards.--Realstarslayer 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the intro be this one.

Compared to the many articals I found on the WEB,(1)((2) (3) (4), (5) (6) (7)8(9)(10) etc . etc. this is a much better and much neutral intro.(though I still dont agree with it, but thats my POV)

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a paramilitary organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the majority Tamil regions in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE was formed as a protest against the limited university access for Tamil students in Sri Lanka, and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies, which discriminated against them. However, the guerilla strategy it has employed in its campaign, mainly suicide bombing, have been widely condemned and they have led it to be listed as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the US, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India. The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

--RavenS 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"The LTTE was formed as a protest against the limited university access for Tamil students in Sri Lanka, and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies, which discriminated against them." These are not factual and POV. Do not suit in the intro. Supermod 07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First few lines

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are a politico-military separatist organisation that has been waging an at times violent campaign to carve out a separate state –federal or independent- comprising of the Tamil majority North-East province of Sri Lanka. Controversial issues explained;

Politico-Military – They use both political and military means. They have waged war, and waged talks in order to achieve their stated objective.

Separatist – That is their stated objective. All their actions over the past 30 years point towards this.

At times violent – LTTE has not been using violence for every day of the past 30 years. LTTE’s first violent attack was sometime in the late 1970s which was a few years after it was formed. However, there have been non violent periods when LTTE had been participating in peace talks. There were 100 days of non violence during talks with Chandrika government and around two years of non violence during the yearly years of the current peace talks.

I have put federal or independent in brackets – this may need to be expanded. As at 2006 the LTTE’s stated objective is not a completely independent state from Sri Lanka. Their ISGA proposal is a request for a federal state within a single Sri Lanka.

Tamil majority North East province – Officially North East is a single province. I understand that there are attempts to separate them but we have to stick to official lines. And it is a Tamil majority province, according to last available Sri Lankan census.

I have resisted from referring to them as paramilitary because it is a controversial term -as explained in Wikipedia- that is often used to refer to civilian forces attached to a government or a spontaneously formed militia group with limited capacity. I am sure the term paramilitary could have been applied to LTTE in 1985. However, in 2006 they are effectively administrating a de-facto state, participating in multi-lateral talks and are boasting a near conventional army, a navy and an air force. LTTE’s capacity is beyond the bounds of a paramilitary. --Lankaupdate 08:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that instead of "to carve out" just say "for". Also I would leave the discussion about federal or fully independent until later in the article. Addhoc 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction, draft of 11 August

This revision is longer than the previous version, but has tried to take on board all comments (see below for two which I have not) that have been made thus far while preserving a neutral balance.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a separatist organisation - variously described as a military, political, paramilitary, insurgent or terrorist - that has waged a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence or self-determination for the Tamil-majority region in the north and east of Sri Lanka.

The LTTE was formed against the backdrop of worsening relations between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, and the growing feeling amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that the political process had failed to address government policies which discriminated against them or stop sporadic outbreaks of violence targetting the Tamil minority. Some of the tactics it has employed in its campaign - which have ranged from negotiations to armed warfare to suicide bombing - have been controversial, and have led a number of countries to proscribe it or otherwise restrict its activities. The LTTE is led by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

I have not referred to the north-east province, because the LTTE notionally also claims Puttalam, which is not part of the NE province (unless I'm quite mistaken). On what they claim, I've said "independence or self-determination" - their statements on federalism are quite complex (the concept of federalism which preserves Tamil sovereignty needs a good deal of explanation), but they always include self-determination.

Please place your comments in the relevant section. If you think there are any points where the previous version struck a better balance than this one, could you please say so in the section on General comments. As always, let's try to separate the discussion from the comments. -- Arvind 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Points where this version favours the LTTE

The introduction has to mention the LTTE has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in some countries. This is the usual procedure with Hezbollah and other such organisations. Ruchiraw 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Eg:- and have led a number of countries to proscribe it as a terrorist organisation or otherwise restrict its activities

Discussion

• snowolfd4's Comments

Nope, Arvind. We're tying ourselves in knots in this one. Its pretty much like the one that was there about a week ago which I think everybody agreed wasn't right. A case of he says, she says. Everyone has to understand that we need to work together and agree on a compromise wording, otherwise this could go on for ever. Unfortunately the views are becoming a lot more extreme. And I thought we had almost found agreement on the intro about 2 days ago. It went something like

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a (militant / military) and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the majority Tamil regions in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE was formed as a reaction to intermittent outbreaks of violence targeting the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, (and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies which discriminated against them / and the failure of the political process to stop these or address government policies which discriminated against Sri Lankan Tamils).

However, the tactics it has employed in its campaign have been widely condemned and they have led it to be listed as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the US, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

(the only contentious parts are highlighted)

I still think we should work on hammering out the differences on this one. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• RavenS's comments

• I couldnt agree with snowolfD4^{( talk / @ more.}

Instead of (militant / military) the more appropriate word should be [paramilitary] organization. This describes both that its a military and an organization fighting against a government. So its very clear to the reader and does not confuse them.It is much better than having a bunch of vocabulary trying to slot in a meaning that can be found in one word.---RavenS 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up the meanings here, paramilitary would mean they were working with the government, not against it.--Realstarslayer 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not! it does not necessarily mean that its with the government, Paramilitary could mean - that its an official legislated arm of the government, 'anti-government armed units that claim military status', and civilian paramilitary units that are neither, and other groups that are something in between.

Paramilitary groups can serve many different functions. Some are created by governments as paramilitary police (Gendarmerie) or other internal security forces. 'Some are revolutionary groups using traditional or guerrilla warfare to oppose the government.' Others are private militias intended to enforce order without the niceties of the rule of law. Some are commando units created by a state and intended for non-traditional combat missions, operating outside the official military.

This word fits better to LTTE than military/government/political anyway. ----RavenS 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Intead of independence say that its fighting for a Separate state for the majority Tamil regions. When it says independence it means like there is no freedom for Tamils in Sri Lanka which is clearly misleading the reader.

I don't see the distinction, since a separate state would mean they gained independence, so whichever makes you happy is ok with me. As for misleading, I think the fact that the GoSL is blocking food aid to thousands of Tamil IDP's is clear enough how much 'freedom' Tamil's enjoy in Sri Lanka.

"Seperate state" whould be fine as tamil people live and work in all parts of the Island. When you say independence it means more like they have no freedom at all. Please provide verification for you accusation on 'GOSL blocking food to the tamils",I could veryfy that. Also what do you mean by IDP. ----RavenS 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Aid groups accuse the government of forcing civilians to flee Tiger areas by shelling and deliberately blocking aid to thousands of displaced there. More than 30,000 displaced are now housed in cramped, squalid conditions in makeshift camps in army-held territory.

I am not talking about the LTTE controlled areas; when I said a general/comfortable life is lived by Tamils I meant only in Government control areas except for the occasional victims of LTTE assassinations.

the Red Cross say at least 15,000 Tamils are displaced behind rebel lines having spent days under shellfire. Other estimates are has high as 30,000.

I'm sorry to hear this, thanks to the LTTE Sri Lanka is a disaster now. I sincerely hope LTTE will be tacked properly and executed so that all people in Sri Lanka can lead a safe,comfortable and happy life, like they used to...----RavenS 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

--Realstarslayer 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are Tamil political parties representing the GoSL
• there are Tamil political leaders representing the GoSL
• there are Tamil government workers
• there are Tamil mercantile executives (in the private sector)
• And there is the Tamil general Public - working, schooling and living very comfortable lives in all parts of the Island except for the regions controlled by the LTTE.

Untill this is disputed and verified I'm putting the dispute tag to this artical for inaccuray.---RavenS 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The largest Tamil party with overwhelming Tamil support is the TNA which supports the LTTE's goal of autonomy or devolution of power and is against the government, why does it enjoy such support? What is a 'very comfortable' life? I don't know about you but I do not much relish the thought of living in a place where I have to register myself and everyone else in my home at the local police station only because of my ethnicity, very reminiscent of the 'star of David' Jews were required to wear. In contrast you can see how countries where the rule of law applies conduct themselves, with this recent AQ threat, they searched everyone not just the Islamic looking males. Anyhow this is leading off topic so I will stop there.--Realstarslayer 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you get my point.I'm not talking about LTTE controlled areas. The comfortable life i refer to is in government controlled areas. I deal with Sri Lanka everyday and some of them are tamils( business executives living in colombo).They have beautiful houses and living very comfortable lives this is what I meant. As for the Tamils having to be registered in their local police, I will verify that and get back to you.----RavenS 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RSL, I verified about your accusations regarding Tamils having to ge be registered in their local police, and you have wrong information regarding this. When I checked this is what I was told,

" ...not any tamil or all tamils have to be registered in their local police BUT - there are People who say that they have escaped the LTTE controlled areas that comes and start living in lodges in Colombo. And nobody knows who these people are. Most of the suicide bombers that are identified were people that lived in these lodges that had no identity and had no contact with other people. As a security measure the GoSL had put up a law - that unknown people living in these lodges be reported to the local police by the lodge owner ( or any employer who hires a worker that had no record to the GoSL), so that if that particular person is involved in a terrorist attack or identified as the suicide bomber, the lodge owner or the employer is not liable for his or her behavior if that person had been registered to the police "....

This is the reason why they are being told to be registered for security purpose and NOT racism like you feel. I think its quite all right and very reasonable for the government to do so as a security measure, I guess now you understand the real reason behind it. The regular tamils that I mensioned living comfortable lives are not required to be registered as they are know by their neibourhood and live in harmony with all ethnic groups!!----RavenS 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Addhoc's Comments

Suggest you describe the LTTE as political and miltary organisation. Then in the second paragraph mention they have been proscribed as terorists by some countries. Addhoc 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Realstarslayer's Comments

As snowolfd4 stated I think the previously proposed intro that we were working on was much better and there were only a couple of sticking points left. This intro apart from being inaccurate just does not flow well. So I say lets work on that version before we start another rewrite and go nowhere.--Realstarslayer 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion for the second part (point 3), its shorter and to the point and I think balanced:

The formation of the LTTE is attributed to government policy over the years, perceived as being discriminatory by Sri Lankan Tamils, along with some notable outbreaks of violence against them.

--Realstarslayer 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good Realstarslayer. I can agree with that. Hats off to you if everyone else is also in agreement:) Hopefully that issue is settled.

Now military / militant / paramilitary.

How about we remove it altoghether. Just say

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is an ethnic Tamil organization that has waged...

OR

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a Tamil organization that has waged...

OR simplyThe Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is an organization that has waged...

They're all ok with me and they're along the lines of the intros of similar organizations. What do you say? snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The last one is fine The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is an organization that has waged...if you dont want to use paramilitary thought I still feel paramilitary fits best.----RavenS 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also make sure that suicide bombing goes in the intro because thats what they are famous for----RavenS 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, I posted this to show how the introduction could be modified to take on board the comments raised by Greglewis and Samarbandara on stating that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation right up front, Trincomanb's comments on not listing the countries which have banned the LTTE, and Ruchiraw's comments on discussing the different designations for the LTTE. I agree that the previous version was more coherent, and if a consensus can be reached on its basis, that will be excellent. Snowolfd4's new draft is a good starting point. -- Arvind 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems we are coming some way yes. What I believe needs to be in the intro that can be disagreed on is; that LTTE came to be as a reaction on a failed political system, that it is notorious for using suicide bombers and recruiting children, that the organisation is proscribed by some thirty countries (but not labeling it as a terror organisation), and that the organisation is seen to be needed in talks to get a solution that can solve the situation. I believe these are points most longtime neutral observers would say is valid. Ulflarsen 10:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, taking suggestion from Realstarslayer, RavenS and Ulflarsen how about

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is an organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the majority Tamil regions in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The formation of the LTTE is attributed to government policy over the years, perceived as being discriminatory by Sri Lankan Tamils, along with some notable outbreaks of violence against them.

However, the tactics it has employed in its campaign, especially the use of suicide bombers and child recruits, have been widely condemned and they have led it to be listed as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the US, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran

I don't think something in the lines of

"The LTTE is seen as the organization with whom the Government of SL must negotiate with in order to end the Ethnic conflict..."

is needed since it seems obvious as it is stated above "...that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government". They started it. So they obviously must be negotiated with to end it. I think such wording unnecessarily lengthens the intro. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 13:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but just two points; that LTTE is the one the GoSL needs to negotiate with is vital I believe as it is shared by the co-chairs (EU, Japan, US and Norway) and most mainstream politicians in Lanka, opposing views like the JHU/JVP that wants to eliminate the LTTE. The second point, would be good if you could get in a sentence regarding LTTE systematically destroying its opponents, including competing tamil organisations. It is a fact that has very much alienated them from a lot of tamil patriots, but at the same time made them as central as they are, like it or not... Ulflarsen 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that looks fine too, but as Ulf mentioned I think something has to be said about them being the other main party to the conflict, we can cover other things in the body of the article such as military capabilities etc.--Realstarslayer 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel this latest version is close to being neutral. There is emphasis on the number of countries that have banned the LTTE, yet scant description on the LTTE and its struggle. The description mentioning is perceived is a real whitewash and POV. Its not perceived, many independent actors accept there is serious discrimination to say the least. Its not some random outbreak of violence it is ORGANIZED by who else but the Sinhala dominated chauvanist government. The listing of the countries is unnecessary in the intro and I have repeatedly mentioned this. If everyone wants to steer clear of being controversial in the intro, then the ban statement and calling it a terrorist organization must also go. Trincomanb 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree the intro should stay clear of controversy and its not doing that right now. This is going back into a list of what the ltte is condemned and in turn this is going require balance by including LTTE rebuttal and hence this whole thing is going to go full circle. Johnathan1156 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

More government propaganda/mollycoddling spewed by individuals here. There is enough evidence to say that the govt. commits genocidal acts. You can't be neutral with mass murder..period! Bombing an orphanage full of young children, with 16 bombs using 4 jets, killing hundred or so in the year 2006 is bad as Nazi Germany running concentration camps. Elalan 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically Ulflarsen and Realstarslayer suggest something like

"The LTTE is generally seen as the main body with whom the Government of Sri Lanka must negotiate with in order to end the long running Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, mainly due to the fact that the LTTE has eliminated a majority of independent Tamil Polititions and organizations in Sri Lanka."

I not sure if its neccessary, but if you guys want it I've got no problem. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your SL Govt. POV is showing very well. Listing the countries is unecessary, the word terrorism/terrorist should not be there. If you are going to list allegations against LTTE, that better mention LTTE continually believes SL Government is comitting genocide on Tamils. But you are intent on forcing your version. Trincomanb 11:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb, you are being real goofy here, Snowolf4 is a very much NPOV contributor on this page. He speaks FACTS, WIKIPEDIA is based on FACTS and not anybody'e POV's. What LTTE believes in or What GoSL believes in, is not the foundation here. The foundation in wikipedia are FACTS. So please stick to it.----RavenS 05:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing of countries is POV? You need to take a look at the articles for other organizations listed as terrorist - Al Queda etc. It makes sure the reader knows exactly what is going on. Simply saying the LTTE is banned by a number of countries is just not clear enough. The reader may believe its only Sri Lanka and a few neighbouring countries.
And We're not talking about what the LTTE says or what the Government says. Those allegations come later in the article. Simply

LTTE (and Tamils) allege discrimination and therefore have started the war.

Number of Countries allege LTTE is a terrorist org. and therefore have banned it.

That is pretty NPOV, although it may not conform to the wishes of some editors on this page. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why it's POV to list countries? Addhoc 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is relevant to why its POV in the context of the current intro. More of the intro is into bashing than telling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute). In particular the following statement withi the NPOV dispute page is relevant:

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

In addition there is undue weight [67] for some issues, that are symptons versus the source Trincomanb 19:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember saying the article was perfect or requesting the POV tag be removed. The version you are objecting to was developed on this page by several users. Your version has no consensus. Addhoc 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A sizable number of people don't support this version of the intro you are trying force down everybody. The ongoing revert war is testament to that. I would suggest you have proper counter points rather trying say your version versus my version. What does consensus mean ? Trincomanb 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First few lines with additions and omissions

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is a politico-military separatist organization that has been waging an at times violent campaign for a separate state comprising of the Tamil majority North and East regions of Sri Lanka.

Removed Federal or Independent: Unnecessary complications

North-East province: LTTE includes Puttalam in Tamil Eelam.

Suggestion for second paragraph

Founded as a response to perceived anti-Tamil policies by the Sinhala dominated state government and continued ethnic riots across the island, the LTTE has carried out a number of military, guerilla and terrorist attacks on both military and civilian targets. To date 35 countries have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organization.

Controversial issues:

With regards to the countries that have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation if we list them, some would ask us to list the anti-Tamil policies and the ethnic riots.

If we say including USA, UK and India some will ask us to say including Sinhala Only, Prominence to Buddhism and Standardisation and also 1958 riots, 1967 riots and 1972 riots etc…

I hope you get the picture. There are many issues that require lists. We can not fit all the lists in an introduction.

--Lankaupdate 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer either saying "anti-Tamil policies" and "terrorist' or qualifying these statements by perceived or considered. Addhoc 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

The second paragraph is currently:

"The formation of the LTTE is attributed to government policy over the years of discrimination of its Ceylon Tamil minority, along with notable outbreaks of violence, human rights abuses and genocidal acts against them. However, the tactics it has employed in its campaign, especially the use of suicide bombers and child recruits, have been condemned and they have been proscribed in a number of countries."

Previously this was:

"The formation of the LTTE is attributed to government policy over the years, perceived as being discriminatory by Sri Lankan Tamils, along with some notable outbreaks of violence against them. However, the tactics it has employed in its campaign, especially the use of suicide bombers and child recruits, have been widely condemned and they have led it to be listed as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India."

Personally, I consider the second version to be close to a NPOV. Addhoc 11:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the second version is close to being neutral. There is emphasis on the number of countries that have banned the LTTE, yet scant description on the LTTE and its struggle. The description mentioning is perceived is a real whitewash and POV. Its not perceived, many independent actors accept there is serious discrimination to say the least. Its not some random outbreak of violence it is ORGANIZED by who else but the Sinhala dominated chauvanist government. The listing of the countries is unnecessary in the intro and I have repeatedly mentioned this. If everyone wants to steer clear of being controversial in the intro, then the ban statement and calling it a terrorist organization must also go. Trincomanb 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the word widely condemned is Western centric and is irrelevant. How many countries out of 191 have condemned LTTE actions ? Also bans come and go and emphasis on this implies trying to stuff the SL Govt. POV. The issues dealt with all are the major issues from the SL Govt. POV. Trincomanb 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this paragraph has a link to so called notable attacks by LTTE, yet doesn't link to or have any context (by not linking to the Sri Lankan State Terrorism page). There is wide acceptance the govt. commits state terrorism, yet that has been efforts to carefully muzzle this out of the intro. Trincomanb 12:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't say the previous version was perfect. I agree that if 30 out of 200 countries proscribe an organisation, that possibly isn't widely. However, you have added statements about genocide. Unless you can provide mainstream secondary sources, then I would suggest this material should be removed. Addhoc 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, whats a 'mainstream secondary source' ? Who's mainstream is it yours or mine ? In any event I'll list some sources that I think are 'mainstream.' Trincomanb 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, the precise phrase, as I'm sure you are aware, is "reputable and reliable source". Addhoc 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is just a preliminary list of independent statements of genocide against the SL Government:

http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/184

http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/genocide95/gen9553.htm

http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/genocide95/gen9556a.htm

http://sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/06-07_Realistic_Approach.PDF

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/676/676p20b.htm

http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/issues/kumari.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00318.htm

http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2005.htm

Trincomanb 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't consider any of those to be reliable and reputable. Do you have any sources from well established newspapers or well known humanitarian organisations? Addhoc 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are telling me this isn't reliable and reputable ? :

Paul Seighart, chairperson of the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, who was sent to Sri Lanka by the ICJ on a fact-finding mission, wrote that the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983 was “a series of deliberate acts, executed in accordance with a concerted plan, conceived and organised well in advance”. The Review, an ICJ publication, declared that the violence “amounted to acts of genocide”.

Trincomanb 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, regarding humanitarian organisations, I'm aware that Amnesty International is considered more reputable than Human Rights Watch. Regarding, the International Commission of Jurists, I don't know. Have a look at WP:LEAD, even if this was ok for a mention later on in the article, I don't consider this appropriate for the introduction. Addhoc 14:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

While we are at this subject, the Asian Human Rights Comission (a reputable Asian Human rights organization based from Hong Kong) has accused the SL Government of 'Crimes against humnaity' [68] Trincomanb 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to keep it consistent, then the intro should stay completely clear of controversy. The word terrorist has to go, the ban and list of countries has to go and any sort of condemnation as well for whatever...If otherwise, the intro needs to have rebuttal for every accusation etc and right now there isn't one. Trincomanb 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, a neutral point of view is not the same as equivocation. The introduction should summarise factually the rest of the article. Addhoc 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So 'things that amount to genocide' shouldn't be in the intro, eventhough its going to be covered in the article, even if the source is reputable ? Please correct my intepretation of view point, if I mistaken.

According to WP:LEAD, the introduction should only contain material detailed in the article. Consequently, I suggest you include with references your text about genocide in the main body of the article and then discuss how this could be included in the introduction. Addhoc 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that some of these issues are quite complex and these so called compressed 'factual' statements are loaded, due to the omission of other facts and arguments and hence make the intro POV (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute section on How can one disagree on NPOV ?).

In particular the following statement:

"While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased."

In addition there is undue weight [69] for some issues, that are symptons versus the source. Trincomanb 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand there is no 'agreed' version of the intro and the intro some users are trying to rvt to is unacceptable and is POV since relevant facts are 'nicely' omitted. Trying to force an intro with sheep in wolf's clothing of 'some consensus' is just acting in bad faith. Some consensus is an oxymoron. Mentioning state terrorism (which incidently is wikipedia page) comitted by the SL Government seems to be get the reaction of some users here. Elalan 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There were discussions prior to the page being unlocked that demonstated some consensus. Relevant facts such as the countries that have listed the LTTE as terrorists are being removed. This discussion lasted for several days and you chose not to be involved. I don't have a problem with mentioning state terrorism. However, I would prefer a discussion, followed by implentation after agreement. Addhoc 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A sizable number of people don't support this version of the intro you are trying force down everybody. Some users such as myself were repeteadly against listing of countries in the intro. Its just undue weight for issue that is not central to what the conflict or the LTTE is about. Your are trying to impose your own rules, as far as I see it. There is no agreement of the intro that you are defending. Some consensus is an oxymoron! Fact of the matter is there is no consensus. Trincomanb 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User Addhoc, you seem to be creating new rules every time you mention something. My arguments were addressed in the ongoing discussion, hence I didn't feel the necessity to echo others views. The point is the key facts and context about the organization is omitted to ensure POV and now we are seeing attempts to put all sorts of obstacle to prevent rightful/constructive changes to the intro. Elalan 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elalan, Wikipedia has lots of policies. Although we are all free to edit them, as yet I haven't. So I haven't invented policy. Also, I would prefer discussion on this page before you revert again. Addhoc

You seem to have one policy for users who support your POV and another policy for those who are against it. Elalan 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would urge everyone to be civil and humble. There is no point in fingering pointing and saying your version and my version etc. We have seen the article taking a real beating the last few months. Please let everyone participate, gather everyones viewpoints and reach a constructive consensus everyone can agree on. Johnathan1156 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is everyone agreed on listing the various acts practised by teh LTTE in teh introduction such as assasinating world leaders, ethnic cleansing , use of child soldiers in warfare. We shoudl give teh whole picture , not part of it etc:- Ruchiraw 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't expect to blackmail the other wiki users into submission. People are smart enough to see through your tactics. Trincomanb 01:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested that all controversial statements be removed from the intro and keep this intro as simple as possible. Otherwise this thing is going to descend into more revert wars. Believe me SL Govt. supporters can't win this one and there is no point trying. SL Govt. propaganda is such a joke. The govt. has no credibility and trying to push this into this page will be dealt with the pen. At the same time I don't expect users sympathetic to the Tamil nationalist struggle will expect to have their way either. They don't have to, the truth will *always* come out. Trincomanb 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is whats in Kyodo News today ... you don't have to take my word for it. Trincomanb 03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC):

Sri Lanka gov't justifies airstrikes on youths. - The Sri Lankan government on Tuesday justified Monday's airstrike on a compound in northeastern Mullaitivu district where the Tamil Tigers claimed over 60 schoolgirls were killed.

We should give the whole picture. How the SL Government imposes embargoes on its own people, comitts genocide, state terrorism, indiscriminately bombs schools,churches and orphanages and jusitifies it, mass ethnic cleansing.. There is a lot to explain. Elalan 11:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Did a revert as the intro was expanded beyond agreed limits. Please discuss changes here before enacting them. This is an article about LTTE, not yet another battleground for the parties. Ulflarsen 12:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Addhoc 12:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Did a revert as links and info were added without agreeing. PLEASE DISCUSS ADDING ANYTHING NEW AS THIS IS A CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE. Supermod

You are coming up with nonsense reasons to delete factual statements that looks bad for your POV. If you want to suggest ANY changes from user Ulflarsen last edit, I will politely ask you to list them here first and then we can proceed. Elalan 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Correcting factual inaacuracies

Mr Elalan , Stop putting factual inaccuracies from LTTE websites on Wikipedia, I am pointing out the falsities in the following paragraph.

The formation of the LTTE is attributed to government policy over the years, considered discriminatory by Ceylon Tamils and includes state terrorism and crimes against humanity [1] against the Tamil minority.

This is an LTTE accusation and cannot be written as a fact. In the same way we do not say "The LTTE are terrorists, assasins, ethnic cleansers"

Quite to the contrary... there are many independent organizations and groups that repeatedly report and label SL govt actions as State Terrorism. Here is a link [70] from the Asian Human Rights Comission Elalan 02:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read articles carefully before citing . You can see that AHRC has not itself used teh word state terrorism. Also dont use [71] because it refers to JVP whichs is NOT a tamil minority , is it

The Secretary of the Movement for Development and Democratic Rights (MDDR), an umbrella organisation of voluntary organisations who work in the field of political, civil socio-economic and cultural rights, stated in evidence: At the time terrorism came to be used as a political tool in the North, the state’s view was that it could be brought under control by slaughter. The resultant State Terrorism could have only restricted operation in the North. But within the Police and Army and even the Govt. the prevalent view was that killing was an essential tool, and machinery to this purpose, to be put to use at any time whatsoever, was set up by the state. This machinery was set up in a frame-work that couldn’t be challenged via the courts. The only legal weapon available against abduction and killings was the writ of Habeas Corpus. If the inquests and investigations requisites under ordinary law operated, the law would not have been reduced to this state of helplessness. Emergency Regulation 55 permitted a burial without on inquest EF55’s "message" to the Security Forces was that a human body was no more than that of a dog or other animal.

Please review Elalan's comments carefully. The user mentioned the link is from the Asian Human Rights Commission. Your point here is off topic. It is indeed established independent organizations have labeled SL actions as state terrorism. Trincomanb 12:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the tactics it has employed in its campaign, such as the use of suicide bombers and child recruits have been condemned (although government backed paramilitaries are known to recruit children [2])

Assume you refer to Karuna group. These are allegations again not facts Ruchiraw

'LTTE recruits children' also falls under the same category - allegations. Here is a link to support this [72]. In addition here is evidenc from the SLMM where its mentioned govt. is connected to the Karuna group [73]. LTTE's present official policy is not to recruit children. Elalan 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the list of 1300 LTTE child soldiers produced by UNICEF(as of mid 2006 ). These are alleged children or actual childrenRuchiraw 05:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems you didn't see that the article is from mid 2006. Anyways it was after the event you are reffering to. Except Sri Lanka Police and army, everyone else have organized way of starting an investigation. They don't just jump and claim to have facts. Your govt on the other hand, jumps and so, oh LTTE did it, without even bothering to investigate. Hence SL Govt. has zero credibility on these matters. Trincomanb 12:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

and resulted in the LTTE being listed as a proscribed organization in a number of countries, including the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India. The UN, Sri Lanka and 161 other countries (a majority in the UN general assembly) have not imposed a ban on the organization.

Why are you removing references to the UN resolution under which teh LTTE is proscribed in many countries Ruchiraw 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been no specific UN resolutions aimed at the LTTE to date. If you feel there was a resolution , then you must have a citation. Otherwise its unverifiable and must go. You have not allowed for others discuss statement you are trying to make. I would ask your changes be reverted until its scrutinized. Elalan 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, I said teh LTTE is banned in accordance with a UN resolutions asking for restriction of ALL terrorist groups Ruchiraw 05:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

LTTE is not banned under UN, hence these laws don't apply. As for activities, thats not specific to the LTTE. As User Elalan has asked where are your citations ? Trincomanb 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One cannot use original research paper as citation. Ex: [74]. Removing it from the intro. Supermod

This reference isn't original research. Its merely a report on the ground situation. Trincomanb 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is in dispute. Somebody changed it to apply only to "section." It should be reverted back to what it was. Supermod 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense - "The UN, Sri Lanka and 161 other countries (a majority in the UN general assembly) have not imposed a ban on the organization." There is no need to specify 161 countries. Most of the countries do not even have a terror list maintained. Some countries do not have any interest in this problem whatsoever. Changed it to "The UN has not imposed a ban on the organization. Sri Lanka lifted the ban when then government signed the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the LTTE in 2002." Supermod 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing or identifying countries that didn't ban the LTTE is as important as listing the countries that have proscribed the organization. Trincomanb 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should we have talk about tactics of paramilitaries in the intro of the article talking about LTTE? Removed - "(although government backed paramilitaries are known to recruit children [75])" Supermod 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats because the paramilitaries are an arm of the Sri Lankan government forces. SLMM has reported on this evidence to the world http://www.slmm.lk/intros/FINAL%20GENEVA%20REPORT%20AFTER%20CORRECTIONS%20ON%201st%20of%20JUNE.pdf

. Sri Lankan government via the paramilitaries are party to the conflict. Child soldier issue as is stand is bunch of allegations, hence the full details need to be included to give context to the situation.Trincomanb 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb: Karuna was the Right hand man of Prabakaran. So you are claiming that he and his cadres are an arm of Sri Lankan military. What a pitty. Intro to the LTTE article should be changed on the "Loyalty of the LTTE cadres" section. According to you There is no loyalty ,since the Prabakaran's Right Hand man is now working for Sri Lanka governmet right after leaving LTTE. What happens if Tamilchelvam or any other senior member leaves th LTTE due to the discrimination whithin LTTE and join forces with the government?. What if Prabhakaran gives up arms and joins the Sri Lankan government. Who is to be blamed? Discriminating LTTE or the Democratic Sri Lankan Government? Obviously it LTTE's problem not Sri Lankan Governments' SamanBandara 03:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Karuna was perhaps once a right hand or a left hand man of somebody. We'll I am not making this up. The independent observers (SLMM) say so. The SLMM were selected by the two sides of the conflict to be the independent observers (on paper). The Karuna group has morphed to be part and parcel of the current regimes conflict ('war') strategy. Independent writers who have been critical of the LTTE also share this viewpoint (case and point DBS Jeyraj -- www.tamilweek.com). The intention is to weaken LTTEs position in the East. Trincomanb 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have observed that the introduction to the LTTE is vandelised by some users. We have discussed and argued losts of valid FACTS here but ,it is not reflected on the main article on LTTE. It is obvious that the pro-LTTE writers are vanderlising this page and taking the policies of WIKIPEDIA for a ride. The introdution is carefully crafted so that LTTE is ,which is baned by 26 countries as a TERRORIST organaisation is decribed as a "PROSCRIBED" organisation and the Decmocratically elected Sri Lankan government under which Majority of Tamils live and work is described as a "State Terrorists". This is laughable. I really mean it. What happened to those so called "FACT LOVERS" on this page .Looks like when its in favor of LTTE ,their imaginations (Pro Ltte Writer's) becomes a FACT. The Intro clearly violates the NPOV rule of wikipedia and its been vanderlized. I am loosing faith on this discussion page. Its about time that an independent party from wikipedia investigate in to these baseless ,vanderlised article on LTTE. I am loosing faith on this discussion board.SamanBandara 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues not favourable to the LTTE are also dealt with (child soldiers, suicide bombings etc), but perhaps not enough to everyones liking. This page isn't sounding like propaganda leaflet. Not everything can be in the introduction. I have maintained that we should stay away from controversial stuff to which ever side it maybe in the intro, but I have gone along with what many other seem to think. The old intro, in my opinion was good. It was achieved with collective consensus over heated arguments that lasted weeks. It highlighted and described what the organization was/is about. But we have seen persistent attempts by a few users to undermine earlier efforts to reach consensus. Hence revert wars occured over the last few weeks. These revert wars were forced upon us with the sole intention of not reaching an agreement. Once an agreement came close, there was intentional effort to undermine it. New issues were raised and it became laughable. The repeated strategy of this intrasigence (by this one user) was to push for arbitration. On the other hand, if you would like to suggest improvements, I would encourage you to state how it should be corrected in your mind and we can discuss it. A good intro is a good intro and person with any biased POV (or not) with reason will find it acceptable. The use of correct phrasing/wording should be able to achieve this and some users on these page made admirable efforts on this front which got the momentum of consensus going. I participated in these efforts and had agreed,joined in with these efforts. But everytime this happened, these efforts were dashed and hence quite frankly some of the most productive/articulate users appeared to have moved on. If this was the grand strategy of the intrasegience, to chase away these users, then this is indeed a very sad development that will effect Wikipedia. As for your point, I am not sure how you can loose faith if you don't participate in making suggestions to the article (particularly within the last week or so). It could be suggested by others that you didn't have 'faith' in the system to begin with. If it violates NPOV how so ? Please justify your viewpoint, I am very much open to your arguments and dialogue on your concerns. Trincomanb 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Trincomanb, mediation is an accepted way in Wikipedia for resolving disputes about content. Wikipedia function is not to provide a promotional page for the LTTE or the government. Ruchiraw 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to unilateral edits by one or two users, I have added context to what had been written. Btw, the previous edit had mentioned Ceylon Tamil and then switched and mentioned the LTTE. This interchange between LTTE and Ceylon Tamil (being one and the same) is POV to say the least. To put context to the formation of the LTTE, Ceylon Tamils struggled peacefully for nearly 30 years to win their rights. These attempts were a failure due to violent supression by the SL Government and due to reneging of pacts and promises (see Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism by Jeyaratnam Wilson for more details), hence groups such as the LTTE was formed to start an armed insurgency, where all peaceful means had been exhausted. Trincomanb 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit with secondary reference to UN resolution 1373 is a red herring. The one listed on the Australian website is the followup done by the Australian govt.. This is the reference to full text of resolution 1373 [76]. No where does it list so called 'terrorist organizations'. Its up to each individual country to define this and deal with it. Therefore I will take out the statement in the intro and leave it here for further discusssion. This info that, UN itself doesn't define the groups etc and its upto individual states to decide on this needs to be explained in full.

A number of countries limit LTTE activities in accordance with UN resolution 1373 calling for limitations to be imposed on terrorist groups[77].

Trincomanb 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The following para explicitly sets out the UN position

The UN and 160 countries (a majority in the UN general assembly) have not banned the LTTE (The UN has explicitly banned only Al Qaeda as a terrorist group). However the UN has passed resolution 1373 asking member countries to identify and limit activities of any organisation which carry out terrorist activities (though the UN has not published a list of such terrorist groups). Australia and other countries have proscribed several groups including the LTTE in accordance with resolution 1373 (resolution 1373 leaves the identification of such terrorist groups to the discretion of its member countries). Ruchiraw 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To all Pro-Terror ,Pro-LTTE writers: I could care less if Namebia,Niger,Cayman Island,East Temor or Maldives "PROSCRIBES" LTTE as a Terrorist organisation. UN is a joke in the first place. All they do is say "YES" to the worlds superpowers and issue statments on paper. They are slow moving by nature. This was apperant in the current Middle East Crisis. Further UN gets its funds (DUES) from super powers in the world likes of US ,UK Japan etc..... It is not very important to wait until Cayman Island or Chad lists LTTE as a Terrorist Organisation. May be these countries have never heard of LTTE Terrorist. The pro-LTTE ers are trying to undermine the Value of 29 Countries including the world most influential including LTTE's own Canada "Proscribing LTTE as a TERRORIST Gruop. There is no room for argument as to whether LTTE is a Terrorist Group or not ,It is world's most dangerous Terror Group with no regard for human life,even to their own.SamanBandara 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well let me give you some comparison for thought. Al Qaeda is alleged to have killed the most number of NGOs, numbering something like 40 when they bombed the UN compound in 2004. Second comes GOSL, for allegedly killing 17 NGOs from French aid agency Action Against Hunger. Now should we compare LTTE and Al Qaeda or the Sri Lankan govt. and Al Qaeda ? Influence is very difficult to measure. Do you know top state leaders from the UK,US, EU refuse to entertain Sri Lanka's president. Can you guess why ? On the hand Ranil Wickremesinghe was well entertained by the international community. Sri Lanka's so called friends have unanimously urged the govt. to TALK to the LTTE. US has made distinct difference between Al Qaeda type organizations and the LTTE and has said so numerous times. It and the rest of the international community does accept the Tamils have legitimate grievances. Hence the actual value/influence of the banning in the 29 countries has to be questioned. You are well aware LTTE hasn't broken a sweat from these bans. Trincomanb 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

-Vandalized Intro from 8/19/06 onwards-

Looks like the time and efforts of the users Snowolfd4, Realstarslayer, Ulflarsen, Ruchiraw, and Arvind in reaching consensus in the intro. had all gone a waist...----RavenS 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You have added clearly POV statements (such as 'thus leading it to be the most ruthless terrorist group in the world'). Please refrain from doing this and make suggestions and discuss the changes with other users first. There were merely ongoing discussion and there was no agreement on an intro then.

Elalan 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Its not my POV. They are general FACTS. Besides I took them from reputed sources, and they were verified, look carefully.----RavenS 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Labelling an organization a terrorist group is POV as you have clearly done. Trincomanb 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole paragraph goes on a tangent and is off topic for the intro. Too much weight for something largely irrelevant to the subject.

(The UN has explicitly banned only Al Qaeda as a terrorist group) However the UN has passed resolution 1373 asking member countries to identify and limit

activities of any organisation which carry out terrorist activities (though the UN has not published a list of such terrorist groups). Australia [78]. and other countries have proscribed several groups including the LTTE in accordance with resolution 1373 (resolution 1373 leaves the identification of such terrorist groups to the discretion of its member countries). Trincomanb 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not labeling the LTTE as terrorists, unfortunately some organizations do, which I've given the references. And Wikipedia is based on facts not POV's. If you have a problem with that write to these organizations that have labeled LTTE as terrorists and clear it out with them 1st. Dont bring in your POV's here. ----RavenS 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Plus you hvae changed the adjective to organization from terrorist to politico - military without citing proper sources. The sources I provided was to verify the LTTE as a terrorist organization. Next time be a little careful when you do editing because that looked like a vandal to me when you left sources verifying the LTTE as terrorist group as sources verifying them as politico - military which is completely contradicting. This drops the quality of the article and confuses the reader.----RavenS 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Raven S, stop describing other editors as vandals, this a content dispute. Thanks, Addhoc 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NB:- Its not off topic as it clarifies the UN position. U are always deleting the one sentence clarification of the UN position. U just want a version implying the UN has no position on groups usch as the LTTE . EIther choose to have the reference to resolution 1373 or allow this lengthoer but more explanatory version to stay. Ruchiraw 13:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you clearly show both wordings of the sentence with reference or otherwise here. Trincomanb 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider that labelling Elalan a vandal is very helpful. There are genuine POV issues that we should resolve, but applying dubious labels does not serve to further this debate. Addhoc 13:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is not factual the way it is stated. The majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka do not agree with these. Tamils were and are major businessmen in Sri Lanka. What is the proof you have for "30 years of peaceful struggle"? Only a section of Jaffna Tamils formed the LTTE. I agree there was some discrimination agaisnt Tamils in the past. But it was the same throughout the world because of colonization and slavory. Even in the US, there were discrimination. And there is still some in certain areas. I suggest we reword the following --

"The Ceylon Tamils consider the conduct of the Sinhala dominated Sri Lankan government to be discriminatory and more recently allege that crimes against humanity and state terrorism have been committed against them. The LTTE was formed after nearly 30 years of peaceful struggle by the Ceylon Tamils had been violently suppressed and agreements reneged by the government." to --

"The Tamils living in some parts of Sri Lanka consider the conduct of the Sinhala dominated Sri Lankan government to be discriminatory. The LTTE was formed after the demands of the Ceylon Tamils were ignored and suppressed by the successive governments." And the following is more recent allegation as stated and should go in the second paragraph -- "The LTTE more recently allege that crimes against humanity and state terrorism have been committed against them." Supermod 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I added back the citations removed by Trincomanb that clearly state LTTE is a "terrorist" organization. These are ligitimate citations. You may add more citations to prove otherwise. However, I did not state LTTE is a terrorist organization. Supermod 15:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that "Tamils living in some parts of Sri Lanka" is slightly vague. Would "Tamils mostly living in the North and East" be preferable? Addhoc 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To user Supermod: Citations to justify POV is irrelevant and should be out of the intro. I have modified the changes to with citations to intro. Ignored and suppressed is too vague a description of what happened. The sentences are getting too vague to mean anything, when in fact there is enough citations to be precise. Trincomanb 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not post your POV's here

Please dont post your POV here and drop the quality of the article. Wikipedia is based on FACTS and please respect that. If there's any dispute on the current intro. please discuss it here!----RavenS 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If anythig needs to be changed, please discuss it here BEFORE making the changes. If not, the article will be nominated to be blocked again. Thanks. Supermod 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravens, you may have mentioned something here, but people disagree with your reasoning. I too disagree without your reasoning, hence I believe it should be reverted to something more NPOV. The changes need to be discussed and agree upon here before being implemented. In addition you have reverted over what are legitimate citations.Elalan 12:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

paramilitary?

Please check definition before stating that the LTTE is a paramilitary.

I think the topic needs to be locked.

Clearly, some people think what ever Mahavamsa says are facts and that no logical discussion is necessary.

Yes I agree, next thing we'll have the Mahavamsa as the primary reference for all the so called 'facts' in the article. Elalan 12:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for a group of three to make a proposal

Seems we have most of the facts, now is the time to get them together. I would argue there are three positions here, pro GoSL, pro LTTE and then neutral - mostly foreigners I guess, like myself. What about deciding to let a group of three, each representing her/his position regarding the LTTE? Until they have reached consensus we could just lock up the article - or leave it as now with the NPOV tag. Or maybe better - we leave it with the NPOV tag now, but when the group has made its final version, it is inserted, and the page locked. Any edit after that would need to go through the group. If there is interest in this proposal I suggest each group of editors agree on a person that can represent them. Ulflarsen 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea and is a workable start, but what about having two people representing each side. This is primarily for logistics etc, so that in case one person is not availabe or gone temporarily then someone else representing that side can fill in. Elalan 15:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. If we have two neutrals could I suggest Arvind and Ulflarsen? Addhoc 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I think the neutral camp has to be accepted neutral by both the pro GOSL and pro LTTE sides with consensus. Each side should be able to wield a veto when deciding the members of the neutral camp. We can't have self declared neutral folks who claim to be neutral but arent considered neutral by one or both sides. Elalan 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, presuming that Arvind and Ulflarsen don't mind being discussed as candidates, would anyone object to them being the neutrals? Addhoc 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose Arvind being a Neutral. He is the one of the Pro-LTTE writers that keeps a low profile and does lots of leg work for LTTE. I Totally oppose it. UlfLarsen is a neutral and fine with meSamanBandara 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I made a small change to the intro that covers all the views. Make the necessary chnages from there. Supermod 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi SamanBandara, could you suggest someone other than Arvind? Addhoc 17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose user Ulflarsen being one of the neutral representatives. While he may a great individual and such, a neutral representative needs to have a spotless record of neutrality. Unfortunately, he has a POV that I don't believe is neutral. The reason is because of the following conversation we had on this page (see section Accusations and facts). I was not satisfied with his response and showed POV leanings towards one side. In fact he had sidestepped out of answering some of the questions. Trincomanb 18:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Trincomanb. Ulflarsen is neutral. Just because he wrote some content that you do not agree with, it does not make him a person with POV. If that is the case, Ulflarsen had some anti-GOSL views. Ulflarsen is someone who contributes to this article in a major way and served in the SLMM. I agrre to have Ulflarsen as a neutral person, but oppose Arvind. I have seen some NPOV from user Ruchiraw. Supermod 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading Trincomanb statements, I do agree with him that Ulflarsen is not neutral enough and has POVs leaning towards the GOSL. User Arvind as far as I have seen is neutral, yet you haven't given a reason why he is not neutral. In any event your view and my views counts as vetos, hence other candidates have to be found. Elalan 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have my own biases on the Sri Lankan conflict, and am not neutral or dispassionate enough in my feelings to make an effective "neutral" member of any team. Having been accused of both a pro-LTTE and anti-LTTE bias isn't enough to be neutral, you know. In my opinion, it's probably best to ask someone who has had nothing to do with this article or Sri Lanka to be the neutral team member. All the facts are here, it's just a question of deciding which facts are important enough to be in the introduction and what the Wikipedia NPOV policy requires. -- Arvind 19:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what some users here feel, I do feel everyone should be free to participate and this process cannot become some elitist/segregated committee of sorts which is against the aims of Wikipedia. In any event, I do think users Arvind and Ulflarsen should be given special roles as observers/advisers in support of the neutral camp. Regardless of what other users may feel about their stance, they have demonstrated willingness to be involved in the article. It should organized such that their expertise in this field is what should count (ie work in the SLMM or peace and conflict studies) and not their POV. Everyone involved deeply in this conflict has a POV and hence I agree with Arvind, it should be a complete outsider. Trincomanb 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I am suitable as a neutral, SLMM is not considered very neutral in Lanka... :-) Jokes aside, I am sure there are others that are suitable if we decide to solve it this way. The huge bonus for everyone, if we manage in this is that we can remove the tag from the page. As it stands now it is most probably not taken serious. If we reach consensus - and can remove the tag, it will be more authoritative. So we all have something to strive after. Last but not least, if we try what I suggested I believe it should be three persons. Not easy to manage groups, and the bigger they get - the more difficult. So if we go for it, lets trust those three. Ulflarsen 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think these efforts are positive, but I also wanted to be the devil's advocate and raise some issues and larger questions that will move this process forward. For the article to be authoritative, the credibility of the writers do count. Yet here most of the users are anonymous. This seems to be an unsolved problem with Wikipedia. To resolve this issues, I guess 'everyone' is allowed to edit the articles and hope is that if someone made a mistakes, someone else can correct it. This whole experiment assumes everyone is acting in good faith. How will the checks and balance hold with restrictions on editing the intro? Also, just wanted to ask how consensus will be achieved if only three people work on choosing/pruning the facts ? What if one person or few people from each camp refuses to accept the so called 'representatives' decision ? How will these decisions be binding ? Wikipedia does not enforce any permanent edit restrictions if I am not mistaken. Also previous attempts at consensus suceeded for a while, after which we had new sections being added resulting in revert wars. Johnathan1156 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To the GOSL camp: I am not sure how you came to the conclusion Arvind is biased or an LTTE supporter. Have you seen this individual do leg work for the LTTE ? A number of you have dissmissed Arvind's candidacy, but haven't given any evidence. That is indeed somewhat troubling to this whole process. Is it even possible to reason with indviduals who come with these conclusion without showing evidence for it? This merely reinforces a couldron of extremists views to emerge. Trincomanb 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does everything have to go in the intro?

Here we go again. POV sentence gets added to the intro, so has to be balanced with opposite POV, which in turn invites counter-charges, etc...at this rate why even bother with the rest of the article? it'll get crammed into the intro anyway.

If we can't have a ceasefire in Sri Lanka, could we at least have one in Wikipedia? Everyone - if you have a fact that deserves mentioning, put it in the main body of the article, and leave a bare-minimum intro, two or three sentences. Tyronen 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I belive the current intro is OK. When mentioning facts and incidents, they could be anti-LTTE or anti-GOSL. But this is Wikipedia, which should give the factual and correct information - be it not likeable by pro-LTTE or pro-GOSL people. Supermod 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly raised this point that the intro need not be this long and can be controversial free. However there is obviously an agenda here. The intention is stuff as much GOSL propaganda as possible into the intro (where the thinking goes that the average reader will only read the intro) and be done with. The issues choosen obviously has been given lip service by the so called do gooder INGOs whose burden it is 'uplift' the poor/feeble natives and show them the way to attain path to western standards (hypocrisy) ... Trincomanb 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter what you say, most of pro-LTTE articles and sympathisers that use as citations are bought by money. The latest evidence is the arrests made in USA [79] [80] Supermod 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have citations for claiming ' *most* of pro-LTTE articles and sympathisers that use as *citations* are bought by money' ? I guess not. This is becoming a laughable joke. Trincomanb 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Undue attention to “terrorist” label within introduction

As it can be seen, much of the introduction is taken up by claims and counter claims of the recent terrorist label that has been slapped on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) by certain states.

May I state here, that the LTTE is constituted of, funded by and is fighting for the Tamil people.

Like Al Quaeda for the Muslim people Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlike most other separatist organisations, LTTE is not backed by a foreign state.

Like Al Quaeda for the Muslim people Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As is clearly evident from the prevailing situation on the island of Sri Lanka, foreign affairs, let alone what Bush or Blair decide to refer to them as has little or no impact on the way or the capacity with which the LTTE operates.

What about other 27 countries with democratic governmentsRuchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The major issues that should be covered in an article about the LTTE or any other organisation are;

What? A politico-military separatist organisation

and terrorist

Where? North-East Sri Lanka

When? 1976 onwards.

Why? They feel a number of laws introduced since independence –Sinhala Only etc..- have been discriminatory against the Tamil minority. They also feel that successive governments have actively instigated ethnic cleansing –Manalaaru becoming Weli Oya or even 1983 which is not a riot because a riot needs two communities to be violent to each other-.

How? Military –Elephant Pass, Pooneriyan, Mulaiteevu, Kilinochchi, Mavil Aaru, Siege on Jaffna- Political –Thimpu, Talks with Premadasa, Talks with Chandrika, Talks with Ranil- The fact that peace talks failed are irrelevant. What matters is that efforts were made to resolve the conflict via political means. LTTE has invested significant resources, including time and intelligentsia is attempts to formulate a political solution –ISGA etc-. Guerrilla –claymore on military vehicles, grenades etc..-. Terrorist –central bank, child soldiers, assassinations of political personalities etc..-.

add ethnic cleansing , suicide bombing, attacks on civilians , child soldiers, Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So what? It is for the reader to make up his/her mind up on.

Yes, if you present all the facts , its very easy Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

--82.43.168.184 06:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been some efforts by users here to delink the 'state terrorism' link from the intro and delete Jeyaratnam Citation. This is a discrete attempt at forcing POVs into the intro. Now they have resorted to doing this without even discussing it. Off course whats there to discuss, when its so POV (they may ask). Trincomanb 10:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they want to link this article to a POV fork which has very little verifiable evidence LTTE did a whole bunch of things and is merely window dressing for SL government allegations to the UN. Trincomanb 10:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say to use Sri Lankan government citations. There are 29 countries which have published material about the LTTE . there is Amnesty , there is UNICEF, UN etc:- Ruchiraw 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of the trouble seems to stem from the some people’s belief that news articles –simply because they are written by a Reuters, AFP or AP freelancer- are neutral sources of evidence.

So what do you propose to be neutral Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera says one thing and AP says another; that’s just the way media operates. Everyone takes their own stance on issues. Media should not be considered as neutral sources of information.

Then use government citations Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What credibility is there of a government that bombs ambulances, hospitals, orphanages, churches, temples, kills doctors, kills NGOs ? Trincomanb 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an extension of the Sri Lankan Defence Ministry’s website. It is an Encyclopaedia and as such we should stick to stating the facts.

I didnt say to use Sri Lankan government citations. There are 29 countries which have published material about the LTTE . there is Amnesty , there is UNICEF, UN etc:- Ruchiraw 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

true and this page is quite different Ruchiraw 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

--82.43.168.184 13:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Case and point is a so called journalist called Amal Jayasinghe. He works for AFP and runs Lankapage + Colombopage, another anti-Tamil site loaded with Defence ministry briefs etc. Another little tidbit of fact is that the Sri Lankan defence ministry has forced all INGOs to refrain from promoting a Tamil as 'national' head (whether it be Indian origin, Ceylon, Malaysia or wherever). If they were to do so, then the understanding was there would be an expulsion of the organization. Obviously the INGOs would never dare to divulge fearing they will be kicked out of the country. There is whole slew of foreign individuals where declared persona non grata and kicked out, including BBC reporters, NGO workers, SLMM heads [81] for talking something 'out of line' with the SL Defence agenda. Hence, fearing this, pretty much all of these organizations have cowed down and have been eating and feeding punnaku to the rest of us. See no evil, hear no evil. Trincomanb 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is your basis for such comments as "all INGOs to refrain from promoting a Tamil as 'national' head (whether it be Indian origin, Ceylon, Malaysia or wherever). You are having misconceptions. Then the government should throw out the TRO first Ruchiraw 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

TRO is a local NGO (headquarters within Sri Lanka), although it does have international branches and hence based on govt. calculations is that it has a credibility gap as with other local NGOs compared to the INGOs who supposodely have a higher stature/international clout. The govt. has been pressured to get rid of TRO by its electoral allies... There could be a whole bunch of reason to prevent Tamils from being country heads, most of it lean on the nefarious but this is *obviously* speculation and your guess is as good as mine, hence I should leave it there... Trincomanb 02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whenever a 'lip service' condemnation has to be issued against the govt. by INGOs, it is done through the international HQ and not through the local office, again fearing deportation. Trincomanb 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Al-Qaeda is not a separatist organisation. So I am not sure where the sheepish ‘like Al-Qaeda’ originated from.

I am referring to the statement (May I state here, that the LTTE is constituted of, funded by and is fighting for the Tamil people)Ruchiraw 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Al-Qaeda and learn about how to write a constructive factual article suitable for an encyclopaedia.

Some one who wants to know about LTTE would look up the article on that organisation. Similarly, someone who wants to know about Al-Qaeda would look pp the article on that organisation. I don’t think the average user of Wikipedia would want some son of a lion repeating ‘like Al-Qaeda’ after every sentence.

Nevertheless, the point to be noted is that news articles can not be used as neutral sources of evidence.

There are two parties to the conflict on the island of Sri Lanka. One is the Sinhala dominated Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the other is the Tamil Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The GoSL has its own take on issues while the LTTE has its own.

For example, Sinhala Only act of 1956 which was more or less the foundation stone for the ethnic conflict is claimed by the GoSL to be a ‘legitimate law necessary for a multicultural-multilingual democratic state’ while the LTTE argues that it was a ‘discriminatory act, introduced with the purpose of marginalising the Tamil community from public sector jobs.’

We can cite both the sources and let the reader make up his/her own mind.

--82.43.168.184 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is that you have illusions that everyone critical of LTTE is not neutral. The world is dancing with fear of terrorists. Finally people have realised that its not hunky dory to blow up innocent civilians for so called idealistic purposes. You will not find a single country in the world which will support a terrorist organisation like LTTE after september 11. Not to mention the idea of sending children into battle , are there no grown men in Tamil areas. You are wiping out your future bysending young girls and children into battle. Ruchiraw 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the LTTE. Hence neutral has to be looked in that context. Just because the US falls into a constitutional trap [82] (particularly the very last paragraph will be insightful) by prosecuting a bunch of Tamils who apparently sympathise with LTTE for 'allegdly' providing material support, doesn't mean the roof of the Tamil Nationalist struggle is caving in. But does the SL Government have to resort to bombing orphanages and ambulances to curb the growth of the LTTE ? In the process surely the govt. has lost its humanity. Trincomanb 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, with all due respect, I think the fact that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia has bypassed you.

Encyclopaedias are there to give facts and not represent the political views of international powers.

As important as you may consider US policies to be, encyclopaedias can not be written simply based on US foreign policy.

It is the same west that armed Indonesia to kill over 200 000 East Timorese that later intervened to create an independent East Timor.

As I suggested, perhaps you should have a good read of Al-Qaeda. The article does not start off with Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. It is the organisation’s stated objective that is given prominent status. Neither is the article filled with newspaper links, to justify allegations.

The difference between the article on Al-Qaeda and the often vandalised article on LTTE are essentially the difference between a civilised society like that of the USA and the Sinhala society infested with ‘standardisation’ beneficiaries. --82.43.168.184 07:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An appeal for a ceasefire

If not the war in Sri Lanka, then at least this article. Looking at the edit histories of some of the regulars to this page, it is really quite impressive just how much time and effort everyone has put in....to an edit war! An edit war not even over the article as a whole, but to its introduction!

Entire articles could (and should) have been added with this amount of writing.

I propose we cut the intro to a single sentence:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is an organization that has waged an armed secessionist campaign against in order to secure independence for the north and east regions of Sri Lanka.

I know Wikipedia intros are usually longer than this but the problem is that anything longer ends up in an edit war that has now been raging nearly two entire months. So no charges, counter-charges, etc. Nothing to argue over.

All of us here - GoSL supporters, LTTE supporters, in-betweens - have a lot to say. All of us should say it - in the main body of this article. And we can put our energy and enthusiasm to creating and expanding other articles (in the Sinhala and Tamil Wikipedias as well as here) rather than endlessly arguing over this one small section. Tyronen 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to abide by this ceasefire and only wish others accross the divide would do the same. The objective was to ensure the Tamil Nationalist side of the story was given a fair representation as expected in Wikipedia and that has been accomplished. Elalan 12:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we have it, the minute there is some sort of sane truce, we have a user come in and try to wreck it, with utter contempt and disregard for this process. Why shouldn't this user just download wikipedia onto a DVD and write his own copy and share it amongst his like minded 'products of standardization.' Trincomanb 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

‘Products of standardisation’ just reminded me of an interesting posting at http://www.tamileditors.com/NEW/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1023&Itemid=1.--82.43.168.184 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They are perhaps the same guys who have announced an 8 % growth in GDP during this mess. Trincomanb 15:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fully supportive of Tyronen's proposal and for letting common sense prevail. Trincomanb 17:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree with Tyronen. Addhoc 17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Tyronen. He did vn by removing chunk of the article. Now the intro is almost blank. I rv to last revision by Trincomanb. That revision as it is represent both POVs. Supermod 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting case, user Supermod changing back to user Trincomanb. At least user Tyronen achieved something. Anyone interfering in Lanka gets the warring factions against them - ask the IPKF... I really dont know when it comes to the proposal. As far as I am concerned I check in once in a while to see that the POV tag is there, just so no one should take the article serious. Guess that is about as far as we can get now. But an interesting proposal. Ulflarsen 18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermod: In the nine days since protection was lifted from this page there have been 262 edits. There were 65 just yesterday. At this rate we'll have one of the encyclopedia's most heavily edited articles - and the result is an incoherent mishmash so crammed with counterpoints as to be barely readable. Can anyone read the intro and not have their eyes glaze over?

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other tasks to do for Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. Just consider:

• During those nine days, the entire Sinhala Wikipedia only had nine edits.
• If you look at Articles per population, both Sinhala and Tamil are below the average, and Sinhala near the bottom. Both projects are in need of contributors.
• There does not seem to even be an article on the LTTE in the Sinhala Wikipedia, and only a short one in the Tamil.
• Such basic topics as History of Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan civil war have neither a Sinhala nor a Tamil version.
• In English, there are dozens of Sri Lanka-related stubs that need filling in, and lots of Sri Lanka topics that need to be written.

Can we not put something clear enough for anyone to understand and innocuous enough for everyone to accept, and move on? A one- or two-sentence intro would be head and shoulders better than anything we've had for ages. Tyronen 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To Supermod and Ruchiraw: To satisfy any apprehension regarding a shortened (3 sentences) intro, we could ensure all the facts are covered elsewhere within the article and so that no ones effort is wasted. User Ulflarsen idea of having a committee or community consensus could be the driving vehicle for this formulation. The point to keep in mind is that Wikipedia DOES NOT have a high credibility on this type of subject and with this NPOV tag, the situation is obviously worse. I believe this article (particularly the intro) has become a big joke. The joke is on those editors who think they are accomplishing something and obviously everyone looses doing this. This mirrors the state of affairs of Sri Lanka and its population today. Its dismal mix of angry, confused voices. You won't be able to convince anyone (other than like minded folks) of views through overt charges and counter-charges, bad writing/bad flow and mish-mash of facts thrown together. People reading an encyclopedia entry are not here to form an opinion on the organization or subject, they are here to get info on it. Crude attempts at biasing the article does come through and leaves a 'bad after-taste.' If people want LTTE propaganda they will go to LTTEps and if they want the govt. dish they will goto army.lk and such. The article needs to be authoritative and its NOT. Most of this info is available elsewhere as books on the subject and so people are not limited to the LTTE page on wikipedia to get their info. Johnathan1156 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The following line by itself signifies teh LTTE as ONLY its supporters see it.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is an organization that has waged an armed secessionist campaign against in order to secure independence for the north and east regions of Sri Lanka.

We need to clarify it with a sentence such as

The LTTE has political and military branches, but it is banned as a terrorist organisation in 29 countries.

I will diagnose the issue for you. The probelm is that all LTTE supporting users on this page , do not want to mention the terrorist ban in the introuction. Well , get over it , after AL- Quaeda and Muslim groups, LTTE is the second most banned organsiation in the world. All the articles about groups like the LTTE do manage to mention such points in their introduction , so why should Wikipedia give special treatment to LTTE because its supporters dont like mentioning negative points about it. As I said many times , this should go to mediation if there is a problem but please dont try to hide facts. Ruchiraw 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But one would not call the LTTE a terrorist organization directly or without giving citations. Currently it says "some organizations" and countries call it a terrorist organization with credible and independent citations. Nothing wrong with that. Supermod 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly agree to mediation. The article has an entire section going into detail about terrorism and the international bans. We have already found that putting the ban in the intro ends up dragging all sorts of explanatory paraphrenalia along with it, so we end up with not an intro, but a mini-article (and not a well-written one at that). People are debating as if readers just look at the intro and skip everything else, but if we shorten the intro there wouldn't be any more reason to do that. Tyronen 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As of now, the main focal point of LTTE is it is banned as a terrorist group. That is the whole reason USA going after its supporters. [83][84]. We need to mention that LTTE is a banned organization in the intro. Supermod 04:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If we want to discuss bans/labels, then perhaps we should also mention the political proxies for the LTTE are not banned/labeled in any of the 191 countries. Btw, ban doesn't apply in all 29 countries as user Ruchiraw is trying to imply. Its merely a label, people (citizens) are free to support,sympathise with these organization in both the EU, US and Canada. This is enshrined in freedom of speech,association etc, something alien to Sri Lanka's sham democracy. Ban implies a total prohibition... People are restricted from providing material and financial support to these organizations. Insignificant current events change from day to day is again inconsequential except for propaganda consumption. Elalan 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate description would be "listed as a terrorist organisation", since that is the common denominator - the consequences of listing are quite different in all the countries. For example, in India, it is a total ban which makes membership illegal; in Australia, it's mainly fundraising that's affected, in the US provision of support is illegal and membership could lead to extradition, and so on. I think Tyronen's proposal is quite interesting, but I don't see any possibility of consensus without mentioning that it is considered terrorist since - to many Sinhalese - that is its main characteristic. Anyway, I leave it to the people most actively involved to find consensus. -- Arvind 12:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Sri Lankan Tamils article does mention Ceylonese Tamils, however appears to use the term interchangeably with Sri Lankan Tamils. Addhoc 11:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

APPEAL: Ceylon Tamils is what they were called earlier. The same way, Ceylon Sinhalese. If you want to say "Ceylon Tamils" were discriminated, then it should followed by "Ceylon Sinhalese." Personally, I am a young Sri Lankan. My ancestors might have committed acts that are discriminatory againts Tamils back then. If that is the case, there was discrimination against minorities everywhere in the world. But gradually they are being reduced and/or eliminated. My question is: why should I pay a price by loosing my parents due to suicide bombs of LTTE when the present generation do not discriminate against the tamil civialians. If not for the LTTE, both Tamils and Sinhalese should have lived in harmony. Again, I agree there had been discrimination against Tamils. And perhaps there might still be. But that is because when our fellow brothers and sisters get caught in middle of LTTE's inhuman acts and die, there will natuarally be some anger against LTTE and also against Tamils because LTTE is made up of Tamils. But I (and I know a lot of Sinhalese) would like to live with Tamil brothers and sisters. We just need to get united and ask everyone to stop terrorism. If LTTE do not kill the government soldiers, do you think military would bomb Tamil areas? I do not think so. Let's try to live in harmony. We do not live forever. Let's not pass the war to our children. Let's hope our children would not die just like our parents did. Supermod 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I added contradict tag to the first section because it says "The LTTE are noted for their blind loyalty to the leadership and not a cause. Recruits are instructed to be prepared to die for the cause"

are they loyal to the leader or to the cause. it is confusing. --Idleguy 17:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Sri Lanka was forced upon the Tamil population along with the discriminatory 1972 and 1978 constitutions. Tamils had overwhelming voted against both of these moves. LTTE is merely a creation (a reaction) to to wide scale Sinhala led persecution of ethnic Tamils when peaceful Gandhian methods were violently attacked. This thing has been going on since the Sri Lanka gained independence. It was not just the Tamils who were on the receiving end. Many Burghers, descendent of Europeans who settled on the island were the first to be chased out. Then followed the attempted purges on the Indian Tamils. So again the root causes has nothing todo with the LTTE and its amazing how in this day and age of information awash, that we still hear of dubious theories being floated around. To say LTTE had caused disharmony between Tamils and Sinhalese certainly gives them a lot of credit. Perhaps more credit than is due. The disharmony started with the rise of Sinhala extremism (coming from simillar source as Nazi ideology) from the late 19th century with the rise and beliefs in the Mahavamsa myths. Part of the problem as this source points out as the Sinhalas collectively (in their present state) can't seem to distinguish between myth and facts. In fact, with respect to history, the Sinhala word itihasaya is used to indicate both epic and history [85]. To the self-declared foreigners here in this forum, you do have to wonder which group has a problem adjusting with other groups. Which group is the basket case ? Sinhalas are only found on the island of Sri Lanka and seem to have problems living with Tamils. Yet Tamils live in half a dozen or more countries in sizable numbers and seem to adjust just fine. Trincomanb 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To user Supermod: This page is for discussing the article, not the politics behind, but I do make an exception for you. You wrote: "If not for the LTTE, both Tamils and Sinhalese should have lived in harmony." Such ideas, and such ignorance is what keeps this conflict going. What about the 17 killed in Muttur? What about the 5 students killed in Trinco? When was ever a GoSL soldier or policeman sent to prison for killing tamils in this conflict? And when is there ever - after 50 years, going to be a federal solution in Sri Lanka? Germany has it, the US has it, Spain has it, India has it - but in Lanka it is only talk, talk and yet more talk. Ulflarsen 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To ULFLARSEN: As you claim that you were with SLMM for a one year and you are a Norwegian. You claim to be a Neutral ,But I doubt it very much. I need evidence to make sure you are who you claim you are. Pls provide this page with some proof that you worked for the Pro-LTTE SLMM. All you at SLMM do is act as the voice of Tiger Terrorist. Pretty much as the spokes person for Vanni Tigers. This was evident with the action taken by SLMM and its Head in the recent incident involving Water issue.Further, Your comments are not Neutral at all. You need to learn Sri Lankan history before you comment. You are taking few recent incidents and attacking Sri Lankan governmen. This conflict dates back 2600 years. So Do not get immotional on this page.Lets go with FACTSSamanBandara 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Ulflarsen. Also, I would suggest the description "chauvinist" shouldn't be applied to the Sri Lanka government. Addhoc 19:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with the name is that Ceylon was a name that was neutral and most appropriate to a multicultural state.

However, the name change to Sri Lanka must be considered with the whole ‘Sri’ campaign of the Sinhala Buddhist extremist.

The word or letter ‘Sri’ is of Paali origin –same as Sinhala- but totally alien to Tamil. Hence, the so called Sri Lankan Tamils were left unable to write the name of their country Sri Lanka, in their mother tongue Tamil. Even now, most people use the Sanskrit letter ‘Sri’ when writing the name of their country.

At the same time, we can not that easily forget the whole ‘Sri’ campaign of the early days. How many women’s chests had the letter Sri burnt onto by Sinhala hoodlums? How much did out political leaders protest? Those were days before LTTE. --82.40.185.25 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

RCMP/FBI Arrests

I'm not sure if this subject has already been raised, but what's the status of the recent arrests of alleged ETTE terrorists with respect to this article?

I just skimmed the article and noticed that it mentions Canada's prohibition on some ETTE activities, but not much information is provided about the way that Canada has been used in order to raise funds for the Tamil Tigers and plan terrorist operations overseas.

Also, it should be noted that the only people accusing the Sri Lankan government of bombing an "orphanage" are the Tigers themselves.

Sri Lankan security forces claim that it was an LTTE military base, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

Whether targeting child soldiers is an ethical military policy is an entirely different question, but I don't think we should be spreading information that is of dubious provenance.

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If you assume SLMM and UNICEF are part of the LTTE then, there is no point in explaining issues with regards to the bombing of the orphanage.

“The charges in the complaints are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty” from department of justice press release with regards to the Canadians arrested on suspicion of conspiring to provide material support and resources to the LTTE. --82.35.188.19 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not apportioning guilt.

Hence, my use of the qualifier "alleged."

Again, the allegation that they bombed an "orphanage" is one made only by the LTTE.

UN observers have only confirmed that the site has been bombed, not that it was an orphanage.

If you're going to accept every claim made by Tamil Tiger separatists-who are part of an acknowledged terrorist organization-at face-value...

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Both SLMM and UNICEF say they saw only 19 bodies Ruchiraw 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

‘These were children from surrounding schools in the area who were brought there for a two-day training workshop on first aid,’ UNICEF Sri Lankan representative Joanna van Gerten.

So far the education authorities have released names and photos of 51 school girls who theys say were killed in the air raids.

The SLMM said that they saw 19 bodies, but could not confirm exact number of children killed.

Hence, the fact is that at least 19 school girls were killed, in the Sri Lankan Air Force bombings of northern-Sri Lanka.

Justifiable actions of a civilized state? --82.35.188.19 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To User Ruthfulbarbarity:

It is good that wikipedia users unfamilliar with this subject raise these questions promptly, because the article with this ongoing revert war is obviously too unorganized to 'clarify things'. A better source of info, with rich details is http://www.tamiltigers.net/, but its from the Tamil Nationalist perspective.

The LTTE doesn't undertake 'international terrorist operations' (or for that matter hasn't outside of India and Sri Lanka). The organization fights for one specific goal, namely an independent Tamil state for the Ceylon (currently Sri Lanka - this name change was forced on the minorities within the country) Tamils. It very much parallels the IRA in this respect. Trincomanb 14:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether they were school girls or not is irrelevant.

They could have been school girls trained for a bombing mission.

The ETTE has hundreds of child-soldiers.

What part of this is so difficult for you to comprehend?

Yes, the ETTE does undertake international terrorist operations.

It has assassinated or attempted to assassinate prime ministers in several different nations.

See Rajiv Gandhi and Chandrika Kumaratunga.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it also parallels the PIRA in the fact that it is an international terrorist organization.

Thanks for making my point.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rajiv Gandhi is from India, Chandrika Kumaratunga is from Sri Lanka. These are neigbouring countries. LTTE is fighting a civil war in Sri Lanka, in which India got entangled. To say LTTE 'undertakes international terrorist operations' is false. It has only operated in the tip of the south asian region. Elalan 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"...concerning or belonging to all or at least two or more nations."

That is the typical definition for the term "international."

So yes, regardless of whether or not you consider the LTTE to be a terrorist organization it is of international scope.

Also, it raises funds in North America, which are then used to bankroll attacks within South Asia.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now back to that "ceasefire" proposal...

Interesting how fast discussion around here gets sidetracked. Can we stick to discussing the article itself?

Supermod and Ruchiraw have said that the terrorist ban absolutely has to go in the intro. I'm not sure just how to do this without dragging in the counterpoint mess similar to what is there now.

And I still don't see why it needs to be in the intro. The intro only matters if people are reading it and not the main body of the article. If the intro is just a sentence long, they'll have to read the entire article, which contains two sections on terrorism and the ban. Tyronen 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is still hopelessly partisan, attempting to introduce justifications and rationales for the ETTE's terrorist activities.

There's no valid reason that it can't be rendered in a neutral, factual tone, i.e. the ETTE is labeled a terrorist organization by x number of nations, the U.S. Department of State, etc., it has been accused of being responsible for...the destruction of the twin towers of Sri Lanka's WTC in Colombo-which it denies-the assassination for Rajiv Gandhi, attempted assassination of Kumaratunga, etc., etc...

You could also put in the perspective of people who defend the ETTE's actions, but I don't think that the introduction-as it stands now-is anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I do wish you get your facts straight... LTTE didn't destroy the Twin towers of colombo. ...I know you must be sceptical, here is an image from flickr taken in 2005 http://static.flickr.com/35/111849641_98c21b3a0b_m.jpg. Btw, the front side of the towers are rounded and backside straight. Also the US statement department has time and time again asked the Sri Lankan govt to NEGOTIATE with the LTTE. The US has repeteadly mentioned LTTE's is fighting for a just cause, just that it doesn't agree with some of the tactics used. Elalan 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim that they didn't destroy the twin towers is your assertion, not a "fact."

There are numerous sources that maintain it was a terrorist act perpetrated by the ETTE.

See,

http://webhome.idirect.com/~sluna/sltowers.htm

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:gXPU1qmz_IsJ:www.nijpcs.org/terror/Gunawardena%2520Paper.pdf+Twin+Towers+of+Colombo+destroyed+by+Tigers&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/shrilanka/database/majorincidents.htm

And so on.

Your claims about the U.S. government-and its position with respect to the ETTE-are even more inaccurate.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

None of you sources show LTTE destroyed the twin towers in Colombo. Yes there were attacks on the Colombo financial district etc, but the building werent destroyed. None of these sources you mention prove LTTE attacked the Twin towers, hence this second statement you are making is an allegation. I will get you the link outlining US policy regarding this from the US Embassy shortly Elalan 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article [86]. Here is the text of the full speech from the US Embassy [87]. Elalan 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the towers were not destroyed, or that the people responsible for the attack were not agents of the ETTE?

Which is it?

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I am saying. To say the Colombo twin towers were destroyed is FALSE. The financial district was attacked and there might have been damages etc to the building, but weren't destroyed. This issue is not even contentious. They are ALLEGIATIONS LTTE attacked Colombo's financial district but no solid proof has been found to date. Elalan 21:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A. That is the speech of a State Department spokesman. Foggy Bottom does not encompass the entire United States government, and there are numerous disputes between State and the DOD, the National Security Council, and other agencies within the executive branch.

B. His statement does not imply that the ETTE is "fighting for a just goal." Boucher said that the Tamils have a legitimate right to self-determination within Sri Lanka. There is a distinction to be made between the policy that he outlined, i.e. Tamils have a right to peacefully, democratically petition their government and/or the international community, and what the ETTE does, i.e. kill, maim, and ethnically cleanse in order to achieve its political aims.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Sri Lanka or south asia, there hasnt been any differences in policy between the State Department and the DOD. This may change in the future but hasn't happened yet. In all fairness, this exactly what he said Elalan 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :

I think we all understand that the Tamil community in Sri Lanka has certain rights and certain needs and certain grievances that need to be addressed. I met this morning with a number of representatives of the Tamil community and just talked to them about how things are here and what they felt and what they faced. Although we reject the methods that the Tamil Tigers have used, there are legitimate issues that are raised by the Tamil community and they have a very legitimate desire, as anybody would, to be able to control their own lives, to rule their own destinies and to govern themselves in their homeland; in the areas they’ve traditionally inhabited so I don’t want to confuse the issue of talking to Tamils and understanding legitimate grievances and legitimate aspirations of the Tamil community with not talking to the LTTE. Whether to talk to the Tigers or not is based upon their behavior and if they continue terrorism we won’t. If they abandon terrorism and one’s able to say they are no longer a terrorist organization, then we would find opportunities to consider [dealing with them]

They are allegations that are buttressed by extensive forensic evidence and fit into a well-documented pattern of ETTE-engineered violence.

Leaving aside the fact that the attacks occurred on Poya-a Buddhist religious holiday-there is numerous circumstantial evidence that the LTTE carried out those attacks, and very little-if any-credible theories positing that it was another guerilla/terrorist organization.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Forensic evidence ? Sri Lankan police doesn't have this capabilty atleast not to the standard of industralized nations. The police is so politicized and corrupt, that you wonder what they do other than be another politicians' goon squad. There is allegations and circumstantial evidence, but the state machinery is not capable of investigating any further for various reason. A lot of incidents remain unsolved, whether it be against the LTTE or the government. Elalan 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Going back to Boucher's remarks, what does self-determination mean ? It means the right to determine future of ones self/community/group/nation etc. Hence this automatically allows the people of North-East of Sri Lanka to determine their own future. The people of the North-East have voted overwhelming to separate from the rest of Sri Lanka in past two elections held. So you can read between the lines as to what is meant. Elalan 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is something another user mentioned on this page about the US ban on the LTTE by the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka [88]. The significant paragraph is the following:

QUESTION: Last question: is there an effort to form a contact group within the context of banning the LTTE, including the U.K., India, and America. Is this contact group formed?

LUNSTEAD: The U.S. and others have discussed that one of the important things that can be done is to find ways to, since in the U.S. and many of the other countries for instance, it’s illegal to contribute to the LTTE, to find ways to cooperate to see that that type of ban is more effective. So we do discuss this with other countries and we continue to discuss it and look for effective ways to enforce the law. Again, as I would say, you tend to confuse means and goals. The goal is not to ban or not ban the LTTE. The goal is not to get or not get money to the LTTE. The goal is for the LTTE to enter the political process, to negotiate with the government. And the result, if that happens, if they give up violence and do that, will be a different kind of relationship with outside actors. Organizations that are banned can be un-banned. The United States has removed organizations from the Foreign Terrorist List. In fact, that’s what our goal is – our goal is to get the LTTE off the list, not to put them on the list. Because if they came off the list it would mean that things were going well. That’s what we would like to see happen, is that for the LTTE to change its behavior to come off the list so we and others can engage, do development assistance in the conflict-affected areas of the Northeast which have been so deprived for so many years. That’s what we’d like to see happen.

Differences between State Department and DoD doesn't seem to be evident at all on the subject of Sri Lanka. The ambassadors message is consistent with the state department's message. Trincomanb 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The job here is not to "read between the lines," or make inferences that are not justified, based upon his remarks.

It is to accurately state what the United States government's position on ETTE is.

Namely, that it is a recognized international terrorist organization, and that anyone who renders material support to it is liable for federal prosecution.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me qualify my statement, it is not the aim of the article to read between the lines. But the primary aim of the article is describe and inform the reader on the subject matter. This could also include relevant/widely accepted theories. Again, with respect to the US, its labelled a "Foreign Terrorist Organization," but its not labeled so in 161 countries, including Sri Lanka and not by the UN. That is also a fact and has to be stated as such. I should also caution everyone and mention that the article cannot appear to be American centric nor centric to any other country and hence details or implications of the terrorism laws are unnecessary in the body of the article, but a footnote to this info. maybe sufficient.Elalan 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, a footnote would not be sufficient.

The ETTE is almost exclusively known-outside of the Tamil community itself-for engaging in what most people would consider to be terrorist acts.

Whether or not they are responsible for specific acts of terrorism, e.g. the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the bombing of the twin towers in Colombo, is another matter altogether.

The fact that they have been accused of engaging in these acts-and that there is credible evidence to support the contention that they are the guilty party involved-is something that people reading this article should be made aware of.

To exclude that information

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So having details on terrorism laws and its implications should be in the body of the text ? Correct me if my intepretation of your statement is incorrect. Is the article about the LTTE or terrorism laws in various countries ? Elalan 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

OK, once again I've shortened the intro. Before anyone accuses me of vandalism, do a diff. You will find that all the material that was once in the intro, complete with citations, has been moved to various places in the main body of the article. I also took out the verbatim recopying of the LTTE press release on the Karuna defection, replacing it with a hyperlink to the original on TamilNet.Tyronen 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's much better now, although I think the term paramilitary organization would fit better than "politico-military organization," whose definition is unclear.

I realize they have been involved in political negotiations with the Sri Lankan government for the past few years, but they didn't actively engage in democratic elections until two years ago, and don't have a longstanding political corollary, as the PIRA does with Sinn Fein, or ETA does with Batasuna.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If the ban in 29 countries is mentioned, then the fact thats its not banned in 161 countries and by the UN should also be mentioned. Otherwise this article puts undue weight on certain facts. Elalan 23:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest the first sentence be modified as follows (Elalan 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)):

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization that has been waging at times violent secessionist campaign against the government of Sri Lanka since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the majority Tamil regions in Sri Lanka.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

You can't add ballast to your argument by citing the nations that don't sanction the ETTE.

Merely because a particular country doesn't impose sanctions on a paramilitary/terrorist organization does not mean that it endorses its actions.

But thats not what is stated, it merely mention the organization is not banned in x countries... Elalan 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The American government allows Gerry Adams to travel freely in the United States, but that does not mean that the United States government endorses the goals of Sinn Fein, much less the rampant criminality of the PIRA within Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlike IRA or ETTA, LTTE has a parallel state structure that it maintains in the North-East, this includes police, judiciary, banking, social service, health care, education etc. The LTTE has a conventional fighting force that is clearly identified with uniforms,armaments etc. Its organized into brigades, with standard British military rankings, has a number of military trainning academies. Hence the term politico-military organization has credible justifcation. The word paramilitary may have been appropriate say, 23 years ago, but the LTTE in its present state has transcended that distinction. Elalan 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because they wear standardized uniforms does not mean that LTTE members belong to a legitimate, internationally recognized paramilitary force, or that their actions are not war crimes.

It also trains people to murder innocent civilians, construct IEDs and bombmaking material that inflict civilian casualties and target non-military facilities, employs hundreds-if not thousands-of child soldiers-which is proscribed by various international human rights protocols-exhorts its followers to engage in suicide bombing missions, assassinates elected officials, as well as Tamil journalists and dissidents, has ethnically cleansed large swaths of the Jaffna peninsula of Muslims and Sinhalese, i.e. committed genocide, and supplies its agents with cyanide capsules that they ingest when and if they are captured by Sri Lanken security and/or intelligence forces.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The words legitimate, internationally recognized are both subjective and can vary in time. Today organization x maybe legitimate, but legitimate by who and tommorow thats not the case.

If you want to look into war crimes, the Sri Lankan government has committed ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass executions dumped in mass graves, whole scale embargoes, forced starvation of innocent people. The number of dissappearances in Sri Lanka (due to government forces) is second only to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly 60,000 people are missing (both Tamil and Sinhalese) (see Asian Human Rights Commission website for details). Government officials had orchestrated the 1983 Black July genocide, that killed atleast 3000 and driven 100,000-200,000 Tamils away. This incident result in the destruction of over 20,000 Tamil businesses. Nearly 1 million Tamils have been internally displaced from their traditional home due to Sinhala government forces. Nearly 60,000-100,000 Tamil civillians have been killed. Another 1 million Tamil civillians have sought refuge outside of Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government forces have knowingly bombed churches, temples, schools, hospitals, orphanages. More recently, the government forces have used claymores to target ambulances. Al Qaeda had allegly killed about 40 UN personnel in Iraq, the single largest killing of NGOs. Then comes Sri Lankan government forces, that executed 17 NGO workers at point blank range. The SLMM wanted to further investigate and gather forensic evidence etc, but has been refused permission. Sri Lankan government forces and state aid paramalitaries have killed Tamil and Sinhala journalists, killed elected officals (Tamils). Sri Lankan government aided paramilitaries are known to induct and forcibly conscript child soldiers. In addition, government aided paramilitaries are also reportedly performing suicide attacks. Btw, all of this can be verified with evidence from human rights organizations, NGOs. The recent suicide attacks (this past month) by the government aided paramilitaries still hasn't been confirmed by the NGOs yet. Elalan 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So would you call the Sri Lankan govt. a legitimate, internationally law abiding entity ? Elalan 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this is precisely the problem.

This article is not about the Sri Lankan government, or the policies it might have pursued with respect to the Tamil minority, although that area certainly deserves some exploration.

It is primarily about the ETTE.

You cannot whitewash the actions of one entity simply because another pursued policies you disagree with.

And what ETTE might become in the future is conjectural and speculative, and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia.

We are not here to be fortune-tellers or clairvoyants.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the LTTE was formed as a reactive force to govt. policies. So whatever the LTTE has done is due to govt. actions. The 1983 genocide as Tamils would call it was what swelled the ranks of the LTTE, gave it moral leverage within the community and India. The same cycle of events is occuring at present. The members of the LTTE didn't one day spring up out of nowhere and decide to pursue an armed insurgency. They did it because the so called pseudo-democratic system failed. Peaceful means to resolve the grievances of Tamils were met with violent state-aided pogroms and riots. I call it pseudo because the constitution was changed twice since the exit of the British and was forced on the minorities. The minorities don't have a place let alone a voice in the system. Having said that, LTTE has comitted brutal actions that shouldn't be hidden away or whitewashed. However at same time its actions can't be removed from events (Govt. actions) that it reacted to and looked at in isolation without any sort of context. Obviously, the article has no room for speculation. With the issue of legitimacy: Legitimacy by who ? Elalan 02:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what's known colloquially as "circular logic."

You attacked my relatives in the past, which justifies my attack of innocent citizens who happen to share your ethnicity/religion, and your crackdown similarly provides a rationale for continuing my campaign of violence.

Whatever forces are responsible for creating the ETTE, they do not excuse their record of violence.

I have serious problems with an article that attempts to minimize the heinous actions attributed to ETTE by "contextualizing" them.

People can decide for themselves whether or not the actions of the ETTE are ethically justified.

If using suicide bombers, assassinating political leaders, and breaking cease-fires repeatedly is justified, then these actions will speak for themselves.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you suggest a series of events be looked at in total isolation ? The problem becomes a selection of facts issue. I believe the method for contextualizing something in a wikipedia article is if its done so academically and is widely accepted. This tit for tat strategy is after all LTTEs strategy and this has been academically explored. Nevertheless, how does it minimize henious actions by contextualizing it, WITHOUT you as a reader inputing your value systems into this ? It all comes down to how you as the reader perceives it. the minute you insert your value system into the equation. Hypothetically, if a reader doesn't have a value system, then the whole thing will be a set of facts. Contextual information can be handled in the article with description of significant events that effected the organization and necessary background info. You are going to decide if it was abhorrent or not, justified or not based on your value system. Elalan 03:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is two sides to every story. In this particular context, there is often much less independent evidence or verification. Where there is independent evidence, that would receive more coverage than where its I said you said. Efforts in the past has been to include both govt. and LTTE POVs and justification and let the reader decide for themselves. Elalan 03:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It exculpates the ETTE from responsibility for its actions.

In an ideal article you would list-in an objective manner-the violent actions that ETTE has been accused of participating in, or condoned, as well as those that it has denied, and explain the background behind those events.

By inserting an ETTE rebuttal after each citation of an attack that it initiated you are drawing a false equivalence between the behavior of the ETTE and the behavior of its opponents.

The comparison is not between the ETTE and the Sri Lankan military.

The comparison is between the ETTE, which systematically targets innocent civilians for death, harassment, and/or expulsion, and ordinary Sri Lankans, who are non-combatants, and who do not target the ETTE for retribution.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think someone is missing the point here. This is an article on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and there are more to them than the alleged terrorist attacks.

As far as the introduction is concerned we have to answer the questions of what; where; who; when; why; and how.

What? A separatist organisation with a stated objective of attaining "right to self determination" for the Tamil community of Where? nothern and eastern regions of Sri Lanka.-27 countries say they are terrorist, but there are more than 27 countries in this world, the United Nations has not proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation, therefore it will be inappropriate for Wikipedia introduce LTTE as a terrorist organisation -

Who? Tamils. Christian and Hindu. Male and female. LTTE claims that recruitment age is 18 and over but UNICEF and some human rights agencies allege that the LTTE has systematically recruited children below the age of 18.

When? Since 1976.

Why? Formed by leader Vellupillai Pirapakaran as an armed resistance to perceived anti-Tamil laws enacted by Sinhala dominated governments -Sinhala Only, Prominence to Buddhism, Standardisation etc- and alleged ethnic cleansing of Tamils across the island -1958 riots, removal of Tamils from Trincomalee border villages, Manalaaru becoming Weli Oya, 1961 riots, 1968 riots, 1972 riots etc-.

How? They have used military –Elephant Pass, Pooneriyan, Mulaiteevu, Kilinochchi, etc- Political –Thimpu Talks, Talks with Chandrika, Talks with Wickramasinghe, Premadasa etc- and Terrorist –assassination of political personalities, targeting of civilian infrastructure etc- to attain their stated objective. --Lankaupdate 07:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not much more.

Someone is missing the point that they are known primarily-if not exclusively-for engaging in acts of terrorism.

Simply because there are two sides to a story does not mean that both sides carry equal weight, or that we should go out of our way to give undue credibility to one side, simply out of a misconceived perception of what NPOV stands for.

I'm not asking that this article be an unqualified condemnation of the ETTE.

From my perspective merely presenting the factual, empirical data and unvarnished information about the Tamil Tigers will lead people to their own conclusions, most of which probably won't be favorable.

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone is missing the point that this is an Encyclopaedia.

Allegations of acts of terrorism are an aspect of the LTTE; however it should be presented in its proper context within the section on strategies used by the organisation.

We can not have the introduction filled with list of countries that have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation and all attacks for which the LTTE has been accused.

I would much rather that we continue to expand this article with more details inclusive of LTTE’s military, political and alleged terrorist activities as well as events that led to the formation of the LTTE.

However, for that to happen we need to move on from this continued vandalism of the introduction.

As strong as your views on the LTTE may be, you have to appreciate the fact that the introduction should cover summarised answers for the questions I had mentioned earlier. --Lankaupdate 10:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delineating the nature of the ETTE-its objectives and history-and stating that it is considered a terrorist entity by many nations-and is proscribed as such-is not "vandalism."

Ruthfulbarbarity 11:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone is missing the point that they are known primarily-if not exclusively-for engaging in acts of terrorism.

What they are known for by a largely American public, with a 1 minute attention span and appetite for Fox News style perspective doesn't constitute the whole picture by any stretch of the imagination. Its I think dancing with sensationalism. Elalan 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply because there are two sides to a story does not mean that both sides carry equal weight, or that we should go out of our way to give undue credibility to one side, simply out of a misconceived perception of what NPOV stands for.

When its I said, you said, it does have neutral weight and hence if there is govt. allegations, that can be countered with LTTE counter allegations. If not, this is obviously POV, in other words your taking the prespective of one side only. You may not agree with their cause and their tactics, but they deserve a fair/accurate representation, as with anybody else. Where there is independent evidence, that adds a new dimension to it. Elalan 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking that this article be an unqualified condemnation of the ETTE.

The article shouldn't be about unqualified condemnation or unqualified pats on the back. It should be to objectively describe what,where,when,how,why. Elalan 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective merely presenting the factual, empirical data and unvarnished information about the Tamil Tigers will lead people to their own conclusions, most of which probably won't be favorable.

In this particular article, its easier said than done. How do you know something is factual, empirical data and unvarnished information or something orginated as propaganda from one or the other side ? Its indeed very difficult. The organization itself has swelled to about 100,000 individuals, with most of the individuals being part of the LTTE civil service and state machinery. With such a number, spanning different disciplines (outside of military), there is obviously a multi-faceted dimension to the organization. That has to be captured in the article, as much as alleged clandestine operations. Elalan 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's disgusting that we in the west have gotten our freedom and nice comfortable position in the world, then label noble freedom fighters fighting against absolutely corrupt and violent governments "terrorists" for the sole reason that they threaten the status quo. Then you have people spreading lies about them to try to further the wrongful reputation that they are "terrorists." If they are "terrorists," then so were the American revolutionaries. It's every citizen's duty to rise up against their government and put them down like dogs when they oppress your people...and that's all the Tigers are doing. Do any of you know many Tamil people? They're being systematically wiped out by the Sinhalese...and we're labelling the whole race of them (since they almost 100% support the LTTE) as terrorists. Nice work. --JP (August 26, 2006)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not

You wouldn't know that from either this page or the actual article.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither is Wikipidia Fox News --Lankaupdate 07:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do your irrelevant and puerile references to the FNC have any bearing on this debate?

"Remember that article talk pages are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum."

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You want it to be a little more direct? How about this:

'Although the LTTE deny any involvement, they did issue a statement in June of 2006 calling the event a "monumental tragedy".'-This sentence makes no sense. It should read 'The LTTE, however, denied any involvement, and they issued a statement in June of 2006 calling the event a "monumental tragedy."'

'In addition, LTTE bombings have been known to cause civilian casualties.'-Irrelevant and inflammatory. War has been known to cause civilian casualities. Israeli reprisals against terrorist groups have been known to cause civilian casualties. Military action in general has been known to cause civilian casualties.

'The Sri Lankan government has accused the LTTE of targeting non-military and government targets including the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, the Dehiwala train[19]and the Central Bank in Colombo.'-The Sri Lankan government's word here is utterly irrelevant. It should be clearly noted that the governments statements are not being taken with greater value than the LTTEs.

'LTTE supporters have argued that civilian deaths were mainly due to collateral damage and it was not LTTE policy to target civilians. The theory of collateral damage appears to be invalidated by the fact that many LTTE attacks have been directed against purely civilian targets such as farming villages, trains, temples, mosques and banks, resulting in large numbers of predictable civilian deaths [20].'-First of all, this sentence needs to lose the "appears to be invalidated, for numerous reasons already listed. Secondly, it uses incidents that the government accuses LTTE of doing which they deny as evidence for its claim, which is circular logic. Thirdly, it doesn't prove anything...there have been a few isolated incidents where LTTE attacks have killed lots of civillians, so few they could be listed in very short section of that artical. Do you have any idea how long and brutal an all out war they've been fighting? It's been over 30 years--most of it direct warfare rather than guerilla....and you can name one paragraph of instances of civillian casualties. Israel had as many (and justifiably so) in one month of fighting in Lebanon. You can find instances where individual members of LTTE might havecarried out an occasional such attack, but they are rarely condoned or organized by the LTTE leadership without a direct military or political reason for the attack. Creating "terror" is not the method the LTTE uses to accomplish its goals. The instances you've given lack detail. Did the LTTE take credit for the attacks? If so, were there direct military or political reasons for the attacks? Bombing a commuter train or temple is justified if your target politician is in that temple or on that train. --JP (August27, 2006)

JP, I believe the changes you have suggested are appropriate and should be implemented. There has been all sorts of amusing ways for users to throw in govt. propaganda with an air of legitimacy and faulty logic. Many fail to understand that LTTE is not monolithic organization and is quite decentralized, with regional commanders given much flexibility by the central command structure for obvious reasons (namely lack of direct communication in the past, having to cross enemy lines). This propagates down to each company or platoon. Evidence for this came out with Col. Karuna saga. Many of the instances of child recruitement had been organized by his own/independent command structure in the East. He is also known to have ordered attack on Muslim civillians.Elalan 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All of the information that you are objecting to is factual, empirical data, rendered in a NPOV manner.

Simply because you support the Tamil Tigers does not mean that you are entitled to delete or object to the inclusion of information that reflects negatively upon their actions.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: With the sole exception of the speculative implication, i.e. "appears to be invalidated."

I have no qualms about removing that part of the passage.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Irony of the “terrorist” debate

Sri Lanka, the country where the LTTE has carried out all but one of its alleged terrorist attacks has not proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation.

Although, the Defence and Information Ministries often refer to the LTTE as “terrorist”, the organisation is not proscribed as such by the government.

As far as I am aware it is not illegal to be a member of the LTTE in Sri Lanka. --Lankaupdate 22:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see precisely what you are objecting to.

The relevant information about their status within Sri Lanka is already included in this article, if I'm not mistaken.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Some of the text in the "beginnings" subsection was lifted directly from the CBC web site [89]. I've removed this and placed a link to it as a citation instead. Tyronen 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A few changes

Does anyone really think the LTTE campain hasn't always been a violent one? I myself can't remember Prabakaran going on a peace march or something like that.

As for listing the countries that have banned the LTTE, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the names of the countries who have banned the LTTE are not listed, it could be really confusing to the reader. They may believe the LTTE is primariy banned in Sri Lanka and surrounding countries. Also if you note pages of similar organizations that have been similarly banned such as Al Queda, the list of countries is given in the introduction, just to clarify things. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the countries should be listed - they are, in the appropriate subsection. But do they need to be in the intro? In fact, does the ban itself even need to be in the intro? Already the whole-article-in-the-intro movement is coming back by piling on counterpoints, and the ban was the beginning. I still think a minimalist one- or two-sentence intro is the best way to keep the peace, and this is a proposal that has been been supported by people on both sides. Tyronen 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

List of LTTE Sympathisers and Officials Killed

Included a list of LTTE officials and high profile civilian LTTE sympathisers allegedly killed by govt. forces, death squads and paramilitaries. Trincomanb 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this list should be moved to State terrorism in Sri Lanka or a similar article? I think your point is that the LTTE has been victim as well as perpetrator, but as it stands now it kind of crowds out the material on the LTTE's actions. This article is ultimately about the LTTE and thus a point-counterpoint listing of GoSL actions alongside LTTE ones isn't really within its scope. It could go instead into Sri Lankan civil war which does cover both sides. Tyronen 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't agree, these are either LTTE top ranking officials killed through govt actions or important LTTE politcal supporters. If a listing of those allegdly killed by the LTTE is in the article, then a listing of LTTE members and political supporters killed should be there as well. This article cannot just have LTTE actions and then a seperate article for what has happened to the LTTE or its close political supporters/members. It is only fair both list of alleged killings (both govt. and LTTE camp) should go to separate articles and be referenced to this one if its getting overly crowded. This is after all not a simple subject and as much detail is need to bring unbiased view of a complicated situation. All of those killed have been associated or identified as members of the LTTE or represent LTTEs views politically. Notable Attacks by LTTE and State Terrorism cover for those not associated with either camp getting killed. Trincomanb 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am open to alternate suggestions you might have. I believe, the current title of the section (Human rights and terrorism issues) you are referring does lend it self to cover a whole bunch of things related to the LTTE and not just LTTE actions. Trincomanb 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added POV tag

I checked the article and the intro now states "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a terrorist military organization". The reasons for not writing that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation has been listed over and over again. I see no need to remove it, its better then to have the POV tag so the average reader knows what to expect. Ulflarsen 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)