Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mediation

Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You can close it I think. Elalan 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree to closing the case. We still havent reached an acceptable solution Dutugemunu 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, do not close the case. You guys have to wait until User:Trincomanb's block get expire[1].  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 13:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We now changed the intro to a compromise version which awaits confirmation by both parties. — Sebastian 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The compromise has been accepted by both parties. Thanks everybody for bringing this to a successful closure. — Sebastian 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Header

"LTTE is illegal terrorist organization in USA, Sri Lanka, ..etc , these information and LTTE related links are promoting terrorism activities. Since terrorism is a worldwide problem, I'm strongly suggesting these LTTE related information and all related links to remove from Wikipedia. And LTTE is a shameful hiding guerilla organization."

Pretty obviously unencyclopedic, no? Within the day I will revert to the last version that does not include obvious soapboxing. Jimmyq2305 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The LTTE is not banned in countries like New Zealand amoung others. So how can u justify removing the info? Infact they are fully accepted as freedom fighters. N G- NZ 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm only reading this now. I think this is a misunderstanding. What was removed back then was only the obsessively repeated statement that contained the personal remark "I'm strongly suggesting ...". In the meantime, we worked on a compromise in the above mediation case. — Sebastian 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is plain and simple vandalism by user Dushan (talk · contribs), who already amassed several warnings for vandalism. I will revert it and I will add another warning on the user's talk page. — Sebastian 17:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these steps have been done by someone else in the meantime. Thank you for notifying us! — Sebastian 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

External links to be avoided

Regarding the external links, the question has been raised if some of them fall under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Let's look at each of the links here. — Sebastian 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

www.tamiltigers.net

This appers to be their official website. If that is the case then it should be used; maybe it should replace the existing two links under "Oficial LTTE websites". I understand that not everything they write will conform with our standards on reliability, but this is what readers would expect. I think we should include a link to the official page of the organization that is covered in our article. — Sebastian 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

www.tamiltigers.net states

This website does not represent the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It is neither an official nor unofficial website of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

so it is apparent it is not an official site.

It, and all the other websites are blatently POV either against or for the LTTE and should not be included according to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

www.eelam.com appears to be the official LTTE website [2] and www.ltteps.org is the official website for their peace secretariat. So we should keep the two of them as official LTTE websites and keep www.defence.lk and www.peaceinsrilanka.org as the official government websites. Also I think we should keep the SLMM and UTHR webites and maybe the LTTE proposals from the BBC article. The others are simply blatently POV and have to go. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

www.tamiltigers.net - containing over 5000 newspaper articles on the tamil tigers. This presents a valuable resource of original source material on the subject. This should be kept as a link because it meets the Wikipedia requirement of "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" -Share Bear 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual? I have to disagree. Per WP:EL "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". The articles on tamiltigerds.net are clearly pro-LTTE (even the name says as much) and the link should be removed. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

tamiltigers.net contains articles from Reuters, AP, AFP and other newspapers. These are valid articles. I don't understand your argument that the site is pro-LTTE because it is called tamiltigers.net, expecially when you yourself stated that "www.eelam.com appears to be the official LTTE website" which would be pro-LTTE but should be kept.

The attempt to remove links has been tried before by you and reverted - Revision as of 16:12, 12 December 2006 (edit) (undo) SebastianHelm (Talk | contribs) (reverting to version by Cobenobo for two reasons: (1) It is not apparent which item of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided applies; (2) WP:LAYOUT lists external links after references.) - Share Bear 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Snowolfd4 has a point, and it's not right to hold my reversion against him: Instead of entering a revert war, he agreed to discuss this here, and he is as free as anyone else to state his POV here. However, we should keep this discussion on hold for a moment until we close the mediation. — Sebastian 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from tamiltigers.net, no one has brought up any arguments for keeping any of the other links so I'll go ahead and delete them now. We need to discuss tamiltigers.net further.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statements

I can't find citations for the following statement in Beginning section "After martial law was imposed in Jaffna in 1979, the LTTE began targeting the military"

RemovedDutugemunu 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also no citation for following statements in Rise to Dominance section "The LTTE's discipline and efficiency, coupled with Prabhakaran's leadership and its strong ideological base, made the group much more effective than the other Tamil militant groups."

Removed Dutugemunu 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No citation for following statements in Rise to Dominance section "The reasons for the LTTE's internecine attacks on other Tamil groups are much debated. The reason they themselves gave at the time was the other groups' connection with India. All the Tamil militant groups, including the LTTE, had received varying degrees of support from India. However, while other groups such as the TELO wholeheartedly embraced Indian support, the LTTE remained wary of India particularly after Rajiv Gandhi came to power, fearing that India was seeking primarily to advance its own interests, which were not the same as those of the Sri Lankan Tamils, and would therefore force the Tamils to accept an unfavourable settlement. They were particularly suspicious of the Indian intelligence agency, the RAW, which they said had completely infiltrated the TELO and EPRLF, and was using them to eliminate the LTTE." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs) 13:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutugemunu added {{fact}} templates in the appropriate places. WP:CITE says: "Remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time"; I'd say that would be in a week from now. — Sebastian 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for citations Dutugemunu 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent events

Can somebody add the abduction and eventual release of 21 schoold kids and 2 teachers by LTTE from Thirukovil in Amparai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by an anonymous user.

I asked for a citation on the user's talk page. — Sebastian 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

how many do you need :)? Tchild 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=B799767

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6200643.stm

http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20660

http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20667

http://www.ltteps.org/?view=1807&folder=17

This is more than enough. However, as I said above, I would really like to wait with any potential destabilization until we close the mediation. (This case is only waiting for approval by the faction that wants information about LTTE's terrorist activities included.) How about if you add it to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE, in the meantime? (BTW, the first link is now http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-19T152409Z_01_B218127_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SRILANKA-ABDUCTIONS.xml.) — [User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not exactly an Attack attributed to LTTE isn't it? Unless if we can claim it as a Attack on School Children by LTTE :) Tchild 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right that it stretches the meaning of "attack" a bit. It was just meant as a compromise for now. To be honest, I'm not so happy with that page's scope, anyway. Let's discuss that there. — Sebastian 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the article you mentioned(dated 19th) is diffrent to what I mentioned(dated 22nd). It's removed from te reuter site but a copy can be seen at http://www.lankaeverything.com/vinews/srilanka/20061221210206.php Tchild 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The mediation has been closed; please ignore everything I wrote above from "However, as I said above ..." on. — Sebastian 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How come under the attack on civilians there is a statenment saying "The LTTE has attacked non-military targets including commuter trains and buses, farming villages, temples and mosques resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths." I see no citation on this please remove that statenment or edit. ThanksWatchdogb 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Campaign Box

Removed Campaign Box state terrorism of Sri Lanka as there is already a see also link to an article ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent events section

Do we really need a recent events section? Most of it is already covered in the article Sri Lanka civil war. Adding all the recent events here (unless it is relavent to another section) could potentially make the article way too large. Besides, most of the incidents mentioned aren't recent anymore. So I think it should be removed completely. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on Civilians

Hi Sebastian , I had made this section more readable with hyperlinks ot the related articles etc:-. I think this improves the article. However if you object to the lists, I will put the child articles into one section. Personally I think the lists are a better format Dutugemunu 07:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assasinations

Moved the following to state terrorism in Sri Lanka as it belongs there

The LTTE argues the Sri Lankan government and government-aided paramilitaries have also targeted the following high profile supporters of the LTTE:

Kumar Ponnambalam, politician and philantrophist, Head of ACTC [3] Joseph Pararajasingham, human rights worker, TNA politician, former journalist [4] Vanniasingham Vigneswaran, politician and head of Trincomalee District Tamil Peoples' Forum [5] Dharmaratnam Sivaram, journalist, human rights worker and news editor for Tamilnet [6] Sinnathamby Sivamaharasa, Namathu Elanadu journalist, former TULF politician [7] Pon. Ganeshamoorthy Literary Figure, Poet, General Manager People's Bank, KKS [8] Ariyanayagam Chandra Nehru, NESOHR human rights worker, former TNA politician [9] In addition, anti-LTTE paramilitaries and Sri Lankan army operated Deep Penetration Units are alleged to have killed or attempted to have killed the following LTTE officials through clandestine operations:

Colonel Shankar, Head of Air Tigers [10] E. Kousalyan, LTTE Political Head for Batticalao and Ampara [11] Colonel Kandiah Ulaganathan (Ramanan), LTTE Military Deputy Head for Batticalao and Ampara [12] S.P. Thamilchelvan, LTTE Political Head (failed attempt)[citation needed] Colonel Bahnu, LTTE Military Head for Batticalao and Ampara (failed attempt)[citation needed]

Proscription as a terrorsit group

I think the following is a mistake. the citation provided does not say such a thing.

Though Kofi Annan has gone as far as to requesting a visit Tamil Tiger held areas and meeting with key Tamil officials[citation needed], a request that was promptly denied by the Sri Lankan Government.[61]

Please remove the following unless you can provide a citation as I think it is wrong

This was done explicitly to encourage them to renounce violence and terrorism and participate in peace talks with the Sri Lankan government, under threat of having their international assets seized and other repercussions if they did not.

In the following years a number of other countries also listed the LTTE as a terror organisation after lobbying from the Sri Lankan diplomatic service under Lakshman Kadirgamar, the former Sri Lankan foreign minister who was allegedly assassinated by the LTTE in 2005

I agree, This information does seem outdated-- UN Resolution 1566 Aimed at intentionally broadening the scope of terrorism beyond al-Qaeda and the Taliban... I found this information through following wiki links-- this UN release is cited as a source there.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12168&Cr=terror&Cr1=

Chencholai

Moved convoluted Chencholai info into main article on Chencholai and hyperlinked

Execution of POW's

None of the referenced links in this section work. This sections should either be referenced to working links or credible source material or removed. -Share Bear

I have repaired the links, thank you for pointing this out Dutugemunu 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The repaired links reference credibile material. You should also fix the section at the bottom of the article which has an index. The section also states that the LTTE killed them in violation of the Geneva Convention on War. The LTTE is not responsible to the Geneva Convention since the they are regarded as a terrorist group by Sri Lanka. The Geneva Convention on War relates to only state parties. I will edit this section if there is agreement. -Share Bear 12:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Share Bear The LTTE has actually agreed to abide by the Geneva convention. I will add this info to the article. See http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1620/16200530.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

"The LTTE appear to have burnt alive hundreds of Sri Lankan soldiers who had surrendered during the attack on the Mullaitivu army camp [10]." This section added is new and does not reference credibile material. Do you have a reference to an independent news agency, NGO, or even a Sri Lankan government statement to this effect. -Share Bear 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the afore mentioned sentence since there have been no objections -Share Bear 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.sundaytimes.lk/961013/sitrep.htmlDutugemunu 14:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a credible source, teh book is prepared by University researchers and is peer reviewed.

See following from http://www.crimesofwar.org/about/about.html

The Crimes of War Project is a collaboration of journalists, lawyers and scholars dedicated to raising public awareness of the laws of war and their application to situations of conflict. Our goal is to promote understanding of international humanitarian law among journalists, policymakers, and the general public, in the belief that a wider knowledge of the legal framework governing armed conflict will lead to greater pressure to prevent breaches of the law, and to punish those who commit them.

See staff at http://www.crimesofwar.org/about/about-staff.html. It includes the editor of Newsday and 2 professors from the University of Berkeley. If you feel they are making these up though , I suggest you contact the board of directors at

John Owen, President Professor, City University

Gilles Peress, Vice-President Magnum Photos; Senior Research Associate, Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley

Eric Stover Human Rights Center, University of California at Berkeley

Roy Gutman, Chairman Foreign Editor, Newsday

Contact Information

Crimes of War Project, 1325 G Street NW, Suite 730, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202 638 0230 office@crimesofwar.org

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs)

---

Share Bear, you really picked a bad day for that. Couldn't you have waited till the smoke of the last bombing is blown away? I must admit though, the article [3] does use emotive language, above all the word massacre in a meaning that does not agree with our definition, since the victims were combattants. I tried to find some other mention of this from another source, but couldn't find any. I haven't mind up my mind yet if that means it should go or not. — Sebastian 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

massacre in wikipedia specifically defines killings of large numbers of POW's as a massacre. Ditto for other dictionary definitions. Dutugemunu 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

accused?

This section contains three statements where the term "accused" is under discussion

POWs

The LTTE have been accused of executing Prisoners of War in spite of a declaration by the LTTE in 1988 that it would abide by the Geneva Conventions[4].

There are plenty of evidence that the LTTE have done these massacres. Dutugemunu 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Police and Pooneryn army camp

• has been accused of massacring most of the 400 to 600 police officers captured after their surrender to the LTTE in 1990[5].

• The LTTE have also been accused of executing 200 soldiers captured during an attack on the Pooneryn army camp[6].

Both come from an US Department of State website. I'm assuming that would count as a reliable source. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it on WT:RS — Sebastian 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mullaitivu

Not only that, they even accused to executing 207 officers and their men after over-running the Mullaitivu Military Base.[7] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

The reliablity of material given in a book is always questionable, unless there is reference to original source material. Like I said before Dutugemunu you cannot provide any reference to 'soldiers being burnt alive' from a NGO, AP, Reuters, or even a Sri Lankan Government News Release.

As you know books are not based on Internet material, tehrefore they do not provide a web citation for every sentence. Actually it is Internet pages which are based on books and other published material. Please read a few history and current affairs books if you do not believe me. That is why I asked you to contact one of the professors who authored this book and find their sources.Dutugemunu 09:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutugemunu, please don't leave a cut and paste message on my talk page. Also comments like 'Share Bear, you really picked a bad day for that.....' means, there are good days to challenge lies?

I used to edit this article 2 years ago but had since stopped because there are some serious credibility issues with the neutrality in which the article is written. Editors are too personally attached to this subject and cannot edit from a NPOV. A suggestion that Sri Lankans should not edit this article might be in order. They are too emotionally attached to the subject. Some might even believe that they are fighting the war, here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Share Bear (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Re. your question: "you really picked a bad day for that" means: it was a day just after two bus bombings, and there was no need to do it on that day, of all days. If you'd like to discuss the bigger ethical picture with me, you're cordially invited to my talk page. — Sebastian 08:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent event

I suggest replacing the recent events section with a link to the identical but much more detailed section in the Sri Lankan Civil War Page

It is impossible to adequately capture all the recent events on the LTTE page plus it is needless duplication and hardwork for all of the editors here Dutugemunu 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LTTE & GOSL controlled area image

As of December 2005: red areas under LTTE control, orange areas partially LTTE, partly Sri Lankan government, yellow areas claimed but not controlled

This image is fairly outdated and the LTTE has lost almost all of east to the Karuna Faction/GOSL except Vakarai, can we find/create a better updated image. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 14:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This can easily be edited with any cheap or free graphic program. If you can describe more exactly what changes need to be made, and provide sources for that, I could do the edits. — Sebastian 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any good source that indicates GOSL and LTTE controlled areas clearly? If so please put it up on this talk page we'll discuss, I googled for this and couldn't find anything substantive. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this map is the best information we have. If nobody has any better sources, why don't we just put the old map back with a warning that it may not represent the situation in 2007? If anyone finds a source for the statement "the LTTE has lost almost all of east to the Karuna Faction/GOSL except Vakarai", then we can add that to the caption. — Sebastian 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is no point in putting back incorrect maps. Defnitely the LTTE has lost a large area of Sampur and Muttur. The other areas in East are a patchwork of control between various groups. There is no map showing the Karuna groups area of control. It would be almost like putting a map of the USSR as a map of Russia Dutugemunu 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any referances to the claim that the East has been lost? --Sharz 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1875291,001302310000.htm

http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/23/stories/2006122306031400.htm

In the east of Sri Lanka the map clearly states that it is "partially controlled". This means that there is no complete dominance and the area is in a state of flux. The map is accurate. Karuna group should be considered areas controlled by the SLA, just like areas controlled by EPDP. Which brings us back the same point that the area is controlled by both the LTTE and the SLA - Share Bear 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

THe GoSL controls about the same proportion of land in the North that the LTTE controls in the East. Why dont we just make the whole NorthEast as partially LTTE and GOSL controlled. Dutugemunu 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the map is accurate as it is now. The areas that are north of elephant pass are SLA controlled. The area in red is LTTE controlled. They have established borders and operate a de-facto state in that area. The east is partially LTTE and GOSL controlled. Discussing who controls what in the east is a lost cause. The area will remain in a state of flux as long as the war is being actively fought there. The map is accurate and should be placed back in the article the way it is. -Share Bear

The LTTE currently has been pushed back to vaharai in the east and are fighting for their lives. The map is not at all valid regarding the current situation. The partially controlled claim is false, so if the LTTE bomb's colombo, is colombo considered to be under patial control of tigers? A new map should be created incorporating areas under government and tiger control only, not any so called "partially controlled areas" which are subject to heavy dispute, which are used to give a false idea of LTTE territorial claims just to satisfy a few eelamist's who want to push their agenda on the wikipedia. That map shows the entire ampara disctrict being under pockets of control by the LTTE which is rubbish. The map should be deleted speedily.Kerr avon 01:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Kerr avon, but you can't impress thinking people with your insulting language. What counts on Wikipedia are sources. Do you have any reliable sources for your claims?

According to the creator, the source was a humanitarian aid decision by the EU (reference no. ECHO/-SA/BUD/2005/02000, available online at http://ec.europa.eu/echo/pdf_files/decisions/2005/dec_sa_02000.pdf). I think that counts as a reliable source, so I'll put the image back in, but I'll add a warning that it may be outdated, as discussed. — Sebastian 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We still haven't reached a consensus have we? So I have removed the image. My humble request to all the editors is please respect each others feelings on this when commenting. No one has to be rude to anyone. The image source as it is outdated; the source it self says "As of December 2005". I dont think it is correct to have OUTDATED information in an article in wikipedia. Just few centuries ago people thought that the earth is flat and it is in the center of the universe, and there are many verifiable sources to it. That doesn't make it correct in this century, does it? So lets create a new image that shows the current situation without blurring the perception of the reader. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Let me reply to each of your points:

We still haven't reached a consensus have we?

Correct. This is why it should remain the way it was before you - without asking anybody - deleted it.

My humble request to all the editors is please respect each others feelings on this when commenting. No one has to be rude to anyone.

Thank you, I second that! To be clear, I assume this was directed at Kerr avon, who calls the hard, dedicated work of others "rubbish" (without any justification) and resorts to name-calling of well-intended editors, who rely on the best evidence available, while he has no evidence, except for his own strong opinion.

I dont think it is correct to have OUTDATED information in an article in wikipedia.

Please provide a reference for your claim that it's outdated. Yelling does not replace a reference. As I explained above, it's the best information we have. And December 2005 wasn't that long ago. Plenty of information here on Wikipedia is older than that.

Just few centuries ago

This is a fallacy of exaggeration if there ever was one! This map is a little over a year old, and you compare it with theories that were outdated 500 years ago? C'mon!

So lets create a new image that shows the current situation without blurring the perception of the reader.

Absolutely! And in the meantime, we keep the old one!

I won't revert your deletion because I adhere to WP:1RR. But I think I made my case sufficiently. — Sebastian 09:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

reply to Sebastian

See the bulleted points

Thank you for your explanation. Let me reply to each of your points:

We still haven't reached a consensus have we?

Correct. This is why it should remain the way it was before you - without asking anybody - deleted it.

My humble request to all the editors is please respect each others feelings on this when commenting. No one has to be rude to anyone.

Thank you, I second that! To be clear, I assume this was directed at Kerr avon, who calls the hard, dedicated work of others "rubbish" (without any justification) and resorts to name-calling of well-intended editors, who rely on the best evidence available, while he has no evidence, except for his own strong opinion.

• It wasn't directed at a particular editor, but all the editors in general

I dont think it is correct to have OUTDATED information in an article in wikipedia.

Please provide a reference for your claim that it's outdated. Yelling does not replace a reference. As I explained above, it's the best information we have. And December 2005 wasn't that long ago. Plenty of information here on Wikipedia is older than that.

• Sorry if me putting things in CAPITAL implied yelling to you. I didn't intend to YELL, why do we need a reference to say it is outdated it is obvious with its date and the undeniable fact that LTTE has lost ground in the east.

Just few centuries ago

This is a fallacy of exaggeration if there ever was one! This map is a little over a year old, and you compare it with theories that were outdated 500 years ago? C'mon!

• A year old or centuries old if the theory is outdated it is outdated isn't it? So the images claim (theory) that LTTE controls or partially controls areas depicted is outdated. You failed to see the point I was trying to make. I could cite any number of outdated reference to prove any theory, that wouldn't definitely make it correct would it?,

So lets create a new image that shows the current situation without blurring the perception of the reader.

Absolutely! And in the meantime, we keep the old one!

• In the meantime readers would get the wrong perception, which is not the correct thing to do isn't it?

ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 10:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The map gave a view of what is LTTE controlled, removing it means it's rather difficult to grasp the conflict. And as the situation is developing there fighting over a new map will probably take long time, so removing the map means no map. It could easily be added a subtext that stated that it was over one year old and that recent developments mean that some of the area shifted hands. So let's keep the map until a new one is agreed on. Ulflarsen 12:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a very good point here Ulflarsen, I think on this argument you can include the image. But could you kindly ensure that you find a better more recent image. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a better map, and I am not good at modifying maps. However, there should be quite a few people here that can make a revised version. Most of (if not all of the area south of Trinco) should either be blanked out or maked as under partial control by the LTTE as it seems from the latests news that they are close to being defeated there. Ulflarsen 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As of January 2007: red areas show LTTE control, dark yellow areas show government control with isolated pockets of LTTE control, yellow areas claimed by LTTE but not controlled

All the area south of Trinco is already listed as being under partial control, Ulf Larsen. Maybe the best way forward is to change the legend so that instead of saying "partially controlled by GoSL, pockets controlled by LTTE" it says "mostly controlled by GoSL, pockets controlled by LTTE" and make the colour more yellowish. My son and I made the map with the help of User:Vadakkan so I can easily change it. The situation at the moment is that the LTTE has small portions of the East, mainly in jungle areas such as the Vadamunai-Tharavai area (Thoppigala) in Batticaloa and also I think in the Kanjikudicha Aaru area of Amparai. Marking these areas specifically will be difficult, as there is no information publically available on where whose control stops, but I think saying "mostly controlled by GoSL" will describe the situation well. Should I make the change? -- Ponnampalam 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

January 2007 map

I have updated the map. You can see the updated map to the left, and compare it with the old map at the start of this section. If this is OK we can proceed and delete the old map. -- Ponnampalam 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ponnampalam, I appreciate your work over here My idea is we should not rush to delete the old image. GoSL troops has already start their mission for Thoppigala. So within few days they will make our job more easier. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too! I agree that we shouldn't delete the old map, but since there's no disagreement that the map reflects the best of our knowledge as of today, there's no reason not to put the current map into the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the situation changes, we have to change the map anyway. I'd like to keep old maps because they reflect historical facts. We're even keeping maps of ancient civilizations! — Sebastian 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. The map assumes that, for the most part, the forward defence lines extend along the district boundries, which is really not the case. Also places like the army FDLs in Kokkuthuduwai in the Mullativu district in the East are shown to be under LTTE control when actually the coastal area from there is completely are under government control all the way to Tricomalee and further South I believe.

And again, with the recent offensive in the East, the entire coastline is now under government control with just pockects of LTTE cadres in the Thoppigala Jungles and in Kokkadicholai. That should be clearly relected in the map.

On the other side of the country, I don't think that the government controls just a thin line of terretory from Mannar to Vavunia, and the enitre surrounding area is under the LTTE. The way depicted in the map is really not possible, and it also shows areas like Murunkan, where there is an STF camp, as been under the control of the LTTE.

This been Wikipedia, I think its best not to guess who controls what as it is simply not verifiable. So I don't think we should include the map as it is unless we have reliable data to show the exact extent of control of the two sides. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I support Snowolfd4's comment. By only saying mostly controlled by GoSL and pockets controlled by the LTTE, it will appear in front of the reader as an uncountable number for both sides. As per my knowledge there is only two tiger's strong holds in the East. As Snowolfd4 said above, if it is really necessary by someone to use this image in this article it should clearly show the parts that are under the government control and those under the control of LTTE. Otherwise this would become a picture that directly or indirectly supports the side of the LTTE. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a map is useful even if it is approximate, but if nobody else wants to include it I can accept it being removed. -- Ponnampalam 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for removing the map. The whole article makes so much more sense now - not. For anyone outside, that do not support either the LTTE or the GoSL, getting a grip of the situation just got harder. Again - congratulations gentlemen! It's this sort of infighting that makes me sure I will not loose my bet (made a bet with a fellow monitor, on NOK 10,000 that SLMM still would be in Sri Lanka 10 years ahead, 2014 that is - the reasoning was that it would take so much time to make peace - it seemed like a bad bet at that time, but more likely each day now). And to make myself clear; an inacurate map is better than no map, that goes without saying. Any problem with the map could easily be stated in the comments under it. So again - thanks a lot for making Wikipedia a little less useful for the common woman & man. But then again - that is all what the conflict in Sri Lanka is about, not caring for the common woman & man - from either side, so no reason that it should not spill over into these pages. Ulflarsen 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha its funny how some people demonstrate their complete just lack of intellect by posting comments like this... So I'm really not going to bother to reply, apart from saying SLMM still in Sri Lanka in 2014? Nah. They'll be gone as soon first ("accidental" of course) "tragic" death of a monitor (if they hadn't run away like little girls before that - which seems to be what they are doing these days). --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the map, no need to have that? You do not see any use for it for readers without any background information on this subject? Ulflarsen 10:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, back to the point. Do I want to include an incorrect map on Wikipedia. Simple answer, No. This map is not correct, neither today nor in 2001. I don't know, maybe there is a policy on this somewhere in Wikipedia which says it's better to have less information than wrong information.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologize to Netmonger and Kerr avon. It was not helpful that I focused on people; this only distracted from the issue. Moreover, it is completely irrelevant if someone spells a word in ALL CAPS here. That's precisely the kind of statement that I usually fight when others write it! My only excuse is that it was late at night, and I should have been in bed instead. I'm busy today, but I'll be happy to talk about this tomorrow. — Sebastian 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sebastian, there is no need to apologize, I am not offended and I am sure others are not offended, we are all trying to do the correct thing. A gentle advice though editing in late night could be quite stressful and harm your health and the quality of your edits.

ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 05:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginnings Section

Hello folks, have been away for a while, partly due to the constant bickering over this and other articles but mostly because I have been quite busy, anyhow it is nice to see things have settled down.

I think it would be important to mention the TULF (Tamil United Liberation Front - political party) and the 1977 elections in the beginning section. As right now it reads as if Tamils went from asking for a federal solution straight to a rebellion for independence. However the fact is they then formed a united front to seek independence through a democratic process, it was only after this too was rejected that the youth began their rebellion in earnest. I have pasted some relevant text below from a journal article.

Please discuss here and I can add a sentence or two if we are in agreement.

As in the past the UNP, SLFP, and the Marxists concentrated their electoral efforts in the Sinhalese areas. They entered the foray in the Eastern Province, but the Northern Province (apart from what could be deemed a token gestures) was once again left to the Tamil political organizations. However, there was a notable difference on this occasion in the North. The intraparty contests, which had always been a feature there since 1949 when the Federal Party (FP) was established by a breakaway group from the Tamil Congress (TC), was absent on this occasion. The new unity resulted from the almost unanimous opposition of the major Tamil political leaders and organizations to the 1972 Constitution, which they firmly believed accorded the Tamils a second-class citizenship status. Tamil grievances against the majority Sinhalese community and its political leaders had long preceded the enactment of the new constitution, but the previous attempts to carry out a political struggle under one banner had foundered on personal differences among the Tamil leaders. The climate created in 1972 effectively overrode personal clashes and the Tamil United Front, which became the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) prior to the 1977 election, was born. What is also significant is that this new umbrella organizations united for the first time the Tamil political parties in the North with the major trade union-cum-political party active among the Indian Tamils in the plantation sector. The importance of this development should be viewed in the light of the increasing drift towards separatism on the part of the Tamil people. Sentiments of separatism were much more powerfully articulated in the 1977 election than in previous elections.

The 1977 polls reemphasized the dominance of Tamil political organizations in the Tamil-speaking areas. In the Northern Province (85.1% Tamil in the 1971 Census) the TULF swept the board, winning all the electoral contests and 68.7% of the popular vote. In the Eastern Province, where there is a greater racial mixture (41.2% Tamil, 33.5% Muslim, and 22.7% Sinhalese in 1971), the TULF achieved a more limited success, winning only 3 seats out of the 10 contested with 27.1% of the popular vote. However, in all but one of the constituencies in the province in which the Tamils formed the majority community, the TULF was victorious. The TULF's performance in the 1977 general election is undoubtedly a further milestone in the emergence of what A. J. Wilson has called "Tamil subnationalism".

Source -

Sri Lanka`s 1977 General Election: The Resurgence of the UNP

Vijaya Samaraweera

Asian Survey, Vol. 17, No. 12. (Dec., 1977), pp. 1195-1206.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-4687%28197712%2917%3A12%3C1195%3ASL1GET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

--Realstarslayer 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion (change in bold):

Until the 1970s, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka had largely taken the form of a demand for autonomy for the Tamil-speaking regions under an overall federal framework. Eventually the various Sri Lankan Tamil political parties formed a united body, the TULF, and ran on a platform of total independence, the TULF went on to win the overwhelming Sri Lankan Tamil vote in the 1977 general election. The lack of results after twenty-five years of negotiations, and the perception amongst Tamils that the Sinhalese dominated government was unwilling to grant their wishes, led to a significant section of young Tamils, particularly in Jaffna, adopting a more radical position. They now favoured the use of violent means. A large number of militant organisations were set up, one of which was the Tamil New Tigers (TNT), formed in 1972 by a small group of young Tamils and university students led by Velupillai Prabhakaran. Many students joined the TNT thereafter because they believed that they were not given equality in the grading systems and admission to post-graduate schools.

--Realstarslayer 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks good, thanks for the research Dutugemunu 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Elalan

I'm just curious about what happened to this user. I know he used to take a very strong pro-LTTE view-point in these arguments earlier. What exactly happened to him? Became a victim of GOSL armies?

You never know? I heard something about a CheckUser, but otherwise I'm quiet unclear on the topic. lol. --Sharz 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So one sock puppet of Elalan has been found and blocked. How long will it take to block the others? Some of us already know what he's up to now. The name Elalan is used in Sri Lanka for quite a number of sinister activities, most in support of the LTTE. Coincidence?? 222.165.173.73 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually didn't know that, but the name "Elalan" does have some links if you think about it, it's phonentic with the Tamil Homeland Eelam and also LTTE - Elalan share some letters, but for most part this is just conspiracy theory and I don't believe there are any connections. It's simple to block sock-puppets once one of the puppets have been found, just a simple case of cross-referancing the I.Ps with the blocked account, however alot of people that edit on the Sri Lankan Civil War articles use multiple accounts to vote stack and whatnot, or at least that's what I suspect, meaning that if one wishes to reveal the other's Users, the said user may still be capable of revealing the revealer's users. If you wish for me to investigate possible Puppets of Elalan, please discuss this on my talk-page as I am most likely going to investigate alot of accounts in the weeks to come, this discussion however should not be on this talk page. --Sharz 07:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Elalan is the Tamil form of the name of the King you people call Elara in Sinhala, who was defeated by Dutugemunu. It has nothing to do with the name Eelam or LTTE. -- Ponnampalam 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

countries/entities

What are the other countries that have these terrorists marked as such besides US,Canada,Malaysia,EU,Lanka and India? There's gotta be some other major ones. Perhaps we should move to a list.Bakaman 23:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from these countries there is Australia. I think that is all you will find. Why should other countries list a group whose activities do not affect them? Even in these countries the restriction was mainly imposed to prevent fundraising. -- Ponnampalam 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

About this country list. The UK is a part of the European Union, so I think there should not be a separate mention of the UK and the European Union. I also think some information should be given on the extent of restrictions imposed in each country, because some of them have different levels of proscription. -- Ponnampalam 00:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am kind of lost but I was wondering if tamilnet.com would be considred NPOV? I know it has the word "Tamil" in it but as I read through some of the news and articles it seems to maintain a more than fair NPOV. If so am I allowed to add sources from the site itself ? Watchdogb 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Hi Watchdog ,, have a look at the Reuters article (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DEL120480.htm) which clearly states that Tamilnet is "pro-rebel Web site".Dutugemunu 08:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How to prevent bias?

any ideas? It's hard to think of, isn't it? I don't want people taking advantage of Wiki, most notably the LTTE themselves to post pure propaganda. Even the slightest false fact in itself is unnecessary. But is there a way to stop this? This is the only problem with Wiki (take no offense, wiki is the best web-based encyclopedia I have ever seen). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.68.45.24 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

This is the reason why we started WP:SLR. Please check it out! — Sebastian 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Child soldiers section

I added the accuracy tag since the source provided seems extremely unreliable. Apart from the fact that it is called the "Christian Science monitor" (which in itself brings issues of bias into anything that is published henceforth from them) a lot of the "satistics" used in the article contradict in very large amounts with more credible source such as the CIA fact book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ce.html#People). Pubuman 07:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a BBC citation which states that over 5000 children have been abducted by the LTTE since 2002 JanuaryDutugemunu 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Update...

Apparently the LTTE has acquired air capabilities to carry out bombing missions. [8] Oh...and these edits might come off as original research and a bit heavy handed: [9] Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But cheese dude, they are all well cited. The text is not FA standard "brilliant prose" cos I didn't have much time, but definitely not OR.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)