Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 1

Leave Wikipedia as a free great source of information for common people.No one can beat LTTE or SL Govt. by posting your fatasies or vandalistic ideas in this article.They have their own websites for propagation and informations(on their side).Senior Wikipedia members with good ground knowledge must work actively to protect wikipedia.Wikipedia should be mine of information..not mine field of fanatics and anonymous vandals.

Older stuff

I've removed presumably copyrighted text (the uploaded text can still be found on http://www.sinhaya.com/main2.html ). We need explicit permission from the owner of the web page before we can use this. The page contents were very obviously biased, as well, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

OK, stop working Larry. Back to the egg nog. --LMS

---

Ok...What I cant stand is you are supporting these terrorists ,Wikipedia.

We do not support any political organization. However, we do strive to maintain a neutral point of view, which your articles are definitely not. Also, the wholesale deletion of information is unacceptable. Please read the Wikipedia policy article for more information, and refrain from vandalism. -Joakim Ziegler

---

What is the copyright status of the last edit? It just replaced the article there completely. (The change was done by User:202.188.169.112) Tristanb 04:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Has anyone had a look at this article in the past 24 hours? It reads like a propaganda leaflet! Serious editing is required post haste. Whoever wrote this should keep in mind that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and by indulging in such petty, blatantly non-NPOV work they are only creating more work and irritation for other people. Since when can the LTTE claim to represent every single Tamil in Sri Lanka? And since when was the UNP 'extreme right'?

I edited that, and you must have missed that before that edit, most of the stuff that was there in the article were deleted. I restored the article to last-known state without those anonymous block deletions, done without any reason given. Greenleaf 05:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Tamil National Leader" does not represent NPOV. He is not democratically elected and cannot claim to represent all the tamils just because he's killed most of his unarmed opponents. Many Tamils in Sri Lanka oppose him. "Reclusive guerilla leader" is not biased. It is a term even used by the Dawn, pro-LTTE TamilCanadian, Asia Times etc. He matches the definition. I have not called him a terrorist leader for the sake of NPOV although he fits that description very well and the interpol+CIA seem agree. You cannot call Osama the Muslim national leader just because he and his supporters think so. Same applies here. Also removed some links to BBC. This is an encyclopedia, not a news digest. News articles are not relevent enough. SinhalaPOWEr 12:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"The LTTE, on the other hand, accuse the Sri Lankan government of carrying out killings of civilians, political workers and journalists using paramilitary groups armed by the government and operating from Sri Lankan military bases and government police stations in government-controlled Tamil areas."

Can someone please tell me what paramilitary groups? This is a vague phrase. Can someone provide evidence of what groups have been supposedly armed by the Sri Lankan government and are considered paramilitary groups? If the phrase refers to the Karuna faction, it is not a paramilitary as such, but a breakaway LTTE group.

-Devaka

Well, at least the LTTE consider the Karuna-faction to be a paramilitary group, and the phrase should be in line with the Wikipedia NPOV, that is - presenting all major facts about what one writes of. So, even if its disputet, it should be there as the LTTE at least seems to believe so. Ulflarsen 10:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

But is there evidence that the Sri Lankan government armed the Karuna faction and that it's "operating from Sri Lankan military bases and government police stations in government-controlled Tamil areas"? Also, are there any other paramilitary groups? This sentence needs to be revised. I'll await your response.

-Devaka

No, there is no evidence of that. Neither is there any evidence that Kadirgamar was shot by an LTTE sniper. But most people believe that the LTTE is behind, and so is the case with the problems in the east; the LTTE suspects the government to fuel the attacks against them. As an encyclopedia we should as stated by our NPOV mention all relevant facts, and this seems to be so, regardless of our personal belief. Ulflarsen 19:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

-Devaka

Actually, there is evidence that the Sri Lankan Army have been providing money to the Karuna Paramilitary group to train it's cadres. Kids were kidnapped and were promised rs6000/month to work for the karuna group. Those kids surrendered when they were supposed to go attack an LTTE post & admitted to these. They were trained for a month & were taken to the Sri Lankan Army Base in Welikanda & introduced to Capt.Kumarasinghe, the head of the base. The paramilitary group received supplies, instructions and was under complete supervision of the Sri Lankan Army. -Anu

Can I see some links to this please? I believe you, but I'd like to read more on this.

-Devaka

Reverted vandalism, as there has been a full scale deletion and new content, not NPOV added.

The article needs work though, as some content may also better fit other places. There also seems to have been a redirect from LTTE - Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - which is the correct name of the organisation. Ideally the LTTE page should be the main one - as I believe it was before. Ulflarsen 11:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For evidence of a government-supported paramilitary group see,

sri-lankan government page

It is noteworthy that EPDP is among the few Tamil-led groups that the government openly endorses. For a summary of the EPDP's community activities see: Sangam analysis

Tamil script

Can anybody show me how "Tamil Tigers" is written in Tamil? Either in Unicode or just a URL where it appears in text or graphics? — Hippietrail 23:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*AFAIK*, விடுதலை புலிகள் (pronounced viduthalai puligal. meaning free(dom) tigers) --Rrjanbiah 09:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed part of caption to pic of coin, as "Vanni" uses the Sri Lanka Rupee

The text of the coin was misleading as the "Vanni" uses the Sri Lankan rupee. Ulflarsen 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a Gold token issued sometime between July 1990 and October 1995 for return of Loan. It is not a coin

Removed part origin of the word Eelam

1. Section written was not written in a neutral point of view. 2. No references were made as to the source where the author believes that Eelam is a rehashing of a Sinhala word. 3. Origin of the world Eelam does not belong here. If credible sources are cited then it should be in the article on Tamil Eelam. --14:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Support of the LTTE for the TNA

Removed "However, European commission election monitors accused the LTTE of being involved in this election illegally, and using violence to support TNA members. [1]"

After reading the article by the BBC anyone would agree that there is no mention in that article of "European commission election monitors" nor of "The LTTE using violence". Therefore since [User:Devaka] insists on highlighting that the TNA was supported by the LTTE during the election, the last sentence in the frist paragraph has been change to a neutral POV.

http://www.lacnet.org/srilanka/politics/elections/

I will be re-editing the sentence and including the new source. Thanks for pointing out the error.

"Some of our reports refer to

…large scale impersonation which was carried out in a well organized, systematic way… According to an observer in the area, the worst areas of impersonation were Point Pedro, Thumpalai, Puloly, Alvai, Karaveddy and Polikandy. Several groups were seen washing their fingers and a man with a bottle of clear liquid for this purpose, sighted. The observer further notes that impersonation was quite blatant with people arriving to vote with ink stains on their hands. The observer further notes that the SPOs and EPDP polling agents did not seem to care. Another observer noted that beneath the low number of complaints lay 'an undercurrent that there was widespread attempts at intimidation for voters to follow the LTTE/TNA line'. CMEV will issue a full report on the election in the North and East once a detailed debriefing of its Monitors and collation of reports, has been completed. "

"The Centre for Monitoring Election Violence has in its monitoring of the incidence of violence throughout the campaign accorded the election in the North and East a special focus. This was warranted by the situation of NO War / NO Peace and the ceasefire agreement. The climate of fear and intimidation in which non-TNA candidates in the Jaffna District, in particular, had to campaign, necessitated this.

In its Media Release of 30 March 2004, CMEV highlighted the conditions under which the election campaign was being conducted. In that Press Release, CMEV urged

all parties contesting the elections in the North and East to ensure that voting is carried out without any acts of intimidation or violence or other malpractice on April 2, 2004.

We further stated that

It is only if divergent views and opinions are allowed to be expressed, and are seen to be expressed, that these elections can go on record as being conducted in a free and fair atmosphere. It is only then, that all those who emerge victorious can truly claim to be the legitimate representatives of their constituencies.

This has not been the case in the Jaffna District. Furthermore, on the basis of the reports that we have received from our observers in the field, we feel that polling in the Jaffna District was subjected to systematic impersonation, therefore warranting an annulment of the poll there followed by a re poll of the District. We urge the Commissioner to consider this."

I hope this is sufficient, Share Bear. The sentence is now in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

-Devaka

Notable Attacks

Many of the attacks attributed to the Tamil Tigers on the MIPT database were not comitted by the Tamil Tigers.

For Example:

August 3, 1984: A bomb attributed to the LTTE exploded in a lounge at an aiport in Madras, India, killing 31 and injuring 19. Police received a pre-bombing tip and had moved several bags to the lounge for inspection.

This attack was done by the TEA (Tamil Eelam Army). Who claimed responsibility for the attack in 1984.

It is important to verify sources that are used to this article, expecially when they are secondary sources with an agenda. -Share Bear 07:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This section should be fully revised; none of the attacks listed on this section is committed by LTTE. How come the list only shows only the civilian who got killed on the war? If it is neutral it should have contain the list of dates of the invader’s (SL Army) camp overrun.

--Maravan, speak for the Tamils

Ethnic Cleansing

Share Bare, there is a seperate wiki article for "ethinic conflict" in Sri Lanka. The heading named "Ethinic Cleansing against Muslims and Sinhalse" in this article is not about the ethnic conflict, but "Ethnic Cleansing" by the LTTE.

As "Ethnic Cleansing" is carried out by the LTTE, not by the Tamils as an ethinic in general, it is incorrect to use "Ethinic Conflict" for that. 203.217.57.218 10:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

User 203.217.57.218 (interesting how you mis-spelled my user name exactly like Greenleaf)

If this is an allusion, next time be direct. Ask an admin if I'm from a country where there are 203.217.* IP addresses. I don't generally post anonymously, although anonymous posting is not an offence. It's said "it takes one to know one".

Also next time you visit dictionary.com, lookup "exactly" as well. I never used spelling "Share Bare" (with the space in between). "Please learn to pay a little more attention to details.", said somebody. Greenleaf 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines Ethnic Cleansing as "The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide."

The LTTE does not control the North-East Province. Nor does it systematically deport the Sinhalese and Muslims. If you were to argue this point then the Government of Sri Lanka, cited in the examples provided in the article, has ethnically cleansed Tamil areas for settlement by Sinhalese.

The netural point-of-view would be to title the section Ethnic Conflict. If you feel that the article Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka already covers this topic submit a vote for deleting of this section on Tamil Tigers and request a merge of content into that article. -Share Bear 17:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Share Bear, you said, “The LTTE does not control the North-East Province. Nor does it systematically deport the Sinhalese and Muslims”.

Your second sentence is contrary to what is reported by international organizations, including the BBC and Refugees International.

The LTTE deported Sinhalese and Muslims in areas under its control, not in whole North and East. This deportation was based on one’s ethnic (ie. Ethnics of Muslims and Sinhalese), thus it was ethnic cleansing.

Refugee International reported, “In October1990, the LTTE decided to evict the Muslim population of Jaffna, approximately 100,000 people, with two days notice. The Muslims were told to leave the North within 48 hours or face death” [2]. “Forcing 100,000 of ethnic Muslims to leave Jaffna within 48 hours” fits the definition of Ethnic Cleansing “"The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide."

BBC reports, “"Just a decade ago, Jaffna was a cosmopolitan city, where the Tamils lived alongside Muslims and the predominantly Buddhist Sinhalese. Upon taking control, the LTTE asked the Sinhalese and Muslims to leave." [3]. Asking “Muslims and Sinhalese to leave Jaffna” fits the definition of Ethnic Cleansing “"The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.”.

Therefore, the use of “Ethnic Cleansing” to denote LTTE’s forced emigration of Muslim and Sinhalese ethnics falls within the accepted dictionary meaning which you quoted, thus it should clear any doubts in your mind.

• You said, “The netural point-of-view would be to title the section Ethnic Conflict.”

NPOV means incidents should be reported without a bias. This issue has been reported by unbiased NPOV international sources as “Ethnic Cleansing”.

Refugee International identifies LTTE’s forced emigration of Muslims as Ethnic Cleansing. [4], As “Refugees International” is an international humanitarian organization and not have been accused of being biased, their use of the term “Ethnic Cleansing” to denote LTTE’s forceful emigration should clear any doubts in your mind.

• Frontline (Indian) and Dawn(Pakistani) news sources reported LTTE’s forced emigration of Sinhalese and Muslims as “Ethnic cleansing”.

“Ethnic cleansing in the Jaffna Peninsula and the forcible conscription of children into the LTTE's army have all contributed to forging the image of the LTTE as a fascist, inhuman and Pol Potist organisation.” [5]

“They [LTTE] are beginning to cleanse their land of the people who were once their neighbors. The LTTE … are stepping up attacks against ethnic Sinhalese civilians”

The Tigers are bombing schools, wrecking Buddhist temples and shooting civilians in a campaign to force thousands of ethnic Sinhalese from their homes.” [6]

As can be seen above, international media and humanitarian organizations have described the LTTE’s act of forced emigration as “Ethnic cleansing”, therefore, it is NPOV to use the term “Ethnic Cleansing”. I hope this will clear your doubts. 203.217.57.218 05:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

LTTE's attacks: On Sinhalese and Muslim civilians or on armed settlers?

Share Bear, I noticed you have reverted many times to your version, "LTTE has carried out attacks on armed Sinhalese settlers".

LTTE's attacks were not confined to Sinhalese ethinics nor to settlers. As can be seen from news sources I listed above, LTTE attacks have been on Sinhalese and Muslims as ethnics. For instance, LTTE's attack on Muslim civilians killing over 100 at the Kaththankudy Mosque [7] is an evidence that their attacks were not confined to Sinhalese settlers. (They were neither Sinhalese nor armed settlers)

Thus, I hope that you will agree to "LTTE has carried out attacks on Sinhalese and Muslim civilans". 203.217.57.218 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Conflict or Ethnic Cleansing

If the term ethnic cleansing is going to be used then the same term should be used to describe what the Sinhalese did to be Tamils. The conflict exists between the Sinhalese and their Muslim supporters and the Tamils.

Examples cited in the same section show how Sinhalese have attacked Tamils in the province. The article also states that these were armed settlers. When the conflict is among ethnic groups it is called an ethnic conflict.

The NPOV would be to use ethnic conflict.

I have not made any changes to the title of the section. I have also tagged the article for NPOV and Clean-up. Hopefully someone who is not biased will edit this article to encyclopedic standards.

For Cleanup - Sections titled Child Soldiers and Ethnic Cleansing already had material included in the Current Status section of the article. The newly added sections are just a collection of quotes and do not meet encyclopedic standards.

-Share Bear 16:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Share Bear, you said, “If the term ethnic cleansing is going to be used then the same term should be used to describe what the Sinhalese did to be Tamils.”

The fact that “1.5 million Tamils (Sri Lankan + Indian origin) live in the SL Government controlled areas” questions the validity of your statement.

In SL Government controlled areas, no ethnic is reported to have been cleansed of. Tamils live along with Muslims and Sinhalese, and some of them hold highest positions of the Sri Lankan government. (Eg, former Foreign Minister assassinated allegedly by LTTE, Minister Devananda). The census of 2001 show that 1.5 million Tamils live in the SL Government Controlled areas.[8] This is apart from 1.3 million Muslims, another Tamil speaking minority. Thus, any “Ethnic Cleansing” accusations against Sri Lankan government don’t seem to hold any base.

In LTTE controlled areas, Sinhalese and Muslims have been driven away (see sources cited above). This is the “Ethnic Cleansing”, international organizations, like Refugees International, Frontline, Dawn etc reported above.

• You said, “The NPOV would be to use ethnic conflict.”.

The internationl humanitarian organisation like the UN, Refugees International and the media think otherwise.

They used the term “Ethnic Cleansing” verbatim to denote LTTE’s forced emigration of Muslims and Sinhalese. (see above references). These organizations are independent and neutral parties.

If you still have doubts, perhaps the United Nations (UNHCR) use of the term Ethnic Cleansing by Tamil Tigers should clear them for good. [9]

I am sure you are not going to claim that international humanitarian organizations like the UN, Refugees International and the media are biased and POV, for their use of “Ethnic Cleansing” to denote LTTE’s forced emigration of Muslims and Sinhalese by repeated attacking them.

You are confusing "Ethnic Conflict" with "Ethnic Cleansing by the LTTE".

"Ethnic Conflict" is the conflict said to exist between Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese.

"Ethnic Cleansing" is an act carried out by the LTTE, not by Tamils as an ethnic. 203.217.57.218 01:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Added pictures related to ethnic cleansing and child soldiers. Pictures are relevant to both sections. No copyright violation as I have permission from the owner. Sharebare is trying to delete them citing false reasons. Disgusted at 203.217.57.218's attempt to appease terrorism. SinhalaPOWEr 12:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In either case, isn't the term "ethnic cleansing" just another term for genocide? Neither the text of the UDHR or the UN allow for any case of "cleansing," as any action against an ethnic minority, like forced removal (which is what the term technically means) still falls under the definition of genocide (UN General Assembly resolution 260 A III, Article 2, s. E). Where is the rationale for talking about "ethnic cleansing" at all, regardless of which is the perpetrating party? I think that we should either explicitly say "forced removal" or "genocide," whichever the case might be.

User:Atomsprengja 02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Share Bear, as you are uneasy about the term "Ethnic Cleansing", I modified it as "Allegations of Ethnic Cleansing" 203.217.57.218 04:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Copyrighted images and Personal attacks

SinhalaPOWEr, User:203.217.57.218 if you are the same person please stick to Wiki policy and don't include Copyrighted images in the article. I don't understand how you have permission from Reuters?

Personal attacks such as calling me a racist are also not nice. Expecially when you have a 'racist' username (similar to WhitePOWEr).

Don't remove Cleanup notices without cleaning up the article according to the suggestions for cleanup that were mentioned above.

---

Hi. Images are from SPUR/JHU/public domain. I have permission from SPUR. Images are also totally relevent to ethnic cleansing/child soldiers. Prabhakaran being called Tamil National Leader is not NPOV. "Reclusive Guerilla Leader" is a term used by most independent media organisations to describe him. Refer to: Dawn, TamilCanadian, Asia Times

You'll have to give a better reason than copyright violation to delete my images. I have also re-added the links I deleted previously except for the BBC one which is irrelevent. Please respond. SinhalaPOWEr 04:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Related guideline says:

"If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)."

Please be specific, and by all means, please do provide some details on the copyright status on the image page. See also Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags. That will make a lot of things easy for a lot of people. Greenleaf 08:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the child soldiers image (owned by Reuters apparently) with one from SPUR. The massacre photo is also from SPUR. Added copyright information as well. Thanks for the info. SinhalaPOWEr 10:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The "copyrighted" image of the child soldiers is from India Today (I have seen it in one of their magazine articles back in the early-90's, it's a famous image from the conflict). and NOT from SPUR. SPUR used the image without giving credit (and i'm quite sure India Today don't know their images are being used without credit). SPUR has not done a copyright on those images, you can see for yourself on their website. These images are stolen. -Kumar, Oct 14, 2005

Comment to massive rewrite of the article

Please do not do total rewrites of the article. Just checked it today and it was totally changed, all the older edits was just dumped. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If anyone want anything new in, please take it paragraph by paragraph. Ulflarsen 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

that goes on, each day since some time now, and looks like an organized or determined attack on the page rahter than a simple clueless newbie (aka green user). Most of the content are not actually rewritten but taken from some website, such as this or this. Those IPs don't seem to work on any other article either. Greenleaf 03:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My finding is:

69.193.92.180 = [ CPE000b6abf5989-CM000039d71e6a.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ]  
 OrgName:    Rogers Cable Inc. 
 OrgID:      ROCA 
 Address:    One Mount Pleasant 
 City:       Toronto 
 StateProv:  ON 
 PostalCode: M4Y-2Y5 
 Country:    CA

(SNIP)

 OrgAbuseHandle: RHI9-ARIN 
 OrgAbuseName:   Rogers High-Speed Internet 
 OrgAbusePhone:  1-416-935-4729 
 OrgAbuseEmail:  abuse@rogers.com

Most of the others are the same. I dont have the authority to call...

Dominick 10:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, well for your info the conflict and the view of the LTTE, the Tamil tigers is totally different whether you belong to their camp - or the other. So its not strange that there are some heavy rewrites going on. As Wikipedia gets even more popular it will probably be more, and getting the article right will be even harder... But that is how life is. I will try to keep a lookout for the article, and try to give a hand for cleaning it up and extending it. Ulflarsen 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The "copyrighted" image of the child soldiers is from India Today (I have seen it in one of their magazine articles back in the early-90's, it's a famous image from the conflict). and NOT from SPUR. SPUR used the image without giving credit (and i'm quite sure India Today don't know their images are being used without credit). SPUR has not done a copyright on those images, you can see for yourself on their website. These images are stolen. I haven't deleted the image, but I suggest the moderators of this website do after reading this.

-Kumar, Oct 14, 2005

Thanks Kumar was proving what I have been saying all along about SinhalaPOWER's use of copyrighted material. The other image is also copyrighted and NOT by SPUR. SPUR is just a cut and paste website of copyrighted material.

- Share Bear 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

New Article- Human Rights in Sri Lanka

Hi, I was wondering if it'd perhaps be a good idea to start up an article entitled "Human Rights in Sri Lanka". I feel the LTTE article attracts the attention of people wanting to defend and accuse the LTTE of human rights abuses. In order to balance things out a bit, perhaps this new Human Rights article would allow all sides to call the other out for human rights abuses (ie. so there could be sections on the LTTE's alleged human rights abuses, alleged abuses of government paramilitaries, alleged abuses by the Sri Lankan military, and so on). Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? I feel it'd allow for a more balanced perspective on the whole conflict in Sri Lanka. "Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka" is more about actual narration of the conflict, and the LTTE article is supposed to be about the LTTE. Thus, I think a third article specifically about human rights abuses could help clear up any confusion and provide for a balanced perspective. I'd be willing to help make this article happen.

-Devaka

The beauty of wikipedia, is that you can start it at any time. Have fun! Make sure you get an account so we can help you out. Leave a note on my talk page, and sign your comments by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are, and can leave you feedback on your work. Thanks! Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The section about Muslim displacement is irrelevant because LTTE asked Tamil speaking Muslim to move to safe place temporarily for their own safety to avoid cross fire. Presently many of those Jaffna Muslim have returned to their home in Jaffna and living peacefully. So this section should be edited to reflect the reality.

--Maravan, speak for the Tamils, 1/1/2006 7:55 PM

Hello Maravan. It wasn't for "their own safety" - else, they'd have asked the Hindu and Christian Tamils too to move. Actually, there were a significant number of Muslims in Jaffna who were spying for the government, and the LTTE saw the entire community as a security threat. See for example Sachi Sri Kantha's article on the reasons behind their expulsion. And the Muslims only returned in significant numbers after the SLA took Jaffna. Still, the numbers in the section are too high - there were never 100,000 Muslims in Jaffna. It would also be good if we could add some information on Muslims in areas controlled by the LTTE in the East. If you have a good source, please feel free to add information to the article. -- Ponnampalam 15:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed content not valuable for the article

Removed the content below:

"Successive Sri Lankan leaders from the President downwards have been accusing Norway and its peace monitors in Sri Lanka of open bias in favor of the LTTE. [10]. One Norwegian chief monitor was asked to leave Sri Lanka because of open bias during a sea battle off the eastern Sri Lankan coast; the monitor, according to the Sri Lankan government, helped frustrate efforts to seize a Tamil Tiger ship carrying arms."

-as it is not valuable for the article; its about the LTTE, not Norway. Also removed a citation tag that stated a pretty obvious fact; if not Norway was accepted by both parties it would not be mediating in the conflict. Ulflarsen 20:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You also removed the disambiguation note[11] I'd added in order to make LTTE a redirect here instead of being a disambiguation page. Is there any particular reason for this, or did my change just get mixed up with the vandalism?

It got mixed up, tried to sort through the various edits - but yours failed my attention. Ulflarsen 13:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia

Nothing is neutral!!! The page is changed to an "Ant-Tamil" or better "Anti-LTTE" page. This is "propaganda", like the germans have do in 1933 to 1945.

This page must be delete or block. It is better if this site will be block to edit, so only people from Wikipedia cann edit it, as a neutral. In these time, this propaganda will be start more powerfull.

PLEASE, MAKE A EDIT-BLOCK AND WRITE NEUTRAL FACTS AND NEWS! THIS IS NOT A PROPOGANDA BORAD!

I very much agree in that and anyone interested in rewriting the article should read the Wikipedia policies, and especially the neutral point of view - NPOV. It will also give more credit to anyone editing if they log in and sign their edits, and if they raise questionable edits on the discussion page before they do them. Ulflarsen 10:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed

It seems its full of garbage. The page should provide details about LTTE from a neautral point of view. It rather add lies and "views" of Sinhala hardliners. It lacks the basic knowledege of LTTE and rather pointing at them. It doesn't have the history of LTTE. It starts from near future and points at "so called wrongdoings" done by LTTE. Even these wrongdoings are sited from Lankan Government propagonda websites.

I demand that this should be "provide" details about LTTE. Not what they are doing now. As a liberation movement, i believe somethings are justified as you go look what the goverment did to Tamils. When government bomb a Church full of children, its justified by a suicide bombing. Of course, both are wrong. But then, this site being an Encyclopedia should not point at one wrongdoing done by a specific party. If so please do it with a reason stating "why it is done" Thank you!

First, I agree with you that this article is not good, and that is also noted on the top of the article. But that is how Wikipedia works, all that want can participate in making it better, also you.

When that is said, I also agree in that there should be more about the LTTE's history, and more about the positive side of the LTTE, like the high level of organisation that lead to the LTTE dominated areas quickly recovering after the tsunami, while the government areas many place still has not managed to cope with the disaster.

But, there is no doubt that the LTTE has a record of forced child recruitment, ethnic cleansing against Sinhalese and Muslims and assasinations of political opponents. This is well documented, and continues to this day. That it labels itself as a "liberation movement" does not mean such vital violations of Sri Lankan and international law should be left unnoticed - it is part of the picture of what the LTTE is.

It is also important to look at the Wikipedia policy pages when writing - all vital information about the subject should be presented. To round this up - the article is by no means good, but hopefully it will improve over time - I will try my best and I hope you too will participate on a unbiased basis. Ulflarsen 22:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added a little bit in the section on child soldiers about what the LTTE's official position is. I do not agree this is entirely correct, so I have tried to write clearly that it is what they say rather than that it is the absolute truth. Since a lot of the criticism about them is also included I think it is balanced overall. I have also shifted things from the introduction because it emphasised too many unimportant things. I am new to Wikipedia so I hope this is OK. I also think the section on ethnic cleansing is too big as it is and does not have a background about why it happened and why many Thamils supported it. But if we add all that it will become too big, and the article will no longer be about the LTTE but instead become about the civil war, so I don't know what to do. -- Ponnampalam 12:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mostly your additions seems to be ok - but I wonder why you cut out the section that LTTE used TNA as its front. It could be shorter, but its still a fact. Good you added the LTTE's official position on child recruitment, it is needed as it also is well proved that the organisation still recruits heavily and by force, my former SLMM colleagues assures me of that. The whole article needs to be rewritten, should be more history - and some details in the current article is possibly better left out. Ulflarsen 13:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I only moved it down to "current status", and left in the statement that it openly supported the TNA. I thought that "supported" was the same as "backed", so I didn't think both were necessary. I will also try and write something this week about the actual military role the LTTE played during the civil war. -- Ponnampalam 13:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It would also be nice to show just how much of the northeast the LTTE controls. Will your friends in the SLMM be able to give you a very rough map of LTTE-controlled areas, or is it confidential? -- Ponnampalam 13:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to make some of the further changes discussed above. I have mostly added things, but I also shortened the introduction by summarising it and moving some of the information to the body, and I reorganised the Current Status section a little. Please let me know if anything I did is a problem. I think the section on Child conscription and ethnic cleansing should be summarised and have fewer anecdotes, but I will have difficulty doing that myself. -- Ponnampalam 23:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that your cleanup of the article seems to head in the right direction - with some more we should be able to remove the "cleanup" tag. And as far as I can see your changes seems to be rather balanced, has not been too much of that on this page... So keep up the good work! :-) Ulflarsen 08:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ulf Larsen. Ponnampalam, I just checked out this page again expecting the same old politicized drivel, but I found your edit was thorough, eye catching and balanced. No glorification, no deviation from NPOV standards, and well written. I would appreciate it if you'd provide a comment on this page about other pages you've edited on Wikipedia so we may check those out too. Thanks and keep it up!

- Kumar, December 2005

The map with LTTE controlled areas looks fairly good, but I thought the GOSL had control of the Mannar-Vavuniya corridor. And I thought the LTTE had firm control of an area in the east more south, and closer to Trincomalee. But overall - very good.

One thing though, good if you could upload it on Wikipedia Commons, so all language versions of Wikipedia could use it. I plan to insert it into the Norwegian language version about LTTE, and guess others would want to do the same. Ulflarsen 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that LTTE freedom fightes for Tamils.

Srilankan forces committed many crimes against Tamils; the list is very long [12]. As a result of these atrocities, LTTE emerged as a resistance force for Tamils. For Tamils, LTTE is their state military, and heroes.

What Atrocities??

What are the "atrocities" are you talking about. You are refering a link from an LTTE web site. That is not neutral!. There were communal riots in Sri Lanka, in 1983, but no Ethnic Cleansing. Ethnic Cleansing usually refers to a systematic and deliberate destruction of a particular ethnic group, usually conducted by a government. What happened in Sri Lanka IS NOT that.

Neautrality

Contributors please don’t be pathetic, this article should be all about Tamil Tigers and it should be factual.

Sinhala nationalists if you want to say something please start a new page on another topic not here. Whether you like it or not this is all about Tamil Tigers. Acknowledge their existence, their strengths and successes.

Pro LTTE authors please state the facts and do not exaggerate things. Eg the coins....etc Also please acknowledge their failures too.

Please do not use Wikipedia as your personal propaganda tool.

Also, please try to spell correctly.

NEUTRAL, and NEUTRALITY. Please! What would you think if I spelled "Wikipáèîøüdia"? You'd slap me in the face. thank you!

Please, try to remember that, even though the SL govt. doesn't officially call the LTTE a terrorist group, it has continued to treat it as one in practice. SL websites and LTTE websites are only acceptable sources if they are checked (exhaustively) against others. Failing to do so, even if you use both sites, is still not NPOV, as are all these frustrating "you're a sinhalese nationalist!" "no, you're a tiger!" accusations. How can you even pretend to be unbiased?

Atomsprengja 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How Can You Be "Neautral" to Something that is 100% Evil?

Let me put it in a concept most people understand. How can you write a neautral article about [Satan]? If you do, it will partly, condone the acts of [Satan].

How can you be neutral if you begin the article on Satan by assuming that he is evil? Tolerance, please!

What you do is present facts. "Satan is the unchallenged lord of a realm called Hell, where he tortures

more than 42,000,000 people night and day. . . . A number of humans worship Satan, describing him as their liberator from the constraints of traditional morality. . . ." Readers can, and will, form their own opinions. Credmond 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some points regarding the LTTE

This article is slowly moving toward being more balanced and useful. As the view of LTTE is very mixed, (terrorists for some - freedomfighters for others) it is obviously not easy. It seems though that the heat is down a bit. One should also be aware of that the article is about the LTTE. That means it is right to write about such as the organisation is struggling for "Tamil Eelam" - even though there for a variety of reasons never will be a separate tamil state on Sri Lanka.

One should also bear in mind that the LTTE has some level of support among tamils, both from love and fear. That means that quite many tamils, even those despising the LTTE see it as useful counterweight against the sinhalese south. It may be useful to have the IRA in mind when reading and writing about this conflict - an organisation that went from being banned to getting more and more involved in solving the conflict by peaceful means. And it may be useful to think of how that came about - quite a bit by the ever closer cooperation between the EU countries, where the UK and Ireland are both members.

Last but not least, would be good if those who add or change information here would at least fill in something about what they have done, possibly also adding aare changes that are only related to an IP address it is not easy to judge the value of what has been done. Ulflarsen 15:36, 26 December 2005 (UTCnhbnjibhkibhkiklnk)

To user with IP address 61.68.66.195

You changed various comments here on the discussion page, that is not allowed. Nothing here is to be changed, as long as its not obscene or commercials. This is a discussion page about the article it is connected to, please remember that. You are as anyone free to write your opinion here - but do not remove other users edits. Ulflarsen 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up and balancing the article

Seems better now, but I suggest we keep "Recent developments" as its easy to add various ongoing stuff there. Besides that I would say that we remove the two tags. Ulflarsen 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should add a "Recent developments" section when it's necessary again, but I also think they should be merged into the main article after a while. -- Ponnampalam 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the NPOV and Quality tags, since the issues that led to the tagging of the article have been addressed, and there were no objections to the edited article. -- Ponnampalam 11:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to Mention here some activities about both Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. People who are calling LTTE a terrerist organisation, why dont they call the Government of Sri Lanka also a Terrerist Government. They are the people who started terrerism in Sri Lanka. How Do you call Military Raped and Murdered So many woman killed so many innocent men. I do have eveidence for these the case of Krishanthy kumarasay the case was taken to the court. Rape and Murder of Tharshini in Punguduthivu. How do they call all these. A government, military and POlice forces are there in a Country to Protect all the people regardless of ethinic groups But what are they doing Killing, innocent people. Does in any part of the world the miltary has the authority to rape women and kill them. who gave them this authority. Does the Sri LAnkan Government try to controll these activities by the military. Have they even appologised for the families which has been affected by these. The Answer is no. If a Goverment is not protecting there people is it wrong people taking weapons to protect them self from the enemy. I Dont Say what ever LTTE does is 100% correct. There are also some times wrong but there is no other way to protect the tamil people from the Sinhaleese terrerist government. You dont call an organisation which fight for the peoples rights a terrerist organisation. They Tamils were negotiating with the Sinhaleese government for 30 years, but what was the out come of it. nothing. That is why they were forced to take weapons in there hands because of the activities of the sri lankan government. About the people who were saying LTTE illegally stoped tamils from voting in 2005 election. what is elegal. there is no evidence that they forced the people to do it. In a Democratic Country as all the political parties have the rights to request the people to vote for them LTTE also have the rights to request the same public to avoid the election which is not going to give any benifits to them. If the Public supported the LTTE By avoiding the Election as per there request it clearly shows the support that they are giving to the LTTE. This makes Mr. Prabakaran a TAmil National Leader. Not only these even in the previous elections only the Tamil parties who supported the LTTE only Got more than 90% of the Votes from the Tamils living all over the country (including the military controlled areas) Doesnt this implies that More than 90% of the Tamils accept LTTE as there one and only representative. This didnt happened because LTTE forced the people to do it. It was with there own wish. If the Sri Lankan Military can rape and kill tamils it is not wrong to take weapons and fight against them. This is not terrerism. What the Military and the Governmrnt is doing is called terrerism. LLTE are the Freedom fighters of Tamils. If the singhaleese doesnt want to live with the tamils peacefully in there own land they need to getaway from them at thats what there doing.

Last edits did not add anything to the article

Reverted edits that branded the LTTE as a terrorist organisation, as I believe its POV. For some it is a terror organisation, and for others not. It should be enough that the numbers of countries where its illegal is listed (UK, USA, Canada and India among the most important). However, Sri Lanka has not listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation, and then I believe neither should Wikipedia.

Have also reverted several of the killing of the late FM Kadirgamar on LTTE's list of attacks. Its common for the LTTE that they do not take responsibility for their killings, but unless one believes that his political allies in the south killed him, in order to blame the LTTE - there are no other organisation that could do it. So he should definitely be on the list.

If someone find it strange that I can advocate those two statements together (LTTE not a terrorist organisation & LTTE killed Kadirgamar), I can only say that this is partly how politics in Sri Lanka is, very confusing and contradictory. Ulflarsen 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for deleting the reference to the indian website regarding the murder of Kadirgamar, as the report rather clearly points towards the LTTE - as other wellinformed sources also do. The only one with the opposite view is as far as I know - LTTE. Ulflarsen 21:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to say that there is absolutely no evidence to link the LTTE to the murder because there is evidence to show that two men arrested for the murder have met a man named Charles who is described as LTTE's intelligence chief in the South of Sri Lanka: [13] [14] 203.212.139.41 04:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the murder and the reference in India Defence - it says in the opening part that:

"When the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, an outspoken critic of LTTE, was assassinated on Aug 12, 2005, it was ascribed to the LTTE almost near unanimously. This surmise was based upon LTTE's past record of killings.In the case of Kathirgamar, this suspicion is well founded because LTTE's had always called him a 'Traitor' who had forsaken his Tamil roots and 'defected' to the ranks of Sinhala chauvinists."

The anonymous contributor that keep on changing the note on the Kadirgamar should read that article over again, and the opening of it says the most. While no one have yet be sentenced for the murder, it is little doubt that the LTTE is behind. The reason the LTTE denies it is most probably because they know they would face a worldwide ban. If the LTTE was not connected, one should expect that they condemned a act that sent shockwaves around the world, but as far as I can see, they did not. Just the "we did not do it". Ulflarsen 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the last edits by an anonymous contributor, I have reverted them as with my best knowledge I find them POV. The changes has not been discussed here and I have listed the article on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to alert others of what I see as a violation on how articles should be expanded. Ulflarsen 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New reverts that I believe is POV. I will not revert back as I try to discuss it here. Have posted comments on the talkpage to the last editor. Ulflarsen 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a few notable Massacres of Civilians by LTTE selected from those listed in a UNHCHR document which annex copy of letter No. UN/HRTS/1/23 Vol. XVI of 9 August 1994, sent by the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the Centre for Human Rights in pursuance of Commission resolution 1994/46 and General Assembly resolution 48/122." The MIPT documents this era only briefly. I am sure the events are listed in the Amnesty International reports for those years, which are however not online. Lakdiva

Regarding the murder of FM: The India Defence article, although starts off by mentioning LTTE could have killed the FM in the first few paragraphs goes onto mention that there is not enough evidence with the following important conclusion (conveniently excluded by Ulflarsen): " After all the smoke and fire, it is clear that there has been no worthwhile result as to who killed Kadirgamar. If at all police investigation into the murder served any purpose it was that of police ineptitude. Kadirgamar's family hurt by the lack of progress had to approach President Rajapakse to prod the police to produce some results. " [15]

The article is penned by Col R Hariharan (retd.) from the IPKF (who faced off against LTTE from 1987-1990), same article Ulflarsen refers to. The so called evidence as it now stands is circumstantial theory. The article needs to make this clear. I cannot logically see enough evidence (particularly since no one has been convicted in court of law) to say LTTE did it. There are enough points that could be made to show that killing of the FM was an attempt by third parties to sully the good reputation built up by the Tigers during the ceasefire and after the Tsunami. Who has got most to loose from the murder of a politician like L. Kadirgamar ?

Ulflarsen mentions," While no one have yet be sentenced for the murder, it is little doubt that the LTTE is behind. The reason the LTTE denies it is most probably because they know they would face a worldwide ban. If the LTTE was not connected, one should expect that they condemned a act that sent shockwaves around the world, but as far as I can see, they did not. Just the "we did not do it". " This is just more speculation and thoughts by Ulflarsen as to why LTTE didn't condemn the murder. LTTE never considered the FM as an ally or friend and so not condemning the murder DOES NOT imply guilt. This merely reconfirms that LTTE was no friend or ally of the FM. There is a clear gap in reasoning within Ulflarsen's argument. A couple of people have been remanded in custody, but they are not known to be members of the LTTE. If any statements were made by those under custody, was it done using torture or under duress ? Sri Lanka is well known to have an abhorrent human rights record. This is very plausible question to ask. Amnesty and Asian Human Rights Commission have constantly reconfirmed the abhorrent state of the government's human rights record.

In addition charges on Charles Gnakone a prime suspect in this case was dropped as mentioned in [16]. The Kardigamar investigation was use to score some political points by the Govt. trying to implicate UNP stalwarts into it in the midst of the presidential election.

Col R Hariharan rightly points out that as it stand the case is unsolved. Ulflarsen has repeatedly claimed that LTTE surely must have done it. If so, GOSL would have enough evidence to take the case forward but that hasn't happened. Therefore what has been said Ulflarsen is merely speculation, which has been massaged to look like facts.

If there other 'well informed sources,' then sources must be declared and analyzed. I should correct the statement that I have made by saying there is "no worthwhile evidence to link LTTE" Regardless there is nothing sure about this. Johnathan1155

The articles [17] [18] (from September 2005) that is claimed as evidence is not referred by the respected India Defence article. This would indicate that the earlier claims of September 2005 were either misguided or dead ends to the investigation. In addition the India Defence is more uptdo date (written April 14th 2006) and written by a well respected ( anti-LTTE) Sri Lanka watcher namely, Col R Hariharan. Johnathan1155

In all due respect, the citations referring to UNHCRC document by user Lakdiva is misleading. The UNHCRC documents merely declares complaints/allegations made by the Sri Lankan government regarding the LTTE, sent in the form of the annexure letter. Therefore I have edited the changes to make this clear, whereby in the cases mentioned there is no proven evidence pointing to LTTE and that these allegation are to UNHCRC made by the Government of Sri Lanka. Johnathan1155

I have also decided to add the lack of NPOV tag in the Notable Attack section. The reasons are the following:

The LTTE and Government of Sri Lanka are locked in a bloody ethnic conflict that continues to this day (although a CFA had been signed in 2002).

There is context to each and every notable action commited by either side. That context is missing from this article.

My claim is the following, "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly (although even this is arguable for this article), the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased" [19] It is more complicated because the attacks might have been done by other Tamil militant groups. This argument is valid till 1987.

The prime example is the attack on the Maha Bodhi Tree in 1985. This is what is written in The Broken Palmyra, pp.80-81

“In reprisal for the killing by the Sri Lankan forces of 70 civilians in Valvettithurai and the damage to the homes of Prabhakaran and several other LTTE leaders, the LTTE on 14 May 1985 conducted what came to be known as the Anuradhapura massacre. A few LTTE men drove into Anuradhapura and gunned down about 150 persons with ruthless efficiency and got away.”

The attack on on Anuradhapura was done in context to what happened in Valvettithurai. But in this article, only the Anuradhapura massacre is presented hence giving a distorted picture of the civil war and the LTTE. ie. Tigers killed in 1984, 1985 and hence doesnt convey the full the context of what happened. Johnathan1155

The purpose of the list is only to give an idea of the extent and scope of the LTTE's attacks. The article as a whole gives the context in which the attacks took place. If you look specifically at the section on the LTTE and human rights, it gives the LTTE's side of the story by saying: "They say that their actions are no worse than those of the Sri Lankan government, and are therefore an entirely proportionate response to human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government, and are the only way to make the government stop violating the rights of the Tamils even if they are condemned in international law." It says clearly that the LTTE is not gratuitously attacking people, so the article as a whole is balanced for the purposes of the neutrality policy. -- Ponnampalam 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sneaking in a small statement saying "They say that their actions are no worse than those of the Sri Lankan government, and are therefore an entirely proportionate response to human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government, and are the only way to make the government stop violating the rights of the Tamils even if they are condemned in international law." is clearly not balanced with a WHOLE section listing notable attacks. Its never established why these attacks happened. The point is the LTTE side has some context to mention and that is MISSING. Btw, the source I have also quoted are all considered anti-LTTE (including Col. Hariharan, R. Hoole et. al from Broken Palmyrah).

This merely window washing... Within the general scope of the article and within the section, context must be established and be clear. You are merely reinforcing what I am saying earlier namely, "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly (although even this is arguable for this article), the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." Even within the LTTE human rights section there is quite bit missing. LTTE established NESOHR in 2004 to rectify/improve human rights issues in the North East (atleast thats what they will claim). That is fact, that has to be stated. On the the Sri Lankan human rights commision on the hand is almost defunct due to politicization (according to Asian Human rights Commision). These details are not established. Why not ?

I have also reverted the edits. No reason was given to revert to an earlier version. Johnathan1155

As the policy is for Wikipedia I work for a NPOV article. For that sake, mentioning some of the early attacks may be deleted (not that simple to establish who did what I guess). I do however stand by that the murder of Kadirgamar should be listed, and that it is connected to LTTE. There is little doubt within the international community as to how organised this murder, had the capacity and something to win from it. Again - that is also what the article you quote from India Defence says, whichever way you bend it.

I will however not do any more edits to the article as I believe this should be solved among those interested in it. I propose that user User:Johnathan1155 discuss a rewrite with user User:Ponnampalam, seems to me that if they manage to agree the outcome would be an article that should be fairly NPOV. Ulflarsen 13:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not mention the NESOHR because it is formally and functionally independent of the LTTE, but you can certainly mention that the LTTE assisted in its creation and supports its work. As was discussed earlier on this page, a discussion of the withering away of the SLHRC and the general human rights situation in SL should find place in a separate article on Human rights in Sri Lanka. Why don't you write that article including all these details? It is very much needed, but it would bring back too much memories for me if I tried to write it.

On the Notable Attacks section, I would urge you to be mindful of the three revert rule. Why don't you rewrite the section as you would like to see it, and post it on this page? I am sure we can agree on a version which you can then transfer to the main page. -- Ponnampalam 13:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NESOHR I do agree it is formally an independent organization, although there are close 'working'/umblical links to the LTTE. I can certainly get some reference regarding this. Human rights of the Tamils is the integral part of the conflict (or the claim that it is). This can't be an independent issue from the LTTE. Sure there can be another article dedicated to that subject (I can certainly add stuff to it), but that surely cannot mean this article is robbed of it. I believe there should be lots of overlap, because atleast one of the protaganists (namely LTTE) to the conflict believes so. The LTTE claim for taking arms is the loss of human rights of tamils, pogroms on Tamils (1956, 1961, 1977, 1983) ,breakdown of sucessive political pact with the SL Government from 1948 onwards, politically motivated colonization of Tamil areas etc. The effectiveness or the lack therof of the SLHRC is relevant in the LTTE argument. The opening statement on the LTTE mentions the goal of creation of Tamil Eelam. But why does it want Eelam ? That remains unanswered till a little later.. Instead the article diverts to recent developments at the international stage.

The answer or the attempted answer is hidden in the "Beginning of the LTTE" section. Here it goes on to say "The lack of results after twenty-five years of negotiations, and the rise of Sinhala nationalism as represented by the 1972 constitution, led to a significant section of young Tamils, particularly in Jaffna, adopting a more radical position which favoured the use of violent means." It was not merely lack of results it was the loss of rights (Sinhala only act), education quota system, employment quota systems, it was abrogation of previous agrements by one party (namely the Sri Lankan government), suspected stated aided pogroms. There is a clear difference, abrogation is factual. It can't be claimed to be not neutral. The 1972 constitution was created without consent/input from the Tamil majority areas. (fact) None of this mentioned ... There are many holes in the article to say the least. A lot of it lacks CONTEXT and there is selective use of facts as I had mentioned earlier.

As for the Notable attack section, I will go ahead and rewrite what I think would be balanced way of doing it. I certainly hope there is collective input on this. In any event I believe the notable attacks section should be separated, with sections for allegations , what is proven and advertised millitary offensives by the LTTE side. Within the allegation or proven section, there needs to be context added as I had mentioned with the Maha Bodhi Tree incident. User:Johnathan1155

Good that you will look over the notable attack section. I do however want to say that I feel a bit that you are "kicking in open doors" in your arguments above, seems like you want to label both Ponnampalam and me as in line with the JVP/JHU. As for me I started the articles about Black July and Sinhala Only Act, trying to cast light on why the conflict started. I have also done my part of reverting edits from Sinhala chauvinists that branded the LTTE as terrorists and nothing more. In writing about this I do however still state that one can not just check out the parties statemenst, or court records, like what I wrote about the killing of Kadirgamar. I have various contacts that clearly states that Kadirgamar was murdered by the LTTE, and I really believe that most people with knowledge about the conflict will agree with me in this. Ulflarsen 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with earlier versions of this article has been that it always talks about why the LTTE exists and not what the LTTE is and has done. There is plenty of information on the former but almost nothing on the latter. Defences of the LTTE have also tended to pretend that it had nothing to do with any atrocities rather than exploring why the cadre feel that what they do is not wrong. I tried to improve the article in both ways. We can have a section on the motives of the LTTE if you want, but it should be a section whose size is in proportion to the article. I think you said you were a journalist, so you should know that the information on the LTTE's motives should not overshadow the other aspects of the organisation since this is supposed to be an encyclopediac entry.

I would also add that as someone who lost very near family in Black July, I do not appreciate the sentiment that I am somehow trying to whitewash things in favour of the Sri Lankan Government, and the suggestion that I am taking a JHU line has made me lose my temper enough that I have had great difficulty in keeping a measured tone while making my last two comments. I am not sure if I will be contributing to this article or the discussion in the near future, but I am sure you will do a balanced job. Good luck. -- Ponnampalam 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish to point out that MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base covers only international incidents for period 1968-1997. Domestic events are only covered after 1998. Domestic events prior to 1998 is best taken come from some other source, such as the Annual Reports of Amnesty International. I cited the GoSL document within the UNHCHR report since that is the best source currently available online for period 1983-1994. Lakdiva

To Ponnampalam: I am sorry to hear of your near family loss in Black July, my condolences.

To everyone:

I should state that I have raised what I believe are valid academic criticism about the article. These criticism are not meant or intended to be personal but is directed at the contents of the article and should be intended as such.

Criticism of work and debate (of work) is integral part of academics, since authoring encyclopedias is within the academic realm. Yes, with this article there are lot stuff that may have emotional impact with different people etc. For contributors, where the specific section maybe emotionally charged and might cloud judgment/reasoning, it would be admirable to step away and refrain from working on those sections.

The intention has to be clear that this is an encyclopedia entry about the LTTE. The entry must adopt NPOV and aspire to be authoritative.

Just having fair share of accurate and disputed figure and exclusion of other important facts makes the article biased as mentioned here: "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly (although even this is arguable for this article), the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased" [20] I should mention ordering can achieve bias as well, although I am not sure why its not on the NPOV_dispute page.

Particularly this selective ommission of certain relevants facts makes the article disputed and appear biased. I have pointed out some examples. I would certainly like to hear more counter argument preferred (or comments) regarding this.

There needs to be consistent approach to deal with what is proven facts,allegations, theories and such. All of these have to be identified as such.

A good article needs to cover what,where,when,why and how. In addition the "what,where,when,why and how" all needs to be neatly covered (in compact form) in the abstract segment of the article at the very beginning. Right now the 'why' is extremely lacking to say the least (I have only focused on the why right now).

I don't believe in size limits to the article because this approach is prone to be subjective and the intention for the encyclopedia is not make this into a subjective item.

In the end when someone reads the article, the person comes away with having good, thorough understanding of the subject matter. (If thats the case then all of us have done a good job).

(Btw, to answer user:Ponnampalam, not that it should matter, I am an academic.)

To Ulflarsen:

With regards to Lahksman Kardigamar, what you have repeatedly said are beliefs.

"There is little doubt within the international community as to how (I think you meant who) organised this murder" Just because the IC believe in something or majority (or most) of the people believe in something it doesn't make it factual.

A famous historical example is the "Earth being at the centre of the universe debate." during the time of Galileo.

Further in Latin it is the following "argumentum ad populum" [21] and is another form of fallacious argument. I should mention as reference (for anyone interested) please go through the following, namely logical fallacies [22].

The question is whether the Kardigamar murder is proven to be the work of LTTE and the answer is "NO." Therefore if its your belief the LTTE did it, then its an allegation. Within the article, according to Col. Hariharan there is "no worthwhile evidence" to link the LTTE and so thats what I have left it as.

The point is that when there are facts or allegations or theories presented, there needs to be a clear, logical verifiability mechanism in place. Claiming inside source etc. etc. doesn't help with verifiability.

Johnathan1155 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving ahead

To Johnathan1155: It seems to me that some of your concerns about a lack of context can be met by adding a section on "Goals and methods" at the beginning of the article, before the section on the "Military LTTE". I see that section explaining, briefly, why the LTTE want Eelam (or rather, the right of self-determination, since they seem now to be prepared to accept a solution short of total independence), why they think the use of violence is necessary to achieve this end, and why they use of violence against both government and civilian targets. Would you be happy with that? There's been a whole lot of academic writing on these issues which we could and really should draw on. I'm in the process of producing a set of articles on the ethnic conflict and the main players for the one of the Norwegian wikipedias, so I'll be quite willing to help write this section although I think it might be better if you produced the first draft, since you obviously know your concerns best!

On the "notable attacks" section, I suggest having one single section rather than separate "alleged attacks" and "proven attacks" sections: in my opinion, the section's role in the article is to provide an overview of how the LTTE operates and how its operations have evolved over time, not to provide an exhaustive list of every single attack it has ever launched (or been alleged to have launched). The language of each entry can be tweaked to make it very clear which are proven, and which are unproven allegations. I've no problem with the provision of context, so long as it's context that's been proven to exist: we should cite context which is established either through the Tigers' own statements or through analyses in reputable sources, we should not speculate on what the Tigers' motives might have been in carrying out an attack.

And, most importantly, I also think that in doing all this we need to be very careful not to end up with an article that is a sympathetic portrayal of the Tigers. For example, if we add information about the Tigers' reasons for having chosen the methods they have, we must balance that by devoting equal space to explaining why these reasons have been rejected by the international community.

So, do these basic principles sound OK to you? If so, let's chalk out exactly what needs to be done, and then proceed to do it. -- Arvind 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To Arvind:

Goals and Methods at the beginning would be appropriate, I agree. On that subject LTTE philosophy could also find a place. LTTE claims its a politico-military organization. So the political section needs to be accounted for. An explanation of why it wants Eelam etc. should be included. But some of this should be within the summary at the beginning, so that a factual picture (which can't be disputed) is evident within the first 5-8 sentences. As it stands now, the international development takes way too much of this space. What I meant is that the why needs to be answered in short at the beginning as well.

The reason we need that bit about the LTTE being listed as a terrorist organisation as close to the first sentence as possible is that every once in a while someone comes up and changes "militant organisation" to "terrorist organisation"; under those circumstances it's useful to be able to point to the next sentence and say that since that states that it's banned as a terrorist group in several countries, the first sentence doesn't need to say that too.

My suggestion would be something along the lines of the following in the abstract section (full details will be mentioned somewhere else perhaps international status etc, listing countries and dates):

"The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organization by several countries with sizable Tamil diaspora populations due to its tactics and treatment of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents."

Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

At the same time there must be a rebuttal within the first paragraph to answer the question of why the Tigers use terror tactics, namely to counter state orchestrated terror along the lines of the following:

LTTE claims to have pursued terror tactics inorder to check and deter state orchestrated terror pursued by the Government of Sri Lanka on ethnic Tamils.

Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping those two sentences as they are, and perhaps adding a sentence or two on "why Eelam" at the head of the next paragraph. It'll be easier to do this once we have a section on "Goals and motives". -- Arvind 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rich resource of material analyzing the LTTE and its objectives,goals,tactics and all of that should be referenced and exploited for this. I am afraid thats not the case right now. Your input on this would be invaluable. I could work on a first draft but, you are more that welcome start beforehand.

With regards to answering 'why ?' section, I think what you have suggested is a plan we can go forward with.

With regards to the "notable attacks" section, adding to what you have suggested, maybe we could present that section as a Timeline of important events.

This now allows for summary of important events related to the LTTE to be displayed, cover notable attacks, as well as millitary victories/losses, other relevant events such as Tsunami, etc, with clear indication of facts and allegations. Your suggested as to handling context in this section is also acceptable I think.

Now this point, "And, most importantly, I also think that in doing all this we need to be very careful not to end up with an article that is a sympathetic portrayal of the Tigers." is quite problematic.

Here is my explanation why:

Observation(s) that lead someone to conclude an article is sympathetic or not is based on intepretation. Intepretation is product of what is written within the article and the user's inherent baggage (life time experience,biases etc.). Just to be clear about this argument, as an example a hypothetical Kurdish person may be able to relate the LTTE and PKK and therefore reach one conclusion relative to their life experience ( sympathy) and an Israeli may see connections between Hamas and LTTE and therefore view it with outrage. Therefore my point is that the "sympathetic potrayal" is relative and very subjective.

So in the end who should walk away coming with a "sympathetic potrayal" and who shouldn't ?

Obviously we can't control what people reading the article come away with and that shouldn't even be what we try to do. If different people reading the article form different assessments that's only a good thing, because it shows that the article isn't slanted either way. What I was trying to say was that the article should not end up reading as if it supports the basic point the LTTE stands for: it should present the LTTE's point of view and the opposing point of view with equal force, and leave the reader to come to their own conclusions on the rights and wrongs of the matter. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Even within the international community there is a spectrum of reactions to LTTE actions. The extremes being US on one side and perhaps Norway or Japan on the other side.

Its important to remember all of these parties do have their own interest that guides their actions. From an academic point of view can they be considered mantels of neutrality ?

How about Think-tanks and conflict/resoluton academic institutions instead ?

My argument to get around this is to cover as much relevant stuff as needed, so that the major arguments are covered comprehensively (it must also be from respected and relevant academic sources, ie no room for invention of new ideas here.). I almost agree with equality for the for and against points. But it should not be according to space but rather strength of the argument covering each side ("summed" over all the selected academic sources). Although some more thought is needed here.

I disagree quite strongly, actually. Who is to judge what is the "strength" of arguments on each side? As a Tamil, it seems obvious to me that the Tamil side's basic stance is very strong and the Sinhalese arguments justifying the government's policies are pifflingly weak. But it's equally obvious that many Sinhalese see the Tamil argument as lacking force or strength. Assessments of strength are always subjective, and I do not think we can present an article which is neutral for Wikipedia's purposes if we base the coverage of opposing points of view on a subjective assessment. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify or differentiate between "equal force" and "equal strength". My thought on this is that 'force' is based more on perception, whereby certain words or presentation could be used to dampen or exaggerate the forcefullness of the statement. The strength assessment of the argument I think can be judged by the due coverage (space)/rank (where applicable) given by well known/respected sources on the subject. For example if the same argument is found in multiple sources, then that should also be conveyed here with more prominence than an argument that only has very limited coverage from single respected source. Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that I believe there are 'why' shortcomings peppered in the remaining sections of the article, in addition to skewed/problematic statements that makes the article appear biased, details appended below. I am applying the NPOV dispute tag on the article until this is all sorted out comprehensively.

Here are details on more shortcomings:

One lightning rod example is the reason for full scale conflict between LTTE and TELO in 1986. The reasons stated in the article is by no means comprehensive (or sufficiently detailed) even compared to earlier sources such the Broken Palymrah. For example one of the potential issues leading to this conflict is the feuding within TELO between the "Das faction" and "Bobby Faction", where "Das Faction" has links with LTTE. LTTE's claim was also that TELO was involved in criminal activities etc (this stuff could also be intepreted as propoganda or coverup stuff) But some notable evidence to support the LTTE side should also be mentioned, for example drastic drop in crime after the attack on TELO etc “An aspect of L.T.T.E. dominance that made it acceptable to the general public was that robberies virtually ceased. The poor and the middle classes were left alone.”

(Hoole et al., Broken Palmyra, Chapter 5)

The other claim that was TELO's Indian connection and fear that India was out to crush the LTTE via TELO. But it well observed in (Hoole et al., Broken Palmyra, Chapter 5) that this justification by LTTE doesn't have much basis since LTTE was known to be the stronger,more organized and active party, and TELO was moving out of the Jaffna peninsula.

This statement in the article:

“Some commentators have suggested that the LTTE were also unhappy that the most of the funding from expatriates went to the TELO, rather than to them (Jeyaratnam Wilson, 1999)”

This statement I believe will be questioned as a plausible motive, the citation is incomplete and should be verified. Was expatriate funding a point for contention in 1986 ? The main foreign base for the militants was Tamil Nadu then. Both relied on Tamil Nadu and India for financial help, if I am not mistaken. If indeed TELO had the bigger share of Indian financial help (which is widely agreed) and if all this was just about finances then surely there would be consequences for the LTTE, namely straining of relationship/link with India.

The LTTE had a much more love/hate relationship with India than the TELO did. The TELO believed in a Bangladesh-style solution, the LTTE did not. Prabhakaran, as Narayan Murthy points out, was always suspicious, particularly after the death of Indira Gandhi and MGR, that India was not fully committed to Eelam and would turn against the Tamils sooner or later. Narayan Murthy and Jeyaratnam Wilson have analysed why the LTTE took the calculated risk of wiping out the TELO, India notwithstanding, though I'm not sure how much detail we need to get into on that here and how much belongs in a separate article on internecine conflict amongst the Tamils. But anyway, here's the quote which I expect the article relied on as regards expatriate funding:

"One of the motives behind its elimination by the LTTE was jealousy and suspicion that most of the expatriates' funding reached TELO hands. The LTTE felt that despite its great performances in the battle-field, it was not receiving its due recognition." (A. Jeyaratnam Wilson, Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism, Hurst and Company, London, 2000, p. 127).

So at least one fairly significant commentator has expressed this view, and the statement should stay in the article. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this theory should have a place in the article, but aren't there competing theories or context not given coverage (within this discussion section in the article, ie LTTE mentioning TELO descended into crime) ? I do however prefer to see something closer to what is mentioned by Jeyaratnam than what is in the article. To better clarify what you mean by 'equal force', I think the TELO-LTTE warfare (ie reasons for LTTE to wipe out TELO) maybe a good topic for you to demonstrate this mode of presentation. Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A selection of skewed or problematics statements:

"After martial law was imposed in Jaffna in 1979, the LTTE began targeting the military. They were responsible for the attack which provoked the bloody anti-Tamil riots of 1983. These riots and the government's crackdown on Tamil separatism produced a steady stream of volunteers for the LTTE, which they shaped into a proper army."

This again is not NPOV and could be considered misleading. Again this is a glaring problem.

This implying or attempting to imply (through appearance) that the LTTE caused the anti-Tamil riots ("which provoked") since the other protagonist in the conflict is not identified in the statement.

That's not how I read it at all, but feel free to reword it as long as the information about the chain of events stays in. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have something on this shortly. Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition loss of Tamil civillians, property, other monumental losses should also have a place should it not ? Connection to Kuttumani and Welikade prison assualts... Certainly this had a significant emotional impact on the militant movements. There is also controversy here regarding Kuttumani and LTTE's real relationship - nothing mentioned here.

Extent of the riots not given here. Surely, some description should be here and remaining be cited to the Black July page.

I'm not sure I agree - this article is about the LTTE, not the ethnic conflict. Some bits about the ethnic conflict are obviously necessary background, but a detailed description of the Black July riots does not belong here. I would be for adding a sentence along the lines of "The ferocity of the Black July riots, and in particular the number of Tamils killed (figures), the extent of destruction of property (figures), and the relative inaction of the state security agencies radicalised many Tamils and led to a significant increase in grassroots support for the militant groups". A brief reference to the Welikade prison massacre might be relevant, but again I'd be in favour of only mentioning the massacre here, and describing it in detail in another article.

The reason I'm insisting on hiving things off into separate articles is that there is simply so much one can write about the LTTE and the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka that this article will quite quickly end up becoming a book unless we stick to Wikipedia:Summary style. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What you mention here seems fine overall. Certainly a fair amount of hiving may necessary etc, where there is significant overlap. Having mentioned that, I think to avoid burning fingers with controversy, the issues particularly controversial/debatable ones need to be comprehensively covered.

Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro. statement about the Black Tiger in the "Rise to Dominance" I feel is obviously biased and out of place. It is unnecessarily controversial and diverts from the history. What is relevant in that paragraph is the Captain Miller incident and how this strategy appeared to be very successful for the LTTE militarily in 1987 (in retaliation for attack on civillians).

The Black Tiger statement sounds like the LTTE unleashed its entire force to do wanton destruction of all those categorized targets from then on without mentioning proportion. This is clearly not the case. Was the unleashing of suicide squads wanton terror or calculated military moves ? This issue needs to be explored.

It was used sparingly under certain conditions… this needs to be elaborated within the 1980s. In the 1990s, I agree it was used on both military, government and civilian targets etc (hence it evolved into an important strategy in context to atrocities perpetrated by the govt. or to level the military playing field etc. ) Johnathan1155 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "The year after, in 1987 the Black Tigers was established. The Black Tigers were originally a small, elite unit of LTTE members, who conducted suicide attacks against a few strategic targets. The first Black Tiger attack occured on 5 July 1987, when Captain Miller drove a truck loaded with explosives into an army camp in Jaffna, killing nearly 40 soldiers", perhaps?

I think the article needs a discussion somewhere of when the LTTE began attacking civilian targets (as opposed to policemen, banks, soldiers and politicians) and why they did so. We can fold the use of Black Tiger suicide bombers against civilian targets into that discussion. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This also seems fine Johnathan1155 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your statement:

"Even within the international community there is a spectrum of reactions to LTTE actions. The extremes being US on one side and perhaps Norway or Japan on the other side."

I dont know much about Japan, but at least for Norway that is not correct, even though it seems to be a common misunderstanding among the parties to the conflict. Norway is a close ally of the USA and Great Britain for more than 60 years, a founding member of NATO and has thus of course sided with the USA in all important international issues. Norway has also supported various US peacekeeping and peace-enforcing missions, from the Korean War up to todays war on terror, and Norway has a significant force in Afghanistan, a contribution much valued by the US forces due to the Norwegian soldiers background from mountains and training under similar conditions.

As for the US and UK banning the LTTE and Norway not, it must be seen in the light of Norways role as a facilitator to the conflict (which of course also is cleared with its allies). Norway is also keeping close contact with the co-chairs to the conflict (besides Norway its the EU, USA and Japan) and very close contact with India. The Norwegian facilitators most always include India when they visit Sri Lanka. Ulflarsen 09:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is with respect to the LTTE and the Sri Lankan conflict. Both Japan and Norway are strong post WWII allies of the US. With respect to the Sri Lankan conflict, each country mentioned has a different role to play (Norway -mediator, Japan- banker, US - carries the stick) , although I do agree they act in concert and may have a common stance, but for the sake of their 'roles' act accordingly. Certainly Norway and Japan have so far generally acted with quiet diplomacy, while USA appears to use the megaphone. Nevertheless for appearance sake, there is a spectrum of reactions.

On a personal note, I think Norway's efforts to help with world security and peace highly commendable. Unfortunately, mediating the Sri Lankan conflict is being described as a 'thankless job'. With regards to the article, I do think you and Ponampalam had the best of intentions and weren't out to toe a propaganda line but certainly the subject dealt is a very sensitive one that will be heavily scrutinized.

Johnathan1155 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my comment on regarding Norway as a longtime US/UK ally was intended to put it in context with the conflict. As for some sinhalese chauvinist they have stated that Norways actions in Sri Lanka is in conflict with the US war on terror. Not so; on the contrary, just various instruments to play within the same band. Norwegian mediation since 2001 is in fact much in due to US/UK wishes, as the then conservative foreign minister was into withdrawing Norwegian mediation, he could see little sense in Norway engaging in Sri Lanka. He was then persuaded by Jack Straw and Colin Powell to continue. So they asked us to keep on working, we did - and if they demand that we end the mediation and ban the LTTE, Norway will comply. Ulflarsen 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Ok, maybe it was vandalism, now that I think about it. Sorry for that. The ed17 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)

from the outside

I came to this page out of curiosity over the subject, like so many pages I and many others visit. I really know little about the subject, but just reading it becomes very obvious that there is a serious lack of NPOV throughout this page. Not to demean the work done and diplomacy evident in the discussion here, I'm sure it's a touchy subject for many. You guys need to qualify your language more, at least as much as possible.

The article is tagged with a NPOV tag, and from the discussion page its clear that it is under revision. Dont know what more could be done - besides that anonymous commenters starts paying us to work on it. This is a difficult issue, as anyone with knowledge of Sri Lanka knows, and we are not paid to do it. As for the organisation the article is about; some regard them as saints and freedomfighters, quite many other as murderous terrorists - so its not strange that the state of the article reflects that. In my opinion its rather good that the article is not locked up after editwars... Ulflarsen 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The LTTE is not a terrorsit organisation according to australia

LTTE not terrorist organisation

LTTE is not considered a terrorist organisation by the Australian Government. The article therefore is incorrect and misleading. Please refer to http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument

Contention - "LTTE not terrorist organisation - According to Australia" is misleading.

Referring to the above link as the primary source for the Australian Governments definitive position of who is apparently 'in' and who is 'out' of their definition of terrorist organisations is a narrow field of view. Either for reasons of oversight or omission that list is by no means all encompassing and does not confer authority.

Terrorists are non-governmental organisations who deliberately target civilians and must be consigned to their correct classification of "Hostis hvmani generis - Enemy of the human race". All glorification of terrorism as resistance or freedom fighter movements is a flagrant abortion of Human Rights, ignoring the genocidal costs of conflict (circa 60,000 innocent victims since 1983 in this theatre).

Kindly refer to and adhere to up coming UN Mandate on definitions of Terrorism in 2006 for further Editorial guidance, and keep Wiki propaganda free.

delibertely taget civillians? sounds more like the Sinhala govt. note the recent bombing of an orphange in trinco. Secondly is there any proof that LTTE kill civillians? First, did the event happen ? How can it be verified ? is this proven or alleged? According to you terorists are non government organsaitions, and i agree. LTTE is the goverment in the north east. So there for are not considred terrosits by many.

'Edit Wars'

One of my academic friend said this article(and 'edit war's) clearly shows peaceful solution for srilankan conflict is impractical.Wikipedia is a successful encyclopedia except coverage of Srilankan conflict. This also indicate uniqueness of Srilankan Tamil conflict,and this also teaching us(and US) the unpredictable and mysterious efficiency of Tigers. -Nayaka- 1 May 2006

There is of course various opinions regarding the LTTE. There is however no doubt that the LTTE has a degree of support both in Sri Lanka and abroad, and that is not only due to it harassing tamils. One should also remember that the LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka - and neither does the EU ban it. Those who strive to label the LTTE as a terrorist organisation should keep that in mind, and that like it or not - LTTE is the organisation the GOSL need to come to terms with regarding a peaceful solution. The current HoM to SLMM has said that the conflict can not be solved by war - if it could have been, it had already been history. So the parties need to talk and together find a solution. Ulflarsen 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

== 'Peaceful solution' for Tamil conflict ==

Thanks for the comments from former SLLM staff.I appreciate his ground knowledge.Actually I meant peaceful solution accepted by all parties for Tamil conflict is impractical.History says there is no political wisdom in south to handle or solve Tamil question.I am from majority community(in srilanka)but in my analysis LTTE and Tamils already successfully established a Nation and its units.But in south they are speaking about united srilanka and some rarely federal solution.When observing developments closely we can expect LTTE and Tamils will unilaterly achieve their National ambitions soon.They seems following the ways of Jews.Hopefully 'International Community' will recognize them after Independence. -nayaka-13/05/2006

Notable Attacks By LTTE

::Reminding everyone that all thease attacks are listed in credible/respected source(given below much earlier).Please pay attention to the discussion.

Someone Is Deleating the Links I add everyday.If push comes to shove we will also do the same thing.Isnt this a open source for everybody.???

Before reading this keep in mind that the person whom wrote seems very bias, he makes it look like the LTTE is just kiling for fun does this guy have a clue how many tamils were killed, i'll easily say more than five thousand, you before being so bias take reality into account. The army is Literally killing and mistreating their role in society every day, before just sticking some kind of junk here just make sure you clearly know what you are talking about. teps

LTTE have killed tons of innocent tamils!! we are well aware of it.Again all thease attckes are listed in credible/respected source and not junk but FACTS.

Reminding you that all thease attacks are listed in credible/respected source(given below much earlier).Please pay attention to the discussion.

Some guy keeps deleting the links that I add to this artical just to make it a bit nutralized version.Is this allowed here.???

I have moved this section containning a list of alleged incidents to the Dicussion page. There is no credible/respected source stated. No proof given that LTTE did it. This is an encyclopedia not a speculation game. Johnathan1155 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m glad that you are aware that this is not a place to play games. This is an open source that should not be misused!

Is MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base and UNHCHR UNHCHR considered to be credible/respected Source?

It is listed In MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Basethat LTTE is a terrorist Group and its listed that the attacks below was carried out by the LTTE in UNHCHR UNHCHR.So I dont see any problem in listing these as "notable attacks" by LTTE.As a matter of fact we are all trying to give the true picture to the world not mislead them.

• 30/11/84 29 Sinhalese Villagers killed by LTTE at Kent Farm, Oddusudan
• 30/11/84 33 Sinhalese Villagers killed by LTTE at Doller Farm
• 01/12/84 11 Sinhalese Villagers killed by LTTE at Kokilai, Vavuniya
• 13/12/84 27 Tamils killed by LTTE at Oddusudan
• 19/01/85 11 civilians killed by LTTE in Yal Devi Explosion
• 14/05/85 120 civilians killed by LTTE at the Sri Maha Bodhi, Anuradhapura
• 14/05/85 18 civilians killed by LTTE at Wilpattu.
• 02/06/85 13 civilians killed by LTTE in CTB bust at Morawewa.
• 04/06/85 13 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Dewatte, Trincomalee.
• 03/05/86 16 killed in a bomb blast in a Tri-Star Plane at Katunayake Airport by LTTE.
• 07/05/86 14 killed in bomb explosion by LTTE - CTO Fort.
• 25/05/86 20 Sinhalese shot dead and 20 houses set on fire Mahadiwulwewa, Trincomalee by LTTE.
• 31/05/86 13 killed in a bomb blast at Veyangoda station.
• 04/06/86 17 Sinhalese villagers including Bakamune Subaddalankara Thero, shot deat at Andankulam, Trincomalee by LTTE.
• 11/06/86 22 persons killed by LTTE in tow explosions in Trincomalee.
• 25/06/86 16 Sinhalese killed by LTTE in bomb explosion, Sittaru, Kantale.
• 08/07/86 15 Sinhalese villagers shot dead at Monkey bridge, Trincomalee.
• 19/07/86 12 Sinhalese shot dead at Medirigiriya,Polonnaruwa by LTTE.
• 22/07/86 32 Sinhalese killed in mine explosion at Mamaduwa, Vavuniaya by LTTE.
• 24/07/86 12 civilians killed in a bus-bom at Issenbessagala, Medawachchiya by LTTE.
• 07/02/87 28 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Arantalawa, Ampara.
• 22/03/87 26 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE at Serunewa, Horowpothana.
• 17/04/87 96 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Trincomalee/Habarana Road.
• 20/04/87 15 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE at Jayanthipura, Trincomalee.
• 02/06/87 30 Buddhist monks and 4 civilians shot dead by LTTE at Arantalawa, Ampara.
• 11/06/87 13 civilians killed in a pressure mine explosion, Veppankulam by LTTE.
• 06/10/87 18 Sinhalese shot dead by LTTE at Batticaloa.
• 06/10/87 27 Sinhalese villagers shot dead at Sagarapura, kuchchuveli, Trincomalee by LTTE.
• 06/10/87 22 Sinhalese shot dead by LTTE at Talawa, Eravur.
• 07/10/87 30 Sinhalese shot dead by LTTE at Ampara.
• 15/10/87 14 Sinhalese passengers shot dead on Ella Kantale, Trincomalee by LTTE.
• 16/10/87 11 Sinhalese hostages killed by LTTE at Pulmoddai, Trincomalee.
• 09/11/87 23 civilians killed, 106 injured in a bomb explosion at Maradana, Colombo by LTTE.
• 12/11/87 12 Tamils killed by LTTE in landmine explosion, Cheddikulam, Vavuniya.
• 02/03/88 14 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE - Morawewa, Trincomalee.
• 05/03/88 16 Muslims and 8 Sinhalese killed in a mine explosion, Sitturu, Kantale by LTTE.
• 11/03/88 19 Passengers of a private bus killed, Suhadagama, Horawpothana by LTTE.
• 14/03/88 13 villages killed at Galametiyawa, Kantalai, Trincomalee by LTTE.
• 31/03/88 10 Muslims and 07 Tamils killed at Saindamaradu, Kalmunai by LTTE.
• 08/04/88 14 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Horowpothana, Meegaswewa, Anuradhapura.
• 01/05/88 12 Sinhalese, 9 Muslims and 5 Tamils wee killed by LTTE at Sittaru in landmine explosion.
• 28/07/88 16 civilians killed by LTTE at Etawetunuwewa, Welioya.
• 25/08/88 11 civilians killed by cutting their necks, by LTTE - Marawila, Polonnaruwa.
• 09/10/88 44 villagers killed by LTTE at Mahakongaskada, Medavachchiya.
• 14/11/88 28 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at paniketiyawa, Gomarankadawela.
• 02/02/89 11 Sinhalese hacked to death, by LTTE - Bogamuyaya, Maha Oya, Ampara.
• 11/02/89 34 Sinhalese villagers killed by LTTE at Dutuwewa, Horowpotana.
• 27/02/89 37 Sinhalese villagers shot dead by LTTE at Borawewa, Polonnaruwa.
• 17/08/89 18 civilians killed by LTTE in an IED explosion at Nochchikulam, Vavuniya.
• 26/07/90 19 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Thammannaelawaka, Medawachchiya.
• 03/08/90 103 Muslims killed and 70 wounded at Meera Jumma and Hussaina Mosques, Kathankudi, Batticaloa-by LTTE.
• 05/08/90 17 Muslim farmers killed by LTTE at Mullayankadu, Ampara.
• 06/08/90 33 farmers killed by LTTE at Ampara.
• 07/08/90 30 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Bandaraduwa, Uhana, Ampara.
• 08/08/90 26 Sinhalese killed by LTTE in a bus at Meegaswewa, Anuradhapura.
• 11/08/90 116 Muslim killed at division 3 and 6, Eravur by LTTE.
• 13/08/90 14 civilians killed in bus ambush, at 15th Mile Post, Pulmoddai, Welioya - by LTTE.
• 19/09/90 23 Sinhalese killed and 11 houses burnt by LTTE at Vellanmundal, Puttalam.
• 21/09/90 15 killed by LTTE at Pudukudiyirippu, Ampara.
• 23/01/91 25 civilians killed by LTTE at Bogammuyaya, Maha Oya, Ampara.
• 02/03/91 13 civilians killed Havelock Road bomb explosion that killed Ranjan Wijeratne - by LTTE.
• 14/04/91 17 Sinhalese killed, by LTTE - Ethimalai, Monaragala.
• 20/04/91 21 civilians hacked to death by LTTE at Niyadela.
• 27/06/91 16 civilians killed by LTTE in two claymore explosions at Lahugala, Ampara.
• 06/07/91 16 Muslims and 2 Sinhalese killed by LTTE at Pudur, Polonnaruwa.
• 19/09/91 13 Muslims killed by LTTE at Palliyagodella, Polonnaruwa.
• 10/04/92 25 civilians killed in bomb explosion in Ampara - by LTTE.
• 29/04/92 56 civilians killed by LTTE in Muslim village, Alinchipothana, Polonnaruwa.
• 02/06/92 15 passengers killed in bust by LTTE at 209th Mile Post at Ampara.
• 15/07/92 19 Muslim passengers killed in a bus by LTTE at Kirankulam, Batticaloa.
• 01/09/92 22 Muslims killed in an explosion in Saindamaradu, Kalmunai- by LTTE.
• 01/10/92 15 civilians killed by LTTE at Konwewa, Welioya.
• 15/10/92 172 civilians killed 4 Muslim villages - Pallayagodella, Ahamedpura, Pamburana and Agbopura in Polonnaruwa-by LTTE.
• 01/05/93 17 killed by LTTE at Armour street explosion that killed President R.Premadasa.
• 16/03/94 17 Sinhalese killed by LTTE in Kudiramalai, Puttalam.
• 24/11/94 55 killed by LTTE in bomb blast at Grandpass including Gamini Dissanayake.
• 25/05/95 42 civilians killed by LTTE at Kallarawa,Trincomalee.
• 07/08/95 22 People died in bomb blast at Torrington Square-by LTTE.
• 21/10/95 16 villagers killed by LTTE at Mangalagama, Ampara.
• 21/10/95 36 civilians killed by LTTE at Moneratenna, Bowatta, Polonnaruwa.
• 21/10/95 19 villagers killed north or Padaviya, Galtalawa, Welioya - by LTTE.
• 25/10/95 11 civilians killed by LTTE at Athimale,Kotiyagala, Monaragala.
• 25/10/95 12 villagers killed by LTTE at Panama, Ampara.
• 26/10/95 26 villagers killed in an attack by LTTE on 03 Kabethigollawa villagers.
• 11/11/95 15 civilians killed in a suicide attack by LTTE at Slave Island.
• 31/01/96 89 killed in Central Bank building bomb blast-by LTTE.
• 24/07/96 68 people killed in a bomb attack by LTTE at Dehiwala Railway station.
• 15/10/97 18 civilians killed at bomb blast in Galadari Hotel, Colombo-by LTTE.
• 24/01/98 A LTTE suicide bomber had exploded 02 bombs in the vicinity of Dalanda Maligawa, Kandy.
• 06/02/98 A LTTE Suicide bomber exploded at Air Force Road block, Slave Island, killing 03 Airmen.
• 05/03/98 Bomb exploded near Maradana Police Station, killing 38 civilians and injuring 270 civilians.
• 11/09/98 An explosion took place inside the Municipal commissioner’s office closer to Nallur Kovil. Mr. P Sivapalan mayor of Jaffna and 07 others killed and 15 wounded.
• 17/07/99 A time bomb fixed to a bicycle exploded exploded near old police station, Batticaloa. 02 civilians died and 17 were wounded.
• 29/07/99 A LTTE suicide bomber exploded himself whilst Dr. Neelam Thiruchelvam was travelling in Rosmid place junction.
• 22/09/99 An explosion occurred in a private bus parked at the Negombo private bus stand injuring 02 civilians by LTTE.
• 22/09/99 A bomb exploded in a People’s Transport Service bus plying from Negambo to Kuliyapitiya, injuring 09 passengers.
• 26/09/99 A bomb exploded in a private bus near the 2nd Mile post of Badulla, Passara, Monaragala killing 01 civilian and injuring 28 others.
• 18/12/99 An explosion suspected to be triggered off by a LTTE suicide female terrorist took place at the Town Hall, Colombo.
• 18/12/99 A explosion at Ja-Ela bus stand where the UNP presidential Election rally was held. 12 civilians killed with Major Gen C L Algama and 45 others wounded.
• 05/01/2000 A LTTE suicide bomber exploded near Prime Minister Office in Flower Road, Colombo killing 05 persons and injuring 24 civilians.
• 25/04/2006 a LTTE female suicide bomber attacked the vehicle of the commander of the Sri Lankan army at army headquarters in Colombo. Several military personnel were killed and a number of people were injured.

Many are afraid to come forward out of fear of reprisals by the LTTE.

I have also moved this recently added paragraph to the discussion section:

Many are afraid to come forward out of fear of reprisals by the LTTE. On October 12, 2005, a German principal, Kanakapathy Rajadurai who opposed the LTTE's recruitment of children was shot and killed at his school. Subsequently, a German Tamil named Vaithiyanathan Loganathan was attacked and serverly beaten when he organized a memorial event in Dusseldorf in November, 2005.

There are some strong claims here.. Is there any credible source to prove LTTE ordered and did this ? First, did the event happen ? How can it be verified ? Second, does it have anything to do with the LTTE, is this proven or alleged, is it verifiable ? Who alleged this ? These statements are not referenced at all. It needs to be referenced from a credible,verifiable source. Johnathan1155 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To all: Since some users want pull out a list of allegations that sounds like a JHU recruitment poster, how about we add some real FACTS: http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/nesohr/060101civiliansstats.pdf http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/nesohr/060101evictionstats.pdf

Census on Tamil civillians killed,injured, cleansed from their homeland over 30 years by Sinhala extremist govts. (34 pages),

35,323 Tamil civillians murdered by Sinhala govt.

3534 Tamil civillians disabled for life by Sinhala govt.

6805 Tamil civillians injured by Sinhala govt.

2483 Tamil civillians disappeared by Sinhala govt.

8580 Tamil civillians arrested by Sinhala govt.

3505 Tamil civillians tortured by Sinhala govt.

317 Tamil civillians mentally affected by Sinhala govt.

Total: 60,517!!!

Good Nite and have a nice day.

Trincomanb 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good nite? What the hell is good nite? Go to college before writing articles. A 1st grade student could spell night correct if that’s what you mean. Listen ……… don’t get caught to these blood thirsty mongers . They purposely don’t allow you to attend college so that you are easier to be controlled. Be educated so you know the real situation, you know what your are doing- you will know what is right and what is wrong and no body can manipulate (control) you or take your life for granted. Don’t waist your life there’s a world out here. I hope that you will think about what I said very deeply and GOD will give you the POWER to understand what I mean….

Hi!

The problem is we all are wasting our life as long as the situation in Srilanka remains the same! good nite or good night is not the issue here.... and regarding the education.... well i think both parties should come out of their hole and see the world :) -GeesX-

Good night is not the issue here, brain washing the innocent tamils and using their lifes for granted is the issue here.Actually the real issue is LTTE NOT accepting the fact that SRILANKA has a governmet .Its people democratically elect the government and consist of all ethnic groups including Tamil.If the LTTE (separatists from the ethnic group of Tamils in Sri lanka) dont like the government and the way the SL Govenrment administer they should migrate to a country that they like the administration ---point blank!!

not everything should be listed/written, even if its true????

There are different views of LTTE, some cosider it a liberation organisation, others see it as a terrorist outfit. The aim of Wikipedia is to try to mention all relevant facts. That means that not everything should be listed/written, even if its true - there should be a selection. Ulflarsen 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the most Confusing and Dceptive artical I've ever read in the web!

Karuna faction

Why is there no reference in this article about the breakaway Karuna faction that split from the LTTE in March 2004? Wiki has articles on it (Colonel Karuna) but shouldn't they be referenced on this page about the LTTE?

Why not? You are as able to write about it as anyone else, so if you believe its relevant - and I agree in that, then add a line or two about it. Like it or not - but the Karuna faction plays a role in what goes on with the CFA. Ulflarsen 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The section "Mythical Tamil Homeland"

I have deleted the section added; "Mythical Tamil Homeland". This is an article about the LTTE, please try to keep it so.

The section with "Mythical Tamil Homeland" really does not fit into an article about the LTTE. As in any article on Wikipedia, anyone can contribute but it needs to be to the point and NPOV, in my opinion the above mentioned section fails on both. Ulflarsen 09:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward, again

This article has unfortunately reallly gone downhill in the past few days (Why has the entire section on the peacetime LTTE[visible in this version vanished?). I propose that we try to revise and NPOV-ise it sectionwise over the next few days, so that we have a good, neutral wording for each section to which we can quickly revert if users add POV edits (or, for that matter, any edit not justified by reference to good, reliable sources). I think that this should be quite easily doable, particularly with input from Jonathan and Ulf Larsen and other users, since we seem to represent a fairly broad spectrum of views on the LTTE.

Here is my suggested rewrite of the introduction:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military organisation that is fighting to establish an independent Tamil state, to be called Tamil Eelam, in the north and east of Sri Lanka. In addition to its military divisions - consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing - the LTTE currently controls some portions of northern and eastern Sri Lanka, where it runs civil services including judicial, police, financial, and cultural services.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabakharan, and views itself as the sole representative of Sri Lankan Tamils. It is generally seen as being the main body with whom the Sri Lankan government must negotiate to resolve the long-running ethnic conflict.

The LTTE's use of violent means in its campaign for independence, and particularly its treatment of civilians and political opponents, have drawn sharp criticism from the international community and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by India (1992), Malaysia (1996), USA (1997), UK (2000) and Canada (2006), as well as other countries. Notwithstanding this, the LTTE attracts a fierce loyalty from a sizeable number of Tamils worldwide, who contend that its tactics are a necessary and proportionate response to anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanka.

Once it reaches a formulation we can all live with, I'll replace the current version with the agreed one. The section I propose to work once we've done that is a new one, on the goals and methods of the Tigers. -- Arvind 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a constant editwar on this article, I have tried to revert the obvious POV edits I have seen, but I have been at work and thus not able to follow up that good. Ulflarsen 14:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw the editwar. I've reintroduced the deleted bits now - I was wondering if there had been something I missed. You've been doing a great job of reverting the worst edits - one certainly can't expect you to do the impossible all by yourself! I've been away from wikipedia on "farspermisjon" myself, so I haven't been able to help out either.

Hopefully fighting the editwar will be easier if we have a consensus wording for each section (which we don't at the moment), because there will be an accepted position to revert to and it will be easier to defend it if it represents a broad consensus. What are your thoughts on my suggested rewording of the introduction? -- Arvind 14:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its good, but the sentence about LTTE fighting for Tamil Elam, they sure did, but now they must be aware of the ground facts, that there never will be an independent Tamil Elam (my source for this is Erik Solheim). Fighting for Sri Lankan Tamils rights, or a federal solution - or something in that direction...? Ulflarsen 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military organisation that is fighting for self-government for the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, through the establishment of a separate independent state in the north and east of Sri Lanka, or through the creation of a federal arrangement in a manner that recognises the sovereignity of the Tamil people. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also runs civil services - including judicial, police, financial, and cultural services - in the portions of northern and eastern Sri Lanka which it controls.

The language of "recognising the sovereignity" comes from a statement Tamilselvan made in February this year in an interview with Time[23], so it probably is the most accurate statement of the LTTE's current position. -- Arvind 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the reintroduction of the deleted bits, I do agree in that. However one should bear in mind that there are imbalances in the picture. Take child recruitments - if the GoSL recruits a 16 year old for military service, no problem - if the LTTE does the same, its a breach of international conventions. This is a problem - as most of the CFA violations are child recruitments. Another problem withs such stats is the defender/attacker, the GoSL being the defender it can "sit on its fingers", while the attacker, the LTTE - can not afford that. If one accepts the argument in the book "Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka.", that is the south having the main responsibility to correct the problems of Sri Lanka, then one may see at least parts of the CFA violations from the tigers as a symptom of something being wrong, and not the disease itself. Ulflarsen 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear of the effort to restart cleaning up the article. I am hoping to contribute in a weeks time. With regards to the ban in a number of countries, I think it should be mentioned somewhere that the ban has been put in place in countries with a 'sizable' minority Tamil expatriate/diaspora population. Also with regards to the last statement of the intro, my suggestion would be the following:

Notwithstanding this, the LTTE attracts a fierce loyalty from a sizeable number of Tamils worldwide, who contend that its tactics are a necessary and proportionate response to state orchestrated violence directed at the minority Tamil community in Sri Lanka. Johnathan1155 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable:

Notwithstanding this, the LTTE attracts a fierce loyalty from a sizeable number of Tamils worldwide, who contend that its tactics are a necessary and proportionate response to anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanka, in which they accuse the government of being complicit.

I think "complicit" is a better description of the substance of the accusation than "state-orchestrated". The latter seems to me to speak of the state playing the sort of role that we saw during the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. I've promoted the descriptions of the Tamils as a minority in Sri Lanka to the first sentence. -- Arvind 21:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But this is what the LTTE side will contend .. that it is state orchestrated (ie. the government was the protaganist that was involved in the violence). They will contend that this comparable to Yugoslavia or Rwanda for that matter. After all this particular statement is highlighting their mindset. Johnathan1155 03:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

...and that should find mention in the body of the article. If we bring that into the introduction, there'll be demands that we include Sinhalese allegations that the LTTE is racist and it'll descend into a never-ending spiral. I'd like to keep the more extreme allegations out of the introduction, and restrict them to the body. -- Arvind 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An alternative formulation I suggest is Notwithstanding this, the LTTE attracts a fierce loyalty from a sizeable number of Tamils worldwide, who contend that its tactics are a necessary and proportionate response to anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanka, which they accuse successive governments of encouraging and supporting. Do you think that is acceptable? I would like to avoid the words "orchestrating" or "organising" for the reasons I mentioned above. -- Arvind 20:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The last suggestion sounds fine Johnathan1155 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Extremely funny from the BBC

In this article from the BBC about the current stalemate there's an extremely funny comment regarding the LTTE not taking responsibility for trying to kill Fonseca:

Nobody likes being treated as a fool, and when the Tigers tell mediators they have no idea who sent a suicide bomber to blow up the army chief, finger nails start pushing into palms.

And for the balance, there are several salty comments regarding the other side as well, as anyone that has seen the SLA or SLN up close can subscribe to. My point is just that writing as below that "no proof to links LTTE to the incident" is just a proof that the one who wrote it tried to cover up for the LTTE... Not what one expects from an encyclopedia. At least one could write something like no hard evidence, but everyting points at the LTTE.

An attempt by a LTTE pregnant female suicide bomber (allegations by Sri Lankan government, no proof to links LTTE to the incident), the explosives disguised as the late stages of pregnancy, fails to kill Lt Gen Sarath Fonseka (a high-ranking army official who is alleged by UTHR(J) to have orchestrated widespread killing of unarmed Tamil civillians and LTTE supporters [20]), who is thought to be the main target. However, he was seriously injured and required surgery. Eight others are killed and around thirty injured.

I think its good to try to remember that people actually read what we write, and quite a few of them are not stupid. Again, the article is rather balanced and kicks equally to the GoSL, for good reasons, but as this article is about the LTTE I wanted to adress that matter. Ulflarsen 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan authorities said that they don't know whether or not she was pregnant[24]. That should also be qualified. -- Ponnampalam 10:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures must have a valid license - doubt this one has...

The latest picture added to the article seems to be scanned in from a book or a magazine, not the original picture. Thus it is probably not correct when its license tag says that its owner has "irrevocably released all rights".

All pictures on Wikipedia need to have valid license. Ulflarsen 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the picture in question to [this list] of questionable pictures. If anyone has proof for it being a freely available picture, then please present proof for that, or the picture will be deleted. Ulflarsen 17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Political Activities - Timeline of One Party Comments

There is a problem with the timeline in the second paragraph of the "Political Activities" section. In the paragraph, the statement is made that "in an interview in 1996 ... the leader of the LTTE said that Tamil Eelam would be a one-party state". It later goes on to state "the LTTE's main ideologue ... publicly repudiated this position in 1992". How can a statement made in 1996 be repudiated in 1992? Either the timeline is incorrect, or the paragraph is incorrectly organized and worded. Kurt 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Massacre & child soldiers links

I removed a set of links (diff [25]) added by User:Grandmasterdavinci. The spur link was a link to a generic site critical of the LTTE's use of child soldiers, which did not belong in the place where it had been inserted. A link in the "External links" section to a UNICEF report might be more appropriate, perhaps. I have also removed the list of massacre-links added by the same user. They belong in the "Notable Attacks" section to the extent the LTTE's involvement in these incidents is substantiated by independent sources. -- Arvind 22:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the various links by a single link to http://www.spur.asn.au/attro/Ch1/01Massac.htm - this page links to every one of the photos, and linking to each directly essentially turns the section into an "external links" section. Since the sentence to which the link is appended refers to "accusations", I think we can let the link stand for the moment, though we obviously will need to reconsider this entire section when we get to it in the course of the ongoing rewrite. -- Arvind 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

...and I've added a link to a pro-Tamil site, so that both POVs are represented -- Arvind 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am getting quite frustrated by these repeated reversions without any discussion or even responses to the points raised on the talk page. If we are going to have direct links to every massacre photo on the spur website, we will also need to have direct links to every massacre photo on tamilnation, and that is very clearly against the policy that neither an article nor a section should be primarily a repository of links. The "Human Rights" section should have no more than ONE link to the spur page (which then links to the individual massacre photos), and ONE link to the tamilnation page (which in turn links to the individual massacre photos). Could editors please try to seek a consensus, or at least respond to concerns, before adding wagonloads of links. -- Arvind 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To user supermod, it is already stated in the intro that quite a few view the LTTE as terrorists with severe breaches of human rights. Its not needed to state it twice. Besides, the latest place you put it was in the intro, which is supposed to give an extract of the rest of the article. Please try to be constructive so this article can be improved. Ulflarsen 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you (Ulflarsen) now seem to be in favour of deleting the final sentence of the introduction, the one referring to "accusing the Sri Lankan government" etc. It seems to me this sentence is needed to balance the previous one and to give some sense of why the Tigers are what they are. Credmond 10:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the last sentence makes the first paragraph bias. I didn't see a 'reason' for its removal, so I added it back reversing user Ulflarsen changes. First its prophecy of what is 'supposedly going to happen' (EU ban) and now it removal of sentences that makes the first paragraph balanced. What is this degenerating into ? Trincomanb 10:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the early addition of the EU ban, but as I was editing the article and I know EU will ban the LTTE today I added it. Regarding removing the last sentence my reasoning is as follows:

I have several times removed edits I consider POV or unneeded by user supermod, including adding repeated comments saying the same in the intro. Seems he has stopped that to, but then he did this deletion and added that then this too was already stated, and I believe he is right in it. First the article reads "The LTTE proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils, and is generally seen as being the main body with whom the Sri Lankan government must negotiate in the long-running conflict." - and then there is a critique of that from the international community. No need to go it all over again. So in deleting:

"In response, LTTE supporters claim self-defence, accusing the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority [1]."

I am simply buying user supermods argument that this sentence indeed is not needed, as the opening already is balanced. On the contrary, by adding this sentence it makes it loose the balance. All relevant facts are allready there, the LTTE sees itself as the sole representative, the major players recognize that one have to deal with the LTTE, but despite of that the international opinion is that LTTE is proscribed as a terror organisation. Ulflarsen 10:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Sole representative, must deal with LTTE, proscribed internationally, are all significant points, but none of them is the same as "LTTE accuses the government of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Tamils", and I do think that needs to be in the introduction to explain the LTTE's motivation. I think I was the person who actually wrote that sentence a few weeks ago, and at the time it seemed to be welcome as a useful and neutral statement. Credmond 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also do not agree with User Ulflarsen 'point of view'. The statement as mentioned is in context to why LTTE feels that it is forced to pursue violence. With this statement taken out, never in this article does this point get mentioned. Seeing yourself as sole representative and need to pursue a certain strategy (pursue violence) is not the same. This thing about International opinion is also very "Western" centric. You counterpoint might be well there is Malaysia and India on this list... but both of these countries have aligned with the West in major geopolitical issues.

Sure certain countries have banned the Tigers, but atleast 160 countries (excluding EU - there is still no formal announcement) HAVE NOT banned them. What does international mean ? Shouldn't you count those 160 countries ? By saying international community is too vague as just mentioned here.

Also shouldn't we then go head and list all the countries that have not banned the LTTE to make this "NPOV" ? Certainly not. In my view the word 'international community' should be taken out, because the number of countries that have banned LTTE is not even a simple majority of the international community and the countries that have banned LTTE should be detailed in the body not in the intro! The point the statement in the first para. (which is biased) is being conveyed with LTTE being banned in those countries to get the reader to think, oh these guys got banned in countries x,y,z all listed in the intro so therefore these guys are some mean dudes! There is some balance achieved with LTTE counter argument being presented. Trincomanb 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree with your opinion on this. On the list of those who has banned the LTTE, its already 30 countries (EU has decided to ban LTTE), and the list most probably will expand. But the most important is that with EU onboard it means that all main countries where tamil expatriates live, the LTTE is banned. This will limit its access to funds, and that is a significant development.

Another significance is that EU, Japan, US and Norway are the co-chairs, the countries responsible for coordinating the international community's policy on the conflict. Two of the four co-chairs have now listed the LTTE as a terror organisation, and although Norway will not follow suit, it will probably take actions that de facto counts for the same. So like it or not, its significant. Ulflarsen 06:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted this as a possible reformulation of the introductory section elsewhere on this talk page. Is it acceptable to everyone, particularly User:Credmond, User:Trincomanb and User:Supermod?

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military organisation that is fighting for self-government for the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, through the establishment of a separate independent state in the north and east of Sri Lanka, or through the creation of a federal arrangement in a manner that recognises the sovereignity of the Tamil people. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also runs civil services - including judicial, police, financial, and cultural services - in the portions of northern and eastern Sri Lanka which it controls.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabakharan, and views itself as the sole representative of Sri Lankan Tamils. It is generally seen as being the main body with whom the Sri Lankan government must negotiate to resolve the long-running ethnic conflict.

The LTTE's use of violent means in its campaign for independence, and particularly its treatment of civilians and political opponents, have drawn sharp criticism from the international community and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by India (1992), Malaysia (1996), USA (1997), UK (2000) and Canada (2006), as well as other countries. Notwithstanding this, the LTTE attracts a fierce loyalty from a sizeable number of Tamils worldwide, who contend that its tactics are a necessary and proportionate response to anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanka, which they accuse successive governments of encouraging and supporting.

-- Arvind 13:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted a note here a couple of hours ago and it has absolutely disappeared, so I will try again: yes, I am comfortable with that rewriting. I'd suggest streamlining it by leaving out the names of the five countries, and I would also suggest saying "civil administration" rather than "civil services", but those are small points. Credmond 02:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, today's Times reported the EU ban on the LTTE, so it probably ought to be in the article. -- Arvind 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The ban should be on the page once its officially announced period. The 'who banned what' details should not be on the opening paragraph. If anyone wants to have the list of banned countries, then we should also list 160 countries that have not banned the LTTE. Anyone care to do that ? I think Credmond did a superb job with his version of the intro and I fully support it. All the facts are there and the details, particularly the list of countries that have labelled LTTE as terrorist is not repeated and is mentioned in the body of the article. With user Arvind version, I think it doesn't present the full extent of the LTTE argument and goes into assigning too much of intro to labeling of LTTE as terrorist by listing the countries. Also, can it be proclaimed that LTTE really wants to negotiate with the SL government... is it not contradictary with the previous argument that it is fighting for a separate state. Trincomanb 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current intro is good enough, we dont need to list all the countries banning the LTTE. I believe the current version should be acceptable to all sides. Ulflarsen 09:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not exactly champing at the bit to make changes, and it's great if the article reaches a form stable enough that we can remove the pesky NPOV sign. -- Arvind 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro has been agreed to by the ones editing this article. No need to list in detail what nations have banned the LTTE, the detailed list is further down in the article. Ulflarsen 13:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)