Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/issues 2009

Religion of Velupillai Prabhakaran

Resolved

 – Apparently, the request was to remove unsourced information, which has been done now.

The article states that his religion is Christian. However, multiple sources on the web denote that he was born a Hindu and still practices this, being particularly fond of worship of Lord Subrahmanya (Lord Murugan). Particularly, the US Pacific Command's assessment of him, listed as the first external link, discusses this. Perhaps this should be changed.

0seeker0 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please bring the citations here, so we can add it properly using WP:CITE formatKanatonian (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did not see a reference for the claim that he is Christian in the article. I am therefore removing it now. — Sebastian 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Prabhakaran is a lapsed Methodist [1][2].Pectore^talk 08:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, interesting! However, I don't think this qualifies for inclusion in the article. The term "lapsed Methodist" is ill defined and not something you want to add to a WP:BLP without a proper citation, and I'm not sure if Christian Century qualifies as one. The AT link seems to refer to V.P.'s faith only in a blog message, and AT is only a QS. Therefore, unless 0seeker0 says otherwise, I consider this request resolved, it apparently was to remove unsourced information, which has been done now. — Sebastian 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the principle that questionably sourced statement may not merit inclusion into the article. However, as an observer of the Sri Lankan conflict, I wish to show that this is NOT a religious war, and to stamp out unsourced misconceptions. Prabhakaran under no means is a Hindu.Pectore^talk 05:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pectore, when this citation was brought in very long time ago, this so called lapsed methodist citation was questioned . It was brought in by someone I knew very well then:)). All what I know is, if someone looked hard one will find citations that shows him attending Hindu religious festivals with his wife. To say he is not a Hindu or for that matter a Hindu or Christian is at some level sort of propaganda that certain Indians play. See an article by an anthropology professor that claims the whole organization is using Hindu world view. Kanatonian (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to edit a "resolved" section, but this issue needs to be put to bed, as it keeps coming up in various contexts. A piece in the Times Higher, clearly a reliable source, addresses this question expressly in the course of a review of a book on the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. In the course of commenting on a contribution which discusses the Christian influence on the LTTE (and calls Prabhakaran a Catholic), the author of the review says:

"The picture is somewhat complicated. Prabhakaran is known to be a Hindu, a follower of Murugan (considered by Tamils to be the son of the god Siva and his consort Parvati), and the grandson of the owner/builder of a Siva temple; pictures of Prabhakaran's wedding show a Hindu ceremony. On the other hand, the LTTE has sought to eradicate casteism; all LTTE ceremonies are secular; they bury their dead, rather than cremate them in the Hindu manner, in keeping with an ancient Tamil custom of burying warriors; and Prabhakaran named his son Charles Anthony after the LTTE's first suicide bomber (his daughter has the distinctly Hindu name Dwaraka)."

See also this piece in Time which reports that he was wed in a Hindu temple near Madras. Hindu temples do not conduct wedding ceremonies for Christians. -- Arvind (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And Robert Micheals questions even the so called secular nature of the organization. All his three children were named after dead LTTE cadres, it had nothing to do with religion. Kanatonian (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Worship in a Hindu temple may not equal Hindu, especially in Sri Lanka. Look at Alfred Duraiappah for example. Also Arvind, Time Magazine does not even mention in their recent article, the fact that Tamil Christians are a substantial minority of Tamil in Sri Lanka, and a majority in many areas, claiming that they are Hindu. I would take their words with kilograms of salt. The Island notes he serves the Christian worldview [3], while the Japan Times states correctly the inroads of Christianity among Tamils [4]. Either way, with his wanton murder of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, but his relative pacifism toward Christians, his loyalties are clear. That may not be enough for BLP (hence why I am not pressing for reinstatement of his religion), but its the reality.Pectore^talk 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

TMVP

The bluebox was removed two days ago with a user noting that nobody (Basically besides me) edits the page and there really is no issue with neutrality on the page or even content. For that reason I find it peculiar that SebastianHelm removed it when it (prior to today) had no mention on this page.Pectore^talk 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking here. Editing on that page is restricted per the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. That agreement was the result of long negotiations of well respected administrators, who did their best to include every editor of articles in the Sri Lanka Conflict.

But you are right; editing on that page seems to indeed have been very peaceful. I don't see a reason to keep the restrictions for that particular page; let's see what other here have to say. — Sebastian 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

socialism

On the right hand side box of the LTTE article, it is mentioned that one of its ideology is socialism. It is not correct by looking at this article [5]. See comments about 1977 elections.-Iross1000 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

I took a quick look, but failed to find anything about the ideology. Anyway there is no reference that claims that their ideology is socialism. They might want socialism for the state they aspire to create, but that does not make their ideology socialism. Tamil Nationalism is the best fit and should be the only one mentioned. For those reasons I added a fact tag on the particular section. If there is a RS that claims this, then we should keep socialism under ideology. Watchdogb (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lasantha Wickramatunge

Resolved

Kindly ensure that this article is not used as a Daily Mirror promotion cite.

Also ensure that one unsupported viewpoint that government is responsible for the killing from dominating it. This is attempted by citing opinions pieces in various media sources that do not cite evidence. Opinions are opinions made with bias. If quotation of one opinion is allowed, quotes from opposing opinions should also be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.112.134 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of activity is going on in this article, some good some bad. In my view it needs a Blue box on it. Kanatonian (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I acted quickly, since this is a person who recently died, and this is when such pages usually are most viewed. I also feel that WP:BLP provides an additional need for protection. Please, in light of what I said above, I would like to keep this open for a week before we archive it. (Of course, if anyone raises objections here, we will consider them and can remove the template again.) — Sebastian 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

His name is misspelt it should be Lasantha Wickrematunge [6]86.31.99.23 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

that link has two different spellings, one on the red banner, and a different one in the text. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we semi protect this article ? too much anon vanadalism. Kanatonian (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the semi-protection. — Snowolfd4 — continues after insertion below

Done. Did anyone warn the disruptive editors? Are there any vandalism-only accounts? — Sebastian 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In their final article about him, The Sunday Leader spells his name "Wickrematunge" in every place. [7] That said, I'm torn between which spelling should be used, because his name is definitely pronounced Wickramatunga, not Wickrematunge. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Use what is in his officia bio site ? Kanatonian (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he has an official site. There's a similar discussion going on on Talk:Lasantha Wickramatunge, where a user has pointed out his obituaries spell his name with 2 "e"s. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From a linguistic point of view (which might not be relevant at all for the title), this question boils down to whether one uses transliteration, in which case you get 'a', or transcription, in which case you use English 'e' to represent the sound [ə]. I think one should either use all a's or all e's from a scientific point of view, but common usage trumps this. For wickr_matung_ , google gives aa: 20700 ae: 1100 ea: 9250 ee: 35500. Jasy jatere (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove blue box

DYK admin would like to remove it before putting it up on the DYK page. What do you gusy think ? Kanatonian (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me. I'm not familiar with the DYK process - do these pages get fully protected for the time they're exposed? — Sebastian 09:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. But doesn't matter anyway, it was rejected yesterday. Chamal ^talk 11:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think removing the blue box has more to do with them not wanting an article, with the blue box proclaiming it to be possibly inaccurate, to show up on the front page. I can see there point too I guess. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is more with the "editing restrictions" and because of the phrase "dispute resolution". That's why the reviewers were hesitant to put it up on the main page. If an article is subjected to editing restrictions, it's not much use putting in on the main page and inviting people to edit it, is it? :) Chamal ^talk 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC to broadcast special feature

BBC World Service just sent a report on Wickramatunga, in which they announced there would be a special feature about him at 12h GMT, but I couldn't find it at http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=all&q=Wickramatunga. — Sebastian 09:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review?

Can we have a peer review (within the project I mean) on the Battle of Kilinochchi (2008–2009) article? If so, what is the way to go about it? I've been working on the article for the past few days, and any help and advice would be appreciated on improving it and pointing out any mistake/bias. Chamal ^talk 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea! We haven't done this yet, but we could just use the same format of WP:PR (See also instructions at WP:PR#How to respond to a request.) They use transclusion, but that may be unnecessarily complicated. How about if we kept all peer reviews on the subpage /PR? — Sebastian 07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen people at WP:MILHIST doing something like this. I thought this might be better than going straight to WP:PR since getting some feedback from people who have a kind of background knowledge on the subject would be more helpful to identify factual and neutrality problems. At PR, you're likely to get detailed suggestions only on WP:MOS and things like that. Chamal ^talk 08:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's how I understood it. I meant that we can create our own subpage with a name such as WT:SLR/PR and then use the tried and proven format from WP:PR. If you like, you could just click on one of the red links just to start the page; and then people will respond just as described at WP:PR#How to respond to a request; only that they will do so here, instead of at WP:PR. — Sebastian 08:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Peer review - and nominated the article too :) - using the layout from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review and Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review. Hope it's OK. I also added the link to the project page. Chamal ^talk 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein and the reliability of tamileelamnews.com

Resolved

 – compromise wording

There was an edit war at Bruce Fein about inserting the link http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20080605_12. I think this is noticeable; it doesn't happen very often that an American lawyer gets accused of supporting terrorists by the government of another country. I propose that we add this incident (with correct attribution), along with the reply, which I found at http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_9429.shtml. How reliable is tamileelamnews.com? I could not find a page that represents Mr Fein directly. What would be a fair summary of the rebuttal? — Sebastian 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because accusing one has to be balanced with his/her rebutal as far as WP:BIO is concerned that too accusation coming from a non reliable source, I would say that if the accusation has to be in the article then we have to attribute to the source and then the rebutal has to be made available and attributed to the source. Kanatonian (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein is currently working for an organization that is currently trying to press Genocidal charges against one american citizen and another green card holder - Sarath Fonseka and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Watchdogb (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add parts of this article he wrote to the Wikipedia entry. [8]

“ The Tamil Tigers seek a secessionist state in the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka through terrorism. Characteristic of like organizations, the LTTE undertakes auxiliary activities that strengthen its terrorist torso and sweeten its public face: political organizing and advocacy; diplomacy; social services and humanitarian aid; economic development; establishment of a quasi-government on the Jaffna Peninsula; and, defending Tamils from human rights abuses. ”

“ Medically assisting the LTTE, however, facilitates terrorist abominations. Its injured members more quickly return to terrorist duties. And the LTTE more readily attracts grass-roots sympathizers, financial contributions and terrorist recruits. The nefarious LTTE terrorist goal of partitioning Sri Lanka into separate Tamil and Sinhalese nations would be closer." ”

A few wads of cash can really change a persons opinions, can't they? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that he is a supporter of LTTE ? Just because he is trying to press charges against officials of the Sri Lankan Government, who are also American citizens, does not make him pro LTTE. People who are in danger of being prosecuted might think so though! How exactly does the above quote fit into his Bio ? Mr. Fein has probably been quoted thousands of time and so are you proposing that turn his article into a quote farm ? If that is the case, then I disagree since this is wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is proven, we have to mention the accusation in the article, right? I believe this is a notable incident. I'd agree with Kanatonian. As for tamileelamnews.com, it looks to me like a suitable site to be used as a source. But it is clearly biased towards the LTTE, and this should be remembered when using it. Maybe something along the lines of tamilnet, or more likely the Asian Tribune. In short, I think it could be included as a QS. Chamal ^talk 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the accusation is made by a notable body (the GSL) and is therefore relevant. It is well sourced as well (to the government itself, which should know which positions it defends). We can take defence.lk as a reliable source for the positions of the GSL (although it is not reliable for many other topics). If Fein offers a rebuttal, it can be included, but if he does not, that would be no reason to remove the notable and sourced accusations. If the government of the USA accuses someone of being a terrorist, we include that info as well, even if it is often completely bogus. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I Disagree because the GoSL consist of members who Fein is trying to prosecute. So any such accusation from the government is a accusation from a POV source. Unless we can find the rebuttal from Fein, we cannot add the government claims without violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "John Doe is a terrorist" and "Government X believes that John Doe is a terrorist". The former is POV, the latter is NPOV. So, this is surely not in violation of WP:NPOV. As for WP:BLP, I suppose you are refering to the section "criticism and praise". If this is wrong, please state to which section of WP:BLP you are refering. I quote the relevant passage:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Could you please detail in what respect the inclusion of the link would be a problem in light of the passage presented above? Jasy jatere (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem here, as I mentioned before, is that the Government of Sri Lanka consists of members that this lawyer is trying to prosecute. So any bashing that comes from Sri Lankan Government are going to be in violation of WP:BLP. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

the government of Sri Lanka is a juridical person distinct from Mr Rajapaksa et al. Fein tries to charge Rajapaksa and Fonseka. He does not try to charge Sri Lanka.Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously if he had not decided to prosecute these people he would not have been accused of terrorism and such.Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we add government claims to his article, then by the same token, we should add his claims to the articles of people who he is trying to prosecute.Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I am not totally against including these claims into the relevant articles, for the record I would state that the reasoning is faulty. If A must be mentioned in article B, this does not mean that B must be mentioned in article A.Jasy jatere (talk)

Additionally, we will also be forced to add his claims about the people who are bashing him even on his article. Unless we agree to that, then we cannot add government claims to his article. Watchdogb (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we maintain a distinction between the official opinion of states, and the personal opinion of people, which is general practice I presume, there is no need for this. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Fein's statement is actually archived here. We can use that without any attribution whatsoever. Also, Mr Fien has warned that the Government of Sri Lanka will be sued if they continue to make allegations about him without evidence. I wonder how wikipedia will fair too Watchdogb (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also any addition of such material from GoSL to the BLP, will be met with much addition from this. Watchdogb (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

calm down. Wikipedia is not a place for threats. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is making threats ? This is his defense to the said article from GoSL. So obviously there needs to me much addition from his response. That is general wikipedia rules. Also, can you not break up my comments ? Breaking up someone's comment gets confusing and messy and even I was confused about who made the comment. More comments will be made once my comments are put back properly. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course both should be there if we include it. That's how we maintain NPOV around here isn't it? We provide both sides of the story without taking any side. Both are verifiable straight from the original publications. Wouldn't it be something like "the gov. has accused bruce fein of x. These allegations were denied by fein, who in turn accused y,z of x."? Chamal ^talk 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to what I proposed initially. However, my problem with this is that, while we can assume that a government website represents the opinion of the government, all the statements we have by Bruce Fein are from websites that do not necessarily represent his opinion, and are not reliable per se. Moreover, it is not actually a reply to the GoSL. The Statement of Bruce Fein responding to twenty five questions submitted by the Asian Tribune, is, as the name says, a reply to Asian Tribune. It begins with "The Asian Tribune, a notorious echo chamber of the Rajapaksa brothers reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda on behalf of the Third Reich, ...". I am sure that many would stop reading right there. (See also Godwin's law.) This does not sound like the defense of an American lawyer with 37 years experience in constitutional law against terrorism accusations by a foreign government. Instead, it sounds like a venomous rant. Using such a rant as a "defense" may rather harm than defend Mr Fein. This is why I brought up the question about reliability of sources for his statement right in the first place.

But I think we can close this discussion. Jasy found what I feel is a good compromise. The wording "The government of Sri Lanka has taken notice of these activities and expressed its discontent." summarizes very well all noteworthy and reliable facts we currently have about this. If someone finds a real defence, we will add it to the article. — Sebastian 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian, I agree with what your saying. I also just saw what Jasy has written in compromise. I must say that this was a Great Job on Jasy's part.

Just an FYI, this is Mr Fien's exact words. This is archived under "Tamil's for Justice" which is the organization Mr. Fein is representing. Watchdogb (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But what is our position on tamileelamnews.com? Is it a RS or QS? Chamal ^talk 11:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's patently biased and inaccurate, so I'd say non-reliable. The only use we could have got out of it was the LTTE's point of view, but since TamilNet pretty much covers that, I don't think tamileelamnews.com should be used at all. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ltte commanders articles are proposed for deletion

Resolved

ltte commanders articles are proposed for deletion, these have links from Tamil Tigers, LRRP and battles artilces. If the articles shouldn't be deleted please add your comments in articles' talk page. All the deletions are proposed by User talk:THF.-Iross1000 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka to comment on the deletions.Pectore^talk 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the AFD's are on target, this is an encylopedia project so it is difficult for newbies to grasp it properly. Very few LTTE members meet WP:BIO criteria. They are VP, Anton Balasingham, Thileepan, Karuna, Shankar to name a few others are not WP:NOTABLE. The one who may be notable is Pulendran one of the reasons is beacuse he led the Habarana massacre of 120 Sinhalese civilians along with his suicide when asked to. We have no other criteria for his notability unless we find more RS sources that mention them exclusively. Tamilnet and Sangam articles just mentioning them for this or that reason will not do. I have been trying to tell all this time that all the articles you created about these people will one day be gone. If you want to do the right thing find the RS sources that talk about them exclusively and them rewrite them but it is going to take time to do it correctly. Kanatonian (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree here. No notability asserted in most of them, and it's no use !voting to keep without giving reasons. For the ones that are notable and have been covered in the mainstream media (I see a few; Irasaiah Ilanthirayan, Colonel Theepan, Colonel Jeyam.), they can be improved and I'll see what I can do. Not much chance for the rest though. Chamal ^talk 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong. I could only find passing mentioning of the names, no direct referencing to them or anything like that. Looks like they'll have to be deleted. I think the best option is a list of commanders, as Kanatonian and someone else had suggested in one of the discussions. Chamal ^talk 11:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think most of these people are sufficiently notable to have their own articles. But at the same time, this it would be helpful if we had information about them on Wikipedia. So what if we create an article List of commanders of the LTTE and include the information in there? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that list is the way to goJasy jatere (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I have boldly redirected Colonel Seelan to Charles Anthony Brigade for the time being so that the article can one day be developed. Kanatonian (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like not all articles will be deleted, I will make one article (such as List of Commanders) out of the ones that are going to be deleted. Thanks to everyone for your comments. -Iross1000 (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

I spent some time a few days ago in your sandbox cleaning up and trying to improve the list that you had there, but now it looks like you've reverted my edits and replaced the whole content with {{workpage}}? Where is the list? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me. Are you talking of WP:Sandbox? That would be expected; it gets wiped and changed constantly. — Sebastian 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Politizer is talking about this. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! In that case, Politizer's last version would be this. — Sebastian 04:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we mark this as resolved? — Sebastian 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of commanders of the LTTE article

Since no one has expressed any objection to having such an article, how about we decide here which Tamil Tigers keep personal articles, which get redirected to the list of commanders article, and which (if any) should be deleted completely.

So here's an overview of the people in question, along with their claims to notability other than been an LTTE regional commander or having some LTTE title bestowed on them. Feel free to make corrections if I've missed something.

Name	Notability
Colonel Jeyam	Attended peace talks
Colonel Kumarappa	Participant in the 1987 Mass Suicide of Tamil Tigers
Thambirasa Kuhasanthan	Responsible for all suicide bombings in Batticaloa
Colonel Theepan	Uncited claims that he was responsible for the LTTE defences along Muhamalai
Captain Pandithar	-
Major Mano	-
Colonel Akbar	-
Colonel Sornam	Former personal bodyguard of Prabhakaran
Maria Vasanthi Michael	-
Irasaiah Ilanthirayan	Military spokesman
Lt Colonel Appaiah	-
Colonel Santhosham	-

Out of these, Irasaiah Ilanthirayan is/was often in contact with media organizations so he got a lot of publicity, in a Bagdad Bob sort of way. I would say the publicity he got would merit an article for him. Thambirasa Kuhasanthan is claimed to have been the mastermind behind many suicide attacks, so he too is notable enough for a bio.

Colonel Kumarappa was one of many who took part in the mass suicide, so his article should be redirected to the 1987 Mass Suicide of Tamil Tigers article after any useful content is merged.

For Colonel Theepan, unless additional reliable (not pro-LTTE) sources can be produced where he is mentioned in articles, this should be a redirect to the proposed list.

Simply attending peace talks should not make one notable. There were large delegations on both sides present, and unless additional criteria can be provided that makes Colonel Jeyam notable, I think it should be a redirect to the proposed list. Similarly for Colonel Sornam, simply been a bodyguard for Prabhakaran doesn't make one notable, so unless additional sources can be provided, it should be a redirect.

All the other persons are simply mentioned as regional leaders of the LTTE. Therefore they should all be redirected to the list. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Theepan also handled the defence of Kilinochchi in the 2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi‎, along with Bhanu and Lawrence. Also, I remember reading something where the president urged Theepan (and some others) to "defect and save lives". Chamal ^talk 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this Politzer, I didn't realize that someone worked on it. Anyway it is back [here]. Now that number of you have planned to work on it, I won't edit anything and leave it to you guys. Only request is to keep at least the following: Ambalavanar Neminathan, Shanmuganathan Ravishankar, Kandiah Ulaganathan, Ramalingam Paramadeva & Charles Lucas Anthony. Then there are other requests, such as from Chamal to keep Colonel Theepan.-Iross1000 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, we don't keep articles just because someone requests it (see the deletion and inclusion policies). Mine is no request, I'm just pointing out that this one might be notable if reliable sources can be found. If they are to be kept, information on why they are notable (backed up with reliable sources) must be provided. Chamal ^talk 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Locations

FYI - Some of you may be interested to read [this] and other locations in the drop down menu.-23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

unfortunately, Tamilnet doesnot say who the author is, although one could gues it, i belive he is scared for his life incase something like Taraki happens to him. nevertheless one cannoy use an authorless citation. tamilnet is qs for news not for place name etymology. Kanatonian (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LTTE article

Resolved

Heavy vandalism is happening to the article and specially to the Administrative section. Editors are removing cited materials about administrative entities of the LTTE claiming that the fall of the rebels administrative capital to the SLA means that these administrative entities does not exist. The fact is that thought it might not be functional today, it did function at one time and might still be functioning in a smaller scale. Can members please watch the article. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be semi-protected for the time being. Kanatonian (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing yesterday, but today there have been a number of good-faith edits by IP editors. I think this can be solved if we only enforce the editing restrictions, as I pointed out in the previous section. I added a warning to that effect on the talk page; please bring up any accounts that flout it from now on. — Sebastian 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Today we had two edits that did not follow the editing restrictions, I am warning the users with variations of the following text:

== Please respect editing restrictions ==
You recently edited [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]], which is currently subject to editing restrictions. Please follow the instructions in the blue box on top of that page before you do any edits that could be regarded controversial. You may also want to check out our [[Wikipedia:Introduction|intro page]], which contains a lot of helpful material for new users. ~~~~

If others want to use the same text, feel free to do so. I think it's better than a template because it allows us to vary the text as appropriate. — Sebastian 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary, blocked for repeated vandalism: 99.228.164.238; warned for ignoring blue box and for adding unsourced text: 76.90.65.51; just friendly warning: 67.186.227.139. — Sebastian 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to reply here to Kanatonian' statement in the previous section: "I dont overly interfere in popular articles like LTTE, Sri Lankan civil war etc as at the end, its the responsibility of Wikipedia community not just SLR members to keep them straight.":

If, by "Wikipedia community", you mean the mass of editors outside of SLR and SLDRA, including vandals and other inconsiderate editors, then there's no reason to rely on it. But the Wikipedia community includes us. We are that part of the community that emerged for the very reason to protect such articles. When we put our blue box on these articles, we promise to the rest of the community that we will fulfill the purpose of our WikiProject and SLDRA. We have to keep that promise, or the blue box is not worth the space it takes. — Sebastian 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As you have correctly pointed out earlier, we dont have time to do everything all the time, with the limited time I have I have decided to keep a "watch" on all the not so popular articles and keep creating DYK+ articles, someone else who cares about LTTE and SL civil war should keep an eye on them. Kanatonian (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm happy about what you're already doing. But I'm as concerned as Watchdogb, who started this thread, that those who watch this article may be overwhelmed by those who deteriorate it. I don't know if semiprotection is the way to go; I still would prefer if we tried enforcing the blue box first, but I don't want t obe the only one doing that. It's fine now, but how is this going to work in the future? What will prevent the situation from getting as bad as it has become recently? Maybe we can call on other project members who haven't shown up in a while? — Sebastian 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative way to protect LTTE article

Unfortunately, the above experiment isn't going as I hoped, because few people who watch the page actually take the time to warn the users. As I am trying to cut down on the time I'm spending here, I won't be able to do this much anymore, either. We therefore need to find a solution that requires less work for those who want to protect the article. I'm aware of the following possible alternatives:

semiprotection

The problem I see with that is that there is no clear difference: I have seen disruptive edits by named users, and constructive edits by IP editors.

full protection

That would mean a lot of work for administrators, and prevent the article from the small improvements (such as spelling corrections) that happened in te last days.

full protection with sandbox

We could copy this article into a subpage and allow editing there. Then, once every couple of days, an admin could look at the change history of that page and copy it back, if there really are any improvements. I could sign up to do that twice a week, but I hope there will be other admins, too.

Are there any other ideas? — Sebastian 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe these are basically all the ideas that we can put to work. I personally think that Full protection and Full protection with sandbox are too severe of a step to take. I am also reluctant to agree with semiprotection because of Sebastian's reasoning. I guess that we should just try for another couple of weeks to see if we can warn destructive edits. If this goes well, then the problem would be solved. Watchdogb (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that due to the current state of affairs in the north, the LTTE article may get significant hits in the coming months, so I would have supported semi-protection. But if the consensus is to wait and see, I'm fine with that too. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think semi-protection will be appropriate here. The last 7 IP edits over the last 2 days have been vandalism. If someone wants to change the page, they can either get an account or ask for the change on the talk page. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No replies here, and there was significant vandalism of the article so I put in a request at WP:RPP. It was semi'ed for 3 months. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Battles of Eelam War IV

Resolved

A newly created template, Template:Campaignbox Eelam War IV is being used on some articles within our scope. This template lists a lot of towns that have been captured by the SLA. Now, I see two problems here:

1. It refers to these locations as "liberated", which seems to be POV of the government side. I suggest these should be named in the "Battle of X" format.  Done
2. Most of these capturings did not occur after major battles. The SLA literally walked in and LTTE withdrew. It is unlikely that there is enough information on a "battle" to ever build even a sensible stub for these capturings. Is it really necessary to list such links in this template?

And there's another problem. I just noticed in the Battle of Sampur article that some other name is used to refer to some locations. Looks like a Sinhala translation of the Tamil name to me. What is our position on this? Is it really necessary to add something like this? Looks plain ridiculous to me - just the kind of thing you need to develop racism. These names are not accepted for common usage AFAIK, and I see no reason to include them here without any references or real necessity. Chamal ^talk 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we should invite the creator to SLR and see whether he/she is amenable to discuss. That would be the start. It si just the lack of knowledge of Wikirules which makes people do these things. Kanatonian (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The creator of Template:Campaignbox Eelam War IV was Blackknight12 (talk · contribs) (who is very active now); the creator of Battle of Sampur was Top Gun (talk · contribs) (who hasn't been active since last August). I think it would be a good idea to invite both. Maybe we can use our WP:SLR#Welcome message for new users, which I think has been fallen in disregard lately. — Sebastian 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Should SLDRA be extended to this template and the associated articles? — Sebastian 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kanatonian (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackknight12 (talk · contribs) has fixed the problem with the template already. Thanks for that, Blackknight12. Why don't you join in the discussion? Chamal ^talk 06:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're funny, Chamal! The way to do it is by inviting an editor on their talk page - not here! To make it really easy, we have the aforementioned template. If you look at user talk:Blackknight12, you can see that other projects have already done that. — Sebastian 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I'm aware that this is an off-topic remark, which any of our members can delete per our big box on top of this page. I ask, however, that it not be deleted before Chamal read it.

Well Sebastian, I thought Blackknight12 must be reading this page - that's why I made that comment :) He has made the changes almost immediately following our discussion here, and seeing as nobody has brought the matter up anywhere else, he must have seen it. I'll drop him a note too, now that you reminded me. Chamal ^talk 11:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That campaignbox looks awfully large. Looking at similar ones on Wikipedia, I think the standard is to cut out the "Battle of" part entirely, and just leave the name of the battle. For example Template:Campaignbox_Normandy. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Category Tamil Terrorist

Resolved

The following category is a controversial category that was created recently. It was nominated and the closing was no consensus. The reason I bring this here is that the closing admin claimed that a discussion should take place since, as I understand, the CFD might not be the real place to achieve consensus. This category should be discussed here because most of the argument to keep the category was centered on LTTE and the Sri Lankan conflict. Additionally all those who are currently categorized in the category are LTTE members. Watchdogb (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no reason brought forward against the proposed compromise "Category:Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists", so I will rename it to that for now. — Sebastian 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use this only for individuals wanted by Sri Lanka or any other foreign countries for terrorist activities. This will prevent people adding every other article to it (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if this soon appears in the article of some TNA MP or something like that). Is this possible? Chamal ^talk 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "Tamil Eelam terrorists"? Just like Category:Islamist terrorists, Category:Eco-terrorism, and Category:Italian right-wing terrorists, it is more prudent to characterize terrorism by ideology or nationality (Category:Sri Lankan terrorists) than the implied demonization of Sri Lankan Tamils that inadvertently occurs with Sebastian's proposal (though I commend him for trying). Or we might as well use the Category:Sri Lankan terrorists + Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam members (or analogous group) combo, because that is non-controversial and accurate.Pectore^talk 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. Categorizing them by nationality is one thing, but Tamil Eelam is not a country recognized by any country in the world. But naming it like this would give the impression that they come from the "country" Tamil Eelam. Chamal ^talk 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Islamism", "eco-terrorism" and "Italian right-wing" are not countries either but ideologies, so you really have no point there. Either way, I prefer just utilizing two categories (Category:Sri Lankan terrorists + Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam members), so that these needless debates are avoided and the terrorists are categorized as terrorists, while the militants are categorized as militants (Category:Sri Lankan rebels).Pectore^talk 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that Tamil Eelam can be observed as a country - that is more likely than it being called an ideology. Anybody taking a look at Tamil Eelam will get the impression that these people "come from Tamil Eelam". And BTW, these debates are not needless - we debate now to ensure that there won't be edit wars in the future with biased material, and to make sure that all aspects are NPOV. Chamal ^talk 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont consider this a debate, I consider this a discussion, since we are all working towards a common goal. The CFD otoh was a debate. What do you think of the double category strategy? Pectore^talk 01:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The double category idea is good, and is the one that is currently used I think. But is there a need for a single, more accurate category? Unless this requirement is there, I'm fine with that. Chamal ^talk 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pectore, I am very happy that you speak up here and I encourage you to never hesitate to express any concern with anything I do. So please don't misunderstand it as anything personal when I have something to say about the demonization. I am German, and as everyone knows, the generation of my grandparents has committed tremendous atrocities. You could say that some people demonize Germans for that. But I must say, they have a point. Germans voted Hitler into power. Most Germans did not object when Jews, Sinti and Roma suddenly disappeared. That does not mean that every German, or even the majority, were Racists. But we can't deny that a people has some responsibility for actions committed in its name. Just as it was in Germany 70 years ago, I can imagine that it may be very hard for a Tamil, who lives in LTTE occupied territory, to stand up against the LTTE. But it is important to stand up against any killing of civilians, be they Tamil or Sinhalese. So, when you experience being brought into connection with terrorists, please have some compassion for the person whose father's friend may have just been killed riding a bus, in the name of your people. — Sebastian 03:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand your views in the situation and thank you for the explanation. As a matter of fact, myself and family as Tamil speaking Buddhists have never supported the LTTE in any way or form. However, these killings are not done in the name of the Tamil people; they are done for the purpose of "Tamil Eelam", an ethnically chauvinist creation not unlike lebenschraum. Labeling them "Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists", is somewhat inaccurate, since the LTTE arguably is only fighting for the Karaiyar's and a few misguided Jaffna Tamils of the north. The Batticaloa Tamils and Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka have been effectively ignored by the LTTE or have chosen other paths, so its neither accurate nor prudent to label them as "Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists" when a double category solution more effectively and fairly encapsulates those accused of terrorist activities. Chamal appears to agree in this regard. I am not opposed to "Sri Lankan Tamil Eelam terrorists"Pectore^talk 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see - that makes perfect sense. It is exactly the same as with category:Nazi concentration camps, which is not called category:German concentration camps, or, even closer to the original discussion Category:Quebec terrorists, as opposed to Category:French Canadian terrorists. I now see that "Tamil Eelam terrorists" would have been a better name. But unfortunately, that name was not discussed at CfD, so we don't know how it would be received. If we now were to change it, we would have to start another discussion, which may not be worth the trouble. — Sebastian 04:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave it for now and revist it in 2 weeks after everybody cools down ? Kanatonian (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(deindent). That's a good idea.Pectore^talk 05:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm impressed BTW; we avoid an argument even before it has even a sign of beginning. Wish everyone did the same on Wikipedia. Chamal ^talk 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this overall assessment and discussion. I found the CfD very fatiguing, and I am not ready to do it again for some time. After the dust has settled, let us proceed to finding a good categorization plan which is acceptable to all ethnic groups and parts thereof. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Defacto state

Resolved

There is a green colour map in the LTTE article with reference to area controlled in 2001. But by looking at this it is bit more than that, see areas in the east. Wonder whether the green colour map can be modified. -Iross1000 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

I'm not sure if we can use that flickr image as a reliable source to judge this. AFAIK, the boundaries are the accepted boundaries of the districts that they have included in this "state". That seems to be the case in the image you've given too, but I think the boundaries there are not accurately drawn. We should find a better map (one from a pro-LTTE site would be good, prefably one we have accepted as a QS, since they are likely to know what exactly they are fighting for). Chamal ^talk 12:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not referring to the 'claimed' area. I am actually referring to the yellow marked area in the green/grey map. Yellow marked area is the place which was under control in 2001 . However that doesn't include the area in the east. Agree flickr may not be reliable, but looking at Battle of sampur, Battle of Thoppigala..etc that flicr map (top left corner) might be actually correct as of 2001.-Iross1000 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Whoah, that is true... I'll just be bold and change the caption for now, but maybe this needs a more thorough discussion. I've explained the change here. Chamal ^talk 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this map here. [9] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)