Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archives

Links to other designated terrorist organizations- What does his have to do directy with LTTE ?? Encylopedia should be purely fact based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.65.233 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it’s not al Qaeda or Hezbollah or even HAMAS.

TAMING THE TAMIL TIGERS From Here in the U.S. FBI Report on LTTE[[1]] As terrorist groups go, it has quite a résumé:

   *
     Perfected the use of suicide bombers;
   *
     Invented the suicide belt;
   *
     Pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks;
   *
     Murdered some 4,000 people in the past two years alone; and
   *
     Assassinated two world leaders—the only terrorist organization to do so.

No, it’s not al Qaeda or Hezbollah or even HAMAS. The group is called the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or the Tamil Tigers for short.

Tamil militant groups founded by India

It is a well known fact that the Militant tamil groups especially in the early years where trained, funded and armed by India. By encouraging the Sri Lankan civil war and demand for an independant Tamil state there, the pressure was taken off India's own Tamil Nadu province which is the true and original homeland of all Tamil people. The Tamil people in India, have been forced and subjugated by the Hindi speaking northern indians and treated poorly due to their darker skin tone and dravidian origins. The article fails to mention any of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Editing suggestion in the introduction: current: independent Tamil state in the north (state) is hyperlinked to another article correct: make "Tamil state" be the blue hyperlinked text. explanation: the linked article is not the article for "state", which would be a generic article defining what a "state" is. It is indeed an article about the "Tamil state". So please fix the link reference so that "Tamil state" is the blue highlighted and clickable link. Pardon my ignorance of html, but not of logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.116.205 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article appears biased and seems to serve largely as an anti-Tamil platform. It is a good example of the weakness of the Wikipedia project. Perhaps a we could find a few respected historians of the conflict to do a complete re-write.

Why am I not allowed to say in the introduction what I said a couple days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=185707373&oldid=185698024 . I wanted to include the recent terrorist attack on the bus and to change that ridiculous introduction that the LTTE are "militant seperatists". They are terrorists pure and simply. If it was other way round and a Sri Lankan went onto the Al Qaeda article and told americans they could not call AQ terrorists then there would be uproar would there not? --Ismailmk (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction was subject to mediation agreed after deep discussion and debate.Further even today the LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka and is a legal outfit .Further the Sri Lankan government and International community have considered the LTTE as the representive of the Tamil people hence conducted peace talks with them as a equal partner.If they were pure terrorists the Sri Lankan government would never have negotiated with them for ending the Sri Lankan civil war like the USA will never negotiate with Al qaeda.For example the JVP was a terrorist outfit today it is part of the Sri Lankan parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr.X: LTTE are freedom fighters who have given their entire lives to tamil eelam. You, Ismailmk think because your freinds were killed, LTTE are evil. The Sri Lanken goverment gas bombed Vanni the other day, but you ignore it. Muslims told on the LTTE movements so they were eradicated. Muslims suck up to the winning side and India have their own interests at heart. Anyone resisting the goverment seems to be terrorists in your book, but I bet that if your family were killed by Sri Lanka you would jump onto their side! This isn't a case of whats right to you, it's who hurts you, and you refuse to see justice! You care only of your freinds, however, I bet you have seen tamil children dieing everywhere! But they mean nothing to you, so you ignore them. I may only be 12 years old, but I have the political worlds measure better than you have. Your selfish, plain and simple. LTTE are freedom fighters, plain and simple... And don't give me " your young, you've grown up listening to LTTE". Muslimes just jump onto the winning side, that much I know, along with how tamil eelam WILL BE WON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmiltte (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

LTTE is terrorist organisation. Resisting LTTE is Sri Lanka's war on terror. How will you like it if I was to go to Al Qaeda article and call them a "resistance movement". Three of my friend were injured in a bombing by your "representative of the Tamil people" and another killed. Do you understand that? Ismailmk (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Your representative claims that it wasn't here. Wiki Raja (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI AGAIN! First, President says there is the possibility of other Tamil groups being involved. It is still most likely that LTTE were responsible. Second - I did not vote for that party. Third - I support the Tamil nationalist movement just not through violence. Fourth - my own wife is Tamil. Wiki Raja you are American Tamil and I don't think it is fair that you sit at your computer in a country in thousands of miles around the world telling me and the Sri Lankan and Tamil people that the group who has murdered their countrymen is legitimate. --Ismailmk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: First, can you or anyone show proof of accusation? Second, you are entitled to your opinions. Third, you can do what ever you want. Fourth, the former head of Tamileelam police is married to a Sinhalese, does that make him pro-government? Lastly, please refrain from stereotyping me. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ismail, are you in distress because of the death of your friends? Well I am sorry to hear. I am also distressed about the SLA terrorist vandura running around raping my sisters, kidnapping and killing my brothers, occupying my family members houses. Killing the young ones. If you want to hate LTTE for what they do to civilians, then you must hate the SLA/SLN/SLAF vandura too ! I hope there is peace to Srilanka through the liberation of Tamil Eelam. You should too !!!Watchdogb (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW is your wife the daughter of Douglas or Karuna ? Watchdogb (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The line "The LTTE is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 31 countries (see list)" in the inro had been removed. I'm reverting that edit as no valid reason is given here for that change, and there seems to be nothing wrong or against wikipedia regulations in that line. Please change it back if that line was removed for any valid reason. Chamal (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

MR.X: LTTE ae freedom fighters. If Ismailmk is upset that three of his friends died, then think of Vanni, where Sri-Lanka AND india attack mercilessly, the U.N going as far as to say that Vanni will get hurt more if LTTE dont lay arms. Tamils are undermined in Sri-Lanka compared to Sinhalla people there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.149.116 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

THE PAGE NEEDS EDITING -PRO SRI LANKAN NEWS SHOULD BE REMOVED

Alleged Links to other designated terrorist organizations - NEEDS TO BE REMOVED ASAP

-ENCYCLOPEIA ARE ALWAYS BASED ON FACTS

- Alleged pro SRI LANKAN TERRORIST GOVERMENT NEWS SHOULD BE REMOVED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.143.108 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.143.108 (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted 2 resent changes to the Introduction, because one removed content without rewording and made no sense as it stood, and the second was simply a correction to the spelling of one word from the previous content removal. I have no position on this article and only reverted so if a change is warranted, then it should be changed in such a way as to make it still readable and understandable to the readership.--«JavierMC»|Talk 08:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The current introduction does not maintain impartiality or neutrality at all. It states, "The LTTE is currently wrongly proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list)." It is not up to this article or Wikipedia to determine the nature of the LTTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.197.172 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Category purge

In mid-January all categories were removed from the article. Has nobody noticed? __meco (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) LTTE is a terorist organisation who killed thousands of inocent people without any reason.They define them self as freedom fighters.But no idea for whos freedom.But for sure not for all Tamils. They killed Tamils who are against their vision. Before these terorist We Tamils lived with sinhalees people without any problem.But after LTTE we lost the freedom to speak. So most of the tamils who were educated were killed buy these terorist. At last now we can go back to sri lanka and back to our normal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.253.198 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

into

Would it be ok to make a link to Tamil Eelam since that is what they are trying to create ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course! Watchdogb (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Child Soldier section

I am proposing to remove some parts of the Child Soldier section. I am proposing the removal of several sentences and remove old material. For example, there are claim on the how many Child soldier LTTE had in 2001 and many claims from the past. However, it is clear that LTTE has reduced it's child recruits drastically since then. I , therefore, propose we change the current revision to the following :

The LTTE has recruited and used Child Soldiers in it's fight against the Sri Lankan Army^[1]^[2]^[3]. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001.^[4]^[5]. However, since 2007 LTTE has pleaded that it will release all of the recruits under the age of 18 before the end of the year. As a result, on 18 June 2007, the LTTE released 135 children under the age of 18. UNICEF claims that only 506 child recruits remain under the LTTE. UNICEF and the United States note that there has been a significant drop in LTTE recruitment of children ^[6]. Furthermore, a report released by the LTTE's Child Protection Authority (CPA) in 2008 reported that only less than 40 child soldiers, under the age of 18, still remain in their forces. ^[7]

The LTTE argues that instances of child recruitment occurred mostly in the east, under the purview of former LTTE regional commander Colonel Karuna. After leaving the LTTE and forming the TMVP, it is alleged Karuna continues to forcibly kidnap and induct child soldiers.^[8] Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens.^{[citation needed]} It says that its official policy is now that it will not accept child soldiers. It also says that some underage youth lie about their age and are therefore allowed to join, but are sent back home to their parents as soon as they are discovered to be underage.^{[citation needed]}

I feel that having extended coverage of the past on this matter is not WP:NPOV. This is because the LTTE has decided to stop the inclusion of Children in it's rank and therefore we need to focus on the current situation rather than the past. However, I did include some facts from the past so that the reader can get the necessary insight into this matter. Watchdogb (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving the sea piracy

I have moved a large chunk of the MV Farah III section to Sea Tigers and shortened and integrated the section into the other section. Any objectives ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Human Smuggling

I am proposing to remove the human smuggling part from this article. The particular section claims that the human smuggling is done under permission by the LTTE but it also claims that there is no proof that the LTTE benifits from it. It is false to claim that since human smuggling goes under LTTE permission that LTTE smuggles humans. For this subsection to be in the LTTE article there needs be a direct relationship between human smuggling and the LTTE. Namely some sort of proof that LTTE benefits from this act or proof that current members of the LTTE is smuggling Human to other countries. Since no such link is provided and there is even claim that there is no evidence that LTTE benefits from human smuggling I think it is best to have this off the article per WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:TOPIC. Watchdogb (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Assassination

The current section called Assassination lists victims of assignations that are attributed to LTTE. I am proposing to shorten this section substantially and mention the following:

The LTTE has been accused by various groups for assassination of political opponents and military opponents. The victims include both Tamil moderates, Tamil paramilitary groups and Sinhalese people. Most notably the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and Ranasinghe Premadasa who were the heads of India and Sri Lanka respectively.

The reason for this action is that these assassinations are covered in three places already. 1) The article of the assassinated people 2) List of Attacks attributed to LTTE 3)Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Since these three article already mention who the assassins are, or at least the attributed assassins, it becomes redundant and repetitive. Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pilferage of tsunami donations

his section is cited almost exclusively by a report of a case that is still in process in Australia. Couple of ethnic Tamil men were being charged for connection with LTTE and duping people thinking of aiding Tsunami into funding LTTE. The problem is that these are allegation and no court ruling has been made. Since the defense denies that they are members of LTTE or funding for them I believe that it is not suitable in the LTTE article. This section is not suitable since this is under the broad Criminal Activity. Since there is no court ruling that they are members of LTTE and guilty of the charges we cannot have this claim under the current section and more importantly in this article. If the case ruling is that they are guilty, then I think we could have this on this article. Watchdogb (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point in that it may be premature to include an entire paragraph on this incident at this time. Perhaps the information could be retained but shortened to a single sentence mentioning the ongoing case in Australia, which could be placed at the end of the first paragraph of the "Criminal activities" section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the following be acceptable under "Criminal activities" section:

Two Tamils in Australia are facing charges for allegedly raising thousands of dollars in Australia under the pretense of being for charities and aid for those affected by the 2004 Asian Tsunami but instead using the money to fund the LTTE. The case is still in process at a Australian court.^[9]

Watchdogb (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so: it captures the essence of the paragraph and does not give undue weight to a single (as yet unresolved) incident. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The article will be modified with this version. Thanks for your thoughts once again. Watchdogb (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the same concern above can be expressed to the following sentence:

In 2007 the New York Police Department arrested a number of LTTE operatives who were planning to use stolen credit card information to steal $250,000 in New York City, and tens of millions more from ATMs worldwide.^[10] Overall, Jane's Intelligence Review reported that the LTTE raise up to $300 million a year through various methods, including international credit card fraud and extortion of Tamil expatriates.^[10]

The article claims that these people are tiger operative but that is only what the prosecutors claim. The defense lawyers claim that this is not an international fraud deal, instead they suggest that this is a small scale crime. Would it be fair to handle this sentence as above? Watchdogb (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, perhaps it would be sufficient to add the word "alleged" before "LTTE operatives". This source seems to indicate that the incident is being considered in the context of a broader international crime ring (e.g. according to the Assistant DA, the "defendant is part of a large, highly organized ring of international criminals"). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the following be a sufficient and WP:NPOV version of the case:

In 2007 the New York Police arrested a number of individuals who were allegedly planning to use stolen credit card information to steal $250,000 in New York City. The prosecutes claim that they were also planning to steal tens of millions more from ATMs worldwide. The prosecutes further alleged that these individuals had LTTE links. However, the defense lawyers deny these claim and insist that they were local criminals.

This does deviate from the citation but I clearly can see that the writers of the article made some OR and claimed interpreted the prosecutors claim to call these people tiger operatives. The part about Janes defense claim will be integrated into other sentence in the section. Is this acceptable version ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Watchdogb, I would say adding the word "alleged" should be sufficient (as User:Black Falcon had suggested). I would also include the sentance about the defense lawyers indicating that these men were in fact local criminals. Thanks! --Lucifereri (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The following captures the essence of allegation and then it also gives the defense claim.

A numbers of individuals, arrested in 2007, are facing charges for allegedly planning to use stolen credit cards information to steal $250,000. The prosecutes claim that they were also planning to steal tens of millions more from ATMs worldwide. The prosecutes further alleged that these individuals had LTTE links. However, the defense lawyers deny these claim and insist that they were local criminals

This is a version that seems most neutral to me and thus most acceptable.Watchdogb (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Watchdogb, I see that you have taken the liberty to edit the article with this version; I disagree that this version is more neutral--I find it much more confusing. This paragraph is in the "Criminal Activities" section, and it is extremely odd to start it off this way and not even mention that the accused individuals are also accused of having ties with the LTTE until after the first two sentances! I feel that these sentances lead the reader away from the accusations (which are the most important reason why are they are on this page at all), but that is my take. What was wrong with adding the word alleged and then the sentance about the defense lawyers denying they were LTTE operatives afterwards? That would have been completely neutral (saying something is more neutral or not should not be the argument...it should be about both neutrality and clarity IMO). Thanks! --Lucifereri (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with adding the word alleged and then the sentance about the defense lawyers denying they were LTTE operatives afterwards? There is nothing wrong with that but I do not understand what it really means. Can you put forth a sentence like I did above? If we agree this is more neutral, then we can add it instead of the current version. Your claim is not correct to me. The fact that these are allegations and a court case is pending is enough to completely remove this sentence from this article as it's under criminal section of LTTE even though the defense says that this is not correct. By the mere appearance of the sentence on this article under the section establishes link to LTTE which is only an accusations. It's currently pointless to argue over this until you show your version. If we agree to this, then we can have that added instead of what is currently there. Watchdogb (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrests in the UK

Three arrests in the UK --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7372883.stm. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This again is an arrest on suspicion. Furthermore, they are being interrogated. I believe that it would be better if we allow some time to see what develops of this story. Watchdogb (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If this turns into something concrete or high-profile, it can be included in the article; until then, it's probably not significant enough to merit mention. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Human smuggling" Section

Human smuggling has ben conducted by the Tamil Tigers for many long years. It is in my belief not t erase the section of human smuggling. As watch dog claims that there are no facts in to the subject of human smuggling done by the Tamil Tigers I am sorry to say there is much & enough proof that he Tigers profit in these smuggling. This has been a very resourceful way of gathering funds to fight against the Sri lankan forces. So I insist not to tamper on clear proof and fact for the benefit of the Tigers. --Slcommandor (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious claim, and we need reliable sources to include something like this in the article. I think Watchdogb's comments are valid here. The intention here is to preserve NPOV rather than whitewashing the LTTE. From an outsider's point of view who doesn't know anything about the Sri Lankan conflict or LTTE, he wouldn't know if this is true or not. We can't ask readers to come to logical conclusions like "LTTE needs money for war, and they get money from human smuggling", we have to provide sources that can verify this. Wikipedia is not a place to make accusations or allegations, and that's what it would look like if it was included. Your points are no doubt true (in fact I share your belief), but we can't include what we think in Wikipedia. I think if this is to be included it should be backed by reliable sources, or it shouldn't be included at all. Chamal ^Talk 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Glorifying or NPOV?

I have just reverted this edit, and I'm posting this here because this seems to be a problem we come across often. The idea here is not to glorify the LTTE, but to present the facts in a neutral point of view, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. It can't be helped if what we see here is not to our liking or against our views. All views have to be included in a Wikipedia article. We can't say that LTTE are murderers or LTTE are freedom fighters, what we have to say here is something acceptable by both those views. The lead section has been created through consensus to represent such an idea, and before changing that please discuss it here. Chamal ^talk 11:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Who supports the LTTE?

It's obvious that the LTTE must be receiving massive amounts of aid -weapons and money- from outside sources, but I have been unable to find out from who. As far as I can tell the resources flow from India, but one person I talked to said it's not "official" covert support from the central indian government, but rather donations from wealthy individial tamils in India (and possibly from the local government of Tamil Nadu). Can anyone shed light on this, and why, if so, India have not tried to stop this flow? The Man On The Street (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Many Sinhala Buddhists allege it is Christian groups (its a fact that most of the leaders are Christian, and Sinhala claim Christians have been far less affected than Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists). Tamils claim their own diaspora supports them (and there is evidence to show that Tamil smuggling and enterprises are worth billions of dollars. That's what I've heard.Pectore^talk 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

De facto territory

I'm proposing to add the de facto territory based on a map I found,[2]. Given all the notices on this article I'll ask here: is this an accurate depiction from the time of the cease-fire? (I have no expertise on this topic beyond looking up the map on Google...)

As a side issue, I think both this article and the Tamil Eelam article should borrow one another's images, because the census data listed and the territory picture give very different impressions from one another. Wnt (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this picture will confuse readers more than it will help in the understanding. Watchdogb (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think such a map should be added as otherwise any new reader will thnk that the LTTE controls 2/3 of the coutries coast line whereas it is currently limited to a jungle area of only 40sq km and will soon be a thing of the past. So such a map showing the actual territory they control should be listed.Kerr avon (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The map will have to constantly updated though, right? Chamal ^talk 02:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At the rate the Sri lankan army is liberating the north from the terrorists the map will have to be updated very fast indeed. Taking for example even the illustrated map contains a area far too larger than which is under LTTE control. Currently the ltte is limited to a strech of around 40 sqkm.Kerr avon (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the soap from kerr avon, one clear problem arises with this map. If we were to include the de facto territory it will change constantly as a result of current war. The problem is that both sides to the conflict are know to give different picture of the area under their control. So taking one side's story will result in the picture being non-neutral. Besides I really do not see a section in this article that this picture would fit into besides the administration section, but then the the picture would give the wrong idea that everything under the de facto territories would have all of the rebel's administrative entities. Watchdogb (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the legend, this illustrates the area prior to current hostilities - it was from an American source with unknown affinities, though generally most people here really don't have much of an opinion on the conflict. I wasn't actually very clear on how long a period that represents; I was only looking to have some benchmark to consider when evaluating the progress of the war. Also note that while illustrating the de facto territory can be seen as "anti" Tamil because it disagrees with the green area, it is also "pro" Tamil in that it illustrates that they actually have a territory and aren't just a bunch of roaming militants. In any case note that the distance between the implications of the ethnic map and the green territory map in the two articles is much greater than the distance between various versions of the currently held de facto territory... Wnt (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea: Since the current de facto territory seems plausible, and nobody claims that it is very much bigger than the yellow area, I think that generally such a map, with correct date and reference, would undoubtetly be an improvement for this article. However, the problem I see is that OPFOR is not a reliable source - it's basically just a blog. So, this depends on finding reliable sources for the statement that the current area is approximately the one marked in the map. — Sebastian 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the map will improve the article, as long as it is placed in the area that covers the 01-08 ceasefire and clearly indicates this is not the current situation. A caption like a "Areas controlled by the LTTE at the time of the signing of the 2001 ceasefire. Since then, they have lost a significant portion of this area" would work.

As to its accuracy, the LTTE actually controlled a larger portion of the country during the CFA. To the north, the yellow region terminates at the bottleneck. However they controlled area up to Muhamalai, about 15 km from the bottleneck. Towards the south, the government had control of a "bulge" like area along the A9 highway. This map pretty accurately shows the area (the blue dotted line to the south) I know its from the Defence Ministry, but I don't think any reasonably minded person doubts it's accuracy. And the LTTE controlled area in the east of the country as well, places like Sampur, Vakarai, and the Thoppigala jungles. The problem is, this wasn't a continuous stretch of land and there were no clear FDLs in most places, so its hard to know exactly what parts they controlled. As yet, I've yet to see an accurate map for that.

Also, don't be mislead by maps like this [3]. It has, to an extent exaggerated the area controlled by the LTTE, to play up the significance of the military offensives.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about how to defend using defence.lk as a source. This can be easily solved by attribution, such as "according to SL Min. of Defense". Their version of the map is certainly relevant; and it is not necessary for us to assess how reliable they are. I bet even with the method applied by the CIA, we would have problems assessing that! — Sebastian 10:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Administration

The administration section has been faced with some removed of cited material. This is clearly against wikipedia rules and further against the rule established by SLDR. So do not remove cited material from this section. At the same time it is understandable that editors might want to remove the section because with the fall of the administrative capital most of the de-facto administration has been dismantled. The point here is that while the administrative entities might not exist today it does not mean that it never existed or that it will never be reestablished. I revered the removal and added that the administration has been dismantled. Watchdogb (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also do not remove the "runs a defacto..." part in the infobox. This is clearly against SLDR because it is removal of a cited material. If you can give some RS that clearly state that they do not run a defacto state any more, then please present it. Bringing source that claim that their administrative entities have been dismantled does not cut it. There is difference between running a de facto state and running administrative entities. Running a de facto state could be, as said by many RS sources, as simple as directing the civilians. There has not been a single RS that claims that all of the LTTE entities have collapsed - by all I mean things such as the LTTE police force and ect. So unless there is a reference that claims that the LTTE does not run a defacto state, then you cannot remove this information without violating SLDR. Watchdogb (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians

I have reverted part of these edits that were saying that LTTE has not attacked civilians. The LTTE has attacked civilian buses, how can anyone say they have not attacked civilians? Anyway, I have added some info with the best sources I could find. I have tried to keep it neutral, but since the part is only about the attacks, there isn't much to be done there. If anyone can improve it, they will be welcome. Please discuss here before adding any more unsourced information. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The LTTE would not be considered a terrorist group had they not substantially attacked civilians. We must stay vigilant against unsourced or biased information on both sides.Pectore^talk 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit restrictions will be enforced; quoting from dispute resolution agreement

This article has a blue box prominently on top, saying "This article is currently subject to editing restrictions". This has been grossly ignored. Unfortunately, we let that pass for quite a while. This is going to change from now on. There will be zero tolerance of violations of WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT and WP:BATTLE and edit warring. Violations will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal. — Sebastian 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There were several edits since yesterday. - Summary:

blocked for repeated vandalism: 99.228.164.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS);
warned for ignoring blue box and for adding unsourced text: 76.90.65.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS);
just friendly warning: 67.186.227.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

— Sebastian 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Current state of LTTE

Due to the Sri Lanka Army continuous march to northern LTTE stronghold the situation of northern Sri Lanka completely changed. Army gain control over LTTE administrative capital and all other important townships. Although LTTE still control small land strip of length 40km that part of the island largely covered by jungle.

So at the moment LTTE is not being able to run its any civil administration activity. So, I suggest removing or editing the information what are not match with the current situation. Otherwise the readers can be misguided.

It can be affect to the reputation of the WIKIPEDIA.

Due to the successful SLDF offensive and due to the high alert of SLN and SLAF, LTTE sea and air branched are not possess a state to functional. So, I want to remove or edit that part of the page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameera Dayasekara (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up here. I think completely deleting would not be appropriate, even if the LTTE were overthrown completely, as it still would have historical value. Therefore, the content may need to be revised accordingly. That requires a bit more work. For now, I will post a template on top of that section to alert readers and editors of that situation. — Sebastian 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

sea tigers

It looks like the reader will be misguided by the wording used under this paragraph.

I propose to use the wording of the sea tiger main article with out changes.

" Over the years the Sea Tigers have sunk at least 29 Sri Lankan small inshore patrol boats " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameera Dayasekara (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Each of the two could probably profit from the other. At first glance, I don't think we should toss out the 35-50% estimate; it is quoted in the Observer Research Foundation's publication http://www.tamilnation.org/intframe/india/0609observer.pdf as "A recent publication of the Woodrow Wilson School of Politics and International Studies reckons that the ‘Sea Tigers’ have destroyed 35 to 50 per cent of the Sri Lankan Navy’s coastal craft." I haven't searched for that publication, but I don't have a reason to distrust ORF, and I presume the school is the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, I think is a reliable source. — Sebastian 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A publication from Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs is reliable and so the sentence should remain. Furthermore, since both sources are reliable there is no need for the sentence to be an explicitly attributed either. Watchdogb (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Organisation and activities - Military

First of all I need to say sorry, becouse i have edit the content under the above headline without prier indication on the talkpage. Im still too fresh to the procedures adopted by the wikipedia.

But adding "It is believed that the LTTE’s sea and air branches were not in an operational state due to the recent setbacks of the organization. The carders of these units were believed to be relocated at the ground defensive units due to the lack of manpower. However, some elements of sea tigers reported continuing with arms smuggling and drug trafficking" I'm trying to explain the current ground situation.

Anybody can find some informations regarding that from following links.

http://209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:PYaRZCmZrjsJ:www.defence.lk/new.asp%3Ffname%3D20070823_05+drug+trafficking+of+ltte&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=lk

http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=36268

Thanks for your speedy responce Sebastian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameera Dayasekara (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources back your claims. You have to source every single claim that you make in wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also please do not change cited material to reflect your point of view like you did here

Alternative way to protect this article

Please see WT:SLR#Alternative way to protect LTTE article. — Sebastian 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

In my recent edit, I have reverted some controversial edits that have not been discussed. Please respect the SLDR edit restriction and discuss all controversial edits. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Romanization of "தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகள்"?

Could somebody provide a romanization of "தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகள்" (that is writing "தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகள்" in the Latin alphabet)? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

tamiḻii ḻa viṭutalaippulikaḷ
cheers Jasy jatere (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Territory map

The territory map given in this section seemed to be erroneous, as pointed out here by Iross1000. It does not show the territory controlled by the LTTE as given in the caption, but shows the territory controlled by the LTTE before the start of the 2008–2009 Sri Lankan Army Northern offensive. I have changed the caption to indicate this. The map here shows that this is the case (this map is also used as the current source for the territory map) - see the "Offensive time line" given there. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 12:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles by Jenvey

Jenvey's articles are published mostly in Asian Tribune articles, but also in Global Politician (unclassed in the Project's list of sources). The Asian Tribune is classed QS, and while not a reliable source, none-the-less a source to be considered when supported by other resources. Given that anyone who passionately criticizes either side in the dispute will immediately draw counter-fire, it's not surprising that Jenvey has vocal critics. However, before applying a blanket condemnation every statement by Jenvey, the Project should first reach consensus on that decision. Meanwhile, Jenvey's material should stand on its own depending on other credible sources.

As an example, I believe the Project's consensus is that the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense is a qualified QS. However, if the information cited is troop movements, etc., there is probably no better source. As one of the combatants, the Ministry is likely to "spin" in the government's favor. Information from the Ministry needs to be tested for credibility against other sources. But can the Project, in fairness, ignore the Sri Lankan government — or the LTTE? I ask for consensus before blanket condemnation of Jenvey. --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts on 06:55, 15 February 2009

I have restored the article to an earlier version, since there seems to be a lot of biased content added afterwards. Rather than discussing first about the changes, I thought it would be best to be bold and revert, since the article content had become so obviously biased against the LTTE that it would be a major violation of WP:NPOV and would also give a bad impression about Wikipedia's neutrality to anyone reading it. Also, some sourced information had been removed, and some unsourced information also added. Please note that articles should be verifiable and it is best to discuss the removal of sourced content before doing it. If any of the information needs to be re-added to the article, please back them up with reliable sources and please discuss any major changes here before making them. Chamal ^talk 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Maritime Intelligence Group,"

what is this organization? Is it notable? I get 377 google hits for it (with " "), most of which are lobbywatch sites. They do not appear to have a website of their own, nor does anybody really seem to care about their political views. Unless other evidence is brought along, I think we can remove their opinions because they are not notable. (I have more google hits than they, and my opinions are definitely not notable) Jasy jatere (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Westminster Journal article is cited a lot! The journal article mentions the Maritime Intelligence Group. We're relying on the credibility of the Journal and the author of the article, Dominic Whiteman, for the accuracy of these statements. News items as references are always tricky, eh? --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

the westminsterjournal (which I have finally managed to access) cannot be relied on for its credibility, this is the point. No history of fact-checking, no reputation. As for the credentials of Dominic Whiteman, refer to his page here. I think what he says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is not sufficient for WP:V that Mr Whiteman cites reports of organizations whose existence is solely known to him. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Norwegians against terrorism

This seems to be a one-man-show.

"Reference is made to an article in The Sunday Times on Sunday 15 April 2007 concerning totally unfounded claims that Norway was supporting terrorism by a Norwegian who calls himself Norwegians Against Terrorism."[4]

As such, it seems that it is not notable. Falk Rovik was a former board member of AI Oslo chapter [5]. Not sure whether this is enought to warrant inclusion of his opinion.

Unless more evidence for the notability of the person or the organization can be found, I think their opinions are not notable and can be deletedJasy jatere (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AI distantiate themselves from Rovik [6] Jasy jatere (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about Norwegians Against Terrorism comes from a Westminster Journal article. The Journal article mentions Rovik as one source of information. The paragraph also cites Interpol, a police investigation, and similar problems in the UK. Rovik isn't the sole source of information, but he's conveniently named at the start of the paragraph, so I suspect an editor triggered on him. --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot access the westminsterjournal article, and I am not sure whether it meets RS. I have asked for an assessment on WP:SLR talk. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't? I just did… twice. Here's a direct link: The Ltte Siding With The Enemy. And yes, the Journal needs an assessment. I have others for assessment. I'll add to your WP:SLR talk item if that's easy for you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing from the acticle?

What level of support, as a percentage, does the LTTE draw from the people in the contested area(s)?

What sort of government would one expect the LTTE to establish if they achieved independence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.142 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Update?

Is there any particular section that needs to be updated. Pointing out the specific section will help rather than tagging the whole article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do readers really need to see the banner

Can the editing restrictions banner be moved to an editnotice? What does it serve non-editing readers or editors looking for something to do?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I'll bring this up at WT:SLR. We'll see what others think. Chamal ^talk 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

I have made this edit removing material related to Tamil's being arrest in Australia. The Terrorism charges have been dropped see RS for further details. As I said before, we should have waited to put this up on the article. Watchdogb (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Suicide bombings "pioneered"

Not by the LTTE as it shows clearly in Suicide_bombing#History, so please stop pushing your POV. --Mista-X (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the citations, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That said, the Wikipedia entry does NOT contradict the fact that the LTTE pioneered suicide bombing as a tactic. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is to be noted that Mista-X has shown his bias and intentions with the following edit [7] in which he criticies the LTTE article has being "pro-imperialist propaganda". getting back to the topic it is to be noted that the LTTE is described in several cites as the terrorist group which pioneered suicide bombing so it should stay as it is.Kerr avon (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what I said? Why is that relevant to the fact, which, I am clearly showing? You can point to your "sources" all you want who are bias on their own, but you have to be ignorant to actually believe what you are saying. It's very clear that this tactic has been around for a long time and is hardly something "pioneered" by LTTE. Your citations are just written opinions by someone else with a POV. Since when does POV prove a better citation then historical fact on wikipedia? It's clear that anti-LTTE bias is vanguard this article. However I won't waist my time with this any longer as anyone with a slight of intelligence will spot such a farce of an error. --Mista-X (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the sources are not academic, they are journalistic opinions, two of them are Zionist propaganda. The other is some pacifist crap. Not even notable journalists. The ADL is a semi-notable org. Very poor work. --Mista-X (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. They don't show any "pioneering" of this tactic. On the other hand, history shows these tactics have been used long before LTTE existed, even in Sri Lanka and among Tamils. One could argue pacifists monks used such a "tactic" by burning themselves also. --Mista-X (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As Kerr avon mentioned, we do not use Wikipedia as a source to verify facts. If you think the article is biased, you're welcome to improve it but please do remember that replacing one bias with another can hardly be called improving. It is true that suicide attacks have been used before by others, but the LTTE was the first to use it in the modern context, using suicide jackets. Now, since you're saying that the present ref is not good enough, how about these:

The FBI and CFR pages are clearly RS, and they clearly mention that the LTTE pioneered the modern use of suicide bombers and invented the suicide belt. I will reword the article to include this information. Chamal ^talk 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Role of India in anti-terrorism activities

These articles might be of relevance to the topic:

--128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of suicide bombings.

The article states that the Tigers have used more suicide bombings than every Islamist terror organization combined. However, the source for this is from 2002-- before Al Qaeda's massive suicide bombing campaign in Iraq. (Though the Tigers have also done attacks since.) Can somebody please do some research and see if this statistic is still true? 173.49.67.73 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Partisan Sources

there are many partisan sources being used in this article, neither pro rebel or anti rebel sources should be used in wikipedia, Please deal with this, I'll do what I can but we need better more reliable sources. --Alex Kolsov (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for the reasons for using these sources where appropriate. And please do not remove properly sourced information as you did here. The information you removed were not using partisan sources. Please discuss at WT:SLR if you think changes are necessary about the sources. Chamal ^talk 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral actions

I find that the link I have given has been removed under the guise of "Rmv comment with link to self published opinion piece, irrelevant to the development of the article" Well, may I point out that the main article given here is not at all following the standards of Wikipedia and is more or less self-opiniated insipid ideas. For example, the very definition of 'Terrorist organisation' is only a unilateral view and definition of the writer. He has not right to categorically take a partisan stance. I am giving a link to an article in the Yahoo, which I have not rewritten. See who should be defined as Terrorist:Tamil civilians died like flies. As to misusing Wikipedia, I would say that people with mere academic ideas on momentous events, and plenty of spare time at their disposal have taken to ransom many pages on Wikipedia, and are inserting their own opinions and claiming them to be of superior academic standards. All these nonsense gets the aura of authentic information, as they appear in a widely respected online encyclopedia. As to improving the main article, the whole article has to re-written by a person which obvious impartial standards, and not by a very obvious stooge of the opposite side. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

number of suicide bombings?

The page said this:

The LTTE has carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined.

with a reference dated to 2002. There have been a lot of suicide bombings carried out since 2002 by Hamas in Israel and al-Qaeda in Iraq, and I suspect this statistic is no longer true, so I changed it as follows:

As of 2002, the LTTE had carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined (although this may no longer be true).

Benwing (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, according to the following page, it was already false by 2005:

[8]

Benwing (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact, I removed that outdated statement you mentioned earlier based on an article that I read claimed the 2002 figure was no longer accurate. However someone contested the removal (which was weird cause everyone knows since 2002, Islamic suicide bombings were on the rise) and I lost the link to the original ariticle where I read it. But since you've found a similar article, I support removing the outdated info. --Alex Kolsov (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the main article

I have gone through the main article. There are many problems with this article, even if one views it from a pure scholarly viewpoint. Naturally, I am inclined towards the protagonists. Yet, I will try to talk from a neutral perspective for the sake of discussing the article.

1. The description as a ‘militant organization’. That is not the way to describe an organisation with a very well defined agenda. That agenda is ‘freedom from Sinhala domination and a nation for the North Ceylon Tamils’. So the description should be that of a freedom fighting organisation. Words have power; wrong words give negative feelings.

2. ‘waged a violent secessionist campaign’. This should be changed as ‘They have been fighting for their nationhood with the Sri Lankan armed forces’ ----.

3. ‘proscribed as a terrorist organization’ and the list of nation who did the proscribing. Well, most of the nations who did the proscribing were not well informed, and were susceptible to propaganda. However, the proscribing is a fact, and the line in itself cannot be disputed. However, the word terrorist organization is very effective in conveying a negative aura about the organisation. It should have been used in a more refined and sensitive manner, for it affects the readers very much.

4. ‘well-developed militia cadre’. Well, why not the words ‘a very efficient army’? Most Asian armies have only cosmetic depth connection in quality to an English army, and are more or less very brutish, and have no sense about human rights or about lending protection to captured females. If Sri Lankan armed forces can be defined as army, why not give the same categorisation to the Tamil armed forces? Why should Wikipedia stand out to discriminate between the groups?

5. ‘notorious for committing atrocities against civilians’. It is a most childish statement. The word notorious is very much partisan, and a propaganda tool, and Wikipedia should not condone its misuse. As to ‘committing atrocities against civilians’ only nitwits would believe wars should be fought only between armed forces on pre-arranged agenda, program and protocol, as is said to have been done in the Mahabharatha war of the Indian fables. Wars are between nations, and not a game of display of prowess and finesse between the rival armed forces. When there is a war, civilians do get hurt, and when a nation does a wrong, the civilians do bear a moral responsibility of the sins. Any nations’ civilians are loyal to their own nation, and so the enemies would hurt such persons who stand in strategic positions. Saying that the LTTE is ‘notorious for committing atrocities against civilians’ is showing some sort of dubious mental capacity that can sense only one side of the atrocities and the other side simply goes undetected.

6. ‘assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians’. Naturally, if Britain could have killed Hitler with a knife, dagger, arrow, bomb, shell, rocket, missile, or even a sling, they would have done it. It would have saved them much in terms of human and physical resources. That is what winning a war is about. Sri Lankan leaders are the enemy leaders and naturally, they are standard targets in a war. As to killing Indian politicians, there is always the killing of Rajiv, who was a former (unseated) prime minister of India. Well, as far as the LTTE is concerned, he is the person who senselessly sent the Indian army to kill, plunder and pillage the Tamils; an act, which cannot be understood, by any sensible person. For, Indian army is not for hurting Tamils, who are not traditionally enemies of India. But then killing Rajiv was a terrible mistake, for the event was very forcefully used to portray the LTTE as a terrorist organisation by the Sri Lankans. Yet, it remains to be said that in years to come Rajiv will be judged as a perpetrator of atrocities on human beings, and a war criminal. Beyond that, there is the continuing accusation of the Bofor Case scandal, wherein he is accused of having siphoned off millions of dollars as arms deal commission. The case still drags on in the Indian courts. So, to portray Rajiv as a saint is not a correct thing.

7. ‘recruiting child soldiers’. Well, there is no doubt that this would be true. However, remember that the Tamil nation in North Ceylon had been a nation under siege for around 25 years. What happens in a fort under siege should not be judged with the same scale used to judge a place with all freedoms. For example, it is known that when a fort or place is under siege, people have eaten rats, and even human meat. It is a very desperate situation, and desperate situations demand drastic remedies.

Even nations resort to conscription and compulsory military service; I am sure even Israel does it. As far as the Tamil nation is considered, it is a life and death situation. If they live by rules, what do they get? They will be quartered and their women enslaved. Talk about such humane rules only when the situation is normal. Won’t a British boy not take up arms if brutish enemy raiders are in the offing; or would his parents tell him that it is against the Geneva Convention rules that he defend his place and parents?

8. ‘LTTE invented the suicide belt and pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic’. This line is used in the sense of an accusation. Well, suicide bombs have been used as a successful weapon of war. So what? Machine guns and AK 47 have been used more successfully and with wider effect. Many of the weapons that US have in its arsenal are of disproportionate strength compared to what other nations are having. Many civilians have died from the use of these weapons by the US. Does it mean that US is a terrorist nation?

The only problem here is that Suicide bombing is a weapon that cannot be easily used by most other nations. So, it causes deep consternation in others. If this can be condemned, then most other weapons of mass destruction can also be equally condemned.

9. ‘pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks’. In these days of claimed equality to women, this statement is more or less male chauvinistic. As if women can't do what a man can do.

10. ‘LTTE had carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined.’ This is a most mischievous statement. For a random reader, this statement more or less equates LTTE with all these Islamic organisations, whose agenda have nothing to do with LTTE, but have earned much antipathy all round the world for their deeds. What happens is that automatically a reader connects LTTE with all the terror acts all round the world, including what happened on September 11, some years back on WTO.

The main difference between the Islamic groups and LTTE is that LTTE is not fighting to dominate others or to make others Tamils. Nor do they derive commitment from their cadre on promises of glorious after-life and paradise. At the same time, the Islamic organisations are believed to promote and force their version of Islam and Islamic ways of life on others, by forceful means, and using terror as a weapon. In this issue, it is the Sri Lankan government that can be equated to the Islamic Terror groups. However, I must say that there are other issues connected to Islamic fanaticism, which cannot be discussed here, for it may mean digression.

11. Yet, the main problem with the article is that it is very shallow and does not give a hint on the main issue that created the problem. One is the giving of independence to Ceylon by the British. As they did in most nations, linguistic groups which cannot really co-exist other than under a soothing umbrella of English communication were made to come together. Moreover, the imposing of democracy led to strange results in these nations, wherein the majority population more or less subdued the minorities to come under the majority social systems. This has happened even in India, as in the case of imposition of Hindi, and the systematic efforts to remove English from it position of national communication.

I do not know if I have transgressed the rules here in pointing out the deficiencies in the main article. It is possible that this post may be deleted for violating some rule, even though it is not my aim to do any such mischief. So, I am giving the same post in another location also. External Copy --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I Think all that stuff you pointed out needs to be reconsidered. You have my full support in addressing these concerns. --John harvey125 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Most of your suggestions do not comply with these policies. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Nishkid's version. The version which Nishkid is supporting is defamatory against British Tamil Forum. There is loads of partisan sources being used. It is also very odd Niskid, the admin would try to re semi-protect the page, when there is no evidence of recent vandalism. John harvey125 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the article has been semi-protected since February. I only reprotected the article because the protection log notification you get when you edit the page was a bit confusing (it occurred when an admin undid Grawp pagemove vandalism). Removed the bit about funding; there's absolutely no references for that. I believe the current version still needs to present the LTTE's ideology (with proper references) in the lead to be completely neutral. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you care to read the entire article ? I don't think this article is close to being neutral, with repeated claims of atrocities committed on civillians, that lack independent reliable source and hence needs to have the point of view dispute tag. John harvey125 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Take for example this laughable section called "LTTE tactics in other terrorist organizations".. If one action was supposodely performed by LTTE and then a simillar action was performed in some other event in some other war - then that claims in that whole pile of sri lankan government propaganda rubbish is thats it is inspired by LTTE John harvey125 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the lead alone. I even said myself that the article is not neutral. Did you bother reading my comments? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware you ever said that. However your wrote "I believe the current version still needs to present the LTTE's ideology (with proper references) in the lead to be completely neutral." Nevertheless I shall acknowledge that you now agree that article as a whole is not neutral. John harvey125 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead even "with an LTTE ideology section" would still be a rude joke and the looser being Wikipedia and this entire community effort. Take for example this statement in the intro that you keep reverting to: "The LTTE invented the suicide belt and pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic.[3]" The suicide belt claim is questionable, Japanese Kamakize pilots had wrapped themselves with explosives vests and other explosive wear etc. Nevertheless its poor academic practise for the primary source being pointed to a FBI press release that doesn't have verifiable "side claims". The "pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic" statement is an outright fallacy. The Japanese Kamakize units had pioneered this, not the LTTE. If the claim is that its modern times, then its Hezbollah that should be credited for pioneering modern day suicide bombing as a tactic (suicide bombing of American barracks in Lebanon, 1983) and not the LTTE. John harvey125 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also a question for you (to: Nishkid64), if you agreed the article was not neutral to begin with, why didn't you as an editor (who I am sure knows of the details of the wikipedia editing process) proactively by following procedure put in the pov tag earlier? John harvey125 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic Section in The Intro

These series of sentences (below) in the intro are problematic, misleading and in some cases false and therefore I have moved it to the talk page for more discussions.

They have a well-developed militia cadre, and have gained notoriety for committing crimes against civilians and assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians, and for recruiting child soldiers. The LTTE invented the suicide belt and pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic.^[11] They also pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks.^[12]^[13]^[14] The LTTE has used aircraft in some attacks.^[15]

Here is my justification:

"They have a well-developed militia cadre" - Well many sources have indicated they have a well developed conventional force, with guerilla attack capability, together with suicide commando units. Militia indicates regular citizen who form paramilitary groups. So there is a disconnect between what is stated and what is widely known.

"committing crimes against civillians" has no reliable references. There is no indication of what law (in what jurisdiction) was broken and who was convicted. There is hardly any references or series of reliable sources to indicate they have gained "notoriety" for these alleged actions. John harvey125 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

given that they used to have their own jurisdiction, of course they were not convicted. This is obviously a detraction. I think it is fair to say that the expulsion of Muslims from Jaffna in 1992 was a crime against civilians. This fact is documented in the academic literature, but of course no one was ever convicted for it. Recruiting of child soldiers is also a crime against civilians. But I agree that "crimes against civilians" are not what is relevant about the LTTE. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If LTTE the group was not convicted of this mythical "crime against civillians", then we simply cannot write that "LTTE has committed crimes against civillians".

by your logic, Hitler could not be said to have committed crimes against jews because he was never convicted. That logic seems flawed to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, crimes are commited by individuals (ie has individual responsibility - not groups, origanizations what have you). Its an open and shut case right there. John harvey125 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That might be your definition of crime, but on wikipedia, institutional responsability of crime is accepted, e.g. War_crimes_committed_by_the_United_States, and not War_crimes_committed_by_United_States_nationals Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In the link that you pointed out, if you following the link, it clearly says "The United States military leadership, units and individual members have been accused of war crimes," and not United States the country. Note however, corporations are treated as individuals under law in most western countries (but not organizations). John harvey125 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I might want to point out the use of "units" in the passage above. By way of metonymy, it is perfectly normaly to speak of crimes committed by Al Qaida, the SS, the Iron Guard, and what have you. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The crux of problem with your position is evident in what you just wrote: "it is perfectly normaly to speak." Says who ? You ? Thats your opinion and you seem to be intent on inserting into the encyclopedia. Unless if there is factual evidence to say units members of commited, something, I will vigorously stand against any such attempts at point of view manipulation as I ethically should. John harvey125 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Recruiting children, by current accounts is not done so by the LTTE. HRW and Unicef don't report of child soldiers by LTTE since 2008. Recruitement of children upto 15+ is supposodely legal for state actors, by UN standard while its only legal for recruitement of 18+ for non-state actors. The supposode expulsion of Muslims happened, but the LTTE apologized and encouraged Muslims to resettle. So this is foregone issue. John harvey125 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia does report about the past. If the LTTE recruited children in the past, this will be included. If it expulsed Muslims in the past, this will be included as well. If it apologized thereafter, this can be included as well. But apologies do not undo what they did in the past, nor do they warrant exclusion of crimes in former times from wikipedia Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thats not whats was in the misleading intro you seem to be advocating. John harvey125 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Assassination of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians - cannot be lumped into crimes regardless. The situation is currently an ongoing war and decapitation strikes against leadership targets of either side commited by the other is not a crime during a time of war. If I understand correctly, LTTE was at war with India at one time and Sri Lanka till present.

The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi happened after India had left. This was murder of a person who did not represent any country with which the LTTE were at war. The murder of Lakshman Kadirgamar was when he was minister of Foreign Affairs, i.e. not in a military position. This is not fair game in war either. Both of these acts (and others) are crimes under any definition of that word. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jasy, please show me reference backing up what you just said "Both of these acts (and others) are crimes under any definition of that word" are war crimes. John harvey125 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

assassination of civilians is a crime. Do you really want to contest that? I am pretty sure that there is a consensus that the assassinations of both these persons are crimes Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not about what you think or what I think is right. Have there been some legal proceeding to indicate what you said. In the case of Mr. Gandhi, there was case, but not a free and fair (according to reliable sources) one and in other there is none at all. John harvey125 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In the cases of Rajiv Gandhi trial, if you look at the referenced articles, there was no free and fair trial [9]. The whole court proceedings was done in secret and those who were charged were not considered innocent till proven guilty rather the otherway round. By modern western standards it would be considered a Kangaroo court (politically motivated). Evidence is not verifiable and were entirely circumstantial. Those charged were given blank sheets of paper to sign under severe torture and other forms of duress that they committed some grevious act. [10] [11]. There were other groups who had motive to kill Rajiv Gandhi, from what I understand such as the Sikh groups, due to Rajiv's silence regarding large scale anti-Sikh riots after her mother's killing. John harvey125 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, a Sri Lankan Tamil, perpetrated the assassination. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But this supposed proof you are mentioning was extracted in court that was not free and fair. Even if she was Sri Lankan tamil, you automatically assume LTTE ? Isn't that a case of ethnic profiling ? There are other Tamil militants groups, President of Sri Lanka then was also strongly against Mr. Gandhi. John harvey125 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add your reliable sources about the link between the then President of Sri Lanka, Themuli Rajaratnam, and the assassination of Gandhi. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Lakshman Kadirgamar, there was hardly any trial nor conviction. So the claim that the LTTE killed him is an allegation. John harvey125 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The LTTE never claim responsibility as you well now. But your seem to be of the opinion that the LTTE never commit crimes. This seems a bit strange to me. Take a look at List_of_assassinations_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War. Do you really claim that none of them were committed by the LTTE? Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So by your logic, every claim Sri Lankan government make is the uncontested truth, because "LTTE never claims responsibility" ? I never said members of the LTTE never commits crimes, supposodely Col. Karuna is the best example and he has not been charged by the Government of Sri Lanka and in fact he has been promoted as a senior cabinet minister. Talk about Sri Lankan law and order there. In the case of Kardirgamar, there is no case, conviction or even independent evidence of LTTE involvement. Jumping on the bandwagon of claims by one side or another is a pointless exercise particularly for an encyclopedia. John harvey125 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So we agree that the LTTE do commit crimes, also against civilians. Good. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I never agreed to what you are extrapaloting. John harvey125 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"The LTTE invented the suicide belt and pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic.[3]" The suicide belt claim is questionable, Japanese Kamakize pilots had wrapped themselves with explosives vests and other explosive wear etc.

this is obviously different, because the Japanese sat in airplanes, and the belts were not the main "arm"Jasy jatere (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless its poor academic practise for the primary source being pointed to a FBI press release that doesn't have verifiable "side claims". The "pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic" statement is an outright fallacy. The Japanese Kamakize units had pioneered this, not the LTTE.

I find the difference between pilots and pedestrians quite striking, don't you agree? Jasy jatere (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not about pilots and pedesterians. Both wore belts and vests with explosives. John harvey125 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between flying a plane into a target, and increasing the damage by additional explosives, and blowing yourself up with only the explosives in your belt. The word "suicide belt" refers to the latter in common usage, and not the former. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in both cases the body is blown up in the explosion causing some form of destruction. Is there really a qualitative difference, if the bomber wore pink polkadots versus orange polkadots ?? John harvey125 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, H-bombs fall into the same category as suicide belts because bodies are blown up and there is some kind of destruction. This is clearly a flawed logic. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Again a flawed extrapolation. H-bombs quite in fact don't do what you claim they do. There is nothing left of any organic matter in h-bomb attack. John harvey125 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, there were Japanese suicide infantrymen units called Nikaku used in World War 2, that had explosives strapped in belts and vests [12]. So now your pilot claim is pointless argument. John harvey125 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If the claim is that its modern times, then its Hezbollah that should be credited for pioneering modern day suicide bombing as a tactic (suicide bombing of American barracks in Lebanon, 1983) and not the LTTE. The pioneering role of Hezbollah in performing suicide attacks is a well known fact, I can provide references if needed.

please do provide references. And please do not remove references material from the article. It is better practice to use a tag like ^{[dubious – discuss]} for this, rather than outright removal. This is a very emotional topic, and someone might report you at AN/I for removing of sources, so please rather use the mentioned tags

Here are the references of Hezbollah's pioneering use of suicide bombing as a tactic [13]

"They also pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks." While this statement seems accurate, whether it should belong in the intro is questionable. The intro should set the stage for the article and should be representative of the article. There isn't even a section on the pioneering use of women in suicide attacks in the rest of the article. Till this is rectified, this statement stands as an orphan in the intro. John harvey125 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the relevance of this passage either, and it seems a bit sexist to me. Maybe it could be reformulated in a way that the women are not "used" like a tool, but are rather actively involved in their suicide. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you restored the section you moved. The material is sourced, and it is bad practice to remove sourced material. Some of the removed material is factually correct and indisputed (child soldiers for isntance), so it is really really not OK to remove it. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence ltte still uses child soldiers starting from year 2008. The child soldier issue could be part of the historical section of the ltte article.John harvey125 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have patiently gone through and shown the numerous problems with the indicated statements. While some of the material have misleading references, these items are not representative of the content in the rest of the article. The more contentious don't have references and if anything they are misleading and factually incorrect. Stuff that is misleading and outright contradicting shouldn't be in the article, regardless of what references they may have. Other items as you agree sensationalize minor things... John harvey125 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has refused to discuss any changes he seem hellbent on imposing nor bother to read or look at any of the references mentioned here John harvey125 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues with John harvey125's version

"The rebels have been fighting since 1983 for a separate state for minority Tamils, who have suffered decades of marginalization at the hands of governments controlled by the Sinhalese majority.^[16]"

I understand that it is attributed to the Associated Press, but that in itself is a controversial statement. I believe that the original wording ("Founded in 1976, it has since actively waged a secessionist campaign that seeks to create an independent Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka.") presents the LTTE's intentions in a much more neutral and universally agreeable fashion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You have choosen to whitewash the lead by removing what has been a standard sentence used by associated press and reuters regarding the conflict. John harvey125 (talk)

"The LTTE are widely considered freedom fighters by Tamils in Sri lanka and Tamil Nadu (India), and considered as terrorists by the Sri Lankan government."

Umm, sources, sources, sources????? No, they are not only considered terrorists by the Sri Lankan government, but by 31 other countries! See Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Proscription as a terrorist group. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The 31 countries proscription sentence was in the version that version you reverted and persumably never bothered to read.. John harvey125 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed my issue with sources. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Although numerous countries in the West have proscribed the LTTE, they are widely referred to as insurgents or rebels [14]."

proscribed the LTTE? When you use the term "widely", you cannot only rely on one source to back up your claims, unless that source specifically corroborates the statement that the LTTE is "widely referred to as insurgents or rebels". This is not the case. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Find me mainstream western news sources that refer to LTTE as terrorists ? John harvey125 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this? We're referring to the LTTE as rebels in the entire article, not terrorists anyway. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to see references supporting your statement "proscribed the LTTE? When you use the term "widely", you cannot only rely on one source to back up your claims, unless that source specifically corroborates the statement that the LTTE is "widely referred to as insurgents or rebels". This is not the case. " Please show me wide set of western sources claimming ltte as terrorists for your above argument to have any merit. John harvey125 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not even my argument. Please read carefully. I told you that if you wanted to use the term "widely", you would need multiple references, not just one. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"The LTTE claims it is fighting against Genocide and state terrorism pursued by the Sinhala dominated Sri Lankan government after 30 years of political dialogue and negotiations for Tamil rights had been subdued through state orchestrated pogroms and legislated discrimination measures [15]. The Sri Lankan government considers the Tamil insurgency as a "terrorist problem" while the International community considers the conflict as an 'ethnic conflict.'"

This would be acceptable if you presented sources! There are absolutely no sources to back up any of these claims! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources ? The inlined wiki articles refer to sources and related subject matter right within wikipedia. John harvey125 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added more sources related to LTTE support, particularly in Tamil Nadu and their manifesto. John harvey125 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are supposed to present references to third-party reliable sources. You cannot simply provide an internal Wikipedia link as your source. I'm glad to see you're now adding third-party sources. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"The LTTE is known to have a well-developed military wing and have allegedly assassinationed several high-ranking Sri Lankans and an Indian politician, and for recruiting child soldiers in the past."

The LTTE's participation in assassination plots is not disputed, which is why they are considered a terrorist organization in the first place. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"The LTTE's participation in assassination plots is not disputed" Says who ? You ? You don't have sources to claim without doubt LTTE assasinated politicians. Did the countries that imposed the ban list or provide verifiable proofs to you ? If no why don't you share such info here for the encyclopedia. You only have allegations. In the case of the conviction in Mr. Rajiv case, it wasn't a free and fair trail and you have chosen to white wash those facts entirely. John harvey125 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE. What does the Gandhi trial have to do with the overall view of the LTTE? In addition, read List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. There are numerous sources provided to back up claims of LTTE involvement. Besides, why did the LTTE feel the need to apologize for the Rajiv Gandhi assassination if they weren't involved? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Show me a reliable reference that indicated "LTTE apologized" for Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. John harvey125 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

TamilNation, Indo-Asian News Service. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The references you have shown doesn't indicate that the LTTE has apologized nor does it indicate the LTTE has taken direct responsibility for the incident. Formal apology means something very specific. A member of the ltte merely said "he regretted the incident" which is many steps less than a formal apology. John harvey125 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"As of January, 2008, LTTE has declared it had released all under-age recruits while Sri Lankan government paramilitary units continued to increase recruitement of children into their ranks [16]. Alleged members of the LTTE were convicted in assassination of an Indian politician, but the trial was not conducted in a free and fair manner and confessions (many of which were latter recanted) were obtained using torture and coercion [17]. Some members of the LTTE are alleged to have invented the suicide belt."

This article is about the LTTE, not the Sri Lankan government. It's quite clear that you're trying to paint the government as the evildoers here. Regarding the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, that is something that doesn't deserve mention in the lead. The lead is supposed to provide a general overview/outline of the entire article. Removed the suicide belt bit, since it's in disagreement. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to mention assassination of an Indian politician, then the controversy regarding the Mr. Rajiv's trial also deserves mention to be neutral. You seem to intent on painting Sri Lankan government as a bunch of dogooders here. Even with the suicide belt statement you have blatanly choosen to include it in there, eventhough there alternate facts countering that assertion. John harvey125 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in the lead! And you have no reliable sources that say the trial was unfair. This is only your own political analysis. WP is not the place for your own personal commentary - that's what we have blogs for. As for the suicide belt, I removed that from the article because it was disputed. I wasn't even the one who originally added it, so don't pin this on me. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother following up the references in the rajiv gandhi assasination article on wikipedia or the references that I put in ? I am not putting my own analysis. See for yourself on rajiv gandhi assasination page. John harvey125 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's on you to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. I don't consider https://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/rjv-m01.shtml to be a reliable source. It's quite clear what side of the political spectrum the source lies on. Find a more neutral source. Furthermore, this is an accusation from one group, and it cannot be presented as simple fact (and it doesn't belong in the lead, as I said earlier). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is announcement by amnesty International archived at Tamilnation.org: http://www.tamilnation.org/intframe/india/rajiv/rajivappeals.htm, where they corroborate and mention the trial was neither free nor fair. John harvey125 (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured as much that Amnesty International would have commented on the fairness of the trial. My point still stands: it is an accusation from one group, and it cannot be presented as simple fact. In addition, it doesn't belong in the lead. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"As a result of this offensive, the Sri Lankan government believes that the final military defeat of the LTTE is near, although they may launch an underground guerrilla campaign if defeated as a conventional force."

Numerous international observers believe that the final military defeat of the LTTE is near. See the references adjoining the sentence. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is also heavily disputed. I shall show an equal list of observers who think otherwise. John harvey125 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey John harvey125, doncha think it's ironic that the LTTE were exterminated over the exact same period that you were wasting everyone's time here, trying argue that black was white and the moon was made of cheese? You were obviously a big fan of theirs, so you must think that your time was well spent. Personally I'm just glad to be rid of your nonsensical interference. (by a passing reader with no particular interest or bias re the events in Sri Lanka) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.208.82 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then don't say only the Sri Lankan government believes the end is near. Why are you misrepresenting the truth here? The Sri Lankan government and numerous international observers believe the LTTE's days are winding down. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Improved Intro

While the current intro put forth by Nishkid64 is an improvement, my issues still remain with one sentence:

"They have a well-developed militia wing, and have gained notoriety for committing crimes against civilians and assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians, and for recruiting child soldiers. "

1) As I have mentioned to another contributor, groups/organization cannot commit crimes by legal definition. Groups are not treated as individuals. Individual members and corporations can commit crimes because by law they are considered as individuals. Therefore the statement that LTTE as an organization has committed crimes cannot be used.

By your logic, you're saying that Al Qaeda hasn't committed any crimes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaeda the organization is not an individual and by law can't be convicted of crimes. However it is factual to say members of Al Qaeda have commited crimes provide references to convictions are provided in an article. John harvey125 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your definition is home-grown and does not reflect English usage. Google for "crimes committed by states|corporations|organizations" and you will find that this usage is common. Why? Because it makes the sentences more legible, rather than adding "members of" at every sentence. A classic instance of totum pro parte. Please direct further questions about this to /ikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style Jasy jatere (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We are now assuming what google search returns is right and nothing else ? Google searches sometimes returns results for incorrect spelling. So we assume the word with incorrect spelling is also admissible ? What flawed logic is this ? If you have valid point here, you need to try to convince me and convince yourself of what you are saying and pointing me to go read manual just isn't convincing nor will it win arguments. John harvey125 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2) There needs to be references to exactly show LTTE has gained notoriety for allegedly killing civillians and political decaptitation strikes. Otherwise the sentence has to be completely restructured or got to go.

We could just removed the bit about notoriety and directly state that they have committed crimes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Again an organization cannot be convicted of crimes. It is fair to say something along this line, "Members of the LTTE allegedly killed civillians." but there needs to be references indicating this. John harvey125 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

no need for allegedly here. Loads of civilians died (fact), and not all of them were killed by the GoSL. Take this to RfC if you want to, it is a ridiculous position Jasy jatere (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If load of civillians got killed by actions of either side, lets get a reference for it and put in and attribute it to a reliable source. No one is going to argue with that. John harvey125 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3) Killing of Sri Lankan politicians all stand as allegations. There has been no conclusive investigation that has resulted in convictions to date.

Numerous groups have attributed the LTTE for these assassinations. A formal criminal investigation is by no means indicative of guilt. Look at many of the militant Islamic organizations for case and point. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a formal investigation is not indicative of guilt. However a formal conviction under a free and fair trial is indicative of guilt. Just because Middle Eastern groups get a different treatment doesn't mean we are given free reign or justified to bend procedures and neutral practises. If all that is available is attribution, then attribution has to be explicit or the word allegedly has to be used. If there was a trial and if the trial was not free and fair, that needs to be stated so as well. John harvey125 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

according to your position, crimes can only be called such after free and fair trial. These conditions hold only in a minority of the states of the world, excluding nearly all of Africa, most of Asia and parts of Latin America. Do you want to say that wikipedia can as a consequence not talk about any crime in an African or South Asian state? Again, this position is ridiculous. For me, this is EOD, but you can take it to RfC if you want and get a bloody nose there. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What this means is that, you can't just label people who you don't like as "criminals" bottomline. You need to have a reliable reference that they have been convicted of a crime. If there wasn't a free and fair trial, then the context of the trial should be attributed with the conviction. By your account a person like Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, should be labelled as criminals without any attribution of the court of law they faced. I am not sure what an RFC is but, these issues are standard editorial issues in any publication and I am quite dissappointed editors here don't know about this. John harvey125 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

4) Simillarly purposeful killing of civillians stands as allegations against members of the ltte.

Again, numerous groups (including the various governments who have labeled the LTTE as a terrorist organization) have attributed these killings to the LTTE. I consider that to be beyond the point of an allegation. Has the LTTE refuted any of these claims? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that it is *your opinion* that the evidence is supposodely beyond the point of allegations. The problem with this approach is this supposed point can be different from person to person. So are we going start deciding, yes they are guilty or not without explicit conviction by judge and jury. Each of the killing of sri lankan politicians is not as clear cut as you may think. If it was so straightforward, why didn't Sri Lankan police charge individuals and get people convicted for any one of these supposed high-profile attacks ?

And it is your opinion that a court conviction is required to label someone as the confirmed perpetrator of some act. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately its not my opinion, it is the law. You can't just label unsavoury characters as criminals or what have you. There are laws in place against that. If someone tries to break it, they become liable. Just like how in the version of the article you advocated, "British Tamil Forum" was listed as financing the LTTE which is getting wikipedia in legal trouble without any reliable sources. John harvey125 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

5) LTTE had announced it returned all underage recruits by January 2008 and there has not been any accusation by UNICEF or Human Rights Watch since.John harvey125 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

this does not undo their past recruitings, as said before. Please read WP:IDHT. Furthermore, given the limited power it now has, it will be difficult to draw recruits anyway. Finally, the reports for 2009 are not out yet, so to say that it has done no such thing after 2008 is misleading Jasy jatere (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No one claimed this undos past recruiting. "Furthermore, given the limited power it now has, it will be difficult to draw recruits anyway. " is not verifiable particularly since government of sri lanka doesn't allow independent media or witnesses into the north and east. So I am supposed to believe what you feel is the situation ? John harvey125 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did they announce this? Source, please? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/001200801311401.htm - LTTE having removed/stopped all underage recruitement. John harvey125 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see why you felt the need to make an edit like this, when the subject of child recruitment by the government should bear no mention in an article about the LTTE. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I dispute all your points. Criminal convictions are by no means the only indication of guilt. Al Qaeda as an organization has committed numerous terrorist attacks, just like the LTTE as an organization (unless you're telling me that LTTE members are rogue and they don't follow some sort of command from higher-ups) has committed acts of violence against civilians and politicians. See this BBC report, which quite clearly details the LTTE as the perpetrator, not merely individuals who happen to be LTTE members. The point being, it is not our right to disregard what highly respectable sources have said regarding the LTTE's participation in civilian attacks and political assassinations, nor is it our right to interpret factual information to our liking. Wikipedia does not rely on merely court convictions on the issue of guilt; we rely on what our sources tell us. The BBC report in particular quite clearly refers to the LTTE as the perpetrator of numerous attacks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then for those attacks, attribute the BBC and problem is solved. But we can't start saying so and so did it just because one side or other of the conflict said so and without reliable source attribution. John harvey125 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I would like to declare that I unknowingly violated the editing restrictions imposed for this article. I have read the resolution agreement and vow to stay within the rules. I believe John harvey125 should also make the same declaration. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the resolution after you point out this to me here. I am not exactly sure what it all means. I shall also abide by this. John harvey125 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The position taken by JohnHarvey125 does not seem to go well with the aim of writing an encyclopedia. His POV seems to be that the LTTE have never done anything evil, and that the evildoers are the GoSL and Karuna. While he is entitled to his point of view, wikipedia follows a policy of the neutral point of view, which in this case attests to atrocities committed by all sides in the conflict (pick any academic book on the conflict). Taking a look at his editing patterns, there is a clear indication of a WP:SPA, used to push his POV. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In you above statment, you have it seems broken numerous wikipedia rules that have been imposed by a resolution that covers this article including, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL. I kindly ask you to cease and desist. You have also unfortunately jumped the gun and made some hasty presumptions of me and what is laughable is you seem to potray things in simplified stark terms like "evil" and "good" which I find awkwardly unencyclopedic, when I personally never took those positions. John harvey125 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to figure out your position in this matter. Your arguments have been over mere technical details that have no bearing on writing Wikipedia articles (perhaps somewhere else, but certainly not here). We're not relying on real-life laws to determine guilt, we're reporting what reliable sources have said, and reliable sources have quite clearly linked the LTTE to numerous attacks and assassinations. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Real laws apply on wikipedia and wikipedia is in the jurisdiction of the United States. Just because it is on wikipedia, doesn't mean editors can act ignorant or try to circumvent real laws. Defamatory statements on this article pose unecessary issues for this encyclopedia and all editors involved. Nor can we wiggle out of need for neutrality (WP:NPA with subjective measures of opinion massaged as fact. But suddenly the issue has been turned into "Whats this editor's agenda or that editor's agenda ?" I can also ask whats nishkid64 and Jasy jatere's agenda ? As I had reiterated earlier provide the proper references and attributions from reliable sources and no can argue with that regardless of one's supposed POV. John harvey125 (talk)

Yes it is true that real laws from USA ( specifically of state of Florida) apply to wikipedia. last time I checked USA had First Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing free speech. However the beneficiaries of these laws are generally US citizens and legal residents of USA. if you dont live in USA , good luck. plenty of reliable sources show that LTTE was instrumental in assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and is considered by most countries to be a Terrorist organization. For example State Department Issues List of Foreign Terrorist Groups. I also suspect that anybody aiding or abbetting designated terrorist organizations in ANY way maybe committing a felony under US laws. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely at the FTO law, thats not what it says because what you said could infringe on the First Ammendment. What is explicitly in the law for American citizens is the following: "It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO.Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/April/20080410111249xjsnommis0.111355.html#ixzz0FG0R9QSc&B. John harvey125 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Rajiv case: It should be acknowledged many reliable sources have linked LTTE to the Rajiv Gandhi's assassination based on the trial, but the trial that was conducted was not considered free and fair by third party neutral sources such as Amnesty International [18] since less evidence was necessary for conviction than a regular trial in Indian courts and where the claim was that the suspects were tortured and coerced to provide confessions, which were later retracted by some... [19] John harvey125 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a slight change of wording in the text for one of the sentences. John harvey125 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just OR. what are your sorces that rajiv Gandhi trial was considered Unfair ?? The LTTE newsletter. do not forget WP:DUE . on wikipedia we give due weight to different sources. if a billion indians consider LTTE did it and a handful of LTTE sympathizers think they did not then you know whose view needs to be reflected in the article. please provide credible sources that people consider indian investigation unfair and therefore took legal action against Govt of India. you know LTTE could sue India for Defamation but it did NOT. I suggest the intro include info that LTTE is a 'Designated Terrorist Organization'. please provide an instance where Amnesty has considered ANY investigation 'free and fair'. they did NOT sue India because of this. Multiple countries called LTTE a terrorist organization partly because of this investigation. why is that fact not listed at top of this article??? world socialist website. dont know whether to laugh or cryWikireader41 (talk)

Convictions in proper rule of law thankfully don't work by mob rule as you suggest. Indian laws are wiered in that some instances, people are put in prison for making speeches etc under sedition laws. Things like free speech doesn't seem to be enshrined as in most western countries. Regardless, let me find you instances of cases AI considers are fair trials. If you can find a reliable reference that indicates "1 billion indian think LTTE did it" then we can have sentence with that attribution in place. But claiming someone did just because tom,dick and harry thinks so without reliable sources, neutrality, attribution and legal safeguards is deeply problematic. (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC) John harvey125 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

its interesting you think of one of the worlds largest democracies in that way. No other editor here seems to share your view. luckily all good people of the world are united against terrorist organizations and their supporters who some time show up on WP.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject here isn't India, but India is a flawed democracy according to the Economist [20]. John harvey125 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

better be a flawed democracy than a flawed terrorist organization like LTTE which soon will be history. smashed to smithereens by the Sri LankansWikireader41 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

might want to read this too. LTTE are the inventors of 'Suicide Belt' another notable point that needs to go in the intro[21]

This appears to be a popular myth. Imperial Japanese Army during WWII had suicide infantry units that wore anti-tank explosives as belts and vests in battle for Okinawa and Phillipines. [22]. I can find you more info on this. John harvey125 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

and here is what FBI thinks of LTTE [23]. the page also has a link to report suspicious activity. Wikireader41 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain what this ("the page also has a link to report suspicious activity.") has to do with discussion regarding the article. John harvey125 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

what do you think ?? I described accurately what was on the page. FBI has gone out of its way to make it easy for citizens to report suspicious activity by LTTE and it supporters. That is how dangerous it thinks LTTE and its supporters are. the link about suicide belt by japanese soldiers is not credible . stop using useless websites like world socialist web site to push your POV. FBI info is 100% accurate and LTTE is among the MOST dangerous TERRORIST organization according to them. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"FBI has gone out of its way to make it easy for citizens to report suspicious activity by LTTE and it supporters. That is how dangerous it thinks LTTE and its supporters are. " - this is case of synthesizing whats already there to your POV. FBI within the US doesn't have international jurisdiction and hence are not the most credible source of information from the US government regarding international issues. The Department of State and the CIA are better examples of sources. Hence I have moved the FBI statement to the proscription section, because the stuff that is covered in the statement is already in the intro. The "4,000 deaths" and suicide belt is not verifiable or conflicts with other sources. John harvey125 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No it is clearly NOT. you asked me a question and I answered it. the FBI statement comes from the premier investigating agency of the USA and is very important in the intro as it succinctly describes what LTTE is famous for. please do not move it. FBI has jurisdiction anywhere US citizens may face harm including SL. so do not give pseudo legal explanations witrhout proper citations.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The source you claim it is in conflict with is quite clearly not a reliable source (self-published web page, no reason to believe that the author is an established expert on the subject). John harvey125, the FBI source is reliable according to Wikipedia's standards, and as such, it meets your requirement for reliable sources to back up controversial claims. I'm simply dumbfounded that you're now disputing the reliability of the FBI. If you have an issue with that source, take it to WP:RSN. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read my issue with some aspects of the FBI statement [24] with this reliable source [25] from the International Crisis Group. John harvey125 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies with facts and figures are easily resolved. Wikipedia policy dictates that you report the facts and figures provided by all reliable sources (with proper attribution of course). I don't think the FBI statement needs to be presented in the lead - perhaps somewhere else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This was/is also my position. The FBI statement should exists in the article, but not in the intro, due to the complications with the facts and figures. John harvey125 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If both of you feel that way I dont have a problem. Though I personally would think FBI would have more accurate data than a not for profit NGO like ICG. so data from both sources should be mentioned. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You are more than entitled to that opinion. I would definitely like to see both sources mentioned as well and hence both sources should have the space for a proper presentation and thats where it will look messy in the intro, hence the proscription section seems reasonable for me. John harvey125 (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we move it to the proscription section ? John harvey125 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

sure Wikireader41 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

also john can you please explain why you feel FBI and ICG reports are in conflict. I just read the whole thing again and I DONT see any conflict.

This is what ICG says 'Government formally withdrew from ceasefire with LTTE on 16 Jan 2008. Fighting intensified during first months of year, and conventional battles have been accompanied by continuing rights abuses from both sides, including political assassinations, abductions, and targeted attacks on civilians. At least 10,000 to 15,000 have been killed since 2006, with government and particularly LTTE suffering heavy losses in battle and at least 4,000 civilians killed in crossfire and targeted attacks." FBI says 4000 murdered by LTTE too. why are you assuming ICJ is not saying the same ???? please expalin in Detail or we will have to assume you are maliciously trying to obfuscate the issue Wikireader41 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41, you suppose to assume all editors act in good faith (WP:AGF).FBI claiming 4,000 civillians killed by LTTE (indicated with the word murder) as of January, 2008. ICG is claiming, 4,000 civillians were killed in total from 2006 to 2009 by BOTH SIDES (i.e due to crossfire and targetted attacks). We know for sure civillians got killed in the year 2008, hence there is an incompatibility with the two numbers. John harvey125 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

absolutely I assumed good faith that is why I did not challenge it immediately. where in the ICG report does it ay 'BOTH SIDES'. crossfire and targeted attacks could be all LTTE. you are just assuming things. please read the report again without a bias. both FBI and ICG report say 4000 but FBI is more specific. I dont see anywhere where ICG says 4000 inculdes deaths caused by both LTTE and SL govt forces Wikireader41 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It says specifically 4,000 civilians were killed in the crossfire, than means it indicates both sides. John harvey125 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right. where does it say that. stop assuming things to suit your POV. also consider answering some of my queries below Wikireader41 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"At least 10,000 to 15,000 have been killed since 2006, with government and particularly LTTE suffering heavy losses in battle and at least 4,000 civilians killed in crossfire and targeted attacks." [26]. You really need to work on your WP:AGF. John harvey125 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

yes I was assuming good faith and that is why I went along with your statement. The article very clearly states 4000 people killed ( but does NOT specify that whether these casualties were due to LTTe or GoSL or Both). in conjunction with what FBI says it is very clear that the number 4000 refers to the # LTTE killed. do not quote WP:AGF to push inaccurate info. And since you repeatedly have not answered my query below I am just going to assume that you were willfully and knowingly trying to introduce false info into this article. stop trying to push your POV in this article supporting a designated terrorist organization especially at a time when LTTE is holding thousands of civilians hostage against their will and using them as Human shields. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also on the same note I am waiting for your references ( from RS not self published sites) about LTTE NOT being the inventor of Suicide Belt. due to the controversy I think 5 references from RS should do. please ost them as you had indicated before. I am assuming good faith here and thinking that you were not lying just to make a point Wikireader41 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

here is another set of numbers on this. I must say FBI estimates of 4000 appear very 'conservative' and likely are underestimates considering high standards of data quality required before FBI will accept it.[27] clearly a lot more than 4000 people were killed in that 2 year period so your assertion that 4000 includes both { people killed by LTTE as well as SL govt) does not seem accurate Wikireader41 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

and another background point I wish to add. during last few years LTTE faced several defections including of Colonel Karuna . several of the people murdered could very well be its own cadres who saw the end coming and were planning to leave LTTE. It would be unwise to assume that a terorist organization in its death throes is cohesive and unified. likely their is a lot of infighting and fratricide going on. possible that FBI figures include LTTE cadres murdered by LTTE for wanting to leave.Wikireader41 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Defeat of LTTE

we need a separate section chronicling the defeat of LTTE at the hand of Sri Lankan Army and associated bloodshed. some references are here[28], [29], [30]Wikireader41 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have turned into a prophet now. John harvey125 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

it is all over all credible sources. only the Blind cant see it !!!!!Wikireader41 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

also need a sub section on causes of LTTEs collapse & defeat. here is a good reference to get started [31]Wikireader41 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

few more references [32], [33][34][35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While reporting what reliable sources say is of course legitimate, WP:CRYSTALBALL probably applies, as does WP:RECENTISM. If the defeat of the LTTE is indeed imminent, we will be able to add that information very soon as a fact rather than a speculation, so there is no need to hurry. You can waste your time now by trying to track all the developments and opinions, or wait some more time and take an ex post perspective, which is probably more productive. This is of course only true if the defeat of the LTTE is indeed imminent, in case of a more protracted conflict, this approach is not fruitful Jasy jatere (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

good point Jasy. however the fall of the 'Capital' of LTTE Killinochi would be considered by many people as defeat of LTTE. if you use the yardstick that each and every tiger needs to be captured/killed before we call them defeated that probably will never happen. They are still capturing Nazi's in USA 60 years after WW2 got over and Nazi's were officially defeated. In most wars capturing the enemies capital is considered Defeat. also that word has been used by several reliable sources. as far as recentism goes we can summarize the events once GoSL establishes its writ on the little strip of land where LTTE is holed out and last vestiges of resistance are snuffed and civilians rescued. I dont recall LTTE getting this much press outside SL as it is getting right now. I dont think a new article is required to describe the current events which may well be the Largest Hostage crisis ever seen but maybe I am wrong. what do you think ? Wikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the fall of the K should of course be mentioned as a major event. The next major event, (which in my neglectable view will occur very soon), is the loss of the last Tiger-held territory. Those two events do have major implications, which should of course be discussed. I would suggest waiting with the second part until event 2 will actually have occurred, but this is just for reasons of economy. The humanitarian crisis can of course already be covered now, as it is considered with past and present, and only to a smaller extent with the futureJasy jatere (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "pending defeat" maybe a better heading for this section. Even the Sri Lankan government doesn't claim the LTTE is totally defeated. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jasy and snowolf. i think Mahinda Rajapaksa did not like both of your ideas. look what he said today Sri Lanka army 'defeats rebels' He obviously does not think that evicting them from every single inch of territory s necessary for declaring them defeated. Thanks Mahinda Wikireader41 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropic activities of LTTE

I would also like to propose a section on philanthropic activities of LTTE and would invite editors with extensive knowledge of SL and LTTE to get this section started. Surely even a designated terrorist organization has done some good. it will help make this article more NPOV. only reliable sources please Wikireader41 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Any examples you can think of? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally cant. but maybe John or somebody else can. reading this article almost makes you think you are reading about some terrible terrorist organization !!!! that according to some is not NPOV, I will change the heading of the defeat section to impending defeat. we can revert it later if LTTE does indeed get evicted from the tiny strip of land north of mullaitivu.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

They've helped the Red Cross during the Tsunam according to the ICRC, If i have time i'll try to find more --Icemansatriani (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to balance the article, one could mention the administrative infrastrucure built up by the LTTE, which has repeatedly caused astonishment. The LTTE have repeatedly been called "best-organized liberation movement of the world" and similar things. Schools, courts, stamps and the like have often been mentioned. I recall an article where a BBC reporter was surprised to be shot with a radar gun --- for speeding. I do not have the time to research the sources for that, but they should exist and not to difficult to find. If wikireader or someone else finds the time, those could make up for the perceived imbalance. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag

Can someone explain why a POV tag has been placed on the article? What sections are disputed etc. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

due to lack of mention of all positive contributions made to humanity by this organization. Do these guys run orphanages & hospitals? do they feed and clothe the poor and the infirm? were they ever in the running for nobel peace prize ? were they ever commended by Mother Teresa or the Pope. if yes that needs to be mentioned . if not the neutrality tag can be safely removed IMHO. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just read the debates above, the article is heavily biased and riddled with partisan sources. --Icemansatriani (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah its partisan the whole world unfairly prejudiced against some Tamils just because they supported LTTE which sent a few suicide bombers and recruited child soldiers. Newsflash - The world really is not fair. please point out specific issues. like I said that if there are any specific instances of some good being done by LTTE then it should be mentioned giving due weight. Instead of ranting subjectively please post references from reliable sources of any good that they may have done. Otherwise Neutrality tag needs to go Wikireader41 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Did something crawl down your throat and die? Did I say anything at all accusing the world of conspiring against the LTTE? Defence.lk and asiantribune are clearly partisan sources, I'm more than inclined to remove these partisan sources. I'm sorry that you don't know much about this conflict but please take the time to learn about the sources. Aside From partisan sources, the intro is too long and filled with "trivia" and the rest of the article is one sided, eg. lack of info on their humanitarian assistance. And there's a debate going on right now above about this articles neutrality. Even Nishkid64 who seems to have been arguing against the LTTE says this article is not neutral. Do not remove the tag until these issues are delt with. --Icemansatriani (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil .I did not say something had crawled up your bottom and died. please learn something abut this conflict yourself first before making a comment like this. my opinion is stated above. POV tag needs to go unless you can clearly show that LTTE did indeed do things which were good which are not included in the article. Humanitarian assistance during tsunami is clearly mentioned here. What is stopping you from bringing info about there other good deeds. could it be that their are none. Instead of ranting a better use of your time would be to find good reliable sources that praised LTTE for all their good work and we can add that info to that article. I think a week is good amount of time to uncover any positive info about LTTE and after that the tag needs to go.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you read WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL before commenting on neutrality of this article. I want to go on record to say that the view that LTTE has ANY redeeming quality seems to be a distinct minority view shared by an exceedingly small percentage of human population. possibly their are greater number of people who believe that earth is flat and holocaust never happened. as such this minority view need not be reflected in this article as per WP policy. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are sections that are not neutral, go ahead and mark them with {{pov-section}} tags, and point out exactly what is exactly wrong about them. Until then, I'm removing the POV tag from the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader please be civil, it was you that came in with a sarcastic tone, I'm busy in real life so I don't have much time to put in info about their humanitarian assitance, but the partisan sources still merit a POV tag. --Icemansatriani (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am civil and did not say anything uncivil. If you have issues with "partisan" sources then I suggest that you take them to WP:RSN. I do not see a WP policy that sources have to be Neutral. in that case we could never use sources like The New York Times, TIME, The Times or US Govt sources as these can hardly be considered neutral. Especially on topics of terrorism which is a term extensively used by these sources yet is thought to be Not neutral on WP. they are Reliable sources but Definitely not neutral. And they are considered top of the line sources here on WP Wikireader41 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources, also, can anyone tell me how to reply so my comments are indented instead of a new line each time, thnx. --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hit edit and see what others are doing!! can you point out the references which you think are not RS. I will see if we can replace them with more reliable sources. good to see a US govt website considered RS. still I hope you get my point about Partisanship. 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#cite_note-228 this is just one of the sources, I understand your point about the partisan nature of NYT etc, but to this specific article about the LTTE thats very little bias compared to using the governments OWN website (defence.lk) which is highly polarized on this issue. Just as we don't use pro-ltte sources, we shouldn't use anti rebel sites like defence.lk (sometimes its ok like when the particular point isn't disputed like when they captured certain areas etc) and www.asiantribune.com --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, that link was for the Sri lankan Civil War, I meant to use this reference from asian tribune for the LTTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#cite_note-at-2.2F12.2F07-134 --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Also, I'm re-adding the POV tag (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#POV_Tag) and removing the asiantribune citation, I doubt anyone would have an issue with that since the asian tribune link is dead and none of the people in the POV discussion are responding to my arguments.--Icemansatriani (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"removed as of talk page, also, this intro is filled with unnecessary stuff"

I don't really understand what that edit summery means, but the fact that as of 2002 the LTTE had carried out more suicide attacks that a number of much better known terrorist organization is definitely noteworthy for the intro. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

probably not any more as of 2009, if they have lost the first place to another organization. Can be mentioned in the body of the article, but 2nd place is not good enough for lede Jasy jatere (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jasy just curious '2nd place is not good enough for lede'. is this official wikipedia policy/guideline or just your opinion. if it is a policy/guideline could you point me to it for my education.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

opinion. Could be derived from WP:N and WP:LEAD, I guess. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

this issue was dicussed above already and it was decided that the info was nolonger true, and the fact that this info is hardly notable since these other terrorist groups weren't as active during that time. This intro, as many other users have said has too much uneeded info, what on earth does al qaida and hamas have to do with LTTE, like jasy said, maybe in the article but not in the intro. --Icemansatriani (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that in 2002 LTTE was the 'champion' Suicide bomber is an essential notable fact about this organization which would make a fresh reader want to learn more about this outfit. according to WP 'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.' By Analogy the article on Sri Lanka national cricket team mentions in the lead that the team won 1996 world cup. the fact that Sri Lanka have lost the championship since then does not ( rightly) preclude this info from the lead. The fact that LTTE was attributed most suicide bombings in the world in 2002 is a Notable point about this organization and likely bragging point for prabhakaran and his cronies. Also I have not seen anywhere in reliable sources that LTTE has lost that top position. that maybe just some editors opinion Wikireader41 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You think that? great, keep thinking that. Has nothing to do with the LTTE. Suicide bombing isn't a sport, LTTE isn't a sports team, there is no comparison. It's no longer relevant or notable, for reasons I've already stated. --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

both of you could profit from reading WP:SARCASM. The comparison with the cricket team is flawed. The raison d'etre of cricket teams is to win championships; the raison d'etre of separatists is not to commit as many suicide attacks as possible. This is a means and not an end. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok maybe the comparison was not the best. How about any RS saying that any other organization is credited with more suicide bombings than LTTE. In the absence of that LTTE still has a claim to that Title. I thought cricket was played for enjoyment and to promote friendship not to 'win championships' which was incidental. Your Reasoning here is completely flawed. You would benefit from reading WP:OR. stop trying to take away LTTE legitimate claim to be top suicide bombers without quoting any RS. This title of champion suicide bomber still remans LTTE's main claim to fame since they dont have much else in terms of 'achievement' even though they pretended all along that they were working for Tamils. anyway congratulations to Sri Lankan,s and condolences to LTTE supporters.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There is NO title for Suicide Bombings, You don't celebrate that kind of thing, LTTE don't claim that title. I understand that LTTE don't have much to claim to fame for, aside from being a non-state militant organization that had captured 1/3 a country against a government force more than 10 times its own size, forcing its foe to not only sell its economy billions in debt buying discount chinese weapons but also commit unspeakable warcrimes and human rights violations inorder to defeat them. Aside from being the most well developed non state militant organization in the world, with a real time in medical war system hundreds of times better than the Sri lankan army did, and the only organizations of its kind with a navy and air force. I Guess your opinion of acheivements are different from my own. --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

those are all honest achievements. Now LTTE has also become Exhibit A that terrorism CAN ( and should IMO ) be defeated by brute military force. GoSL has set a good example for rest of the world including US gov and Govt of pakistan IMHO. Only other extremist movement I can think of which was defeated by military means ( without any political settlement) was Sikh extremism. Looks like LTTE is in a hurry to renounce violence now that Prabahakaran is gone [36] Best wishes to a peaceful LTTE in achieving its goals. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

please respect WP:TALK and stay on topic. Also, wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM to exchange views on how to deal with terrorism, or any other political topic. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Relax Jasy. these points are all related to the LTTE about which this article and Talkpage are. these issues are being adressed and the 'lessons' of their military defeat and its implications are being disussed by RS now Lessons From the Tiger Defeat, The crushing defeat of the Tamil Tigers proves you CAN beat terror, Lessons of war from Tigers' defeat, Sri Lanka's victory may offer lessons. hopefully all this info will be incorporated into the article soon. we could have a section or subsection on 'Lessons from Defeat' of LTTE. Wikireader41 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Last sentence of intro "announce" is spelt wrong. Fix anyone?

"Defeat" of the LTTE

I think it's important to remember that even when the Tamil Tigers are defeated as a conventional force and most of their senior leaders are killed, they will still exist as an organization. Therefore it's not appropriate to talk about them in the past tense, o to add end dates to their existence. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Military Defeat" or "Possible Defeat" maybe possible alternatives, I don't know. --Icemansatriani (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to Military DefeatWikireader41 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent

The Tigers, who during the height of their power possessed a well-developed militia cadre, and are notorious for committing atrocities against civilians, including abductions and targeted attacks,[6] for carrying out various high profile attacks, including the assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians, and for recruiting child soldiers. The LTTE invented the suicide belt and pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic.[7][8] They also pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks.[9] The Tamil Tigers have also used aircraft in some attacks.[10]

The first sentence in that paragraph is incoherent. The structure of the paragraph is also poor; they also x, they also y . . . seems arbitrary.

Dates

I think we should write "5 May, 1976 - 18 May, 2009" instead of "1976 - 18 May, 2009". I feel this more better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.171.238 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Change tense of article?

The Tigers have been defeated by the Sri Lankan army. Has the organisation ceased to exist? I would advocate changing the tense of the article from present to past, as the Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam are now non-existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.35.40 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources will be needed to prove that it has ceased to exist. --Marianian (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

there will be overseas branches, which ~~are not defeated~~ will not have ceased to exist yet Jasy jatere (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this article in the New York Times. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in a newspaper, it must be true 203.3.197.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

It's the correct approach. Just because the government says the LTTE is dead doesn't mean the organization has immediately ceased to exist. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishkid64. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icemansatriani (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The government doesn't the LTTE is "over" so lets get our facts straight. They only say the LTTE has been defeated. Big difference. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As the media and other's are restricted on reporting in the area, we don't know of any LTTE activity that might be going on. The Sri Lankan government is unlikely to report their continued existance after the LTTE's military defeat. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Weaponry

What kind of weapons do the Tamil Tigers possess? Obviously some small arms, but do they have artillery or tanks ? I am not sure you can get those on the black market —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.132.88 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Causes of Defeat

we need a section on causes of defeat now that the controversy about defeat is over. some references are here What led to the LTTE’s defeat?, Tamil Tigers failed to learn from tsunami tragedy Wikireader41 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the hindustan times article is a very readable and clear summary indeed. I think the major causes are mentioned, and the article appears pretty neutral. Most of the analysis finally comes from GoSL foreign secretary. I think that the analysis is not misguided, but a more neutral analyst would probably be preferable. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the globe and mail article on the other hand is a rant. I am not saying that the writer is not right in his depiction of the appalling facts he saw, but overall the article is much too emotional to be used as a source. It relies heavily on emotional vocabulary, and its political analysis (is there any at all?) is much more shallow and inferior to the hindustan times article. It seems to me that the author is completely terrified by what he saw and cannot arrive at the abstract level of political analysis anymore. If the writer wants to speak about the tsunami, he should also talk about the administration of relief funds (I think that was related to ISGA in some way found it, it is PTOMS), and what both sides made of it. One can have varying opinions on this topic, but any serious analysis connecting tsunami and defeat should mention ~~ISGA~~ PTOMS. Failing to do so basically disqualifies you as a political commentator. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If i find other sources addressing the causes of military defeat i will post them here. this source touches on the role of Chinese support to GoSL in this conflict[37] jasy you want to take a crack at getting this section ( or subsection) started ?? Wikireader41 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a PhD thesis to finish, sorry, my contribution will be incidental for the next month.Jasy jatere (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

here is another reference Prabhakaran — an icon who failed his followers Wikireader41 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How Sri Lanka's military won anoter good one Wikireader41 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Details

This article says Pirabaharan was killed when the van he was travelling was hit. But today on BBC, Karuna has said that he was killed when he tried to escape via Nandikadal. So which version is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Billa (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

maybe neither? Luckily, wikipedia is not in the WP:TRUTH business, so we can report both, and attribute them. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Article intro

If anyone has any problems with the updated intro, this would be the place to bring it up. Simply reverting to an outdated version with large scale errors is not the way to go. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

given the sensitivity of the topic, it would be nice to state your proposed changes here before implementing them. I reverted wholesale because I could not disentangle the changes I agree with from the changes I disagreed with. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia based on whether you'll like what I do or not. If you have problems with any changes, bring them up here. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

please take a look at the blue box which sits on top of the article page. These clearly says how to proceed with potentially controversial changes. That is fully independent of my personal preferences. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Updating the article isn't controversial. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the update decides if it is controversial or not. Given the sensitivity of the subject and the revertings because of the edits, I would say it was obviously controversial. Chamal ^talk 01:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the updates or minor sylistic changes, however, I've reverted changing 'separitist' to 'terrorist'. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in SLR, you have a week to object to any changes. I left the Tamil text as Jasy objected to removing it, but since there was no mention about the word terrorist, I added it back.

If you feel like it should not be contained in the article, please discuss here. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about updates. Anyway, the reasoning is explained by WP:TERRORIST. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Was there even any support to introduce the LTTE as a terrorist organization? As far as I can tell, there was no consensus for such a change. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested changes to the intro. Jasy jatere didn't like the fact that I removed the Tamil text, and deleted some references and he brought it up.

Everyone else had a week to make make suggestions/objections to the change. Since there were no other comments, I assumed everyone was in agreement with the new new intro. After I made it, you can't can't say I don't agree with this bit or that bit. The SLR agreement goes both ways. If you don't like parts of the new intro, lets discuss. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the change from 'separitist' to 'terrorist' was done by an IP, so I didn't realize that was what you were talking about when you asked about your updates. Anyway, I guess we should discuss whether 'separitist' or 'terrorist' should be used here. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this was the article version I proposed, and left the message here for a discussion of the changes. I thought everyone was okay with it, except the Tamil text part. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying 'you're wrong', I'm just saying there was a misunderstanding - I thought you were talking about non-contraversial updates. PhilKnight (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC x2) Consensus building requires discussion, not silence. Furthermore, simply passing time does not get you closer and closer to establishing a consensus. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Put me down for "separatist" or "militant separatist" (this might be a better description as it refers to their agenda and how they go about pursuing it) as per WP:TERRORIST. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a discussion here. Look at the very first post of this section. Only one person replied. Your silence is not my problem. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if it was my misunderstanding, which it very possibly was, that isn't your problem. However, if three editors are arguing in favor of making a change, and you're the only editor disagreeing, then it would be justifiable to make the change. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Wikipedia isn't a democracy per se. You discuss first, not "oh 3 people want this so we do it". Right now, your argument "per WP:TERRORIST isn't really valid, as WP:TERRORIST states "If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the way in which you're handling this discussion. You seem to think that consensus was achieved, despite the fact that only one or two other editors participated in the discussion here. You have then used this so-called "consensus" to justify your reverts on the LTTE page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)How else do you want me to go about editing? I proposed the changes, and waited a week before making them after Jasy reverted them the first time. If you chose not to participate in them the discussion, that really isn't my problem. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By your argument, after a consensus is reached, another editor can come in and revert it saying "I didn't take part so I don't agree". We came across this issue a number of times at SLR, and the agreement was if there are no comments after a reasonable period of time, the discussion is seen as the consensus. This was one discussion. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[deindent] passing time does not invalidate WP:TERRORIST.Jasy jatere (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) A consensus version should be arrived at by discussion. Taking a look at previous discussions about the word "terrorist", it should be clear to longstanding editors that this is controversial. As such, it is not good practice to slip in the word; rather, the change should be proposed on talk in an explicit manner, e.g "I propose changing "militant" to "terrorist" based on the following observations. ...." Jasy jatere (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying "passing time invalidates WP:TERRORIST". I'm saying everyone is doing this "per WP:TERRORIST" argument without fully reading the policy. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I won't hold you at fault for following previous discussions. However, I believe it would have been best to contact some editors for input before making any changes to the article which may appear controversial in nature. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what Special:Watchlist is for? Having a "please notify" list would be cumbersome and we'll probably have a bunch of "I didn't participate since I wasn't notified, and therefore the consensus is invalid" arguments. Anyone who has interest in the article should be watching the page, and is more than welcome to comment. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not invalidating consensus simply because I didn't participate. I'm invalidating consensus because no one else participated. No one even bothered to discuss the terrorist vs. militant/separatist wording. And... "You have 9,873 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Oh boy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize about the size of your watchlist (I have 1118 articles), but you know as well as I do that your argument is total bs. I have absolutely no obligation to notify you, or anyone else, that I've posted a message on a talk page, for this article or any other. If you watch the page and comment on my post, great. If not, bad luck, and not really my concern.

I also suggest you read WP:Silence. Consensus can change, as appears the case in this matter, but the fact that no one objected to the change means I had consensus to make it. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First WP:CCC and WP:SILENCE do not trump common sense – any person with as much editing time on Wikipedia should have known that there would be an issue with the classification of the LTTE. But alas, given the political userboxes on your userpage, it's quite clear you're not going to see past your own personal beliefs. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh so your failure to comment on this post was the fault of my userboxes? Are they also to blame for the size of your watchlist? Maybe they took down flight 447 too?

So here's a suggestion. How about you stop blaming me for your inability to reply to my initial comment, and find some way to effectively monitor this page. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Get it through your dense head. I don't care that I didn't comment here. I'm just telling you what you should have done, since any person with a brain could have figured there would be a huge uproar over the terrorist vs. separatist issue. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with this meaningless discussion any longer. Let's keep it strictly centered on the "terrorist" issue. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked for opinions on the change to the intro here. If you choose to ignore that, I'm not the who's brain we should be talking about. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would've appreciated at least a message regarding such a controversial change so I could've put my input into this dicussion. There was no consensus for Snowolf's change, because he didn't inform anyone to my knowledge, and I see no reason why WP:terrorist would not apply. I fully agree with the positions of Nishkid, Philknight, Jasy, and Chamal, and theres no reason why we would wait a week to change something when there is both a clear consensus and WP in support of the change. --Icemansatriani (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:TERRORIST before blindly citing it. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. I also understood it. Please be civil, and don't accuse me of blindly citing something when its clear that its you that has either not read or not understood it. lol. --Icemansatriani (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

lol --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of word "terrorist"

Obviously, as I've already said, I think 'separitist' should be used in accordance with WP:TERRORIST. I won't revert you today, however, at the moment there are 2 editors favoring 'separitist', that is Icemansatriani and me. At the moment, it seems to be just you who prefers terrorist. Accordingly, I intend to modify the article tomorrow. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, WP:TERRORIST isn't set in stone. There are hundreds of organizations that are called "terrorist" bu various people, hence the need for the guidelines specified at WP:TERRORIST. However, I think the LTTE is an exception. There are multiple independent, reliable and highly respected sources that call the "terrorists", along with the governments of 32 countries. That's not something you get with most other groups.

Also, along those lines, WP:TERRORIST states, "If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.". This is the case for the LTTE. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think even in that situation, proper attribution is required (e.g. "So and so have described..."). Terrorist is a POV term, and it simply shouldn't be used as a descriptor in the introduction of the article. I don't like using comparative arguments, but for the sake of this discussion, take a look at Al Qaeda. It is almost universally referred to as a terrorist organization, but to some, such as those in the Muslim world, that description would be inappropriate. The same applies to the LTTE. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement is purely over whether 'separitist' or 'terrorist' should be used in the first paragraph. The second paragraph, which explains the LTTE are proscribed as terrorists by 32 countries, isn't disputed. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what WP:TERRORIST says. Use attribution. The problem arises if multiple, and I mean hundreds of reliable sources call them terrorists. Hence the addition of the sentence I mentions to WP:TERRORIST

A few sources a simple Factiva search brought up

Sunday Telegraph: "Tamil Tiger terrorists carried out a kamikaze-style attack in Sri Lanka's capital on Friday night..."

The Times: "Back then there were fears that some of the aid would be siphoned off by Tamil Tiger terrorists in Sri Lanka."

The Manila Times: "For while the Tamil Tigers’ terrorist outfit may have been dispatched to the bowels of hell and the pages of infamy..."

The Star: "...found in Tiger bunkers, using the intelligence to target the terrorist group's overseas efforts."

Huffington Post: "The Tamil Tigers not only created the world's most powerful terrorist organization..."

Croydon Guardian: "A man who bought equipment for a banned terrorist organisation that could have been used to make a bomb has been jailed for two years. "

Mississauga News: "A Malton man has lost his bid to avoid extradition to the U.S. for his alleged connection to a North American network that provided weapons to a terrorist group in Sri Lanka."

Guardian Unlimited: "Shelling into concentrations of mixed Tamil Tiger terrorists and civilians flies in the face of the state's obligations..."

The Sun: "Soldiers captured a key port in Sri Lanka yesterday, a step closer to ending the 25-year war with Tamil Tiger terrorists."

The Calgary Herald: "..the resources to deal with the tens of thousands who fled fighting with Tamil Tiger terrorists."

The Globe and Mail: "Canada is boosting its immigration screening in Sri Lanka – shifting overseas CSIS agents from New Delhi to Colombo in a bid to keep defeated Tamil Tiger terrorists from landing here."

The Australian: The operation, which reportedly involves Indian air force helicopter gunships patrolling the skies of the Sri Lankan capital, comes amid fears that Tamil Tiger terrorists are planning an attack on the Indian Prime Minister

The National Post: "Few, if any, were Tamil Tiger terrorists, whose ambush killing of 13 government soldiers set off the carnage on July 23, 1983."

And demonstrating the world wide view

Al Jazeera: "..many council members supported its defeat of the Tamil Tigers, whom they saw as a "terrorist" organisation."

Time: "a network globally regarded as terrorists" --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) this has been discussed ad nauseam, and the outcome was always the same. As per WP:TERRORIST, change back to militant/separatist and add a "violent" if you like. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TERRORIST, "If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.". And this is been discussed here, now. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There's a difference between factually referring to the LTTE as a terrorist organization and stating that the LTTE is referred to some as a terrorist organization (as done by paragraph 2). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

At what point does it cross the threshold of someone been called something, and actually been something? You want to say they are a "separatist militant organization", not they are refereed to as a "separatist militant organization", because enough reliable sources call them that. The same goes with the "terrorist" wording. Sufficient independent, reliable sources call them "terrorists" that they can be refered to as such in the article, per WP:TERRORIST. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"separatist" and "militant" are factual terms, which more clearly and neutrally describe the activities of the LTTE, while "terrorist" is a fairly subjective term. Paragraph 2 of the article states that a number of governments and international organizations consider the LTTE to be a terrorist organization, while the introduction line presents the matter as the point of view of Wikipedia itself. The issue stems from what may be construed as Wikipedia's view of the LTTE. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nishkid64. It is true that many sources identify the LTTE as a terrorist organization, but there are people that tag them with the "freedom fighter" label as well. Since at Wikipedia we present the neutral point of view, we cannot positively identify it as terrorist (which would mean we endorse one view while rejecting the other). Simple as that. Chamal ^talk 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see a single reliable source that calls the LTTE freedom fighters. What happened to all the WP:TERRORIST arguments? Per the guideline, enough reliable sources call the LTTE terrorists. This isn't Wikipedia's view, it's the "global" view. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) 32 out of 200+ countries classify LTTE as a terrorist organization. You call that a global view? The actual global view is divided; some countries identify them as terrorists, others as just a rebel militant organization (no sovereign country recognizes the LTTE as freedom fighters AFAIK, but there are a large number of people who do - reports of the numerous demonstrations and protests carried out by them will establish that view). Wikipedia gives the global view (ie: the neutral view). And WP:TERRORIST does not say that we can label an organization/individual as terrorist just because multiple reliable sources mention that. It says ... must be attributed in the article text to its source...' (meaning we have to mention who calls them that, along with a RS ref). The next line is talking about what to do in a situation where multiple sources use the term. Anyway let's take the words;

Rebel - Acted against the government of Sri Lanka. No one disputes that. Done
Militant - Openly bearing arms, acting against the armed forces of the country. No disputes. Done
Separatist - Wanted to create a new country by dividing Sri Lanka. Again, no disputes. Done
Terrorist - 32 countries recognize them as such, but there are a number of individuals (some notable) who dispute this. ✗ Not done
Freedom fighter - No government has accepted this claim, although some individuals do. ✗ Not done

I don't see how calling them outright terrorists or freedom fighters is ok per WP:NPOV under these conditions. Chamal ^talk 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't call that a global view. Time magazine calls it the global view that they are terrorists. And Time is a lot more reliable then you or me.

And can you provide reliable sources than say, one, they are not terrorists, or two, they are "freedom fighters". I don't mean fringe academia, I mean highly respected sources, a la Time. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

32 out of 200 countries. Oh, what happened to the other 168? If they considered the LTTE to be terrorists, they would have declared so. It is, however, universally agreed upon that the LTTE is a separatist and militant organization. If you honestly still have an issue with the arguments made by multiple editors against your version, I suggest you take it the talk page of WP:TERRORIST. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh if we're going in that direction, let's see citations showing all 200 countries calling the LTTE "separatist militants". It is you POV that they are "militants". Since that isn't sufficient for Wikipedia, you should rightfully provide reliable sources to back that up. Since I agree "separatist militants" is a valid classification of the LTTE, so I'm not asking for sources. At the same time, look at the Time article I cited above.

"a network globally regarded as terrorists"

That's not a "we, Time Magazine, call them terroirsts". That means they are terrorists. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST specifically states: "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation." This means that the "terrorist" label would have to be attributed in text and referenced to a reliable source. You would have to say something along the lines that the LTTE is viewed by a terrorist organization by so and so organizations/countries/other reliable sources. Why do we need to do that in the first line itself, when it's already mentioned at length in the second paragraph!? Go to the talk page of WP:WTA and ask there instead of using straw man arguments to "refute" the concerns voiced here. Terrorist is inherently non-neutral and common sense dictates we use a neutral term to describe the LTTE. On second thought, even militant can appear to be a non-neutral wording, but I think separatist is a 100% accurate description of the LTTE. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this seems to have been discussed at length quite recently at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 5 and Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring the rest of the guideline? The whole sentence is "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." i.e. if one source uses the word in question, then attribute it to the source. If multiple sources use the word, include it in the article and cite the sources. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you even reading the comments? You have misunderstood that statement. I have clarified what is says already. You're scorning Icemansatriani (talk · contribs) in the above section, but I believe he has got the point better than you. Just because he's new doesn't mean he's an idiot, he's telling the same thing that we are. Look, I have a suggestion; multiple reliable sources mention that Mahinda Rajapaksa is called king by Sri Lankans. How about we edit his article to say Mahinda Rajapaksa, formerly the 6th executive president of Sri Lanka, is now the king of the country? Should be ok, since multiple reliable sources mention that... Chamal ^talk 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowolf, did you bother reading the talk page discussions? It has been established time and time again that it is best to use a neutral term to describe an organization. For that reason, groups like al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, which are considered to be terrorist groups by almost everyone except their sympathizers, are not described as terrorist organizations. Honestly, if anyone else is interpreting WP:WTA like you are, then you would have seen discussions taking place on the talk pages of other articles. But since this isn't happening, we can only presume one thing... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that everyone who has participated in this discussion has disagreed with your POV. If you still have an issue with the interpretation of policy, I urge you to take it to the talk page of WP:WTA instead of arguing here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree, but since consensus doesn't really need valid arguments, just a majority, this really isn't going anywhere.

So I propose the following change to the intro.

They are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list of countries), and are described by Time Magazine "globally regarded terrorists", but have extensive support amongst the Tamil diaspora in Europe and North America, and amongst Tamils in India.[16][17]

Is LTTE alive?

We need to decide if the LTTE still exists or not. Almost everyday someone comes along and adds a date indicating the end of LTTE, and somebody else reverts it. My opinion is we should not consider the LTTE as totally finished and refer to it in the past tense. There are still some LTTE leaders abroad (eg: Kumaran Pathmanadan aka KP) and I believe pro-LTTE websites said that they will continue to lead the LTTE. I will try to find these reports to back this up. Anyway, at a time when even the government has not officially said the LTTE was finished (despite some politicians and media bragging about it) and the military is still strengthening security throughout the island, I think its a little premature to decide the LTTE is gone. We should consider it as still existing, even if it's only in name. Chamal ^talk 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right... But you have to remember that this Wikipedia is run by White racist low lifers who hates any country that did better than them. The Western world cannot bare the fact that their favorite terrorist group LTTE, which received fundings from the Whites in the West to destabilize the entire South Asian region is gone. The CIA don't want to let the world know that their massive plan against South Asian to keep these countries third world forever has gone with the LTTE. This is why the racists in the West keep writing that LTTE is still alive. 99% of ALL civil wars are created by the West! Look at Rwanda for example, the White Catholic church created it. These losers in the West still believe that Hitler was NOT a Christian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

consensus version

The consensus version is the version of a page about which consensus exists. This is normally the long-standing version, which was arrived at after discussions on talk and collaborative editing. The time factor might be indicative of consensus, but is not a sufficient criterion. There are instances of vandalism which go unnoticed for several months; this does not entail that wp regards the vandalized version as consensus (I am not claiming that this page is a case of vandalism).

An interesting bit from WP:CONS: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community". This adequate exposure to the community has not happened in the case we are dealing with here. In the change to "terrorist", no discussion has taken place before the change, and the discussions after the change point to there being no consensus for this change. The consensus version is thus clearly the version without "terrorist". This version should be restored until consensus changes. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We all can cite policy can't we? "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus."

I posted a message on the talk page, you objected to removing the Tamil text, and I left it as I didn't have consensus to remove it. There were no further aguments against the change, so I went ahead and made it.

Honestly, I'm done arguing about this. I really love the fact that people who didn't care to fix the glaring inaccuracies in the intro before are suddenly so concerned about the article. In the future, if I want to make a major change, I'm going to post it on the talk page, wait a reasonable time per WP:SLR and make the change. I suggest everyone who wants to be involved watchlist the article and comment on the initial thread. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not written in stone. The fact that we have a dispute about it now means that consensus is not that way anymore. We didn't have a discussion then, we have one now. I don't see why we can't discuss the matter now without simply resorting to saying "we already have consensus" or "we don't have consensus". And you should remember that you're not the only one interested in keeping these articles in order, Snowolfd4. We all want to see them neutral, which is the reason for these disputes. But that doesn't mean any of us owns them. Chamal ^talk 15:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What's disputed

Resolved

What's the reason for the addition of the POV tag. Can someone provide a detailed explanation, not a "the artcile is biased" reply. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTTE#cite_note-at-2.2F12.2F07-134 (asian tribune is anti-LTTE and should be stated as such, the notability of asian tribune is an issue too for disccussion)

Second, this line ---> [The Maritime Intelligence Group in Washington DC even states that al-Qaeda learned the tactic through LTTE contacts teaching Indonesians the methods.] (this line uncited and the word 'even' is not neutral or passive, therefore is bias. Third, Westminsterjournal, satp.org, http://www.peaceinsrilanka.org/, and some more all have either anti-rebel or pro-government bias.I could sit here all day and find everything wrong with this article, but even those three are enough to merit a POV tag. As long as the tag is there, people will know the article should be taken with caution, and other authors, including myself can find better sources or clean up the bias. --Icemansatriani (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, Asian Tribune isn't cited directly, they are quoting Glen Jenvey, and it's already called "anti-LTTE" website.

The next quote is now cited. [38]

Third, like I said, point out what refs are disputed, and add fact tags. If you think a source is questionable, bring it up on SLR--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No reply for 12 days. Per SLR policy, I"m marking this resolved and removing the tag. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 11:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening Section

Resolved

– User indefinitely blocked as a sock. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up opening section. The opener is not the place to chronicle LTTE history or methods. Compare it with the opening section on the Sri Lankan Armed forces. The references in the opening section have been moved to the appropriate places in the article.

MentalDimension (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to make changes to the intro. Discuss here before making changes. Also note the don't re-revert ru;e of WP:SLR and WP:3RR. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 11:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The opening section should not have this information, it should be in its appropriate place in the article, as per Wikipedia protocol.

MentalDimension (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And what protocol is that? I don't see anything like that in WP:LEAD. And discussing does not mean leaving a vague comment here and going back to reverting. Once again, please discuss before you make any major changes. You are violating WP:SLR guidelines, which this article is subject to. ≈ Chamal ^talk 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't remove the neutrality dispute tag.

This information should go in the appropriate place for the article, not the opening section. If you can come up with a valid reason why this should not be so, then post it, and get to work on adding all extra information on human rights abuses, civilian massacres with references on the SLA opening paragraph as well. Otherwsie, as per pretty much every other article on military forces on Wikipedia , the opening section should be a brief description of the force, what its purpose is, and its current status. That is all. Any extraneos information belongs elswhere in the article.

MentalDimension (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Which policy are you talking about? The guidelines for the opening section is at WP:LEAD, and it is basically a summary of the article. I have already told you at Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces that we don't edit articles based on what is given in other articles. Once again, you're violating the restrictions on the article. Please do not make the same edits to the article before discussing it here and obtaining consensus for your edits. You can't edit the article on your own personal whims. ≈ Chamal ^talk 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The extra information is not required as it is already in the article. The intro is designed as a brief and concise description, and no more. This is also however about the LTTE page as compared with the SLA page. Don't try to act as though this is a completely separate issue. It is the same issue, as both pages are linked with one mentioning the other. They are inseperable, and editors of each are editing the other.

Therfore, if you are truly concerned with an impartial non-pov page, then the two articles must be equivalent.

That means the following:

1/.Neither the LTTE opening section, nor the SLA opening section should include extraneous information other than the a brief description, current status, and purpose. Currently that is what is on the SLA page, yet the LTTE page looks like the opener has clearly been written as a hate filled POV tirade.

2/. Both articles discuss in the opening section a recent history. Failed peace talks must be mentioned in the SLA section as well. Referenced attrocities carried out by SLA also should be mentioned including the refrence from the Times report I posted. I can post more as I find them.

These are the only two non partial ways to resolve this. Therefore, either revert the LTTE page to the concise version I have made since this includes all he references moved to where they should be in the article. Or, you can add a significant mention on the SLA page intro of civilian attrocities, and human right abuses with references. What is your reasoning why you think all this information should be in the opening section, when it is already in the article? It should not be there. If you also cannot come up with a good reason why the LTTE page has all of this information in the opening section yet you do not want it on the opening section of the SLA page, I will revert it back to the concise version. I actually think it is better that both pages do not have the extra info in the opening section as that is not where it should be.

MentalDimension (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I use the section of this article in the Northern province Sri Lanka .--BlueLankan 00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KP

It seems that the leader of the LTTE Selvarasa Pathmanathan has been arrested so he can no longer be the leader of the Tigers. --80.223.214.74 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Being arrested = automatic loss of leadership position? says who? there is no relationship between the two... --Icemansatriani (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Iceman. Until the LTTE claims a different leader, Selvaraja is the man in power.Pectore^talk 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Require to update

LTTE ceases to exist as a military organization and article written in present tense has to be chnaged to past tense.

Ranilb5 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Ranil