Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10

Archive of discussion prior to June 1, 2006 Archive of discussion from June 1-July 1, 2006

The post-IPKF LTTE

I corrected the following line:

Starting from 1997, the LTTE suffered a number of reverses, and lost control of large portions of the Vanni, the town of Kilinochchi and many smaller towns.

TO:

Starting from 1997, the government suffered a number of reverses, and lost control of large portions of the Vanni, the town of Kilinochchi and many smaller towns that they had captured during the previous months.

The former was obviously vandalized?? as it is quite well documented through international news sources and even GoSL sources what occured from 1996 onward up to the fall of Elephant Pass and the current CFA.

Sorry! my mistake I mixed up the years I have corrected as follows:

Starting from 1997, the LTTE suffered a number of reverses, and lost control of large portions of the Vanni, the town of Kilinochchi and many smaller towns. However, from 1998 onward the LTTE reversed these loses culminating in the capture of the strategically vital Elephant Pass base complex in 2000 after a hard and long fighting against the Sri Lankan army.

--Realstarslayer 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good you saw it, there has been so many changes here lately that it slipped through my control. Ulflarsen 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed the reference I gave before, this one seems more pertinent, from an issue if India's Frontline magazine of that time period.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1709/17091240.htm

--Realstarslayer 01:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P-TOMS never implemented

I would like to change the following line:

However, the agreement was bitterly opposed by hardliners in the Sri Lankan government, and the present administration of Mahinda Rajapakse has announced that it will not be continued.

This makes it seem that the former GoSL did in fact enact the P-TOMS agreement, however this was not the case. Something like the following I think is more descriptive of the actual state of affairs.

However, the agreement was bitterly opposed by hardliners in the Sri Lankan government and never saw implementation, and the present administration of Mahinda Rajapakse has announced that it will not be considering it anew.

--Realstarslayer 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree in that change. Ulflarsen 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done, thanks.--Realstarslayer 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

LTTE runs a defacto state

Well said -Realstarslayer

Wikipedia is here to give out facts, not to promote US or UK views on organisations.

LTTE runs a defacto state with army, navy, air force, police, judiciary, bank, schools, hospitals, law college, medical school, nursing school, etc etc

LTTE has also participated in several rounds of peace talks for a political solution to the ethnic conflict.

LTTE Political???

Can someone kindly clarify, how the LTTE justifies to be a political organization in Sri Lanka.LTTE, the organization as a whole has never been in mainstream politics and until now, none of its leaders or members have been democratically elected by a Sri Lankan election. On the other hand it is better known throughout the world as a guerilla terrorist group that uses suicide bombing,killing its own people, child soldiers, pregnant mothers and so on. The LTTE clearly comes under terrorist groups here. If then, how and why is it a political organization ? --Wiki 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This question already has a thread just a few above this one, perhaps this should be merged there? The short answer; the LTTE does have both a political and a military side to it just as the IRA in Ireland had at one point (which is now mainly political). Further more the TNA is a political party which many believe is backed, if not directly, by the LTTE, so again the overwhelming Tamil vote for TNA members is seen as a vote for the LTTE, since their interests are basically the same, i.e. human rights for the Tamil people. Leaving that aside the merit of bringing this up should really be considered when the international community and even the GoSL are willing to acknowledge the political side of the LTTE, and other parties such as the Karuna paramilitaries are trying hard to emulate the LTTE by opening their own political wing.--Realstarslayer 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ltte is not accepted anywhere in the world as a political mainstream. Yes they do have a political wing which is an internal thing of LTTE to cover them selves up. These ruthless killers who poses as political side of LTTE are the same people who runs terrorist oporations behind the curtains! I agree 100% with the user Wiki. As a matter of fact we should bring this to the attention of the administrators of wikipedia and also to the white house. Isnt it redeculous that the US have banned this terrorist group and wikipedia is hosting a web page stating its not a terrorist group instead its a millitary and political group!!!!

This is getting a little ridiculous don't you think? If anyone should be complaining I would think it would be the GoSL, if they themselves see fit to address the political dimension of the LTTE as such then I am not sure why Wikipedia should not report on that fact. Further I think you are missing the point of this entry it is meant to be a factual description of the LTTE, and the fact is that they do indeed have a political dimension to their organization. Whatever you may conjecture as to the purpose of that dimension until you have facts to back it up, it will only remain just that; conjecture.--Realstarslayer 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Coming back to the IRA, you could argue that they too were not part of any political mainstream, however that did not mean that the Sinn Fein did not exist and that eventually peace was brought about by engaging that very political body.

I think that is a good idea as I dont think there is any point in arguing with propagandists here. Bringing it to the attention of wikipedia editors and the white house will be a good one. So that both of them can settle it among them selves hand-shake or legal, rather that our contributions constantly getting reverted by the propagandists on this page. It is very clear about their motive here, that’s to mislead the international community!! look at the way they these propagandists have used the internet (WIKIPEDIA) as a tool to turn Americans against their own Government. By stating LTTE is a political group when the US government have banned the LTTE as a terrorist group. Are everybody fools not to see this. This is what they have done to Sri Lanka. Tiis is how the LTTE start everything, by brain washing people which they have partially done so with WIKIPEDIA and its readers. This is a threat to US and should be brought to the attention of relevant authorities. And, also about these unusual individuals obviously having some communication with the terrorist. Have anyone questioned how these guys get these information? how they are so biased towards a terrorist group?. The internet is now freely being used for terrorist activity. The recent NYC subway blast plot was also caught by internet logs, so by reporting this particular page I don’t think we are doing anything wrong, except giving heads up to our Govenment! This is not cool! this is serious stuff!! J.M.Thomas

Mr. J.M. Thomas I'm not quite sure if you are being sarcastic here? I do hope so, otherwise this is really bordering on the quite nonsensical, to link an innocuous entry in an online encyclopedia with some terrorist plot to blow up a subway? Quite the stretch don't you think? Anyhow at the risk of repeating myself, here we go again, the international community recognizes the political nature of the LTTE otherwise there would be no CFA for example and there would be no discussions on a peace process, likewise with the GoSL. Leaving even that aside if you take a gander over to the CIA World Fact book page on Sri Lanka found at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ce.html You may be in for a shock as to what you find listed under their section titled "Political pressure groups and leaders", that's right the LTTE and their leader: "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE [Velupillai PRABHAKARAN](insurgent group fighting for a separate state); " So if you are going to complain to the US Government, you better alert them to the shenanigans going on over at the CIA ;-) --Realstarslayer 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You may read about the various LTTE political activity on the net, try search Google for "ltte political" - got loads of hits. The Sri Lankan government does not have any problem in seeing that LTTE has a political side, as seen in the Oslo agreement of 2002 [1]. Even though the LTTE use terror and intimidation it is also convincing people to support it by political means - I have no doubt about that.

Regarding your comments about "propagandists", I understand you have just started to use Wikipedia. Please be aware of the various policies the project has Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially the one regarding conduct Wikipedia:Etiquette. Ulflarsen 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

LTTE Constantly negotiates with international peace monitors for peace there for it is considered political.

A number of people have complained that the LTTE is not "political" because it has not run candidates in Sri Lankan elections. May I suggest that that's irrelevant. There are other kinds of "political" activity, both local (administering civil institutions) and international (negotiating with the peace monitors, lobbying foreign governments). Credmond 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It was never a political organization. In a civilized society, you cannot call a group who is using suicide bombers a political organization. They are not recognized as a government by the international community. The relations the LTTE have with the international community is on the peace talks and ceasefire. Supermod

The LTTE started out with a focus on the military fight, but it soon also developed a political side, both inside and outside Sri Lanka. Today it has an extensive political organisation in both the areas it control in Sri Lanka, and in the GoSL controlled areas. It also has a extensive political network abroad in countries with tamils. That the LTTE is using suicide bombers is no argument against it having a political organisation, neither is the fact that they are not recognized by any country. Political organisations dont need to be recognized by countries, states recognize other states. That a political organisation has views one does not like (as communism) does not change the fact that they are political organisations. Ulflarsen 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can the LTTE be described as a "political" organisation?

User Vadakkan had vadalised the discussion page by shoving 3 differnet arguments by three differet users under one topic deleting the original sub headings of the arguments and replacing them with his own sub heading. Thus making it difficult for the user who initiated the topic to find it! This is not allowed in the discussion page.Please refrain from valdalising or you will be reported! Further if you like to experiment you can use the sand box! Thanks 172.130.231.48 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to report me to whoever you choose if you believe I am "vandalising" the page. It is actually quite common to restructure discussion pages to bring related discussions together. It makes discussions easier because one does not have to rehash arguments that have been repeated a little higher up the page, and the heading title was transparent enough to be evident to the reasonable reader. But, as I said, feel free to report me for vandalism. -- Arvind 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user 172.130.231.48 I for one have no problem with similar discussion topics being placed together, I actually requested this among my response to the other user, wiki. It just makes common sense so that all the similar topics are together, how can this make it more difficult to find? If anything it makes it easier.--Realstarslayer 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done the needful to User Vadakkan aka Arvind.- Ron - 05:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

For the user [Realstarslayer], though you do not have a problem in making changes to other peoples topics it matters to them. Besides, it is clearly disrespecting other editors. In this case, there were two violations.

1. Sub headings were completely deleted.
2. They were clearly replaced by inappropriate subheadings substantially changing their meaning.

Changing anyone’s comments are not allowed and you can not argue on this!!

I suggest you reveiw the [Vandalism]policy again. - Ron - 05:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your view. Since you say you've reported me we'll see what view the admins take. Pending that, can we please get back to the job of improving the article? -- Arvind 12:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats not my view. Its wikipedia policies please review [Vandalism]policy again. - Ron - 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Wikipedia policies. As I said, I do not agree with your interpretation of my acts or the policies, and I look forward to it being resolved whichever administrator you made a complaint to so that we can move forward on this article. -- Arvind 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

- Ron - I suggest you point out to me exactly where I have done any of the items you claim that I have, please give me links to any history or diff, where I have made changes either without approval or without noting said changes in discussion? Get your facts right before preaching about rules to me. Furthermore discuss this in the appropriate page where I have apparently done these things you claim. Also I notice that you have not contributed even a single letter to any of the pages you are discussing here, however you take the time to attack myself and I see user Vadakkan as well, it seems you just have an axe to grind, so as Vadakkan said go right ahead and report me to whomever you wish.--Realstarslayer 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For someone complaining about making things easy to read: indents are your friend! (Perhaps you want to report me for indenting your text too?)

I belive you have forgotten your comments on your friend Vadakkan aka Arvinds Vandal on "02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)", you stated that there was nothing wrong in what he did. He has violated the rules of wikipedia which you seems to be unaware of and thats what I have pointed out to you. There's nothing that you have done!I guess its all cleared now. Looks like you guys are ready to argue even Wiki policies as well.

Yes and I still stand by that; there is nothing wrong in putting together all the similar topics on the discussion page instead of having a multitude of sections for essentially the same thing, if anything perhaps you should refrain from starting up a new section for a topic that was already being discussed? So I am not sure why you insist on making a mountain out of a non-existent mole hill.--Realstarslayer 22:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So please review [Vandalism]policy again without waisting my time- Ron - 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now given your constant reminder that we should all read the vandalism page, please show me where in the section about talk pages does it say anything about putting similar discussion topics together? Arvind did not delete or remove anything, he merely organized it so that all the discussion was together. Quoted below for your convenience:

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

--Realstarslayer 22:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I noticed that Vadakkan aka Arvinds warning template has been removed by Users [ulflarsen.] and [Kristaga] Are they administrators? if not are they allowed to do this?- Ron - 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Kristaga is an administrator on the nynorsk wikipedia, where you placed a warning. Ulf Larsen removed the warning from my user page because it should go on the User Talk page, not the User page. I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on placing warning templates. -- Arvind 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

---

- == Round 1 == + === Round 1 ===

"LTTE military and political Organization" is incorrect and misleading. As far as I know its a Terrorist organization wich can be prooved by legitamate sources.Please provide legitamate sources to prove its a political organization!! "LTTE military and political Organization" is incorrect and misleading. As far as I know its a Terrorist organization wich can be prooved by legitamate sources.Please provide legitamate sources to prove its a political organization!! Line 1,328: Line 1,328: ::::You may read about the various LTTE political activity on the net, try search Google for "ltte political" - got loads of hits. The Sri Lankan government does not have any problem in seeing that LTTE has a political side, as seen in the Oslo agreement of 2002 [2]. Even though the LTTE use terror and intimidation it is also convincing people to support it by political means - I have no doubt about that. Ulflarsen 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::::You may read about the various LTTE political activity on the net, try search Google for "ltte political" - got loads of hits. The Sri Lankan government does not have any problem in seeing that LTTE has a political side, as seen in the Oslo agreement of 2002 [3]. Even though the LTTE use terror and intimidation it is also convincing people to support it by political means - I have no doubt about that. Ulflarsen 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

- === Round 2 == + === Round 2 ===

Can someone kindly clarify, how the LTTE justifies to be a political organization in Sri Lanka.LTTE, the organization as a whole has never been in mainstream politics and until now, none of its leaders or members have been democratically elected by a Sri Lankan election. Can someone kindly clarify, how the LTTE justifies to be a political organization in Sri Lanka.LTTE, the organization as a whole has never been in mainstream politics and until now, none of its leaders or members have been democratically elected by a Sri Lankan election.

Changes to Links

Changed the following to just reflect the website address, readers can determine what the leanings of the site are on their own:

• www.sinhala.net
• www.tamiltigers.net
• www.sinhaya.com

--Realstarslayer 04:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not fork but spinout

Reverted the reinsertion of notable attacks, this is not against Wikipedia policy as its not a fork but moving a part of the article so the original article do not get too big [[4]]. If the nature of the original article was changed I would agree with you, but I would argue its not. Ulflarsen 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

LTTE and human rights - re-added modified version

User 82.7.77.78 removed an entry as shown by the diff below.

82.7.77.78 diff

Whether the accusations are true or not is not the question, it should however be noted that such accusations do exist, perhaps the tone of the entry can be made more neutral, as IIRC there was a large outcry from Tamil organizations in Canada and other nations over the veracity and methods used by HRW in generating that report.

I added the following back, which may give a bit more balance:

There are also charges that the LTTE coerces Tamil expatriates to give it money[5], by threatening the safety of their relatives or property in areas of Sri Lanka under its control. This involves pressuring them to directly give it money, or to indirectly fund its activities by patronising businesses connected with it (La 2004). Although intelligence services have raised concerns about such activities, which are particularly controversial in Canada, few formal complaints have been made. A report by Human Rights Watch outlines the intimidation and extortion Tamil expatriates experience from the LTTE [6]. However, several Tamil associations, from various countries mentioned in the report, have called in to question the veracity and accuracy of the Human Rights Watch report [7][8]HRW Response. --Realstarslayer 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Expanded the subsection on terror listing

I expanded the subsection on terror listing, I believe it should be more than just listing countries. I also moved the lists of attacks to "See also". There should be more than enought already in the article showing that the LTTE indeed has been behind a number of attacks, so it should not tilt the balance of the article. Ulflarsen 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to protect this page?

Looking at the long history of POV edits, keeping this page NPOV seems to me to be almost as difficult as actually bringing peace to Sri Lanka - for some of the same reasons. Tyronen 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a policy at Wikipedia to not protect pages, unless we really have to, and I dont think we are at that stage yet with this article. POV edits are usually reverted quickly, and the situation is bearable I believe. The good thing with not protecting it is that more people follow the page to see if there is POV or vandalism. Ulflarsen 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To the two anonymous editors; please read the discussion page before you start rewrites of the article. To user Tyronen - the previous edits was in my opinion POV and should just be rolled back. For example, there has been a long discussion on labeling the LTTE a terrorist organisation in the intro, and that has been ruled out, for various reasons you may read about in the discussion page. That does not mean that the various human right violations the LTTE is behind should not be mentioned, but as you may know, one person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Ulflarsen 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyronen, protecting this page is not going to be an easy one cos this artical is a complete hoax, its all about POV's of some extremely biased users. I verified by checking legitamate sources through the Web. Also I heard that all NPOV's and Facts are being reverted in this page by a dedicated group of people is it true? - Will.

To the last anonymous contributor, if the article is a complete hoax it should not be very difficult to argue reasonably to have it rewritten, as the evidence then will be on your side. So please come forward with what you find is not correct, and point to sources for the information. In the process, it is good if you register yourself so you have an account and can track your revisions as a logged in user. Ulflarsen 04:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least semi-protect the page? Most of the POV edits are by anonymous users. Tyronen 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Have checked with the policy for semi-protection, dont think this page fits the rules. At least for know I do not find the load killing me, but if there is a consensus towards semi-protection I will not oppose it. But as for now it seems that we can handle the POV edits, and even manage to work on improving the article. If the parties in Sri Lanka could do half as well - much would have been achieved... :-) Ulflarsen 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ulflarsen, I appreciate your neutrality in this article on LTTE. We need more people like you on this page. As you righlty said,after careful review of the rules I totally agree with you that this page does not fit the semi-protction criteria. On the other hand LTTE is and organisation that changes its structure over time and it is important to keep the infomation and NPOV's comming in to this page whether by Anonymous users or by ones with user accounts. As a matter of fact it doesn't really matter, what matters is the facts.not who writes it. I would strongly suggest that we keep the page open to any user for any comment as long as it is backed by facts.

I am fairly new to this LTTE Page but I've been following whats been happening in Sri Lanka and the LTTE for well over two decades as a Historian specializing in civil wars and civil conflicts in Africa,Middle East and South Asia.Greglewis 14:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The name of the founder

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

In Tamilnet he is mentioned as Velupillai Pirapaharan [9]. In the SLMM website intro to the CFA he is called Velupillai Prabhakaran [10]. BBC uses Velupillai Prabhakaran [11] Ulflarsen 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

You seems to have a problem not only in your leaders name but every detail in this artical.How sure are you that its not "Osama Bin Laden"?

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

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

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

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

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

• LTTE was a banned rebel group in Sri lanka till 2002. Due to the Cease-fire the ban on them was taken off. It probably will be re-imposed very soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now this is laughable, the Tamils had no say in the GoSL even before the LTTE, since the Sinhala majority created an environment where they could perpetuate control over the government and laws of the land, this is fact not opinion [13]. This is what the international community refers to as the need for drastic political changes, this can only be done by the government in power, the Tamils do not have enough political power to enact any changes, this was seen clearly in even trying to get minor deals such as P-TOMS passed.

• Yeah its very easy to say this and that by being out of Sri Lanka, like you and me. Go there and see the real picture. Go to the poor villages like vavunia and ampara and many other places that the LTTE have murdered civilians and ask those people what the LTTE do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding reference and description to section on "Terrorists or freedom fighters"

I have updated the section "Terrorists or freedom fighters" with information from reputable sources such as the BBC and US State Department. That section seemed to be lacking references, so I have included 4 references Ruchiraw 10:11, 20 July 2006

Hi Ruchiraw, I am not sure the additions are best suited to that section, given the details provided I think it would be better to add those details to the individual attacks in the notable attacks section [14]. Otherwise this section is becoming redundant as another mini-notable attacks.

Hi Realstarslayer. If you look at any definition of collateral damage , it refers to accidental civilian death during operations agains enemy targets. terrorism refers to actiosn carried out solely to instill fear into the civilian population. Placing suitcase bombs on a train full of office workers (Dehiwela bombing ) is an act of terrorism. Gunning down 146 people in a temple is act of terrorism. How about the 100 worshippers killed in the Kattankudy mosque. If you can point out the military value of these targets , i will be glad to listen. Saying that these are collateral damage is an LTTE POV and an opinion. Again Wikipedia does not promote listing of opinions but only of facts. Fact: A civilian train is bombed. Opinion : This is collateral damage.

You have removed my verifiable cited fact and left a pro - LTTE POV opinion justifying attacks on civilian targets. Anyhow I will not list the attacks because there is a separate section for this. I will simply add a sentence saying "The theory of collateral damage would seem to be invalidated by LTTE attacks on purely civilian targets such as trains, temples, mosques and banks resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths. "Ruchiraw06:15, 24 July 2006.

Hi Ruchiraw, I did not remove any of your additions, I only discussed it here, I believe Ulf did revert the article at some point as you had made many changes without first discussing them here. --Realstarslayer 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also some of the comments are causing the section to lean more towards an anti-LTTE POV rather that being NPOV. For example the following:

The United States State Department has also held the LTTE responsible for an attack on a civilian bus in June 2006 resulting in the deaths of 60 civilians including 15 children15.

If this is going to be included then you should also add that the US was the only nation, other than the GoSL, to come out and categorically blame the LTTE. Especially since no one else including the SLMM who are actually on the ground investigating have reached any conclusions yet.

GOSL and US state dept have come out and blamed the LTTE. Only the LTTE is pointing the finger at other parties. Other governments have condemned the action but have not absolved the LTTE. Neither has the SLMM absolved the LTTE. Please list any statements by any government which places the blame on groups other than the LTTE. No one has accepted the LTTE denial of this action. It is the responsibility of the government of the country to place the blame for the blasts. I don't see the Indian government asking the EU who is behind the Mumbai blasts. Neither did the US accept Osamas denial of the twin tower blastsRuchiraw 06:15, 24 July 2006.

This is my point no other nation has absolved the LTTE, however they have also not concluded that it was the LTTE; a statement to this effect would be NPOV, versus only quoting the statements from two parties, one of which, GoSL, can certainly not be considered neutral to the situation. If we are to take the GoSL word on the matter and quote it as fact then why not take the LTTE's word and quote that as fact too? They are both opposing parties to the same conflict.--Realstarslayer 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But you see why this is a problem to add this here, if we are to add point and counter point to every attack then it should be within the confines of the notable attacks page.

Next again this statement seems rather POV

However the LTTE are reported to have executed famous Tamil human rights activist, mother, human rights advocate and university lecturer Rajani Thiranagama for highlighting human rights abuses by the LTTE.16

If we are to talk about human rights abuses again there is the notable attacks page and the Sri Lanka section of the State Terrorism page [15] which is where these issues can be best served. Since it is POV to only note one alleged act by the LTTE and not mention the much documented human rights abuses also perpetrated by the GoSL. So once again to include such a hot topic into this section I think will not work too well if we are going to have to add things to it to make sure it is NPOV. Regards --Realstarslayer 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have missed my point. We have got human rights abuses by all sides. My point is that LTTE kills any prominent Tamil in Sri lanka who doesnt follow their line. This could be analogous to a government executng the entire opposition party as traitors in order to maintain a firm grip on power. With one sentence this article has condemned all the thousands of Tamils who have died at the LTTE's hands as traitors. Killing all those opposed to your point of view (Amirthalingam,Yogeswaran,Mahattaya, hundreds of tamil youth)was a tactic employed by Stalin/Hitler, rather than by European resistance or the American War of independence. It is certainly easier than trying to talk to your opponents/rivals but tends to lead to dictatorshipsRuchiraw06:15, 24 July 2006.

Your last edit seems to be both balanced and well sourced, I believe they fit well in as the LTTE is well known for killing its opponents and do not shy away from deliberately killing civilians as well. Stating an obvious fact is not POV. Ulflarsen 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, I think the description was clear that supporters of the LTTE or the LTTE themselves viewed these individuals as traitors, it was just a statement of fact as to the LTTE view on the matter, this does not mean that it is true. Just as the GoSL views the LTTE as terrorists, this does not necessarily mean it is so either, however that too would be a statement of fact as to how the GoSL perceives the LTTE. I hope I am being clear. --Realstarslayer 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, I was just responding to your comments here, but on the whole that section looks pretty well balanced now, I'm just going to correct some minor issues with the reference links - extra brackets.--Realstarslayer 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Australian "ban"

The situation in relation to the Australian ban is a little complex. Australia has not banned the LTTE as such, but has instead listed it as a terrorist group without banning it. This seems to be common practice there - of 540 groups listed by Australia as terrorist groups, only 19 are banned. The effect of listing a group as a terrorist group is to freeze its assets, and make it illegal to supply it with assets. I've amended the section accordingly, and added a reference to the Hansard debate where I found the information. I also took the opportunity to cleanup the section, changing the heading to something which read better, working the freestanding list into the text of the section and generally polishing the language a bit. -- Arvind 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction states that the LTTE accuses the Sri Lankan government of ethnic cleansing / genocide. Please see the wikipedia definitions for this. I have inserted a section stating there is no documented proof of this and mentioning that the LTTE itself has resorted to ethnic cleansing. Also if you read the reasons as to why LTTE is accused of terrorism by the countries in which it is banned, you will note that ethnic cleansing, recruitment of child soldiers and use of suicide bombers are main reasons for describing it as terroristRuchiraw 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think these changes to the introduction are an improvement -- some unnecessary detail and an unbalancing of what had been carefully wrought -- but will wait a day or so before making a revert or changes, in the hope that others will find the right formula. Credmond 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruchiraw, I think you will find that ethnic cleansing has been carried out by both sides, as such the intro was balanced to make note of both these realities. It would be incorrect to state that only the LTTE were responsible for ethnic cleansing. The 1956/58 riots could be considered a form of state sponsored ethnic cleansing as with the 1983 riot, these pogroms drove hundreds of thousands of Tamils from their homes, that fits the definition below:

The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of another ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide.[16]

Leaving that aside the colonization of Tamil areas by successive SL governments is also well documented by independent parties, although the source below may be considered non neutral, the sources they cite most certainly are neutral: http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/indict003.htm

Overall a reading of your edits leaves one with the impression that they are made with an anti-LTTE slant, and this is not helping create an informative and neutral article here. In fact we seemed to have hit a good balance on most sections of the article, but your edits are again tilting that balance. I wish you would discuss these first before making such sweeping changes. You are doing yourself a disservice too, because by discussing it first there is a greater chance of arriving at a good neutral piece such as the section we now have on Human rights and terrorism, rather than just having all changes reverted.--Realstarslayer 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer and Credmond . if the introduction is discussing the LTTE , I don't see the point of saying what it accuses the Sri Lankan government of,since it is the LTTE under discussion and not the Sri Lankan government , I have clarified that LTTE is also guilty of ethnic cleansing (since it is the entity under discussion). Again if we are going to discuss the nature of the LTTE, the fact that it has been banned in many countries should be in the first paragraph, its at least as important as details about its judiciary etc;-.Tucking it at the bottom of the second para looks like minimizing the significance of a ban by the governments of 30 countries. Any article about the LTTE should have a balanced POV throughout. I have altered the introduction anyway in an attempt to reach consensus. If you feel there is anything else which is NPOV please point out, instead of simply reverting it. I am always ready to acknowledge my faults but generalized comments are not helpful. Also wholesale reverts don't seem to be very comradely. If you notice, I have not touched any word written by anyone else. All my statements are well sourced from balanced sources. So I don't see how you can justify reverting anything without discussing it. Ruchiraw 10:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please highlight anything you feel is POV or not factual below. I always welcome specific, constructive feedback. Keep in mind though facts are just facts, they are not POV

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also exercises some civilian functions -- including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural functions -- in the territory it controls. However it still uses the Sri Lanka rupee and many civil servants are paid by Sri Lanka government in areas controlled by the LTTE. Although it is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict, its tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents,it's use of suicide bombers,use of ethnic cleansing and recruitment of child soldiers have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by many countries.The LTTE has also eliminated many democratic Tamil alternatives , which may have contributed to its emergence as the main representative of the Sri Lankan Tamils[17].

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran. It accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority, and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. However the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[18]. Ruchiraw 11:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruchiraw, the problem is if you make the edits before discussing it becomes a much harder task to then go and modify those, we should discuss first then come to a conclusion and make one change.

Now you cannot discuss the LTTE without discussing their grievances with successive GoSL, since those grievances, perceived or real, are the reason for their continued existence and the continued support they enjoy among a significant number of the Tamil population.

As for the intro itself, I will need to take the time to go over it more thoroughly but right offhand there is a lack of balance when stating that the LTTE eliminated democratic Tamil alternatives, which is true from one POV, however the lack of balance arises if you do not mention that the GoSL also politically eliminated democratic Tamil alternatives, such as the TULF in the 1970s, which is part of the reason for the rise of the LTTE and their gaining strength in the first place. I have modified the intro to reflect this.--Realstarslayer 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please explain what exactly you're referring to when you say the GoSL eliminated the TULF in the 1970s? Are you talking about policies such as the 6th Amendment Oath of 1983? If so, "eliminated" seems a little excessive, especially if it isn't qualified by the word "politically" (as it isn't in the introduction). Apart from that, I agree with your basic point that the introduction needs to provide context in terms of the LTTE's grievances. -- Arvind 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Having reread the introduction, I wonder if we need to list the accusations against both sides in such detail in the introduction. Wouldn't we be better off sticking to a summary style here - i.e., just say "terrorism and human rights violations" and leave details to the body? If we did that, the introduction might look something like this:

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

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils, and is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. However, it has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority.

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

Wouldn't that be an improvement over listing a long litany of each side's sins? -- Arvind 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arvind, yes as for the 'elimination' I should have qualified that with politically in the intro too as I was refering to the 6th amendment etc., anyhow I think your intro above is well balanced and as noted avoids repeating items already covered elsewhere, so I vote for using that.--Realstarslayer 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with everything else but first para gives the impression that LTTE is and always has been the sole representative of Tamils. But TELO and TULF were more popular until they were hunted down by LTTE. So how about this factual modification

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. The LTTE has violently suppressed credible alternative Tamil leadership,and is now acknowledged as the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. However, it has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority. Ruchiraw 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw, as to whether the alternatives were credible or not is a POV, the GoSL may have considered them credible while the LTTE and their supporters may have considered them ineffective if not outright dangerous (for example TELO was thought to have been heavily infliltrated by Indian intelligence at the time) anyway as Arvind stated these actions are already covered in the rest of the article and so becomes repetative in the intro.--Realstarslayer 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget the TELO though this is the organisation most expatriate tamils trusted. How about TULF leaders who received millions of tamil votes till they were killed by the LTTE. Who decides if Amirthalingam or Prabhakaran is preferable. Prabhakaran decides, ignoring the verdict of millions of tamils. Millions of Tamil voters who voted for Amirthalingam made him credible but LTTE had him killed. Its not the GOSL which made Amirthalingam, Yogeswaran credible, it was the democratic votes of all the tamils. If Amirthalingam or Prabhakaran were running for president of Tamil Eelam , can you say who would have won. We will never know now because Amirthalingam was branded a traitor and murdered. If the tamils thought he is a traitor they wouldnt have voted for him in their millions. Ruchiraw 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We could even take out the bit about what the LTTE proclaims itself to be and say "The LTTE is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict." I think that may be enough for the intro. The article discusses quite well the LTTE's elimination of the TELO and other rival groups. -- Arvind 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am agreeable to Vadakkan's change Ruchiraw 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not, this is an article about the LTTE and so a description of what they, the LTTE, feel their role is in Sri Lanka is apt. Just because we state what they believe it does not make it true, I'm not sure Ruchiraw is seeing this distinction; the introduction is not stating that the LTTE are the sole representatives, only that this is what the LTTE claims. Because if we are going to split hairs over this then we should also not include the fact that certain countries have banned the LTTE as terrorists, because that is the POV of those countries, just as being the 'sole representative of Tamils' is the POV of the LTTE, all the intro does is list both those POV without endorsing one or the other. By removing one view then you are effectively endorsing the other. I think the following would be better balanced:

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL contends this claim is false and feels that the LTTE cannot be considered the only representatives for the Tamils. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority.

--Realstarslayer 03:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok so can we work towards a consensus on the intro, since right now (IMHO) it is not very well balanced I would propose the following as being neutral and not going into details that are to be covered further in the article, it is a combination of Arvind's and my recommendations.

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

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL contends this claim is false and feels that the LTTE cannot be considered the only representatives for the Tamils. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority.

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

I think we have covered the same arguments now in discussion so it should just come down to some votes as to which you agree with:

• Do we state the claims made by both parties, this not being an endorsment of either but just a staement of facts as to their respective views.

or

• Do we do away with a majority of this information which (IMHO) seriously unbalances the article and reduces its value as a source of information:

--Realstarslayer 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Added political missed that in the proposed intro--Realstarslayer 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats for the improvements to the article!

Congrats to everyone - and I suggest we try to keep it balanced and NPOV. Specifically, that we discuss changes here before adding them. Just reverted user TrincomanB as he tried to change it without arguing, not the way to do it. So lets all keep up the good work, our miniscule but still important contribution to a better world. Ulflarsen 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I clearly don't see an improvement of the intro. In fact what I see litany of accusations (in one particular case I see it repeated). Take some stats of the current intro, nearly 6 lines (whole a paragraph) of accusations and then 2 lines that offers LTTE's side of the story. The references To user Ulflarsen, I had merely reverted the article to what it was a few edits ago by user Vaddakan. Some people have gone ahead and edited this article without first reaching a consensus here in the forum. There I felt it is my duty to revert the article back to last agreed upon version Trincomanb 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

TrincomanB has reverted the page without discussion. I have corrected this. Please discuss before reverting

Ruchiraw 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User Ruchiraw is using glib comments and justifications to impose his version of intro.

The version presented by this user is clearly POV and sounds like a JHU piece. In addition these edits are strongly disputed by a number of users. POV is achieved by emphasis on the litany of accusation on the LTTE, selective highlighting of info. Some of the accusations listed are in fact repeated and the user is claiming to be 'proven facts.' Trincomanb 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop this revert war and instead concentrate on agreeing on an acceptable compromise wording on this talk page? User:Realstarslayer has presented a suggested wording above, based on a proposal I originally made. Is everyone OK with that? Are there any specific issues you have with its wording? If so, what would you suggest as an alternative? Please, let's co-operate and try to make this article better, so we finally have a reliable neutral source of information about the LTTE on the internet. -- Arvind 12:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the following version. May I point out that EU, JApan, US, India , Australia etc have explicitly said they do not regard LTTE as sole (only) representative of tamil people. Ruchiraw 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and the international community contends this claim is false and feels that the LTTE cannot be considered the only representatives for the Tamils. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority.

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

Just formatted it to make it easier to read, now that seems fine except for your addition of 'international community' this is too vague a term. First I have not seen any active efforts by other nations to define the LTTE as not being the sole representatives; if you have citations for these it would be appreciated. I have only seen the GoSL's efforts to do so.--Realstarslayer 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and the international community contends this claim is false and feels that the LTTE cannot be considered the only representatives for the Tamils."

The use of the word 'international community' to legitimize foreign actors is biased. These countries don't even make a majority of the UN. Its merely US, EU - the Western allies. Johnathan1156 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV view

Hi, Ulflarsen, This sentence appear to show a biased POV

The LTTE accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority, and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils.

The EU and many other states agee that LTTE is not the sole representative of the Tamils.There is also the Karuna faction and other parties. To maintain NPOV, either this should be deleted from intro and discussed in a section below or it should be counterpointed in the intro itself. Else it is one-side. I thought wikipedia is factual. What the LTTE accuses the Sri Lankan government must also be removed or rebutted in the intro. its not factual but an opinion held by pro LTTE supporters. I am tagging this section with NPOV till we resolve the POV issue.

---

Just because the EU and select number of other nations believe in some position is irrelevant. This doesn't imply if something is factual or not. Your choice of selected source indicates a clear contradication , you want the article to be factual yet you want specific or whats considered a bias source by one of the protaganists.

The LTTE can claim to be anything. its the facts which counts. I could declare myself to be Jesus , Buddha , Mohammed or Confucius reincarnated but its hard to verify this as a fact. Other than the LTTE do any other independent sources declare the LTTE to be sole representative of Tamils. Please quote respectable organisations such as UN or any world government or international organization. Please dont quote websites run by LTTE sympathisers. It is the LTTE's opinion that it is the sole (ONLY) representative of tamils Ruchiraw 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruchiraw, the fact of the matter is that ground realities show that the LTTE are the only representatives that the Tamil's have who are capable of negotiating a peace with the GoSL, thus whether anyone says so or not they are the sole representatives, the EPDP, PLOTTE, or Karuna can do nothing since they do not hold the balance of military power. It is for this very reason that the CFA only exists between two entities the GoSL and the LTTE. Besides one cannot consider parties that are working with the GoSL as being representative of the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka, e.g. the Karuna paramilitaries.--Realstarslayer 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer, its factual that other parties than the LTTE exist which represent the Tamils. No one has taken a poll to determine how much support exists among eastern tamils for Karuna, EPDP etc:-.Though if the LTTE keeps on killing EPDP MP's like Mark Kanathapillai this month, there will be no one left alive except LTTE supporters. Let us wait till the next elections to see how these parties perform. Now the Vichy government in France held the military power but could not be viewed as the sole representative of the French. Ruchiraw 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruchiraw if you look at past election results for some of the parties being touted as representatives of the Tamils, such as the EPDP, you will note that they were easily outdone by the TNA, which is very much aligned with the views of the LTTE if not in fact their proxy. Thus it is being a little misleading if you were to say that the LTTE were not the overwhelming representatives for the Tamil's of Sri Lanka, in that case you could not call the current GoSL as the representatives of the Sinhala people either since obviously they do not hold all 225 seats in parliament?TNA election resultsEPDP election results.--Realstarslayer 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been no election held since Karuna faction was set up. Ruchiraw 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Come now Ruchiraw now you seem to be going into the wishful thinking of the GoSL, they hope to prop up karuna as an alternative to the LTTE, however I doubt very much his 'party' will be anymore succesfull with Tamil voters than other Tamil parties who are also working with the government. I guess we will see when and if the time comes.--Realstarslayer 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If they dont have any support, why does the LTTE waste men trying to suppress their political arm. Let the voters speak when the time comes Ruchiraw 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I know TMVP offices are functioning unmolested in government controlled areas of the east(which lends the lie to GoSL claims vis-à-vis support for Karuna), but I agree with you we will see what happens if they run for elections.--Realstarslayer 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Claiming the SL Government was not involved in genocide against its Tamil minority is blatant hog wash. It is generally accepted fact the SL government, meticously organized and undertook the 1983 riots. (http://genocide.org.uk/genocide/?cat=1)

further evidence here, from various respected news sources: http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/genocide83/gen15.htm

69.196.61.57 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this intro about the LTTE or about the Sri Lanka government.Now you have confused me. Its out of point and not NPOV Ruchiraw 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Everyone Please stick to proven facts and don't go outside the topic. Claims made by the LTTE don't belong in Wikipedia. Details about the Sri Lankan government dont belong in introduction to LTTE. You shoud add it to a discussion of the origins of the LTTE or to section on Sri Lanka, otherwise it looks POV. Ruchiraw 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ruchiraw but this makes no sense, it seems you are missing the point; listing the claims made by one party or the other is not tantamount to support for that claim. It is just a statement of facts that Party A claims this and Party B claims that, nothing more nothing less. If we are not to list claims made by the LTTE nor discuss the GoSL in the context of the LTTE then what exactly is point of this article? The LTTE exists because they and their supporters continue to believe in their claims, so it is important to make note of what those claims are, just as it is important to make note of the claims of the opposing party, the GoSL, as well. The two cannot be separated. As a non-related example take a look at the Flat Earth article even though we all know that the earth is spherical, the article still mentions that there are present day flat earthers who still believe the earth to be flat, this does not mean that Wikipedia is now endorsing that belief does it?.--Realstarslayer 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer. Generally introduction does not present claims of either party but concentrates on the facts. Claims are discussed in detail in the article where there is sufficient space to discuss them so they are NPOV. If you look at the introduction to Israel ,Hezbollah and other contentious topics etc:- you will get a better idea of the consensus on these areas. If the Hezbollah article intro says "Israel is claimed to have committed ethnic cleansing and genocide ", it would not be a proper NPOV. In the Flat Earth article it says

::It is commonly assumed that people from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged.

See they present both points of view , not just the view of the Flat Earthers.Ruchiraw 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So now I am quite confused, since the intro as it stood before the edits did make reference to both viewpoints. If it was not as clear I think the current version I have proposed does a good job of offering both viewpoints agin.--Realstarslayer 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Entire intro to Hezbollah below. See it presents both POV , is wel referenced and does not make contentious claims

Hezbollah or Hizbollah (Arabic: حزب الله‎[1], meaning Party of God) is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite armed movement and political party [2], with a military arm and a civilian arm. [3] Many consider it to be a terrorist organization, but others dispute this. It was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon [4] that lasted until 2000.[5] Today, Hezbollah is led by its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.Ruchiraw 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not seeing how the original intro was any different than this? Here we have Hizbollah's claim i.e. fighting Israeli occupation and we have the opposing view i.e. they are terrorists. Just as with the LTTE intro, we had the LTTE claim that they were the sole representatives and the the GoSL view that they are terrorists. So I am not understanding where your original concerns were with the intro?Regards--Realstarslayer 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have spelt out the issues with previous intros

There is no counterclaim for "LTTE claim that they were the sole representatives ". This is disputed

The claim about LTTE being terrorists is an afterthought for this intro. It should be together with its claims of being a political organisation to be meaningful.

Hi Ruchiraw, your bias is showing through here, it is not the LTTE’s claim that makes them a political organization, they in fact are a political organization by the very defninition of such things, as well as a military body. And as for a counter claim I think the proposed intro (Arvind's and my version) covers that and is more neutral than the changes you are proposing, well actually changes you are going ahead and making! So if that is your only concern can we go ahead and agree on that intro, now that the counter claim is also present, because as I said previously the arguments are just getting repetitive and its time to make a decision.

And you are still missing the point, all it states is that the LTTE claims such and such, it does not mean anything, just like the GoSL claims the LTTE are terrorists, that is just their POV and does not mean it is so. I don’t want to get sidetracked now by discussing Hezbollah too, but the intro does indeed state their claim, their claim is that they are only there to drive Israel out of Lebanon, then Israel can come back and ask if that is the case why were they still being attacked even after leaving Lebanon? So that is only the Hezbollah POV but it is appropriate to list that view when discussing that organization.--Realstarslayer 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah intro doesn't level contentious and POV claim against Israelis like that of genocide. It is simple and NPOV. . The LTTE's aims are already spelled out clearly in all versions of the intro. Stuff about genocide by Sri Lanka is not relevant to an introduction about the LTTE. This perverts the NPOV here as the intro about LTTE instead describes Sri Lanka.If it mentioned here , then it at least as relevant that LTTE itself practice genocide and ethnic cleansing specially as this article is about LTTE. Ruchiraw 05:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I clear don't agree with you and you points are without firm reasoning nor evidence. The 1983 Genocide is every bit relevant to the formation and the thinking of the LTTE. Leaders of the LTTE have said so on numerous occasions.

We are not getting anywhere, can we mediate this Ruchiraw 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts can't be mediated with. Trincomanb 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

TrincomanB. I dont deny the 1983 riots, but I want the intro to have NPOV. I want to mediate how best to achieve NPOV as you keep on negating the efforts of others to do so. the version you keep reverting to has several issues with POV which I have pointed out.Ruchiraw 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Could I request both User:Trincomanb and [[User:Ruchiraw to, instead of discussing the old version of the introduction, focus on User:Realstarslayer's proposal, a little higher on this page, and let us know whether you agree with that version, and suggest changes if you do not? I think it is eminently possible to sort this out today. -- Arvind 13:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to version proposed by Arvind and Realstarslayer. May I point out that EU, JApan, US, India , Australia etc have explicitly said they do not regard LTTE as sole (only) representative of tamil people. Ruchiraw 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC).Therefore this modification should be present. "The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and the international community contends this claim is false and feels that the LTTE cannot be considered the only representatives for the Tamils." Ruchiraw 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To all users, I too should concur and say that the the current intro forced on us by user Ruchiraw is a step backwards and is a non-starter. It is openly biased. As someone else has pointed there is a list of stuff mentioned against the LTTE and two lines higlighting the LTTE viewpoint. I therefore will revert this version back to User Vaddakan last edit on the article. User Realstarslayer's suggestion could be worked on, but for now I suggest we stick to the version that had community consensus. If I am not mistaken except for User Ruchiraw, no one else is against the reverted version of the intro. Johnathan1156 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johnathan1156, The intro produced by Arvind and Realstarslayer seems NPOV to me

As far as I am concerned, the current version of the intro written largely by User Ruchiraw is unacceptable. The intro suggested by Arvind and Realstarslayer has a number of issues and will take some time to iron out. I don't accept it in its present form, but I think it can be worked on. In the meantime I would suggest we revert to last agreed upon by version by the community until this is sorted out. This current version has *NO* agreement and is openly biased. If anyone attempts to continually revert to the current version, I believe the POV tag should be put up. To continually revert to this biased version is unnecessary means of appeasement for a flamer.Johnathan1156 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan govt. had conducted genocide and ethnic cleansing under numerous occasions. Your edits to state terrorism are infact false. The mass chasing away of Tamil civillians from Manal Aru (renamed Welli Oya by the Sinhala settlers) is an undisputed example of ethnic cleansing by the SL government. It was part of SL government policy to 'water down' and chase away Tamils from corridor linking North to East. The accusation of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the LTTE are just that accusations... The SL government has been incompetent enough that it couldn't prove the LTTE did it. In fact, with country such as SL with a horrible human rights record and having known to have killed more than 60,000 Sinhalas during the JVP uprising, it may well have been the SL govt in *SOME* instances to tar the Tamil nationalists at any cost. Trincomanb 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

TrincomanB: Please do not revert this article wihtout even participating in the discussion constructively. Ruchiraw 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed out factually incorrect statements you have made. I would suggest you go back and review this, in order to be more constructive with your discussions/inputs.

Trincomanb 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro looks NPOV we can remove the NPOV tag provided there is consensus. Please highlight any statements which seem POV and we can reach a consensus

Dissension

Wouldn't it be appropriate to record the murder of LTTE deputy leader Mahattaya by the LTTE.

Perhaps that can be mentioned somewhere in the 'beginnings' or 'rise to dominance' sections, however IIRC he was believed to have been working with India to undermine the LTTE? or some sort of mole or something like that if we can find more facts on what was behind it I think it would add more to any entry than just that he was killed. Anyhow I think we need to fix the intro first though before getting into other changes. Also please sign your name.--Realstarslayer 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting history of the man I found here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DI07Df01.html --Realstarslayer 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"The few of his fellow conspirators were eliminated" were the words used by Adele Balasingham for the execution of nearly 257 cadres who were loayal to Mahattaya. It was told that these cadres were lined up in a coconut estate, located near Chavakachcheri, shot and killed and all the bodies were dumped and a mass cremation was done. I wonder if it was necessary to kill all 257 and if they received a fair trialRuchiraw 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think many nations still maintain the death penalty for treason, their 'crime' was treason in the eyes of the LTTE, after all they plotted to assassinate Prabhakaran and several of his commanders under the direction of RAW (Indian intelligence) and this plan was well underway when the conspirators were exposed. This was not a simple case of dissenting opinions as the original poster led us to believe.

RAW instructed Mahattaya to dump Prabhakaran and to be ready to assume the leadership of a North-East autonomous region. After the meeting with Engineer, Mahattaya dispatched Suresh with instructions to arrange the assassination of Prabhakaran.

--Realstarslayer 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Realstarslayer, it's quite an interesting article and the basic facts should be included in this page along with the section on Karuna. --snowolfd4 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regional significance of LTTE

I think a discussion of the LTTE need to have a section on the regional influence of the LTTE, in particular the implications of Tamil Eelam for India.

RE: See Also - 'Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE'

Ruchiraw, I have reverted this addition and further nominated that article for deletion, since it is pretty much an exact copy of the existing Notable attacks by the LTTE page. If you have problems with items on that page please discuss constructively and propose changes, do not create a whole new copy of the same article. Thanks.--Realstarslayer 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer, the latest article lists only the terrorist attacks by the LTTE on ciivlian targets. It is necessary to distinguish the terrorist attacks by the LTTE, from its military attacks as there are hundreds of either. I plan to edit the terrorist attacks page quite comprehensively if you give me some time. Notable attacks by LTTE has a title which matchs the information it conveys. Ruchiraw 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer, have added over 100 terrorist attacks to that page. Plan to add about hundreds more when I find the citations to support them. This is a different subject from Notable attacks by the LTTE as it deals with all terrorist (no military ones included) attacks, notable or not.May come to over seven hundred attacks when completed. Do you seriously want to combine this with Notable_attacks_by_the_LTTE specially as most of them are minor terrorist attacks. Ruchiraw 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruchiraw, I am not sure this is really going to work well, then should we set up another page for only the military attacks of the LTTE? And who is to decide which is a military act and which is a terrorist one? This leads to more POV arguments, that's why I think we should maintain and improve upon the notable attacks page, rather than having several different pages for essentially the same topic.--Realstarslayer 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

POV in the current Intro.

Some selected examples of one sided info in the current intro. created by user Ruchiraw. More to follow...

"The LTTE has also eliminated many Tamil alternative leaderships, which may have contributed to its emergence as the main representative of the Sri Lankan Tamils [2][3]."

This is pure speculation. Is this article now predicting what ifs ? The fact of the matter is that LTTE is the main Tamil nationalist force right now. Yes it did take out TELO fearing it could pose a threat in the future, but LTTE did absorb EROS (Balakumaran faction) (Jeyaratnam Wilson, 2000). TELO and EPRLF (Suresh wing) has als joined the LTTE/TNA camp.

You mean the survivors of TELO and EPRLF. Was the LTTE the main representative of all Tamils at the time it wiped out TELO, EPRLF , Amirthalingam etc:-. No, and there is no reason to think LTTE would have become the main representaive if it didnt kill so many alternative leaders. You are all calling these people traitors, Did TELO, EPRLF , Amirthalingam attack LTTE first. LTTE has betrayed everyone who trusted it so far (Indians, other tamil groups, premadasa etc:-). Ruchiraw 04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

Ethnic cleansing is repeated twice both point against the LTTE.

First time indicates it has been classified terrorist because of this. Second time is restore NPOV versus statement that Sri Lanka practises itRuchiraw 04:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The LTTE has taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna commander. According to its official policy it doesn't conduct ethnic cleansing. This info also needs to be stated in the intro to have any balance.

First show me any organisation which practises ethnic cleansing and is stupid enough to admit it. You can mention the LTTE has apologized (better cite it), but it doesnt change the fact that LTTE territory is now ethnically pure due to ethnic cleansing. Perhaps it would be suitable to mention that over 66% of Sri lankas tamils live in the south under government control. What is the SInhala and Muslim population living under LTTE. These are all relevant but can't be handled in intro, its a separate section by itself.Perhaps we can remove all reference to ethnic cleansing by both parties from the intro and make it a separate sectionRuchiraw 04:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term child soldiers is a controversial one biased against non-state actors. Regardless, LTTE's current stated policy is not to recruit youth under 18. Once youth under 18 are found in its ranks, they are returned to their parents or UNICEF staff. This needs to be stated as rebuttal if there is going to be accusations of child recruitment.

Ask the UN whether it is mistaken. UNICEF is not known to have an anti-LTTE bias and if they wrote the law they can interpret it better than you. Child recruitment is a non-negotiable term as it is a form of child abuse.How you feel if your child was put into battle. Ruchiraw 04:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there is blatant double standards that define the minimum allowable age of recruitement into state armed force to be 15 and 18 for non-state actors.

1. The United Nations Convention of Rights of Child (CRC) was adopted in 1989. In Article 38, it specifies 15 as the minimum age for recruitment into a State’s armed forces and calls on the States to, “take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities”.

2. The Optional Protocol to CRC about Children in Armed Conflict was declared in 2001. It did not compulsorily raise this age of 15 as the minimum recruitment age for a State’s armed forces. It, however, did declare the minimum age of recruitment into “armed groups” as 18. [19]

Trincomanb 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruchiraw, you continue to make changes to the intro without coming to some sort of consensus here, can you please stop that until we decide on something here first? Otherwise the discussion here is becoming meanigless if we keep discussing 'old' versions as the intro is constantly being modified.Thanks.--Realstarslayer 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Realstarslayer, this is the intro you and Arvind agreed on and I also supported. I have added 2 citations. Citations are a pillar of Wikipedia. Please tell me what text I have changed. Ruchiraw 05:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruchiraw, I'm sorry but that does not look very much like the intro we had proposed? We were still discussing the vague term 'international community' and I had requested citations from you where other governments had come out and stated that they do not consider the LTTE to be sole representatives, I don't think I saw anything like that unless I missed it (it is getting late so you never know I just might have!).--Realstarslayer 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Snofold is right , this is too disorganised , Sorry Realstarslayer, I didnt see your message.

Just formatted it to make it easier to read, now that seems fine except for your addition of 'international community' this is too vague a term. First I have not seen any active efforts by other nations to define the LTTE as not being the sole representatives; if you have citations for these it would be appreciated. I have only seen the GoSL's efforts to do so.--Realstarslayer 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation is http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/20/stories/2006052005681400.htm.Try http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=336&language_id=1 for a view on Karuna.I have added it to the intro.I'll find some other citations for you too. I am 100% sure no country has recognised LTTE as a sole representative. This is just a claim by the LTTE but no country has accepted it and the EU , Japan and US have been at pains to explicitly reject it.Ruchiraw 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what intro you guys are talking about cos this talk page is way too disorganized to find out what's going on really. Everyone seems to be posting everywhere the place. Perhaps we sure make a new heading at the bottom and agree on the intro once and for all.

With regard to what's been proposed above, I think it's important to include a few countries as an example as to who has banned the LTTE (as per the Al Qaeda page). Otherwise I think the intro proposed above doesn't make it clear who condemns the LTTE. Anyone who reads

"However, it has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority."

can easily think that the LTTE is mainly banned in countries like Sri Lanka only, which would be a false impression --snowolfd4 09:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove NPOV tag

If everyone is agreed please remove NPOV tagRuchiraw 00:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag must stay. Trincomanb 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Anonymous user, Please dont remove links without discussing. Have reverted this Ruchiraw 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation and verifiability

Please cite source for following sentence in intro

but it also exercises some civilian functions -- including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural functions -- in the territory it controls.

I don't think there is any need for citation here it is common knowledge? It is like asking for citations that the GoSL provides such services in areas it controls? Ask anyone who has been on the ground there, there are several media reports as well from within LTTE areas that show their courts, police etc in action.--Realstarslayer 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. I agreeRuchiraw 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist group

Please cite sources for the following. Its very POV

Is the EU in the habit of banning non- terrorist organizations to encourage negotiations.

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

Why did Sri Lanka lift the ban

Sri Lanka lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2001.

Only Al-Quaeda and related organisations are listed. The UN has asked all memeber states to freeze assets of ALL organisations engaging in terrorist activities. This is the basis for the EU and other bans,

The LTTE is not on the UN's list of terror organisations.Ruchiraw 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User Ruchiraw has edited out other users comments

User Ruchiraw has edited my particular comments on the current intro (compare 00:06, 27 July 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (→POV in the current Intro.)). What I had written then and what has been edited by user Ruchiraw has very little resembelance. In fact I had a whole paragraph that has been taken out. This is a blatant example of vandalism. This is clearly unacceptable.

I dont know what you are talking about. Please be more specificRuchiraw 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) This user goes on his own and decides to write a POV intro and revert it to his version continously.

The version on the intro is proposed by Arvind and Realstarslayer. I added 3 words to it and also added citations as requested by relastarslayer. I propose you be banned from the page because you are reverting the work of at least three users constantlyRuchiraw 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(2) This user has been politely told to stop editing the intro until further input from the rest of the community, but has not listened.

See above para. Ruchiraw 22:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(3) This user has decided to edit/take apart other user's comments here.

I would recommend this user get banned from this page. Trincomanb 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose you be banned from the page because you are reverting the work of at least three users constantly. You are coming close to the 3R rule a number of timesRuchiraw 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I also suspect IP: 58.166.184.66 = Ruchiraw. This IP address has been used to vote (I suspect twice) and also make personal attack and offensive comments against fellow Wikipedians.

Yeah, right . Stop making silly accusationsRuchiraw 22:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trincomanb

Evidence/clues:

The anonymous personal attack against user RaveenS was carried out on snowolfd4' talk page. Therefore this could have been either user: snowolfd4 or user: Ruchiraw because only these two users other than RaveenS were party to this conversation.

Never had a discussion with RaveenS . Why would I want to attack anyoneRuchiraw 22:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User Ruchiraw had deleted comments made earlier by IP: 58.166.184.66 (potential attempt at coverup for having not signed in -by mistake) (see history of this talk page).

uh , what comments . I dont know what you are talking about.You are now making personal attacks which is not fitting etiquette , my friend. Ruchiraw 22:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

here is what is of interest:

1. (cur) (last) 03:57, 27 July 2006 Ruchiraw (Talk | contribs)
2. (cur) (last) 03:56, 27 July 2006 58.104.152.15 (Talk) (→POV in the current Intro.)
3. (cur) (last) 03:49, 27 July 2006 58.104.152.15 (Talk) (→RE: See Also - 'Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE')
4. (cur) (last) 03:47, 27 July 2006 58.166.184.66 (Talk) (→POV in the current Intro.)
5. (cur) (last) 03:46, 27 July 2006 58.166.184.66 (Talk) (→Remove NPOV tag)
6. (cur) (last) 02:43, 27 July 2006 Realstarslayer (Talk | contribs) (→Dissension)
7. (cur) (last) 02:35, 27 July 2006 Realstarslayer (Talk | contribs) (→RE: See Also - 'Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE')

IP address 58.166.184.66 was used to vote to keep Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE, but both users snowolfd4 and Ruchiraw had also voted.

Not me

The investigation will continue.

Trincomanb 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This is exactly what I initially wrote. I reproducing for everyone to see and decide for themselves if the user in question had deleted my comments. The least this user could do is go back and verify for himself whether it occured rather than acting ignorant. To do this you click on the history tab and click/compare the revision listed below with revisions edited by the user in question.

Trincomanb 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:06, 27 July 2006;

from: POV in the current Intro.

Some selected examples of one sided info in the current intro. created by user Ruchiraw. More to follow...

"The LTTE has also eliminated many Tamil alternative leaderships, which may have contributed to its emergence as the main representative of the Sri Lankan Tamils [2][3]."

This is pure speculation. Is this article now predicting what ifs ? The fact of the matter is that LTTE is the main Tamil nationalist force right now. Yes it did take out TELO fearing it could pose a threat in the future, but LTTE did absorb EROS (Balakumaran faction) (Jeyaratnam Wilson, 2000). TELO and EPRLF (Suresh wing) has als joined the LTTE/TNA camp.

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

LTTE had taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna local commander in expelling the Muslim population in 1990 [20]. According to its policy it has allowed Muslim civillians to return to their homestead, although some still appear to languish in refugee camps. The above statement needs a rebuttal, whereby LTTE has apologized for past conduct and has officially encouraged the Muslim population it had expelled to live in their traditional homestead.

If these statements are going to be in the intro, then the rebuttal (in a compressed format) needs to be also mentioned. Failure to do some implies bias.

"Several of the LTTE's tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, use of suicide bombers, practice of ethnic cleansing [1], and recruitment of child soldiers have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by many countries. "

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

Ethnic cleansing is repeated twice both point against the LTTE. The LTTE has taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna commander. According to its official policy it doesn't conduct ethnic cleansing. This info also needs to be stated in the intro to have any balance.

The use of the term child soldiers is a controversial one biased against non-state actors. Regardless, LTTE's current stated policy is not to recruit youth under 18. Once youth under 18 are found in its ranks, they are returned to their parents or UNICEF staff. This needs to be stated as rebuttal if there is going to be accusations of child recruitment.

In addition, there is blatant double standards that define the minimum allowable age of recruitement into state armed force to be 15 and 18 for non-state actors.

1. The United Nations Convention of Rights of Child (CRC) was adopted in 1989. In Article 38, it specifies 15 as the minimum age for recruitment into a State’s armed forces and calls on the States to, “take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities”.

2. The Optional Protocol to CRC about Children in Armed Conflict was declared in 2001. It did not compulsorily raise this age of 15 as the minimum recruitment age for a State’s armed forces. It, however, did declare the minimum age of recruitment into “armed groups” as 18. [21]

Trincomanb 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Trincomanb 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Specificially user Ruchiraw had deleted the following paragraph from my initial comment and then asks whether I had a citation for LTTE's apology.

LTTE had taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna local commander in expelling the Muslim population in 1990 [22]. According to its policy it has allowed Muslim civillians to return to their homestead, although some still appear to languish in refugee camps. The above statement needs a rebuttal, whereby LTTE has apologized for past conduct and has officially encouraged the Muslim population it had expelled to live in their traditional homestead.

Trincomanb 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro in dispute

I have placed the current intro written by user Ruchiraw (which is disputed by number of users here.) I have left the old intro agreed upon with community consensus on the page with the NPOV tag. I have also outlined a list of reasons why this intro is POV, please see above (POV in the current Intro. section).

Trincomanb 17:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not write thsi intro but I have edited it to restore its NPOV (a pillar of wikipedia). I have included your recommnedations as well. Stop making excuses to revert this intro to an old one which is blatantly POV.

Ruchiraw 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC) The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also exercises some civilian functions -- including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural functions -- in the territory it controls. It is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict.

Several of the LTTE's tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, use of suicide bombers, practice of ethnic cleansing [23], and recruitment of child soldiers[24] have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by many countries[25]. The LTTE has also eliminated many Tamil alternative leaderships, which may have contributed to its emergence as the main representative of the Sri Lankan Tamils [26][27].

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran. It accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority, and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. Sri Lanka and the international community[28] refuse to acknowledge the LTTE as the sole representative of Sri Lankan Tamils.Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[29].

Try this version

I am too old and cranky to get involved in "he said, she said" arguments, but I'd like to see the text improved. Overall I like the older version (recently restored by somebody, maybe TrincomanB) better than the one that has been slouching around the top of the article for the past few days. However, there are points in the latter that need to be included. I have high-handedly made a couple of changes just now; if people don't like the result, I'm sure they will say so. Credmond 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Credmond, I have put back the latest version and included your changes Ruchiraw 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a process of continuous improvement, if something contravenes NPOV, it should be revised.Ruchiraw 02

04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

TrincomanB. Stop, reverting the work of other users. I have addressed your POV concerns. Don't engage in revert wars but try to work constructively with the Wiki community. Stop this vandalism or you will be blocked.

Instead of engaging in revert wars, I suggest we have this mediated Ruchiraw 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Final proposed introduction - July 27th onward

As noted by several people this discussion is getting quite convoluted and hard to follow, so if we can lets just stick to this new section and come up with a final intro. Having read all of the discussion I have come up with the following, it takes Arvind's earlier version, with some of my changes and some of Ruchiraw's changes I think this is now neutral and fair as an introduction, further details such as child soldiers etc. are covered in the main body of the article and I think just cause problems with balance if mentioned in the intro without more detailed coverage:

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

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and several international players contend this claim is false and feel that the LTTE alone cannot be considered as such[30]. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of state-sponsored terrorism and committing equally serious human rights violations against its Tamil minority.

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

--Realstarslayer 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the last version shown above to make it more balanced and highlighting LTTE's stand. It should be mentioned that the ban is in countries with a minority tamil population (this is no coincedence). LTTE strongly believes proscription is just means to pressure it to seek a specified settlement endorsed by certain international actors and is not genuine. Otherwise it would have been hunted vigourously like Al Qaeda.

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

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and several international players contend this claim is false and feel that the LTTE alone cannot be considered as such[31]. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned in a number of countries with a minority Tamil population as a terrorist organisation. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of ethnic cleansing, genocide and state-sponsored terrorism on its Tamil minority. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors has been a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE is seeking to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.

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

Johnathan1156 02:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok additions sound fine to me, still maintains the balance in POV.--Realstarslayer 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the intro presented above by user Johnathan Trincomanb 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that when you say

"...and is currently banned in a number of countries with a minority Tamil population as a terrorist organisation."

it's really confusing. I suggest that a few examples should be given as to who has banned the LTTE. And that bit should read as

"...and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries with a minority Tamil population including the United States, the European Union, Canada and India."

Otherwise, like I said above, it maybe confusing to whoever reads this as to who exactly has banned the LTTE. --snowolfd4 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is already detailed in the main body, so seems repetitive for an introduction.--Realstarslayer 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case we should include a link to the place where it says who has banned the LTTE

eg: ...and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries (See List) with a minority ...

since just saying that it's detailed in the main body doesn't change the fact that the intro is confusing. --snowolfd4 09:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am agreeable to everything except the part about " banned in a number of countries with a minority Tamil population ". I am quite sure some of the EU countries like Poland do not have minority population of Sri Lankan Tamils.Even Finland has only 400 tamils and that can be hardly be said to be a minority population. We should have " banned in a number of countries, most of which have a minority Tamil population" in order to be factually accurate

Also the LTTE claims the East which is only one third tamil. So you cant say LTTE is fighting for the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka unless you ignore 2 million Muslims and Sinhalaese living in the areas claimed by the LTTE. Instead of "for the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka", shall we say "for the Tamils of Sri Lanka"

The Muslims are Tamil also, as far as I know even without taking them into account the East is still a majority Tamil region, besides it is just a description of what the LTTE claim to be fighting for.--Realstarslayer 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth do you mean "The Muslims are Tamil also"??? I know quite a few Muslims who will have some nice things to say about that. --snowolfd4 09:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What language do they speak for the most part? That's right Tamil, thus they are Tamil:

The Muslims have lived as a separate community, although they speak Tamil, and make up about 7% of the population [32].

--Realstarslayer 14:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to accuse Sri Lanka of ethnic cleansing while ignoring the LTTE's own efforts at this, specially as this is an article on the LTTE . So shall we say "contends LTTE practises ethnic cleasing in order to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state".The rest sounds fine. So I am agreeable to the intro with the folowing modifications

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

"

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and several international players contend this claim is false and feel that the LTTE alone cannot be considered as such[33]. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries(EU, US, India, Canada), most of which have a minority Tamil population . The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of ethnic cleansing, genocide and state-sponsored terrorism on its Tamil minority. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors has been a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE practises ethnic cleasing[ [34], ] in order to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.

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

"

TrincomanB , stop reverting the page, you are going near the 3R rule. I have addressed the POV concerns you expressed on the discussion page in the current intro, so why do you keep reverting to a version we had several days ago. Please act like a good Wikipedian. Credmond I have added your alterations, but restored NPOV.

TrincomanB wait till we come up with a new intro here instead of repeatedly reverting. Your bias is showing as you only prefer intros which have a particular POV. Ruchiraw 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To mention ethnic cleansing comitted by the LTTE is too complicated to describe in the intro, because as Trincomanb has pointed out the LTTE had admitted and apologized for this. If you are going to talk about LTTE ethnic cleansing, you will also have to mention that it has apologized and asked for the return of the Muslim population [35]. The fact of the matter is that SL Government hasn't apologized for all the acts of 'ethnic cleansing' and genocide the Tamil nationalists believe have been comitted.

Regardless the article that your refer to, that LTTE praticeses ethnic cleansing is out of date. In fact the reference I am talking (which Trincomanb was mentioning) about making an apology is from Nov. 2002 while your reference is March 2001 [36], ]. This should be an open and shut case. Nevertheless the SL Government contends LTTE wants to create a mono-ethnic authoratarian state covers for this. Therefore I suggest taking out the ethnic cleansing issue (because it is implicitly referred to with the mono-ethnic reference) and talk about it in the body of the article (highlighting both sides of the issue).

Hi Johnathan . creating a mono-ethnic state is a whitewash word for ethnic cleansing. However to maintain POV then you will have to say

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of creating a mono ethnic state

LTTE says one thing and practices another thing. Here the issue is not what the LTTE says about itself but what is actually happening on the ground. Look at below articles for a recent update> Hope you are satisfied about the actual facts

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/srilank/articles/20060601.aspx

http://www.southasianmedia.net/index_opinion.cfm?category=Minorities&country=SRI%20LANKA

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/srilank/articles/20030419.aspx

I have not seen neutral sites (Amnesty, BBC, UN) accusing the Sri Lankan government of ethnic cleansing. Government sponsored riots have occurred in Bangladesh , Gujarat , Punjab etc:- but no-one has accused these states of ethnic cleansing. Either remove the LTTE POV from the intro or balance it with the actual facts. The fact remain vast majority of Tamils live under government control but no Sinhalese would agree to set foot in LTTE territory if he values his life. Even Daya master came to Colombo for treatmentRuchiraw 12:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore here is how it sounds:

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

"

The LTTE proclaims itself the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils whereas the GoSL and several international players contend this claim is false and feel that the LTTE alone cannot be considered as such[37]. Despite this the LTTE are still generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict. The LTTE has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and violating human rights, and is currently banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries(EU, US, India, Canada), most of which have a minority Tamil population . The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of ethnic cleansing, genocide and state-sponsored terrorism on its Tamil minority. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors has been a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE intends to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state.

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

Johnathan1156 11:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

User 70.49.109.87 has deleted portions of the intro. I have reverted thisRuchiraw 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the sites/references you have shown prove that LTTE as an organization is practising ethnic cleansing since it had apologized. One of sites mentioned LTTE commanders had threatened Muslim civillians or something. The site looks like some blog/partisan website on military affairs. It hardly falls under the credible source category. Next thing, why dont you add blogs by SPUR or something ? That hardly is an instance of ethnic cleansing. Two of the references refer to threats to Muslim and Sinhalese civillians in the form of hand bills. LTTE in all these cases has vehemently denied doing this. LTTE has contended that it could have been the govt. backed Karuna group in order embarass the mainstream LTTE. The fact of the matter is anyone can print anonymous hand bills and threaten people. Is it really in LTTE's interest to threaten Muslims and Sinhalese living in the East ? What does it accomplish other than help SL government propaganda ? But your two references don't even show that the SL government nor international community contends "LTTE is practising ethnic cleansing" after the date of apology. Show me one reference that show for example the SL Government contends LTTE is comitting ethnic cleansing after the apology date.

Take a look at the 2005, US Statement department annual human rights report. No instances of the US contending LTTE is comitting ethnic cleansing mentioned: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61711.htm

The US would be the first to jump on such an issue if it had the chance, but it hasn't because there isn't any credible evidence except for hearsay.

The contention that LTTE wants to create a mono-ethnic state is not the same as ethnic cleansing. Take Japan for example. Its considered a mono-ethnic state, but it does have minorities, including a sizable Korean population. Ethnic cleansing means to forcefully remove people of certain ethnic group from a particular region. Creation of mono-ethnic state covers a whole spectrum of possibilities, including one ethnic group with a big majority, state based assimilation of other ethnic identities to one (mono) ethnic identity.

Johnathan1156 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Johnathan1156, The US State department report publishes reports covering that year. It is hard for a 2005 statement to talk about incidents in 2006. How does a global military analysis page which charges for professional research reports, suddenly become partisan because it lists material unfavorable for LTTE.

See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006CI4H/104-4173381-5828733?v=glance for reviews of this site. It has no links to Sri Lanka or LTTE but you call it partisan . how ? why ?

When I use GOSL sources you say it is partisan , when I use international research organisation reports you say it is partisan, For you anything which does not paint the LTTE as angels is partisan. Ruchiraw 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my request for Amnesty Intenational or reputable reports which talk about ethnic cleansing by GoSL. You have no source for this except LTTE media sites.I have provided three impartial references so far for ethnic cleansing by the LTTE

There are wrongs on both side but dont try to put only one view forward.

Ruchiraw 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point of my discussion and seem ingrained in on one point of view.

You have sidestepped a couple of issues and haven't replied to most of my points. Since its you and *only* you who wants this particular sentence in place, that you carefully go through what I wrote above and answer my points. The onus is on you to satisfy everyone else, not the other way around (because its you who is proposing this particular sentence). http://www.strategypage.com is a partisan Neocon (Neo-conservative) site. That can't be quoted to be a 'reputable' source as with say partisan Democrat site or other party site say Conservatives and Labour for example. However I never said that the http://www.southasianmedia.net is in the same category. But the article you refer is from the dailymirror and its an editorial (in otherwords someones/groups opinion). You need to pick sources that are perceived as neutral with facts not editorials, not sources that openly have a bias, otherwise you are simply reinforcing the fact that point you are arguing has low credibility.

You just haven't shown evidence to back up your proposed statment:

"The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors has been a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement, while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contends LTTE practises ethnic cleansing in order to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state."

The onus is on *you* to back this statement because *you* proposed it.

You need to show evidence/reference that actually mentions the SL Government and international players indeed contend that LTTE still **practises** ethnic cleansing after the apology. Why can't you even get hold of a press release from a SL Government site and a say an international player that contends LTTE is comitting ethnic cleansing ? That is all that is needed here because that is what is needed to back up the statement that you have proposed. If you don't haven't that you just can't have that statement. Its as simple as that.

Johnathan1156 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User Ruchiraw is obstructing all attempts to reach a consensus by throwing roadblocks and clearly POV statements into the intro. The POV statement this user wants to insert is ethnic cleansing when there is none committed by the accused side (after the apology).

You also admit the 1990 ethnic cleansing of Muslims. Then we can change this to past tenseRuchiraw 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It just shows the obvious POV of this user. Most members have voiced support for the intro as it is except user Ruchiraw. User Ruchiraw is reverting to his version while proclaimming to work with the rest of the community, classic doublespeak. Can't have it both ways. This user has already been proven to have deleted my comments on this talk page and has refused to acknowledge it once the proof was shown. TrincomanB accused me of this . I asked TrincomanB which comments and to tell me the versions of the page (dates and time). TrincomanB have not replied so I have ignored this. ?????????????????????????? Ruchiraw 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have placed full details on your talk page and another copy on this page (under User Ruchiraw has ...). Don't play ignorant. You can't fool all the people all the time. Trincomanb 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect having been caught red handed, figures he can keep quiet and think everyone else has forgotten. I have decided to revert to an intro that had the support of a couple of people. User Ruchiraw's version that he keeps reverting to has no voiced support and his intention is to delay/tire everyone out to get his POV version in. I will not allow this effort to succeed. This is an encyclopedia not a propaganda site. Trincomanb 03:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fantasies written in the Ruchiraw version... this is almost getting comical.

Singapore banned the LTTE - not true [38]Ruchiraw 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

LTTE still commits ethnic cleansing - not true (not even GOSL dares say this). I have answered you aboveRuchiraw 10:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will change this to has practised Ruchiraw 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all anti LTTE Tamil voices were silenced or eliminated. some gave up, others joined the LTTE, other switched sides.

Since TrincomanB appears set on reverting to a particular version, I have edited the version that he loves so much and restored the NPOV with some of the things we have been discussing for the past 2 weeks. TrincomanB , I have spent over hours of my time in answering you, if you have any problems, let us take it for mediation as I despair that we will ever agree. Ruchiraw 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Acting ignorant is not an excuse, you have been shown the evidence on your talk page. This isn't NPOV as Ruchiraw keeps mentioning. There is no endorsement to his version of the intro. The intro that had support of so many people (particularly Realstarslayer,Credmond,snowolfd, Johnathan1156 and myself is being purposely ignored by this user. Trincomanb 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok folks I have added the intro with the parts that we have reached consensus on here, so that instead of discussing the whole thing we can focus on the few areas still left - i.e. ethnic cleansing. Please take a look and note any changes you would like in the next section below, instead of reverting the whole thing, since we are not getting anywhere by just reverting to an older version if we have already reached a 90% consensus on the new version.--Realstarslayer 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to New Intro - July 29th Onward

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

For my part I find several sources that support the claim that the LTTE no longer carries out any ethnic cleansing type activities for example the same link I used above [39] also had this to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added in the number of countries whcih have banned LTTE

Rearranged second and third para to give a meaningful flow.

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

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

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

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

Ruchiraw 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Look I fully hate the 1983 and 1958 riots.

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

• Factually all the bans you noted took place after rounds of peace talks, all but the Indian ban can be viewed as attempts by the various countries as efforts to push the LTTE towards more talks, in fact the EU stated this as their goal[40], so I am not sure where you have a problem with this statement? The timeline is below taken from BBC timeline and the section of this very page with dates of the various bans:

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

1992 - India Bans the LTTE

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

1997 US bans LTTE.

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

2006 EU Bans LTTE

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

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

Well according the Amb. Lunstead (American Amb. to Lanka), the ban was indeed to force LTTE to negotiate with the GOSL [41]. Here is the paragraph of interest in his farewell press conference (Johnathan1156 13:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)):

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

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

Johnathan1156 13:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine by me, makes it clearer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV in current intro

This is quite POV.

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

Then we could have a sentence saying

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

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

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

Ruchiraw 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your statement is false Trincomanb 02

50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an explanation of the Urgent Appeals desk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further evidence of mass killings and human rights abuses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to follow.

Johnathan1156 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Tamil Nationalist side, the Asian Human Rights Commission (respected,impartial human rights organization) and other individuals including members of the Sinhalese community [42] too believe genocide occured/is occuring. The Asian Human Rights Commission (based in Hong Kong) has repeateadly claimed the Sri Lankan government has comitted crimes against humanity. That is a key point to remember. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on anything but its a fact that not just that the Tamil nationalist side believes genocide occurred/is occuring.

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

Just for reference:

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

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

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

The Legal Definition of Genocide

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

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

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

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

Johnathan1156 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission also maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minority [43] and crimes against humanity [44].

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

 Ruchiraw 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the web pages

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

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

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

An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission also maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minority [45] to be An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission has posted a letter in which the International Federation of Tamils (suspected LTTE front organisation) maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing a genocidal war against its Tamil minority. Ruchiraw 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Federation of Tamils (IFT)

18 Rues des Paquis, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland,

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

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

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

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

Here is an explanation of the Urgent Appeals desk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This statement is also false. Just as an example Australian Federal Member of Parliament Paul Zammit also condemned the genocide of Tamils in Lanka [46]. This is an example of an independent accusation of GENOCIDE against GOSL. Trincomanb 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Uniting Church of Australia also condemns genocide in Sri Lanka [47] Trincomanb 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Brian Senewiratne (relative of CBK) [48] accuses SL Government of genocide against Tamils (June 2006) Trincomanb 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Where is your 95 % citation ? Trincomanb 02

26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing crimes against humanity [49], including on its Tamil minority.

Trincomanb 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro 31 July onwards

I have added this fact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dont use weasel words

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

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

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

The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. An independent human rights organizations such as the Asian Human Rights Comission maintains the Sri Lankan government has been committing crimes against humanity [50], including on its Tamil minority. Johnathan1156 15

20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

They were banned in UK and moved to Geneva . See

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

Is the Asiantribune a reliable source of information ?

LTTE Commander Bahnu seriously injured [51], reported by Asian Tribune, yet flip over to TamilNet and I see Col. Bahnu perfectly fine and taken today SL time [52]. If it was the New York Times, there would be some head rolling, yet for the Asiantribune it seems its all in the days work. Trincomanb 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Johnathan1156 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

There is no need for mediation. Ruchiraw first learn the phrase 'cooperative writing.' 69.196.61.57 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)