Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10

List of Archived Talk Pages
Archive of discussion prior to June 1, 2006 Archive of discussion from June 1-July 1, 2006 Archive of discussion from July 2-August 2, 2006 Archive of discussion from August 2-August 30, 2006

Military Section

I believe the LTTE military section is highly lacking to say the least (currently its just 5 lines). There is lots of info on this subject and it puzzles me why its not included/referenced here. As a first step, I propose chalking out an outline for the subsection and what needs to be included. Anyone with a military background (you know who you are) think should have a great deal of say on this. Trincomanb 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief outline of the LTTE’s, Tamil Eelam Armed Forces –unfortunately I don’t have the time to do citations at the moment-

1. Army 2. Navy 3. Air Force 4. Marine Corps

Each of the four forces have their own teams of Special Forces –often referred to as ‘Black Tigers’-. They often operate behind enemy lines, in much the same way Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS) does. The aim of the Special Forces is not to die –as the term suicide may suggest- but the fact is that hardly any of those who participate in daring raids behind enemy lines ever make it back to their bases.

All four forces and their respective Special Forces, only operate within land, sea and air space claimed for Tamil Eelam.

The alleged LTTE attacks on targets in rest of Sri Lanka are alleged to have been carried out by a special branch of the intelligence services. -I picked this up from a TamilNet article, published on 05 July, 2006.-

To my knowledge LTTE does not have conventional regiments or battalions. Instead they appear to have created their own ‘Padai Pirivu’ or ‘Padaiani’ system, i.e. Jeyanthan Padaiani, not quite sure what the strength of each one is.

I guess a basic framework is there, but surely a lot more to add.

More details on the women’s divisions, weapons, and more details on each of the Padaianis and the Colonels leading them.

This sure is a positive move forward. It’s high time we move-on from the introduction and onto some details. --Lankaupdate 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats great, I will get some additional references on this. I know one was floated around a while back on this forum, but can't seem to find it. An article like the Kargil War got to become a featured article and I think we can strive to achieve something simillar. Trincomanb 17:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally a good move forward, away from unproductive intro wars. I can look into the LTTE special forces section. Elalan 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LTTE’s Military: a brief summary

The Military of the LTTE comprises of Tamil Eelam Army, Tamil Eelam Navy, Tamil Eelam Air Force and Tamil Eelam Marine Corps.

All four forces are under the direct control of the LTTE’s leader and Commander-in-Chief Velupillai Pirapakaran.

The LTTE’s military is primarily focused on land warfare with the Army being the oldest and largest of all the services.

However, being surrounded by sea to three sides, the Navy has rapidly developed into being the most essential and influential force.

The Air Force, functions primarily as a support force to the Army and the Navy.

Marine Corps carry out rapid amphibious assaults on enemy targets at locations bordering the sea.

The LTTE’s Military has been developed from the spontaneous armed resistance movement that sprung up throughout the 70s.

The Military has fought three notable wars, -Eelam Wars I-III- against both the Sri Lankan Military and Indian Military. --Lankaupdate 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Current points of contention

The two issues that remain are:

1) the ban in the intro: should the countries that have banned the LTTE be listed explicitly, and if so, should those who have not also be listed? The most logical solution is to leave the ban in the "Proscription" subsection, and go back to the minimalist one-sentence intro. If the ban absolutely has to go in the intro, something like

29 countries have banned the LTTE

is really all you need. That wording makes clear a) 29 countries must be more than just South Asian neighbors; and b) over 160 have not issued a ban, since there are more than 200 countries in the world. If you really insist on spelling all that out in detail, put it in the Proscription subsection.

2) The Recent Events section: the words "LTTE would not gain anything by upsetting Pakistan". The citation there now does not say this. This phrase is original research unless backed by a link.

Please, no one start a debate on whether, in fact, the LTTE would or not upset Pakistan. The issue is whether anyone outside Wikipedia, that we can cite, has said that.

-Tyronen 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That "29 countries have banned the LTTE" would be the best solution I think. The ban should be there, but we dont need to list the countries in the intro, and by stating 29 countries it implies that lots of countries has not banned it. So both parties should be able to live with this. Then there is an expanded coverage further down... Ulflarsen 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a fact that 161 countries, including the UN have not proscribed the LTTE at the moment. Not everyone knows there are 191 countries in the UN. If GOSL supporters want to insist on bringing the proscription issue into the intro, then the other side of the story should also be mentioned. Elalan 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a minimalist intro with no ban and other sentences attached. On the Pakistan issue, the I personally haven't see a reference deducing that claim, but there is a number of references that is along that 'line of thinking'. The wording on this has to be changed to reflect the citations available. Trincomanb 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermod's version

Although this has happened before and probably won't happen again, I agree with Supermod's version because: 1) I don't think we should say of the 192 countries in the UN assembly, 161 have not proscribed and 31 have proscribed, because we are discussing a hypothetical vote, which doesn't have a reference and our speculation isn't very encyclopedic. 2) The "LTTE would not gain anything by upsetting Pakistan" sentence doesn't have a reference yet. Addhoc 19:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the current intro is the best we have had for sometime.

However, I have issues with two sentences.

Firstly, “but a number of countries including the US, the EU, Canada and India have listed them as a terrorist organisation” should be shortened to “but a number of countries have proscribed them as a terrorist organisation”.

Secondly, “reclusive founder” should be changed to simply “founder”. Who passed the “reclusive” judgment?

Other than that I think we are on the right path to extending the article. --Lankaupdate 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read about Prabhakaran it fits, it says something about the person that is very true - and so I think it should stay. It is extremely difficult to get to him, that is just a fact. Ulflarsen 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me. There may be a better word than "reclusive", but I thought, and still think, it's illuminating to say something about the solitude in which he (notoriously) lives and works. Credmond 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen secondary sources using the word reclusive (including the BBC) to describe Prabhakaran, but to date I have never seen a primary source saying so. For obvious reasons, outsiders will have extreme difficulty trying to meet him, but that doesn't imply he is reclusive by character. Just because its an often repeated mantra, doesn't mean its true. There is a logical problem with the 'reclusive' description. How could VP be reclusive, be the main figure within the LTTE and also be central to a top down authoritarian setup ? It comes down to how could you be able run an organization being a reclusive ? It would be great if a primary source be obtained on this. Trincomanb 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If we starting to count countries that have banned the LTTE and have that in the intro, then we should also mention UN has not banned the LTTE, a majority of the UN General assembly has NOT banned the LTTE. This isnt hypothetical. This simply hasn't happened, and there is no ten ways of spinning this. THe GOSL and its propaganda machine has always made a big deal about the the ban issue as means to delegitimize the organization. I think the intro should stay well away from it. Wikipedia is not here to lend weight and legitimize or delegitimize any group. They have made no effort as far as I seen to contribute elsewhere or on this article. Elalan 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its also a little ironic that we are discussing Supermod's version, when he doesn't seem to want justify it here on talk page nor participate in this. Is the intention really constructive by doing this ? This is a legitimate question. Elalan 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How about, "The LTTE's supporters refer to them as freedom fighters but 29 countries of the 192 in the UN General Assembly have listed them as a terrorist organisation." Addhoc 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether I am agreeble to this or not has become irrelevant. It has become irrelevant for so called neutral people here to agree to one thing or the other. Even if I agree to this we will have GOSL supporter come in here and start changing things, then this gets changed again to more NPOV version and then another GOSL supporter will make it POV in another fashion. It is not the rest of us have not compromised. This whole process has become hijacked by a number of GOSL supporting users who don't participate here in the discussions and who are strongly intent on spreading GOSL propaganda. They have also refused any form of compromise and totally hell bent on forcing their POV. Is there a point to compromising with these GOSL supporters ? I certainly don't wont to compromise on integrity and truth for that matter just to appease these individuals. Where will this end ? Next thing we will be forced to compromise and say 3+2 = 4. Elalan 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not even that. This user in question quite honestly believes the reason there is problem between Sinhalese and Tamils was solely because of the LTTE. How comically ignorant could you get ? Is there a point to compromising with such a ludicrous mindset ? I have to be honest here. What does it say about the rest of us ? The problem with Wikipedia is we don't know who is behind the keyboard. Trincomanb 00:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its absolutely ridiculous, but if some editors insist on saying 161 countries have not banned the LTTE and we've been having a edit war on this, then I say let it be. I'm pretty sure the readers of this article have enough brains to understand how stupid a statement it is. Like Supermod said, if someone asks you what you had for dinner, its not like you say "I had pasta, but I didn't eat 3,530,526 other types of food". Its really laughable.

But agian, for the sake of preventing an edit war on this article, I suggest we leave the 161 countries statement, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you add the UN, then a statement that the UN cannot ban the LTTE should also be added. I know its kind of madness, but its not my fault to begin with. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to have a citation to show that "the UN cannot ban the LTTE." At face value I believe your statement is an intepretation of some facts but I leave it to you to backup the statement with a citation. Elalan 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already provided the citation. Read the article well. It says

The only terrorist list the UN maintains was brought about by UN resolution 1267, and is devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed by the UN to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not listed by the UN, it isn't because they aren't terrorist groups; it's because the UN doesn't see sufficient linkage between them and terrorism's Big Two.

So the UN doesn't have a mandate to ban any group other than those connected with al Queda. Its not an interpretation. Its a FACT. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This citation doesn't support evidence for why it cannot ban the LTTE . Sure it can't use UN resolution 1267, but there is nothing that prevents it from coming up with a new resolution to target say the LTTE. Elalan 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK fair enough. But the UN currently doesn't have the mandate to ban the LTTE so I'll change it as such. You can't argue on that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a slight simplification to make it sound better Elalan 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

FOR EVERYONE who wants to mention "161 countries have not banned LTTE" in the INTRO: Where else in Wiki or anywhere have you seen specifying the number of countries that has NOT followed a certain rule or NOT part of it? Example: Permanent members of UN Security Council consist 5 countries. Does anyone say 187 countries not part of UN Security Council? When you say number of countries or 29 countries have banned the LTTE, it implies that all the countries or other countries have NOT banned LTTE. By specifying "169 countries," people here trying to educate the reader about World geography and composition, NOT about LTTE. It is a JOKE. By specifying certain countries have banned the LTTE, the intro simply states a fact, not a claim. It also says LTTE supporters consider them as a terrorist group. And mentioning UN in the intro: UN only maintains a terror list for al-Qaeda. If you say UN has not banned the LTTE, you also have to mention about al-Qaeda. But is this article about al-Qaeda? I am making the intro short and simple as it was agreed a few weeks ago. If anyone wants to add about "161 countries" and "UN," please answer my argument here. Thanks. Supermod 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was always consistent in mentioning that if we list or mention countries that have banned the LTTE, then we should mention how many countries have not banned the LTTE. Ban by certain countries and not by other is informative and relevant. The fact that a majority of the UN members and UN itself having not banned the LTTE is as significant as bunch of countries banning a group. Its a majority in every sense of the word and removing this relevance merely plays in finding crafty ways of labeling and delegitimizing organizations. Whats so special about those set of countries over the rest of the international community. The simple answer is that this part of the govt. propaganda mechanism to show/deligitimize an organization. This is wikipedia not Sri lankas propaganda office. I didn;t want the statement about al- qaeda. That extra description is not necessary but your friend seems to think that should be in there. I have compromised time and time again, but you have shown no willingness to compromise . This is precisely what I said will happen in the post above and has happened. You just seem to hell bent in steam rolling your version of things and thats just not going to happen. There is simply enough people to oppose these Sri Lankan Govt. POV changes. Elalan 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest trouble here is the use of news articles as citations. Guys please try and understand that news articles are someone’s –often partisan- opinion rather than actual facts.

I can not accept the reasons given for the use of “reclusive”. If we were to go by what some people in society know a person as, perhaps Wikipedia should include “poodle” in front of Tony Blair and number of other titles in front of George W Bush.

I also believe that Adhoc’s suggestion of “The LTTE's supporters refer to them as freedom fighters but 29 countries of the 192 in the UN General Assembly have listed them as a terrorist organization,” is the best to date.

If we are to insist on the terrorist label being given undue prominence in the introduction, perhaps we should also add the fact that the LTTE is not proscribed as a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka, where it has carried out all but one of the alleged terrorist attacks. --Lankaupdate 06:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lifting of the ban in Sri Lanka is stated in the intro. It specifically lists the countries (without saying number of countries) that have banned the LTTE. However, I also agree with Adhoc’s suggestion of “The LTTE's supporters refer to them as freedom fighters but 29 countries of the 192 in the UN General Assembly have listed them as a terrorist organization.” Supermod 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the current version has been changed yet again by an IP account, should we consider semi-protection? Addhoc 11:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is a good idea, we should have that. Ulflarsen 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding listing LTTE, I think user Lankaupdate's version should be enough, as its the intro:

"but a number of countries have proscribed them as a terrorist organisation" Ulflarsen 11:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Ulflarsen, but who? If you say "A number of countries" it could even mean Somalia, Peru and Nepal. That really won't give an accurate picture to the reader. You have to list a few countries like the US, The EU etc. That shows exactly how widespread the condemnation is. And that really has to be added.

The previous intro said "some have called them terrorists". Please. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now the truth comes, "how widespread the condemnation is." Is this about condemnation and deligitimization or is this an encyclopedia article. Elalan 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, saying 29 countries have banned the LTTE doesn't paint a clear picture. I'm getting tired of saying this but You have to list a few countries like the US, The EU etc.

What do you mean Elalan, "is this an encyclopedia article"? Of course it is. The LTTE has been widely condemned, and the article should say so. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowfold4, I respect the hard work you have put into this article and I know this is going to sound pendantic. However the EU isn't a country and shouldn't be listed in this context. Addhoc 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Addhoc and I reespect your work too, but I stick by the point that we have to give at least a few exapmles as to who has banned the LTTE. If you want the wording can be changed to something like
...but a number of countries and international organizations including the US, the EU, Canada and India have listed them as a terrorist organisation
OR
...but they have been listed as a terrorist organisation by the US, the EU, Canada and India and a number of other countries
Something like that. But do you really want to lenghten the intro? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I think the second version is an improvement, but understand that proposing to lengthen the introduction probably isn't going to be very popular. Thanks again, Addhoc 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That LTTE has been banned by a number of countries need to be in the intro, as it says something important about the organisation. LTTE recognise this themselves, as they have struggled hard to avoid being banned. But for the purpose of getting an agreed intro I at least think we can manage with not naming any countries, as it all comes further down in the article. Ulflarsen 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed “reclusive”

Removed “reclusive” from into as it is a title given by the media in much the same way the title of “poodle” has been given to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. If anyone thinks my edit should be reverted, please provide your reason/s below. --Lankaupdate 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we have agreed on not changing the intro before agreeing here. Reclusive have been in the intro for some time. It is well documented by various sources, like Anita Pratap that interviewed VP several times. It's also well documented that highlevel delegations seldom or never get access to VP when they visit Killinochi, like Solheim or Akashi. Security can not be the lone reason for this, there must be something else, that he want to maintain such a image. So again - the image surely fits, and removing it is in my opinion revoming a fact that gives a good picture of what the main and deciding person in the LTTE is. Ulflarsen 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen secondary sources using the word reclusive (including the BBC) to describe Prabhakaran, but to date I have never seen a primary source saying so. For obvious reasons, outsiders will have extreme difficulty trying to meet him, but that doesn't imply he is reclusive by character. Just because its an often repeated mantra, doesn't mean its true. There is a logical problem with the 'reclusive' description. How could VP be reclusive, be the main figure within the LTTE and also be central to a top down authoritarian setup ? It comes down to how could you be able run an organization being a reclusive ? It would be great if a primary source be obtained on this. Trincomanb 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He could also be hard to meet for foreigners, but certainly meets his staff and members within the organization at regular basis. Does that make him a reclusive ? It doesn't seem to make sense that he can run on organization successfully without meeting and talking to people, unles if he has telepathic abilities :). I do support Lankaupdate view that word reclusive should go, but its not an open and shut case yet, so therefore there should be some discussion on this and hopefully a consensus before a move is made. Trincomanb 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the following link http://www.aruchuna.net/categories.php?cat_id=14 is to a photo gallery that is in Tamil. However, I think the navigation is fairly straight forward and even people who can not read Tamil can browse through the pages.

To my knowledge, the leader has met foreign diplomats including Solheim or Akashi on several occasions.

He also attends Martyrs Day –November 27- and Black Tigers Day –July 05- ceremonies held every year.

Furthermore the photos at the above gallery are proof of his presence at several occasions.

The point is that you are allocating the “reclusive” title as given by members of the media. The very same media have given the title of “poodle” to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and several other titles to US President Gorge Bush.--Lankaupdate 13:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a strong point, popular belief and fact has to be distinguished. There are some references that mention VP is christian. Just because you can get reference for it does it make it true ? Media (even the BBC) ain't a gold standard in all this. Not everyone in these media organization are of a high standard, often there is mediocrity in this and is getting very evident. Anita Pratap version is a primary source if this can be verified. But in my own belief (I am not influencing anybody) Anita Pratap does try to sensationalize things. It does get vague because is it stated as fact or an opinion of a person ? If its in the context of an opinion, then it will be difficult to justify this. I agree there is an intentional mystique around VP. Trincomanb 13:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a source that mentioned VP visits his orphanages on a daily basis (in the mornings). I'll try to find that. Trincomanb 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trincomanb, I think you are referring to VP's daily routine as published by Asiatribune.

Two more points I had forgotten to mention;

1. LTTE leader recently met with a Tamil film director from South India. The story was reported in Tamil langue weekly ‘Kumutham’ published from Chennai, India.

2. More often than not, world leaders are restricted from visiting LTTE administered areas where they could possibly meet with the leader. The classic example is UN Secretary General Koffi Annan’s visit to the island following the Tsunami disaster. Although a number of media organisations close to the LTTE, including Tamilnet reported that the LTTE leader would like to meet with the UN chief, the Sri Lankan government prevented Mr. Annan from travelling to Kilinochchi.

In addition, the Political Wing of the LTTE, headed by SP Tamilselvan is in charge of the Peace Process. Therefore, the argument that the LTTE’s leader declined to meet with Solheim or Akashi on specific occasions to discuss the peace process can not be used as a valid argument to label him as “reclusive”. --Lankaupdate 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I cant't be you people are arguing on whether or not to call him "reclusive". Its really just silly.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only biography written of VP is titled "Inside an Elusive Mind", and Swamy supports the view that he is very hard to reach. Regarding receiving outsiders, I can only say that the SLMM's view is that VP is almost impossible to get to - even though they very much want to. And again, security can not count for all of it, must be a determination on his part to give access to just a very few visitors. So its not just a word snowolfd4, it says something important regarding the leader that is central to the whole organisation. Ulflarsen 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ulflarsen I'm not saying he's not reclusive. What I meant was there's no question that the guy is reclusive. the BBC article for exapmle "Reclusive Tamil rebel leader faces public" [1]. Anyone who denies it is been silly, that's what I meant. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think someone is missing the point about news articles being genuine sources of neutral perspectives.

Nonetheless, as far as the “reclusive” argument is concerned the word recluse is defined in Wikipedia as “someone who hides away from attention of the public, a person who lives in seclusion from intercourse with the world; from the Latin recludere, to shut up or sequester.”

One must appreciate the fact that the term “reclusive” can not be granted to anyone whom certain sections of society find hard to have access to.

To my knowledge VP has met both Akashi and Solheim. Of course he would not meet members of the SLMM on their request, as the first point of contact for them should be the Peace Secretariat headed by S. Pulidevan or in certain circumstances, the Political Wing headed by SP Tamilselvan.

The question should be is VP reclusive in nature? I would say no. As inaccessible as he may be to foreigners, he does participate in a number of public events every year. I have seen photographs of him meeting several people –mainly Tamil-, including sports personalities, actors, movie directors, dancers, children etc.

I think the term “reclusive” is inappropriate to describe a person who is simply inaccessible to foreigners. --Lankaupdate 07:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead on Lankaupdate He can't be reclusive just because he hasn't got the time to meet foreigners. The description is after all controversial. So I personally think that should go or put in quotations. Its certainly not reclusive in the general sense of the word, rather to who it applies to. Elalan 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Preferred Introduction Version

My preferred version is as follows:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization that has been waging a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Supporters of the LTTE refer to them as freedom fighters, however some countries consider them a terrorist organisation. Sri Lanka lifted their ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002. The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Any takers? Addhoc 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, let's go for that. Did you get a semi-protection on the page? Ulflarsen 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this version is acceptable as well, but we'll have more spoilers kicking up sand. Elalan 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've requested, but there is a backlog. Addhoc 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some countries"? Who? I still think its not clear enough. And "Sri Lanka lifted their ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002." Is that really necessary? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If they want to find out who, they can read the proscription section and its there in detail. Are you saying the reader can't look up the contents of the article ? Elalan 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc is spot on. He has taken everyone’s views into account. It is important that some sort of protection is obtained for this introduction, as I am sure that there will be someone out there who would want to take us back another few months.

Of course LTTE not being on Sri Lanka’s terrorist list is necessary. All but one of the alleged terrorist attacks were carried out in that country. --Lankaupdate 21:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to say "Sri Lanka lifted their ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002", then in order to maintain a NPOV you've also got to say

• "India banned the LTTE in 1991 following...'
• "The United States banned the LTTE in 1998 ...'
• "The United Kingdom banned the LTTE in 2001 ...' etc. etc.

That'll make a very nice intro. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They can read all of this info in the main body of the article. Elalan 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

LTTE’s status in Sri Lanka is the most important aspect as all but one of the alleged terrorist attacks have taken place in Sri Lanka.

Other countries that have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation can be listed, under the relevant section in the main article.--Lankaupdate 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "some countries" is ambiguous and does not go with the style guide for Wikipedia - Ex: Supermod 07:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed from

The government of Sri Lanka removed the LTTE from its list of terrorist groups in 2001, in order to encourage the LTTE to renounce violence. – A clear POV issue.

To

Currently the LTTE is not proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the Government of Sri Lanka. – A fact. --Lankaupdate 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

THE FACT is that "Sri Lankan government lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002." Please accept the fact. It is not POV. Supermod 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the POV tag on the top, I think it should be there until we can agree on something here. Seems like everyone edit the intro anyway - thought we agreed on discussing a new version here before we did anything to it?

Last but not least, Tyronen - do you have any idea of why the top of this discussionpage gets cluttered in Firefox, if you can check it out I would be happy. Ulflarsen 09:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, revised suggested version following comments from Supermod:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization that has been waging a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Supporters of the LTTE refer to them as freedom fighters; however, 29 countries have listed them as a terrorist organisation. Sri Lanka lifted their ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002. The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Is this an improvement? Addhoc 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I support that version. Ulflarsen 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As compromise is the way forward, I also add my vote to that one.--Lankaupdate 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I support that for the intro, and in fact, I had that as the intro. But afterwards TamilLand and Lankaupdate have made significant changes to the intro. Reverting back to the revision by Ulflarsen on 09:16, 2 September 2006. Supermod 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree, but for the sake of ending the current edit war I'll agree to Addhoc's version, but add a link to the section which lists the countries that have banned the LTTE. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we are close to have this accepted, congrats to user addhoc, and I hope we can live with this compromise. I also hope everyone will help to police it, that is - any changes should be discussed here first. The rest of the article is another issue, guess we need to keep the POV tag for some time to come. Ulflarsen 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this latest version suggested by user Addhoc. Need to include 161 countries and UN have not banned the LTTE. Elalan 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro as it stands has now swung towards the GOSL side. The fact that UN and 161 other countries have not proscribed the LTTE needs mention, if the ban in 29 countries is mentioned. Trincomanb 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can not see that it tilts towards the GoSL with this. That an organisation has been banned by 29 countries is rather seriuous and and needs to be said as it tells something vital about that organisation (Hezbollah for example has not been banned by half that number). And to make a counterweight by adding all the countries in the world does not make much sense, everyone knows there are some 200 countries in the world. Ulflarsen 06:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I quite frankly don't think everyone knows there are some 200 countries in the world. What you are suggesting (that everyone knows something) is speculative in nature and just doesn't cut it. Elalan 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not exactly 200, but I would argue most people with access to internet knows there are quite many, so 29 countries is not all countries in the world. Besides, it is also mentioned that Sri Lanka itself does not ban the LTTE, which kind of takes a bit of the weight out of the ban. And what countries that has banned LTTE is not listed in the intro. So I think we have reached a rather balanced introduction that I hope all parties can live with - its not perfect, but at the same time that it has limitations it says something vital about LTTE. Ulflarsen 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with this. As far as I am concerned there is no consensus on this. What the Sri Lankan govt. does or doesnt do isnt taken seriously. This isnt a balanced intro, you are merely trying to appeasing the GOSL supporters who are just intent on having coverage of the ban on the intro. THe ban is not central point of relevance, its a side issue and if people want details on in, THEY CAN READ THE ARTICLE. Why did these countries, particularly the EU ban the organization ? That is not mentioned in the intro. Putting so much prominence for bans without giving a balanced picture simply falls in govt. propaganda. The intro may just share your POV, but its hardly neutral and is unacceptable. Elalan 14:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The bans say as much about the countries that banned it as the organization itself. Are you telling me these countries that banned the LTTE have a spotless record ? US was formed out of violence... Elalan 14:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose this to be the best compromise for the intro, that everyone can live with Trincomanb 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization that has been waging a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Supporters of the LTTE refer to them as freedom fighters; however, 29 countries (see List) have listed them as a terrorist organisation. 161 other countries and the UN have not proscribed the LTTE. Sri Lankan government lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002.

The LTTE is headed by its 'reclusive' founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Again, I can not see there are relevant arguments for stating that 161 countries + the UN has not proscribed the LTTE. We try to build Wikipedia on relevant facts - that fact is just not relevant. That the LTTE has been banned is however relevant - if you dont think so ask the LTTE. When you say "What the Sri Lankan govt. does or doesnt do isnt taken seriously" I can only say that such a statement speaks for itself. Regarding that "The bans say as much about the countries that banned it as the organization itself" that is very true, the countries that listed LTTE has a common interest in a peaceful development, in promoting democracy and human rights in Sri Lanka~, and they have placed much effort in this. To have the ban lifted, the LTTE simply must change its behaviour on child recruitment, killing opponents etc. And again, the ban is a serious problem for the LTTE, they know and that is of course why they fight it like they do - so for that reason it should be in the introduction. Ulflarsen 16:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How about

...however, 29 countries (see List) have listed them as a Terrorist organisation. No one else has banned the LTTE....'

Its pretty much as stupid as the current intro, but at least its shorter. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting, Ulflarsen, that you refer to Hezbollah as a comparison, yet on the Hezbollah wikipedia intro, we don't see any mention of proscription/bans. Trincomanb 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What maybe relevant to 'Western' eyes may not be relevant to everyone else. I believe user Ulflarsen raises some contradictions in his analysis. If LTTE is seriously concerned (i.e. it thinks its a serious concern), then it should have in user Ulflarsens' view 'changed its behaviour' after the travel ban by the EU was imposed. Yet it didn't, in fact it is alleged to have intensified attacks on govt. troops. So is the threat of a ban or no ban any concern for the LTTE or does it have other interests to take care of ? The LTTE wasn't formed to ensure it didn't get banned in a whole bunch of countries, its besides the point. The interest of Tamil people, which it claims to represent is at foremost priority, whether one hypocritical western nation has to say or not say is not of primary concern and is definetly not an issue within the conflict. Its not as if EU or the other nations were having close connection with the EU or something before the ban. Child recruitement, killing opponents and suicide attacks (thought not confirmed yet) have now also been conducted by forces aligned to the govt. yet we don't see any tangible action on the part of these donor nations against this except for periodic lip service against the govt.. This observation alone brings into question the intention of some of these outside forces, are they really for peaceful development, promoting democracy and human rights or not ? Many of these same countries promote the opposite cause by proping up many of these oil producing Middle Eastern nations. Only one description of some of these nations...hypocrisy and double standards. After the bans, all of these have worsened and your fellow SLMM head did predict this and warned the EU accordingly. So this was expected and it did happen. With evidence and predictions to the contrary by your fellow members of the SLMM, your argument doesn't have traction. The LTTE obviously didn't want to have their name sullied in the EU but did they go head over heels to try to stop it ? Or did they, do you have tangible,verifiable evidence to share on this ? Trincomanb 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Before being banned by EU demonstrations against that was staged in several EU capitals. After the ban the LTTE banned the EU nations of SLMM. So they obviously care about it. Regarding "What maybe relevant to 'Western' eyes may not be relevant to everyone else", there is Sri Lanka's neighbour, India, the first country to ban LTTE after they murdered Gandhi. India is still very clear on its relations with LTTE - no contact before the ones responsible is being handed over. So the ban by many countries is a fact that tells us something vital about the LTTE, it should be in the intro, and it is not relevant to say that the rest of the world has not banned it. Ulflarsen 09:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Banning the EU monitors from the SLMM would be further antagonizing the EU and reduce any future prospect of lifting the ban. So I am not so sure that shows the LTTE really cared about EU banning them. Does the ban change the fundraising for the LTTE cause amongst the Tamil diaspore in anyway ? Nope. What was done openly would get done underground, if there is popular will amongst the community to wholeheartedly help the cause. India has opened up contacts with the LTTE contrary to what your are saying. They are atleast in touch with Anton Balasingham. This is well documented. The ban by a few countries with a sizable diaspora Tamil population through endless lobbying by the Sri Lankan government says something (sure). Yet the fact that a majority of the UN members and the UN not banning the LTTE also says something as opposed to an organization such as Al Qaeda. This is vital and significant. LTTE has used a whole lot of other countries in the region as its logistics, procurements bases (of which none are on the banned list). The fact that majority of the world has not banned the LTTE helps keep the organization alive. As a comparison, Hezbollah's wikipedia article doesn't have any references to ban or proscriptions yet you seem to be ignoring this. Trincomanb 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, when you say "29" countries have listed, it implies other countires have not. This is simple English. This has been said over and over. Are you trying to teach readers of this article about the composition of the countries? Supermod 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It has to be clarified and stated so. Elalan 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment. When you say 29 cpuntries have proscribed, it means only 29 countries have proscribed and not other countries. This is English. Supermod 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with user Supermod, it is not necessary to say that so-and-so many countries has not proscribed LTTE, do remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox [2]. Ulflarsen 06:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do wish user Ulflarsen could answer the questions posed at him rather than trying to ignore it and throw irrelevant technicalities at people. You should be trying to convince others through your arguments. I do genuinely mean that. So far I have not been convinced. For the points that you have, raised I have raised counter-points. Organization simillar to the LTTE such as Hezbollah, doesn't have any reference to proscriptions in the intro. Hence by not having any reference to proscriptions doesn't set any precedent. However if you think Al Qaeda is a better comparison, the fact that the UN and a majority of the UN general assembly have not banned the organization needs to be stated, unlike Al Qaeda which has received universal condemnation. I do wish you have answers or counter-points to what I have what raised rather than trying to ignore it. The fact of the matter is Hezbollah's article intro has no bans and proscriptions, the fact that LTTE operates logistically outside of the banned 29 countries was always known, the fact there is a sizable Tamil diaspore population in all of the banned entities and contrary to what the user mentioned, the fact that India does maintain contact with the LTTE although officially its still a banned entity. The fact that UN and a majority of the countries in the UN general assembly is signficant, as opposed to an organization such as Al Qaeda. The introduction has to be very clear, and can't have hand waving sentence, hence on the ban issue it has to be explicitly stated. Trincomanb 13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this intro as an alternate compromise. I think failure to agree on this will expose people's alternate agendas here. Elalan 14:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC):

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organisation that has been waging a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Supporters of the LTTE refer to them as freedom fighters; however 29 of the 192 countries (see list) have labeled them as a terrorist organisation. The UN has not proscribed the LTTE. The Sri Lankan government lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002.

The LTTE is headed by its 'reclusive' founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

I am agreeable to this version and I have comprised I think. Let see what creative ways these GOSL supporters will come up with now to try to this shoot this down. :-) Trincomanb 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about this variation:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organization that has been waging a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Supporters of the LTTE refer to them as freedom fighters; however, 29 countries have listed them as a terrorist organisation. Sri Lanka lifted their ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002. The LTTE is headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Would this be acceptable? Addhoc 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the latest version use Addhoc is proposing. The fact of the matter is user Addhoc has jumped the gun and hasn't waited for anybody to respond to what Elalan has proposed. This is clearly another unwanted obstruction to this whole process. What Addhoc has rehashed is pretty much the original intro that is being forced on us. The fact that 161 countries, Sri Lanka and UN have not banned LTTE has to be conveyed in the intro, if the ban issue is raised (for completeness) and Elalan has conveyed a comprimise statement. Hezbollahs intro doesn't have bans/proscriptions/terrorist organization listing in its intro. I clearly don't see why it should be there in this intro. NO one from the GOSL supporters to so called NEUTRALS have justified this. They are dead silent because my presumption is they don't have a proper justification or reasoning. I am still waiting on this. Trincomanb 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think user Addhoc have a good version and I support that. Regarding the comments from user TrincomanB, I have repeatedly answered and commented on his postings. Regarding the comment of his that "Let see what creative ways these GOSL supporters will come up with now to try to this shoot this down. :-)" I suggest he read one of the main pillars of how to behave here, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I am not a supporter of GoSL and anyone checking my edits and postings here should find out so very easily. Last but not least, regarding alledged contacts between LTTE and India. The reason for Norway mediating is that India can not do it herself, if your statement had any value there would be no need for the Indian government to use the cumbersome way around Oslo to reach LTTE. Ulflarsen 17:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User Ulflarsen if you read carefuly I am not refering to you. But if you take it personally, I don't know what to say... I am certainly apologetic if you feel hurt by this comment. I am merely being skeptical of the conduct of mostly anonymous users (right fully so) of those who give one token remark or no remarks at all and keep voting with their feet one way or another and in a joking fashion... Whether someone is called a GOSL supporter or a LTTE supporter I am not sure that is considered offensive. You maybe taking this a bit too seriously and reading between the lines. Everyone does that from time to time and certainly I am guilty of that as well. I really would suggest you take a break and rejoin this debate at a later time. Trincomanb 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for direct contact between India and the LTTE [3]. This was done through India's PMs office. Trincomanb 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Attacks on Civilians

The version relating to this which was there for couple of months has been totally rubbished by some users and made a joke

I am pointing out teh faults here

The Sri Lankan government has accused the LTTE of targeting non-military and government targets including the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, the Dehiwala train[24] and the Central Bank in Colombo.

Not only the Sri Lankan government , the entire world has pinned this on LTTE Ruchiraw 09:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

These civilian deaths were mainly due to collateral damage and it was not LTTE policy to target civilians.

Explain to me how detonating 4 bombs on Dehiwela train filled with commuters is collateral damage. Ditto for truck bombing Central Bank Ruchiraw 09:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any citations or details on the Dehiwela train bomb. For the Central Bank, the target was the bank records within the building, not the civillians within the bank. The US and NATO have targetted telelphone exchanges, television stations, banks etc. Central Bank is a valid government target. Elalan 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan government alleges LTTE attacks have been directed against purely civilian targets such as farming villages, trains, temples, mosques and banks, resulting in large numbers civilian deaths.

Not only the Sri Lankan government , the entire world has pinned this on LTTE Ruchiraw 09:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the latest SLMM ruling merely gives high probability the LTTE did it, but it doesn't pin it down on the LTTE. No one has proof at the moment. Most of the world doesn't care. It just merely some busy bodies... Elalan 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In many of these instances, the details remain sketchy and unverifiable and the culprits have not been identified and prosecuted due to the failure of the Sri Lankan police and judiciary.

in the central bank , the culprits were splattered all over the building Ruchiraw 09:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Were you there at the Central Bank blast ? Was there a proper investigation by the government, did they manage investigate and find out the suspect who carried out the bombing ? The answer is a no. The fact of the matter is the Sri Lankan judiciary and police forces are incompetent. You don't pin a blame on an organization, the minute after it has occured. You do a proper investigation. Elalan 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The militarization of society, general lawlessness and the operation of multiple paramilitary organizations have made the situation complicated.

Whats complicated , the entire world holds the LTTE responsible for these attacks including the teh Kebitigollewa attack now . Its only the LTTE which denies it.Ruchiraw 09:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the latest SLMM ruling merely gives high probability the LTTE did it, but it doesn't pin it down on the LTTE. As for the claymore attacks carried out against Tamil civillians, they are very sure the Sri Lankan Government forces did it, because a couple of them got caught alive and were interviewed by the SLMM, the rest were caught with their pants down...dead! Elalan 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed:

Terrorist – LTTE is not even proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Sri Lanka

How ever most of Tamils live and work in Southern Sri Lanka among the majority Sinhalese – This is based on 2001 census that excluded more than 90% of north-east province. Who ever made this statement should check government demography statistics, and also take some basic lessons in reading statistics.

Tactics- If we include specific bombings, then we should also include every major military offensive, peace effort, every ethnic riot and anti-Tamil policy. I think someone is forgetting the point that this is an introduction. Again a basic lesson on article writing may prove to be useful.

Pacist- Now we are getting childish. Wikipedia is not, SLBC. Perhaps someone should add that to ‘what Wikipedia is not’ section. --Lankaupdate 16:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This user Tamiland is quite the joker! I suspect he/she is a sockpuppet of somebody else within the GOSL side. The reason is because this person never answers any comments left on his talk page and remains quiet and starts throwing in these wild intro when something erupts between the two sides. This user is constantly watching these events and hence The intention is to create disruption here. Elalan 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed from intro (which only has a terrorist list devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and therefore does not have the mandate to ban any other group)

The only citation provided is that to a speculative news article on a webpage belonging to an Australian newspaper.

I think we should stick to Addhoc’s version for the time being. --Lankaupdate 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice board

Everyone note that there is now a Sri Lanka notice board to list Sri Lanka-related article people want created, expanded, or improved. Please make good use of it. Tyronen 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately even Addhoc hasn't got his facts straight. It takes both sides of the story to truly make this article a fair, just version of the situation. However, he seems to have written this article on a negative bias towarad the LTTE. For instance, it was not percieved discrimintaion by the singhalese government which started this war, but it actually was discrimination against the tamils that led to this war. Tamils needed higher marks to get admitted into universities that singhalese students, etc. Also note, Jaffna was attacked mercilessly by the Sri Lankan Army in the name of a "War for peace." However, this fact and many more that can be found in true scholors such as works by S.J. Emanaual about this conflict. I strongly recomend Addhoc to get a deeper perception and understanding about this issue and i hope that he re writes this article accordingly.

In case someone blames me for editing other people's comments. I have just inserted a space above the comments of this anonymous user so that it is formatted properly. Elalan 03:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tamilnet

I do wish to raise this particular edit made within the last day.

1. (cur) (last) 15:11, 7 September 2006 Snowolfd4 (Talk | contribs) (→Recent events - TamilNet is not WP:RS)

Reference to 51 school children killed in bombing by from Sri Lankan airforce was deleted because, according to another editor Tamilnet was cited. The dubious justification used is that Tamilnet is not WP:RS. Tamilnet has been cited to be authoratative numerous times by other sources. Yet the same user seems to insist that the Defence Ministry of Sri Lanka is a valid source. Sri Lankas censorships laws are being imposed on Wikipedia articles as far as I see it. How can a user claim it doesn't meet WP:RS ? Atleast why couldn't citation flag be used or the issue raised on the talk page first ? This has not been done. These deletes were purely political. There just seems to be a determined effort to white wash all the government atrocities and in turn pin it on the LTTE. When references from any Tamil owned website is used, we here cock and bull stories, of how its part of the LTTE, this or that. Often times its hearsay. Its easy to accuse or allege something. Hence this article has more allegations,counter allegations, rumours, innuendo than anything else. Hence by repeteadly doing this, a subjective means has been used to censor out many Tamil owned news sources. Even where neutral sources have indicated one party was responsible, we still have places in the article where there is just a lot of govt. coverage on the issue. Elalan 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion neither Tamilnet or the various GoSL sites are credible source by themselves. Not that we should avoid them completely (as Tamilnet has a lot of information), but it should be used with caution - and other outside sources, like BBC is usually better. Ulflarsen 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble trying to equate Tamilnet and government defence ministry sites on the same playing field. Have you found Tamilnet putting out factually incorrect statements intentionally (ie in the form propaganda)? Is it a reliable in terms of the information thats put out ? If it has put out factually incorrect statements, do you have any specific examples. In some cases, Tamilnet does use unamed sources (that can not be verified) for obvious reason, but the same has been done by the other wire services as well (Reuters, AP,AFP). Tamilnet editorial does sympathise with the LTTE, but that is an independent issue of whether its reliable source of information or not. The problem is the BBC has limited coverage and most of its journalist are based in Colombo. The last one, Nimalarajan who was in Jaffna was shot and killed allegedly by the EPDP. Elalan 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tamilnet is reliable? Are you kidding?

How about when they reported that LTTE aircraft attacked the SL military before it even was supposed to have happened? [4]

Or when the bodies of people who died "after shelling by the Army" were photographed even before the "shelling" happened [5][6].

Are Tamilnet editors capable of travelling thru time?

If not, please don't waste everyones time. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have taken one possible explanation and run with it. There are alternate explanations to what you see and you don't seem to consider them. I think that speaks volumes of credibility of the defence department site and of those who think the analysis is credible. Both of the sources you have referenced do have a motive/'axe to grind' against 'Tamilnet' or for that matter anything Tamil . Nevertheless getting to the point, the article from Tamilnet you seem to refer to didn't say the attack "started at 9:30" as the govt. site mentions. Instead it specifically mentions "at around 9:30." If it was based on Sri Lankan standard time, its 6 hours GMT and hence this news could well have been reported within a very short time after the event happened. Nevertheless it is also not impossible fathom that the posted time was incorrect. This was essentially a wire news article and would not have taken much time to prepare after the event occured. A innocent mistake on the posted time doesn't necessarily damage the credibility of the 'contents of the article.' The photographs with incorrect date stamps also doesn't mean it was 'taken' before the event occured. Many people never bother to set date and time on cameras correctly, hence it is hardly evidence question the credibility of the news content. Elalan 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to timings, I have noted similar mistakes even on AP and Reuters articles.

Anyone who ahs ever used a digital camera would know that the timestamp isn’t always the absolute time the photo was taken.

The wire service that provided the photos had said that the photo was taken by a visiting Canadian photographer who whose camera hadn’t had the time changed from Toronto time to Colombo time.

The thought of Defence Ministry website just gives me laughs. http://www.sibernews.com/the-news/sri-lanka/eight-is-over-a-dozen-%11-free-maths-lessons-anyone?-200608225149/ --Lankaupdate 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Motion for resoluiton on Sri Lanka http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/sipade3?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+P6-RC-2006-0471+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=0&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y and Defence Ministry says resolution was passed with various figs http://defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20060909_05

There are so many incidents like the above, involving Sri Lankan government publications. Attemping to compare GoSL sources with Tamilnet is just nothing more than a joke. --Lankaupdate 10:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The European Parliment resolution on the Defence Ministry website is accurate in this specific instance. What you had referenced was an earlier draft from Sept 6th, the resolution was passed on the 7th. Here is a listing of resolutions and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/public.do?language=en and here is link to the actual resolution http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?Type=TA&Reference=P6-TA-2006-0356&language=EN. from the parliament website. Trincomanb 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless I do agree there have been many glaring instances of credibility problems with government websites that have now been well documented by the international press (including under reporting of SL Army casualties) and playing up LTTE casualties. I would say Tamilnet remains a very credible source of information and as a results it is used by other news agencies regularly and is considered authoritative. The fact of the matter is that there are very few international news organizations on the ground. They do not have first hand account of new events that occur in the North-East. Prof. Uyangoda mentions somewhere that these international reporters rely on Tamilnet news reports instead of going to field, far from all the amininities in Colombo. Tamilnet correspondents are on the ground and so do have better access. It was often joked during CBK regime, that CBK would evade her staff and look at Tamilnet to get a true account of the ground situation. It is also well known that the diplomatic staff also rely on Tamilnet to get an account of a ground reality in the North-East. Most of the international press get info from the SL Army spokesman directly for their side of the story and not on government websites. I should emphasize the target audience of each of these is different and hence claims get to be wilder on the government websites. The target audience for the government sides are the nationalist leaning Sinhala elite. So based on all this, Tamilnet and the government websites cannot be considered on a level playing field, unless if we are going to be setting *new lower standards* for this article. Trincomanb 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, why would anyone want to gun down the editor of Tamilnet D. Sivaram (Taraki) ? If the website was spewing false news and is a farce, would anyone care to read Tamilnet ? Taraki was killed because he was bringing credible news to the outside world over and under Sri Lanka's press censorships laws. During "War for Peace" press censorship was openly imposed. Now its much more subtle, with call for meeting between the President and the executives of news companies in Colombo. What for, to have tea and exchange niceties ? It is an intimidation tactic documented by many independent journalists. RSF and IFJ have also repeteadly documented this. In fact I think, there needs to be a very clear disclaimer that mentions the situation under which the press operates in Sri Lanka and is by no means free nor fair for the current events section, particularly when we rely on press for citations. Trincomanb 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

UN List

I'm not going to get into other details of this article, I've given up it's to hotly debated

But that line 'the UN only has a list for groups related to al-queda...' It appears twice in the article and I think it's inapropriate for the opening heading, it adds nothing to the introduction of what the tamil tigers is. --Sharz 03:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, "UN only has a list for groups related to al-queda" is not a policy of the UN. It is a speculation by the Australian local newspaper that is cited. I agree with Sharz, that this line is not suitable for intro, and I would like to add that the speculative line sho0uld beremoved from the article on the whole.--Lankaupdate 09:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the referance, and I think the article flows much better because of it too. Also, I added that Kofi Annan requested, but was denied a visit to Tamil Tiger controlled areas. --Sharz 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the mention of Al Qaeda and Taliban is unnecessary in the intro. To keep it as simple as possible, the UN has not banned the LTTE is sufficient. Elalan 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Extortion

I think it is important to note that Jo Becker came under sever criticism after she filed the HRW report, which was instrumental in the LTTE proscription in Canada. Many accused that she was a new inexperienced analyst and used a very small "data set" to conclude her findings. Most of these were apparantly anti-LTTEers. Although many claim that these statements came from pro-LTTEers, I believe this is a point worth researching further, particularly because the recent events in Sri Lanka has shown evidence that the LTTE has large support from the Tamil diaspora who protested against the GOSL and in favor of LTTE. It is also interesting to note that in a recent PBS interview (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2006/nomoretears/special_hrw.html) Jo Becker seems to have altered her views sligtly saying:In the 1990s, some experts estimated that 90 percent of the Tamil Tigers' military budget came from overseas sources, including the Tamil community. Many Tamils willingly give financial contributions to the Tamil Tigers and actively support their struggle. However, other Tamils are subject to intimidation and harassment, and [are] told that if they do not give money, they may not be able to return to Sri Lanka to visit their families.. - Anonymous, 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

HRW was forced to clarify some of its statements. It was forced to admit that report was of a 'qualitative nature' rather than of a 'quantitative nature', hence it was not a statistical study. HRW couldn't say whether this extortion was widespread. Extortion is a criminal offence in many countries and so charges could be laid. However there were no complaints made nor charge laid by the police in these respective countries even in followup to this report. The lack of followup by police does make the report look suspect. If there isn't evidence to lay charges, then is the evidence worthwhile ? Also Sri Lankan FM knew of the report 1 week or so prior to being released. There was also a report that mentioned somewhere that an ENDLF cadre had given evidence to the HRW report and that he was later arrested in Switzerland during the Geneva conference for past history of drug smuggling. I was planning on doing a followup on this Trincomanb 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Should we request unprotection yet? Addhoc 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I say let things cool down a bit. Otherwise it'll be back to edit wars again. I think there really is no need for any major edits on this page so leave it as it is for a while. If there is, anyone can contact an admin and get it done.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm kinda agree with snowolfd4. We should let things cool down. Lahiru_k 02:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text hereHello, I want to express this. May be this is there original logo. But better to use earlier one. could u please let me know how we will add article related this site?</nowiki>

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but if you want to make a change to this page, follow the instructions given in the box right on top of the main article. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

LTTE

i came hear to read about LTTE, not one mans point of view there's no denying the fact its been classed as terrorist Organization so to HAMAS. Document does not have LTTE's command structures, division within LTTE, This doument does not tell me any other then which i know, i would like to findout more about the Organization, then the authors point of view.