Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10

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

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

message: Editing suggestion in the introduction:
current: independent Tamil state in the north (state) is hyperlinked to another article
correct: make "Tamil state" be the blue hyperlinked text.
explanation: the linked article is not the article for "state", which would be a generic article defining what a "state" is. It is indeed an article about the "Tamil state". So please fix the link reference so that "Tamil state" is the blue highlighted and clickable link.
Pardon my ignorance of html, but not of logic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.116.205 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LTTE is terrorist organisation. Resisting LTTE is Sri Lanka's war on terror. How will you like it if I was to go to Al Qaeda article and call them a "resistance movement". Three of my friend were injured in a bombing by your "representative of the Tamil people" and another killed. Do you understand that? Ismailmk (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Your representative claims that it wasn't here. Wiki Raja (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI AGAIN! First, President says there is the possibility of other Tamil groups being involved. It is still most likely that LTTE were responsible. Second - I did not vote for that party. Third - I support the Tamil nationalist movement just not through violence. Fourth - my own wife is Tamil. Wiki Raja you are American Tamil and I don't think it is fair that you sit at your computer in a country in thousands of miles around the world telling me and the Sri Lankan and Tamil people that the group who has murdered their countrymen is legitimate. --Ismailmk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: First, can you or anyone show proof of accusation? Second, you are entitled to your opinions. Third, you can do what ever you want. Fourth, the former head of Tamileelam police is married to a Sinhalese, does that make him pro-government? Lastly, please refrain from stereotyping me. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ismail, are you in distress because of the death of your friends? Well I am sorry to hear. I am also distressed about the SLA terrorist vandura running around raping my sisters, kidnapping and killing my brothers, occupying my family members houses. Killing the young ones. If you want to hate LTTE for what they do to civilians, then you must hate the SLA/SLN/SLAF vandura too ! I hope there is peace to Srilanka through the liberation of Tamil Eelam. You should too !!!Watchdogb (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW is your wife the daughter of Douglas or Karuna ? Watchdogb (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: In mid-January all categories were removed from the article. Has nobody noticed? __meco (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category purge 

message: Would it be ok to make a link to Tamil Eelam since that is what they are trying to create ? --Barryob  (Contribs) (Talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course! Watchdogb (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  into 

message: I am proposing to remove some parts of the Child Soldier section. I am proposing the removal of several sentences and remove old material. For example, there are claim on the how many Child soldier LTTE had in 2001 and many claims from the past. However, it is clear that LTTE has reduced it's child recruits drastically since then. I , therefore, propose we change the current revision to the following : 
 The LTTE has recruited and used Child Soldiers in it's fight against the Sri Lankan Army. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001.Outrage over child soldiers in Sri Lanka. However, since 2007 LTTE has pleaded that it will release all of the recruits under the age of 18 before the end of the year. As a result, on 18 June 2007, the LTTE released 135 children under the age of 18. UNICEF claims that only 506 child recruits remain under the LTTE. UNICEF and the United States note that there has been a significant drop in LTTE recruitment of children Sri Lanka: Amnesty International urges LTTE to live up to its pledge to end child recruitment | Amnesty International. Furthermore, a report released by the LTTE's Child Protection Authority (CPA) in 2008 reported that only less than 40 child soldiers, under the age of 18, still remain in their forces. LTTE PS: Status of UNICEF database on underage LTTE members
The LTTE argues that instances of child recruitment occurred mostly in the east, under the purview of former LTTE regional commander Colonel Karuna. After leaving the LTTE and forming the TMVP, it is alleged Karuna continues to forcibly kidnap and induct child soldiers. Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens. It says that its official policy is now that it will not accept child soldiers. It also says that some underage youth lie about their age and are therefore allowed to join, but are sent back home to their parents as soon as they are discovered to be underage. 
I feel that having extended coverage of the past on this matter is not WP:NPOV. This is because the LTTE has decided to stop the inclusion of Children in it's rank and therefore we need to focus on the current situation rather than the past. However, I did include some facts from the past so that the reader can get the necessary insight into this matter. Watchdogb (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Soldier section 

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

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

message: The current section called Assassination lists victims of assignations that are attributed to LTTE. I am proposing to shorten this section substantially and mention the following: 
  The LTTE has been accused by various groups for assassination of political opponents and military opponents. The victims include both Tamil moderates, Tamil paramilitary groups and Sinhalese people. Most notably the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and Ranasinghe Premadasa who were the heads of India and Sri Lanka respectively. 
The reason for this action is that these assassinations are covered in three places already. 1) The article of the assassinated people 2) List of Attacks attributed to LTTE  3)Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Since these three article already mention who the assassins are, or at least the attributed assassins, it becomes redundant and repetitive. Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination 

message: Three arrests in the UK --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7372883.stm. (Hypnosadist) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This again is an arrest on suspicion. Furthermore, they are being interrogated. I believe that it would be better if we allow some time to see what develops of this story. Watchdogb (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If this turns into something concrete or high-profile, it can be included in the article; until then, it's probably not significant enough to merit mention. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrests in the UK 

message: Human smuggling has ben conducted by the Tamil Tigers for many long years. It is in my belief not t erase the section of human smuggling. As watch dog claims that there are no facts in to the subject of human smuggling done by the Tamil Tigers I am sorry to say there is much & enough proof that he Tigers profit in these smuggling. This has been a very resourceful way of gathering funds to fight against the Sri lankan forces. So I insist not to tamper on clear proof and fact for the benefit of the Tigers.  --Slcommandor (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a serious claim, and we need reliable sources to include something like this in the article. I think Watchdogb's comments are valid here. The intention here is to preserve NPOV rather than whitewashing the LTTE. From an outsider's point of view who doesn't know anything about the Sri Lankan conflict or LTTE, he wouldn't know if this is true or not. We can't ask readers to come to logical conclusions like "LTTE needs money for war, and they get money from human smuggling", we have to provide sources that can verify this. Wikipedia is not a place to make accusations or allegations, and that's what it would look like if it was included. Your points are no doubt true (in fact I share your belief), but we can't include what we think in Wikipedia. I think if this is to be included it should be backed by reliable sources, or it shouldn't be included at all. Chamal  Talk 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Human smuggling" Section 

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

message: It's obvious that the LTTE must be receiving massive amounts of aid -weapons and money- from outside sources, but I have been unable to find out from who. As far as I can tell the resources flow from India, but one person I talked to said it's not "official" covert support from the central indian government, but rather donations from wealthy individial tamils in India (and possibly from the local government of Tamil Nadu). Can anyone shed light on this, and why, if so, India have not tried to stop this flow? The Man On The Street (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Sinhala Buddhists allege it is Christian groups (its a fact that most of the leaders are Christian, and Sinhala claim Christians have been far less affected than Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists). Tamils claim their own diaspora supports them (and there is evidence to show that Tamil smuggling and enterprises are worth billions of dollars. That's what I've heard.Pectoretalk 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who supports the LTTE? 

message: The administration section has been faced with some removed of cited material. This is clearly against wikipedia rules and further against the rule established by SLDR. So do not remove cited material from this section. At the same time it is understandable that editors might want to remove the section because with the fall of the administrative capital most of the de-facto administration has been dismantled. The point here is that while the administrative entities might not exist today it does not mean that it never existed or that it will never be reestablished. I revered the removal and added that the administration has been dismantled. Watchdogb (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also do not remove the "runs a defacto..." part in the infobox. This is clearly against SLDR because it is removal of a cited material. If you can give some RS that clearly state that they do not run a defacto state any more, then please present it. Bringing source that claim that their administrative entities have been dismantled does not cut it. There is difference between running a de facto state and running administrative entities. Running a de facto state could be, as said by many RS sources, as simple as directing the civilians. There has not been a single RS that claims that all of the LTTE entities have collapsed - by all I mean things such as the LTTE police force and ect. So unless there is a reference that claims that the LTTE does not run a defacto state, then you cannot remove this information without violating SLDR. Watchdogb (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: I have reverted part of these edits that were saying that LTTE has not attacked civilians. The LTTE has attacked civilian buses, how can anyone say they have not attacked civilians? Anyway, I have added some info with the best sources I could find. I have tried to keep it neutral, but since the part is only about the attacks, there isn't much to be done there. If anyone can improve it, they will be welcome. Please discuss here before adding any more unsourced information. Cheers. Chamal talk 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct. The LTTE would not be considered a terrorist group had they not substantially attacked civilians. We must stay vigilant against unsourced or biased information on both sides.Pectoretalk 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks on civilians 

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

message: Due to the Sri Lanka Army continuous march to northern LTTE stronghold the situation of northern Sri Lanka completely changed. Army gain control over LTTE administrative capital and all other important townships. Although LTTE still control small land strip of length 40km that part of the island largely covered by jungle.
So at the moment LTTE is not being able to run its any civil administration activity. So, I suggest removing or editing the information what are not match with the current situation. 
Otherwise the readers can be misguided. 
It can be affect to the reputation of the WIKIPEDIA. 
Due to the successful SLDF offensive and due to the high alert of SLN and SLAF, LTTE sea and air branched are not possess a state to functional. So, I want to remove or edit that part of the page too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameera Dayasekara (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up here. I think completely deleting would not be appropriate, even if the LTTE were overthrown completely, as it still would have historical value. Therefore, the content may need to be revised accordingly. That requires a bit more work. For now, I will post a template on top of that section to alert readers and editors of that situation. — Sebastian 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of LTTE 

message: It looks like the reader will be misguided by the wording used under this paragraph.
I propose to use the wording of the sea tiger main article with out changes.
" Over the years the Sea Tigers have sunk at least 29 Sri Lankan small inshore patrol boats "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameera Dayasekara (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the two could probably profit from the other. At first glance, I don't think we should toss out the 35-50% estimate; it is quoted in the Observer Research Foundation's publication http://www.tamilnation.org/intframe/india/0609observer.pdf as "A recent publication of the Woodrow Wilson School of Politics and International Studies reckons that the ‘Sea Tigers’ have destroyed 35 to 50 per cent of the Sri Lankan Navy’s coastal craft." I haven't searched for that publication, but I don't have a reason to distrust ORF, and I presume the school is the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, I think is a reliable source. — Sebastian 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A publication from Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs is reliable and so the sentence should remain. Furthermore, since both sources are reliable there is no need for the sentence to be an explicitly attributed either. Watchdogb (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sea tigers 

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

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

message: Could somebody provide a romanization of "தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகள்" (that is writing "தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகள்" in the Latin alphabet)? moocowsruletalk to moo 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanization of "தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகள்"? 

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

message: Jenvey's articles are published mostly in Asian Tribune articles, but also in Global Politician (unclassed in the Project's list of sources). The Asian Tribune is classed QS, and while not a reliable source, none-the-less a source to be considered when supported by other resources. Given that anyone who passionately criticizes either side in the dispute will immediately draw counter-fire, it's not surprising that Jenvey has vocal critics. However, before applying a blanket condemnation every statement by Jenvey, the Project should first reach consensus on that decision. Meanwhile, Jenvey's material should stand on its own depending on other credible sources. 
As an example, I believe the Project's consensus is that the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense is a qualified QS. However, if the information cited is troop movements, etc., there is probably no better source. As one of the combatants, the Ministry is likely to "spin" in the government's favor. Information from the Ministry needs to be tested for credibility against other sources. But can the Project, in fairness, ignore the Sri Lankan government — or the LTTE? I ask for consensus before blanket condemnation of Jenvey. --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles by Jenvey 

message: I have restored the article to an earlier version, since there seems to be a lot of biased content added afterwards. Rather than discussing first about the changes, I thought it would be best to be bold and revert, since the article content had become so obviously biased against the LTTE that it would be a major violation of WP:NPOV and would also give a bad impression about Wikipedia's neutrality to anyone reading it. Also, some sourced information had been removed, and some unsourced information also added. Please note that articles should be verifiable and it is best to discuss the removal of sourced content before doing it. If any of the information needs to be re-added to the article, please back them up with reliable sources and please discuss any major changes here before making them. Chamal talk 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of reverts on 06:55, 15 February 2009 

message: what is this organization? Is it notable? I get 377 google hits for it (with " "), most of which are lobbywatch sites. They do not appear to have a website of their own, nor does anybody really seem to care about their political views. Unless other evidence is brought along, I think we can remove their opinions because they are not notable. (I have more google hits than they, and my opinions are definitely not notable) Jasy jatere (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Westminster Journal article is cited a lot! The journal article mentions the Maritime Intelligence Group. We're relying on the credibility of the Journal and the author of the article, Dominic Whiteman, for the accuracy of these statements. News items as references are always tricky, eh? --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  the westminsterjournal (which I have finally managed to access) cannot be relied on for its credibility, this is the point. No history of fact-checking, no reputation. As for the credentials of Dominic Whiteman, refer to his page here. I think what he says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is not sufficient for WP:V that Mr Whiteman cites reports of organizations whose existence is solely known to him. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Maritime Intelligence Group," 

message: This seems to be a one-man-show. 
"Reference is made to an article in The Sunday Times on Sunday 15 April 2007 concerning totally unfounded claims that Norway was supporting terrorism by a Norwegian who calls himself Norwegians Against Terrorism."
As such, it seems that it is not notable.  Falk Rovik was a former board member of AI Oslo chapter . Not sure whether this is enought to warrant inclusion of his opinion. 
Unless more evidence for the notability of the person or the organization can be found, I think their opinions are not notable and can be deletedJasy jatere (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about Norwegians Against Terrorism comes from a Westminster Journal article. The Journal article mentions Rovik as one source of information. The paragraph also cites Interpol, a police investigation, and similar problems in the UK. Rovik isn't the sole source of information, but he's conveniently named at the start of the paragraph, so I suspect an editor triggered on him. --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot access the westminsterjournal article, and I am not sure whether it meets RS. I have asked for an assessment on WP:SLR talk. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't? I just did… twice. Here's a direct link: The Ltte Siding With The Enemy. And yes, the Journal needs an assessment. I have others for assessment. I'll add to your WP:SLR talk item if that's easy for you. --Mtd2006 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegians against terrorism 

message: What level of support, as a percentage, does the LTTE draw from the people in the contested area(s)?
What sort of government would one expect the LTTE to establish if they achieved independence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.142 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from the acticle? 

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

message: Can the editing restrictions banner be moved to an editnotice? What does it serve non-editing readers or editors looking for something to do?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion. I'll bring this up at WT:SLR. We'll see what others think. Chamal talk 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do readers ''really'' need to see the banner 

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

message: These articles might be of relevance to the topic: 
*Without India's support defeating terrorism would not be easy, Sri Lanka government says
*India played major role in bringing down terrorism: Sri Lanka
--128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of India in anti-terrorism activities 

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

message: there are many partisan sources being used in this article, neither pro rebel or anti rebel sources should be used in wikipedia, Please deal with this, I'll do what I can but we need better more reliable sources. --Alex Kolsov (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see here for the reasons for using these sources where appropriate. And please do not remove properly sourced information as you did here. The information you removed were not using partisan sources. Please discuss at WT:SLR if you think changes are necessary about the sources. Chamal talk 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan Sources 

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

message: The page said this:
:The LTTE has carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined.
with a reference dated to 2002.  There have been a lot of suicide bombings carried out since 2002 by Hamas in Israel and al-Qaeda in Iraq, and I suspect this statistic is no longer true, so I changed it as follows:
:As of 2002, the LTTE had carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined (although this may no longer be true).
Benwing (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of suicide bombings? 

message: I have gone through the main article. There are many problems with this article, even if one views it from a pure scholarly viewpoint. Naturally, I am inclined towards the protagonists. Yet, I will try to talk from a neutral perspective for the sake of discussing the article.
1. The description as a ‘militant organization’. That is not the way to describe an organisation with a very well defined agenda. That agenda is ‘freedom from Sinhala domination and a nation for the North Ceylon Tamils’. So the description should be that of a freedom fighting organisation. Words have power; wrong words give negative feelings.
2. ‘waged a violent secessionist campaign’. This should be changed as ‘They have been fighting for their nationhood with the Sri Lankan armed forces’ ----. 
3. ‘proscribed as a terrorist organization’ and the list of nation who did the proscribing. Well, most of the nations who did the proscribing were not well informed, and were susceptible to propaganda. However, the proscribing is a fact, and the line in itself cannot be disputed. However, the word terrorist organization is very effective in conveying a negative aura about the organisation. It should have been used in a more refined and sensitive manner, for it affects the readers very much. 
4. ‘well-developed militia cadre’. Well, why not the words ‘a very efficient army’? Most Asian armies have only cosmetic depth connection in quality to an English army, and are more or less very brutish, and have no sense about human rights or about lending protection to captured females. If Sri Lankan armed forces can be defined as army, why not give the same categorisation to the Tamil armed forces? Why should Wikipedia stand out to discriminate between the groups? 
5. ‘notorious for committing atrocities against civilians’. It is a most childish statement. The word notorious is very much partisan, and a propaganda tool, and Wikipedia should not condone its misuse. As to ‘committing atrocities against civilians’ only nitwits would believe wars should be fought only between armed forces on pre-arranged agenda, program and protocol, as is said to have been done in the Mahabharatha war of the Indian fables. Wars are between nations, and not a game of display of prowess and finesse between the rival armed forces. When there is a war, civilians do get hurt, and when a nation does a wrong, the civilians do bear a moral responsibility of the sins. Any nations’ civilians are loyal to their own nation, and so the enemies would hurt such persons who stand in strategic positions. Saying that the LTTE is ‘notorious for committing atrocities against civilians’ is showing some sort of dubious mental capacity that can sense only one side of the atrocities and the other side simply goes undetected. 
6. ‘assassinations of several high-ranking Sri Lankan and Indian politicians’. Naturally, if Britain could have killed Hitler with a knife, dagger, arrow, bomb, shell, rocket, missile, or even a sling, they would have done it. It would have saved them much in terms of human and physical resources. That is what winning a war is about. Sri Lankan leaders are the enemy leaders and naturally, they are standard targets in a war. As to killing Indian politicians, there is always the killing of Rajiv, who was a former (unseated) prime minister of India. Well, as far as the LTTE is concerned, he is the person who senselessly sent the Indian army to kill, plunder and pillage the Tamils; an act, which cannot be understood, by any sensible person. For, Indian army is not for hurting Tamils, who are not traditionally enemies of India. But then killing Rajiv was a terrible mistake, for the event was very forcefully used to portray the LTTE as a terrorist organisation by the Sri Lankans. Yet, it remains to be said that in years to come Rajiv will be judged as a perpetrator of atrocities on human beings, and a war criminal. Beyond that, there is the continuing accusation of the Bofor Case scandal, wherein he is accused of having siphoned off millions of dollars as arms deal commission. The case still drags on in the Indian courts. So, to portray Rajiv as a saint is not a correct thing. 
7. ‘recruiting child soldiers’. Well, there is no doubt that this would be true. However, remember that the Tamil nation in North Ceylon had been a nation under siege for around 25 years. What happens in a fort under siege should not be judged with the same scale used to judge a place with all freedoms. For example, it is known that when a fort or place is under siege, people have eaten rats, and even human meat. It is a very desperate situation, and desperate situations demand drastic remedies. 
Even nations resort to conscription and compulsory military service; I am sure even Israel does it.  As far as the Tamil nation is considered, it is a life and death situation. If they live by rules, what do they get? They will be quartered and their women enslaved. Talk about such humane rules only when the situation is normal. Won’t a British boy not take up arms if brutish enemy raiders are in the offing; or would his parents tell him that it is against the Geneva Convention rules that he defend his place and parents? 
8. ‘LTTE invented the suicide belt and pioneered the use of suicide bombing as a tactic’. This line is used in the sense of an accusation. Well, suicide bombs have been used as a successful weapon of war. So what? Machine guns and AK 47 have been used more successfully and with wider effect. Many of the weapons that US have in its arsenal are of disproportionate strength compared to what other nations are having. Many civilians have died from the use of these weapons by the US. 
Does it mean that US is a terrorist nation? 
The only problem here is that Suicide bombing is a weapon that cannot be easily used by most other nations. So, it causes deep consternation in others. If this can be condemned, then most other weapons of mass destruction can also be equally condemned. 
9. ‘pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks’. In these days of claimed equality to women, this statement is more or less male chauvinistic. As if women can't do what a man can do. 
10. ‘LTTE had carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined.’ This is a most mischievous statement. For a random reader, this statement more or less equates LTTE with all these Islamic organisations, whose agenda have nothing to do with LTTE, but have earned much antipathy all round the world for their deeds. What happens is that automatically a reader connects LTTE with all the terror acts all round the world, including what happened on September 11, some years back on WTO. 
The main difference between the Islamic groups and LTTE is that LTTE is not fighting to dominate others or to make others Tamils. Nor do they derive commitment from their cadre on promises of glorious after-life and paradise. At the same time, the Islamic organisations are believed to promote and force their version of Islam and Islamic ways of life on others, by forceful means, and using terror as a weapon. In this issue, it is the Sri Lankan government that can be equated to the Islamic Terror groups. However, I must say that there are other issues connected to Islamic fanaticism, which cannot be discussed here, for it may mean digression. 
11. Yet, the main problem with the article is that it is very shallow and does not give a hint on the main issue that created the problem. One is the giving of independence to Ceylon by the British. As they did in most nations, linguistic groups which cannot really co-exist other than under a soothing umbrella of English communication were made to come together. Moreover, the imposing of democracy led to strange results in these nations, wherein the majority population more or less subdued the minorities to come under the majority social systems. This has happened even in India, as in the case of imposition of Hindi, and the systematic efforts to remove English from it position of national communication. 
I do not know if I have transgressed the rules here in pointing out the deficiencies in the main article. It is possible that this post may be deleted for violating some rule, even though it is not my aim to do any such mischief. So, I am giving the same post in another location also. External Copy
--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I Think all that stuff you pointed out needs to be reconsidered.  You have my full support in addressing these concerns.  --John harvey125 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Most of your suggestions do not comply with these policies. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with Nishkid's version.  The version which Nishkid is supporting is defamatory against British Tamil Forum.  There is loads of partisan sources being used.  It is also very odd Niskid, the admin would try to re semi-protect the page, when there is no evidence of recent vandalism.  John harvey125 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, the article has been semi-protected since February. I only reprotected the article because the protection log notification you get when you edit the page was a bit confusing (it occurred when an admin undid Grawp pagemove vandalism). Removed the bit about funding; there's absolutely no references for that. I believe the current version still needs to present the LTTE's ideology (with proper references) in the lead to be completely neutral. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

text: I'm talking about the lead alone. I even said myself that the article is not neutral. Did you bother reading my comments? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware you ever said that. However your wrote "I believe the current version still needs to present the LTTE's ideology (with proper references) in the lead to be completely neutral." Nevertheless I shall acknowledge that you now agree that article as a whole is not neutral.  John harvey125 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

message: we need a separate section chronicling the defeat of LTTE at the hand of Sri Lankan Army and associated bloodshed. some references are here, , Wikireader41 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you have turned into a prophet now.  John harvey125 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is all over all credible sources.  only the Blind cant see it !!!!!Wikireader41 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  also need a sub section on causes of LTTEs collapse & defeat.  here is a good reference to get started Wikireader41 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  few more references ,   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  good point Jasy.  however the fall of the 'Capital' of LTTE Killinochi would be considered by many people as defeat of LTTE.  if you use the yardstick that each and every tiger needs to be captured/killed before we call them defeated that probably will never happen. They are still capturing Nazi's in USA 60 years after WW2 got over and Nazi's were officially defeated.  In most wars capturing the enemies capital is considered Defeat.  also that word has been used by several reliable sources.  as far as recentism goes we can summarize the events once GoSL establishes its writ on the little strip of land where LTTE is holed out and last vestiges of resistance are snuffed and civilians rescued.  I dont recall LTTE getting this much press outside SL as it is getting right now. I dont think a new article is required to describe the current events which may well be the Largest Hostage crisis ever seen but maybe I am wrong.  what do you think ? Wikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  the fall of the K should of course be mentioned as a major event. The next major event, (which in my neglectable view will occur very soon), is the loss of the last Tiger-held territory. Those two events do have major implications, which should of course be discussed. I would suggest waiting with the second part until event 2 will actually have occurred, but this is just for reasons of economy. The humanitarian crisis can of course already be covered now, as it is considered with past and present, and only to a smaller extent with the futureJasy jatere (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "pending defeat" maybe a better heading for this section. Even the Sri Lankan government doesn't claim the LTTE is totally defeated. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 18:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jasy and snowolf. i think Mahinda Rajapaksa did not like both of your ideas.  look what he said today Sri Lanka army 'defeats rebels' He obviously does not think that evicting them from every single inch of territory s necessary for declaring them defeated.  Thanks Mahinda Wikireader41 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeat of LTTE 

message: I would also like to propose a section on philanthropic activities of LTTE and would invite editors with extensive knowledge of SL and LTTE to get this section started.  Surely even a designated terrorist organization has done some good.  it will help make this article more NPOV.  only reliable sources please Wikireader41 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any examples you can think of? --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 18:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally cant.  but maybe John or somebody else can.  reading this article almost makes you think you are reading about some terrible terrorist organization !!!! that according to some is not NPOV,  I will change the heading of the defeat section to impending defeat.  we can revert it later if LTTE does indeed get evicted from the tiny strip of land north of mullaitivu.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philanthropic activities of LTTE 

message: Can someone explain why a POV tag has been placed on the article? What sections are disputed etc. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  due to lack of mention of all positive contributions made to humanity by this organization.  Do these guys run orphanages & hospitals?  do they feed and clothe the poor and the infirm? were they ever in the running for nobel peace prize ?  were they ever commended by Mother Teresa or the Pope.  if yes that needs to be mentioned .  if not the neutrality tag can be safely removed IMHO. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah its partisan the whole world unfairly prejudiced against some  Tamils just because they supported LTTE which sent a few suicide bombers and recruited child soldiers.  Newsflash - The world really is not fair. please point out specific issues.  like I said that if there are any specific instances of some good being done by LTTE then it should be mentioned giving due weight. Instead of ranting subjectively please post references from reliable sources of any good that they may have done. Otherwise Neutrality tag needs to go Wikireader41 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  Please be civil .I did not say something had crawled up your bottom and died.  please learn something abut this conflict yourself first before making a comment like this.  my opinion is stated above.  POV tag needs to go unless you can clearly show that LTTE did indeed do things which were good which are not included in the article.  Humanitarian assistance during tsunami is clearly mentioned here.  What is stopping you from bringing info about there other good deeds.  could it be that their are none.  Instead of ranting a better use of your time would be to find good reliable sources that praised LTTE for all their good work and we can add that info to that article.  I think a week is good amount of time to uncover any positive info about LTTE and after that the tag needs to go.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also suggest that you read WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL before commenting on neutrality of this article.  I want to go on record to say that the view that LTTE has ANY redeeming quality seems to be a distinct minority view shared by an exceedingly small percentage of human population.  possibly their are greater number of people who believe that earth is flat and holocaust never happened.  as such this minority view need not be reflected in this article as per WP policy. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are sections that are not neutral, go ahead and mark them with  tags, and point out exactly what is exactly wrong about them. Until then, I'm removing the POV tag from the article. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

text:  Hit edit and see what others are doing!!  can you point out the references which you think are not RS.  I will see if we can replace them with more reliable sources. good to see a US govt website considered RS.  still I hope you get my point about Partisanship.  22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#cite_note-228 this is just one of the sources, I understand your point about the partisan nature of NYT etc, but to this specific article about the LTTE thats very little bias compared to using the governments OWN website (defence.lk) which is highly polarized on this issue. Just as we don't use pro-ltte sources, we shouldn't use anti rebel sites like defence.lk (sometimes its ok like when the particular point isn't disputed like when they captured certain areas etc) and www.asiantribune.com  --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: I don't really understand what that edit summery means, but the fact that as of 2002 the LTTE had carried out more suicide attacks that a number of much better known terrorist organization is definitely noteworthy for the intro. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: probably not any more as of 2009, if they have lost the first place to another organization. Can be mentioned in the body of the article, but 2nd place is not good enough for lede Jasy jatere (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jasy just curious '2nd place is not good enough for lede'.  is this official wikipedia policy/guideline or just your opinion.  if it is a policy/guideline could you point me to it for my education.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: opinion. Could be derived from WP:N and WP:LEAD, I guess. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

text: both of you could profit from reading WP:SARCASM. The comparison with the cricket team is flawed. The raison d'etre of cricket teams is to win championships; the raison d'etre of separatists is not to commit as many suicide attacks as possible. This is a means and not an end. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok maybe the comparison was not the best.  How about any RS saying that any other organization is credited with more suicide bombings than LTTE.  In the absence of that LTTE still has a claim to that Title.  I thought cricket was played for enjoyment and to promote friendship not to 'win championships' which was incidental. Your Reasoning here is completely flawed. You would benefit from reading WP:OR.  stop trying to take away LTTE legitimate claim to be top suicide bombers without quoting any RS.  This title of champion suicide bomber still remans LTTE's main claim to fame since they dont have much else in terms of 'achievement'  even though they pretended all along that they were working for Tamils.  anyway congratulations to Sri Lankan,s  and condolences to LTTE supporters.Wikireader41 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is NO title for Suicide Bombings, You don't celebrate that kind of thing, LTTE don't claim that title. I understand that LTTE don't have much to claim to fame for, aside from being a non-state militant organization that had captured 1/3 a country against a government force more than 10 times its own size, forcing its foe to not only sell its economy billions in debt buying discount chinese weapons but also commit unspeakable warcrimes and human rights violations inorder to defeat them. Aside from being the most well developed non state militant organization in the world, with a real time in medical war system hundreds of times better than the Sri lankan army did, and the only organizations of its kind with a navy and air force. I Guess your opinion of acheivements are different from my own.  --Icemansatriani (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  those are all honest achievements.  Now LTTE has also become Exhibit A that terrorism CAN ( and should IMO ) be defeated by brute military force. GoSL has set a good example for rest of the world including US gov and Govt of pakistan IMHO.  Only other extremist movement I can think of which was defeated by military means ( without any political settlement) was Sikh extremism. Looks like LTTE is in a hurry to renounce violence now that Prabahakaran is gone  Best wishes to a peaceful LTTE in achieving its goals. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  please respect WP:TALK and stay on topic. Also, wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM to exchange views on how to deal with terrorism, or any other political topic. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Relax Jasy.  these points are all related to the LTTE about which this article and Talkpage are.  these issues are being adressed and the 'lessons' of their military defeat and its implications are being disussed by RS now Lessons From the Tiger Defeat, The crushing defeat of the Tamil Tigers proves you CAN beat terror, Lessons of war from Tigers' defeat, Sri Lanka's victory may offer lessons. hopefully all this info will be incorporated into the article soon.  we could have a section or subsection on 'Lessons from Defeat' of LTTE.  Wikireader41 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "removed as of talk page, also, this intro is filled with unnecessary stuff" 

message: I think it's important to remember that even when the Tamil Tigers are defeated as a conventional force and most of their senior leaders are killed, they will still exist as an organization. Therefore it's not appropriate to talk about them in the past tense, o to add end dates to their existence. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 14:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed it to Military DefeatWikireader41 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defeat" of the LTTE 

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

message: The Tigers have been defeated by the Sri Lankan army.  Has the organisation ceased to exist?  I would advocate changing the tense of the article from present to past, as the Liberation Tigers of Tamileelam are now non-existent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.35.40 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources will be needed to prove that it has ceased to exist. --Marianian (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  there will be overseas branches, which are not defeated will not have ceased to exist yet Jasy jatere (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at this article in the New York Times. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It's the correct approach. Just because the government says the LTTE is dead doesn't mean the organization has immediately ceased to exist. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Nishkid64.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icemansatriani (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The government doesn't the LTTE is "over" so lets get our facts straight. They only say the LTTE has been defeated. Big difference. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: we need a section on causes of defeat now that the controversy about defeat is over.  some references are here What led to the LTTE’s defeat?, Tamil Tigers failed to learn from tsunami tragedy Wikireader41 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the hindustan times article is a very readable and clear summary indeed. I think the major causes are mentioned, and the article appears pretty neutral. Most of the analysis finally comes from GoSL foreign secretary. I think that the analysis is not misguided, but a more neutral analyst would probably be preferable. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: the globe and mail article on the other hand is a rant. I am not saying that the writer is not right in his depiction of the appalling facts he saw, but overall the article is much too emotional to be used as a source. It relies heavily on emotional vocabulary, and its political analysis (is there any at all?) is much more shallow and inferior to the hindustan times article.  It seems to me that the author is completely terrified by what he saw and cannot arrive at the abstract level of political analysis anymore. If the writer wants to speak about the tsunami, he should  also talk about the administration of relief funds (I think that was related to ISGA in some way found it, it is PTOMS), and what both sides made of it. One can have varying opinions on this topic, but any serious analysis connecting tsunami and defeat should mention ISGA PTOMS. Failing to do so basically disqualifies you as a political commentator. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. If i find other sources addressing the causes of military defeat i will post them here.  this source touches on the role of Chinese support to GoSL in this conflict  jasy you want to take a crack at getting this section ( or subsection) started ?? Wikireader41 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a PhD thesis to finish, sorry, my contribution will be incidental for the next month.Jasy jatere (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  here is another reference Prabhakaran — an icon who failed his followers Wikireader41 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How Sri Lanka's military won anoter good one Wikireader41 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of Defeat 

message: This article says Pirabaharan was killed when the van he was travelling was hit. But today on BBC, Karuna has said that he was killed when he tried to escape via Nandikadal. So which version is true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Billa (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe neither? Luckily, wikipedia is not in the WP:TRUTH business, so we can report both, and attribute them. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Details 

message: We need to decide if the LTTE still exists or not. Almost everyday someone comes along and adds a date indicating the end of LTTE, and somebody else reverts it. My opinion is we should not consider the LTTE as totally finished and refer to it in the past tense. There are still some LTTE leaders abroad (eg: Kumaran Pathmanadan aka KP) and I believe pro-LTTE websites said that they will continue to lead the LTTE. I will try to find these reports to back this up. Anyway, at a time when even the government has not officially said the LTTE was finished (despite some politicians and media bragging about it) and the military is still strengthening security throughout the island, I think its a little premature to decide the LTTE is gone. We should consider it as still existing, even if it's only in name. Chamal talk 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right... But you have to remember that this Wikipedia is run by White racist low lifers who hates any country that did better than them. The Western world cannot bare the fact that their favorite terrorist group LTTE, which received fundings from the Whites in the West to destabilize the entire South Asian region is gone. The CIA don't want to let the world know that their massive plan against South Asian to keep these countries third world forever has gone with the LTTE. This is why the racists in the West keep writing that LTTE is still alive. 99% of ALL civil wars are created by the West! Look at Rwanda for example, the White Catholic church created it. These losers in the West still believe that Hitler was NOT a Christian!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is LTTE alive? 

message: Cleaned up opening section. The opener is not the place to chronicle LTTE history or methods. Compare it with the opening section on the Sri Lankan Armed forces. The references in the opening section have been moved to the appropriate places in the article.
MentalDimension (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have consensus to make changes to the intro. Discuss here before making changes. Also note the don't re-revert ru;e of WP:SLR and WP:3RR. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 11:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: It seems that the leader of the LTTE Selvarasa Pathmanathan has been arrested so he can no longer be the leader of the Tigers. --80.223.214.74 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being arrested = automatic loss of leadership position? says who? there is no relationship between the two...  --Icemansatriani (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Iceman. Until the LTTE claims a different leader, Selvaraja is the man in power.Pectoretalk 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  KP 

message: LTTE ceases to exist as a military organization and article written in present tense has to be chnaged to past tense.
Ranilb5 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Require to update 

message: It is wrong to say that the LTTE "pioneered" the use of suicide bombings. The first LTTE suicide attack was in 1987, four years after Hezbollah's 1983 suicide attack on American Marine barracks in Beirut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.132.26 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, however they invented the suicide belt, so I've modified the wording. PhilKnight (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide bombings