Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 1

message: I've removed presumably copyrighted text (the uploaded text can still be found on http://www.sinhaya.com/main2.html ).  We need explicit permission from the owner of the web page before we can use this.  The page contents were very obviously biased, as well, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
OK, stop working Larry.  Back to the egg nog. --LMS
----
Ok...What I cant stand is you are supporting these terrorists ,Wikipedia.
We do not support any political organization. However, we do strive to maintain a neutral point of view, which your articles are definitely not. Also, the wholesale deletion of information is unacceptable. Please read the Wikipedia policy article for more information, and refrain from vandalism. -Joakim Ziegler
----
What is the copyright status of the last edit? It just replaced the article there completely. (The change was done by User:202.188.169.112) Tristanb 04:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited that, and you must have missed that before that edit, most of the stuff that was there in the article were deleted. I restored the article to last-known state without those anonymous block deletions, done without any reason given. Greenleaf 05:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, at least the LTTE consider the Karuna-faction to be a paramilitary group, and the phrase should be in line with the Wikipedia NPOV, that is - presenting all major facts about what one writes of. So, even if its disputet, it should be there as the LTTE at least seems to believe so. Ulflarsen 10:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older stuff

message: Can anybody show me how "Tamil Tigers" is written in Tamil? Either in Unicode or just a URL where it appears in text or graphics? — Hippietrail 23:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *AFAIK*, விடுதலை புலிகள் (pronounced viduthalai puligal. meaning free(dom) tigers) --Rrjanbiah 09:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil script 

message: The text of the coin was misleading as the "Vanni" uses the Sri Lankan rupee. Ulflarsen 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed part of caption to pic of coin, as "Vanni" uses the Sri Lanka Rupee 

message: 1. Section written was not written in a neutral point of view.
2. No references were made as to the source where the author believes that Eelam is a rehashing of a Sinhala word.
3. Origin of the world Eelam does not belong here.  If credible sources are cited then it should be in the article on Tamil Eelam. --14:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed part origin of the word Eelam 

message: Many of the attacks attributed to the Tamil Tigers on the MIPT database were not comitted by the Tamil Tigers.
For Example:
August 3, 1984: A bomb attributed to the LTTE exploded in a lounge at an aiport in Madras, India, killing 31 and injuring 19. Police received a pre-bombing tip and had moved several bags to the lounge for inspection.
This attack was done by the TEA (Tamil Eelam Army).  Who claimed responsibility for the attack in 1984.
It is important to verify sources that are used to this article, expecially when they are secondary sources with an agenda. -Share Bear 07:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Attacks 

message: Share Bear, I noticed you have reverted many times to your version, "LTTE has carried out attacks on armed Sinhalese settlers". 
LTTE's attacks were not confined to Sinhalese ethinics nor to settlers. As can be seen from news sources I listed above, LTTE attacks have been on Sinhalese and Muslims as ethnics. For instance, LTTE's attack on Muslim civilians killing over 100 at the Kaththankudy Mosque  is an evidence that their attacks were not confined to Sinhalese settlers. (They were neither Sinhalese nor armed settlers)
Thus, I hope that you will agree to "LTTE has carried out attacks on Sinhalese and Muslim civilans". 203.217.57.218 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LTTE's attacks: On Sinhalese and Muslim civilians or on armed settlers?

message: If the term ethnic cleansing is going to be used then the same term should be used to describe what the Sinhalese did to be Tamils.  The conflict exists between the Sinhalese and their Muslim supporters and the Tamils.  
Examples cited in the same section show how Sinhalese have attacked Tamils in the province.  The article also states that these were armed settlers.  When the conflict is among ethnic groups it is called an ethnic conflict.
The NPOV would be to use ethnic conflict.  
I have not made any changes to the title of the section.  I have also tagged the article for NPOV and Clean-up.  Hopefully someone who is not biased will edit this article to encyclopedic standards.
For Cleanup - Sections titled Child Soldiers and Ethnic Cleansing already had material included in the Current Status section of the article.  The newly added sections are just a collection of quotes and do not meet encyclopedic standards.
-Share Bear 16:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic Conflict or Ethnic Cleansing

message: Share Bear, as you are uneasy about the term "Ethnic Cleansing", I modified it as "Allegations of Ethnic Cleansing" 203.217.57.218 04:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Hi, I was wondering if it'd perhaps be a good idea to start up an article entitled "Human Rights in Sri Lanka". I feel the LTTE article attracts the attention of people wanting to defend and accuse the LTTE of human rights abuses. In order to balance things out a bit, perhaps this new Human Rights article would allow all sides to call the other out for human rights abuses (ie. so there could be sections on the LTTE's alleged human rights abuses, alleged abuses of government paramilitaries, alleged abuses by the Sri Lankan military, and so on). Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? I feel it'd allow for a more balanced perspective on the whole conflict in Sri Lanka. "Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka" is more about actual narration of the conflict, and the LTTE article is supposed to be about the LTTE. Thus, I think a third article specifically about human rights abuses could help clear up any confusion and provide for a balanced perspective. I'd be willing to help make this article happen. 
-Devaka
:The beauty of wikipedia, is that you can start it at any time. Have fun! Make sure you get an account so we can help you out. Leave a note on my talk page, and sign your comments by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are, and can leave you feedback on your work. Thanks! Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Maravan.  It wasn't for "their own safety" - else, they'd have asked the Hindu and Christian Tamils too to move.  Actually, there were a significant number of Muslims in Jaffna who were spying for the government, and the LTTE saw the entire community as a security threat.    See for example Sachi Sri Kantha's article on the reasons behind their expulsion.  And the Muslims only returned in significant numbers after the SLA took Jaffna.  Still, the numbers in the section are too high - there were never 100,000 Muslims in Jaffna.  It would also be good if we could add some information on Muslims in areas controlled by the LTTE in the East.  If you have a good source, please feel free to add information to the article.  -- Ponnampalam 15:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article- Human Rights in Sri Lanka

message: Nothing is neutral!!! The page is changed to an "Ant-Tamil" or better "Anti-LTTE" page. This is "propaganda", like the germans have do in 1933 to 1945.
This page must be delete or block. It is better if this site will be block to edit, so only people from Wikipedia cann edit it, as a neutral.
In these time, this propaganda will be start more powerfull.
PLEASE, MAKE A EDIT-BLOCK AND WRITE NEUTRAL FACTS AND NEWS!
THIS IS NOT A PROPOGANDA BORAD!
:I very much agree in that and anyone interested in rewriting the article should read the Wikipedia policies, and especially the neutral point of view - NPOV. It will also give more credit to anyone editing if they log in and sign their edits, and if they raise questionable edits on the discussion page before they do them. Ulflarsen 10:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an Encyclopedia

message: Contributors please don’t be pathetic, this article should be all about Tamil Tigers and it should be factual.
Sinhala nationalists if you want to say something please start a new page on another topic not here. Whether you like it or not this is all about Tamil Tigers. Acknowledge their existence, their strengths and successes.
Pro LTTE authors please state the facts and do not exaggerate things. Eg the coins....etc Also please acknowledge their failures too. 
Please do not use Wikipedia as your personal propaganda tool.
Also, please try to spell correctly.
NEUTRAL, and NEUTRALITY. Please! What would you think if I spelled "Wikipáèîøüdia"? You'd slap me in the face.
thank you!
Please, try to remember that, even though the SL govt. doesn't officially call the LTTE a terrorist group, it has continued to treat it as one in practice. SL websites and LTTE websites are only acceptable sources if they are checked (exhaustively) against others. Failing to do so, even if you use both sites, is still not NPOV, as are all these frustrating "you're a sinhalese nationalist!" "no, you're a tiger!" accusations. How can you even pretend to be unbiased?
Atomsprengja 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neautrality 

message: Let me put it in a concept most people understand. How can you write a neautral article about [Satan]? If you do, it 
will partly, condone the acts of [Satan].
How can you be neutral if you begin the article on Satan by assuming that he is evil? Tolerance, please!
::What you do is present facts.  "Satan is the unchallenged lord of a realm called Hell, where he tortures
more than 42,000,000 people night and day. . . .  A number of humans worship Satan, describing him
as their liberator from the constraints of traditional morality. . . ."  Readers can, and will, form their own opinions.
Credmond 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Can You Be "Neautral" to Something that is 100% Evil? 

message: You changed various comments here on the discussion page, that is not allowed. Nothing here is to be changed, as long as its not obscene or commercials. This is a discussion page about the article it is connected to, please remember that. You are as anyone free to write your opinion here - but do not remove other users edits. Ulflarsen 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To user with IP address 61.68.66.195 

message: Seems better now, but I suggest we keep "Recent developments" as its easy to add various ongoing stuff there. Besides that I would say that we remove the two tags. Ulflarsen 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should add a "Recent developments" section when it's necessary again, but I also think they should be merged into the main article after a while.  -- Ponnampalam 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now removed the NPOV and Quality tags, since the issues that led to the tagging of the article have been addressed, and there were no objections to the edited article. -- Ponnampalam 11:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up and balancing the article 

message: Ok, maybe it was vandalism, now that I think about it. Sorry for that. The ed17 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: I came to this page out of curiosity over the subject, like so many pages I and many others visit. I really know little about the subject, but just reading it becomes very obvious that there is a serious lack of NPOV throughout this page. Not to demean the work done and diplomacy evident in the discussion here, I'm sure it's a touchy subject for many. You guys need to qualify  your language more, at least as much as possible.
:The article is tagged with a NPOV tag, and from the discussion page its clear that it is under revision. Dont know what more could be done - besides that anonymous commenters starts paying us to work on it. This is a difficult issue, as anyone with knowledge of Sri Lanka knows, and we are not paid to do it. As for the organisation the article is about; some regard them as saints and freedomfighters, quite many other as murderous terrorists - so its not strange that the state of the article reflects that. In my opinion its rather good that the article is not locked up after editwars... Ulflarsen 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from the outside 

message: Referring to the above link as the primary source for the Australian Governments definitive position of who is apparently 'in' and who is 'out' of their definition of terrorist organisations is a narrow field of view. Either for reasons of oversight or omission that list is by no means all encompassing and does not confer authority.
Terrorists are non-governmental organisations who deliberately target civilians and must be consigned to their correct classification of "Hostis hvmani generis - Enemy of the human race". All glorification of terrorism as resistance or freedom fighter movements is a flagrant abortion of Human Rights, ignoring the genocidal costs of conflict (circa 60,000 innocent victims since 1983 in this theatre). 
Kindly refer to and adhere to up coming UN Mandate on definitions of Terrorism in 2006 for further Editorial guidance, and keep Wiki propaganda free.
delibertely taget civillians? sounds more like the Sinhala govt. note the  recent bombing of an orphange in trinco. Secondly is there any proof that LTTE kill civillians? First, did the event happen ? How can it be verified ? is this proven or alleged? According to you terorists are non government organsaitions, and i agree. LTTE is the goverment in the north east. So there for are not considred terrosits by many.
'Edit Wars'
One of my academic friend said this article(and 'edit war's) clearly shows peaceful solution for srilankan conflict is impractical.Wikipedia is a successful encyclopedia except coverage of Srilankan conflict. This also indicate uniqueness of Srilankan Tamil conflict,and this also teaching us(and US) the unpredictable and mysterious efficiency of Tigers. -Nayaka- 1 May 2006
:There is of course various opinions regarding the LTTE. There is however no doubt that the LTTE has a degree of support both in Sri Lanka and abroad, and that is not only due to it harassing tamils. One should also remember that the LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka - and neither does the EU ban it. Those who strive to label the LTTE as a terrorist organisation should keep that in mind, and that like it or not - LTTE is the organisation the GOSL need to come to terms with regarding a peaceful solution. The current HoM to SLMM has said that the conflict can not be solved by war - if it could have been, it had already been history. So the parties need to talk and together find a solution. Ulflarsen 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contention - "LTTE not terrorist organisation - According to Australia" is misleading. 

message: Why is there no reference in this article about the breakaway Karuna faction that split from the LTTE in March 2004? Wiki has articles on it (Colonel Karuna) but shouldn't they be referenced on this page about the LTTE?
:Why not? You are as able to write about it as anyone else, so if you believe its relevant - and I agree in that, then add a line or two about it. Like it or not - but the Karuna faction plays a role in what goes on with the CFA. Ulflarsen 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Karuna faction

message: I have deleted the section added; "Mythical Tamil Homeland". This is an article about the LTTE, please try to keep it so.
:The section with "Mythical Tamil Homeland" really does not fit into an article about the LTTE. As in any article on Wikipedia, anyone can contribute but it needs to be to the point and NPOV, in my opinion the above mentioned section fails on both. Ulflarsen 09:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section "Mythical Tamil Homeland" 

message: In this article from the BBC about the current stalemate there's an extremely funny comment regarding the LTTE not taking responsibility for trying to kill Fonseca:
:Nobody likes being treated as a fool, and when the Tigers tell mediators they have no idea who sent a suicide bomber to blow up the army chief, finger nails start pushing into palms.
And for the balance, there are several salty comments regarding the other side as well, as anyone that has seen the SLA or SLN up close can subscribe to. My point is just that writing as below that "no proof to links LTTE to the incident" is just a proof that the one who wrote it tried to cover up for the LTTE... Not what one expects from an encyclopedia. At least one could write something like no hard evidence, but everyting points at the LTTE.
:An attempt by a LTTE pregnant female suicide bomber (allegations by Sri Lankan government, no proof to links LTTE to the incident), the explosives disguised as the late stages of pregnancy, fails to kill Lt Gen Sarath Fonseka (a high-ranking army official who is alleged by UTHR(J) to have orchestrated widespread killing of unarmed Tamil civillians and LTTE supporters [20]), who is thought to be the main target. However, he was seriously injured and required surgery. Eight others are killed and around thirty injured.
I think its good to try to remember that people actually read what we write, and quite a few of them are not stupid. Again, the article is rather balanced and kicks equally to the GoSL, for good reasons, but as this article is about the LTTE I wanted to adress that matter. Ulflarsen 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sri Lankan authorities said that they don't know whether or not she was pregnant.  That should also be qualified. -- Ponnampalam 10:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely funny from the BBC 

message: The latest picture added to the article seems to be scanned in from a book or a magazine, not the original picture. Thus it is probably not correct when its license tag says that its owner has "irrevocably released all rights". 
All pictures on Wikipedia need to have valid license. Ulflarsen 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures must have a valid license - doubt this one has... 

message: There is a problem with the timeline in the second paragraph of the "Political Activities" section.      In the paragraph, the statement is made that "in an interview in 1996 ... the leader of the LTTE said that Tamil Eelam would be a one-party state".  It later goes on to state "the LTTE's main ideologue ... publicly repudiated this position in 1992".  How can a statement made in 1996 be repudiated in 1992?  Either the timeline is incorrect, or the paragraph is incorrectly organized and worded. Kurt 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Activities - Timeline of One Party Comments