Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 3

message: I would like to change the following line:
However, the agreement was bitterly opposed by hardliners in the Sri Lankan government, and the present administration of Mahinda Rajapakse has announced that it will not be continued.
This makes it seem that the former GoSL did in fact enact the P-TOMS agreement, however this was not the case. Something like the following I think is more descriptive of the actual state of affairs.
However, the agreement was bitterly opposed by hardliners in the Sri Lankan government and never saw implementation, and the present administration of Mahinda Rajapakse has announced that it will not be considering it anew.
--Realstarslayer 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in that change. Ulflarsen 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, done, thanks.--Realstarslayer 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P-TOMS never implemented 

message: Changed the following to just reflect the website address, readers can determine what the leanings of the site are on their own:
*www.sinhala.net
*www.tamiltigers.net
*www.sinhaya.com
--Realstarslayer 04:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Links 

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

message: User 82.7.77.78 removed an entry as shown by the diff below.
82.7.77.78 diff
Whether the accusations are true or not is not the question, it should however be noted that such accusations do exist, perhaps the tone of the entry can be made more neutral, as IIRC there was a large outcry from Tamil organizations in Canada and other nations over the veracity and methods used by HRW in generating that report.
I added the following back, which may give a bit more balance:
There are also charges that the LTTE coerces Tamil expatriates to give it money, by threatening the safety of their relatives or property in areas of Sri Lanka under its control. This involves pressuring them to directly give it money, or to indirectly fund its activities by patronising businesses connected with it (La 2004). Although intelligence services have raised concerns about such activities, which are particularly controversial in Canada, few formal complaints have been made. A report by Human Rights Watch outlines the intimidation and extortion Tamil expatriates experience from the LTTE . However, several Tamil associations, from various countries mentioned in the report, have called in to question the veracity and accuracy of the Human Rights Watch report HRW Response.
--Realstarslayer 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LTTE and human rights - re-added modified version 

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

message: Looking at the long history of POV edits, keeping this page NPOV seems to me to be almost as difficult as actually bringing peace to Sri Lanka - for some of the same reasons.  Tyronen 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a policy at Wikipedia to not protect pages, unless we really have to, and I dont think we are at that stage yet with this article. POV edits are usually reverted quickly, and the situation is bearable I believe. The good thing with not protecting it is that more people follow the page to see if there is POV or vandalism. Ulflarsen 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the two anonymous editors; please read the discussion page before you start rewrites of the article. To user Tyronen - the previous edits was in my opinion POV and should just be rolled back. For example, there has been a long discussion on labeling the LTTE a terrorist organisation in the intro, and that has been ruled out, for various reasons you may read about in the discussion page. That does not mean that the various human right violations the LTTE is behind should not be mentioned, but as you may know, one person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Ulflarsen 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tyronen, protecting this page is not going to be an easy one cos this artical is a complete hoax, its all about POV's of some extremely biased users. I verified by checking legitamate sources through the Web. Also I heard that all NPOV's and Facts are being reverted in this page by a dedicated group of people is it true? - Will.
To the last anonymous contributor, if the article is a complete hoax it should not be very difficult to argue reasonably to have it rewritten, as the evidence then will be on your side. So please come forward with what you find is not correct, and point to sources for the information. In the process, it is good if you register yourself so you have an account and can track your revisions as a logged in user. Ulflarsen 04:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we at least semi-protect the page?  Most of the POV edits are by anonymous users.  Tyronen 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have checked with the policy for semi-protection, dont think this page fits the rules. At least for know I do not find the load killing me, but if there is a consensus towards semi-protection I will not oppose it. But as for now it seems that we can handle the POV edits, and even manage to work on improving the article. If the parties in Sri Lanka could do half as well - much would have been achieved... :-) Ulflarsen 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time to protect this page? 

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

message: Ruchiraw, I have reverted this addition and further nominated that article for deletion, since it is pretty much an exact copy of the existing  Notable attacks by the LTTE page. If you have problems with items on that page please discuss constructively and propose changes, do not create a whole new copy of the same article. Thanks.--Realstarslayer 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Realstarslayer, the latest article lists only the terrorist attacks by the LTTE on ciivlian targets. It is necessary to distinguish the terrorist attacks by the LTTE,  from its military attacks as there are hundreds of either. I plan to edit the terrorist attacks page quite comprehensively if you give me some time. Notable attacks by LTTE has a title which matchs the information it conveys. Ruchiraw 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Realstarslayer, have added over 100 terrorist attacks to that page. Plan to add about hundreds more when I find the citations to support them. This is a different subject from  Notable attacks by the LTTE as it deals with all terrorist (no military ones included) attacks, notable or not.May come to over seven hundred attacks when completed. Do you seriously want to combine this with Notable_attacks_by_the_LTTE specially as most of them are minor terrorist attacks. Ruchiraw 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ruchiraw, I am not sure this is really going to work well, then should we set up another page for only the military attacks of the LTTE? And who is to decide which is a military act and which is a terrorist one? This leads to more POV arguments, that's why I think we should maintain and improve upon the notable attacks page, rather than having several different pages for essentially the same topic.--Realstarslayer 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: See Also - 'Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE' 

message: If everyone is agreed please remove NPOV tagRuchiraw 00:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NPOV tag must stay. Trincomanb 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove NPOV tag

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

message: Please cite source for  following sentence in intro 
but it also exercises some civilian functions -- including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural functions -- in the territory it controls.
: I don't think there is any need for citation here it is common knowledge? It is like asking for citations that the GoSL provides such services in areas it controls? Ask anyone who has been on the ground there, there are several media reports as well from within LTTE areas that show their courts, police etc in action.--Realstarslayer 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. I agreeRuchiraw 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation and verifiability

message: Please cite sources for the following. Its very POV
Is the EU in the habit of banning non- terrorist organizations to encourage negotiations.
This was done explicitly to encourage them to participate in peace talks with the Sri Lankan government, under threat of having their international assets seized and other repercussions if they did not.  
Why did Sri Lanka lift the ban 
Sri Lanka lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2001. 
Only Al-Quaeda and related organisations are listed. The UN has asked all memeber states to freeze assets of ALL organisations engaging in terrorist activities. This is the basis for the EU and other bans, 
The LTTE is not on the UN's list of terror organisations.Ruchiraw 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist group

message: I have placed the current intro written by user Ruchiraw (which is disputed by number of users here.)  I have left the old intro agreed upon with community consensus on the page with the NPOV tag.  I have also outlined a list of reasons why this intro is POV, please see above (POV in the current Intro. section).
Trincomanb 17:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write thsi intro but I have edited it to restore its NPOV (a pillar of wikipedia). I have included your recommnedations as well. Stop making excuses to revert this intro to an old one which is blatantly POV. 
Ruchiraw 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro in dispute 

message: We seem to have a problem with the name of the LTTE's leader.  Is it Prabhakaran or Prabakharan?  The Wikipedia article about the man himself uses the former (but there is a redirect from the latter).  We have both forms at various points in the LTTE article itself.  I know very little about the conventions of transliterating from Tamil, but maybe somebody can give us a definitive answer? Credmond 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Tamilnet he is mentioned as Velupillai Pirapaharan . In the SLMM website intro to the CFA he is called Velupillai Prabhakaran . BBC uses Velupillai Prabhakaran  Ulflarsen 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally, Tamil names of Sanskrit origin were transcribed into English based on their Sanskrit form. Under this system, his name would be "Prabhakaran".  Some nationalists have begun transcribing them into English based on the way they are written in Tamil.  That makes it Pirapaharan.  Prabhakaran is the most commonly used form, so it's the one this article should use. -- Arvind 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Prabhakaran or Prabakharan?