Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 2

message: I am new to Wikipedia and I find the whole concept revolutionary. Wikipedia's Neutrality Point of View position is a great idea, but is it possible for controvercial topics like the LTTE? I have personal views that I like to share about the LTTE; however this is not place to do to. I have a few questions:
1. If anyone is allowed to edit these webpages, then how can we constantly maintain neutrality?
2. Is there a system by which Wikipedia bans ip addresses?
3. How can authors and editors, with their own bias, maintain neutrality?
: Hi, Welcome aboard!
1. We strive to maintain neutrality by precisely doing that. We allow more eyeballs over these pages. We strive to provide as many facts as possible about the article, and as few opinions. Facts can be supported by references while opinions cannot. When the language suggests NPOV, we bank on the fellow editors to glean them out and give it a neutral stance. It is possible that an article may monetarily be "imbalanced", but any such deviations are corrected in due course. In fact, everything you would want to know about how we maintain neutrality is covered here Wikipedia:NPOV
2. Yes, administrators can ban IP addresses, if they are convinced that there is persistent vandalism by a single or a set of users over a given period. This is to be used with discretion, and the ban cannot be permanent.
3. You may want to take a look . 
Cheers! Continue to enjoy being on Wikipedia Chancemill 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV must be maintained 

message: added Category:Terrorist organizations here and IRA and hamas and al-qeada.Hypnosadist 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added new category

message: Have deleted the June 15. attack, on the following reasons:
* The LTTE have not taken responsibility, and have strongly condemmed it .
* There are reasons to believe that other groups could have been behind it (the Karuna faction, or the JVP). 
Regarding the rest of the attacks; in my opinion it should not be a full list, but more of a list of the major attacks. Not necessarily excluding the one's LTTE do not take responsibility for, but there should be at least agreement from major outside observers that the LTTE is connected (like the bomb agains Fonseka, or the killing of Kadirgamar). User:Ulflarsen
:I don't feel strongly either way about including the June 15 attack, though I fear that we will have something of a mini revert-war here with people repeatedly inserting references to it.  Incidentally, the head of the SLMM's Vavuniya bureau seems to have called it an LTTE revenge attack (article in Danish) - do you know what the official stance of the SLMM is?  And would you like to take a first shot at paring the list down?  -- Arvind 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding reducing the list; I can make a try. SLMM has not yet given their verdict, but they are sceptic, they don't rule out that the LTTE could be behind it, but they guess other groups are more likely. It's true that the LTTE most of the time does not claim credit, but it's rather seldom they go so hard against a attack as they have done this time. So even though I am not against listing incidents the LTTE does not take responsibility of - I do believe we should not list this one. Ulflarsen 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the list, don't think it's a good idea to divide it. We don't need to list all incidents, only the most significant, and I believe most are not controversial. We may instead list the one that LTTE try to keep a distance from with "not claimed by LTTE", like the Kadirgamar murder (even most everyone and his aunt knows it's the LTTE that finally got him). Ulflarsen 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various attacks by the LTTE 

message: There is no basis for removing this information as there are millions of references that you can provide that LTTE carried out this attack. And I dont see any harm in calling these ruthless killers as "Terrorists" as there is very good consensus amongst the international community, but personaly I am not going refer to them as terrorists on this article to avoid controversies.
:
The second point is the image that shows, area under GOSL and LTTE control doesn't denote its source, so should stay out of the article until someone can include the source for the statistical information on the image, just qouting the European Union is not enough.   «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you know references that show the tigers did the attack you are welcome to show them. The SLMM has not concluded yet, and their information is not at all clear on the bus attack, so its best left out. And in my humble opinion that should not do any difference, the LTTE has a pretty long list already. Regarding the map, it is showing the various areas (controlled, partly controlled and claimed) and so should be there. That its not totally correct or that there is no source behind it does not change that. Ulflarsen 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your genuine efforts to improve this article, SLMM is not the soul authority to decide whether the LTTE carried out the attacks or not. LTTE has never taken responsibility for any of the attacks by them, if you think someone else could've carried out the attacks please lets discuss, I like to know. (But I am not on either side..) The image statistics doesn't state its source.. I am  not against having an image like that, but unsourced information cannot be put on an encyclopedic article. What if someone create their own image of who controls what and puts it on the article without a source? could we accept it? Because of the controversial nature of the article, sooner or later we should expect people to add their own POV.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source for the attack being the LTTE is defence.lk - that is not a neutral source. As no other valid source is added, and as the SLMM has not concluded, I remove the attack on the bus. When it comes to the map I do believe it should be included, as it gives a good idea of what areas the LTTE claims, and what areas it actually controls. But if others are against including it then we can leave it - and a map with source can be added. Ulflarsen 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I only used the information they had given in that map.  In the version I made I made the presentation a little different, like using colours instead of black and white and also showing the difference between the claimed territory and the territory they had.  -- Ponnampalam 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have reverted the intro - again. Anyone that dont agree should forward their opinion here. Ulflarsen 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding LTTE as a terror organisation; the article already says that quite a few countries has it on its terror list. But it is not listed as a terror organisation in Sri Lanka, and it has a hugh supportbase both inside Sri Lanka and in the tamil diaspora. The kind of actions the LTTE has initiated is also rather different from various actions done by organisations like RAF etc. Ulflarsen 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 15th Attack on Civilians

message: "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military terrorist organisation that promotes killings ,hatret,and fear among the Tamil people of Sri Lanka. Headed by its insane,murderous founder, Velupillai Prabakharan, it currently controls a minor portion of northeastern Sri Lanka, where it runs slaughter houses,childrens military camps and suicide squads."
I am pretty sure not everyone holds this view. And even if they do, those lists of evil adjectives add nothing but emotion.
:Sigh... a group of determined anonymous users keep adding those words.  I've returned it to the compromise wording (yet) again.  Unfortunately, with the situation in Sri Lanka deteriorating, it's only likely to get worse.  Would it make sense to request Semi-protection?  What do others think?  -- Arvind 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we manage to change it back, and the good thing about Wikipedia is that we can discuss and find a middle ground, and then improve the article gradually. I am sceptic about protection, if more people add the article to their watchlist vandalism will be reverted more speedily. Ulflarsen 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems to be one user using proxies, or a group of co-ordinated users, since the changes are almost identical.  I think maybe it's best to wait a couple more days, and if it continues, request semi-protection (which will only prevent anonymous and newly-created editors from making changing the article). -- Arvind 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left messages on the talk pages for the two IP addresses that have been making these changes in the article asking them to raise issues on the talk page instead of just changing the article.  Hopefully, if they are acting in good faith, they will act accordingly. -- Arvind 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have arrived late to this page I would just like to add that I agree with Ulf that protection is not necessary right now, having the page on my watch list alerts me to any changes pretty quickly and its easy to spot the vandals from those with genuine concerns. --Realstarslayer 04:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The into is biased to the point of absurdity

message: Dear Readers,
The introduction to the LTTE ,is bias,one-sided. It tries to surgar coat a terrorist organisation ,in the name of "freedom for tamils". They have killed ,and continue to kill Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka and by no means a "Sole representative of Tamils"
I come from a Tamil neibhorhood,work with Tamils etc. Only a few percentage of Tamils will agree with the introduction to the LTTE on WIKIPEDIA.
Tamils in South of Sri Lanka, live with other cultures,work and live decent lives in all the geographical areas including, Colombo the Capitol of Sri Lanka. But the LTTE Propagand team working on Wikipedia ,makes it look like as if there are no Tamils living and working in the Sothern Sri Lanka.Tamils work in private jobs,government jobs and academic institutions holding hands with the majority Sinhales. Tamils hold top positions in the government and also in large comercial organisations in Sri Lanka. Lakshman Kadhiragamar, a great brave Tamil was Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister until he was cruely assasinated by the LTTE. So dont even talk about oppressing and ethnic cleansing of tamils by Sinhalese. That just does not happen.
Ltte continue to kill tamils, and they do not want to have any sort of peaceful enviornment in South or North Sri Lanka, because a military,terrorist (they are being labled a terrorist group by Canad,UK,USA,Australia and the 25 Countries in the European Union, what other proof you need!) organisation cannot survive withouth a conflict,or war for that matter , so in order to survice they intimidate Tamils around the globe and keep going afert a dream of having a seperate nation in a small country like Sri Lanka. 
If you look at Jaffna, no one can go to school, because the LTTE wants all the yougsters to be part of their murderous military. School is where the tigers find their freshest blood for the bood-thirsty war against Tamils (ant-Ltte) and Sinhalese. The kids get brain-washed and their parents are helpless in front of the LTTE-Gunpoint.
The only way that this country will go back to peace and every Tamil & Sinhalese could live prosperously and financially stable is " The day that LTTE and its followers start LOVING THEIR CHILDREN MORE THAN THEY HATE SINHALES AND Anti-LTTE Tamils"
Kumar
:Dear Kumar, this article certainly can be improved (like most any article here on Wikipedia). Having said that I do disagree with you in that it is onesided. It lists various facts that are not very flattering for the LTTE (like that it is banned by a number of countries as a terrorist organisation) and it has a section which discuss the LTTE's human rights violations. 
:For this, the article has many times been edited by persons obviously in favour of LTTE, and their onesided edits have been reverted. On the other hand, the article has also been edited by people fiercly against the LTTE; this has also been reverted. Wikipedia tries to list facts, and we try to give information - and like it or not, the fact is that there is some support among Sri Lankan tamils for the LTTE, and it controls a considerable piece of Sri Lanka. I hope you will read through the article again, and if there is anything you believe is wrong, state it here so it can be discussed and included in the article if there is some weight behind it. Ulflarsen 17:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia ,The latest victim of Pro-Ltte Propaganda 

message: April 25, 2006: An attempt by a pregnant suicide bomber (allegations by Sri Lankan government, no proof to links LTTE to the incident), ...
Like who do you think did this? Scooby Doo or SMERSH.
Someone keeps reinserting this plausibe denymallity.
(Doug rosenberg 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Proof of LTTE For Certain Events 

message: "Lankaboy" has made a edit stating that thousand of tamils got killed during the IPKF years. He needs to show sources. Some must have been killed, as the LTTE was fighting the IPKF, but the numbers seem high. The edit should also be discussed here before added, as this article is on the verge of being semi-protected. Ulflarsen 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations about the IPKF 

message: Having an entire section just listing countries that have banned the LTTE counts as POV.  A single sentence elsewhere in the article would do just as well.  Highlighting it this way stresses the LTTE as "terrorist" which while a legal designation in the countries concerned is not an NPOV one.  Likewise for explicitly listing the "Notable attacks" - these tend, by sheer repetition, to promote a particular POV.  These do contain useful information, so could they perhaps be a separate article?  Tyronen 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd removed the country section, but it has been put back.  There is NO NEED for this separate section, as the info is already in the "Terrorists or freedom fighters?" section as a single sentence, which makes more sense anyway. Tyronen 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral sections