Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 4

message: This is an uncessary qualification and is just adding length to the intro without any benifit. If on the other hand the idea of this entry was to somehow legitimize the position of one actor over the other, then the statement should be completely truthful and be written as 'democratically elected Sinhala government of Sri Lanka' as Tamils have had none to very little say or power in the Sri Lankan government for several decades now. For example the main Tamil party was not even invited to the 'All Party Conference' to discuss solutions to the Tamil ethinic problem.--Realstarslayer 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the millions of Indian Tamils and Muslims and South Tamils who votedRuchiraw 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you will argue any point, the party in power are Sinhala, the party in opposition are Sinhala, please show me where the Tamils have any say in the GoSL. If they did there would not be a mini war going on in the east over water towers not being built in Tamil areas.--Realstarslayer 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit to intro - ' democratically elected ' 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei
Accusations against OpusDei in intro 
Since its foundation Opus Dei has been subjected to criticism and opposition. Jesuits were among its most vehement early critics, the most famous of which was former Jesuit and theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. Opus Dei's opponents point to its secrecy, its clandestine financial dealings, its elitism, its ultraconservatism, its support for the extreme right-wing in politics, its misogyny, its cult-like recruitment regime and its violations of basic human rights [1].Ruchiraw 00:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample NPOV intros

message: See 
Although it was not established that the appellant had personally committed crimes against humanity, he was responsible for crimes against humanity committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) because of his leadership position within that organization and his continuing participation in it.
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1994/pub/v1/1994fca0318.htmlRuchiraw 02:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LTTE has also committed crimes against humanity 

message: I wonder if we should add a subsection on LTTE and mass media? The LTTE has put much weight in using mass media, and has an extensive network of newspapers, websites, TV and radio stations it controls, it also places photo and videoteams up front in the campaigns it fights. Like it or not, but its pretty impressing, when I was serving in Jaffna pictures from a hartal I was trying to cool down was on Tamilnet before I got back to office. If there are no objections I could try to write a few lines. Ulflarsen 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea, media is an important tool for both sides of the conflict so should be discussed in more detail.--Realstarslayer 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about LTTE's use of media is that it's rather advanced, they assign scarce resources to covering events, to the point that several of their mediateams have died on the battlefields. They put a lot of effort into it, and like it or not - it should be in the article about the organisation. Ulflarsen 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ulf when you are back I would still be happy to help you with creating this 'media' page.--Realstarslayer 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LTTE and mass media 

message: There has been an ongoing debate and discussion surrounding the wording of the introduction to this article. Since this is a controversial topic with strong views on both sides the idea was to give a balanced statement of the views held by both parties to the conflict, i.e. the LTTE and the Government of Sri Lanka. However some users had complained that there should be counter arguments to the claims of the LTTE, then others had claimed that there should be counter arguments to those GoSL claims in turn. Eventually several version of the introduction were written all attempting to be neutral, however the users involved kept bringing up new points and making edits without consensus and it seems no consensus is possible with these users. Thus the RfC as a first step to finding a solution.
Please see some of the pertinent discussion sections:
Changes to New Intro - July 29th Onward 
POV in current intro
Intro 31 July onwards
Changes to the Intro - Aug 2nd onward
05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - Introduction to LTTE Article 

message: I have submitted this article to the RfC page. I think this is the only way we are going to get a solution here since it seems Ruchiraw has no genuine will to find a compromise and is not going to let it go until his own POV is written into the introduction. Every time we finally come up with a neutrally worded introduction he will find something new to complain about.--Realstarslayer 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I truly believe it would be better to go back to the introduction as it stood a week or so ago:
Credmond 11:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem possible, if you just take a look at the editors running amok now with this article, they will not be satisfied until it has become a GoSL propaganda piece. I am not going to bother anymore till we have some outside input, since the individuals concerned show no respect to other editors nor to consensus and neutrality.--Realstarslayer 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support your initiative in requesting some outside help. No use in engaging in discussions when one of the participants have a POV agenda. This article has indeed suffered from that from both parties to the conflict. Ulflarsen 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submitted for RfC 

message: whether its two people two groups or two nations the way to resolve conflict is:
1. calm down only speak when you are in a calm state.
2. remember that your side has done bad things... apologise for those bad things, and offer compensation.
NOTE:once you apologize for what you've done wrong the other side can no longer use it to justify their bad actions.
3. tell the other side, in an UNEMOTIONAL scientific tone, you did X to me and that has upset me.
NOTE: dont use an emotionally charged word like: "you arrogantly bulldozed my house and massacred my children." just say calmly say "you bulldozed my house, and killed my children".
4.1. If they apologize accept the apology immediately without further talk and ask politely for a reasonable compensation.
4.2. If they do not apologise after you've done all the previous things correctly, give them a week to apologize, if they do not do so, kill them and their families, eat their livers, use their skulls as trophies and its totally ok with me.--Esmehwk 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict resolution 

message: Ruchiraw I have asked repeatedly for you to show me evidence that human rights violations by a state actor do not consititute state terrorism, I have given you ample citations why in fact it does, however despite you not providing any evidence you continue to vandalise the article. I say vandalised since despite repeated requests you continue to redo your changes, thus it is no longer in good faith but vandalism. So I am asking you again provide some proof here. For the time being I have added a disclaimer.--Realstarslayer 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What may seem like state terrorsim to you may not be recognised as state terrorism by independent sourcesRuchiraw 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: However, it can be argued that human rights abuses by a state or their proxies can in fact be considered as acts of state terrorism .
--Realstarslayer 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said who else other than the LTTE supports this charge Ruchiraw 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is my point, I just gave you one example above, which is not from the LTTE that state human rights violations can be considered acts of state terrorism. BTW there are many non LTTE Tamils who also see things this way, unless you wish to lable all Tamils who take offence to GoSL abuses as LTTE?--Realstarslayer 17:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oops, I didn't realize you were editing, while I was about to neutralize the POV vandalism that has been going on.  Please go ahead and/modify as you see fit. Trincomanb 16:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone has removed part of the meaning of the intro which I will correctRuchiraw 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are continously seeing drive-by POV vandalism from one user who is acting in bad faith. Trincomanb 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am mentioning that some users  such as Trincoman are constantly neutralising attempts to make this intro NPOV. I am proving my good faith by listing this page for mediation. Ruchiraw 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't go for mediation until the RfC process has been tried, I have already nominated it for RfC, as you see above.--Realstarslayer 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International community does not recognize 'state terrorism' 

message: Ruchiraw before you get all upset with my edit, here is a direct quote from the SLMM Geneva report:
:There are a number of indications that the GOSL is actively supporting the Karuna group. Known Karuna supporters have been seen moving to and from SLA camps, and it is evident that the security forces and police in some areas are not taking action to prevent armed elements from operating.
SLMM Geneva Report
--Realstarslayer 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karuna and the GoSL 

message: A read of the intro as it stands now shows that this article has become a sad joke thanks to the efforts of a few users, let's just rename it the GoSL description of the LTTE and be done with it, I don't think I am going to bother contributing to this article any more since the so called attemtps at NPOV editing have become a laughable farce. So have fun whomever is left still working on this.--Realstarslayer 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had precisely warned that this would happen, but no preventative actions were taken and some users maintain (the one that has gone on holiday) that the article is going in the right direction.  What a real farce! Trincomanb 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article to - GoSL Description of the LTTE 

message: Until people become more co-operative, this article will continue to go to the dogs.  So be it.  I have added a message that this article is not compliant with Wikipedia's policies.  These are the issues where it is not compliant:
*The introduction is not written from a Neutral Point of View.  It is very clearly written on the assumption that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation.  That may be your opinion but it is not how articles on Wikipedia should be written.
*It includes material which is unverifiable.  For example nobody knows how many Muslims and what propotion of Tamils live in LTTE territory because the LTTE has not done a census.  The same it ture for a lot of the terrorist attacks blamed on the LTTE.  In some cases like Rajiv Gandhi an official enquirey has established that it was LTTE's responsibility but in most other cases it is just an allegation.  We may be convinced of things but it has not been objectively proved.  
*Everybody is using this as a soapbox to list their favourite grievances against the other side.  The introduction is completely filled with allegations, which has made it just propoganda.  This is the real reason it violates the NPOV policy. Just because you say you have included propoganda from both sides the article doesn't become neutral.  The only way to make it neutral is to remove all propoganda for all sides.  This is what things were like two weeks ago, but with the attitudes now I don't think it will be possible to agree on a propoganda-free article. -- Ponnampalam 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noncompliance 

message: I have protected this page due to ongoing disputes and edit wars. Please use this talk page to discuss issues at hand, and once you have reached some sort of consensus, list it on WP:RFPP or drop me a line on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: *your point here
*Ruchiraw's comments
:*genocide and state terrorism - This is an accusation only by the LTTE made in inflammatory language and should not be treated in the introduction. Tell me , why should we only mention claims made by the LTTE .I thought the main purpose of the LTTE is independence for tamils. That is covered . The stuff about genocide, sole representative, state terrorism are LTTE claims.  If so , all accusations against the LTTE by the UN and international community should also be treated in the intro Ruchiraw 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and state terrorism. There are not accusations supported by anyone except the LTTE. Dont try ot make this a question of what GoSL and LTTE said. Look at the facts as well. Otherwise the intro will be too bloated. Ruchiraw 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. - Not acknowledged by anyone Ruchiraw 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Furthermore, its tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries.-- This is tucked away at the bottom as an afterthought. It should be with first paragraph as thats where examine teh nature of the LTTE. You cannot ignore teh opinion of one fourth of the worlds population and the UN bcos u dont like it. Please see http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/persons_entities/2_proscribed_entities_10dec2001.html to see how UN resolutions oblige its member countries to proscribe the LTTE Ruchiraw 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction is not NPOV and favours the LTTE 

message: *your point here
*Realstarslayer's comments
:Arvind, against my better judgment, out of respect for your efforts to try and salvage this article I will take part at least in this much:
:*The intro tells us who the LTTE are.
:*Tells us that while they conduct some civilian functions they are dependant on the GoSL for others.
:*It tells us their claims, again their claims which does not imply that it is fact or not fact.
:*It tells us why they are considered terrorists by some.
:Thus I consider this to be balanced because it gives us the major arguments of both sides without a judgmental tone towards either. If additions are to be made to the accusations presented in the intro it must maintain this same neutral tone. --Realstarslayer 00:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction is balanced 

message: Nearly all the edit wars have been over the introduction, which is just a small part of the article.  Looking at it, perhaps the best we can do is take everything out, leaving just the first sentence Arvind posted above:
:The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil region of Sri Lanka. 
That's it.  Nothing else.  Any other verifiable material should go in the main body of the article.  We should stop trying to squeeze every conceivable argument into the introduction. Tyronen 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction should be removed almost entirely

message: 29 countries (see list) have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist group, although 161 countries including UN have not declared this organization a terrorist group. The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) and pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates
First off, I checked the source for 'organized crime' the source itself seems to be about a group of Tamils in Organized crime that ALSO support the Tamil Tigers, there's no real correlation
Secondly 'failed state index' besides the fact that Jarred Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) has cited Sri Lanka as a nation that will grow rapidly whence peace has been acheived due to natural positioning etc, The failed state referance AND the child sex tourism  to generate SOME of its foreign currency is irrelevant to the arguement and is close to flaming.
Also
still uses acts of terrorism in an attempt to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state[27]. Although the Sri Lankan itself has lifted the ban on the LTTE.
Mono-ethinic? this can easily be refuted, seeing as many of the leadership of the Tamil Tigers are Tamil Christians.
It seems this entire article to reach a neutral point, just swings to the tamil side, then swings back to the Sri Lankan goverments side again to balance it out.
--Sharz 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Bias Infomation

message: *Whether we like it or not LTTE is a TERRORIST organisation. What that means is that LTTE useses Terror,i.e. killing Tamil opponents,using suicide bombs in densely populated areas in Sri Lanka,uses terror in recruting children as soldiers to their armies. It may very well have political objectives howerver its strategy is to use terror to achieve them. This is a FACT and not my opinion and SHOULD BE THE FIRST LINE in the introduction. It is mileading not to mention this fact on the very top. If you dont like this Tough Luck!!Greglewis 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This version is not NPOV, and favours the LTTE 

message: I believe the latest intro written by Arvind is still leaning towards the GOSL side (based on one sentence).  The rest of it is fine.  The problem statement is the ban.  Is it necessary in the intro ?  Is the ban in some countries a major issue in the conflict ? In both count, think a person with a balance view would say now.  LTTE after all is officially not an international organization.  Next even if the ban should be mentioned, should you have a list of countries ?  How about the list of 161 countries including the UN that didn't ban the LTTE ? Trincomanb 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no biased in poiting out a fact that the LTTE is banned in some countries and including the list. Regarding your argument about 161 countries that not have banned the LTTE, please note that some countries even do not maintain a terror list. And some countries do not care about the LTTE as they do not have a tamil population or interest in Sri Lankan politics. But the countries that have banned the LTTE are major and super-powers.  So it should be in the into. Supermod 05:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This version is not NPOV, and favours the GoSL 

message: I have got another point. Various people describe the LTTE as terrorist , as rebels , as insurgents, as political , as military etc:- 
My point is why should use the words "LTTE is a political and military organisation" when not everybody agrees on this. This violates the rule for describing LTTE as opposed to reporting about it. 
I propose we use somthing like this "The LTTE is an organisation fighting for ......... it has been variously described as a military , political , insurgent or terrorist organisation. "
This would give us a NPOV view as we are not fixing either military or terrorist tags to the LTTE but simply reporting on what it has been described as. Ruchiraw 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LTTE- Political or military

message: If this is the proposed intro., its misleading and confusing.
*You cannot use "political" here when its not a political organization. The more appropriate word should be paramilitary organization. This describes both that its a military and an organization fighting against a government. So its very clear to the reader and does not confuse them.
:It is a political org. they have a political wing and they carry out several civil functions in their area.--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a statement of their own goals, I think we can take the LTTE's own words for their own goals, don't you?--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is just plain wrong, the LTTE and many other Tamil militant movements came grwe out of decades of discrimination and abuse at the hands of various GoSL, the university issue alone was not the sole reason. Besides its getting to specific in the intro.--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And that is why the intro mentions they are banned as terrorist in several countries.--Realstarslayer 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where doesn it say that its banned as terrorists... I dont see that.---RavenS 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right here, I know with all this discussion could be easy to mis, but this is the intro we are currently discussing: Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Introduction.2C_9_August_onwards.--Realstarslayer 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a paramilitary organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for the majority Tamil regions in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE was formed as a protest against the limited university access for Tamil students in Sri Lanka, and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies, which discriminated against them. However, the guerilla strategy it has employed in its campaign, mainly suicide bombing, have been widely condemned and they have led it to be listed as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the US, the European Union, Canada, Australia and India. The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran.
--RavenS 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The LTTE was formed as a protest against the limited university access for Tamil students in Sri Lanka, and the perception amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that continuous Sri Lankan Governments failed to address government policies, which discriminated against them."  These are not factual and POV. Do not suit in the intro. Supermod 07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro from 8/11/06 onwards 

message: The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are a politico-military separatist organisation that has been waging an at times violent campaign to carve out a separate state –federal or independent- comprising of the Tamil majority North-East province of Sri Lanka. 
''
Controversial issues explained;''
Politico-Military – They use both political and military means. They have waged war, and waged talks in order to achieve their stated objective. 
Separatist – That is their stated objective. All their actions over the past 30 years point towards this.
At times violent – LTTE has not been using violence for every day of the past 30 years. LTTE’s first violent attack was sometime in the late 1970s which was a few years after it was formed. However, there have been non violent periods when LTTE had been participating in peace talks. There were 100 days of non violence during talks with Chandrika government and around two years of non violence during the yearly years of the current peace talks. 
I have put federal or independent in brackets – this may need to be expanded. As at 2006 the LTTE’s stated objective is not a completely independent state from Sri Lanka. Their ISGA proposal is a request for a federal state within a single Sri Lanka. 
Tamil majority North East province – Officially North East is a single province. I understand that there are attempts to separate them but we have to stick to official lines. And it is a Tamil majority province, according to last available Sri Lankan census.
I have resisted from referring to them as paramilitary because it is a controversial term -as explained in Wikipedia- that is often used to refer to civilian forces attached to a government or a spontaneously formed militia group with limited capacity. I am sure the term paramilitary could have been applied to LTTE in 1985. However, in 2006 they are effectively administrating a de-facto state, participating in multi-lateral talks and are boasting a near conventional army, a navy and an air force. LTTE’s capacity is beyond the bounds of a paramilitary. 
--Lankaupdate 08:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First few lines 

message: The introduction has to mention the LTTE has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in some countries. This is the usual procedure with Hezbollah and other such organisations. Ruchiraw 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points where this version favours the LTTE 

message: The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is a politico-military separatist organization that has been waging an at times violent campaign for a separate state comprising of the Tamil majority North and East regions of Sri Lanka.
Removed
Federal or Independent: Unnecessary complications 
North-East province: LTTE includes Puttalam in Tamil Eelam.
Suggestion for second paragraph
Founded as a response to perceived anti-Tamil policies by the Sinhala dominated state government and continued ethnic riots across the island, the LTTE has carried out a number of military, guerilla and terrorist attacks on both military and civilian targets. To date 35 countries have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organization. 
Controversial issues:
With regards to the countries that have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation if we list them, some would ask us to list the anti-Tamil policies and the ethnic riots.
If we say including USA, UK and India some will ask us to say including Sinhala Only, Prominence to Buddhism and Standardisation and also 1958 riots, 1967 riots and 1972 riots etc…
I hope you get the picture. There are many issues that require lists. We can not fit all the lists in an introduction. 
--Lankaupdate 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer either saying "anti-Tamil policies" and "terrorist' or qualifying these statements by perceived or considered. Addhoc 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First few lines with additions and omissions 

message: Please dont post your POV here and drop the quality of the article. Wikipedia is based on FACTS and please respect that. If there's any dispute on the current intro. please discuss it here!----RavenS 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If anythig needs to be changed, please discuss it here BEFORE making the changes. If not, the article will be nominated to be blocked again. Thanks. Supermod 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ravens, you may have mentioned something here, but people disagree with your reasoning.  I too disagree without your reasoning, hence I believe it should be reverted to something more NPOV. The changes need to be discussed and agree upon here before being implemented.  In addition you have reverted over what are legitimate citations.Elalan 12:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not post your POV's here 

message: Please check definition before stating that the LTTE is a paramilitary.
I think the topic needs to be locked.
Clearly, some people think what ever Mahavamsa says are facts and that no logical discussion is necessary.
:::Yes I agree, next thing we'll have the Mahavamsa as the primary reference for all the so called 'facts' in the article. Elalan 12:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paramilitary? 

message: Seems we have most of the facts, now is the time to get them together. I would argue there are three positions here, pro GoSL, pro LTTE and then neutral - mostly foreigners I guess, like myself. What about deciding to let a group of three, each representing her/his position regarding the LTTE? Until they have reached consensus we could just lock up the article - or leave it as now with the NPOV tag. Or maybe better - we leave it with the NPOV tag now, but when the group has made its final version, it is inserted, and the page locked. Any edit after that would need to go through the group. If there is interest in this proposal I suggest each group of editors agree on a person that can represent them. Ulflarsen 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea and is a workable start, but what about having two people representing each side.  This is primarily for logistics etc, so that in case one person is not availabe or gone temporarily then someone else representing that side can fill in. Elalan 15:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. If we have two neutrals could I suggest Arvind and Ulflarsen? Addhoc 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also I think the neutral camp has to be accepted neutral by both the pro GOSL and pro LTTE sides with consensus. Each side should be able to wield a veto when deciding the members of the neutral camp. We can't have self declared neutral folks who claim to be neutral but arent considered neutral by one or both sides. Elalan 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, presuming that Arvind and Ulflarsen don't mind being discussed as candidates, would anyone object to them being the neutrals? Addhoc 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose user Ulflarsen being one of the neutral representatives.  While he may a great individual and such, a neutral representative needs to have a spotless record of neutrality. Unfortunately, he has a POV that I don't believe is neutral.  The reason is because of the following conversation we had on this page (see section Accusations and facts).  I was not satisfied with his response and showed POV leanings towards one side. In fact he had sidestepped out of answering some of the questions.   Trincomanb 18:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Trincomanb. Ulflarsen is neutral. Just because he wrote some content that you do not agree with, it does not make him a person with POV. If that is the case, Ulflarsen had some anti-GOSL views. Ulflarsen is someone who contributes to this article in a major way and served in the SLMM. I agrre to have Ulflarsen as a neutral person, but oppose Arvind. I have seen some NPOV from user Ruchiraw. Supermod 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading Trincomanb statements, I do agree with him that Ulflarsen is not neutral enough and has POVs leaning towards the GOSL. User Arvind as far as I have seen is neutral, yet you haven't given a reason why he is not neutral.  In any event your view and my views counts as vetos, hence other candidates have to be found. Elalan 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In contrast to what some users here feel, I do feel everyone should be free to participate and this process cannot become some elitist/segregated committee of sorts which is against the aims of Wikipedia. In  any event, I do think users Arvind and Ulflarsen should be given special roles as observers/advisers in support of the neutral camp. Regardless of what other users may feel about their stance, they have demonstrated willingness to be involved in the article.  It should organized such that their expertise in this field is what should count (ie work in the SLMM or peace and conflict studies) and not their POV.  Everyone involved deeply in this conflict has a POV and hence I agree with Arvind, it should be a complete outsider. Trincomanb 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think I am suitable as a neutral, SLMM is not considered very neutral in Lanka... :-) Jokes aside, I am sure there are others that are suitable if we decide to solve it this way. The huge bonus for everyone, if we manage in this is that we can remove the tag from the page. As it stands now it is most probably not taken serious. If we reach consensus - and can remove the tag, it will be more authoritative. So we all have something to strive after. Last but not least, if we try what I suggested I believe it should be three persons. Not easy to manage groups, and the bigger they get - the more difficult. So if we go for it, lets trust those three. Ulflarsen 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think these efforts are positive, but I also wanted to be the devil's advocate and raise some issues and larger questions that will move this process forward.  For the article to be authoritative, the credibility of the writers do count.  Yet here most of the users are anonymous.   This seems to be an unsolved problem with Wikipedia. To resolve this issues, I guess 'everyone' is allowed to edit the articles and hope is that if someone made a mistakes, someone else can correct it.  This whole experiment assumes everyone is acting in good faith.  How will the checks and balance hold with restrictions on editing the intro?  Also, just wanted to ask how consensus will be achieved if only three people work on choosing/pruning the facts ?  What if one person or few people from each camp refuses to accept the so called 'representatives' decision ?  How will these decisions be binding ? Wikipedia does not enforce any permanent edit restrictions if I am not mistaken. Also previous attempts at consensus suceeded for a while, after which we had new sections being added resulting in revert wars. Johnathan1156 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To the GOSL camp:  I am not sure how you came to the conclusion Arvind is biased or an LTTE supporter.  Have you seen this individual do leg work for the LTTE ? A number of you have dissmissed Arvind's candidacy, but haven't given any evidence.  That is indeed somewhat troubling to this whole process.  Is it even possible to reason with indviduals who come with these conclusion without showing evidence for it?  This merely reinforces a couldron of extremists views to emerge. Trincomanb 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a group of three to make a proposal 

message: Here we go again.  POV sentence gets added to the intro, so has to be balanced with opposite POV, which in turn invites counter-charges, etc...at this rate why even bother with the rest of the article?  it'll get crammed into the intro anyway.
If we can't have a ceasefire in Sri Lanka, could we at least have one in Wikipedia?  Everyone - if you have a fact that deserves mentioning, put it in the main body of the article, and leave a bare-minimum intro, two or three sentences. Tyronen 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I belive the current intro is OK. When mentioning facts and incidents, they could be anti-LTTE or anti-GOSL.  But this is Wikipedia, which should give the factual and correct information - be it not likeable by pro-LTTE or pro-GOSL people. Supermod 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly raised this point that the intro need not be this long and can be controversial free.  However there is obviously an agenda here.  The intention is stuff as much GOSL propaganda as possible into the intro (where the thinking goes that the average reader will only read the intro) and be done with.  The issues choosen obviously has been given lip service by the so called do gooder INGOs whose burden it is 'uplift' the poor/feeble natives and show them the way to attain path to western standards (hypocrisy) ... Trincomanb 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what you say, most of pro-LTTE articles and sympathisers that use as citations are bought by money. The latest evidence is the arrests made in USA   Supermod 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have citations for claiming ' *most* of pro-LTTE articles and sympathisers that use as *citations* are bought by money' ? I guess not.  This is becoming a laughable joke. Trincomanb 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does everything have to go in the intro? 

message: Some of the text in the "beginnings" subsection was lifted directly from the CBC web site .  I've removed this and placed a link to it as a citation instead. Tyronen 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted material 

message: Does anyone really think the LTTE campain hasn't always been a violent one? I myself can't remember Prabakaran going on a peace march or something like that.
As for listing the countries that have banned the LTTE, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the names of the countries who have banned the LTTE are not listed, it could be really confusing to the reader. They may believe the LTTE is primariy banned in Sri Lanka and surrounding countries. Also if you note pages of similar organizations that have been similarly banned such as Al Queda, the list of countries is given in the introduction, just to clarify things. --snowolfD4(  talk /  @ ) 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't whether the countries should be listed - they are, in the appropriate subsection.  But do they need to be in the intro?  In fact, does the ban itself even need to be in the intro?  Already the whole-article-in-the-intro movement is coming back by piling on counterpoints, and the ban was the beginning.  I still think a minimalist one- or two-sentence intro is the best way to keep the peace, and this is a proposal that has been been supported by people on both sides. Tyronen 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few changes 

message: Included a list of LTTE officials and high profile civilian  LTTE sympathisers allegedly killed by govt. forces, death squads and paramilitaries. Trincomanb 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this list should be moved to State terrorism in Sri Lanka or a similar article?  I think your point is that the LTTE has been victim as well as perpetrator, but as it stands now it kind of crowds out the material on the LTTE's actions.  This article is ultimately about the LTTE and thus a point-counterpoint listing of GoSL actions alongside LTTE ones isn't really within its scope.  It could go instead into Sri Lankan civil war which does cover both sides.  Tyronen 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't agree, these are either LTTE top ranking officials killed through govt actions or important LTTE politcal supporters.  If a listing of those allegdly killed by the LTTE is in the article, then a listing of LTTE members and political supporters killed should be there as well. This article cannot just have LTTE actions and then a seperate article for what has happened to the LTTE or its close political supporters/members. It is only fair both list of alleged killings (both govt. and LTTE camp) should go to separate articles and be referenced to this one if its getting overly crowded.  This is after all not a simple subject and as much detail is need to bring unbiased view of a complicated situation.   All of those killed have been associated or identified as members of the LTTE or represent LTTEs views politically.  Notable Attacks by LTTE and State Terrorism cover for those not associated with either camp getting killed.   Trincomanb 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am open to alternate suggestions you might have.  I believe, the current title of the section (Human rights and terrorism issues) you are referring does lend it self to cover a whole bunch of things related to the LTTE and not just LTTE actions. Trincomanb 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of LTTE Sympathisers and Officials Killed 

message: I checked the article and the intro now states "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a terrorist military organization". The reasons for not writing that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation has been listed over and over again. I see no need to remove it, its better then to have the POV tag so the average reader knows what to expect. Ulflarsen 09:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag