Talk:Anton Balasingham

message: I have well placed the reference for the above article, please let me know where I stand. 
Rajsingam 24 Dec. 2006
C.C:
Oden
RaveenS
Bakasuprman
SiobhanHansa
Wackymacs
Seraphimblade
Rajsingam, start using the <ref> tags around links being used as references. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more information. — Wackymacs 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funeral in London

message: It is sad to know that the pro eelam lobby who are hell bent on glorifing this terrorist who was the so called official spokesperson for one of the most ruthless and barbaric terrorist groups in the world, are blatantly violating copyright by almost verbatim copying the article from http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20673 which is a noted pro eelam site. In addition they are violating WP:NPOV by making blatant statements like "Balasingham was cremated shortly afterwards at a private ceremony leaving the people for whom he was fighting for by his intellectual wisdom." There is also vandalism by anonymous ip's  via removal of cited content critical of the 8 million rupees spent to reserve the great hall when people are starving in the north and east.
I strongly urge the admins to keep a strict watch on this page with a zero tolerance policy for as a edit war is bound to ensure.
Kerr avon 11:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant copyright violation and POV pushing

message: In my opinion, the Asian Tribune and Tamilnet do not qualify as reliable sources since they seem to be partisan sources. --Oden 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the conflict is so all-pervading that there is no NPOV in the situation. I myself am Tamil, but I try to view this objectively. My dislike for LTTE stems from the fact that they are not a Hindu group, but I also dislike seeing my Tamil brethren killed. The article seems to be NPOV right now (quite reasonable compared to Sinhalese propaganda and Eelam mouthpieces that other articles seem to be stuck between).Bakaman 16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  why would you put tamil net ,which is a pro-LTTE pro-terrorist site and Asia Tribune  In the same category ?? Could you please ,elaborate your claims against Asia Tribune ??--Iwazaki 16:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we have is "terrorists" vs. "genocidal maniacs". Asia Tribune actually looks like it possibly could be reliable, but not really NPOV.Bakaman 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  so Asia Tribune is a genocidal maniac ??? That's interesting !! what next ??
have you even bothered to read what they write ?? could you please point out a single POV push they made..thanks
--Iwazaki 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering you called Tamil's terrorists and Raj thinks that the Sinhala army/people/etc. genocidal maniacs, I merely put those terms in quotes. Obviously I think neither of the terms in quotes are accurate descriptors (thankfully my ancestors left Tamil Nadu to go north rather than south). Yes I did look at the site.Bakaman 16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I never call tamils terrorist ,but I do call  LTTE terrorists.. Actually ,some of your ancestors who are doing quite well in Sri Lanka..And, again,why do you think Asia Tribune is POV ? --Iwazaki 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering my ancestors moved north rather than south, I hope that my fellow Tamils do well in Sri Lanka. This part of the site raised some questions as to its reliability.Bakaman 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  you mean the disclaimer ??? Well, for me it shows how transparent this News-Paper is..My friend, there is no absolute truth in the world neither absolute reliability.Many, neutral sources can easily be specious..So ,I strongly believe all the media,which are run by humans who are born to make errors, should carry disclaimers like the Asian Tribune.So instead of blindly accepting all of them, we can actually analyse them thoroughly and make conclusions..For what I have seen in Asia Tribune, It  carries some flaws which  are general to every single media organization.And if we dismiss it as a POV pusher, I don't think we have much of choice left..The main point is , Asia Tribune is not a Sri Lankan government source,so unlike tamil net which is purely pro-LTTE, we just cant dismiss every thing written on it.thanks
--Iwazaki 11:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Iwazaki makes a good point. The tone of the paper leaves a bit to be desired, but it does seem  (like I stated above) to meet WP:RS. Sorry Raj, perhaps a Tamil Nadu newspaper would better serve to represent your side of the story for NPOV.Bakaman 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Quote's from LTTE on anton's death.Bakaman 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new section added

message: He only used his intellectual capacity not weapons at least to put him under "terrorists tag', then majority the Tamils are supporting the LTTE's "Cause", Do you think then they all are terrorists?
Absolutely True. In the civilized world anyone who directly or indirectly supports a crime is considered to be similar to actually committing a crime. You have clearly said that majority of the Tamils are supporting the LTTE. That is totally bull because I have been known many Tamil friends, eastern as well as northern, since I was a school kid. This is not a place to discuss such things. Talk pages are dedicated to talk about the article. If you want to eliminate that section from this article remove it from all the articles and come back here to talk with me about it. Happy Editing --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to [[User:Rajsingam]]'s msg 

message: Hi,
The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.
Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.
I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B'Singham himself has not committed any terrorist acts, right? His group has. If his group affiliation renders him as a terrorist then why isnt Hassan Nasrallah also catted as one?Rumpelstiltskin223 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Dawood Ibrahim? Why isn't he catted as a terrorist? he's affiliated to terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba. What about Slobodan Milosevic? He was affiliated to Serbian nationalist terror groups. What about Jatin Das? Baruch Goldstein? Rumpelstiltskin223 10:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anton Balasingham]]

message: Having looked over this, I see quite a bit of incivility. I would encourage everyone to take the rhetoric down a few notches, and to assume good faith on the part of those on the other side. Rajsingam, I would advise you to consider the position of those on the other side. They do have some valid concerns, and I would strongly encourage you to think over them-if this person did support terrorist actions, he may well be classified as such, even if he has also done a great deal of good. However, generally, when information in a biography is controversial, especially category tagging, it's generally best to leave the category out unless there is overwhelming consensus to include it. I would also remind Lahiru_k that, while repeated reversions may violate the three-revert rule or be considered edit warring, they are not vandalism, and it is not appropriate to call any edits but clear and obvious vandalism, such as random insertion of profanity or nonsense, a vandal edit. If there is genuinely no consensus here, a request for comment is often the best way to settle the issue-best to do an RFC on an article before they start getting filed on users! And everyone involved, please do beware of the tigers. Seraphimblade 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion, of sorts

message: There needs to be no explicit attribution of the editor of BBC article as BBC is a neutral, mainstream WP:RS news. In addition other article which use BBC as a source do not explicitly attribute the editor and there is no reason to do so in this article. Watchdogb (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit attribution of BBC 

message: The current image of the person was kept after a deletion debate. A picture of free use can be used in wikipedia and the only way to take care of concern of the so called "copy violation" is to address the problem on the page of the picture. Watchdogb (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image