Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 2

NPOV must be maintained

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 [1].

Cheers! Continue to enjoy being on Wikipedia Chancemill 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

--Pras23 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

added new category

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

Various attacks by the LTTE

Have deleted the June 15. attack, on the following reasons:

• The LTTE have not taken responsibility, and have strongly condemmed it [2].
• 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[3] (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)

The problem is that the LTTE usually doesn't claim responsibility for attacks. Usually they are simply silent when the attack targets the military, and when it causes an outrage like the bus bombing, they condemn it. However, the bus attack seems very much like an LTTE attack. It utilized a claymore mine, which the LTTE has used a lot of lately. However, there are numerous groups in Sri Lanka, and a clearly responsible party is hard to identify. What the title of the section should read is something like "Alleged LTTE attacks" or split it in two, with a section for "Known LTTE" and "Suspected LTTE" attacks. PBP 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

June 15th Attack on Civilians

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)

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)

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)

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)

The document which gave me the information about the area of control was a EU document. It is also available online. The link is http://ec.europa.eu/echo/pdf_files/decisions/2005/dec_sa_02000.pdf I will enter this link in the description of the image also. -- Ponnampalam 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

"The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military terrorist organisation brings fear and death for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka." This very first statement it self does not meet the encyclopedia standards. LTTE does not bring death and fear for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka. It is the only representation of the Tamils. 03:00, 23 June 2006 64.229.26.188

Have reverted the intro - again. Anyone that dont agree should forward their opinion here. Ulflarsen 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

The into is biased to the point of absurdity

"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)

I second that motion. I think this page needs to be protected from unregistered editors. - Share Bear 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think I'd be in favour of protecting the page. It might free up some energy for making appropriate improvements lower down on the page -- I spent a whack of time the other day fixing grammar and style, but the changes got lost in somebody's haste to apply POV changes in various places.

Am I misremembering, or are we getting more POV edits (and vandalism) from Side B of the dispute now, compared to a rash of such edits from Side A a few weeks ago? Credmond 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

PRO-LTTE Intimidation does not work!

Arvind

Thanks to Stupid Sinhalese and Muslims who carried out the 1983 riots ,you are living a hell of a nice life in Switzerland,and in returning the favour, you keep working for the Ltte & funding the LTTE terrorist to kill and intimidate your own Tamils in Sri Lanka.

We, Sinhalese are not alone. You keep posting your threats to avoid truthful comments on the wikipedia is by no way a impartial contribution to the world of Wikipedia. We will continue to tell the truth about the Terrorism of LTTE, and how murderous ,and inhuman they are.

You ,or your Ltte propaganda team cant stop the truth being told on this board.

Thank you for discussing your concerns. My personal background has nothing to do with this article, but since you seem to have made some assumptions, I should clarify that I am not Sri Lankan Tamil, nor do I live in Switzerland, nor do I have any particular affection for the LTTE - all of which should be obvious if you read through my comments on this page.

The problem with your edits is not that you are adding content that is against the LTTE, it is that you are adding what, under Wikipedia's guidelines, are opinions rather than facts. For example, saying: "The LTTE has been banned as a terrorist organisation in a number of countries" is a statement of fact, saying "The LTTE are murderous terrorists" is a statement of opinion. I encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia's policies on what constitutes a Neutral Point of View and see how you can make contributions which are factual, rather than opinionated. There is certainly room for improvement in this article, but it is important that edits follow that policy. I hope you will be able to make more constructive contributions in future. -- Arvind 17:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You could deny your whole identity, thats fine with us! we were making a point here, the fact that as a result of 1983 July riots, most tamils who got a "chance of a life time" live and work in the developed world as oppose to a thrird world country. All these years these migrated-Tamils keet funding the LTTE's Terrorist activities. Most Tamils who fund the LTTE Terrorists live enriched lives in the werstern world,their children to world class schools, and enjoy a high standard of living. All this as a by-product of the 1983 riots. we are not justifyling the 1983 riots lead by radical Sinhala & Muslim groups, but simply stressing that whether you like it or not ,mjority of Tamils used the 1983 riots as their passport to the western world.That's a FACT.

Now that they live away from Sinhalese majority and the ruthless LTTE, They are just living in a dream of having a seperate country in a tiny Island called " Sri Lanka".These expatriots do not care what the LTTE do with that money at all. All they want to do is to be on the good books of the LTTE. Becasue they know that ,LTTE's are Terrorists and their lives could come to and end if they don't support and fund the LTTE. This is the realty and no one can deny that.

Now lets get in to your technical comments; "The LTTE are murderous terrorists" is a fact. We advice you to look up an English dictionary for the meaning of "murderous" .It means that the person or the organisation kills people. There are tons of recorded evidence that Ltte kills people as they wish. Now don't tell us that you cant find a source to prove LTTE killed innocent people and top politicians in Sri Lanka and India.

Do not repeat the Wikipedia rules over and over ,and try to undermine the factual value of the content.And to all the PRO-LTTE writers; do not tell us that you are on the verge of semi-protecting the intro, because if you do that you are violating the very essence of wikipedia and at the same make no mistake, you are guranteed that we would use our technical tools and capabilites to by-pass such restriction on truth.

Bandara.

It is funny to see how a user claims that the Tamil who live in western countries have better life. They are forgetting the fact that not ALL the people who live in the western world are living luxurious lives. They didn't leave their houses and family so that they can live in the western civilization. They were forced to run away to survive. And they made a living in where they went to. If you justify the massacre in 1983 as an excuse for the Tamils to escape, then you should agree that IF Tamil Rebels create a massacre in the Sinhalese region and make them run away to other countries, that is a good action too. There are other ways for someone to go to foreign countries than blaming the massacre. The reason why most people are still not willing to come back is because the country is still unstable. If you are being treated badly because of who you are, then you will not be so willing to live through that again or even take a chance of it happening. The children, men and women who are involved in Tamil Liberation are willingly there because of suffering they faced in their past. They are not fighting because they are bored at home.

And as for the claim of LTTE being murderous terrorists... if so, then doesn't the Srilankan Army also fall under the same category? Aren't they murderers too? Haven't they killed innocent civilians? So how is it right for them and call them heroes but while LTTE gets blamed as murderers??

They sort to violance due to the fact that they were left with no options. Are the LTTE fighting for the control of the country? NO. They are fighting to have the right to live in their land. They are fighting to be Srilankan Tamils and wanting to call a place as home. Is that too much to ask?

Regarding LTTE as terrorists; the consensus seems rather clear on that it should not be described as a terrorist group, you may read the previous discussions for getting the arguments. That does not mean they have not committed acts of terror, and that has been duly mentioned in the article together with their violations of human rights.

Regarding the discussion, remember the rules Wikipedia has for writing articles. Be specifically aware of that threats in general are strictly forbidden, language such as "we would use our technical tools and capabilites to by-pass such restriction on truth." is not what we expect from contributors. The conflict in Sri Lanka has been going on for some fifty years, if we manage to keep a civil tone while we argue and improve articles about it we may give a small contribution towards ending it... Ulflarsen 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible constructive changes

If we wanted to improve the introduction (not saying it would satisfy the current critics, or any previous group of critics) we could consider the following:

-- change the phrase "sizeable portions" to something less quantitative

-- Add a few words in the first half of the paragraph referring to violence

-- Add a sentence making it clearer that Tamils are far from unanimous in support of the LTTE.

Thoughts? Credmond 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that the anon who constantly adds POV statements won't be satisfied. The introduction seems fairly NPOV to me, but if we want to make it better, perhaps we could simply say the LTTE "controls portions of northern..." and add a line about claiming other parts. I personally don't believe we should cram every accusation and critic in the introduction; that's what subsections are for. PBP 16:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction could be improved. How about:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a military and political organisation that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan Government since the 1970s in order to secure independence for the Tamil portions of Sri Lanka. The LTTE is primarily a military organisation, consisting of an army, a navy and a recently created air wing, but it also exercises civilian functions - including legislative, judicial, police, financial, and cultural services - in the territory it controls.

The LTTE is headed by its reclusive founder, Velupillai Prabakharan. It accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority, and proclaims itself as the sole representative and protector of Sri Lankan Tamils. Although it is generally seen as being the main body with whom the government must negotiate in the long-running conflict, its tactics, notably its treatment 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 with large Tamil expatriate populations.

-- Arvind 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with that revision. The current edit war is not sustainable, so the sooner any appropriate changes are made, and a request for protection filed, the better. Credmond 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think protection is necessary. This is only two users - the more appropriate response will be to warn the users to stop, and ask for them to be blocked if they does not. Maybe people should leave warnings on User talk:69.203.201.72 and User talk:69.3.197.190 when they revert their edits? {{subst:comment2-n|Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam}}, followed by {{subst:comment3-n|Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam}} and {{subst:comment4-n|Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam}} is the route to go. I've gotten up to {{subst:comment3-n|Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam}} on both pages, but it would be better if other editors left the final warning so it is obvious to admins that it isn't a personal vendatta. I really dislike the use of blocks, but unfortunately these users show no signs of wanting to engage constructively. -- Arvind 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... rereading the introduction, I note that it says that the LTTE "accuses the Sri Lankan government of orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against its Tamil minority", and then says that the LTTE has been sharply criticised and proscribed for "its treatment of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents". I wonder if the latter is expressed too mildly, when one compares it with how strongly the former is worded - the LTTE is criticised and proscribed because its attacks target and kill civilians and political opponents, not because it treats them badly. Do you think it ought to be reworded along the lines of "its tactics, notably its attacks against civilian targets and its assassination of its political opponents, both Sinhalese and Tamil, have drawn..."? -- Arvind 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me -- except that there is then going to be an argument about whether it needs to say "alleged" attacks and assassinations. Credmond 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. How about "its tactics, and notably the attacks against civilian targets and assassinations of political opponents, both Sinhalese and Tamil, which it is accused of having carried out, have drawn..."? That parallels the language used in relation to the GoSL. -- Arvind 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia ,The latest victim of Pro-Ltte Propaganda

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)

I think attempts at justification of killing certain individuals because the Tamil Tigers considers them evil should be on another page linked to the name individual rather than in the list of terrorist events. Terrorists always have some supposed justification for their acts with fail. For instance, Suni Moslems are justified in killing Shite Moslems because they can be considered Infidels supposedly. (Doug rosenberg 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Pregnant or not?

A claim has been added that hospital records demonstrated the suicide bomber to have actually been pregnant. The most recent report I have seen was printed on 9 June 2006 in the BBC, and said that the hospital had no records of treating her. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5051652.stm. This is more recent than the April 29 article cited. Unless whoever inserted that claim can cite a more recent report, it doesn't belong in the article. -- Arvind 09:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont consider the BBC article to be authortative. It's a commentary and that's the only reference to a confirmation that she was not pregnant. But there are other reports which cite names,dates and places. I find it hard to believe that the AP erred twice. First in reporting that she wasnt and was pregnant and then saying she was pregnant and then saying she wasnt pregnant? I hate to tell you where the sympathies of the BBC lay. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200604281040.htm http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060428/pregnant_suicide_bomber_060428?s_name=&no_ads=

Anyway it's a dispute of the facts and not vandalism on my part. I'll do so more research on this but there's a long history of using pregnant suicide bombers amoung terrorist organizations: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf (Doug rosenberg 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Right, let's leave the BBC out of this. Here's the Pakistan Daily Times - the source you cited initially - saying two weeks after the article you posted that the bomber was not pregnant.[4]. The way the story developed was that the investigators initially thought the bomber was pretending to be pregnant, then that she was actually pregnant; however, medical evidence finally showed that she was not. This site, which has a chronological collection of reports, might be helpful to see how it developed[5].

And to clarify, I edited your change with the edit summary "removed the statement that the suicide bomber was pregnant - see talk page"[6]. I then reverted vandalism by another user - who had changed "Liberation Tigers" to "Bloody greedy tigers" - with the comment revert vandalism[7]. I certainly did not call your edit "vandalism"! I hope this clears up that misunderstanding. -- Arvind 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I can the final story says its inconclusive. (Doug rosenberg 08:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

I've reworded it - I hope this meets everybody's concerns. -- Arvind 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Justification

I removed the following (a high-ranking army official who is alleged by UTHR(J) to have orchestrated widespread killing of unarmed Tamil civillians and LTTE supporters [8]),

in the list of attacks. I really feel this smacks as justification for the act where the list is simply reprensents.list of acts. If somebody wants to disparage this person who got blown up they should just start a new page for him and just link to him. I'm sure everybody has done something wrong. I freely admitt that I jaywalked once.

Here is the General's profile:

http://www.army.lk/com.php

As you can see he was commander for several operations which resulted in the deaths of countless Tamil civilians.

Human Rights Watch report from that period here:

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/asia/srilanka.html

16,000 disappearances can hardly be equated to jay walking. Thank you.''

No Proof of LTTE For Certain Events

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))

Allegations about the IPKF

"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)

Non-neutral sections

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)

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)

External Links

External Links are highly mis-guideing

For example, I clicked on Peace in Sri Lanka beliveing it to be a non-patisan peace website. However, it directed me to a government website.

I think external links should clearly state wheather it is a Government one, a Tamil one or a non-partisan one.

Please also avoide linking to the same website under various titles. I found this was the case for "the academic" website.

Also please stop removeing links to releavent pages which higlight gross human rights violations by the government of Sri Lanka, including Black July which lead to the formation and growth of the LTTE.

An article on the LTTE must explore where they came from, and why they became who they are.

Please also stop referencing the murder's encylopedia that is the Mahavamsa.

"LTTE military and political Organization" is incorrect and misleading.

"LTTE military and political Organization" is incorrect and misleading. As far as I know its a Terrorist organization wich can be prooved by legitamate sources.Please provide legitamate sources to prove its a political organization!!

The LTTE has a huge political section, from within the areas they control, to other countries where there are tamil refugees. Ulflarsen 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please verify your statement!

SP Tamilchelvan is regularly referred to as the "political head" of the LTTE, including by the Sri Lankan Government (see this link for example). Surely that suggests that they're engaging in political activities? -- Arvind 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You may read about the various LTTE political activity on the net, try search Google for "ltte political" - got loads of hits. The Sri Lankan government does not have any problem in seeing that LTTE has a political side, as seen in the Oslo agreement of 2002 [9]. Even though the LTTE use terror and intimidation it is also convincing people to support it by political means - I have no doubt about that. Ulflarsen 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)