Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10
 | NCSLC (inactive) | |||
| ||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 10 at the Reference desk. |
 List of Archived Talk Pages |
|---|
Mediation
Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can close it I think. Elalan 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dont agree to closing the case. We still havent reached an acceptable solution Dutugemunu 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, do not close the case. You guys have to wait until User:Trincomanb's block get expire[1]. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ (Ŧ) 13:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
We now changed the intro to a compromise version which awaits confirmation by both parties. — Sebastian 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The compromise has been accepted by both parties. Thanks everybody for bringing this to a successful closure. — Sebastian 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Current Header
"LTTE is illegal terrorist organization in USA, Sri Lanka, ..etc , these information and LTTE related links are promoting terrorism activities. Since terrorism is a worldwide problem, I'm strongly suggesting these LTTE related information and all related links to remove from Wikipedia. And LTTE is a shameful hiding guerilla organization."
Pretty obviously unencyclopedic, no? Within the day I will revert to the last version that does not include obvious soapboxing. Jimmyq2305 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The LTTE is not banned in countries like New Zealand amoung others. So how can u justify removing the info? Infact they are fully accepted as freedom fighters. N G- NZ 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm only reading this now. I think this is a misunderstanding. What was removed back then was only the obsessively repeated statement that contained the personal remark "I'm strongly suggesting ...". In the meantime, we worked on a compromise in the above mediation case. — Sebastian 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is plain and simple vandalism by user Dushan (talk · contribs), who already amassed several warnings for vandalism. I will revert it and I will add another warning on the user's talk page. — Sebastian 17:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, these steps have been done by someone else in the meantime. Thank you for notifying us! — Sebastian 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
External links to be avoided
Regarding the external links, the question has been raised if some of them fall under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Let's look at each of the links here. — Sebastian 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
www.tamiltigers.net
This appers to be their official website. If that is the case then it should be used; maybe it should replace the existing two links under "Oficial LTTE websites". I understand that not everything they write will conform with our standards on reliability, but this is what readers would expect. I think we should include a link to the official page of the organization that is covered in our article. — Sebastian 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- www.tamiltigers.net states
This website does not represent the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It is neither an official nor unofficial website of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
- so it is apparent it is not an official site.
- It, and all the other websites are blatently POV either against or for the LTTE and should not be included according to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- www.eelam.com appears to be the official LTTE website [2] and www.ltteps.org is the official website for their peace secretariat. So we should keep the two of them as official LTTE websites and keep www.defence.lk and www.peaceinsrilanka.org as the official government websites. Also I think we should keep the SLMM and UTHR webites and maybe the LTTE proposals from the BBC article. The others are simply blatently POV and have to go. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- www.tamiltigers.net - containing over 5000 newspaper articles on the tamil tigers. This presents a valuable resource of original source material on the subject. This should be kept as a link because it meets the Wikipedia requirement of "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" -Share Bear 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Factual? I have to disagree. Per WP:EL "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". The articles on tamiltigerds.net are clearly pro-LTTE (even the name says as much) and the link should be removed. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
tamiltigers.net contains articles from Reuters, AP, AFP and other newspapers. These are valid articles. I don't understand your argument that the site is pro-LTTE because it is called tamiltigers.net, expecially when you yourself stated that "www.eelam.com appears to be the official LTTE website" which would be pro-LTTE but should be kept.
The attempt to remove links has been tried before by you and reverted - Revision as of 16:12, 12 December 2006 (edit) (undo) SebastianHelm (Talk | contribs) (reverting to version by Cobenobo for two reasons: (1) It is not apparent which item of WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided applies; (2) WP:LAYOUT lists external links after references.) - Share Bear 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Snowolfd4 has a point, and it's not right to hold my reversion against him: Instead of entering a revert war, he agreed to discuss this here, and he is as free as anyone else to state his POV here.
However, we should keep this discussion on hold for a moment until we close the mediation.— Sebastian 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Apart from tamiltigers.net, no one has brought up any arguments for keeping any of the other links so I'll go ahead and delete them now. We need to discuss tamiltigers.net further.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Uncited statements
I can't find citations for the following statement in Beginning section "After martial law was imposed in Jaffna in 1979, the LTTE began targeting the military"
Also no citation for following statements in Rise to Dominance section "The LTTE's discipline and efficiency, coupled with Prabhakaran's leadership and its strong ideological base, made the group much more effective than the other Tamil militant groups."
No citation for following statements in Rise to Dominance section "The reasons for the LTTE's internecine attacks on other Tamil groups are much debated. The reason they themselves gave at the time was the other groups' connection with India. All the Tamil militant groups, including the LTTE, had received varying degrees of support from India. However, while other groups such as the TELO wholeheartedly embraced Indian support, the LTTE remained wary of India particularly after Rajiv Gandhi came to power, fearing that India was seeking primarily to advance its own interests, which were not the same as those of the Sri Lankan Tamils, and would therefore force the Tamils to accept an unfavourable settlement. They were particularly suspicious of the Indian intelligence agency, the RAW, which they said had completely infiltrated the TELO and EPRLF, and was using them to eliminate the LTTE." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs) 13:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dutugemunu added {{fact}} templates in the appropriate places. WP:CITE says: "Remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time"; I'd say that would be in a week from now. — Sebastian 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Waiting for citations Dutugemunu 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Recent events
Can somebody add the abduction and eventual release of 21 schoold kids and 2 teachers by LTTE from Thirukovil in Amparai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by an anonymous user.
- I asked for a citation on the user's talk page. — Sebastian 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- how many do you need :)? Tchild 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is more than enough. However, as I said above, I would really like to wait with any potential destabilization until we close the mediation. (This case is only waiting for approval by the faction that wants information about LTTE's terrorist activities included.) How about if you add it to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE, in the meantime? (BTW, the first link is now http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-19T152409Z_01_B218127_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SRILANKA-ABDUCTIONS.xml.) — [User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is not exactly an Attack attributed to LTTE isn't it? Unless if we can claim it as a Attack on School Children by LTTE :) Tchild 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are right that it stretches the meaning of "attack" a bit. It was just meant as a compromise for now. To be honest, I'm not so happy with that page's scope, anyway. Let's discuss that there. — Sebastian 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also the article you mentioned(dated 19th) is diffrent to what I mentioned(dated 22nd). It's removed from te reuter site but a copy can be seen at http://www.lankaeverything.com/vinews/srilanka/20061221210206.php Tchild 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The mediation has been closed; please ignore everything I wrote above from "However, as I said above ..." on. — Sebastian 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Campaign Box
Removed Campaign Box state terrorism of Sri Lanka as there is already a see also link to an article ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Recent events section
Do we really need a recent events section? Most of it is already covered in the article Sri Lanka civil war. Adding all the recent events here (unless it is relavent to another section) could potentially make the article way too large. Besides, most of the incidents mentioned aren't recent anymore. So I think it should be removed completely. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Attacks on Civilians
Hi Sebastian , I had made this section more readable with hyperlinks ot the related articles etc:-. I think this improves the article. However if you object to the lists, I will put the child articles into one section. Personally I think the lists are a better format Dutugemunu 07:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Assasinations
Moved the following to state terrorism in Sri Lanka as it belongs there
The LTTE argues the Sri Lankan government and government-aided paramilitaries have also targeted the following high profile supporters of the LTTE:
Kumar Ponnambalam, politician and philantrophist, Head of ACTC [3] Joseph Pararajasingham, human rights worker, TNA politician, former journalist [4] Vanniasingham Vigneswaran, politician and head of Trincomalee District Tamil Peoples' Forum [5] Dharmaratnam Sivaram, journalist, human rights worker and news editor for Tamilnet [6] Sinnathamby Sivamaharasa, Namathu Elanadu journalist, former TULF politician [7] Pon. Ganeshamoorthy Literary Figure, Poet, General Manager People's Bank, KKS [8] Ariyanayagam Chandra Nehru, NESOHR human rights worker, former TNA politician [9] In addition, anti-LTTE paramilitaries and Sri Lankan army operated Deep Penetration Units are alleged to have killed or attempted to have killed the following LTTE officials through clandestine operations:
Colonel Shankar, Head of Air Tigers [10] E. Kousalyan, LTTE Political Head for Batticalao and Ampara [11] Colonel Kandiah Ulaganathan (Ramanan), LTTE Military Deputy Head for Batticalao and Ampara [12] S.P. Thamilchelvan, LTTE Political Head (failed attempt)[citation needed] Colonel Bahnu, LTTE Military Head for Batticalao and Ampara (failed attempt)[citation needed]
Proscription as a terrorsit group
I think the following is a mistake. the citation provided does not say such a thing.
- Though Kofi Annan has gone as far as to requesting a visit Tamil Tiger held areas and meeting with key Tamil officials[citation needed], a request that was promptly denied by the Sri Lankan Government.[61]
Please remove the following unless you can provide a citation as I think it is wrong
- This was done explicitly to encourage them to renounce violence and terrorism and participate in peace talks with the Sri Lankan government, under threat of having their international assets seized and other repercussions if they did not[citation needed].
- In the following years a number of other countries also listed the LTTE as a terror organisation after lobbying from the Sri Lankan diplomatic service under Lakshman Kadirgamar, the former Sri Lankan foreign minister who was allegedly assassinated by the LTTE in 2005{{
Chencholai
Moved convoluted Chencholai info into main article on Chencholai and hyperlinked
Execution of POW's
None of the referenced links in this section work. This sections should either be referenced to working links or credible source material or removed. -Share Bear
- I have repaired the links, thank you for pointing this out Dutugemunu 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The repaired links reference credibile material. You should also fix the section at the bottom of the article which has an index. The section also states that the LTTE killed them in violation of the Geneva Convention on War. The LTTE is not responsible to the Geneva Convention since the they are regarded as a terrorist group by Sri Lanka. The Geneva Convention on War relates to only state parties. I will edit this section if there is agreement. -Share Bear 12:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Share Bear The LTTE has actually agreed to abide by the Geneva convention. I will add this info to the article. See http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1620/16200530.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
"The LTTE appear to have burnt alive hundreds of Sri Lankan soldiers who had surrendered during the attack on the Mullaitivu army camp [10]." This section added is new and does not reference credibile material. Do you have a reference to an independent news agency, NGO, or even a Sri Lankan government statement to this effect. -Share Bear 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the afore mentioned sentence since there have been no objections -Share Bear 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a credible source, teh book is prepared by University researchers and is peer reviewed.
See following from http://www.crimesofwar.org/about/about.html
The Crimes of War Project is a collaboration of journalists, lawyers and scholars dedicated to raising public awareness of the laws of war and their application to situations of conflict. Our goal is to promote understanding of international humanitarian law among journalists, policymakers, and the general public, in the belief that a wider knowledge of the legal framework governing armed conflict will lead to greater pressure to prevent breaches of the law, and to punish those who commit them.
See staff at http://www.crimesofwar.org/about/about-staff.html. It includes the editor of Newsday and 2 professors from the University of Berkeley. If you feel they are making these up though , I suggest you contact the board of directors at
John Owen, President Professor, City University
Gilles Peress, Vice-President Magnum Photos; Senior Research Associate, Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley
Eric Stover Human Rights Center, University of California at Berkeley
Roy Gutman, Chairman Foreign Editor, Newsday
Contact Information
Crimes of War Project, 1325 G Street NW, Suite 730, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202 638 0230 office@crimesofwar.org
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs)
Share Bear, you really picked a bad day for that. Couldn't you have waited till the smoke of the last bombing is blown away? I must admit though, the article [3] does use emotive language, above all the word massacre in a meaning that does not agree with our definition, since the victims were combattants. I tried to find some other mention of this from another source, but couldn't find any. I haven't mind up my mind yet if that means it should go or not. — Sebastian 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- massacre in wikipedia specifically defines killings of large numbers of POW's as a massacre. Ditto for other dictionary definitions. Dutugemunu 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
accused?
This section contains three statements where the term "accused" is under discussion
POWs
The LTTE have been accused of executing Prisoners of War in spite of a declaration by the LTTE in 1988 that it would abide by the Geneva Conventions[4].
- There are plenty of evidence that the LTTE have done these massacres. Dutugemunu 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Police and Pooneryn army camp
- has been accused of massacring most of the 400 to 600 police officers captured after their surrender to the LTTE in 1990[5].
- The LTTE have also been accused of executing 200 soldiers captured during an attack on the Pooneryn army camp[6].
- Both come from an US Department of State website. I'm assuming that would count as a reliable source. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it on WT:RS — Sebastian 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Mullaitivu
Not only that, they even accused to executing 207 officers and their men after over-running the Mullaitivu Military Base.[7] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
The reliablity of material given in a book is always questionable, unless there is reference to original source material. Like I said before Dutugemunu you cannot provide any reference to 'soldiers being burnt alive' from a NGO, AP, Reuters, or even a Sri Lankan Government News Release.
Dutugemunu, please don't leave a cut and paste message on my talk page. Also comments like 'Share Bear, you really picked a bad day for that.....' means, there are good days to challenge lies?
I used to edit this article 2 years ago but had since stopped because there are some serious credibility issues with the neutrality in which the article is written. Editors are too personally attached to this subject and cannot edit from a NPOV. A suggestion that Sri Lankans should not edit this article might be in order. They are too emotionally attached to the subject. Some might even believe that they are fighting the war, here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Share Bear (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
Recent event
I suggest replacing the recent events section with a link to the identical but much more detailed section in the Sri Lankan Civil War Page
It is impossible to adequately capture all the recent events on the LTTE page plus it is needless duplication and hardwork for all of the editors here Dutugemunu 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
LTTE & GOSL controlled area image
This image is fairly outdated and the LTTE has lost almost all of east to the Karuna Faction/GOSL except Vakarai, can we find/create a better updated image. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 14:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- This can easily be edited with any cheap or free graphic program. If you can describe more exactly what changes need to be made, and provide sources for that, I could do the edits. — Sebastian 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any good source that indicates GOSL and LTTE controlled areas clearly? If so please put it up on this talk page we'll discuss, I googled for this and couldn't find anything substantive. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like this map is the best information we have. If nobody has any better sources, why don't we just put the old map back with a warning that it may not represent the situation in 2007? If anyone finds a source for the statement "the LTTE has lost almost all of east to the Karuna Faction/GOSL except Vakarai", then we can add that to the caption. — Sebastian 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- But there is no point in putting back incorrect maps. Defnitely the LTTE has lost a large area of Sampur and Muttur. The other areas in East are a patchwork of control between various groups. There is no map showing the Karuna groups area of control. It would be almost like putting a map of the USSR as a map of Russia Dutugemunu 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are there any referances to the claim that the East has been lost? --Sharz 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/23/stories/2006122306031400.htm
In the east of Sri Lanka the map clearly states that it is "partially controlled". This means that there is no complete dominance and the area is in a state of flux. The map is accurate. Karuna group should be considered areas controlled by the SLA, just like areas controlled by EPDP. Which brings us back the same point that the area is controlled by both the LTTE and the SLA - Share Bear 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
THe GoSL controls about the same proportion of land in the North that the LTTE controls in the East. Why dont we just make the whole NorthEast as partially LTTE and GOSL controlled. Dutugemunu 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the map is accurate as it is now. The areas that are north of elephant pass are SLA controlled. The area in red is LTTE controlled. They have established borders and operate a de-facto state in that area. The east is partially LTTE and GOSL controlled. Discussing who controls what in the east is a lost cause. The area will remain in a state of flux as long as the war is being actively fought there. The map is accurate and should be placed back in the article the way it is. -Share Bear