Talk:Velupillai Prabhakaran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

Contents

[edit] Cult of personality

I had removed some of the more POV material in this section but it has been restored. The mere title "Cult of personality" is POV; "leadership style" would be more appropriate. Many of the claims are unsourced and seem outlandish to me, particularly:

  • Prabhakaran has a cult of personality - that is an opinion, not a fact, and should be stated as such (and cited).
  • Prabhakaran lets himself be worshiped as a Sun God - proof?
  • Prabhakaran personally takes credit for every LTTE victory - proof?
  • Prabhakaran is the "single biggest obstacle to peace" - the TIME article cited takes this from a single analyst at RAND corporation. This is POV, protected by the "Critics describe..." these are what are called weasel words.
  • Description of him as totalitarian. It is true that case can be made as such based on the LTTE justice web site, but that should be presented as an argument, not a fact.

Meanwhile, we still need to add an actual biography, rather than blanket descriptions of the man. Tyronen 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I added the [citation needed] to this section.

  • I thought VP is comming from a fisshing village in north. how come chollas are so called low caste fisherman.

--Terrance 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the whole thing. There's no source, it's nowhere near NPOV and reads like some sociological analysis. If there's a source about his leadership that remotely factual, then it should stay. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs complete revision and admin intervention

As per NPOV policies, this article is completely lopsided and does not project the Tamil Eelam perspective on Velupillai Prabhakaran, and does not have a balance in describing about Velupillai Prabhakaran. Needs complete revision to maintain a neutral stance.

It only shows Velupillai Prabhakaran as a barbaric, ruthless tyrant and does not include mentions of his achievements in terms of being the non-political representative of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and also about the de-facto nation Eelam that has been carved out within SL, which is completely controlled by the LTTE.

To straight-jacket Prabhakaran as a Terrorist or as a Child Killer, as per earlier edits and claims in this article, adheres to the biased version of the Sri Lankan govt which only talks of Velupillai Prabhakaran to be an outright barbarian whereas there are number of incidents and quotes available online which highlights his entire career and this needs to be revisited to maintain the neutral perspective on Prabhakaran. The existing article condones the Sri Lankan govt's killings and the turn of events that led to the formation of the LTTE and Velupillai Prabhakaran and therefore this article cannot be concluded to contain any real information as a biographical source of information about Velupillai Prabhakaran. Sudharsansn

First of all, please sign your comments on the talk page using ~~~~.
If you disagree with what is written you can change it, but you have to cite reliable sources, accroding to WP:RS policy. You cannot just write your opinion on Wikipedia.
And plase don't write your commentary on the main article. That is agianst WP policy. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'

[edit] Re: Needs complete revision and admin intervention

>>:First of all, please sign your comments on the talk page using ~~~~.

If you disagree with what is written you can change it, but you have to cite reliable sources, accroding to WP:RS policy. You cannot just write your opinion on Wikipedia.
And plase don't write your commentary on the main article. That is agianst WP policy.'

While I completely understand, pls refer to the history of this page and I had posted on the negative-bias on it already. Due to lack of time, I really am not able to revamp this though there really are citable evidence to strike balance.

To begin with all the info in this page pertains to the 'terrorist' Prabhakaran which is documented mostly by the Sri Lankan government. All I am trying to argue for is the presence of the other side of Prabhakaran, showing his accomplishments as the head of an organization, the evidence for which is available in a number of Canadian and British publications. If anti-Prabhakaran info is deemed to be 'valid' then so is 'pro-Prabhakaran' info.

Do you want to take info about Bhagat Singh from Indian media or the British Media? I'd say take it from both, so that it highlights him both as a martyr and a warrior and also the other perspective of him as a terrorist. Let the readers decide.

Reading the current article, readers are not given a choice of informed decision, if you would kindly understand what I mean. User:Sudharsansn

[edit] Re:Re: Needs complete revision and admin intervention

Snowfold, I am also a Sinhala speaker, as you are [evident from your profile] but yes, I want the readers to take a completely informed decision, something that is done when both sides are projected.

This article is being Vandalized and the Alfred Durairaj incident is being blown up beyond proportions when not much information is being given on what he did. Velupillai Prabhakaran, not adhering to his own principles are only to give a negative 'Cult of Personality' image and are completely not cited, and almost every piece of info in this article is biased towards the SL govt views as evident from the SL Wikipedians working on this article to promote their govt's stand on LTTE.

Needs Admin intervention, completely to prevent vandalism by pro-Sinhala, Anti-Tamil activists. Needs balance to be maintained. Readers are not given a choice of informed decision. Sudharsansn


[edit] Admin review required

Let the tag be removed by an admin who will go through the contents and finalize or make a decision on it. If you are removing this tag, give reasons in the talk page as per the Wiki policy. I have cited reasons why this tag was placed, whereas by removing it, you have Image:Violated Violated the Wiki policy. I am placing it again for Admin review. Thanks User:Sudharsansn

Cite reasons to remove the Vandalism tag. All that has been asked for is a free and fair review, which only means more content getting added to support the neutral stance and not removal of existing content. Maintain your cool and wait for Admin intervention to sort out things. I hope you understand that it seriously is being vandalised by both parties. User:Sudharsansn Refer to this for more info [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] Sudharsansn

I completely support user Sudharsansn view on this. This article is a real mess and appears to have been seriously vandalized. Elalan 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Admin review required

:: I completely support user Sudharsansn view on this. This article is a real mess and appears to have been seriously vandalized. Elalan 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Elalan, either we get the admins to review it soon or we clean it up ONLY to maintain the NPOV stance as per the [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] This article is an outright violation of the pillars of Wiki and the best example being the fact that the cooked-up term 'Child Killer' was on the mainpage for a considerable period of time. This is enough to show that this is being constantly vandalized and these discrepancies are also being maintained by the vandals to ensure information being intentionally misconstrued. This article also needs to be put on sprotect edit lock after a final edit and review

Help is required in cleaning this up, and if somebody is on it already, some of us would be more than glad to help. Any more vandalizing or removing this current stance would be blatant violations of Wiki norms and would subsequentially lead to admin action.

Anyone willing to contest the current stance of the need to review and also prevention of Vandalism, pls go through this [Five pillars of Wikipedia] for more information. Thanks - User:Sudharsansn


User Sudharsansn is making a valid point, i have followed this article for quite a while, it has been again and again vandalised by pro-sinhala anti-tamil crooks. Article needs complete revision.--Npnkumar 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Admin review required

Thanks Npkumar for the concord. Everytime I place the vandalism tag, someone apparently removes it. I am placing it again to keep any more uncited or unwarranted updations on hold to maintain NPOV.
Kindly help maintain the status quo on this article. Thanks. Pls help us in this regard. Thanks again

Sudharsansn 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Admin review required
Bucketsofg and whoever is editing the tags, kindly cite reasons for the actions you take with respect to the removal or addition of tags. The reasons for having those tags are being clearly mentioned here in the Talk page, you cannot just remove those tags without proper citation or reasons just to defend your stand on this article. This is enough to suggest that it is being constantly Vandalized, I have clearly quoted why this was vandalized when I had mentioned someone adding the tag 'Child Killer' to him, which is not even remotely verifiably apart from the SL media. 'Child Killer?' LoL


Debate here and act on it than just reiteratively vandalize it again and again. Sudharsansn 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I took out the Speedy Delete tag; just because you personally disagree with an article doesn't mean it should be speedy deleted. If you think the article is unbalanced, add content to balance it out, or take out sections that are POV. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Stev0 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


>>I took out the Speedy Delete tag; just because you personally disagree with an article doesn't mean it should be speedy deleted.
Well, I was refering to this page being Vandalized every time a balanced edit is being made. Please refer to the page history (article) to understand what I literally mean, when I say 'vandalism'.
>>If you think the article is unbalanced, add content to balance it out, or take out sections that are POV.
While every effort is being made to ensure that the other version stays as it is, why is effort to balance this article, inspite of several edits being negated due to mass reverts? That's my whole point!! Why is a pro-Sinhala mafia thwarting every attempt to balance this article, inspite of several cited reasons behind Alred Durairaj, Child killer mentions, it always reverts back to the original Anti-Tamil, Pro-Sinhala version. I put up the vandalized tag to clearly suggest that every effort made to ensure NPOV is being negated. Any suggestions?? Sudharsansn 02:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this page gets vandalized a lot. The articles on George W. Bush and Wikipedia get vandalized even more, yet I don't see anyone seriously suggesting deleting those articles. Try some other Dispute tag, just not the speedy delete one! Stev0 12:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Probably the 'noncompliance' tag is the perfect one to describe it as time and again this has been discussed here. Sudharsansn 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The noncompliance tag has been posted, and I agree that the speedy deletion was probably not suitable for the context. All arguments supporting the NPOV stance have been elucidated here. People wishing to contest this can pls cite reasons and work on it. In the mean time, every effort is being made to restore it to NPOV and not the current article's pretentious claims. Thanks Sudharsansn 17:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the tags that are on top of the article now. Stev0 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Great, let these be maintained so that we can work on improving this article Sudharsansn 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I have added a whole of list of citation need tags for any fact that could be dispute and has no reference. This further justifies Sudharsansn reason for adding the dispute and verifiability tag for the page. Elalan 19:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Problems

First of all everyone please remember referencs do not have to be websites only. Reliable books are also valid references
Next all the citation problems have arisen from Adhoc's previous mistake where he changed the word "References" to "Further Reading"[1]. All the content from this article had been from those books that are mentioned. Therefore the citation tags aren't neccessary. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing citation needed tags with mickey mouse reason such as this is making clear what the true intentions are for the article. I am sure any reasonable person will understand this. I would like to see each fact directly cited to its source. If this cannot be done or the citations are incorrect, then the statements must go. Because this subject is very controversial, the citation must be very specific and be explicit (it doesnt matter if its from the web or a book), it must be cited and this is the way forward to remove the tag. I have pain stakingly gone through all statement and tagged it as needing reference. Many of these statement are point of view bordering on fantasy. This needs to be qualified. If it can't be qualified it must be scrapped. Elalan 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The citation tags are not for one or two mentions but about 1200 other lopsided arguments which have been heaped against Velupillai Prabhakaran. Don't you even understand, without getting emotional, that we are not interested in showing him as a hero or as a terrorist, all we are asking for is verifiable claims to show him in a neutral light and let readers take informed decision about VP. This tag stays only to show the discrepancies in this article which need to be cleaned up. You cannot remove it without citing the source and books are not an alibi for removing these tags.
If you are going to remove the tags inspite of repeated discussions and clearcut reasons as to why the tags should stay here, we are only going to end up messing up more of this article, in which we can clearly understand that your intent is not neutrality. Pls think for a moment about all the reasons given till now and let us together help removing the crap from this page
Agreed Elalan, this is truly Mickey Mouse reasoning. Sudharsansn 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There are over 30 citation-needed tags for this article, just in the upper section of the article, how can it be removed. Any more meddling with tags would have to be reported to admins as this seems to be some form of user vandalism. Elalan has put in over 40~50 of them and all of them are uncited and unverifiable. How do you know the VP let himself be worhsipped as 'Surya', the Sun god. Did he talk to you about it? This article, unless cleaned up and verified in a short time would have to revert back to a sub-standard article without any citations or information. Either citations are provided ASAP or these lines go, confirming to Wikipedia policies. Provide citation for all the pretentious claims, including the amazingly funny 'Sun-God' claim or as per WP:5P they will be removed in a short while from now. Thanks Sudharsansn 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There are exactly 79 citation-needed tags here and anyone can check up that citation is DEFINITELY needed for those claims. This article is going to be revamped soon, ONLY with neutral and verifiable claims. Thanks Sudharsansn 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, the books links are nice but we also have verifiability concerns, especially because this is a living person. We must have citations in-line for most of the points of the article. If the sources are the books, then that's fine but the fact tags still belong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK agreed. I don't have any of those books so I can't say for sure whether the text is actually contained in them or not.
And wouldn't it be a lot easier (and more practical) to use something like the {{Not verified}} tag on top of the article than adding {{fact}} tags after every sentence. I think it will anyway.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a lot better to clean up this article in terms of verifiable and non-verifibale content than have a perpetual debate on whether to have those tags there or not? Isn't that a much smarter way to do it?Sudharsansn 23:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy and Ideology section

Beyond the obvious fact that the section is way way too large, we need to make sure that the article is specifically about cited views of Prabhakaran and not claims of the origanization. As with any organization, for PR purposes, they may spout a number of views but only those explicitly stated by him belong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had bookmarked Prabhakaran's interview, and I shall get it to be cited here to explain his personal opinion about things, pretty soon. I shall spend time tomorrow to classify info and post it. Geez, it's 5:25 AM here already. Thanks Sudharsansn 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citations added

I have done some work on this article and all claims made are explicitly verifiable from all the information, taken even from the Sri Lankan media and also the international media to ensure a NPOV. The issuing of death warrants, the thileepan incident, the alfred duraiappah incident are all cited with background information and some hearsay remarks about his family have also been added with citation tags clearly. Let me know what you think about this version, we can refine it.

Sudharsansn 16:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Article Revamped

This article as of now, is almost completely revamped with regard to completely cited information about VP in a NPOV and all evidence is verifiable as stated - SL media, Indian media and the international media. Complete rework has been done on this article. Please read through it again, with all the exact citations and references provided and also some redundant sections trimmed down.

As of now this article, IMHO, seems to be perfectly NPOV - his murders, assasinations are also cited with evidence and so are his achievements as a military leader, both sides are portrayed equally - This should be fine enough for the reader to make a good, informed decision about VP.

Let me know your opinions. Ricky, Elalan, Npkumar and others - please read through it again if any fine-tuning is required. Thanks Sudharsansn 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Once reviews are over we can discuss about removing the tags and also protecting this page. Pls review the page once or twice so that we can proceed further on this page. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
203.94.94.3 can be banned for any repeated vandalism as two warnings have been issued already. Sudharsansn 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Do throw in your opinion about the present page so that we can go ahead and protect this page. Thanks. Sudharsansn 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
As per Sudharsansn, bloking for new and unregistered users requested --∞Sechzehn16Talk∞ 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the new page, it's throroughly NPOV, presents all sides of the story, is to the point and conforms to the rules of a WIkipedia article. However, maybe a picture would be in order?

--Sharz 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) P.S It should be Protected immediatly as these issues are hotly contended

Thanks Sechzen and Sharz. I have a lot of images, but I am not too sure as to how to upload them here, though I can point it to the external link. Can anyone suggest as to how to upload them to Wiki Images? Sudharsansn 09:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one bit of tidbit info., that I believe is not from a credible source. That is the health of VP [2]. The current source for this info, the Asian Tribune has been shown to be a not so credible source over a couple different subject matter (I think Sharz would agree on this, after reading through his discussion points). An alternate source that can verify the Asian Tribune claim would be satisfactory I think.
I should say article has been well revamped and I think Sudharsansn has done an excellent/super job in such a short period. Its certainly close to being/is NPOV as we can get at the moment. Now it is a matter of protecting and policing this against the onslaught of vandals. Elalan 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Elalan. With respect to your Asiantribune points I did not know that there were some issues. All the more I think this gives us only a picture of his background, family info and his illness. Others do throw in your opinion on whether to have this page or not and Elalan, could you pls tell me abt the other topic in which the Asiantribune credibility took a hit, bcos two or three info points like his family, and health info are quoted from that. Thanks again Elalan, Ricky, Sharz and Npnkumar for your support. Sudharsansn 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You've certainly done a lot of work on this, but I really haven't had that much time to go thru the article so I can't tell you what I think yet.
Regerding images, we certainly need some to make the article complete. You can click the link to the left of Wikipedia below the search box that says "Upload file", but that will make the images only available on WP. So its best to upload directly to Commons here [3] so that it can be used in diffrent Wiki projects.
And I agree the article should be protected from anons. Not a comprehensive protection. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Snowolf, pls go through the article...I haven't written an anti-Sri Lankan version of it. It is still balanced. In fact I have added the death penalties issued by the Chennai high court and the Colombo bench for Premadasa's murder along with all citations that were actually required to justify pretentious claims such as the 'Sun god' one. Do go through this and comment on it. Sudharsansn 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sudharsansn I didn't even suggest it was POV or anything like that. I just said I didn't have the time to read it fully yet. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean that either, I just wanted to know about your opinion. That's all :-) Sudharsansn 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete citation - Internal and External - added to the 1974 Tamil conference incident and also the murder of Alfred Duraiappah. All completely verifiable and cited, with reports from Asia Times and other media. Thanks.

Some more fine tuning, and a picture and this should be a near-perfect article - NPOV and completely cited and verifiable evidence. Thanks.Sudharsansn 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Brammen, I really dont understand how VP, Eelam and SL could not be related categories and no Wiki policy states so. Unless you discuss it with others on the page, this change is going to be reverted endlessly. There is no propaganda being done for anyone here, and it is quite understandeable to add SL and Eelam to the VP page. With regd to your 'Detailed articles don't go in national categories', cite reasons, cite Wiki policy reasons and have them. Otherwise you are only trying to show ur presence there!! Show proof, discuss and then revert or change!! If you are going to cite reasons and discuss them here, fine otherwise, I am going to revert it tomorrow, to prevent the 3R rule.Sudharsansn 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, you have indeed done a great job in revamping this article. I still don't understand why so many people approch this artilce one sided and vandalise it. Sorry i could not contribute much these days but any ways will try to follow this article.

I changed the disputed category from "Sri Lanka" to "Sri Lankan people". Hopefully everyone can agree with that. Cos as User:Brammen said the "Sri Lanka" category should not be used for individual articles, and as Sudharsansn said Prabakaran is connected to Sri Lanka. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Snowolf, now I am sure that both the parties are contented with the NPOV stance. If someone can help me put up a picture or put up one by themselves, it would be great. I have uploaded a Prabhakaran_Eelam.jpg in Commons. If someone could advise or take it up from there, it would be great.
We will ask Ricky or some admin to review this and protect it so that we can rest in peace that this article portrays both sides and that we are giving the readers a well-informed choice as to decided whether VP is a hero or a murderer. Thanks. Sudharsansn 13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sudharsansn there's a problem with the image you just uploaded. Images on WP have to be free to be used commercially and cannot be copyrighted. Unfortunately you can't just get an image from a website and upload it onto WP unless the website states something like "Public Domain" or "the content on this website can be reproduced". if not it will be deleted from WP. Also since the image you uploded doesn't have neccessary info, it will be deleted in 7 days [4]. The policies are given here WP:ICT. So please try to get a free to use image.
Regarding protection, I don't think we should protect this article completely, cos that will be against the WP ideals. I think protection against anonymous uses is a good idea though, since they do them most damage. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 15:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "crushed" removed

i removed it because that article doesnt make sense at all..It seemed to be written by someone with a kindergarten level knowledge of SriLankan history and cant be taken seriously anyway.There are overwhelming evidence that sinhalese lived and ruled Northern part of Srilanka for centuries and historians overwhelmingly believed(with evidence) that sinhalese(kandyan kings) ruled present day eastern propvince until 1815. Getting back to the point, TULF was never crushed by any Srilankan government,they just simply couldnt achieve their demands. thanks --Iwazaki 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be really nice if you would read through the citation that has been added there. Refrain from your 'kindergarten' comments, we aren't here in this article because of kindergarten level knowledge. Your claims of 'overwhelming evidence' seems to overlook the fact that there was a Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna for ages. You might probably want to use something called as 'Google'. Sudharsansn 17:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
it would be really nice if you work on your reading comprehension skills..All my points remain valid and u only have one kindergrten level article to back upwhat ever you claims..yes, there was a tamil kingdom in jaffna,for couple of centuries, and i dont deny it.How about the article ?? doesnt it say, historically sinhalese lived in south and west and tamils lived in north and east ?? hahahaha...even as late as 1815, east was predominantly sinhalese and was a part of the kandyan kingdom.And for north,sinhala-buddhist civilization simply outdated tamil-hindu one by centuries.proof, mahavamsa written 5 th century onwards,records of all the foreign travellers(incl phahian) and tons of inscriptions which can be found in all over the north,or i can give you some sigiri graffiti written in perfect sinhalese by the people who came from north!! sorry i dont need google to know my mother lands history.
that article has no scholarly value..And there is no proof that Srilankan government "crushed" TULF.TULF(and other tamil parties) merely failed to achieve most of their day-dreams and some of their genuine grievance

thanks --Iwazaki 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


I don't need to either, we share the same history. It is a well-known fact that the N and NE regions are majority Tamil, the regions around Jaffna(Yaazhpaanam/Yaapanaya) and Trincomalee(which by itself are Tamil names) and also the north central regions around Mankulam and Puliyankulam. Crushed has been rephrased and your citation needed tag can stay, it's fine. As per your other historical claims, I would only want you to read through history, not the Sri Lankan version of it, but the neutral version of it to understand more of your mother-land!! Sudharsansn 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i think u indeed depend on google a lot, which seems to be your sole source.

Otherwise you wouldn't say such things as 'historically north and east are tamils ' and blabla(sorry ,but most of the things u wrote dont even deserved blabla).And iam not sure what u mean by we.. for starters, NE was predominantly sinhalese for centuries,that doesn't mean there were no tamils ,BUT numbers were few,if not none!! I recommend you to read series, "inscriptions of srilanka" to grasp atleast the basic knowledge of our history,not google.And for the names, i forgive your ignorance and happily take this opportunity to enlighten you.Even as late as 10 th century A.D there were no tamil inscriptions of srilanka,So where was your tamil settlements in north and east ??? Jaffna is a new name, it was known as "nagadeepa" or "nakadiva" for centuries and those are "sinhalese names",same as many(almost all) the towns in north and east,were sinhalese origin !!and present days kytes was known as "uratota" a perfect sinhalese name.And even in the 16 th century ,main divisions of jaffna had sinhalese names, and there was a sizable sinhalese population at that time(read phillipus baldaeus book).

And east ?? starting with trinco which was knwon as "gokanna" ,a perfect sinhalese name,was never ruled by jaffna tamil kings ,and till 1815 most of the east was under the control of the kandyan king (read Baldaeus, and knox,and i think there are plenty of other document at our national archives)..SO what is your advice ?? should we follow indea and start re-naming our cities,with ancient(correct) names ??

people can change and twist names,but that doesn't change the history..Srilankan history is clear and there can be only one version of it,the version of truth --Iwazaki 15:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

since you have done nothing to justify the word "crushed" ,i thinnk its pointless to have it..so iam going to remove it again,correctly so --Iwazaki 15:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Since my point has been conveyed in the article, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you to know about my history!! Removal of 'Crushed' and replacing it with a more mild word has already been accepted, so let us not reiterate abt it. Sudharsansn 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
your history is erroneous.please correct it with better coding.ill take your point. Crushed is wrong,not because its strong but because its baseless and shouldnt be there.And i have no objection with the replacement word/s.

--Iwazaki 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


What is happening here, haven't I accepted to the use of a milder word in this context!! Why make 'erroneous' claims?? Sudharsansn 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

see what u wrote here..Then you will see what i was refering to.

--Iwazaki 07:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--Iwazaki 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)== murder and scholars are removed ==

The given references does not state those people who died in that incident were scholars.So unless someone comes up with a proper proof, i think we should simply refer to them as civilians
Also, iam not sure murder is the correct word to describe that unfortunate incident.See how DR Rajan hoole described this tragic incident.He wrote "Pandemonium broke loose and seven civilians died of electrocution when a power line came down".Police may be wrong in their action,but to lebel them as murderers is absolutely baseless.

--Iwazaki 10:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you want to put forth your pro-SL claims in an article which was NPOV. It is known that they died of electrocution, but the attack is what is being pointed out here. Neutral evidence shows tear-gas shelling and firing, why else would they fire, if not for the intention of dispersing the crowd? For fun? Pls read through all the citations before making changes Sudharsansn 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Apart from the other two aforesaid instances, it seems to look fine eitherway. Minor edits to encompass conflicting views about these have been done. Thanks Sudharsansn 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
for starters , yes iam very much pro-srilankan,and very proud of it..I being pro-srilankan has nothing to do with my edits .I use my brain to think rationally and the edits i made are within the rules of wikipedia..

tear gas shelling happens in many protest,i my self have suffered from police tear gas during my school days..IF some one comes and say ,police had the intention to murder us(university students) i would kindly ask that person to go to the nearest mental clinic..Police uses tear gas ,as you correctly stated to disperse people, regardless of their protest(esp in srilanka),or even ethnicity..And no way ,iam defending it.But to use the word "murder" to describe these are nonsense.

are there any evidence that the police shoot directly at people ?? Judge Sansoni couldnt find any evidence and why we should care about hypothesis created by some tamil politicians

--Iwazaki 04:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Judge Sansoni!! How do you know that he was neutral? Isn't it a well-known fact that so many cases of war crime against the SL Army have been brushed under the carpet!! What about the massacres in Mankulam, in Trinco district during the settlement times and also the mishandling of the 100,000 plantation Tamils who were sent back to India.......Buddy, these cases are closed......so stop making claims that the GoSL's stand on this issue is final. While I can agree with your statements about the intent of the police, I dont understand why police had to resort to such a move when it was a prestigious World Tamil Conference being held in their own country....... The word 'murder' was used as required in the context, as the LTTE alleged Duraippah for having murdered them, it is given as per the contextual meaning and does not vindicate both the parties of their claims. Eitherway, I am fine with the present version of this and any more changes can be welcomed with exact citations. Thanks. Sudharsansn 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Neutral evidence shows tear-gas shelling and firing, why else would they fire, if not for the intention of dispersing the crowd. When we write about the LTTE firing on "civilians" we refer to it as "terrorism" because Wikipedia defines terrorism as the ""indiscriminate", targeting of civilians with disregard for human life". If you (Iwazaki) can point out to me why the Sri Lankan police would fire on a crowd of protestors without the (albeit not officially stated, but nontheless de facto motive of) "targeting of civilians with disregard for human life", I will agree to not terming the incident as an act of terrorism (or at the very least culpable homicide) on the part of the Sri Lankan police. Now, Iwazaki, please go ahead and enlighten me about why security forces (or anyone else for that matter) would open fire on a group of people without disregard for human life. Cerebral Warrior 13:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Point! When the former can come under 'terrorism' this comes under 'state-sponsored terrorism'. Either refute both or agree to both Sudharsansn 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
what about the Mankulam ?? i would love to hear your version, which no doubt come from your buddy "google" and most probably written by another "LTTE Scholar"..wow !!
and about the brushing under the carpet,yes indeed we have put many of them..esp the ones ltte claimed that IPKF did..So ,why dont you come with crimes which were allegedly carried out by SLA against civilians ?? then we can proceed.

and plantation tamils, havent you heard about sirima-shastri treaty ?? Whats wrong sending indian citizens back to india,after all they were in a semi slave condition under the white rulers.Although there is no question of their great contribution to our country,i must admit madam sirimavo did the right thing by sending some of them back to india,because with declining tea-prices we simply couldn't afford to have too many of them and for judge Sansoni ,i highly respect him and i think he did a very good job.Despite all the criticism,he was much more neutral than u think..

Fine, the IPKF screwed up in Sri Lanka, but that's nothing compared to what the Indian Army is doing on peacekeeping operations across the world. Do you know how many Indian soldiers have laid down their lives trying to maintain the peace in conflict-prone regions everywhere from El Salvador to Vietnam? Cerebral Warrior 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

and for the rest, i repeat my previous question

are there any evidence that the police shoot directly at people ?? If there are proofs that the security forces indeed shoot at the people with the sole-intention of killing them, they should be brought into justice or hanged immediately(with, if possible ,ltte and its boot-lickers)

--Iwazaki 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "shoot directly at people"? If you put a crowd of people in front of people, and I open fire it is almost certain that I will hit somebody. Add to that multiple policemen and a large number of civilians in a small area and the probability of people being hit is a certainity. Besides when you say that the police "shot at the people" you do generally mean "directly at the people", unless the Sri Lankan police are cockeyed. Cerebral Warrior 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
furthemore,ltte just dont fire at people, they cut people(including babies),send friendly suicide bombers and do such inhuman things far worse than, known terrorists, such as osama bin laden.Also, pls be noted ,prabha is a runaway assassin,who had shoot and assassinated a prominant tamil politician

thanks --Iwazaki 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LTTE does what it does to establish a Tamil homeland and fight against Sri Lankan ethnic discrimination. How is that compareablt to a man who wants to kill us all just because we don't follow his religion? By the way, haven't you heard of your army bombing Tamil schools? Cerebral Warrior 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
if you can elaborate the so-called dicrimination then we can proceed this talk..And for people like you seem to be rely on google search to find facts,thus getting brain washed by the ltte propaganda,i have a small advice..Didnt you parents tell you not believe everything u hear ?? so, why dont you think rationally before jumping into any conclusions ??

prabhakaran is a worse killer than osama bin laden,We can start with this by mentioning that osama has never directly killed anyone(to this date).But prabakaran started his thug life by killing a prominant politician.Secondly prabha kills anyone who doesnt listen to him,or go against him.Either we become followers of his cult or lose our desire to live,thats his motto.So he simply matches osama in that category..

What does any of this have to do with Vellupillai Prabhakaran article? Stick to topic please. Cerebral Warrior 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i was merely answering you and enlighting you in the process ^_^ ..remember you still havent answer my very basic question, which has a lot to do with the article
furthermore;though,words like "assassin" ,"terrorist" are tagged as loaded terms in here, i frankly believe prabha deserved both of them.

thanks--Iwazaki 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Iwazaki, you need to have a lot of concern for your fellow editors. Since you have already stated yourself to be a proud SL, and not a neutral and sensible one, I am not going to waste time in discussing about it. Cerebral warrior has questions and you give him answers, not your own dragged interpretations like 'cut baby', 'kill politician' which makes you sound like an extremely immature kid who is using a computer for the first time. As for you Osama comparisons they only reaffirm your immaturity.

While it can be understood that you are new to Wikipedia, it isn't a reason for you to use talk pages for dragging in our parentage, what they imparted to us or whether they made us think rationally or not. These are uncalled for.

If your task is to make an edit, provide citations, make edits and justify them. Do not use this like your own personal noticeboard to talk for the SL army. We aren't talking abt the LTTE either, only sticking to Neutrality. Pls go through WP:Civility rules, if you haven't heard of them!!

This is more of a friendly suggestion to you to sustain in an environment which assumes Good Faith. Read through the guidelines, basic rules and Civility. You are always free to express whatever you want to, of course, with concern for your fellow editors. Thanks Sudharsansn 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

you have said a few gems here, and the one in your last message is one of my bests.So since iam pro-Srilankan i lose my nuetrality by default ?? isnt this great.So let me think, if iam pro-evolutionary i lose my sensibility, if iam buiddhist i lose by sensibility,and i cant edit those.further if i'm anti-terrorist i become a insensible. wow!! quote of the year!! so ,suda,tell me,aint you pro-indian or even pro-tamil ?? so doesnt your logic ruled your self out of any further editing ?? interesting ??
thanks for the advices regarding the use of wikipedia..I bet your self had a rough time ,esp about the copy-righted pictures..So before advising and playing with sarcasm why dont you look after your self ?? i mean afterall u needed advice from a probably another pro-srilankan to grasp the idea of copyright policies here in wikipedia..
well this immature kid ,is a graduate and finishing his MSc in a leading JP uni and dont depend on google to get history lessons.. And as a Srilankan this kid has a deep interest in LTTE and Its activities..So since prabhakaran is synonymous with the LTTE, we can simply contribute all the LTTE brutality to him..Havent you ever heard about what Anton balasingham told of Prabhankaran ?? well if not, why dont you do a google check..And for cutting babies and even pregnant women,yes LTTE are champoins in that field..And they made osama look rather poor.

when its come to terrorism,Osama is nothing compared to prabhakaran..period .

i have an enormous respect to wiki and its editors..But like in every society ,there are a few here joking around..And for them i have no respect..Since i take my history very seriously, i dont want kids to come here and screw things up.kids should grasp more knowledge before coming here.
Speak for your self, all my comments here are in reply to what others asked..Whether they are related or not, i normally wont disappoint anyone who asks questions from me.A habbit which comes from my fathers side!!

thanking you --Iwazaki 12:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral Warrior made some remarks and i didnt notice them..for IPKF , i think they did a pretty good job here until LTTE tagged with then president premadasa and started to interfere in their operations..I do condemned the actions of some indian politicians at that time but i think we srilankans should honour all the IPKF soldiers who fought here.With all the difficulties they did a good job.And for their international work,i wish them all the best.

and for the rest i repeat my question,again..

are there any evidence that the police shoot directly at people ??

thanks--Iwazaki 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Fortunately or unfortunately you have reaffirmed my faith in you as an immature and emotional kid by citing how your father brought you up, inherited from your 'father's side' and such sentences multiple times, which are totally unwarranted and inapt here. As for the rest, they have all been answered already and if you could put aside your mask for a minute, you can read through all verifiable claims in the article. This talk page is really not interested in listening to your opinions on IPKF and how you want to honor them, as you have also made a dubious claim that LTTE tagged with Premadasa to 'interfere with IPKF' - daydreaming, should I say!

Wiki is not a place to express your emotions, it is only a place where you let people take informed decisions by sticking to the five pillars of Wikipedia!!

Everything in the article and talk page is cited with verifiable evidence, even from Wiki articles. Stop using this as your personal notice board to honor Sri Lankans and Sri Lankan army, and if you really are interested in working on this article, pls go ahead and do so with citations, WP:Civility and NPOV. Sudharsansn 19:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This arguement is non-constructive, basless in nature and entirely stupid.

The fact of the matteris that in ALL circumstances referances should be used that are off an impartial nature, and the article itself should only present that which is backed by evidence. Hencely the User Iwazaki has presented infomation that is biased and based upon sources that are inherently biased. Thusly the infomation added should be disgarded if another more apropriate source can be found. No Arguement about it. As for this name calling and bickering, it is not constructive and the moral arguements for and against the Tamil Tigers will not be resolved by two individuals in a wikipedia discussion page. I expect better from User Sudharsansn then to get into what is essentially an useless grudge match, and Iwakazi, your chances are detrimental to the article, and thus should and will be removed for more apropriate content unless you can find sources of a better nature.--Sharz 07:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i got a couple of questions for you,these are highly important and i kindly ask you to reply
1 what are the biased information provided by me ??
2 Are you really satisfied with the 'evidence' provided by 'editors' so far ??
3 if yes, could you please answer to my questionms raised here ??

if you cant give any proper answers iam kindly ask you take back your remarks of me. thanks --Iwazaki 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————


didnt i tell you to speak for your self ?? what you have written here is not only in low quality ,but lack truth too.some of your sources are highly ambiguous, and do not qualified to be in the article.And thats what this kid do here, pointing out your "hypothesis" to save the standards of wikipedia..You have shown here so many things, lack of "reading conprehension skills" , "kidergarten level logic" , "lack of knowledge in srilankan crisis" and most importantly "lack of(or NO) knowledge in our history"..So shouldnt you think ,better to get some history lessons in school ,before even coming here to edits ??


i do not question all the sources.. i question some ambiguous ones and mis-quoted ones.You have done a tremendous job of twisting words and mis-quoting

..Ive pointed a few here..And for premadasa helping prabhakrana and the ltte with weapons and cash, is a well-known fact here..YOU dont need to take a day-nap to see that truth..OH dear, havent you atleast read the book,named assingment colombo by former indian diplomat "A DIXIT" ?? please atleast read that.

last, i said it before, i was merely answering to questions made by you and others.Iam here to speak truth, and unlike some i dont have any hidden agendas.I honor my state, SLA or anyother thing, with a reason..And condemned them too, with reason..Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !! And this kid is here to make things better.--Iwazaki 22:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

This is your last warning for Civility, and friendly warnings have already been suggested. You have not done any work on this article apart from some terribly minor edits and spell checks!! Pointing out my work as 'poor work' and me--Iwazaki 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)ntioning this article as 'pre-school' level is uncalled for. This truly is the last warning and any more lack of civility will be referred to admins!! Sudharsansn 05:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC) —— ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

you started the name calling in the first place.So i really dont know you have the right to warn me.I am here to correct edits and do whateven i can do here..I saw a problem with the wording here ,i saw mis-quotations,i saw ambiguous sources, and did my edits accordingly..For you it may look some terrible-minor edits( seems you still havent stop insulting), but those edits are highly important to this article.And for pre-school thing, i used the word "kindergarten level" to describe certain "sources" given under the citation..I never call this article "pre school level one",and i dont think this article is poor either..BUT i do believe some "sources" are actually biased and not giving enough info.Afterall what can you expect when you quote from some pro-LTTE sites such as "eelam.com".

wait sudharshan, iam going to do some major edits in the near future,when get my facts right.be patient --Iwazaki 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Phew, it is pointless conveying the meaning of Civility to someone who talks about how he was brought up by his father in a Wikipedia talk page and ends up calling 'me' as for having started this argument - to sum it up, terribly childish!! Eelam.com is not pro-LTTE or anti-LTTE, it is LTTE's official website and so it needs to be cited for their own claims and any claims other than that also need to be cited. Do major/minor or whatever edits you want to, just make sure you read thro Wiki policies while doing it and yes I repeat Civility!! Sudharsansn 09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

[edit] state sponsored terrorism

i would like to know what are those verified claims..To have a real value, those claims should be backed up by good evidence.Since prabhakaran started his terror in 1972, i would like to have evidence of state sponsored terrorism before 1972. In 1976 he became an assassin and a crimianl, so state has every right to punish he and his thugs.Its all about law and order,nothing more. last but not least, dont forget that TULF ran 1977 election with an agenda to secede from the state.And i think in 1976 they already declared something similar to independence.. any state,let alone srilanka, has every right to safeguard its unity.therefore state may act in its own to prervent its destruction.Abraham Lincon and the northern states did the same in 1860,US civil war.Are they terrorists ?? Indian government did the same in Hyderabad,in 1948.But unfortunately Sl government initially did not take any major actions and TULF ignite the situation ,and the rest is history. --Iwazaki 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Explain what you mean by "started his terror" before 1972, and also point out the relevance your statement has to State terrorism in Sri Lanka.
  • Ofcourse Sri Lanka, like any other state, has the right to punish convicts under its criminal code. What Sri Lanka does not have the right to do is launch ethnic cleansing programmes against Tamils, instigate Sinhala-Tamil riots and violate the human rights of its prisoners.
  • Yes, every state has the right to secure its unity. The British had a right to secure the unity of their Empire too right? And by that logic Sri Lanka shouldn't actually be independent?
  • The Unionists under Abraham Lincoln were fighting against racism. The Tamils are fighting against racism too. So the LTTE is comparable to the Unionists and the Sri Lankans are the Confederates. But you know who won the Civil War right?
  • The Indian government at that time followed an "iron fist in velvet glove" policy. What Sri Lanka follows is a "bomb their schools and kill their children and rape their women and burn their villages and massacre them all" policy. Cerebral Warrior 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
okay.let started the enlighten process..here we go
ltte was started somewhere in 1974,and if they are fighting against the state sponsored terrorism, why dont you point out terrorism before 1976 ?? Its useless top point out action which happened during the war.what important is to prove that state terrorism existed before the foundation of LTTE.Other wise these two has no relation thus no value to be in the article.TO justify inclusions you must prove the state terrorism before the foundation of LTTE.Howcan he fight something that didnt exist ?? huh !!
state did not start a ethnic cleansing war against tamil..it was LTTE who was responsible for the all the ethnic cleansing in north and east..Ther were well over 10,000 sinhlese and 100,000(may be more)muslims were in jaffna,before LTTE threaten to open the passage to heaven for them ..So as a result there are no sinhalese or muslim civilians in north.Contrary, biggest portion of tamils live in south among the sinhalese..Since north and east become a hell type place, they have found comfort in south..So where is your so called ethnic cleansing.
furthemore, state did not started any riot, not it did not kill any prisoners in 1983.Even the die-hard LTTE boot lickers, still cant relate state to the 1983 tamil riots, so here we have someone with not even basic knowledge of our country trying to change the history.
LTTE is clearly a racist organization..When it comes to racism LTTE tops everyone,even hitler would come distant second..Their so-called mythical homeland is only forn tamils..And as i said before they have either ,sent other s to heaven or kicked out of the land.Even many tamils who were against them found places outside earth.And here we have someone , joking about LTTE ethnic harmony..LTTE is most probably worst than the southern/confederate states,who actually didnt kicked all the blacks out..LTTE have been murdering all the inoccent sinhalese and muslims in north and east ,to date.They kill civilians allmost everyday, so open your eyes.Dont pretend deaf, didnt your parents tell you to use your brain to think ??
LTTE may keep continue their killing spree, and brain washed a few ,like the one here, but they cant fool all the people all the timw..And humanity going to prevail at the end as it did in 1865 !!
okay good..Could you please elaborate , what schools were bombed before 1976 ? or even before 1983  ?? In any war mistakes happens.But the important part is, whether it was done intentionally or not..SL state has nothing to gain from school bombing..So the claims of intentional bombing of school is nothing but bogus.But LTTE do and will try to kill school kids in any time.Go to colombo and visit a leading school to see for your self.Go to east, to see thousands of sinhalese students who live in fear..AND when i was there in april, LTTE took lives of 4 school students by hacking them near trinco..So much for their love for school kids..

Well i do hear these rape,massacre cases a lot and sadly most of them lack any real truth.But if you really interested in masacres carried out by LTTE i can always enlighten you..Believe me, they made hitler looked rather poor..

finally , words like terrorism ,terrorist are loaded words..Since we dont use the word terrorist to describe prabhakaran we have no right whatsoever to talk about the highly ambiguous state terrorism..I think this goes againt wiki policy.So unless someone going to take this part off, iam going to add "terrorist" to prabhakaran and "terrorist organization" to the LTTE.

thanks --Iwazaki 22:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Iwazaki, it seems you are new to wikipedia and we all look forward/eager to see positive contribution from you. We are all here to make positive contribution in an encyclopedia format. Having looked at what you have written at this talk page I have some concerns to raise. Please assume WP:AGF (Assume good faith from others). But also keep in mind there is WP:Civility and that has to be adhered to. In addition, all these article must be NPOV and not be rants supporting one party or another. In couple of instance the stuff you have written could be construed as personal attacks on fellow wiki editors. We would like to keep a positive atmosphere as per Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia talk pages are not to be used as blogs to write opinion on anything, its merely a place to discuss and cordinate work to be done on the article. In otherword this page is not a soapbox . I would also suggest you look at [5]. Thanks for your understanding and we look forward to positive contributions from you. Elalan 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
elalan, i have already answered you in my talk.But for the benifit of the others, ill add something here too..Iam not new to wikipedia. ive been using it for a while ,and do know its policies.But after seeing some "dubious" "hypothetical" artcles related to my country, i started editing here,SO as a editor iam quite new..I do know about NPVO, and thats why asked the validity of having such a article, state terrorism.State terrorism,if it really exist, is a result of a terrorism itself.When JVP started to terrorise people , government had to take its own action.Same goes for LTTE..What i cant believe is, while people do not refer LTTE or Prabhakaran as terrorists, they refer Srilankan state as a terrorist state..There should be only one policy here, if Loaded words are controversial, we should refrain from using it..I sense biased standards here.
and for personal attacks, i see your total ignorance once again..somehow , mysteriously you have missed the attacks of others,name calls such as "kid"..Initially i did attack to some article and mis-quotations..i started my sarcasm to counter attack "name calling"..

thanks --Iwazaki 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He argues that he chose military means only after observing that non–violent means have been ineffectual and obsolete, especially after the Thileepan incident

This should be removed for good..LTTE was started way back in 1970s and by 1983 they were a fully military organization.SO to say he started to take weapons ,eps after thelipan incident is baseless and do not make sense at all..I dont mind having "LTTE took weapons after observing the failures of non-violent methods" , but to take thilipans incident(if they ever claim) as a reason to arm to the teeth is totallly baseless. thanks --Iwazaki 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] verified claims ??

The given sources doesnt justify its inclusion.So unless proper evidece provided, we should leave the [citation needed] tag. LTTE was started somewhere in 1974,and if they are fighting against the state sponsored terrorism, why dont you point out terrorism before that ?? Its useless to point out action which happened during the war.what important is to prove that state terrorism existed before the foundation of LTTE.Other wise these two has no relation thus no value to be in the article.TO justify inclusions you must prove the state terrorism before the foundation of LTTE..

Further LTTE directly responsible for the death of hundreds of tamils.Political assassinations against tamils who oppose them have been carried out since early days..So how can LTTE represent tamils against so-called state terrorism, when they themselves had terrorise tamils since 1970's ??

And i do hope, wikipedians stop quoting from sites like "eelam.com" . Their articles are not only biased but lack any scholarly value too.As i said before dont trust internet articles 100%, because LTTE followers are so good at creating their own version of history, which in many cases are nothing but full of myths(just like traditional homeland thing)


thanks --Iwazaki 08:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citecheck template

The citecheck template applies only to a specific type of problem where citations are present but misused, such as quotes taken out of context. Sometimes this template gets mistakenly added to articles that have a different problem: not enough citations. Please explain the reason for the citecheck so that editors can replace inaccurate text with better material or change to a more appropriate template. Durova 22:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Self-declared"

What is the relevance of Tamil Ealam's "self-declared" status to this article? Also, what exactly is "self-declared"? Ceylon "declared" itself to be Sri Lanka in 1972, does that make your country "self-declared"? Cerebral Warrior 01:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


In that any country can be considered as "self-declared"..So, if you insisting calling sri-lanka a self-declared state, please go ahead and call all the countries in the world as self-declared.As for LTTE , not only its self-declared it solely depend on the food/water/medicine supplied by SL government..All the schools in the LTTE area are funded by our tax-money,All the wages paid by our tax-money..LTTE is not onll self-declared, but also "totally dependant on SL government assisstance to its survival"

--Iwazaki 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kilinochi press-conference info

The whole section's integrity stands on these lines

  1. ^ Sunday Times 14.4.2002
  2. ^ Sunday Times 14.4.2002
  3. ^ Assignment colombo at page 55

All these are blank text lines and do not point to any information at all, they are not even hyperlinks pointing to something. Even I saw that program but I cannot claim to correctly state whatever they have said unless there is info verifiable by everyone. It doesn't matter if the newspaper has published that article, but it needs to be an info which everyone can verify. If there are online references which point to it, it should be cited if there is a need felt that it should stay. To define citation, it has to be verifiable information from a decently descriptive article, which talks about the context and not whatever an individual has read, seen or inferred. Sudharsansn 11:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

sunday times article can be reched online, but theres a small problem in it, you have to be a member of it to read any article.I could have easily copy pasted that article/interview but that would have violated the copyright and thus would have created major problem..And there are some other printed evidence too..I dont know why you removed Dixits comments as i have even quoted the pages of the book..iam going to revert to the previous version,and we can discuss your issues here..And please be noted, i prefer printable materials to internet articles in many cases,and those are difinitely verified..Further iam giving "Wages of sin " by SL Gunasekera as a source, because what written in the sunday times is backed by that book.if you have problem with that, please purchase the book and read it.

thanks --Iwazaki 11:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The cult of personality section removed as it seems that it was brought in again, as per the previous trim justification by admin Ricky (Pls look up talk page archives). That section has no verifiable information about VP pictures required to be hung in offices, etc....Sudharsansn 11:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

i reverted back to the erlier version..since i have given strong "printed materials" i dont think there is any doubt about it..For hyperlinks , as i said before i dont think its necessary to solely depend on "internet" as its considered a place where anyone can write basically what even he/she wants..I have given 2 books and 3 news-paper articles as facts , and mostly points made here are highly iportant to this article.AS it directly address very important issues

--Iwazaki 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

if you want to made amendments about "rajive ghandi" issue, please do it.You can have your source too.But dont removed my remarks as its highly important. --Iwazaki 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Iwazaki, when no one can read it, it is as good as not having an evidence at all. No one who is reading that page would be able to verify the information you have cited which literally means that it is not worthy of calling an evidence. If you want it to stay it should be able to be read and verified. These sections can't stay because you have read them in a paper someday, sometime. If you have quoted about Dixit's comments, you cannot point to some anon book. Show us the evidence and it can stay. People don't have to puchase the book as per your advertisement to verify it, it shud be verifiable by everyone Sudharsansn 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have given you the sources, and still your are accussing me..Please stop deleting what i wrote..i have given you the sources..No where in the wiki policies it says, only online article should be provided..If you have problems with printed materials, please provide your arguments againts it..Dont remove what i wrote..If you have a problem with "printed materials", then please stop editing in wikipedia,as many editors have used "printed materials as sources in many articles".iam going to complain this to the administrators, if you are not going to stop this.

AS for dixits book , i will give the ISBN ,thats all i can do.It is up to you to do further checking.And dont blame me,just because you cant find the book or anything.It doesnt make sense at all. And iam going to revert back to the earlier version.. IF you delete it again i consider it as vandelism and going to complain to administrators --Iwazaki 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

as for, Wages of book,since i dont have it now(its in the school library),i will let you know the ISBN and Publisher,tomorrow.

--Iwazaki 11:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)



Iwazaki, you can pls go ahead and complain to any administrator as I know what would be the eventual outcome of this edit. When it is said 'verifiable', it means outrightly 'verifiable' by everybody. Because if it is not so, I can claim that 'Velupillai Prabhakaran' is an alien as published in my college magazine or something which I read on the way to Bhutan. Furthermore giving "Sunday Times + date" is not a format which is available anywhere else, and even if it is given, it is in a readable format.

If you are going to get back to the old version I might have to complain to administrators under Verifiability clause which explicitly states that " "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia" as quoted from the link and "Sunday Times + date" is NOT something that is verifiable by ANYONE and writing text that violates this automatically qualifies for WP:VAND and yes if you are going to go ahead and revert back to your version which stands entirely upon "Sunday Times + Date" you are doing yourself a big favor by qualifying for Vandalism.

Right now, my suggestion, in good faith to you is to go through the Verifiability page and get it clear that when posting info it should be able to be read and verified by everybody and not by people who subscribe to that paper or those who have to buy it to confirm it. With regd to "Wages of Sin" it should also be verifiable, ISBN no is not the way to handle it!! Getting back to your own version is dubious because nobody in this same page, all your fellow editors, do not even know what was in the article, how can such an information be verifiable?

The fact of the matter is very simple: When it is said verifiable, it should be verifiable by anyone reading this article. Period! Sudharsansn 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Since not all Wikipedia readers subsribe to the Sunday Times or Assignment Colombo, and since this is a online encyclopedia, those newspapers do not count as verifiable sources. If you can come up with a website that mentions what you are trying to say, you may add it as a source. If I write something about Sri Lanka being a militant state, and mention the Polynesia Times (dated 12 October 1980), would you accept it? Cerebral Warrior 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this a bit better. Just because a newspaper is not available online does not make it un-verifiable. However, the citation needs to give the paper, date, title of the article and author. Offline sources are most welcome. Shell babelfish 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Articles can be reached by anyone..can be read by anyone..if you questioned it ,purchase the paper and read it..I could have easily quoted the whole interview, but it would only violate the copyright..SO all your claims are totally baseless..I have given here credible evidences and Just because they are not freely available doesnt quailify them from having here.There are many many article in wikipedia uses off-line/printed sources...YOU have also, removed what i quoted from dixits book!! Are you saying that i can only use sources available to you ?? MY sources can be reached by anyone who is willing to get them..And still you complaining that no one can reach it!!! why you keep putting your baseless argument ?? i'm going back to the previous version and please refrain from removing it as you had failed in all your excuses.dont vandalise wikipedia !!

--Iwazaki 13:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


However, the citation needs to give the paper, date, title of the article and author. Offline sources are most welcome. How do we know if there was even an article like that in the newspaper? How is it verifiable? Shell, your suggestions required on this!! What about the Dixit's book, even that is not verifiable!! Sudharsansn 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Iwazaki, scan the concerned article onto your PC, and e-mail it to me. That way, we can verify your claims. Cerebral Warrior 14:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
keep your good faith and dont be insultive..All the sources are credible and can be reached by any one..I have dixits book with me right now ,and i have no clue what are you talking about..

--Iwazaki 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


All the sources are credible and can be reached by any one..I have dixits book with me right now ,and i have no clue what are you talking about..

Reached by anyone? How? I have a book which claims that Prabhakara is a martian and that he is the son of the God of fire as per Egyptian Mythology, and this has even been reported in Bhutan Times!! If this version is going to stay, then I think I am going to do that too and we can contest our claims!! Scan that article and send it to us and also Cc an admin in it!! This is the only solution, and remember that you would have to mail it to everyone who asks for proof!! Sudharsansn 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Offline sources do not violate verifiability because another editor can check to see whether or not the newspaper published the article and what the content of the article is. The verifiablity policy does not require that the source be immediately available. If you feel there is a reason that the source is not reliable or that its being quoted incorrectly, you're welcome to bring that up, but sources are not disqualified simply because you do not have the book or newspaper immediately available. Many local libraries have the ability to look up newspaper publications either through their online subscriptions or other publications. You are responsible for doing the research as well.Shell babelfish 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


If that be the case, the thing to be done rightaway is to put up the npov tag until the evidence is produced or found out. Btw, Iwazaki, could you pls give the title of the article and also complete info pertaining to it? We will do what we can to check it!! Sudharsansn 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, scan the paper and mail it to us. Cerebral Warrior 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
like i said,purchase the paper and put your nonsense in to the dustbin

--Iwazaki 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


The entire transcript of the press conference has been added and the section has been revamped with some minor grammatical edits to Iwazaki's part and to prevent misconstrual of information, it has been quoted as it is from the P.C.

Alas, this dispute is now settled with pointers to the exact information. Iwazaki, your info stays as it is - the points you have made about "PM and President of Tamil Eelam" and also the "Rajiv Gandhi" assasination have been added exact citations as quoted from the interview, so you can now rest in peace(bolded by --Iwazaki 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)). Additional info has also been appended. Anyone wanting to refine this section can use the two links, one complete transcript and also 'The Hindu's' coverage of the conference as pointers for fine-tuning!! :-) Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, if its anyone, i think its you who can rest in peace now..i always stay peace and cool..And for all the fuss you have made here, criticizing my sources, condemning my sources, questioning my books, what i said hve been proved here.please have some trust on other editors,and think more than twice next time before your "start shouting at my evidences",as i'm aware of whats going on in my country .
Hindu is a reliable source and can be trusted,but iam not a big fan of some sites you use here..such as "tamilnation.com","eelam.com"etc..Their names themselves, expose their agenda,and its not encyclopedic to quote them.i'm going to double check the interviews in the sundaytimes and the one in the "biased tamil nation".and let you know if i have any complains.

--Iwazaki 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your innocent belief in the infallible neutrality of the Hindu and the Times of India deeply touching. Cerebral Warrior 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


I stick to my version, you need some rest because you were relying on an unnamed, unquoted source "Sunday times + date" and my claim has been vindicated that there needs to be authoritative evidence to back anything in WP. You haven't taken any effort to prove your claims, but I did all my research and homework to refute or accept the claims. Eitherway WP is not some personal war in which I win and you lose, but just a place we collaboratively edit works based on available evidence - maybe it takes time for you to understand that basic fact. Tamilnation is biased? It is a press conference transcript and if you would have taken any effort to provide more evidence to back your claims, it would have been a no-issue!! You can check up any website, and this is the official transcript, tamilnation does not work like Wiki - it is only quoted!!

Your statements about the Hindu are quite funny, it is only an Indian newspaper which will always back the Indian version of the news, so simply the fact that it favors your side, doesn't mean that it is neutral evidence. We only use evidence that is good to describe the article. Any attempt to re-vandalize the existing page, quoting tamilnation, would only re-assert everybody's trust in your "NPOV".

Furthermore, everyone knows about what's happening in your country, so you really do not have to reassert your patriotism a million times!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

here we go again..same odd thing, twisting..
excuse me, i have given named,quoted,realiable,authentic sources.. And you ?? quoting from unreliable,baseless,biased,inhuman sites like eelam.com,tamilnet.com.wsw.com ,tamilnation.com..Their names speak out their agenda.please show me a single LTTE massacres of sinhalese,comdemned in their articles ?? when they have done ,thousands of them.

I have told you many times here, please have a faith on fellow editors, and stop complaining just because you cant get the source..Sorry to say,but what you have been saying about my sources,doesnt make any sense at all!!

And about tamilnation, they are experts in twisting things..And naturally i have the right to point it out..And if i find anything dubious, definitely i will change it.
The whole article "state terrorism in srilanka",is POV...so its absolutely pointless to quote it in the intro.If you want to have it, then make it NPVO..By adding "Sl government has protected many tamils from LTTE terrorism" or "even they claim to represent tamils but they have eliminated and trying to eliminate all the tamils who opposes to them"..for that i can give you tons of tamils whose lives were taken by LTTErs since 1975..And most amazingly, LTTE started to represent tamils,by assassinating political leaders who were representing tamils at that time ?? does it make sense ??
and for hindu, what i said was "Hindu is a reliable source and can be trusted"..Could you please elaborate which part is funny in that ??

--Iwazaki 07:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to run around the same thing again and again, if you have doubts on the tamilnation press conference transcript go ahead and verify it with any source you want to. Transcripts do not twist tales but only write whatever it is there. The part that is funny is Hindu only covers the Indian perspective of things, and just because it writes articles favoring your POV it doesn't mean that you can instantly proclaim it to be neutral!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] claims are not verified

so tag should be there..State sponsored terorism is not exclusively proven here and theres a plenty of ambiguity in that article.So far,i have failed to see any real state sponsored terrorism before the foundation of the LTTE..

Also, LTTE had terrorised many tamil people since their inception.They still continue to do so even now..

I think the whole prase is not necessary,simply because its ambious and not true..how can YOU say LTTE represent tamil against state terrorism when LTTE it self have terrorised and killed many tamils ?? It only proves this is purely hypothesis.

For now iam going to revert back to the [citation needed] mark thanks --Iwazaki 11:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The hell you are pal! State terrorism in Sri Lanka has been verified, I could link to the article if you want, and remove {{fact}}. And remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cerebral Warrior 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with user Cereberal Warrior state terrorism by the Sri Lankan government is very clearly identified and agreed as such. There is no mincing words about that. There is a whole article dedicated to it wikipedia. Iwazaki saying Sri Lankan government sponsored state terrorism is ambiguous and not true is your POV (point of view). Elalan 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[::re-read my posts again..I have made my point well documented all ready..LTTE was started as a military group in way back in 1970's.AND if you want to say they do it to protect tamils against SLgovernemts so-called terrorism give proofs for it..LTTE started with the killing of Tamil politicians, they basically assassinated all the tamils who were againts them.So to claim they represent tamils againsts the SL governement is ambiguous/dubious and wrong..If you have problem with the citation then i think the whole sentence should be removed...Because the sentence itself is self-contradictory,better to take it off alltogether. --Iwazaki 05:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

read my points under "veryfied claims"..its fair logic--Iwazaki 05:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


The verified claims of state sponsored terrorism are in that Wiki link. Go through that to find BBCs report on State sponsored pogrom of Black July and a million other citations. Your edits are increasingly becoming vandal-oriented edits, so if you are going to edit any section provide verifiable citation. Sudharsansn 13:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the bbc article which state "government sponsored 1983".Then we can proceed.And for the rest, re-read my post and try to understand my logic..Its not about sources,its about the words that you have used here.

Also, black july was caused by the ltte by killing 13 innocent ,non-combat soldiers..I really dont know how you relate this to the "representing tamils".. further, how ltte represnt tamils when they have wiped out most of them ?? if you want i can provide you the list of tamils killed by the ltte..does that satisfy you ? --Iwazaki 10:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Buy some Dove, its gentle on skin, unlike ordinary soaps! Cerebral Warrior 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
little learning is a dangerous thing,and here i will give some sites which might even make osama bin laden feel bad..
| worst than osama
|can humans do such things
| who says LTTE are not terrorists
| 147 suicide attacks since 1987..excluding all the political assassinations.sorry osama, you dont even have a chance!

So ltte led by prabhakaran has carried out more suicide attacks than hamas/Hezbollah put together,and we still have some poeple who dont think prabhakaran is a terrorist.amazing!! --Iwazaki 07:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of "Personality cult" section

The text is sourced from the BBC article. Removing it is vandalism. Do not remove it again. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to blank the article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, this is not blanking!! The article seems to have been misconstrued for biased notions!! I am getting an admin into this and this will soon be in WP:DR. Sudharsansn 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Snowolf, I read through that BBC article and it is now quoted exactly the way it is than what is being miscontrued. The article clearly states that his picture is not 'ordered' to be hung, but just seen everywhere. The article, source and citations have been quoted as it is and not the way it is required to be interpreted by biased notions. I think we can agree on this version as this section also gets to stay and at the same time, quoting only what is actually there and not what some might read between lines!! Sudharsansn 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To bring it to neutral gear

[edit] Compromise 1 - fighting against state terrorism

instead of

a militant organization fighting for Tamil self-rule in North-East Sri Lanka and also to represent the Tamil people against verified claims of State sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka.

a political-military group fighting for self rule in North-East Sri Lanka.

then second sentence.

He also claims to fight against state violence against minority Tamil people although some accuse him and his organisation of killing fellow Tamils.

My suggestion to the editors of this page would be to list out the points of differences on a project page and agree on a compromise statement on each point. Then bring it out to the main page. We should use Black July as the prime example of how editors were able to agree to settle the differences. Thanks RaveenS 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that wouldn't be acceptable. "State violence" implies things like police brutality. "State terrorism" refers to the use of tactics such as anti-Tamil pogroms and massacres to terrorise the local population and break their morale. There is a difference between the two terms. "Violence" is often unintended and can sometimes be justified as an over-reaction. State terrorism (like other forms of terrorism) is a planned, political tactic. Cerebral Warrior 16:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If that is your only change to the above format then chage it to State terrorism and see whether it is acceptable to other editors. RaveenS
When there is a Wiki article which talks about State terrorism as quoted, which contains all verifiable material including a BBC report on the pogrom and other things, why compromise on what is evident, true and more importantly verifiable? Sudharsansn 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Because what VP claims is just that, his claim that he fights State terrorism in Sri Lanka. So does Ranjan Hoole, so did Kethesh Loganathan in their own way and Human Rights organizations and the UN. But it is all claims not undisputed fact like the world is not flat, and we are not the judge of his claim, we are stating his claim and stating the counter claim that VP also has been accused of killing non combatant, civilian Tamils . So all points are considered and we leave to the readers to make up their mind or dig deeper into the other articles we link them to or the references we link them to. In Wikipedia all points have to be considered. If a point is controversial or fringe then that can be stated as such. But none of the points stated here are controversial. It is fact that he claims to fight state terrorism. It is a fact that he killed and still does kill non combatant Tamils. Both are stated and we move to the next point. If not this will be point of endless discussion and Wikipedia will not have a reference article on VP that is reliable. Thanks RaveenS 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is totally POV.to make it NPOV, we need to what LTTE has done to the tamil people..Since the intro says,LTTE represent tamils against state-terrorism..LTTE started in 1974, and had their first prey, an innocent tamil political leader..and had several more in early 1980's,A Thiyagarajah(ex ACTC,joined UNP),K T pulendran( UNP organizer for vavuniya) even before 1983 riots...So LTTE had terrorised both tamils and sinhalese..Long before the so-called state terrorism existed !!! name one tamil politician assassinated by sinhalese in that time ?? If srilankan government is a terrorist state,every single nation is a terrorist nation..Abraham Lincoln and his union army were terrorist too...--Iwazaki 07:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point all together. What we are sayinhg is that he claims that he is fighting state terror not that he is fighting state terror. Then we also add that he has been accused of killing fellow Tamils which undermines his position of saying he fighting on behalf of Tamil people. So both points are made. That he claims but acts contrary tohis claim. This is how you write a non POV statement in Wikipedia. It is not that difficult to get consensus if both parties want it. ThanksRaveenS
Sudharsansn, could you please link me to the BBC article ?? the only BBC article i found was about the church shooting which caused the death of ONE civillian

--Iwazaki 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


There is not one but numerous reports and to name a few:

  1. Black July - This is very important as this actually started a full-scale conflict as mentioned in the article.
  2. ICRC Report - ICRC is actualy what is facilitating movement on the A-9, especially in the Puliyankulam-Omandhai sectors and also the Mugamalai sector!!

Eitherway, once the sentence points the readers to a source, I think it's upto them to take an informed decision from the other articles. I think this article, as a biography, is as such is fine, we might have to take up the article it points to and discuss it's NPOV there. This article is not even about LTTE, it's about VP's life and whatever he has done/not done. Mention of killings by LTTE should come in the LTTE page. This article currently encompasses almost everything that is to be written about Velupillai Prabhakaran, as a person and any more additions about killings of LTTE should be put in the LTTE page and pointer made to convey that VP is/not responsible for it!! We can take it fwd there. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is NOT a soapbox. Cerebral Warrior 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If that is the sticking point then he has been accused of personally killing Alfred Duraiappah and attempted murder of Uma Maheswaran in India. RaveenS 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Raveen, the Alfred Duraiappah incident has already been mentioned in the article, and if there is a citation for the Uma Maheswaran incident, do let us know, we can add it. I really did not get the crux of the soapbox cite :-) Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] important

the interpol search warrant and court sentence should be in the intro..I was checking the Osama bin Laden article and found out court indictment,most wanted fugitive things are actually in the intro..I think this is necessary, because it gives a clear picture of this person.

thanks --Iwazaki 08:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, a new section has been added to highlight the Criminal indiction. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

but i still think it should be in the intro , to make it NPVO..What important is Prabhakarana has been sentenced not once but many times ,by judges from two countries.And also, interpole does not keep a search warrant for ordinary people,it does only for internationally recognized criminals..IF osama bin laden indictment is in the intro, i think prabhakaran deserve to have his in the intro too.WE need some parallelism here, and for that we need to have it in the intro.waiting for your comments.

--Iwazaki 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right Iwazaki, that's why instead of letting the text merge into a big paragraph, a new paragraph about his indiction has been added, which conveys the point clearly. This basically does not affect the NPOV of the article in anyway, because eitherway the parah would stay and this is only a better way of writing a biography style article. The article, most generally starts with a brief profile of VP then goes on to inform people about his background as a terrorist/liberationist and then gives a bold heading stating his indictions around the world. This probably adds more weightage to this page as a separate parahgraph and is a better way of conveying the point you are trying to make. I think the present one is clear and crisp and I am sure you would agree to having this as a bold, separate paragraph which sends out the strong msg about his criminal trials and indictions. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Considering that there are two parties disputing each others verifiable and unverifiable claims, I think we might need to sit down and sort out things, taking Crimsone's suggestions. To begin with, the only things I am interested in about this article are NPOV and verifiability. So I am absolutely fine to even call Prabhakaran as a criminal or the way you want to as long as the NPOV is maintained. Infact looking up thro the archives Ricky and myself cleaned up an article which was completely messed up. So pls go ahead and make any changes to this as long as NPOV and Verifiability and the WP:5P are met. This is my say on this issue. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's really good to see that things appear a lot calmer and constructive today on both sides. In fact, it's great! A "Well done" to everybody involved is in order I think if this keeps up, as the discussion I'm seeing on this talk page today looks set to very much improve the article :) --Crimsone 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that Iwazaki is using this page as a personal soapbox. Cerebral Warrior 09:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit of lede

I've just copyedited the lede somewhat. Sources are needed even in the lede, but the language now has a somewhat better flow. In case I have accidentally stepped on anybodies toes, please note that all I have done is reduced redundancy - that is to say that I have aimed to satistfiy criterion 1a of the FAC process (something all articles should ultimately aim for) as described at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. --Crimsone 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've just done another bit of copyediting and sourcing of the lede. I referr to WP:LEDE when I suggest that having re-written it into two paragraphs speaking about him and his personal life and notability/status, and his political leanings/staus respectively, the one remaining thing that needs to be added to the lede is a third paragraph containing a short summary of the "philosophy and ideology" section (with sources). I've done my little bit for today :) Crimsone 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citecheck template

The discussion on this talk page is long, so I might have missed something, but I suspect some other template would be more appropriate than citecheck. Citecheck specifically applies to articles that misuse sources, such as taking quotes out of context. What I read in the dispute here seems to be more about a desire for more citations, or citations in a more standardized and complete form - not questions about whether the sources say what the article claims they say. Please review whether this article has the appropriate template. Thank you. Durova 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "de facto" state of tamil elam

As a Sri Lankan, let me state that Tamil Eelam is a idea (a idea of a seperate state for tamils in Sri Lanka) , nothing more nothing less. The so called state of eelam that is in VP's article is not a NPOV, It would be better to use the term "area's of Sri Lanka under LTTE control". No country in the world has recognised eelam to be a country, so it is wrong to use the term "de facto state of tamil eelam". Who has said it is a "de facto" state apart from LTTE sympathisers?Kerr avon 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I am rewording the VP article accordingly.Kerr avon 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are of course perfectly correct in that assertion. Tamil Eelam is not recognised as a state, ergo, the state does not exist. There is however a claim from the leader of LTTE that the state does exist, and he is it's leader. Quite clearly, from a globalperspective this is not true (even if LTTE would consider it to be so) - the very fact that LTTE is fighting for its independance from Sri Lanka would indicate such. However, the claim is indeed very real, even though the subject of the claim is not - and as it is absolutely central to the ideals and aims of LTTE, mention of the claim needs to be made.
I will certainly agree with you that the state does not exist. In fact, the only reason I left it there in my copyediting was because I couldn't find a correct and more factual/accurate way of wording it. If you can rephrase the statement tidily, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. Crimsone 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that your current edit is good, and would be acceptable to the sypathisers too. I suggest we leave it in its current form. I will make a small edit and link in the tamil elam wiki page.Kerr avon 02:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! Yet another short and productive discussion lol :) - Don't you just love it when things just "work"? (obsure reference to a televised advertisement perhaps, but the sentiment remains :) ) Crimsone 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed cleanup

This article contains far to many uncited information like "inferences", theoretisations etc. I propose a removal of all uncited and poorly cited information, followed by addition of only cited information as per the WP:BLP guidlines. This biography is a controversial character, seen by some as a mass murderer of innocent women and children, and head of one of the worst terrorist organisations in the world which pionered suicide bombing, and by some as a "freedom fighter" whose excesses are to be tolerated or brushed away. So naturally there will be sympathisers trying to portray him as the Sun God reincarnated and others trying to portray him in a different light.

My proposal would be the removal of all uncited information whether supportive or critical of him , and only properly citable verifiable information to be henceforth included.

For example I am removing the statement "It is interesting to note that he weighs the international dynamics heavily in his decision making ever since the Rajiv Gandhi assasination which led to the banning of LTTE in India" as this is not correct as LTTE actions such as the recent attempted bombing of the pakistan high commisioner in SLK [6] show contempt of international opinion.Kerr avon 07:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Agreed, make sure even the cleanup is NPOV to ensure that the page does stay NPOV. Anyone editing this page, pls be reminded that this is the VP page and not the LTTE page, so quote info about him and not the organization! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wrong information corrected

In India no one can be tried in absentia only if they are alive and caught or if they are dead.Further no death warrant was issued against only against the 26 caught or dead.further there no mention of any mention of due to sexual harassment for his homosexual proclivities for which he dropped out hence editing it.Colonel Karuna is also said to be a lover of Prabhakaran, who lovingly called him his stallion during their affair is a wrong comment no citation provided.Erodeguy 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tons of work ...but needed to be done !

You are right brother..Honourable prabhakaran could go mad if he sees this article!! He is proud to be a terrorist and proud of all the mass killings he has done..So he could become outrageous if we dont mention his achievements on the article..And we can state every single murders,suicide bombing,mass killings carried out by the LTTE under Prabhas page,after all he is the Prime minister and the President and the sole Authority of Tamil Eelam..--Iwazaki 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective

SAR23 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article is a joke. Most of the things written appear to be the thoughts of individual eitors. I requested citations for a number of doubtful sentences, and if they are not cited in a few days I will deleted them. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel wording

I have found several of them in the article, and took them off immediately.

  • women's right: Sri Lankan Buddhist culture have never in the history discriminated women.And I cansa y the same for the Hindus for a certain extent..Which means,there is no point having that bogus section.
  • environment:: Actually this was the most hilarious part of the article..I am not sure why this was here, in the first place.Iwazaki 会話。討論 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/l/Talk%7EVelupillai_Prabhakaran_0ea8.html"