Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus This article is currently subject to Final resolution, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article.
Article policies

}}

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Addition to intro

Per WP:LEAD, the intro we have right now is kindof poor. I know we've had a lot of discussion /disputes over it, but I was wondering whether we could discuss and agree upon suitable expansions to the intro. Right now all it covers is "what the LTTE is", and does not have any information and not "what it's been doing". I suggest we stay away from the controversial stuff, and just add some info like what areas the LTTE controls right now, the status of the CFA and the current battles in the east.

Any opinions? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. The intro is not adequate enough and definitely needs to be expanded. Light Years 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree as well, we need to further elaborate on the LTTE in the intro. Sinhala freedom 02:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that Norway provides covert military support to LTTE. This is well known, there are a number of sources on this. It should mentioned Prabhakaran is wanted by Interpol. It should also be mentioned the government of sri lanka is democratically elected and that LTTE is authoritarian. I don't think anyone will dispute these facts. Sinhala freedom 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course but your addition is not goes with the Neutral point of view policy. Hence I'm going to remove it. Please read at least briefly our mediation attempt over the intro. Here is the link. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please mention which sentence is not in a neutral tone ? All of what I added are undisputed are facts. What is this mediation, how is it relevant to whats there now ? Surely anyone can edit the article. Tell me which neutral policy rule I have broken and we can discuss from there. Sinhala freedom 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I like suggested, given the controversial nature of this article could we first discuss changes to the intro on the talk page and add them only after a consensus has been reached? I think that's the best way to proceed right now, instead of making arbitrary changes to the intro.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is the intro I suggested: what is of concern ?

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant organization that has been waging a violent secessionist campaign against democratically elected Sri Lankan governments since the 1970s in order to create a separate authoritarian Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon). The LTTE is currently proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries (see list). Norway provides covert military and financial support for the LTTE under the pretext of peace funding [1] [2]. It is headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran, who is wanted by Interpol.

Should also mention, LTTE drug smuggling, prostitution and other illegal activities perhaps in a second paragraph. Sinhala freedom 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I fully agree with your suggested intro. But the single major issue here is we gotta have a NPOV(neutral point-of-view) to protect Wikipedia's integrity and verifiability. We've been through this issue numerous times. Probably one of the main reasons why millions of people worldwide trust Wikipedia is its neutrality. In simple terms, if we make this article heavy anti-LTTE, only people with the same anti-LTTE point-of-view would ever read it. Furthermore, it might be a blessing for the LTTE to prove their propaganda. What I say is just provide the actual facts tactfully, but NOT emotionally. Then the wise reader will surely realize the truth. I had also suggested to include a new section dedicated for the LTTE's international presence. Maybe you'll be able to state the above controversial facts. I say again, be tactful!!! Light Years 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
We can't be belly dancing with the truth here. We can't be fudging with the truth just because other users may not like it. The changes I suggested in the intro are factual and you or others don't seem to disagree with that so there should be no problem having it in the intro. Unless off course some of us are trying to say these facts don't meet Wikipedia's integrity and verifiability concerns and so you guys are collectively saying these facts are not really facts by wikipedia standards. The fact is this article is not heavy anti-LTTE, far-from it, in fact it is pro-LTTE. There is hardly any emotion in the statements added. If there is so, please point it out. I await your comments. Sinhala freedom 20:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No matter how hard we try to convince the importance of neutrality, you don't seem to understand it. I think most of you have messed up with the word 'neutral'. Being neutral does not mean supporting both parties equally. We are talking about highly dangerous terrorism here. It does not mean 50% anti-LTTE and 50% pro-LTTE, as it is the favorite way of international community to bully GoSL and its people. The 50-50 policy on terrorism is just as stupid and brutal as draining someone's blood to quench his or her own thirst. But again all of these are our POVs. On the other hand, being neutral is being closer to truth without any personal point-of-view. Even if you are 100% sure that something is true, you still have to have proof to verify it before presenting to others. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in which contents must verifiable at all costs.
In your suggested intro, the problematic part is direct accusation of Norway. It's a big accusation and you got to provide a strong proof. I don't see any problem with the rest of it. It's an open secret though, most people very well know the Norwegian support to LTTE, no matter how hard Norwegians try to hide it. But again, you have to have concrete evidence.
What you (and of course us) can do is add more and more strong true and strong facts regarding these affairs. So the other side can provide their own facts. It's kind of a cold war here, no hard feelings are allowed to be shown out in the open!!! Light Years 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
So we are agreeable to everything except about the Norwegians. Ok thats fine with me, lets make those changes then. Sinhala freedom 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

LTTE IS INNOCENT. A HUMAN RIGHT COURT IN U.S.A HAS RULED IN OUR FAVOR. WHAT DID WE DO WRONG NOTHING. SINGHALESE KILLED US FOR NO REASON. THEY WANTED THE COUNTRY FOR THEMSESLVES. THEY MURDER, RAPE, PROSTITUTION AND DO DRUGS. THE SINGHALES ARMY IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT ITS SELF IS CORRUPT. SO THE ARMY MUST BE WORSE AND IT IS. IT ACTS MORE LIKE A MASS RAPIST/MURDERING SQUAD THAN AN ARMY. LTTE WE FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS. IF CIVILIANS GET KILLED BY OUR ATTACKS IT IS AN ACCIDENT. THEY WERE IN THE VICINITY WHEN THE ENEMY WAS ATTACKED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.6.80 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do they often intentionally strike at civilian targets? How is that not terrorism? --LeyteWolfer 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit this article to meet Encyclopedic standard

This article should be Edited for grammar. Words such as "hunted down" should not be used as such words set a different tone that are not proper in the context of encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eilangko (talk • contribs)

I didn't think "hunted down" was that bad a word to use, given the context. What do you propose we use instead? And remember the above discussion is related mainly to the intro of the article. Feel free to edit the rest of the article if you wish, keeping in mind neutrality concerns. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The LTTE is a terrorist outfit that is fighting for a mono ethnic separate state for the Tamils in Sri Lanka since 1983. Despite its self assumed "sole representative" status for the Tamil people in the world, LTTE has killed thousands of Tamil people, including a large number of Tamil intellectuals, politicians, religious leaders, and diplomats.

During its two decades of terror campaign against SL citizens, over 65,000 people have been killed in ethnic cleansing raids, bomb attacks, genocides carried out by the LTTE terrorists as ordered by their psychopathic leader V. Prabhakaran.

[edit] Norwegian Support of LTTE

To Light Years and others: another separate note, lets discuss about the Norwegians, don't we seem to be a little scared of these white tigers no ?

To get to my point, lets pin down what we know with a series of questions:

Does Norway provide LTTE 'peace funding' ? Yes or No.

Documents highlighting this have been published by NAT. Agree or Disagree ? (see from Lankaweb [1], Asian Tribune [2] , NAT report (after page 7) [3])

Who helped LTTE buy satellite radio and tv equipment during the ceasefire. ? Norway. True or False

Did Norway show LTTE members military training techniques at one of their camps during a visit ? Yes or No

LTTE leader provided Solhiem a 23 carat gold coin. True or False ?

Solhiem invited LTTE leader Tamilchelvan to his house. No Sri Lankan official has been given this courtesy. True or False ?

Sinhala freedom 18:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new section at the end of the article to state facts regarding those criticisms on international community. Your contribution to expand it is highly appreciated. I give a simple yes/true for all of the above questions. However, we need to honor opinions of other Wikipedians. Light Years 14:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, some people are very unhappy about this new section "Criticism on International Support". Let us discuss the verifiability of the stated facts now...

  • This video[4], published by official Norwegion Armed Forces web site, clearly shows how LTTE members were given military training. You can clearly identify Karuna Amman (Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan), which conveys that this video was taken before Karuna broke away from LTTE in March 2004. In fact it was taken in April 2003. After all, it shows us just a glimpse of the full-scale Norwegian support to LTTE. Do you kids need FBI to verify this video?
  • The news article[5] from the same web site says this training was given for LTTE for the sake of rebuilding a peaceful Sri Lanka! Norwegion government believes that training a terrorist group would tame them and will bring peace to the world. Let's hope Al-qaeda won't get the same chance. For your information, British government recently announced that LTTE is the second most lethal terrorist group in the world, only one step behind Al-qaeda.
  • Stay tuned folks, more proof coming soon...!

Light Years 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To add Norway has given financial support to the LTTE through the LTTE Peace secreteriat. Its on page 7 of the NAT report [6]. It clearly shows the budget of the Norway foreign ministry with funding going to LTTE clearly shown. Furthermore the same item has been confirmed by the Defence Ministry of Sri Lanka [7]. Surely both of these sources can't be wrong ? Sinhala freedom 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Financial transactions between Norway and LTTE:
Daily news a well established and respected newspaper in Sri Lanka gave details of the Karuna interview where he revealed some of the transactions between LTTE and Norway [8]:
  • VP got 6 ft TV for helping Norway, however former Deputy Foreign Minister Vidar Helgessen was totally against it. But Solheim went ahead and gifted the screen.
  • LTTE gave money to Solheim, LTTE helped Solheim buy home in Oslo.
  • Anton Balasingham got 16 million Norweign Kroners from Solheim.
  • "They (sic Norway) showed us military bases, gave us transmitter and support"
Hindu another well established paper verified some of the claims that LTTE was bankrolled by Norway [9]. This was also covered by a Norwegian newspaper Nid Times. Norway foreign ministry claimed the money was given to LTTE to setup a peace secretariat and cover its expenses. Sinhala freedom 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I urge everyone to verify these facts for themselves and participate in this discussion. Sinhala freedom 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


OK, since there is no reaction from opposition, I'm re-adding our new section for the article with improved referencing. Light Years 00:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your move, there are better references now from the Hindu and Dailynews. Sinhala freedom 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrolling references

I dont know if scrolling references is a good idea. What about printing out the page? Do they get printed seamlessly with the page? The list of references may be long, but then it's maybe better to delete duplicate ones than to have a scrollable list. Ulflarsen 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant to reduce the bulkiness of the article by adding the scroller but the print previwe function of Firefox 2.0 and IE 6.0 shows with the scroller. So I'm going to remove the scroll tag from the article now. Deleting duplicates is a good idea but practicing it will be more difficult than planning because for this moment article holds 127 references :-( --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I found one duplicate reference and removed it. It doesn't seem as if there are any more; or at least I couldn't find any. Anyone else? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to improve this article.

In my opinion, the overall quality of this article is very low.

We could improve this article by using a respected news agency like the BBC as our main source.

Certain sections of this article, such as 'Links to Other terrorist organizations,' are based almost entirely on information from the Asian Tribune, which in my opinion is a biased news source.

If we use a popular website like wikipedia to promote personal viewpoints, then many everyday people who depend on wikipedia for their information will be misled by our article.

Instead of promoting personal viewpoints, we should strive to write the best article possible.

In general if we limit ourselves to credible sources of information, the overall quality of the article will improve dramatically.

Sapient26 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the proposed section about external support

Seems user Sinhala Freedom is strongly for including a section on outside support of LTTE and Norwegian intervention. Being a Norwegian myself I am reluctant to intervene in this debate. Given the strong sentiments in large parts of the Sri Lankan society regarding Norwegian efforts in facilitating the peace process, this must be seen relevant for an encyclopedia and should be mentioned somewhere. I would however suggest that the article about Sri Lankan Civil War is a better place to add some details about this. Ulflarsen 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconding user Sapients opinion, this article is not very neutral and reflects the views of user lahiru and snowolfd4. I propose the neutrality disputed tag be put in place. Sinhala freedom 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
We've gone through this before, go through the archives. If you have a problem, point it out on the talk page. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you unilaterally makes changes according to your whims and fancies is unacceptable. Clearly you are deleting well cited content on the page and since I and other dispute this, the neutrality tag must be in place. Sinhala freedom 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
User snowolfd4 has also not participated and refuses to participate in the discussion regarding the content he keeps deleting on the LTTE page This is also unacceptable. Administrators please take note of this. Sinhala freedom 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Npov disputed because this article is written in some anti-rebel tone. Accuracy is also disputed Watchdogb 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the comments from before from UlFlarsen and FlayIF for further argument for addition of NPOV tags
Further, some citations from books are missing page numbers and fail to be cited properly. The Mackenzie institute is considered a primary source and it us controversial (Mackenzie Institute, [10]) and the criminal activity section heavily depends on this source even though it is controversial and thus it is not NPOV. On top of this the prostitution from LTTE is backed by Mackenzie which itself states “unsubstantiated gossip” or “impossible to confirm”, these allegations. So we should not publish this into wikipedia. However, prostitution is not the only problem, there are other things that are cited only to Mackenzie citations. There should be other citations or the disputed tags will remain.Watchdogb 20:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lahiru, thank you for the removal of the prostitution part. As you showed good faith I will give couple of days to fix these other problem.
  • Please provide a page number/ISBN and properly cite this citation (I believe is a book)-Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror
  • "The similarities between previous LTTE attacks against Sri Lanka Navy ships and the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 US Navy sailors" is cited. However, this fails WP:SYN as this is under section Links to other terrorist organizations. The given citation does not say that this show link or anything of that magnitude. The citations say that this was copied from LTTE. Copying does not imply connection.
  • "Allegations that the LTTE stole Norwegian passports and sold them to the al-Qaeda organization to earn money to fund their arms purchases." is cited to a dead link.
  • "Increasing intelligence reports that the LTTE was smuggling arms to various terrorist organizations using their covert smuggling networks, and findings by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies that they were building commercial links with al-Qaeda and other militants in Afghanista" this sentence is cited to a BLOG. It fails WP:RS by all means. Also this is primary source and this sentence relies HEAVILY on primary source. Please fix this issue
  • "Other security experts including Glen Jenvey, a specialist on international terrorism, have also claimed that al-Qaeda has copied most of its terror tactics from the LTTE.[40] He highlighted the LTTE as the mastermind that sets the pattern for organizations like al-Qaeda to pursue. Some of the comparisons he used to draw his conclusions are:" and the sentences below merely state that other "terrorist" have copied these tactics. This does not mean that the LTTE is linked to these groups.
  • "On August 14, 2006, a convoy carrying the Pakistani High Commissioner Bashir Wali Mohamed, was attacked by another LTTE Claymore type directional mine concealed within a rickshaw, killing seven people and injuring seventeen. the high commissioner escaped unharmed." is false allegation. The Pakistani them self claim it was done by India. http://www.nation.lk/2006/09/03/opini.htm
  • The section Other crimes is false. None of the citations say that LTTE was linked. It clearly states that the British police claimed that there was no proof of connecting LTTE to this crime. We should take the police word as they are the one who arrested the criminals.
Please get these issues fixed. Thanks Watchdogb 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Time is up and I will be editing these sections. Watchdogb 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cool down

People, cool down with the reverts, or the article will be protected. And we all know it's always meta:The Wrong Version. Circeus 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And please be noted, those who dispute the accuracy of the article have not given proper reasons. We have gone through this several times, accusations come and soon got vanished. After a while they come with same thing again. It look rather comical now. Esp when considering the foremost supporter of LTTE here is even using Sinhalese something name.Frankly If you look at the article you may find this one of the best referenced articles in Wikipedia. Just because some pro-terrorist supporters coughs, we should protect this. Thats my thought on this. look forward to hearing yours. Many thanks. Iwazaki 会話。討論 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is depressing yet another sri lankan editor is engaging in personal attacks rather than content of these articles. Reliable,cited content have been continually removed without any discussion and promotes the view of two editors. This has been agreed to by almost everybody else whatever their persuasions (pro or anti-ltte). This article is badly structured and wouldn't count for a high school term paper. If your intention get people to seriously read the article and accepts whast there, then its got to be professional and its not! A lot of the articles by fellow Sinhala editors is substandard and this is very unfortunate. Sinhala freedom 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
To user Iwazaki, you claim that "those who dispute the accuracy of the article have not given proper reasons." I have a number of times, but they have mostly not been accepted, and now you have to go to the archive for the article's discussion to find them. Just to take one, forced prostitution. Two links are cited, one is clearly redundant (the last one) and the first one has little substance. The admin that locked this article should remove the passage regarding forced prostitution as it is based on little more than rumors. Ulflarsen 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding user Sinhala Freedom; I have received an email that states that the said user is writing under a fake position to undermine the arguments of sinhala editiors active on this article, that is admin Blinguyen, snowolfd4, lahiru_k and Iwazaki. I have warned the user that we have rules against such, telling the user to stop using the account and I have also reported it to admin Circeus. Ulflarsen 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ulflarsen thats absolute bs. You are making a very serious accusation from an email you received ? Who sent it ? What validity does it have ? There seems to be a very elaborate effort to undermine any hope of improving this article and I am deeply disappointed you have joined in to create obstructions and insinuate I am a charlatan. Could it be that although you professed to stay out of the debate regarding Norwegian involvement with the LTTE you are directly attacking at editors who supported and brought valid sources of that viewpoint by sharing anonymous email and hoaxes ?? Sinhala freedom 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not care whose "fault" or "PoV" it is (and for the record, Ulflarsen, you have not "reported" anything to me). It takes two to tango revert/edit-war. Solve this in a civil manner that does not involve arguments via edit summaries and maybe you will manage to avoid arbcom, where this looks headed straight to.

I personally would not have gotten myself involved at all in this if it wasn't for the editwar that broke on a page the second it was linked from the Main Page. I hope you all realize it's exactly this sort of stuff that gives Wikipedia such lousy PR. Circeus 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

To admin Circeus; maybe you did not receive my mail (I sent it via your email link on your user page), but below is what I received, several emails. User Sinhala Freedom is right in that I do not know who sent it, however I think its approriate to mention it. Ulflarsen 04:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Realizing the LTTE

Over last decades the LTTE media mafia around the world has been trying to change the true face of it hardly. Mainly they are using the Tamil nationalism as their body armor and trying to get sympathy from the International community by illustrating the minority factor inside the country, Sri Lanka. The truth is the leader of the LTTE, Pirabaharan wants to achieve his private Nazi process through the Tamil people. He's a kind of psycho whose want to fulfill the desires in any method. The LTTE gang not only kill the opponents, but also kill the innocent Sinhala and Tamils as well. Spoonburner 23:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Before you say that Tamil Tigers are killing innocent civilians what are the SL government doing. They are suppose to be one in the middle and sort out the problem by any means. Who has been displaced around SL (Tamilians) SL government is bombing in LTTE held territory without considering the civilians habitat around the region but if an LTTE attack occurs anywhere around public the government just makes a big deal. Do not loose on the propaganda the government is imposing on all the sinhalese people.

Look into what I have commented please.

[edit] UK is in EU

{{editprotected}}

At least 33 countries have listed the LTTE as a terrorist organisation.[90][91][92] As of May 2007, these include:

  • India (since 1992)
  • The United States of America (since 1997)[93]
  • Malaysia[94]
  • The United Kingdom (since 2000)[95]
  • The European Union (since 2006; representing 27 countries)
  • Canada (since 2006)[96]
  • Australia [97]

So, "at least 32", not 33 countries. Someone with admin rights should change it. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

HI, new here, and was searching for info on LTTE because of debates over whether it should be proscribed in Australia and was surprised to see Australia listed as a country in which the LTTE is already proscribed as a terrorist organisation. This is not correct. While in accordance with obligations under resolution 1373 of the UN security council, dealings with the LTTE are proscribed, the organisation is not. Only 19 organisations are proscribed in Australia (see the list of the Attorney General's department [pdf] http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(153683DB7E984D23214BD871B2AC75E8)~Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF/$file/Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF). See also this article from the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22092907-2702,00.html?from=public_rss Damo70 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Damo70 is right. LTTE is not proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Organisations are proscribed under the Criminal Code Regulations 2002 and do not include the LTTE. See http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/legislation/legislativeinstrumentcompilation1.nsf/current%5Cbytitle/0F737C0E9E413D29CA2572E6001EB322?OpenDocument&mostrecent=1 The confusion may have arisen because of charges that have been laid relating to membership of, and funding for, the LTTE, a terrorist organisation. However, these charges rely on a definition of terrorist organisation that is not based on proscription (see para (a) of the definition in s 101.1 of the Criminal Code). I have amended the wikipedia page to reflect this. 58.106.8.14 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit

[edit] Disambiguate Sinhalese and Sinhala

{{editprotected}} Greetings from Wikiproject Disambiguation! When the children are finished fighting, please disambiguate the links to Sinhalese and Sinhala. — Randall Bart (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, please disambiguate USS Cole to [[USS Cole (DDG-67)|USS ''Cole'']] Maralia 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think I got them all... --- RockMFR 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamics

"The smuggling of weapons by the LTTE from Islamics in Pakistan to their counterparts in the Philippines.[37] "

'Islamics' is not a word -- correct this sentence please. 24.166.188.29 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about
The smuggling of weapons by the LTTE from Islamics militants in Pakistan to their counterparts in the Philippines.[37] ?--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The daily Standard

This citation is not RS. It has nonsense allegations like this "the LTTE's struggle for an independent, ethnically Hindu Tamil homeland in northern Sri Lanka" which is absolutely WRONG. LTTE is actually seeking for Tamil Eelam which is the North and the North Eastern Sri Lanka. Further, LTTE is not seeking a "independent, ethnically Hindu Tamil homeland". It has many Christian members (like Anton Balasingham) along with others. It has many Christian cadres and ect. This report further claims that "Meanwhile, the international Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora has provided financial and political support critical to the group's surviva" which is also total nonsense. While MEMBERS of the Diaspora have funded the LTTE, the whole diaspora does not fund LTTE or give any support either. These are false allegations that are not backed by anything. This citation is NOT RS. Watchdogb 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

Some books are not cited properly (page number and ISBN missing). Also Dugger, Celia. "Sri Lanka: Cease-Fire, On Both Sides", The New York Times, December 22, 200 is missing proper citation style (No link). Some links are dead. Watchdogb 20:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding of synthesis tags

Links to other terrorist organizations fails to provide any citation that says that LTTE are linked to any of the incidents in the section.

Attempted attacks on civilians section claims that these attacks are attempted attack on civilians. However, no citation that is given to back up this claims. Just because someone discovers some explosives it does not mean it was meant for civilians. As it is not cited it is synthesis of published citations with a lot of OR.

Ethnic cleansing is OR as no citation has been given (from RS or otherwise) to claim that this was ethnic cleansing.

[edit] Primary sources tags

Claims under that sections are taken from ONLY one citation that is Primary source. No third party citations are used. To make things worst the cited Primary source is a controversial one (indicated above in the talk page).

[edit] Sri Lankan Government sources

First, it is also Primary sources and none backed up. Secondly they are presented as facts. However, it is POV citation and the defense ministry has been accused of false informations many times (on casualty of the soldiers). On top of that the website has accused LTTE in many incidents that were later contradicted by NGO's, SLMM and Human Rights organizations. So it clearly fails WP:RS Watchdogb 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passport forgery

The test in the article is A passport forgery scheme uncovered in Canada in 1990 which was the first one to result in a Canadian conviction has also been linked to the LTTE. The perpetrators were Canadian Tamils who produced around 1,000 doctored travel documents before being caught. Another forger was uncovered in 1991, and was proven to have dealt with the LTTE after the phone number of Ontario’s World Tamil Movement was found to be listed under ‘LTTE’ in his date book. But checking the citation it says this A 1990 case of passport forgery was the first one ever to result in a Canadian conviction. Again, the perpetrators were Canadian Tamils, operating out of an apartment in Toronto. They had produced something like 1,000 doctored travel documents before being caught. Another forger, whose lab for doctoring passports was uncovered in 1991, was found to have the World Tamil Movement of Ontario’s phone number listed under ‘LTTE’ in his date book.. The text in this article is not supported by the citation. Namely the section that reads has also been linked to the LTTE. Just because some Tamil Canadians are charged with passport forgery and have LTTE in there date book it does not automatically mean that LTTE was behind this crime. It does not mean that LTTE even had knowledge of this crime. So please do not violate WP:SYN and claim it does because the given citation does not draw any link at all about this crime. Watchdogb 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

Still none of my concerns here have been taken care of. Please fix the problems or do not take off the NPOV tags. Watchdogb 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message by User:W0rldl3ad3r@hotmail.com

Hello Sebastian, since you seem quite reasonable, I was wondering if you could review the LTTE page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTTE

Namely in the 'Links to other designated terrorist organizations' category. Most of the content in that category is false, unsubstantiated or lacks credible sources. Therefore, if the majority appear to be incorrect, then surely that deems the entire category suspect. I will list some for you here :=

'The similarities between previous LTTE attacks against Sri Lanka Navy ships and the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 US Navy sailors.' The sources for this do not exist

'Evidence that the LTTE provided forged passports to Ramzi Yousef, the man who carried out the first attack against the World Trade Center in New York in 1993' I find it hard to believe that the source, one anonymous man with no formal contact information other than a dead email address, knows or has evidence that the LTTE forged passports to Mr Ramzi Yousef. Furthermore, I find it astonishing that something as big as the World Trade Centre being bombed, was not picked up by other press; in that CNN, CBS, Span, fox etc. never mentioned the LTTE forged passports. Also, I am sure Islamic militants/terrorists will always go to their own kind for such tasks?

'The smuggling of weapons by the LTTE from Islamics in Pakistan to their counterparts in the Philippines.[58]' The same source as aforementioned above. This source is not a credible one, and again anyone could have created the website to spawn false information. If it is a research organisation, where is the telephone number? Why is the email address inactive?

'Falk Rovik alleged that the LTTE stole Norwegian passports and sold them to the al-Qaeda organization to earn money to fund their arms purchases' The source is a Sri-Lankan news daily article. However, given the scope of the topic it deals with:- al-Qadeda, I would think if it were true or even an allegation it would have made a frenzy with the US media. The information is false here too.

'Increasing intelligence reports that the LTTE was smuggling arms to various terrorist organizations using their covert smuggling networks, and findings by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies that they were building commercial links with al-Qaeda and other militants in Afghanistan' Again, the sources here are not credible. If they are indeed as it was implied, intelligence reports, then why has the US state department not reported al-Qaeda being supplied arms by the LTTE. Furthermore, why would LTTE supply arms over lengthy distances when Pakistan is right next door.

I am not going to go into the others, but it is safe to say they are all false or just hearsay. I could dig up a lot of pro-LTTE articles, but does that mean we use them. I think we need to really focus on collective and credible sources. Else, what we are doing is allowing individuals to create websites that look formal to add credibility to their pedantic view points.

Please please, could you kindly delete that section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by W0rldl3ad3r@hotmail.com (talk • contribs)

[edit] Hm.. Why? What? Who?

Everyone here talk about What LTTE is being done & done. of-course thats the subject here. BUT as far i read, everyone's point of view is that LTTE is a terrorist organization and they are killing or doing this and that! Before we look into what they doing or done, you have to see why they done and doing (any ideas?). No one here has any knowledge of what happen in the past (thats included me) and I'm sure that most of those post are created / posted by shingles who also apparently has NO ABSOLUTE clue of what LTTE IS other than what they done (for example; bombs in colombo or what so ever that kills civilians or politicians ad vips)...


First of all Terrorism! What exactly is terrorism? I went through Wikipedia's Terrorism page to see what exactly it is! well it seems thats terrorism is "violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians"... so based on this IS LTTE is really terrorists? Of-couse they are doing exactly as definitions states! but wait,

LTTE case is totally different? why? They say they are fighting against government genocide against tamil minority! here LTTE causing terror for Signalize but what about TAMIL? do they have EXACT same fear as signalize? well being one (TAMIL) i would say NO. Absolutely NOT.

And i don't see why signalize are terrified? well of-couse bomb blast is something, but do they all targeted civilians? i don't think so! 90% of LTTE's bombing as far i know targeted Political VIP's and Military personals and targets. yes civilians get killed as well but they are not directly targeted civilians.

the reason why 32 or so countries has banned or address LTTE as terrorist organization because of the tactics they use to fight (mainly suicide bombing). and most of you blabbering about al-quida copy suicide tactics and others from LTTE, well you better stop complaining, hell LTTE don't definitely have any Copyrights for all their tactics to sue al-quida...


Why? well I'm not going to talk about this at all... one main reason, i don't think this subject allows me to go into this!. you will have to find out why exactly LTTE is formed... if you are in Sri Lanka, do a little research to find out why exactly? and make sure you take NO NOTE from News, Media (audio or Video) or any o your history books! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkick (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ActivePOV dispute

Considering there is an active POV dispute between editors regarding the article content, I think the POV dispute tag should be readded till everything is sorted out. Sinhala freedom 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It seems that more than one editor has a problem with the POV of this article. As it is disputed the tags should stay as I count at least 4 editors who has claimed that this article is not NPOV. I have also pointed out problems with the article above. Watchdogb 15:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read the NPOV dispited section on wikipedia which sais Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for neutral point of view; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Here it is clear that more than one person thinks that this article adhere to WP:NPOV. Furthermore, please note If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article. As editor who thinks this article is not NPOV I have done exactly what the guide asks me to do. PS. Note the following Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.Watchdogb 15:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
regarding the policies I still can't see how this article violate WP:NPOV. The policies aren't for the random POV pushers..And false claims of some users do not make an article a POV one. So both the arguments provided here are invalid and fail to pin-point the so-called POV problem here. I am sure not matter how constructive are we, LTTE supporters going to argue here non-stop.I have seen here they are even arguing ethnic cleansing of LTTE, when there are clearly evidence for that.20,000 Sinhalese lived in Jaffna before 1983　and none live there now.WE all know what happened to Hundreds of thousands Muslims who used to live there.So just because 4 heavily pro-LTTE editors dispute this article do not make this a POV, if there are not enough sources , instead of reverting like no tomorrow, even using anonymous IP's from Canada, please let us know. I am sure we can source every single allegation made in the article. But whether it please some people who called murderous LTTE ,freedom fighters, is a different question.Iwazaki 会話。討論 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have pinpointed exactly what is disputed. Take a look above. Check everything that was said earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No you havent. Your arguments,seemed to based on the fact that a couple of editors think this is POV hence this should be POV !! Pardon me for saying that, but i believe it is one of the most dumbest arguments one can come with!! Not a single neutral editor has said this is POV, and even the neutral editor who once was involved said nothing about the neutrality. SO all we have is a couple of guys, one think LTTE is freedom fighters and dont mind even if they kill people from their own race, other one calling himself a sinhalese and doing all the harm for that race, and the last one who just act as a 3RRR evading tool and has no proper edits here..So are you telling US, that just because above 3 individuals think this is POV, we should have all the tags here ? Well, it doesnt make any sense at all to me, or to anyone in that matter.If you dispute sources list them here, if you dispute incidents list them here, I am sure we have already addressed most of these bogus claims.Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Again please take a look at what I have said in the actual discussions above. Watchdogb 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Article disputed

I dispute the article for the following reasons

  • The following paragraph is mudslinging and does not have any citation to back its claims. Even if it was true the paragraph depends on LTTE leaders words more than 20 years back. What he thinks now or says should be included rather than what he thought back 20 years ago. Disputed paragraph is :

The LTTE's commitment to multi-party democracy has also been questioned. In an interview in 1986, Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the LTTE, said that a future state of Tamil Eelam would be a one-party state rather than a multi-party democracy[citation needed], because that would help it develop faster.[3][citation needed] He has not repeated this proposal, and the LTTE's main ideologue, Anton Balasingham, publicly repudiated this position in 1992, stating that it was irrelevant after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the LTTE's critics state that it indicates their way of thinking, and point out that it has not organized, and shows no signs of organizing, local elections in the areas it controls.[citation needed]

    • Links to other designated terrorist organizations is as POV as it gets. Here it seems editors are synthesizing information and adding it to again throw mud at the LTTE. This is purely POV and it does not even have the other side of the story.
      • Alleged attempted attacks on civilians is another. There are couple of citations but one is a citation that says that Sri Lankan Military claims that LTTE set up the bomb. This is again giving one side of the story and nothing from the other side. Furthermore, some of the allegations do not even have citations. This is again OR and POV.
        • Ethnic cleansing section has no RS that backs up the claim that it is ethnic cleansing. As Ethnic cleansing is a strong word and thus an exceptional claim it needs to be cited with multiple RS calling these acts ethnic cleansing. While I agree that the expulsion of Muslim is Ethnic cleansing the other parts are not referenced. The see also below this section is ridiculed. Another case of pov being pushed in the article to stir up strong emotions. Some might argue that the particular incident might be related to the article I oppose the inclusion because the "Main article" in the top of the Ethnic cleansing section already has the two main articles that has all we need
          • Last, this article is flooded with criticism and crimes that other things that might neutralize the article is not written.

Watchdogb 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You added fact tags, if no one has cited the content move it to the talk page and remove it from the article. End of story.
The "Links to other terrorist organizations" section is well cited and has been gone over by neutral editors. If there is something that's not cited, go ahead and add {{fact}} tags.
"Alleged attempted attacks" section: add {{fact}} tags and see if anyones cites the content. If it has no citations and is definitely not true, move it to the talk page.
"Ethnic cleansing section: (broken record) add {{fact}} tags.
"That article is flooded with crimes they committed?" And is it Wikipedia's fault that the LTTE do things like this? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking over the article I concur that the attempted attacks section diminishes the quality of the article and most of the incidents are that notable, so I'm moving it to the talk page. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
===Alleged attempted attacks on civilians=== {{Synthesis|section|topic=Usage|date=August 2007}} Heavy vehicles carrying large quantities of high explosives were caught at various check points throughout the nation during various times. The LTTE uses specially engineered secret compartments in lorries, tractors, vans and buses to hide the explosives. The following are the most recent attempted attacks on civilian targets:{{Fact|date=August 2007}} * A lorry coming from Kilinochchi area was apprehended with a deadly cargo of over 1000kg of [[C-4 (explosive)|C4]] high explosives. The apprehension took place at Nikevaritiya. The police claims that it is the single largest detection of explosives in history. The Sri Lankan military claims that LTTE were responsible.<ref>{{citation|title=Explosives detection triggers ban on vehicles from Tiger territory |author= Hiran Priyankara Jayasinghe, Pushpakumara Jayartna|publisher=Sunday Times|date=[[June 3]] [[2007]]|url=http://www.sundaytimes.lk/070603/News/news9.html}}</ref> * The Sri Lankan Military claims that some [[M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine|Claymore mines]] were discovered various points throughout the Island. The military further claimed that two of these mines were used to attack troops in urban areas. Most mines were discovered due to the vigilance of locals, and were neutralized by Sri Lankan Army before they take their death toll.<ref>{{citation|date=[[June 6]] [[2006]] |title= Claymore mine attack close to Colombo injures two|url=http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/3bd781eb97e6248749257186000a9766?OpenDocument|publisher=Government of Sri Lanka}}</ref>{{Fact|date=August 2007}} * Some of those bombs were synchronized, i.e. planted at separate locations throughout the city but set to explode simultaneously. The government lay blame on LTTE saying only LTTE has the technology to make [[claymore mine]]s in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, government accuses that only a well-trained military organization would carry out such a synchronized attack.<ref>{{cite journal|title='Engagement is the key' - an interview with Dr. Palitha T.B. Kohona|author=V.S. Sambandan, B. Muralidhar Reddy|journal= Frontline| volume= 23 |issue=[[July 14]] [[2006]]| publisher=The Hindu|url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2313/stories/20060714005001400.htm}}</ref> Despite of the Tamil nationalistic ideology of LTTE, those lethal bombs could have killed thousands civilians, both Tamil and Sinhalese. Almost one third of population in Colombo are Tamils.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Some misleading facts in the Tamil Alliance Manifestos |author= S. Kohombanwickrama |journal=Daily News|publisher=The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd|date= [[November 30]] [[2001]]|url=http://www.dailynews.lk/2001/11/30/fea06.html}}</ref>{{Fact|date=August 2007}}
Also note the following text from this article in the New York Daily News.
"The Tamil Tigers are one of the world's most ruthless and violent nationalist organizations ... the Tigers have indiscriminately attacked civilians in order to create a separate Tamil state in parts of Sri Lanka ... the group pioneered the use of suicide bombers ... Experts have linked them to other terrorist organizations and note the similarity between the Tigers' attack on Sri Lanka Navy ships and the Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole ... their sources of worldwide funding, in addition to credit card fraud, include sea piracy, human smuggling and drug trafficking"
That can be used to cite half this article... --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Human smuggling" Section

The Mackenzie Institute is a racist organization bent on spreading hate, xenophobia and racism in Canadian society. It should not be quoted in the context of discussing the LTTE. South Asians who dislike LTTE, quoting "The Mackenzie Institute" are shooting themselves on their feet.206.108.179.229 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The template has a section of crimes. Who calls these crimes ? Has there been any conviction to show that these are crimes ? Where is the citation for these crimes ? LTTE is a legal organization in Sri Lanka and as such it should be noted that just because some corrupt LTTE cadre decided to attack civilians/ massacre/ bomb it does not reflect the action of the whole organization. Another note is that this is a unique template designed to throw mud at one side. We should stick with templates that have been used on other proscribed organization. Watchdogb 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Crimes and attack should come off. Other proscribed groups like ETA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Republican Sinn Féin do not have these fields. Furthermore, no one of the Proscribed groups have anything that has Attacks and Crimes in their templates. As such it should not be here either Watchdogb 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV disputed

I dispute the article because all the sections like crime and connection with other terrorist organization only has one side of the story. There is no representing of the LTTE views or at least a pro LTTE view. This is an unbalance in the POV of this article. Furthermore, the latest added front page of the news/ article is a clear Scam of a WP:RS. This newspaper/article copied this entry in wikipedia word by word. This is definitely not RS. Also with the other comment raised earlier. Watchdogb 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 32 or 31

From the list of countires that list the Tigers as a terrorist organisation, the UK seems to be counted twice - as member of the EU and on its own - could this be clarified. Are the countries following the UN directive the other 'one'. [[Guest9999 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Since no one replied and only 31 countries are listed, I've made the change. Pruneautalk 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Why am I not allowed to say in the introduction what I said a couple days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=185707373&oldid=185698024 . I wanted to include the recent terrorist attack on the bus and to change that ridiculous introduction that the LTTE are "militant seperatists". They are terrorists pure and simply. If it was other way round and a Sri Lankan went onto the Al Qaeda article and told americans they could not call AQ terrorists then there would be uproar would there not? --Ismailmk (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction was subject to mediation agreed after deep discussion and debate.Further even today the LTTE is not banned in Sri Lanka and is a legal outfit .Further the Sri Lankan government and International community have considered the LTTE as the representive of the Tamil people hence conducted peace talks with them as a equal partner.If they were pure terrorists the Sri Lankan government would never have negotiated with them for ending the Sri Lankan civil war like the USA will never negotiate with Al qaeda.For example the JVP was a terrorist outfit today it is part of the Sri Lankan parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LTTE is terrorist organisation. Resisting LTTE is Sri Lanka's war on terror. How will you like it if I was to go to Al Qaeda article and call them a "resistance movement". Three of my friend were injured in a bombing by your "representative of the Tamil people" and another killed. Do you understand that? Ismailmk (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Your representative claims that it wasn't here. Wiki Raja (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI AGAIN! First, President says there is the possibility of other Tamil groups being involved. It is still most likely that LTTE were responsible. Second - I did not vote for that party. Third - I support the Tamil nationalist movement just not through violence. Fourth - my own wife is Tamil. Wiki Raja you are American Tamil and I don't think it is fair that you sit at your computer in a country in thousands of miles around the world telling me and the Sri Lankan and Tamil people that the group who has murdered their countrymen is legitimate. --Ismailmk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI: First, can you or anyone show proof of accusation? Second, you are entitled to your opinions. Third, you can do what ever you want. Fourth, the former head of Tamileelam police is married to a Sinhalese, does that make him pro-government? Lastly, please refrain from stereotyping me. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ismail, are you in distress because of the death of your friends? Well I am sorry to hear. I am also distressed about the SLA terrorist vandura running around raping my sisters, kidnapping and killing my brothers, occupying my family members houses. Killing the young ones. If you want to hate LTTE for what they do to civilians, then you must hate the SLA/SLN/SLAF vandura too ! I hope there is peace to Srilanka through the liberation of Tamil Eelam. You should too !!!Watchdogb (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW is your wife the daughter of Douglas or Karuna ? Watchdogb (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The line "The LTTE is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 31 countries (see list)" in the inro had been removed. I'm reverting that edit as no valid reason is given here for that change, and there seems to be nothing wrong or against wikipedia regulations in that line. Please change it back if that line was removed for any valid reason. Chamal (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category purge

In mid-January all categories were removed from the article. Has nobody noticed? __meco (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] into

Would it be ok to make a link to Tamil Eelam since that is what they are trying to create ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course! Watchdogb (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child Soldier section

I am proposing to remove some parts of the Child Soldier section. I am proposing the removal of several sentences and remove old material. For example, there are claim on the how many Child soldier LTTE had in 2001 and many claims from the past. However, it is clear that LTTE has reduced it's child recruits drastically since then. I , therefore, propose we change the current revision to the following :

The LTTE has recruited and used Child Soldiers in it's fight against the Sri Lankan Army[4][5][6]. The LTTE was accused of having up to 5,794 child soldiers in it's ranks since 2001.[7][8]. However, since 2007 LTTE has pleaded that it will release all of the recruits under the age of 18 before the end of the year. As a result, on 18 June 2007, the LTTE released 135 children under the age of 18. UNICEF claims that only 506 child recruits remain under the LTTE. UNICEF and the United States note that there has been a significant drop in LTTE recruitment of children [9]. Furthermore, a report released by the LTTE's Child Protection Authority (CPA) in 2008 reported that only less than 40 child soldiers, under the age of 18, still remain in their forces. [10] The LTTE argues that instances of child recruitment occurred mostly in the east, under the purview of former LTTE regional commander Colonel Karuna. After leaving the LTTE and forming the TMVP, it is alleged Karuna continues to forcibly kidnap and induct child soldiers.[11] Its official position is that earlier, some of its cadres erroneously recruited volunteers in their late teens.[citation needed] It says that its official policy is now that it will not accept child soldiers. It also says that some underage youth lie about their age and are therefore allowed to join, but are sent back home to their parents as soon as they are discovered to be underage.[citation needed]

I feel that having extended coverage of the past on this matter is not WP:NPOV. This is because the LTTE has decided to stop the inclusion of Children in it's rank and therefore we need to focus on the current situation rather than the past. However, I did include some facts from the past so that the reader can get the necessary insight into this matter. Watchdogb (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the sea piracy

I have moved a large chunk of the MV Farah III section to Sea Tigers and shortened and integrated the section into the other section. Any objectives ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Smuggling

I am proposing to remove the human smuggling part from this article. The particular section claims that the human smuggling is done under permission by the LTTE but it also claims that there is no proof that the LTTE benifits from it. It is false to claim that since human smuggling goes under LTTE permission that LTTE smuggles humans. For this subsection to be in the LTTE article there needs be a direct relationship between human smuggling and the LTTE. Namely some sort of proof that LTTE benefits from this act or proof that current members of the LTTE is smuggling Human to other countries. Since no such link is provided and there is even claim that there is no evidence that LTTE benefits from human smuggling I think it is best to have this off the article per WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:TOPIC. Watchdogb (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination

The current section called Assassination lists victims of assignations that are attributed to LTTE. I am proposing to shorten this section substantially and mention the following:

The LTTE has been accused by various groups for assassination of political opponents and military opponents. The victims include both Tamil moderates, Tamil paramilitary groups and Sinhalese people. Most notably the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and Ranasinghe Premadasa who were the heads of India and Sri Lanka respectively.

The reason for this action is that these assassinations are covered in three places already. 1) The article of the assassinated people 2) List of Attacks attributed to LTTE 3)Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Since these three article already mention who the assassins are, or at least the attributed assassins, it becomes redundant and repetitive. Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pilferage of tsunami donations

his section is cited almost exclusively by a report of a case that is still in process in Australia. Couple of ethnic Tamil men were being charged for connection with LTTE and duping people thinking of aiding Tsunami into funding LTTE. The problem is that these are allegation and no court ruling has been made. Since the defense denies that they are members of LTTE or funding for them I believe that it is not suitable in the LTTE article. This section is not suitable since this is under the broad Criminal Activity. Since there is no court ruling that they are members of LTTE and guilty of the charges we cannot have this claim under the current section and more importantly in this article. If the case ruling is that they are guilty, then I think we could have this on this article. Watchdogb (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point in that it may be premature to include an entire paragraph on this incident at this time. Perhaps the information could be retained but shortened to a single sentence mentioning the ongoing case in Australia, which could be placed at the end of the first paragraph of the "Criminal activities" section. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the following be acceptable under "Criminal activities" section:

Two Tamils in Australia are facing charges for allegedly raising thousands of dollars in Australia under the pretense of being for charities and aid for those affected by the 2004 Asian Tsunami but instead using the money to fund the LTTE. The case is still in process at a Australian court.[12]

Watchdogb (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so: it captures the essence of the paragraph and does not give undue weight to a single (as yet unresolved) incident. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The article will be modified with this version. Thanks for your thoughts once again. Watchdogb (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the same concern above can be expressed to the following sentence:

In 2007 the New York Police Department arrested a number of LTTE operatives who were planning to use stolen credit card information to steal $250,000 in New York City, and tens of millions more from ATMs worldwide.[13] Overall, Jane's Intelligence Review reported that the LTTE raise up to $300 million a year through various methods, including international credit card fraud and extortion of Tamil expatriates.[13]

The article claims that these people are tiger operative but that is only what the prosecutors claim. The defense lawyers claim that this is not an international fraud deal, instead they suggest that this is a small scale crime. Would it be fair to handle this sentence as above? Watchdogb (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, perhaps it would be sufficient to add the word "alleged" before "LTTE operatives". This source seems to indicate that the incident is being considered in the context of a broader international crime ring (e.g. according to the Assistant DA, the "defendant is part of a large, highly organized ring of international criminals"). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would the following be a sufficient and WP:NPOV version of the case:

In 2007 the New York Police arrested a number of individuals who were allegedly planning to use stolen credit card information to steal $250,000 in New York City. The prosecutes claim that they were also planning to steal tens of millions more from ATMs worldwide. The prosecutes further alleged that these individuals had LTTE links. However, the defense lawyers deny these claim and insist that they were local criminals.

This does deviate from the citation but I clearly can see that the writers of the article made some OR and claimed interpreted the prosecutors claim to call these people tiger operatives. The part about Janes defense claim will be integrated into other sentence in the section. Is this acceptable version ? Watchdogb (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Watchdogb, I would say adding the word "alleged" should be sufficient (as User:Black Falcon had suggested). I would also include the sentance about the defense lawyers indicating that these men were in fact local criminals. Thanks! --Lucifereri (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The following captures the essence of allegation and then it also gives the defense claim.

A numbers of individuals, arrested in 2007, are facing charges for allegedly planning to use stolen credit cards information to steal $250,000. The prosecutes claim that they were also planning to steal tens of millions more from ATMs worldwide. The prosecutes further alleged that these individuals had LTTE links. However, the defense lawyers deny these claim and insist that they were local criminals

This is a version that seems most neutral to me and thus most acceptable.Watchdogb (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello again Watchdogb, I see that you have taken the liberty to edit the article with this version; I disagree that this version is more neutral--I find it much more confusing. This paragraph is in the "Criminal Activities" section, and it is extremely odd to start it off this way and not even mention that the accused individuals are also accused of having ties with the LTTE until after the first two sentances! I feel that these sentances lead the reader away from the accusations (which are the most important reason why are they are on this page at all), but that is my take. What was wrong with adding the word alleged and then the sentance about the defense lawyers denying they were LTTE operatives afterwards? That would have been completely neutral (saying something is more neutral or not should not be the argument...it should be about both neutrality and clarity IMO). Thanks! --Lucifereri (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What was wrong with adding the word alleged and then the sentance about the defense lawyers denying they were LTTE operatives afterwards? There is nothing wrong with that but I do not understand what it really means. Can you put forth a sentence like I did above? If we agree this is more neutral, then we can add it instead of the current version. Your claim is not correct to me. The fact that these are allegations and a court case is pending is enough to completely remove this sentence from this article as it's under criminal section of LTTE even though the defense says that this is not correct. By the mere appearance of the sentence on this article under the section establishes link to LTTE which is only an accusations. It's currently pointless to argue over this until you show your version. If we agree to this, then we can have that added instead of what is currently there. Watchdogb (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrests in the UK

Three arrests in the UK --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7372883.stm. (Hypnosadist) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This again is an arrest on suspicion. Furthermore, they are being interrogated. I believe that it would be better if we allow some time to see what develops of this story. Watchdogb (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If this turns into something concrete or high-profile, it can be included in the article; until then, it's probably not significant enough to merit mention. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)