Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 8

Copyediting tag

I've taken the initiative to add the {{copyedit}} tag to this article, after noticing some terrible grammar in the bottom half of the article. I do plan on coming back soon to fix it up, though if somebody else would like to do it, go right ahead. --Hojimachong^talk 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, and I'm currently going through the article, and post a message when I'm done. If there are no further objections then, I'll remove the tag. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalsim claim and status of this article

According WP:Vandalism following are examples of Vandalism Blanking, Excessive lengthening, Spam, Vandalbots, Silly vandalism Sneaky vandalism, Userspace vandalism, Image vandalism, Abuse of tags Page-move vandalism, Link vandalism, Avoidant vandalism, Modifying users' comments, Improper use of dispute tags, Talk page vandalism, Malicious account creation, Deleted page re-creation, Hidden vandalism.

Adding well sourced material is not vandalismsee here. Removing such content without discussion and calling it vandalism in is not appropriate.

Personally I don’t give a dam as to how this article looks and reads but I will give my 2 cents. It fails neutrality all the way through, poorly written and simply one sided and it is a useless piece of information on Wikipedia as it stands now. Not a single person reading it would say, wow what a great piece of information, well written and useful.

Those editors who may care about Wikipedia’s reputation rather than their own prejudices should take it to neutrality check then peer review and see what others thing about it. Try to make it a good article that will stand the test of time.Taprobanus 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well since you didn't provide the diff of the sharz's edit I assume this is the one that you talking about. If you go through the history of the article you will notice on 19:58, May 1, 2007 Snowolfd4 removed the Chencholai Airstrike and the Kerawalapitiya airstrike sections, asking what do these have to do with LTTE human rights issues?. But in a childish manner sharz re added the section saying re-added Chencholai Airstrike + Kerwalpitiya, maybe accidentally deleted.[1] He just didn't restored the section but without any proper justification he revert whole intermediate revisions as you done, here. Anyway, as I know he's exist in here since 6 January 2006 and he knows how to navigate through the history pages and read the edit summaries. This is not the fist time that he worked in behind the curtain manner and that makes me to act without assuming the good faith. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing more. The edit summary of my reversion is an automated one.[2] I hope you know about that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that good argument I agree Taprobanus 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Excluding another one of your personal attacks on me, I do admit error, I read the article erronously and didn't see Recent Events as a sub-section of the Human Rights section of the article. My bad. --Sharz 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anywayz, I appreciate that you accepted the mistake you made, but regarding the personal attack, as you have referred to it, anyone could understand what I meant by saying childish with the bolded text above. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in the specific case I can see what your talking about, though if not slightly dubious. --Sharz 06:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey kid, just forget it --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia gets gamed

prostitution claim originates: "In 1998, a pair of sources in the Tamil Community told one of the authors about "Camilla", a madam for a Tamil hooker ring in Toronto. The story was that most of the clientele were Tamils, but the thinking about Camilla’s organization was that a man who could afford a few hundred bucks for an hour or two of pleasure could also then be fingered as someone who could afford to increase his donations to the Tigers’ cause. The story was impossible to confirm for several reasons, but Camilla does still advertise in the ‘Adult Personal’ section of Now Magazine." my emphasis

another example from the same "institute": "Sometime in the mid-1980s (according to unsubstantiated gossip in the Intelligence community) a senior IRA man was discovered in Toronto after one of the two call-girls who had accompanied him to take care of the terrorists’ living expenses was arrested by the local police. This led to an expedited deportation of the IRA member back to waiting authorities in Great Britain." my emphasis

WP:RS guideline: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

I humbly suggest that "mackenzie institute" fails WP:V. It fails as a reliable source. I draw this conclusion from the material which is clearly marked in at least two places as "unsubstantiated gossip" and "impossible to confirm". The source has made a point of refusing to stand by the claims and has inserted caveats which place a significant distance between the "institute" and what he is announce as fact. Does the published material provide evidence that the "mackenzie institute" is authoritative on this subject? No, the opposite.

Also noticed that the Sri Lankia ministry of defense announces the "impossible to confirm" information as a "revelation" uncovered by a "research paper" at wikipedia:

"..internet Wikepedia website has published startling revelation about the LTTE's involvement in prostitution to generate funds for its war efforts. The publication is a well researched piece of work giving intricate details about the modus operandi of the LTTE." [3]

It is not hard to work out what has happened here. Funny to see the system being gamed so effortlessly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fluffy999 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but most of what you said doesn't make much sense to me. Who is this "Camellia" lady, and what does she have to do with this article? The only prostitution mentioned here is reports that the LTTE stranded women they were smuggling in Thailand, and forced them into prostitution there. I'm a little confused about how a "madam" in Toronto comes into the picture.

I didn't entirely get why you brought up this IRA story either, but I assuming you are trying to highlight it to show the Mackenzie Institute is not a reliable source because they say in their report "unsubstantiated gossip". I wonder as to how a report mentioning that some of it's material is not fully confirmed makes all their reports unreliable. Most major newspapers / organizations etc. etc. do that all the time. How many times have you heard an anchor on CNN or the BBC or FOX or whatever saying "We have got unconfirmed reports that..." or "...this story cannot, as yet, be confirmed". Does that make them unreliable sources? I would think not.

Further on that point, the author of this report has been quoted by a number of other independent publications, thereby satisfying a key criteria of reliable sources.

The report on the MoD website is obviously not correct, because at no place in this article does it say "the LTTE is running an international prostitution network". You should take it up with them, because I don't believe Wikipedia editors are in any way responsible with how 3rd parties use Wikipedia articles. It would be ridiculous otherwise, and would leave no one willing to contribute to Wikipedia.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can garner from your message is that you didn't actually read this article before posting this message. So all I can say is please read the article carefully, understand that not all facts are presented as truth, and remember "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider yourself corrected, I read it closely. You must have failed to notice that the "institute" indicates that the madam story is what it describes as "datum" on the LTTE and prostitution link it is trying to create. Thats why the Madam story was raised- it seemed the only plausible link to support the theory appearing in the article. Following that another example from the "institute" "report" was used to illustrate that the "institute" is problematic. The author at the "institute" is unable to substantiate what he/she writes. That is a major problem. He/She has made a point of flagging that problem up to his/her readers. How often does the BBC begin a news report by stating: "Im sorry we cant verify anything of what were going to tell you, but its all accurate". So leaving your strawman on that point aside a moment, and discounting the above detail on the hooker ring, as you did, you are perhaps basing the claim of the institute alleging LTTE and prostitution link on this paragraph:

"One additional datum about prostitution and the Tigers arises out of people smuggling activities (another key industry for the LTTE). In the mid 1990s, it was not unknown for some Sri Lankan women to be abused or raped while being smuggled towards Canada, and some were deliberately stranded in Thailand and forced into prostitution there. In all fairness, the risks of this happening to Tamil women are much lower than they are for women being handled by human traffickers from Eastern Europe and the Far East."

Where exactly and with what evidence does the "institute" back up this idea that

1. prostitution is a "key industry" for the LTTE ?
2. people smuggling is a "key industry" for the LTTE ?
3. LTTE are the ones behind supposed people smuggling and Tamil prostitution inside North America or Asia.

For a statement to represent an allegation it has to have some kind of verifiable fact attached to it. Do you see any facts, verifiable or otherwise? Allegation: Allegations remain assertions without proof, only claims until they are proved. Yet here it is reported on wikipedia with no caveat, either as an unsubstantiated claim or allegation supported with some kind of evidence. If you insist on pushing the prostitution claim then state it as such in the article: an unverified claim that has not been proven or established as fact.

If the "institute" had something that might be called evidence, it would appear. This is the type of activity that organizations involved in the preparation of reports engage in- fact reporting. However the "institute" is not even prepared to stand by a claim of "fact" on its output. What the "institute" produces instead are three anecdotes from unidentified sources which it purposely distances itself from. An organization concerned with fact might be expected to attempt fact checking. With the "institute" what evidence is there to suggest anything like that has taken place? None. And I base that conclusion on the anecdotal detail the "institute" produces on the laughably termed "provisonal wing of the IRA". What the "institute" appears to be is one man and his blog failing to abide by transparent processes of fact checking and sourcing that other publishers and media do abide by. That doesnt even go near the issue of journalistic impartiality.

The report from the Ministry of Defense leads me to suspect that this article has been gamed and its why I showed up at the article. It is so blatant. Fluffy999 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To user Fluffy999, as you have found this article is not up to standards, the reason is that it has largely been taken over by supporters for one side of the conflict. I have repeatedly tried to adress some of the gravest errors, see my comments above. I have also tried to at least have a POV tag on the article but this is removed, and I am not enganging in revert wars. I have tried to get the attention of several admins, in vain, and I have listed the problem with the article at the Village pump - Biased article as the article now is being used by one of the parties to the conflict. I do hope that someone will take action before this ends up in some major news organisation and we get another situation where Wikipedia lose part of it's reputation due to biased or wrongly funded articles. Ulflarsen 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ulflarsen I believe its too late for that but good luck in your editing. Fluffy999 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the article and find it well referenced. However, we have to be very and very careful when reporting. This is how it has to work:

• Human rights and terrorism issues section doesn't need much scrunity when dealing w/ references because they are issues (attacks on civilians, assassinations, minor soldiers, etc) that are reported daily by thousands of sources around the world. All we have to do is find the best and most notable reporters (BBC and equivalents). If there are denials of these acts we obviously should report them as well.
• Criminal activities are operations that happen mostly under the table if they really happen. Again, if there are denials we should report them. So scrunity here should be essential. In our case, i see a bit of bias out there in this section. Why? Well, because it is the only section that relies on mainly 2 sources which are The Mackenzie Institute and the Herald Sun. The thing here is that The Mackenzie institute is considered a primary source and it is still considered controversial somehow (Mackenzie Institute, [4]). We encourage people to use secondary sources (see Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). I am not against using the Istitute as a reference but relying heavily on it, especially on controversial issues is a bit of a bias. I am against the usage of a "totally disputed" tag on top of the article but i'd support a {{Disputed-section}} for this particular section until other sources are brought to give more credit and less bias to the section.

Please consult other experienced editors or admins on the matter to get a wider view or else request a comment if possible. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, FayssalF, we really needed a neutral opinion here. Weighting in, I don't think anyone has, as yet, expressed any concern about the "Human rights and terrorism issues" section, so I don't think that was a problem. Correct me if I'm wrong about that though.

Regarding the "Criminal activities" section, I'm not really sure if I completely agree that the Mackenzie Institute is not a reliable source, because, like I said, it's work has been cited by a number of 3rd party reports [5] [6] [7]("The Mackenzie Institute, cited by several major Canadian newspapers as one of Canada's leading research organizations, prides itself...") and appears to have been lauded by a number of other parties [8](see the bottom of the article - by the Toronto Sun, the Calgary Sun ("... a very respectable think tank..."), the Globe and Mail etc.).

While the criticism you cite above is notable, isn't pretty much every major news organization/institution at some time or another accused of been biased or incorrect in some of it's reports? I could recall a number of instances where the BBC, the NY Times etc. have come in for a lot of criticism. But that doesn't really make them unreliable sources for Wikipedia articles, does it?

That would be my interpretation anyway. However, if you still think it is disputed, I'll do my best to find other reliable sources for the disputed sections. At the moment, the sections that and would thus be disputed are "Human Smuggling", "Passport forgery", and "Arms smuggling".

Provided that we're unable to find references for some of the sections, would it be appropriate to say simply "The Mackenzie Institute has reported ..." per WP:V? Because, unfortunately, not that many organizations do research on the current conflict in Sri Lanka, so it may be difficult to find too many sources for these claims. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• "..and remember "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Snowolfd4
• "Because, unfortunately, not that many organizations do research on the current conflict in Sri Lanka, so it may be difficult to find too many sources for these claims." Snowolfd4

A contradiction that betrays your bias. You want to establish the "truth" of claims which are not verified and which you admit are not widely sourced. Certainly the "institute" refuses to verify the anecdotes in its report as factual. Get some facts, hard evidence, etc. and leave rumor and scandal mongering out of the article. Either way I have no axe to grind, it just annoys me to see such a blatant gaming of the system. Fluffy999 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to get outside editors to engage with this article as I find it biased and POV. One is the sources, this source - [9], is still listed. It is a joke. This is a one man organisation, a man convicted for murder in Norway. I have repeatedly shown that this source makes Wikipedia look like a big joke, but it is still there. Then there are other sources, like The Mackenzie Institute. One question is how reliable it is, and another one is how their statements are used. If you read their statements, as I have done, see above, they are repeatedly used to their maximum, and then some. To say it bluntly - the source are used beyond their validity.

To make myself very clear, I have nothing against that the LTTE gets bad publicity, on the contrary. But it needs to be done correctly, with truth, not with bad sources or sources used beyond what they actually say. There is more than enough bad acts that LTTE has done to document here that can give them a very bad light, but some users want more - and they do not care if they damage the reputation of Wikipedia in that game. Ulflarsen 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear about three things guys.

1. Sites like this one are called "Attack Site". It is infinitely biased and one can find hundreds of them if not thousands re to a subject. There should be no arguments about using them as references. Please read This and do the necessary. Websites or whatever which call their enemies "murderers" instead of using politically correct jargon are unfit to wikipedia.
2. As i said above, The Mackenzie institute in this case is considered a primary source. Theorically, there's no problem about that. Practically, there is a problem. If you couldn't find no secondary source analazing or verifying what they claim than there is of course a problem.
3. Disputed tags are tagged on articles whenever there is a dispute. It is clear that there is a dispute. Now you got to fix it. Bringing more secondary and alternative sources and keep NPOV. Once the problem is fixed, the tag is removed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations

I think allegations about a certain group, unless proven to an utmost certainty by multiple sources. For example all the sites discussing the LTTE's involvement in the drug trade are in themselves tertiary sources. The Mackenzie Institute isn't reliable since the author of these articles has been known for bias. In addition CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Services) has clearly stated in Commentary 77 that there is no certain connection between the LTTE and the drug trade. Another section regarding usage of women in prostitution has no validity whatsoever.

The manner in which multiple sections (ie allegations, PoWs, attacks etc) have been added show a clear attempt by editors to skew the view of those uneducated about the situation against the LTTE. Quite literally this comes down to simply the waging of the political war between the LTTE and the GoSL back here onto Wikipedia which is quite unfortunate because now anytime I read Wikipedia I will be twice as vigilant in regards to the accuracy of the information.

If anything I request any higher position Wikiholics to intervene and go about a rehaul of this page and in the process freeze any edits to require approval.

Your comment is very much to the point, it has however been very difficult to change the article, even trying to add a POV tag has been reverted. I have stated the issues I have with the current article in my previous comments here in the discussion page and as I have been reverted a number of times I am not doing more editing on the article. I have however posted a comment to the Village pump and I have also offered a bounty of 100 USD to the Bounty board, the amount will be given to Wikimedia Foundation if the article is serious improved before the end of May.

Regarding the bounty, there is no need to be familiar with the subject to work with the article and help Wikipedia improving the article while arranging that Wikimedia Foundation gets 100 USD, all that is needed is time and the knowledge of what we mean by good and reliable sources. Ulflarsen 06:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Independent comments on the issues raised in the current debate

I am posting here in response to FayssalF’s request for some neutral commentary on this article and the issues being raised here. For what it’s worth, my real-life job includes analysis of international defense and security affairs. As such, I am generally familiar with the Sri Lankan conflict; however, I do not plan to participate in the active, substantive editing of this article now or in the near future (due to priorities on my limited time), but will limit my participation to addressing specific issues currently at conflict.

1) The only criminal activity reported in the article that is new to me is the report concerning forced prostitution. Certainly there have been any number of accusations of rape by members of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, but I have not come across reports of organized prostitution among their fundraising activities. If the only source for this (apparently The Mackenzie Institute) says it is “unsubstantiated gossip” or “impossible to confirm”, then we should take them at their word, respect their responsible representation of the reliability of the information, and not publish it in Wikipedia. We can afford to wait until two independent sources can be found which document actual instances.

2) I am only vaguely familiar with The Mackenzie Institute, but most of the criticism I am aware of regarding their reporting lies in the area of domestic Canadian issues and less for their reporting on terrorism. From the material of theirs that I’ve scanned through today, I have to say it more often reads like a blog than anything else, although their overall treatment of the LTTE in “Other People’s Wars” seems to be a reasonable treatment of general reporting on the LTTE, and it appears to be an overview prepared from a wide variety of sources, although it’s unfortunate that Mr. Thompson neglects to identify them or provide a bibliography. I cannot out-of-hand condemn it as unreliable. Nonetheless, I would recommend the simple, courteous solution of providing a second, independent source wherever an editor has a problem with this one. (Cf. such usage in the “Other crimes” subsection regarding counterfeiting and satellite piracy, as well as for the well-documented issue of the impression of child soldiers.)

3) One editor has observed that “all the sites discussing the LTTE's involvement in the drug trade are in themselves tertiary sources” and that “CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Services) has clearly stated in Commentary 77 that there is no certain connection between the LTTE and the drug trade.” I would point out that the CSIS Commentary is dated “Winter 1999” and thus significantly out of date. The LTTE’s involvement in the illicit drug trade has since become well-established. If the sources currently being used actually are tertiary ones, I’d recommend they be replaced with secondary sources, which are readily available. (Although not freely available, Jane's World Insurgency And Terrorism has an article, “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)”, dated 26 March 2007, which provides an excellent overview of what is currently known about the LTTE and its activities.)

Hopefully, these comments will enable the editors of this article to resume making forward progress with this article. If there are other specific questions I can address, please post them here. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After carefully monitoring & reviewing the section 2 of the main article, sub section Government,there's no independent, verifiablel sources as to prove that the LTTE have CUSTOMS,FINANCIAL SYSTEMS OR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. The sources listed under footnotes 15,16,17 are not proof of the existance of such systems. The Judicial System footnote is a website & does not even work. Further even if it does work,these are just websites run by LTTE affiliated parties & not independent. We should remove these three sections since they are just part of propaganda, not facts. This is a serious vilation of WIKIPEDIA rules.SamanBandara 23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While the governmental and political subsections certainly could do with some improvement in writing, further sourcing, and replacement of dead links, none of this means that the LTTE doesn't have some sort of quasi-government – else how could they control the local populace and raise/extort money from them? That it isn't a freely elected and representative government doesn't mean it isn't a "government" of some sort. A fix could be as simple as applying wording such as "the LTTE claims to maintain functioning customs, finance and judicial systems" or some wording to that effect. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The LTTE de facto state

There is no doubt the LTTE is running a de facto state in the north-east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE control its borders, they have a working judicial system, army, naval and air force. So it can safely be stated in the article. Ulflarsen 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of references that mention this, for example [10] [11] [12], so provided sources are included that would be ok. Addhoc 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Probvided sources are not satisfactory and is not a proof of existance of financial,judicial & customs services. I do not dispute the fact that LTTE imposes some sort of levies on innocent tamils live in the so called "de facto state". Further there is no doubt that any military or criminal organisation would have the ways and means of controling their population whom they govern,or oppress for the very existance of such an organisation.Also they will have the ways & means of channeling money ,collecting money inorder to survive. Financial systems need more components to it than what the LTTE posses. There is no unique currency ,no central bank & the so called "LTTE operated banks" are merely money lending & deposit taking operations carriedout by LTTE operatives not,not banks. To call this a Financial System is not factual hence should be removed.Other two systems will be reviewed on an ongoing basis. I would like to focus on the financial system part first.Once agreed ,as per wikipedia rules we will remove the phrase "financial system" with a suitable phrase.SamanBandara 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SamanBandara that the links provided by Addhoc are not persuasive: the first two links cannot be read by anyone without a Google Book Search account and the third link only mentions the de facto government in passing in a section addressing child soldier recruitment.

However, SamanBandara, I am unclear as to why you believe the LTTE has no “financial system”. Do you believe that because the LTTE’s quasi-government lacks all of the elements and structures of a modern nation-state’s financial system that it therefore lacks any semblance of such financial institutions at all? All organizations needing to fund activities of any sort will create a financial system of some sort. It need not be as sophisticated, complex, or intricate as a modern “first-world” nation’s financial system; barter is a “financial system”, after all. A child’s “piggy bank” is one kind of a bank, albeit intended for interest-free savings. There are also financial institutions that provide selected banking services without meeting the legal definition of a “bank”. That the LTTE does not print its own currency is not significant as some nations even today accept other nations’ currency as co-equal with their own or sometimes instead of printing their own, particularly as an emergency measure. Certainly a guerrilla organization’s institutions must be more informal and ad hoc than more firmly established governments’; after all, if the LTTE were to build a formal bank or a mint or a bureau of engraving and printing, one of their very first visitors would be several Sri Lanka Air Force fighter-bombers. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction is far too good for a terrorist organization

LTTE can do and has done almost all kinds of brutal crimes of a terrorist organization. Undoubtedly, LTTE is the most lethal and well organized terrorist group in the world! Although they call themselves "Tamil Tigers", how many innocent Tamil civilians and politicians they killed? Terrorism implies neither religion nor race, only brute force to gain power! So i suggest that the introduction part should be changed to reflect this point. It's time to revise the mediation.

PLEASE BE NEUTRAL TO HUMANITY, NOT TO TERRORISM!!!Nilhanu 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is hardly neutral toward LTTE terrorism. However, Wikipedia policies such as “Neutral point of view” and guidelines like “Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point” restrict how Wikipedia editors write articles. We basically present what other reliable sources have written on the topic, and are prohibited from just stating our personal points of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a blog. Stuffing one’s own personal views into an article or ripping out material one disagrees with – particularly without discussing the issues with other editors or even leaving an explanatory edit summary – is considered disruptive editing.

The best way to constructively change the mediated introduction is for you to propose a specific draft rewrite here and invite the other editors to comment on it. If your arguments for your proposed changes are persuasive, then the consensus can be changed to your version or (more likely) a modified, compromised version of it. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Mr. Askari, I admit that I'm quite new to Wikipedia and its policies. But please do not try to abuse those policies to DEFEND and cover up actual facts of a lethal and monstrous terrorist organization.

Dear Wikipedia users and editors,

• Is it fair to be neutral to a well-known brutal terrorist organization?
• Why LTTE was banned as a terrorist organization in majority of countries? Just for fun or realizing the danger?
• Isn't it being neutral to terrorism is like being neutral to global warming, starvation and poverty?
• Is LTTE terrorism is just a personal idea or actual fact?
• Is special permission required to classify a 'terrorist' organization as terrorists?

The point is: LTTE IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND NOT A MILITANT ORGANIZATION!

Nilhanu 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nilhanu (and others), I am well aware of what the LTTE is and I personally agree that the LTTE is one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world. However, Wikipedia is what it is and has its own rules about how its articles are to be written. Whether I agree with them or whether I always like the results is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia and not my personal blog. There are many articles in Wikipedia I would rather not have in it, but it's not my say. I would rather call a wasp a wasp rather than just call it a bug, but there Wikipedia takes a certain "politically correct" approach that concurs with the viewpoint that "one person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'". Because of this, we're currently bound to treat an article that clearly holds to a POV of LTTE as a terrorist organization to be as biased and non-neutral a point of view as would be a pro-LTTE article written by LTTE admirers. And, yes, this is true even though every government and international organization that I'm aware of that has made an explicit judgment about the LTTE has said it is a terrorist organization. The place to attempt to change the practice concerning "terrorism" lies with Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter (and elsewhere) – not within this one particular article. Until then, we are supposed to restrict ourselves to reporting that "X says Y is a terrorist organization" (and cite it), but not asserting it ourselves.

As editors of Wikipedia, we are not supposed to write about what we personally believe to be true – even on matters that are universally agreed to be true – but rather to report, from a neutral point of view, what reliable sources have written (and to cite those sources). Wikipedia's philosophy (and I agree with this, or I wouldn't be involved here) is that if we neutrally and dispassionately present the history of subject and leave it to our readers to make their own minds up – rather than cramming our personal views down their throats, then most of those with intelligent minds and balanced perspectives will most often "get it right". If we take the approach that only by forcing our POVs on others will they "get it right", then it conveys a sense that we aren't really secure in our own views, which is the only reason we would need to censor opposing viewpoints. If we present the "story" of LTTE in an objective and neutral manner, do you truly doubt that the LTTE's history will "speak for itself" in a way that most people will approve of it? Do we have to say the Nazis were "evil" for people to realize it, when learning just the dispassionate facts about their history proves it many times over?

This article can and should be able to become a featured article (regardless of what bounty Ulflarsen is generous enough to offer) and in accordance with Wikipedia's philosophy, policies and guidelines, but not by POV tagging, lack of honest and constructive discussion, "POV pushing", being disruptive just to make a point, personal attacks and insults, and lack of good faith – all of which can be found in plenty in preceding posts. I strongly recommend that anyone who is unclear about what "NPOV" means on Wikipedia go through the NPOV tutorial as soon as possible. (I frankly believe every newcomer should have to read this before being able to edit, because it would head off a lot of argument, frustration and grief ... but I don't make the rules.) As I noted above, I was invited to come to help neutralize the contentious feuding over this article, in the hope that the editors here can begin making positive, forward movements toward achieving an article that Wikipedia can be proud of and hopefully show off as a featured article. It is not my intent to write that article – I have enough projects underway – but I am willing to help and give neutral advice to editors who are willing to work together to make it happen. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree very much to your comments above. As one that have lived and worked close to the LTTE for a year I am deeply worried about their undemocratic and brutal ways. At the same time we need to present the correct picture, not more or less. I have tried this, over and over again but it does not work, even removing the link to www.svik.org does not seem to be possible, even after an admin (FayssalF] clearly stated that such links have no place in Wikipedia. I do what I find most useful at the moment, I try to get outsiders to join in and rewrite this article. There is not a need for someone expert in this to rewrite this, just check sources and throw out what can not be based on good sources. If the article ends up being featured within the end of July I will be more than happy to pay the Wikimedia Foundation the one thousand dollar bounty. Ulflarsen 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nilhanu,

Please get off your soapbox and think about what information and encyclopedic knowledge actually entails. Being neutral means approaching your subject matter without partisanship or bias. Whether it's "fair to be neutral" is not the point. Having any form of bias in the article completely betrays the ideology driving Wikipedia (and indeed any encyclopedic practice)

1.000 USD to the foundation for making the article on LTTE featured

As the last bounty on 100 USD did not manage to improve the article I am now offering a new bounty [13]. The Wikimedia Foundation will receive 1.000 USD from me if the article reach featured within July 31 this year. I hope this will lead to the article being improved so we can have a balanced and informative article about the LTTE. Ulflarsen 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article is quite biased against the LTTE, Wikipedia's integrity is at stake, and its critical that Wikipedia users don't read this article unaware of the bias. So a POV tag is required until the article is corrected. trotsky17 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please make specific, constructive proposals for changing it into a less biased form – and be sure to cite reliable sources to support anything bound to be contentious. For this purpose, please keep in mind that citing neutral sources is preferred to citing pro-LTTE sources. As far as your POV tag, placing it above a section that is the result of formal mediation, is generally seen as disruptive, so please don't expect it to remain. Please make constructive suggestions here instead. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is still using www.svik.org as a source - that alone qualify for a POV tag. It is a one man organisation, run by a man convicted of murder in Norway. I have mentioned this a number of times but still the link is there in the article. And there is much more. User Trotsky17 is right, and I do hope by offering a bounty of 1.000 USD for making it featured that the article finally will be improved. The least there should be is a POV tag to warn readers. Ulflarsen 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also listed this article at the Request for comment page as the logical next step to have the article balanced. Ulflarsen 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that familiar with the material here, but perhaps you could bring up some statements or paragraphs you find particularly egregious so we can start a discussion? --Haemo 07:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is really no need to know the subject, a keen eye for checking sources is what is needed. I have written quite a bit in this discussion page regarding the lacking balance and use of bad sources and/or use of sources for more than they are worth. The worst example is www.svik.org, a one man organisation run by a man convicted of murder in Norway [14]. Ulflarsen 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read other editors comments instead of simply going on your lengthy tirades against us, you'll have realized that I said long ago I have no objections to removing the SVIK paper as a source. That will have saved a lot of people a lot of time, but what can I say... --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not place the link to www.svik.org in the article so I am not the one to remove it. Besides, I have been reverted so many times on this article that I am not going to edit it again. What I do is trying to make others interested in it so we can have a balanced article. Ulflarsen 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor change to intro

I tweaked the intro a little from

"in order to secure a separate state for the Tamil majority regions in the north and east..."

to

"in order to create a separate Tamil state in the north and east..."

as

1. when the LTTE was formed there was not even a partial reseblance of a seprate state so they intended to "create" it and
2. they not only want their "state" to encompass Tamil majority areas, they want it to cover the entire north and east (and a little of the west too) of the country. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an agreement on not changing the intro as it has taken a long time to agree on it. This agreement has now been broken by user Snowolfd4. Ulflarsen 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are this change would be ok if the (superflous) use of 'violent' is dropped from the introduction. Addhoc 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While I have no problem with Snowolfd4’s tweaks to the intro, they should have been proposed here for gaining consensus prior to posting them. The notice posted above and below the intro, “<!-- THE INTRO BELOW IS THE RESULT OF A MEDIATION. PLEASE DISCUSS CHANGES ON THE TALK PAGE BEFORE CHANGING IT. -->” applies to all parties. Making even innocuous unilateral changes tends “spoil” the agreement, inviting a revisiting to each and every word resolved under mediation. Since there has been no fire-and-brimstone response, I’ll assume the editors are agreeable to Snowoldd4’s changes and that it now reflects the new consensus.

However (and as a case in point, Addhoc has requested that the word “violent” (which was not among the changes made by Snowolfd4) be removed as unnecessary and superfluous – and has done so, also without consensus. Nilhanu has restored it, and it should be left in until the editors have discussed this here (along with any other changes that may be proposed). IMO, it matters not at all whether “violent” is kept or not. Given that the organization is described as “militant” in the same sentence, it can be seen as moot; however, it is possible for a militant organization to be “confrontational” without being violent and the LTTE has opted for the latter, so there’s reason to include it as well. Not having been party to the mediation, I don’t know what applecarts might be upset by its removal, so I have no firm recommendation to make.

What do the active editors here think about Addhoc’s proposal to drop the word “violent” from the intro as superfluous? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely, there's no reason for a terrorist organization to carryout a 'peaceful' campaign. The GOSL and international community tried every possible means to bring LTTE to the discussion table. They broke the cease fire agreement thousands of times and they continue to do so. I ask user Addhoc to read the complete article, not only the intro. Then anybody can understand why it is stated as 'violent'. Nilhanu 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"An opportunistic president and a dyed-in-the-wool rebel appear to have ended Sri Lanka's best-ever hope for peace.", The Economist June 9th - 15th, 2007. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Nilhanu and others seem to have the idea that "we are the good guys, the LTTE are the bad guys", and the current article reflects that. This is however not how outside observers, the co-chairs for Sri Lanka (the US, EU, Japan and Norway) sees it. Ulflarsen 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What you say is exactly true. The co-chairs gives the same respect to the legal Government of Sri Lanka and to the LTTE terrorists. They may love to see a separate state in Sri Lanka, so they will have peace (not any Sri Lankan, including Tamils)! An ongoing conflict or separate state is a great way for them to interfere internal matters and execute their own political agenda in for their own goodness. Light Years 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information

In this article, the following is inaccurate information : Drug smuggling, prostituition and credit card fraud. The LTTE is a freedom fighting group representing the tamil population in Sri Lanka. The following site gives readers an unbiased view of the situation in Sri Lanka. This site is updated everyday with facts and issues that occur in Sri Lanka: http://www.tamilnet.com/.::::: Thiriah 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Thiriah

Tamilnet is the definition of an biased media actor. Sorry, but this is not Wanni. Ulflarsen 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ulflarsen, Tamilnet is LTTE's main media campaign. On the other hand, if LTTE represents Tamil people in Sri Lanka, why don't they represent Tamil people in Colombo? Why on earth they explode bombs in Colombo? Presently, Tamil and Sinhalese people live in harmony at Colombo. How do the bombs bring freedom? Light Years 13:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also agreeing with previous writer because Tamilnet.com is LTTE's official web site which they put bias details for them. Most of the foreign media use tamilnet website to get news. But that site is mainly support LTTE. I want to ask from international media 'do you take any information about iraq war or afgan war from AL-Quida's official website????" . If someone want to get more information about war in Sri lanka go to www.defence.lk or websites for sri lankan english news papers

The www.defence.lk is another definition of a biased website. For accurate news about the conflict in Sri Lanka we should use reliable sources, BBC, New York Times, The Economist, Hindustan Times and a few others. When Tamilnet or www.defence.lk writes about something we can use it as an indication that something has happened; what really happened we need other, reliable sources to find out. Ulflarsen 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that defence.lk is biased to GoSL, but not to a terrorist organization like LTTE. But how can you say those international media (especially western media such as BBC) are reliable sources? Can't you see how ridiculously they are biased to Israel in the middle east situation? Whenever Israel is attacked by Palestine, always innocent civilians die and they call it as 'terrorist attack' without any hesitation. But the humiliating fact is, whenever Palestine is attacked by Israel, all who die are terrorists and militia, not any innocent civilians. They call them 'defensive attacks'. You say BBC is a reliable source! But BBC's own reliable source is tamil.net or someone from Wanni. There have been many incidents BBC repeating the same story as LTTE and later proven as total hoaxes.

THOSE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA HAS NO HESITATION WHATSOEVER TO CALL BIN LADEN A TERRORIST. BUT THOSE COWHERDS NEVER SAY PRABHAKARAN A TERRORIST. Is this why you call them reliable?

I say all media is neither reliable nor unbiased. They always take the side of their sponsors. That's their business! Nilhanu 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you are exactly right man. BBC say 'Tamil Rebels' to LTTE and never say 'Terrorists'. They take special attention to include the word 'Tamil' to emphasize the nationalistic scene. But, is the LTTE totally composed of Tamils? Recently hundreds of Sinhalese were caught supporting the LTTE. And LTTE is well known for killing hundreds or even thousands of Tamils. Please understand guys, terrorists do not belong to any religion or race. All they want is power and money. I believe BBC (and all other Europeans) will continue to sustain their foolish neutrality to LTTE, until LTTE wreck havoc in their own territory, Europe. Light Years 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, Europe is not neutral to LTTE, on the contrary the EU has banned LTTE from the 27 member countries. Norway has not banned the LTTE, most probably for reasons of being able to mediate (and as you may not know, neither has Sri Lanka itself). To user Nilhanu and Light Years, by stating that BBC (and other large international media) is unreliable you have given a good, helping hand to the LTTE, I am sure they are happy with you for that service. Ulflarsen 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I do agree the EU ban has a large impact on the LTTE. But unfortunately, we still see reasonable LTTE activity in few EU countries, especially UK. Is the ban only hypothetical? The best example is the well-organized funeral ceremony of Anton Balasingham at London (video clip is available at YouTube). Isn't it like hosting the funeral of an Al-Quida leader at Washington DC? At least the body could have moved to a non-EU country like Switzerland or Norway (LTTE's heavens). Recently, a group of members of the British parliament made shocking statement proposing SP Thamilselvan, LTTE political leader, to be present at the parliament and to make a speech. How embarrassing? Sri Lanka also have few media heavily accused of supporting the LTTE, like SirasaTV. They all exploit the words 'neutrality' and 'balanced'.

Sri Lanka lifted the LTTE ban for the sake of signing the 'ridiculous' cease fire agreement. It's far too hypothetic. Neither sides adhere to the agreement.

I don't understand why you say I support LTTE by condemning BBC? I'm very grateful if you can explain 'why?' and 'how?'. Light Years 00:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your most helpful assistance to the LTTE; that organisation needs a counterpart similar to itself, that is a non-democratic, abusive, bullying and ignorant counterpart. A GoSL that behaved within democratic standards would be very bad for the LTTE. But luckily (or planned, as the LTTE maybe called a boycot of tamil voters to have SLFP in power) there is no such good government in Sri Lanka today. People are dragged off the street and murdered. The statements you give regarding BBC is in the same category and as such is assisting the LTTE in showing that sinhalese and their supporters are not democratic, not supporting free and balanced reporting and not protecting innocent tamils rights. For your information: Most observers with knowledge of media view the BBC is close to the "gold standard", which means it is giving balanced and well researched news from it's wide network of reporters and sources. Ulflarsen 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, you are so cunningly good at it! Let me hug you!!!

How dare you say people are dragged off the streets and murdered? What facts do you have? Have you ever seen any murders as such? Everyday we hear claymore mines appearing every corner of Colombo, even today at Wellawatta, near the busy railway station! Wellawatta has the most dense Tamil population in Colombo. Is that the way LTTE trying to protect innocent Tamil rights? Does your democracy means kneeling down and supporting terrorism? Had you been day dreaming all the time when you were at SLMM? For your information: GoSL is the only government in the world who provided air transport for leaders of a terrorist organization. Does GoSL army has suicide bombers? Child soldiers? Aren't you repeating what LTTE wanna say? I'm not surprised though, that's your nature.

Take care my friend, LTTE's gonna blow up your own ***, sooner or later, just like what Al-Quida did to USA! That day you'll definitely understand the true taste of cold-blooded terrorism. Light Years 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You ask for facts. They are all over the media, just a few links here Don't expect swift justice for Sri Lanka aid killings, Rajapakses on the backfoot, "Ethnic Cleansing" in Sri Lanka? and Violating rights is not only an internal matter- British foreign minister. You may also read the reports from the SLMM. And if you dont't know: the SLMM is widely respected for giving accurate information about the current situation in Sri Lanka. But if you do not like the SLMM and Norway then concentrate on the "guys that call the shots", the US, EU and Japan. They are not amused about the situation in Sri Lanka, about the disapperances and murders obviously connected to the GoSL. Such behaviour is indeed very useful for the LTTE as it proves it's progaganda right; it is the sole defender of the tamil population.

No, I was not daydreaming while with the SLMM which brings me back to this article. The LTTE is a threath that must be met and defeated. The EU, US, India and others have banned the LTTE, while Norway (asked by Sri Lanka and India) has facilitated talks. If you want to do your part of beating the LTTE you can help by improving this article, by checking all statements and sources, by documenting the organisation as good as it is possible by open, reliable sources. It will not be a pretty sight, and in the long run it will be damaging for the LTTE and beneficial for both the tamils and for the rest of Sri Lanka. But the POV article we have today - alas, will play into the hand of the LTTE. That is something I will try my best to change, if you would help in that it would be even better. Ulflarsen 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok dude, I don't wanna drag this forever. I agree state terrorism and heavy human rights violations did exist in 80's and early 90's. Thousands of civilians, both Sinhalese and Tamil, were murdered cold-blooded. There's no argument about that. During that period, hardly any international community was concerned about human rights. But the current situation is totally different from that one.

GoSL is now fighting a war with one of the most lethal terrorist organizations in the world. Yeah, there have been several incidents of human rights violations. Furthermore, the international community is eagerly waiting to exaggerate them many times over and use them to cover up all the brutalities of LTTE. The LTTE's media network is well organized to exploit this opportunity.

You have made your point crystal-clear: any biased POV and the slightest human rights violation by GoSL would bring huge strategic benefits to LTTE. I appreciate your advice! Light Years 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do suggest which areas/aspects that must be included in this article for us to improve it. Thanx! Light Years 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to improving the article so it is NPOV then please see my comments above regarding various sources, forced prostitution, drug smuggling etc. I am not against having information about this in the article, but the sources need to be good, and not used beyond what they actually say. You write that; the international community is eagerly waiting to exaggerate them many times over and use them to cover up all the brutalities of LTTE. - where do you get that from? Again, the USA, the EU (27 european countries), India have all banned the LTTE. Norway as one of few European countries have not, but this has more to do with the facilitation role Norway has been asked to undertake by both Sri Lanka and India (any facilitator in Sri Lanka will have to be acceptable to India, like it or not). There is no love lost between the western world and LTTE, we know a undemocratic movement when we see one. And LTTE can not fool us by trying to maintain that they do not recruit children, that they do not know who murdered Gandhi, Kadirgamar - or many of their own people.

Before the sentence about the supposed international love for LTTE you wrote; GoSL is now fighting a war with one of the most lethal terrorist organizations in the world. Yeah, there have been several incidents of human rights violations. This comes up over and over again, from the GoSL, the core of the argument is - they are bad - so we must be equal bad. Well, this is just not the case, the world (and not forget the co-chairs, USA, EU, Japan and Norway) expects more of the government of Sri Lanka than from a self-declared liberating force not recognized by any state - and not going to be either. GoSL means just that; it is the government, and as such it must react and bring to justice those who break the law (Sri Lanka risks isolation over human rights). It has not happend with the many murders that has happened in Sri Lanka and that is why the international community is increasingly impatient. You may not care much about a small country like Norway, but it would not be easy going for Sri Lanka if EU, Japan and the US starts slamming travel restrictions on government officials for their connection with the killings.

The pressure on Sri Lanka to get it's act together will grow. Your small contribution to clean up could be to help fixing this article so it is balanced, without the current POV and without the sources that are either bad or used beyond what they state. Having an article about the LTTE that is flawless would be a step, but in the right direction, to demask the organisation even more than it is today. Ulflarsen 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Still you didn't get my point right, Mr.Larsen! I have no personal problems with either you or Norway. I'm emphasizing the fact that international community has double standards dealing with different issues. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of current affairs knows how they treat Iraqi, Afghan and middle-east conflicts where powerful countries involve, and conflicts in poor and developing countries like Sri Lanka. The whole world is united against Al-Quida terrorism. Nobody wants peace talks with Osama Bin Laden, not even the UN secretary general! (perhaps you may be able to convince them!). Because they very well know the consequences. And I don't see any difference between leadership of Al-Quida or LTTE, do you? If yes what are they? GoSL is not attacking another nation's territory, just like US on Iraq, isn't it? GoSL is defending the integrity of its own land! What can you say about LTTE? Only the power of guns!

Furthermore, if LTTE carry out a large scale attack on Colombo or other populated areas, and no matter how many people die, the international community would still ask for peace talks!. Such a plan was uncovered by GoSL Intel yesterday, and was the breaking news in all local media. It's as easy as that for them!

All I want to say is:

• The international community has double standards.
• They pay the same respect to both GoSL and LTTE, despite all hypothetical bans.
• They exaggerate human rights violations in Sri Lanka to justify LTTE brutalities.
• They want GoSL to stick with peace talks at all costs. But their own internal policies deny any negotiations with terrorists whatsoever.
• LTTE's one and only mission is to have its eelam, not less at all costs.
• SL army has all the power and courage to defeat the LTTE threat. But GoSL is threatened by international community via various means (isolation, sanctions, restrictions, etc.). Sri Lanka is sandwitched between those two threats.
• Ultimately, they all happy to see an ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka, so they can intercept the internal affairs for their own sake. All they want is a controlled conflict. After all, they want some Return on Investment (ROI). This is the undeniable truth!
• By saying international community, I'm referring to the few political leaders in those respective countries, those who create and shape the political agenda, who tell you what to do and how to think, not the majority population (neither you nor me).

I'll try my best to improve this article! Light Years 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

LTTE International presense

Hey guys, isn't it better to have a dedicated section for stating facts about LTTE's international presense? Although LTTE is mainly active in south asian region, it is quite an obvious fact that they're active in other parts of the globe such as Canada, Europe and Australia. There have been claims of collecting funds (or ransom), gathering intelligence, collecting weapons (such as the submarine design attempt), spreading propaganda, organizing various riots. Norway is also heavily accused of having and supporting high LTTE activity.

Surely there's no reason for other countries to ban LTTE, if there's no such activity, which is indeed a threat for their national security. What do you think fellows? Light Years 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been hijacked by extremists

This article brings collective shame and humiliation to Wikipedia. The intro must be completely bulldozed. Mediation efforts between who... this is not relevant as to the contents of the article. Political animal 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can start with rewriting the introduction and then posting it here for discussion. If you give arguments for your changes (backed up with reliable sources) that would be most helpful as well. In my view there are however other parts of the article that is in more urgent need of a rewrite, see my previous posting on this discussion page. Ulflarsen 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

'The intro must be completely bulldozed'.... Didn't I hear extremism? Light Years 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My view regarding the situation in Sri Lanka

As I have got feedback that seems to misunderstand my position regarding the situation in Sri Lanka, I would like to state that I am:

• Supporting a peaceful solution within the current borders of Sri Lanka
• Supporting a federal solution as can be seen in India, the USA, Germany and many other countries
• Believing a solution can not be reached by a military campaign against the LTTE
• Viewing the LTTE as the true result of violent supression of the tamil minority by the sinhalese factions in power
• Believing that the LTTE needs major reform of its undemocratic rule and lack of respect for human rights
• Viewing the GoSL as being close to a "failed state"; running an undeclared war, blatant lack of respect for human rights, discrimination against a huge minority

As I have been reverted a number of times I do not want to make more edits on this article, but I will keep on working for having a balanced article with good sources. Ulflarsen 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)