Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam at the Reference desk.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with the guideline, and discuss objections at the relevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here.

Sri Lanka High‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation

Tamil Eelam (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil Eelam, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tamil EelamWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil EelamTemplate:WikiProject Tamil EelamTamil Eelam

Military history: Asian / South Asia C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrorist is a contentious term that goes against Wikipedia policies

@Alejandroo2234: This is your final warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It has to be encyclopaedic and be written from a neutral point of view. The word Terrorist is a subjective and controversial term. As a result Wikipedia policies advises users to refrain from its use. Familiarise yourself with this WP:CONTENTIOUS policy and stop edit warring. Thank you.Oz346 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 1995 allegation

@SinhalaLion, That's the introductory section of human rights violations. Why does it need that many excess details about an issue noted for its general absence? You say Oct 1995 allegation is "mainstream" yet outside the U.S. government source I have not been able to find it verified in any mainstream human rights sources. UTHR just states some media reported it after briefing by the GoSL and Wood (2009) simply refers to UTHR and states she could not find more details about it on the web. I don't see why that particular allegation needs to be highlighted from the rest.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was also in an ICES publication about the massacre. To be fair, I don't think that the line about sexual violence should even be in the introduction section to begin with. It should be its own section.

Also, I take issue with how you've invoked WP:NOTEVERYTHING: to suggest that content should not be on a particular page, not only here, but on at least 2 other articles too. If we're going to be consistent, wouldn't Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, where you and other users have flung in story after story with details galore, be an even more flagrant violation of the policy? SinhalaLion (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by ICES you mean the Colombo-based International Centre for Ethnic Studies, I believe it was also referring to the aforementioned media reports. But more prominent international human rights organizations covering the massacre didn't mention any rape as far as I know.

I don't think one allegation deserves a section of its own. All other rape allegations happened outside the context of wartime violence. That's why a concise sentence summarizing the consensus view is adequate.

I could have also invoked WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

The consensus of mainstream scholarship and the UN tasked with investigating this very topic is that the LTTE did not use sexual violence as a weapon of war. When you cite a biased source like the U.S. government saying the exact opposite in non-neutral language, it can be considered an extraordinary claim.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who added the negative anyway. You can remove the whole thing if you so desire.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. The negative just makes things confusing because it's a section about things the LTTE did, not what it didn't do. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement on form of English regarding Commonwealth countries

Hi. Does Wikipedia have an agreed policy on the style of English which should be used on pages regarding Commonwealth countries? I can see the “EngvarB” tag above the lead, which only appears to indicate that the article shouldn’t use AmE spelling. Given this article is about Sri Lanka, should Indian English be used? I ask as I noticed “organization” in the lead, which spawned my question. Theo Hercules (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't any factual report on North Korea connection

No factual evidence for LTTE connection to North Korea. It is very likely they could have acquired weapons from NK but the real facts are not present in the cited source. GeopoliticsResearcher (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeopoliticsResearcher: The sentence you removed is repeated almost verbatim in the citation you removed. The only immediate issue I see is plagiarism. Why would you lie in your edit summary and on the talk page when anyone can just check the source for themselves? If you have an issue with the source, which is a transcript of Rohan Gunaratna hosted on the website of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, then argue that case of yours instead. Yue🌙 03:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: Even if the content is within the citation, the source is extremely unreliable. Rohan Gunaratna has been proven to be a liar in a court of law. The content at least requires in line attribution.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: And that is exactly why I said to the other editor, "If you have an issue with the source ... then argue that case of yours instead." If someone believes their grievance has merit, they shouldn't need to resort to lying. In this case especially, I have no idea why the other editor had to lie about the reference being dead or the article content not being in the source when their issue was clearly with the source's reliability. Yue🌙 19:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]