Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sri Lanka High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resolved

On

Please let me suggest changing the name Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups to Sri Lankan Tamil paramilitary groups. By grouping all these paramilitaries with the LTTE, it makes it look like that all these groups are fighting against the Sri Lankan government, when in fact it is all these parmilitary groups that support the government. In the ethnic war there are two primary combatants which is the LTTE and the GOSL. As for the Tamil paramilitaries, they are used by the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, LTTE should be taken off the list on that page since they run a virtual de facto state with its own courts, police, and administration. The others on the list do not and are under the command of the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a name change as the activities of these groups listed here fall under the definition of Militant. If one looks at the definition given in the wikipage on Militant, it is quit clear that it isn't logical to move the LTTE from the this list due the fact that although it may "run a virtual de facto state with its own courts, police, and administration", groups such as Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia & National Liberation Army (Colombia) which controls larger areas of Colombia than the LTTE are listed there as Militants.

"As for the Tamil paramilitaries, they are used by the Sri Lankan military." is inaccurate as in resent years responsibility for several bomb attacks on buses in the southern part of Sri Lanka were claimed by a Tamil paramilitary group. It is very obvious that they were not used by the Sri Lankan military.Nitraven (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me proof that Tamil paramilitaries are not supported by the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now resolved, we are not changing this article into anything elseTaprobanus (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

(This was in reply to Wiki Raja's post of 07:06:)

I beg to differ, the Sri Lankan Tamil Militant is a historical article deals with them all so its title should stay the way it is but we should create a new article called Sri Lankan paramilitary groups to deal with the paramilitary issue, these are two different articles.Taprobanus (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that the paramilitary section should include all the government aligned paramilitary groups. However, as most do not agree with me I think I can go for a compromise. Instead of adding the paramilitaries into sri lankan military we should create a new article called Sri Lankan paramilitary groups. Watchdogb (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, you guys are right. We should then create a separate page for paramilitary groups. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I still don't see a reason to create a separate article. Nobody says we can't keep historical facts in an overall article. — Sebastian 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last idea, Forget putting a link to all the groups and add the ones that I've added earlier with legitimate sources from the U.S. State Department and the World Factbook. It would be a little more easier if we had more admins to look into this instead of one. We are going in circles here and I am through wasting my time. Let me know when more admins are available for comment. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Tamil Militant article is a legitimate article dealing with all of them, infact people interested in upgrading it should use academic books (there are number of them) to refer to it rather than rely on the web to create wikipedia articles (remember google is starting a encylopedia project by experts, if we are to compete with them such flimsy referencing will not do) any how the paramilitary aspect of some of them is a developement that can be a paragraph in this article or an article on it's own because we have enough references to create one on such a notable subject matter. Paramilitaries in Sri Lanka are paid government servants. They get a monthly check, some get a uniform (those who belong to Razeek group and yet others dont) but nevertheless they are government employees. It is not difficult to create an article that will survive an AFD with proper citations including academic books. This article though is a mere stub that has not improved much since I created it about a year ago. One can spend months working on this, I have decided to spend my precious time on

Jaffna Kingdom where I have all the books you want:))Taprobanus (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks to your recent edits I now realize why you proposed to have two different articles, and I'm fine with it. — Sebastian 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This is the first time I have come across someone trying to classify Tamil militant groups by caste. Also, Lahiru k, you provide no sources for your edits. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for pointing me out the caste section. I'm not the one who added that and I was just reverting your edit to the previous version but I will remove it asap. Also this article is almost an OR. So please stop posting this version which have lots of factual and typo errors. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 08:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors by who? Wiki Raja (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that answer on my above post. Please do not post individual's bias and POV by while covering to the {{

fact

}}. 09:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, it is part of our history, caste did play a role what can we do, just note the facts Taprobanus (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to applaud and thank Lahiru for ending the edit war with this generous edit. Of course, it can't remain like this. The texts have already been tagged as unsourced 14 days ago, and nobody even tried to provide any sources. Therefore I will remove them per

Welcome and I agree with you. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now just take a look at this. He reverted it back right after promising to end the edit war. I'm beginning to sense favoritism here. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Favoritism"? Of course, I favor people who are working for Wikipedia over those who are gaming the system. I favor people who are willing to end edit wars over those who are so blind in their rage that they even accuse bots of deviating from their own "original" version. I favor people who are willing to revert their own mistakes over those who constantly accuse others of bad acts - Yes, just take a look at the link Wiki Raja provided. If anyone sees a revert in that, please speak up. Wiki Raja deserves another warning - this time for failing to

assume good faith. Lahiru, would you like to hand out the warning, or should we forgive Wiki Raja this time? — Sebastian 04:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sebastian should get involved other Admins rather asking Lahiru to give warning on Wiki Raja. And there should be a separate article on "Paramilitaries Aided by Military of Sri Lanka".Teasereds (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC) — Teasereds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Maybe I should explain why I reacted unusually angry: I spent a good part of yesterday on e-mail conversation with Wiki Raja, and just while I was pointing out to them the mistakes mentioned in my post (and others from Special:Contributions/Wiki_Raja), they goes on and continues with the same absurd accusations. I pointed that out to them, too, and suggested to take it back or apologize, but when that didn't happen, I wrote my message above. It probably would have been better to remain calm, though - I wasn't exactly a role model. — Sebastian 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] could be added to the article, if the

I have to agree with the removal of the line which says that the Sri Lankan government calls them Terrorists because it violates

WP:NPOV second can I add in the Sri Lankan military article that they are considerd to be an instrument of genocide, mass rapes and murder because some people say so ? No it is not acceptable. So how is it acceptable here ? Taprobanus (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Number of other articles violate

LTTE. You rewrite them avoiding the misinterpretation that the Wikispace is misused.Teasereds (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the discussion page for Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups. Please don't digress. — Sebastian 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article as best as I can without spending too much time. Those who feel really strongly about it can carry on from now. Most of what I got came from [2] (no page numbers) or from the blue linked articles themselves have all the citations or just do a google search. Either we can all copprate and create an article worthy of an encylopedia or just take it back to where it was. I have also suggested a way out regarding the paramilitarism of these militants. I have section for them. If it gets too much information then it can become its own article provided this one gets cited properly to begin with. Taprobanus (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting in all this work! I now realize why you proposed to have two different articles. Can I ask you to add page numbers to the references, too, please? — Sebastian 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] has no page numbers Taprobanus (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see - what got me confused was that the footnotes go to the Notes section, which looks like you got it from the book, but in the References section you provide a web link for it. Since there isn't so much text in the linked text, it shouldn't be hard to verify. — Sebastian 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough citations in this article, let alone another 1000 if you do serious research to create that article that can be linked to the military of Sri Lanka as a propr sub article Taprobanus (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taprobanus' edits[4] are a good example for how Wikipedia improves: By doing some research and adding text from reliable sources. Now I really wish those who feel they need to complain about articles (whether it has to do with the discussion or not, such as above at 19:43) would follow that example. That is the only way to improve an article. Whining and name calling doesn't help, it only gets on everybody's nerves and will earn you warnings. This goes for both sides. If anyone finds that Taprobanus' changes are not neutral, don't just complain or revert - do your homework and actually improve the article! As our fundamental policy

If anyone finds that Taprobanus' changes are not neutral, don't just complain or revert - do your homework and actually improve the article! and may I add do it in a

attacking me personally, because repeatedly violating these rules will not only get you blocked but eventually banned. Thanks for the compliment.Taprobanus (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If I understand well, the two "People's Liberation Armies" listed in People's Liberation Army have nogthing in common; perhaps this should be explained in the article, so as to avoid any ambiguity? Apokrif (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051125064541/http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca:80/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?docid=156&cid=0&sec=CH01 to http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/publications/index_e.htm?docid=156&cid=0&sec=CH01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—