Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Request Information

Request made by: snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Introduction of article Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Who's involved?

snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} , Trincomanb, Elalan

What's going on?

Users Trincomanb and Elalan keep deleting the fact that the LTTE is banned as a terrorist organization in a number of countries from the intro.

It has now been proven Elalan is a sockpuppet of Trincomanb

What would you like to change about that?

As per

WP:LEAD

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". The fact that the LTTE is banned by a wide range of countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, India and the EU is a very important piece of information about the LTTE and I think it should be included in the intro.

Also similar organizations which are designated as terrorist organizations such as

LTTE

article should as well.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No problem with keeping the discussion public

Mediator response

Case accepted. All involved parties contacted. Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case being actively mediated or can I close it? --Ideogram 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this, so I don't know if I'm supposed to write in here. I took a look at the edit history since Nov. 24. Neither Signpostmarv nor Xinoph have been involved in that time. However, the debate has been continued by two two SPUs:

• Nov 24 The remark was removed by Trincomanb (talk · contribs) with summary "Dutugemunu you lost the debate badly. No need for rendundant info in the intro.", apparently in reference to Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Politoco-military or terrorist and the discussion below, which I will have to read.
• Dec 3 reinserted by AnandaPutra (talk · contribs) without summary.

Parallel with this, there has been repeated vandalism by Jeev (talk · contribs), which has been removed by several users who are not otherwise involved.

In conclusion, it does not appear closed to me. Obviously we can't raise this article to the same level of agreement as others and we will always have some quarrels on this article as long as there is no peace on the island. However, I think we can improve the situation. If people agree with a novice mediator then I'd be willing to mediate this; either alone or as co-mediator under the guidance of someone who has more experience. — Sebastian 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC) minor correction on 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sure. The previous mediator Nwwaew said somewhere that he was withdrawing from mediating this case. Thats why it appered closed I guess. Anyway, this discussion is pretty long already, so where do you want to start?

Another note, it was successfully proven last week that users Trincomanb and Elalan, who I mentioned above as involved parties, are actually sockpuppets of one user, and Elalan has been indefinitely blocked. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confidence and for the note. Now, that's of course bad news for the mediation since it is not clear who can represent the other party. Trincomanb has been blocked for a week, which should just have passed, but they has not done any edits since. So I'd propose I'll notify Trincomanb, keep this page and article Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on my watchlist and if I see any movement I'll direct them here. In the meantime, I'll read the article and the discussion. Sounds good? — Sebastian 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I left a note on Nwwaew's talk page and I'm treading softly until I hear back from him or until Tuesday afternoon. Then, I will notify all editors who participated constructively in the past discussion and resume the case. In the mean time, I am collecting some personal stuff on User:SebastianHelm/LTTE, such as a bit about me and why I'm motivated to mediate this, and a private list of what I gathered from the discussion so far to keep track my own understanding before I bring it up here. — Sebastian 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update #2: So far, there is no active representative for the position that the proscription should be removed from the intro participating here. I will wait another 48 hours, but then (unless I hear an objection) I will go ahead and work on reaching a decision with those who show up. I will honestly try to take all arguments into account that have been brought up here by either side, but there can be no guarantee that I understood everything correctly. While these decisions will not be binding, they will be harder to contest once they went through mediation. — Sebastian 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Corrected on 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sebastian, you had asked me to sign in as the other party in my talk page. So I did in good faith. But the assertion no active representative for the Tigers participating here really puts me in the bind. I do not support the Tigers or their methods directly or indirectly. Like most minority Sri Lankan Tamils I may have supported their goals once but never their methods but currently I no longer support their goals or the methods. I am here in Wikipedia to improve the content about

WP:LEAD should be interpreted correctly and precedent established by articles such as Hezbollah, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia should be followed. RaveenS

Thank you very much! I am sorry about the inconsistency between what I wrote to you and what I wrote here. I'm changing the wording to match what I meant. I am grateful that you are filling the gap, and I certainly respect your position. — Sebastian 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here as a second mediator. --

Hi, thanks for coming! I'm looking forward to learning from you! We could have a

laughing mediator/serious mediator cabale ;-) — Sebastian 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Update #3: I'm here, but I just discovered a list of proposed intros on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Preferred Introduction Version which I'm still studying. (I'm collecting them at User:SebastianHelm/LTTE#. — Sebastian 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update #4: Due to an emergency in our area I will not be able to be on Wikipedia for probably a week. When I'm back and I don't see any objections to the proposed compromise I will close the case. — Sebastian 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update #5: I'm back. I will alert Snowolfd4 on his talk page that I will close this in 24 hours, unless I hear an objection. — Sebastian 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After studying all relevant points made here and on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (current version of that page which contains discussion since August 30), I think I understand the concerns of both sides. Details about my research are collected at User:SebastianHelm/LTTE.

I believe that we should only deviate from

This is also corroborated by the following statement[2]:

That "29 countries have banned the LTTE" would be the best solution I think. The ban should be there, but we dont need to list the countries in the intro, and by stating 29 countries it implies that lots of countries has not banned it. So both parties should be able to live with this. Then there is an expanded coverage further down... Ulflarsen 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a compromise since it leaves out the list of main countries, which is currently in the intro. We might consider adding that list back if we also find a way to summarize the LTTE's governmental activities. I understand that the compromise is closer to the version proposed by the "keep" faction; however, I think we can mitigated this if we encourage the "remove" faction to flesh out the Governmental section. That section contains many red links, which seems to indicate that there is a lot more to say. I am adding comments to the Government section that will state that editors should not remove or distort additions in that section without proper discussion.

I will change the intro to the compromise now. That change will also include a rewording of the hidden that protects the intro.

Both parties, please show your agreement so that we can close this case.

Thank you! — Sebastian 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC), amended in steps until 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with the compromise RaveenS

Neat. --

on Cake 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think the intro is perfect and may even be a little unenclyclopedic when we say "see list", but considering the arguments we've had, I think its probably the best version of the intro we can have.

So agreed, and thanks Sebastian for successfully closing the mediation. --snowolfD4⁽ talk / @ ) 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the wording "see list" isn't perfect, and can even be seen as unencyclopedic. It certainly isn't written in stone, but I think we all agree that there are more important things to tackle now. Thus, I am closing the case. — Sebastian 06:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me start by saying that only 29 out of the 192 member states of the UN consider the LTTE a terrorist organisation. That is by no stretch of imagination, a "wide range of countries". Secondly, the UN itself does not consider the LTTE a terrorist organisation, so comparing it (the LTTE) to the Al-Qaeda would be a false analogy. Moreover, two of the aforementioned 29 countries (namely Sri Lanka and India) have been diresctly involved in armed conflicts with the LTTE, which makes the neutrality of their decision questionable. The fact that a world body such as the UN, which generally never condones terrorism, has declined to term the LTTE "terrorist" further reinforces the arguement that applying such nomenclature to the LTTE might not be neutral. Add to this the popular perception that the LTTE is an organisation fighting for the freedom of Tamil Ealam, and you have a very strong case against including the whole "terrorism" bit in the introduction. The point that stressing on the allegedly "terrorist" nature of the LTTE is "essential" to the article seems erroneous. We do not talk about

Regarding the UN, as I have pointed out numerous times before, the UN has no mandate to list an orgamization as "terrorist" apart from those connected to Al Queda. [3] The fact that the LTTE is not banned does not mean the UN says the LTTE are not terrorists. And it doesnt even matter. Also even Al Queda is banned in just a few countries. Why should countries like Nigeria or Peru bother to ban the LTTE? It doesn't make sense. Only countries where the LTTE operates have banned it. Simple.

And you say state terrorism? Give a few examples of independent organizations or national governments that have accused Sri Lanka of state terrorism. And remember websites with a name like tamilsomething.com are not independent. It has to be something like HRW or Amnesty international. If you cannot please don't bring it up again.

The point is it should not say "the LTTE is a terrorist organization". Instead "The LTTE is listed as a terrorist organization in the US, Canada..."

And if the "POV held by a small group of countries" should not be included in the intro, why dont you remove it from the

Al Queda page as well? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would first like to delve into the case of 'independent organisations' and (not or) national governments that have accused Sri Lanka of state sanctioned terrorism or other related crimes against humanity. First off, the most comprehensive, and what I believe to be neutral of sources, The U.S State Department,[1] which goes through catergorically for the last year (reports for the last 15 can be found on the page) about Human Rights Violations, Arbitary or Unlawful deprivation of life etc etc, note the line 'unpreportional in the Northern and Eastern regions'. Secondly, an Amnesty International Report, 'Sri-Lanka- Torture in Custody',^[2] which is self-explanitory, though I sugges you don't take my word for it and read it yourself.

The reason why 'terrorist organisation' should not be removed from the Al-Queda article is that fact that Al-Queda is primarily a terrorist organisations. However the LTTE is primarily a sepratist organisation, though terrorism may be a side effect, or even the modus operandi, it is not the primary purpose of the organisation.

To retort your comparison, I will do it with another comparison, in the U.S Army article, the introduction does not state 'The U.S Army is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Hugo Chavez', referance? Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez represents a minority point of view, however, Al-Queda and other related groups have been voted on and almost unanimously adopted in member state's as terrorist organisations.

As for the 29 nations being only nations that the LTTE operate in, I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Ironically enough, Sri-Lanka, the LTTE's base of operations doesn't subscribe them as a terrorist group. Canada, one of the nations with the largest expatriate groups and accused of funneling some odd 120 Million dollars to the Tigers?, only banned the LTTE this year under mounting foreign preasure,^[3] however the United States, a nation with very little LTTE activity and a miniscule expatriate community, banned the LTTE in 1997.

I believe I have debunked your three points, 1 - The LTTE only being 'banned in nations with LTTE activity', 2 - the citation of independent sources, 3 - The challenge that the LTTE being a terrorist organisation is not a small POV held by a fraction of nations, quiet comprehensively. --Sharz 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article
  State terrorism in Sri Lanka
  has been written using sources such as the Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, BBC Asia, Amnesty International, the US State Department and the UNO. I fail to understand the basis of your questioning the neutrality of such a diverse range of sources.
• To have a sentence saying "the countries India, Sri Lanka, Canada ...... (26 other names)" would appear ugly and out of place in the article.
• If you want to mention the fact that 29 countries consider the LTTE "terrorist", you will have to mention 163 nations don't consider the LTTE terrorist.
• Al-Qaeda is an exclusively terrorist organisation which has no clear-cut political motives, other than a desire to "kill all Jews, Crusaders and Americans and all those who refuse to accept the Faith". It's ideology is fundamentalist in nature and cannot be compared to that of a separatist organisation like the LTTE.
• How many countries don't consider Al-Qaeda terrorists? Must be less than 163, right?Cerebral Warrior 03:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no question that it is important to be factual and mentione that the LTTE are banned in these countries, however not in the introduction, there is an extensive section on human rights violations of the LTTE, which is where this belongs.--Realstarslayer 04:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Realstarslayer.

Addhoc 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Realstarslayer and Adhoc I'm afraid both you're opinions are in violation of

WP:LEAD

which I have quoted above. If there is an extensive section on one fact, it should be mentioned in the intro as well. Please take a look at it if you want.

Sharz and Cerebral Warrior I will say again. Give me a single reliable source which says something like "Sri Lanka has comitted state terrorism". You cannot arbirtarily decide whether an incident is state terrorism or not. It is just your POV that those incidents constitute state terrorism. That's against WP policy. An independent org has to directly say "Sri Lanka has comitted state terrorism". Unless you can provide a reference for that there is no real point arguing.

Cerebral Warrior says "If you want to mention the fact that 29 countries consider the LTTE "terrorist", you will have to mention 163 nations don't consider the LTTE terrorist." WP is not read by people with no knowledge what-so-ever. When you say 29 countries have banned the LTTE that automatically means the remaining countries have not.

Just like the LTTE Al-Qaeda has an objective of "eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate". Just like the LTTE Al-Queda choses to carry out attacks against civilians to ensure their goals. Just like the LTTE Al-Queda is banned as a terrorist organization by a number of countries due to their above methods.

The sentence should be "The LTTE is officially designated as a terrorist organization by a number of countries including the united States, Canada and India as well as the European Union". Nothing ugly about that unless you want to hide that fact.

The reason Sri Lanka lifted the ban on the LTTE is that it was required in order to begin peace talks. Otherwise talks with a listed terrorist organization will have been illegal.

The fact is a number of countries have banned the LTTE as a terrorist organization it is a vital piece of information about them and according to

WP:LEAD it should be listed in the intro.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, if we mention they are listed as terrorists, could we also mention...

"Even though the LTTE was formed as a military group, it also carries out a number of civilian duties. The LTTE controls sections in the north and east of the island, especially the regions lying outside the major cities. It runs a de facto government and provides public services in these areas, including schools, hospitals, police stations, courts and municipal administration. However, it still uses the Sri Lanka rupee and many civil servants are paid by the Sri Lankan government, even in areas controlled by the LTTE. "

Addhoc 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure Addhoc, if you provide relevant citations, I've got no problem adding a summery of the above bit. But please don't get carried away, remember, important parts only.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what user Snowolfd4 is saying, WP:LEAD is a guideline [4], hence Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Therefore what users Realstarslayer and Adhoc have suggested doesn't violate any rules. Elalan 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trincomanb and Elalan, how exactly would it hurt the article to label the group a terrorist organization? Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would amount to imposing a minority POV (held by 29 out of 192 nations, excluding the UN) on the article, without mentioning the POV that the LTTE is often considered a legitimate freedom-fighting organisation, that plays an important role in the administration of the de fact state of Tamil Ealam. Cerebral Warrior 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that organization is labeled a terror organization is already in the article. I don't think anyone here want that fact removed from the article. The problem is the intro. The intro shouldn't be loaded with POVs. The fact that it is labeled a terror organization is a representation of a POV. It is not scholarly to raise representations of POV within the intro. POV without explanation and without qualification is really propaganda and that doesn't belong in the article. POV requires explanation, there is quite a bit of nuance with regards to the label. For example there has been second thoughts with regards to the label made by the EU, mentions of regret by the Norway. There is a whole reasoning process for why US for example listed the LTTE as an FTO. It wanted to see LTTE come to negotiations. This same reason doesn't apply for the other groups. Was Al Qaeda labeled a terror organization in order to bring it to the negotiation table ? Its not ban in all those countries. The rules differ from state to state. Its important to note this label imposed on the LTTE is a minority opinion (executive decision made by certain states). Nevertheless its a minority in terms of number of countries within the UN, and this has no UN backing. So in the end its a very loaded/controversial label attached to an organization, that requires quite a bit of explanation. Elalan 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore take a look at Encyclopedia Britannica, it is the oldest and considered the most authoritative encyclopedia in the English language (something Wikipedia will hopefully achieve soon) and the article on the LTTE never mentions the 'terrorist label' in its intro. The article on government of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia doesn't get to be called "is considered state terrorist", eventhough it is considered so by independent human rights organizations including the Asian Human Rights Commission [5],[6], [7]. It would myopic to say LTTE has used terror tactics without identifying the fact the government has done the same or worse. The fact of the matter is LTTE is different, it is by and large uses conventional military tactics in war and runs a parallel government in the North East, with state institutions of its own, which cannot be said for the other non-state actors listed. Elalan 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another comparison getting away from politics, would it be appropriate to write "Earth is considered flat by some including the Flat Earth Society" in the intro paragraph of the wikipedia article on Planet Earth ? Elalan 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: How about this to end the opening statement- it includes the fact that the LTTE is banned, and also makes sure the opening statement is neutral:

• The LTTE is headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran, and is banned by many countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, India and the EU.

Comment - if we include that LTTE are banned, could we also include they are the de facto Government of Tamil Ealam and provide public services, including schools, hospitals, police stations, courts and municipal administration.

Addhoc 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I wanted to thank you for the outside of the box suggestion, but the statement I am afraid is inaccurate (incorrect). Factually, the LTTE is only banned in India. The common thread that ties all these countries together is that the LTTE is labeled a terrorist organization in these countries. In the US constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of association etc is enshrined in the constitution. Hence with LTTE being labeled a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization), it is illegal for Americans to render materials and financial support to the organization. It is however legal to politically support it, raise an LTTE flag or the like. Also it is legal for American citizens to interact with the LTTE or other groups in the FTO as examples. Elalan 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to qualify my statement, Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't refer to the terrorist label nor banning of the organization in India either in the intro. Elalan 01:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to point out this point by Snowolfd4 is hardly factual Just like the LTTE Al-Qaeda has an objective of "eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate". LTTE is a secular organization and has significant minority of Christians in its ranks, with a predominant number of Hindus. It has nothing to do with Islam, any Muslim countries nor is its objectives anything to do with any religion. Elalan 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I leave the link to these videos on the conflict in Sri Lanka by the BBC (in three parts). It is a good resource regarding the terrorism vs state terrorism issues raised here and it gives an overall view of the situation from a reliable source.[8],[9] ,[10] Elalan 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Suggestion:

• The LTTE is headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran, and is considered a terrorist organization by many countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, and the EU. India, however, has banned the organization.

As for being a defacto government, I would suggest putting that in its own section. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, there already is a section. Could I suggest you revise your proposed change to include the LTTE provides public services, including schools, hospitals, police stations and courts.

Addhoc 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Nwwaew, what you have suggested as a sentence in the latest case is to highlight a representation of a minority POV and many here would consider it a non-starter as has been explained earlier. I would ask that there be no representations of POV in the intro at all. This is just not scholarly. How many POV are we going to inserted in to the intro ? Then is the intro going to be a POV fest or is it going to focus of the subject ? The wikipedia articles snowolfd4 had compared earlier of non-state actors don't show any evidence of academic peer review and hence can't be considered authoritative comparisons by any stretch of the imagination. What is in intro of those articles can change day by day, edited by anyone. Intros in wikipedia is not a precedent setting exercise (ie its not like a judiciary). Elalan 13:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 13:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observing this mediation effort, I should say snowolf's presupposed factual points have been squarely debunked. What remains of his argument is a skeleton of highly contentious POVs. Trincomanb 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the Islamic terrorist groups , LTTE is the terrorsit organisation banned in the most countries in the world. Every other article about a banned terrrosit group mentions it is banned, why censor information about the LTTE to please its sympathisers. They keep on vandalising the page because they cannot accept taht the LTTE is banned. Dutugemunu 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't censored, there is a section that explains in which countries the LTTE is listed as a terrorist organisation. You currently have two warnings for incivility, accusing other editors of vandalism in a content dispute is completely unacceptable.

Addhoc 11:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Addhoc. One of these warnings for incivility were put by you but I have not mentioned you so I dont see your problem.I have simply asked people to stop vandalising the LTTE article. unilaterally deleting a referenced section from an article in spite of the objections of the other users is definitely vandalism. This is not a content dispute as someone is just repeatedly deleting referenced information. Months of hard work have gone into the introduction and people are just coming along and unilaterally deleting stuff Dutugemunu 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this very obviously is a content dispute and labelling editors you disagree with as vandals isn't productive. There has been months of discussion on the introduction, but we haven't managed to agree on a compromise version.

Addhoc 10:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Prove that they consider it a terrorist group. Cerebral Warrior 11:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The LTTE is headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran, and is considered a terrorist organization by many countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, and the EU. India, however, has banned the organization.

May I suggest

• The LTTE is headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran, and is proscribed as a terrorist organization by the governments of countries such as the US, the UK, Australia, Malaysia , Canada, and the EU. India, however, has banned the organization.

Mention numbers. 29 out of 192 countries consider the LTTE terrorist, and this figure does not include the UN. Cerebral Warrior 11:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutugemunu, your comment about "have actually gone to the troubel of listing them" certainly doesn't apply to, for example, the government of Norway, who have stated their view that labelling the LTTE a terrorist organisation isn't helpful. Also, I would comment the compromise suggested by Cerebral Warrior is considerably more realistic.

Addhoc 11:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you seriously think that anyone would care whether Tonga , Mali, Mongolia, Rwanda , Congo , Peru, Fiji, Solomon Islands , Vanuatu, Cook Islands etc:- ban the LTTE. They probably dont know it exists. The 29 countries you mention have nearly half the worlds population so it actually means that the LTTE is proscribed by teh governments of half the worlds population. Dutugemunu 12:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mongolia and Sri Lanka are Buddhist countries, then fairly obviously they would be aware of each others existence. Also, I'm not entirely sure why you consider the decision of Luxembourg to be more important than Peru, for example. Could I suggest we focus on reaching a compromise...

Addhoc 13:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dutugemunu hasn't answered or replied to any of the points raised. I can presume he accepts that there is no legitimate reason for adding the statement except as propaganda statement in the intro, to satisfy his POV. Trincomanb 13:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Dutugemunu has mentioned is a fallacy:

Here is a population breakdown of the countries that have labeled LTTE a terror organization or have banned it: India (1.095 billion), US (0.300 billion), EU (includes UK) (0.462 billion), Canada (0.0327 billion), Malaysia (0.0226 billion), Australia (0.0209 billion), which is 1.933 billion total (source: mostly from the CIA World Factbook). The total population of the planet is estimated to be approximately 6.6 billion [11]. Therefore its in fact less than a third of the worlds population (29 percent) and this is clearly a minority opinion, as just shown. Elalan 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that's getting into population sizes and whatnot is a bit excessive? First off, In the majority of nations, the LTTE issue is not a major one and very few people notice this conflict. However, To humour this arguement, A nation, no matter how large or small, destitute or rich, cannot be viewed as greater as a whole than any other, due mostly to the fact that this is a Point of View (a nationalistic one at that). With this said, the article should state that a few nations, (29) out of a larger group, believe that the LTTE is a terrorist group, as to ascertain the importance of the nations in question, Wikipedians should look at the list and form their own opinions with their own biases.

Yes I agree this is quite excessive. But the population facts were brought to show that by Dutugemunu's own measure, the statement The 29 countries you mention have nearly half the worlds population so it actually means that the LTTE is proscribed by teh governments of half the worlds population. by him is false. Just to be clear, This is by playing to Dutugemunu's own measure. In most of these case, the issue of proscription was not an issue, hence its grossly inaccurate/excessive to say the population of the country is behind it or not. The proscription/labeling was often an executive decision. There is a subsection devoted to the subject and thats where it belongs. Labels and bans are after all political decision representing a POV. To prevent all POVs from the intro I think helps to keep a tone of authoritativeness (as with the Britanica article) and is the best compromise possible. How could anyone begin to delve into the question that a certain POV deserves space in the intro over others, particularly for more complicated aspects of the subject ? I'll paste an excerpt of parts of the Britanica intro as a comparison and it stays away from POVs in its intro. The LTTE article in its current form has section for proscription it but doesn't handle it well I should add. It is not succinctly explained what the implications of the labeling means in the group of countries, hence its 'goo' a of facts littered together. Elalan 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from the Britannica article on the LTTE,

Formed in 1972 by Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the LTTE is one of the world's most sophisticated and tightly organized insurgent groups. During the 1970s the LTTE carried out a number of guerrilla attacks. In 1983, after the killing of 13 soldiers by Tamil guerrillas and retaliatory attacks by the Sri Lankan military, large-scale violence erupted between the government and the LTTE. By 1985 the group was in control of Jaffna and most of the Jaffna Peninsula in northern Sri Lanka. Elalan 14:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How About This I think that we can all agree that 1 - The Tamil Tigers are perscribed as a Terrorist organisation, by 29 nations and 2 - The Tamil Tigers ultimate goal is a seperate state, hence they are sepratist.

So how about an Introduction, that states that the Tamil Tigers are a sepratist group, and then go further to elaborate that the ethics behind bringing out these changes have been shaky (re-worded off coarse).

Then further down in the article, sections can be dedicated to the Tamil Tigers role as Government, Terrorist attacks and whatnot.

Just a suggestion

Please elaborate further on this. I think there is some potential in what you have suggested. Elalan 12:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well This would be the proposed introduction.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, is a politico-military organisation that has waged a secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to secure a separate state for regions in the North and East, which contain a Tamil majority (formerly Ceylon). The sepratist group and de facto government has exhibited in the past Machiavellian, Draconian and zealous tendencies, earning them the ire of foreign nations, some even going to the extent as banning the group as terrorist. The head and founder of the LTTE is Velupillai Prabhakaran.

That's generally what I'm looking at as the into, I think that the military politco organisation should be changed to incoporate that they are the de facto government of the North & Eastern areas, it isn't clear enough.

Tell me what you think --Sharz 03:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing User:supermod's changes as per discussion here. He has made no effort to followup on the discussion here nor justified his actions. The contested statement is after all in body of the article. Elalan 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement separatist group and defacto government is confusing a bit. Exhibition of Machiavellian or Draconian tendencies is still a judgment of their actions and would have to be considered a point of view, although they may not be very controversial. Are they Machiavellian philosophically or are they showing pragmatism due to circumstance The reason why they were labeled a terrorist organization has been explicitly recounted by these nations. In fact the reasons as recounted by these nations are mixed, some want to pressure the LTTE to be at the negotiating table, others want to show disapproval of their tactics and also possibly deter funding for the group. All of these actions could I think be more precise to say "some countries have imposed sanctions on the international activities of the LTTE" The Machiavellian and Draconian tendencies isn't precise enough as it is. But what I want to hear from you is why you think the second last sentence be in the intro ? Elalan 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether it should be mentioned that the LTTE are considered a terrorist organization by several countries: I don't think it should be mentioned in the introduction, but I think it should be mentioned in the article.HeBhagawan 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm with HeBhagawan in my overall opinion on this matter. I think we should make the distinction in the begining of the article that they are both a sepratist group and an administrator in the region. Also the idea of them being 'machievellian' or 'draconian' may be tactless, however it should be mentioned that the Tamil Tigers have been etchy ethically which has drawn critism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

I am also with HeBhagawan on this. I have also reverted changes made by Supermod. So far as I know all the arguments brought forth by a number of users for including the ban in the intro has been debunked. I wanted to ask where is the mediator ? Trincomanb 14:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the introduction. What is a politico-military organisation. Should not the LTTE be called a politico-military-terrorist organisation as it performs all three roles. Why mention only 2 roles. That is bias and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs)

Ok, firstly could I suggest you read

Addhoc 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The Oxford English dictionary defines terrorism as the following: "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised.". Terrorism by its general definition implies being felt intimidated by certain set of actions committed by somebody. But the problem its relies on 'feelings' which are subjective. One person could feel intimidated other person will or may not, hence its a POV. Elalan 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These definition show that LTTE Is a terrorsit group

"Terrorist Group: A collection of individuals belonging to an autonomous non-state or subnational revolutionary or anti-governmental movement who are dedicated to the use of violence to achieve their objectives. Such an entity is seen as having at least some structural and command and control apparatus that, no matter how loose or flexible, nonetheless provides an overall organizational framework and general strategic direction. This definition is meant to include contemporary religion-motivated and apocalyptic groups and other movements that seek theological justification or divine sanction for their acts of violence." MIPT terrorsit database

"The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition Dutugemunu 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition and source of definition is sketchy at best. Even by your definisation however, the LTTE would NOT be defined as a Terrorist group. Firstly, Tamil Tiger cadre's (or soldiers) are part of a far larger aparatus that conerns in governing the Northern and Eastern regions of Sri Lanka, hence it is not 'non-state'. 'Anti-governmental' is just ridiculous, as an opposition party could be deemed 'anti-govermental'. 'violance to achieve their objectives' would mean, violant?.

I suggest you thoroughly re-think your choice in sources, and even with those sources you have not proven how the Tamil Tigers falls into those catergories. Please bring a RESPECTABLE arguement to the table or stop wasting everybodies time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

Dutugemunu's latest argument clearly shows a gaping hole in the terrorism label arguments. What Dutugemunu has brought in as sources and sources such as Oxford dictionary clear show there is no generally agreed upon definition of the word terrorism . So how can such a fuzzy label, without any generally agreed upon meaning or definition and that varies from person to person, organization to organization, state to state have a place in an intro without a 10 page explanation behind it to then explain all these variations ? What does the word mean other than merely being a mud slinging pejorative of modern times ? How does the encyclopedia, I should rhetorically ask be informative and authoritative by giving prominence to the representation of these types of pejoratives (of which it has been shown without doubt is a minority POV) in an intro ? Elalan 05:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we look at the evidence

LTTE Is a Terrorist group

It is declared to be so by 29 nations including the worlds largest democracy and the worlds sole superpower. 172 nations have ignored the existence of the LTTE (neither banned it nor officially recognised it). It has massacred civilians in the hundreds in villages. It invented the suicide vest. It has carried out over 200 suicide bombings. It conscripts children . It has attacked civilian targets - bus bombings, blowing up airport and central bank , mowing down hundreds of worshippers in mosques and temples. It massacres unarmed POWS - 600 policemen were massacred after the IPKF left according to Amnesty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs)

Many would aptly call the Sri Lankan government to be the (state) terrorists . The Asian Human Rights Commission has called Sri Lankan government actions state terrorism on a number of occasions [12],[13],[14] Its after all preventing sufficient humanitarian aid from reaching and forcing starvation on nearly 650,000 of its own citizens at this moment ... The Sri Lankan government is responsible for the deaths of 60,000 or more Tamil civilians, making refugees of nearly 1 million Tamil civilians, chasing out Tamils from entire areas of the East, confiscating and using Tamil peoples land as HSZ, performing indiscriminate bombings on schools (source: SLMM), hospitals (source: SLMM), ambulances (source: SLMM), orphanages (source: SLMM), mowing down people in churches, temples, refugee camps, mass slaughtering of civilians including children village by village (Trinco, Manal Aru). Nearly 1000 temples and churches in the North-East has been damaged or destroyed due to Sri Lankan Govt. actions. Intentional systematic destruction of whole or part of a community is called genocide and there would be sizable group of people would argue thats what the Sri Lankan government has been committing on its own citizens based on the evidence. — Elalan — continues after insertion below

All LTTE propaganda. does this make the LTTE non terrorsit Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed rebel who ordered the killing of 600 of policemen now is part of the govt. backed Karuna paramilitary group. What does this say about the govt. ? The LTTE has enacted law to make child recruitment illegal since mid October, 2006. The point here is highlight that by actions and ferocity, what LTTE has done or has been alleged to have done pales in comparison with what the Sri Lankan government has done. — Elalan — continues after insertion below

Which means that teh govt ordered the murder of its own police? Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To go further some of the countries who have labelled the LTTE with the pejorative, have done things, by raw numbers would be much worse than what the LTTE nor the govt. have ever done. — Elalan — continues after insertion below

Yup , can you tell what Canada has done Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore as said in one of the wikipedia article, no group or state is going declare itself a terrorist, but such charges have often been exchanged by warring or fighting parties throughout recent history. How is this informative with both sides exchanging such pejoratives and having representation of this in an encyclopedia intro ? Elalan 13:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you cannot say teh US or EU are populated by Sinhalese. Tehy are neutral observers not parties to the conflict Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love that line 'the world's SOLE superpower'...because ironically the State Department of the United States has probably the largest and most comprehensive of Sri Lankan Government human rights abuses including the arbitary, un-warranted and unlawful taking of life and the arbitary and/or discriminatory vilification of race. And the 'world's largest democracy' indeed, where the majority of the population lives under a dollar a day, without economic freedom, political freedom becomes meaningless. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

They have still banned the LTTE Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorist/s", before every 3rd world dictator and 2nd world strongman apropriated the term for use against their own special brand of enemy, and of coarse to get themselves U.S Aide in their fight against 'Al-Queda' simply meant A group individual or organisation that utilises terror as a weapon against a civilian populous. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

I am sure you can define it better than any government Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not mean a suicide belt and a religious text equals a terrorist, it means that a group that wishes to supress or combat an enemy by inspiring terror in their civilians, was a terrorist organisation. I then ask you this, if a man drives into an armed camped and blows himself up, taking many hundreds of soldiers with him, or a man flies over a school and drops a bomb on it, claiming the lives of many school children, who's the terrorist? — Sharz — continues after insertion below

What about gunning down 130 people in a mosque Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no attempt of the Sri Lankan Militancy side at offering any sort of compromise, any compromise is purely discussed between me and Elalan, and all I see are the same rebutted arguements come up again and again. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

May be rebutted according to your satifaction Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguements that have been found debunked, baseless or purely stupid: 1 - There is no organisation, state entity or INGO that has called the Sri Lankan government on human rights abuses

Amensty International, The U.S State Department,^[1] Asian Commision on Human Rights,^[4] Independent observors from Norways have all cited human rights violations on the part of the Sri Lankan Government Referances to all can be found throughout this article. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

Yup , whats your point , taht doent make the LTTE any less terrorst Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 - The Tamil Tigers are a rebel group

The Tamil Tigers do not wish to take over the government of Sri Lanka, hence they are not a rebel group, but a seperatist group, that seaks to seperate from the Sri Lankan government. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

they are a separatist insurgent and terrorsit groupDutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 - 29 nations have 'banned' the LTTE

29 nations have labelled the LTTE Terrorist, 1 has banned the group. This is out of the United Nations body of 192 countries. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

Ban or proscribe, you still go to jail for funding them Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 - A large proportion or sizable proportion, or hell, even a fraction of nations have labelled the LTTE 'terrorist' organisation.

Only one nation out of 192 have banned the LTTE, hence a little bit more than .5% of nations are represented as having banned the Tigers. 29 out of 192 countries however have labbeled them as a terrorist group, however this makes up about 15% of the UN General Assembly. There has not been any attempts by the U.N to ban the LTTE, some say this is because the U.N does not have a list for non-Al-Queda related groups, however there has not been any U.N mandates or anything of the sort regarding the LTTE. If you want to argue that we should go by population size, which is sheer idiocy, then still, you get about 30% of the worlds population in these nations — Sharz — continues after insertion below

Lets say listed as a terrorst organisation if you want to split hairs. Perhaps you do not know that UN is planning to hold a conference and create a list of terrorsit groups after Annan leaves Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Any nation that does not pescribe the LTTE is a terrorist group is apathetic about the situation.

Nations such as Norway has described perscribing the group as 'unhelpful', Norway is deeply involved in working in the Sri Lankan peace process. The Sri Lankan government does not itself perscribe the group, kinda where the LTTE operates right? — Sharz — continues after insertion below

Even Solheim used the terrorist word at the recent peace talks Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more but the article is much, much to long --Sharz 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered all your points. Now tell me out of the banned terrorsit groups why the LTTE page is the only one which does not mention it in the intro Dutugemunu 08:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have to say that the present introduction is completely POV. No introduction to an article is complete without mentioning the terrorist nature of the LTTE AFireUponDeep 05:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did answer my statements, but you did not however back up your answers. A 10 year old can say 'is not' look at all my comments, referances, proof and things that can be cross-referances. Every statement you made is un-sources, and if there was evidence of it existing, my guess is that it would not be hard to find, yet you have not provided any, so this is either a whole lot of falsehoods or laziness on your part.

Which statementss you need referenced 15:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show reference to all your replies to Sharz arguments above. Elalan 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am currently busy due to real-life commitments, and therefore I may not be able to check in often. If you want to appoint another mediator, I have no problem with that. Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that every article on Wikipedia which deals with a group banned in even one country mentions that fact in the intro. This does not vary whether the group is fighting for Allah, Communism, ethnic separatism , religious separatism or any other cause. Tell me why the article on the LTTE is the only article on WIkipedia about a banned terrorist group which does not mention that fact in the introduction. Is it up to you to decide whetehr the LTTE is a unique case or its aims are more justified. AL Quaeda fights for Allah. If every Muslim on Wikipedia thought with with your logic, the fact that Al Quada has been banned as a terrorist group woudl have been wiped out of WIkipedia intro by relentless edit reverting as you have engaged in. You are being more unreasonable than Muslim fundamentalists Dutugemunu 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove a lot of things for the claims that you are making to hold true. You have to show the groups are similar to start off with. There is hardly proof of consensus, some of these articles have neutrality dispute tags. Hence this alone gives evidence to show that there is indeed content and neutrality disputes at play. The fact that so many editors here have vehemently voiced against have representation of pejoratives and weasel words such as terrorism in the intro nullifies your argument. Furthermore, the argument you are raising is logically flawed and is really speculation. There is no way of measuring and verifying whether it has 'wikipedia community consensus' at the present time. There are many alternate explanations to why pejoratives are in the articles you have listed. Importantly, you have chosen to show articles with the pejoratives in them, hence I would have to say you have done a biased selection. Take for example the article on Continuity Irish Republican Arm [15]. They are labeled a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) by the US, so according you they would be a group simillar to the LTTE, yet no mention of pejorative designation by the US in its intro. Hence the evidence that I have presented here makes your claim still born. Elalan 22:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is happening in other wikipedia articles is irrelevant. As Ulflarsen and other have said LTTE is a unique case, it has attributes that significantly different from all the groups you have listed as Sharz has pointed out. It runs a parallel government in North-East and is part of a mediated peace effort run by Norway. Elalan 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Reasons for No representation of Pejoratives in Intro: Response to Dutugemunu's claim

(This section has been written by Elalan on 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(1) The fact detailing the proscriptions is already in the article and hence information wise its redundant.

(2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a judiciary, i.e. what happens on one article is not a precedent for what happens on other articles for a number of reasons, including differences in quality, lack of academic peer review, changes in content of the article since it can be publicly edited.

(3) You cannot guarantee the content of the article (will stay the same forever) such as the articles you have mentioned, since it could be publicly edited.

(4) The articles you have pointed don't show any evidence of academic peer review. i.e. has a world renown expert in the field reviewed and rated it ? If it hasn't undergone any academic peer review, it maybe as good as some kids high school essay or worse.

(5) A peer reviewed academic source such as Encyclopedia Britannica does not have the 'bans' in its intro for the LTTE entry. It has stuck to widely agreed upon facts. See the mediation cabal page for an excerpt of the intro.

(6) Not even all non-state actors labeled with pejoratives in certain nations have this info in a wikipedia article intro at this present instance. Case and point Continuity Irish Republication Army, designated FTO by US, yet here is the current wikipedia intro as of Nov 5th [16].

I regard most of these arguments as arguments against comparing the intro with other articles. I copied those that address the question of No representation of Pejoratives in Intro into User:SebastianHelm/LTTE. — Sebastian 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Case

Here is an interview with Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda (University of Colombo), who is an authority (expert) on the Sri Lankan conflict. He call LTTE a unique "case" striving for what he calls a "subnational state", [17]. So at this point, I have demonstrated the validity of the unique case argument from a world renown expert in the field.. Indeed this is not original research. Now want to see Dutugemnunu's evidence for significant similarity between Taliban, LTTE and FARC. If you cannot produce evidence for this, then all your arguments regarding similarity is original research or unverifiable claims and opinions. Elalan 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same article, different link: `The LTTE is a unique case` by Jayadeva Uyangoda, 21 August 2006

Addhoc 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that we've just been going back and forth on this so how about a new aproach? I think that we should 1 - Set out the criterea of what qualifies a terrorist group first and foremost, using independent, well-known and reputable sources. Once this is done, we can apply our agreed upon criterea on the LTTE. If independent and renound sources say the LTTE are primarily, or mainly a terrorist organisation, by out criterea, it goes into the begining of the article. How about it? --Sharz 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best idea heard to date in resolving this issue and is open, transparent, verifiable and will rely solely on reputable sources. I am willing to go along with this idea. Sharz if you could post this message on the main talk page as well. Elalan 12:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... after stopping and checking this case out, I'd like to point out that we may have failed to take into account the subjective nature of what exactly makes something "terrorist". The label of "terrorist organization" need not be absolute and all-encompassing to the topic at hand. I think the article should simply state that such-and-such countries consider LITE to be a terrorist group (provided you have a source that verifies this), and leave it at that. Maybe they are terrorist, maybe they aren't, who the hell knows? The entire matter is subjective to the various differing relationships between LITE and separate national entities. So rather than saying "LITE is teh terr0rz" or "LITE is NOT teh terr0rz", let's break it down a bit. --

My point exactly, Prophet Wizard. We should not say the LTTE (its LTTE not LITE btw :-) is a terrorist organization. But we should say that they are banned as a terrorist organization by a number of countries in the intro, because that ais a very important point about them. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snowolfd. In fact no one wants to start the introduction by saying "the LTTE is a terrorist organisation". However we do need to mention the fact that it is proscribed in some countries in the introduction because this is important part of the introduction Dutugemunu 12:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, the fact of the matter is that the group is not based purely on terrorism, hence it cannot be a 'terrorist organisation'. Even you would have to agree, that not everything the Tamil Tigers does is terrorism. If a Tamil Tiger shoots another armed combatant, how is this terrorism?, does this make all armed combatants terrorist?.

Secondly, I do agree that the LTTE have used terrorism on circumstances to achieve their goals, however, this has not been their primary modus operandi, and even if it was, it is not what you would mention in the introduction. --Sharz 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (This discussion has been going on for far to long because of the beligerance of some) P.S, May I remind you that nobody provided referanced evidence against my arguements before that the LTTE was not a primarily terrorist organisation?[reply]

I know there's a very serious situation behind this, with people dying on both sides. It is completely understandable when emotions go up in a case like this. I will, as promised, start mediating for real here on Tuesday, so please hang in there! I'm very tired now, it's 2:30 in the morning here, so please bear with me if that's all I can say at the moment. One request, though: I think it is important for a successful mediation if the mediator is approved by both parties. Please take a look at User:SebastianHelm/LTTE, if you approve me (at least for now), please say so above. — Sebastian 10:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... do we need to mention it in the introduction? Surely there's a compromise in all of this. We could easily include the information of some-political-entities-considering-LTTE-to-be-a-terrorist-group elsewhere in the article. Structurally speaking, it might work out nicely if it were further down in the article. --

This question has been discussed at length in the appropriate sections of this page. (For a quick overview of these points, see User:SebastianHelm/LTTE.) Please respect the intent of this section and discuss Criterea of what qualifies a terrorist group only here. — Sebastian 17:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Reasons for No representation of Pejoratives in Intro User:RaveenS

It is a fact that LTTE is a proscribed as a Terrorist group by number of major countries in the world. It is not a small accomplishment considering it is a minuscule separatist group from a strategically and economically unimportant small country. I.E Sri Lank is an obscure country and LTTE is even more obscure compared the rest of the world. For it to be taken note internationally to be banned is an herculean effort indeed at the expense of all those dead people.

Nevertheless unlike one assertion in here, it cannot be compared to

Hence just like the introduction of Hezbollah and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia does not mention that they are banned terrorist groups but mentions it somewhere else the introduction to LTTE also should not mention that it is a banned terrorist group however tempting it might be to say so, because they have given enough reasons to the rest of the world to say as such. RaveenS 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this point.

• Hezbollah does in fact currently not mention it in the intro, and did not at the time this case was opened[18], although it did later in October[19]. So it appears they have a similar problem. Indeed, they had long discussions about this issue on [20], but so far I couldn't find out what led to their final decision to cut it.
• Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia says: "The FARC-EP is classified as a terrorist group by multiple nations and organizations, including the United States and the European Union." This was also mentioned at the time this case was opened[21]. I searched their discussion page for "intro", but could not find any discussion about this issue. — Sebastian 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then it still does not help to resolve this issue. I re-read Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. I think how the FARC statement about it being banned as a terrorist group is mentioned does not after all sound or read that pejorative?RaveenS

So, does this mean that you agree with the proposed compromise? I'd like to close the case. — Sebastian 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes RaveenS 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]