Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Expulsion of other ethnic groups title

@Cossde:, the 1987 Eastern province massacres have not been described as 'ethnic cleansing' by any reliable sources. Ethnic cleansing is a contested concept that emerged in the 1990s without a legal definition under international criminal law. The cited source for the 1987 Trincomalee expulsion of Sinhalese doesn’t mention ethnic cleansing. See for example the article on the expulsion of northern Muslims, which has had far more references mentioning ethnic cleansing, yet even its title remains the more objective "expulsion of...".Oz346 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: the subject page Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province of Sri Lanka deals with the LTTE's systemactic attempts to anaged in ethnic cleansing, it has the relavant RS. I sugges you read it.Cossde (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not referring to the expulsion of Muslims, that is a strawman argument. I am referring to the 1987 Eastern province massacres, no reliable sources have described those incidents as ethnic cleansing, so it can not just be put under an ethnic cleansing section without reliable sources supporting that contention. Oz346 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde Ethnic cleansing and expulsion are not "one and the same" as you stated. Expulsions can happen without the goal of ethnic cleansing, which seems to refer to "the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas".

It's a controversial term which is why even the recently cited Human Rights Watch report puts "ethnic cleansing" alone in quote marks unlike other crimes.

On its controversy, Encyclopedia Britannica states:

"Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide."

See source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing

Please engage in consensus building before you publish your interpretations. Petextrodon (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde @Oz346

NOTE as per WP:Consensus: “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.”

I’m fine with the title “accusations of ethnic cleansing” (although it’s unclear if it meets WP:NDESC and looks too WP:POVNAMING based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION for such a strong charge), as long as the 1987 Trincomalee bits are removed. Since the cited source for the 1987 case doesn’t refer to it as “ethnic cleansing”, it should be moved here as per WP:IRRELEVANT. Is this acceptable?

On a side note, there’s good reason to suggest the primary goal of LTTE in expelling the Sinhalese settlers in Trincomalee was to counter government’s stated policy of undermining Eelam territorial claim, rather than creating an ethnically pure Tamil province, which is contradicted by LTTE leadership's official statements from the 1980s to the 2000s. But it’s for experts who specialize in this field to decide whether it amounted to “ethnic cleansing”. Petextrodon (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Also the reference referring to the civilian death toll caused by the LTTE does describe it as a small proportion. Finally that che Guevara comparison is in the reference. why do you not check the references before making edits? That should be a basic first step before making controversial edits. Oz346 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

and please refrain from personal attacks, accusing me of "whitewashing". Oz346 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Your personal ojbectives of "whitewashing" the LTTE and tanishing Sri Lanka seems very clear in the edits you have been doing. Take these edits for example. You purpously added the text "a small proportion" for a number of deaths in their thousands to lessen the number or justify the number beening small or relative. Where as you are more than happy to keep an single article from a regional magazine in the header to claim links to a revlutionalry ideloligy of man that every stooped to such dispicalble tactics. If this is not "whitewashing" what is? Please your words don't fool us for we saw with our eyes what that the blood and bodies on the ground due to their handy work.Cossde (talk)

and please discuss before making any reverts, Wikipedia works on consensus building, especially regarding controversial topics. Thanks Oz346 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion, you could have done that in the first place.Cossde (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The reference clearly states that the civilians death toll due to the LTTE was a small proportion of the overall civilian death toll. You are being completely obstructive by refusing to read the actual reference which I have pointed out twice. This is now the third separate time I am telling you to read the reference. It is not my own personal opinion. Secondly, you should refrain from your personal attacks and keep to the facts. Oz346 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I am quoting verbatim from the reference which you have constantly disregarded and falsely accused me of white washing and putting my own personal opinion into the text. This is disruptive behaviour, I should not have to tell you 3 TIMES that it is in the reference cited and for you to constantly ignore it:

"In relative terms, and in the course of a long and bloody civil war, the number of civilians killed by terrorist acts attributed to the LTTE was somewhat modest compared with estimates of the overall civilian death toll."

Hawdon, James; Ryan, John; Lucht, Marc (6 August 2014). The Causes and Consequences of Group Violence: From Bullies to Terrorists. ISBN 9780739188972.

I am re-adding the text you have deleted now. You have seen my replies (I know this because you have done other edits on other pages since) but never answered them. Oz346 (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Modest definition:

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/modest Oz346 (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the objective of comparing the LTTE killings and deathtol? To show the killings are low? Is it to justyfy that the LTTE is the lesser of two evils? Or to indicate the number killed by the LTTE? I say YOU want to "whitewash" the LTTE by putting the number in relative terms and take out the wegiht of the fact that they killed thousands. It is an insult to the dead.Cossde (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Cossde here. I don't see why we should be diluting a section called "Human rights violations" in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam page with references to state or state-backed violations, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Just reading the section, it looked like the pro-LTTE crowd (not making any accusations against any users, just saying what it would look like to an external reader) couldn't handle a section about LTTE human rights violations and felt the need to put in their own grievances against the state as a counter.

Yes, there were morally complex reasons behind why the LTTE did what it did, but unless the argument is that those reasons somehow make its actions not human rights violations, they should not be included here. This is not a place to be getting into deep, nuanced discussions about the moral complexities of the war; this is a black-and-white SUMMARY of the LTTE's human rights violations. What happened to Tamils beforehand, or how many more civilians the state/IPKF/paramilitaries murdered are beyond irrelevant and, in my view, do not belong here. They can be included in pages about specific LTTE violations (like the 1987 Eastern Province massacres discussing the 1985 Trinco massacres). This also goes for the Muslim expulsion; what certain Muslims may or may not have done to support the state is irrelevant to the fact that, in the end, their expulsion was a grave human rights violation. Or do you think that the existence of pro-state Muslims renders the expulsion a non-human rights violation?

You wouldn't go to a memorial for the Anuradhapura massacre and say, "it was retaliation for the VVT massacre." You wouldn't go to a memorial for the Aranthalawa massacre and say, "the state killed way more Tamils." Whataboutism to the state's crimes, whether explicitly or implicitly is actually deeply inappropriate.

But, I expect that my arguments have fallen on some deaf ears, so I ask that a neutral third-party be brought in to opine. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This information is not irrelevant. And its presence certainly does not mean that the subsequent LTTE attacks were not human right violations. E.g. we would not remove the LTTE attack on soldiers in Jaffna from the Black July page. Oz346 (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"We would not remove the LTTE attack on soldiers in Jaffna from the Black July page." Yes, I agree. However, if there was a page or section called something like "Human rights violations of the Sri Lankan state," you might not include it, or do so in a very limited fashion.

Even if I conceded that there should be some contextualization is necessary for the "Attacks on civilians", I take note that out of 358 words in this section, 105 (29%) are dedicated to the state's actions at Weli Oya. I don't see why this much attention needs to be given to the state, again, on a section about LTTE attacks on civilians. It's not like Weli Oya was the only place where Sinhalese civilians were attacked.

Then, in the "Accusations of ethnic cleansing section", the 1987 Eastern Province massacres is followed by "where Tamils had previously been driven out by security forces and Sinhalese mobs in 1985." While I added the bit about 1987, someone else added in the "particularly the Trincomalee district" + the 1985 piece with 3 citations (whereas I only put 1 citation for the actual LTTE crimes). This seems like a blatant dilution to me, and is better suited for the 1987 page itself (side note, did the LTTE actually claim that 1985 was the reason for the Trinco attacks?) rather than on a section about the human rights violations of the LTTE. There's also a lot of background for the Muslim expulsion that seems unnecessary and, again, in my view is better for the specific page.

Anyways, I realize I haven't been quite clear about what I think is acceptable or not, here it is. I'm fine with "Attacks were often alleged to be carried out in revenge for attacks committed by the Sri Lankan Army, such as the Anuradhapura massacre which immediately followed the Valvettithurai massacre.[note 2]". I'm also fine with "According to Hawdon et al around 3,700 to 4,100 civilians were killed in LTTE "terrorist acts", a small proportion of the overall civilian death toll during the war.[276]". Given that we've already established that LTTE attacks were believed to be retaliatory and a small proportion of civilian casualties, I'm not fine with the whole section on Weli Oya, "particularly in the Trincomalee District, where Tamils had previously been driven out by security forces and Sinhalese mobs in 1985.[304][305][306]", and a lot of the background of the Muslim expulsion. SinhalaLion (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok let's deal with each topic one by one. Regarding the Trincomalee violence, the HRW report you cited itself situates Tamil mobs' resentment in previous anti-Tamil violence by Sinhalese mobs (see the footnotes). It provides contextualisation of the event not a moral justification of it. I will remove two of the references from that sentence to make it more balanced. Oz346 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the section on Muslims, I think the entire penultimate paragraph can be removed, it's excessive. And regarding the preceding paragraph to that, after the sentence "The eviction of Muslim residents happened in the north in 1990, and the east in 1992.", everything could be removed apart from Yogis quote, which I think is the genuine reason for the expulsion and is straight from the horses' mouth (not mere speculation). Also some of those preceding sentences are just contradictory, for example, one minute it says Muslims did not support the LTTE, then the next minute it says there were Muslim cadres. Its not coherent, as well as the fact that it has too much detail which is already developed on in its main page. Oz346 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You can’t make sense of LTTE’s actions without placing it in the context of the government's stated policy of undermining the Eelam territorial claim with Sinhalese settlements. It’s a very crucial detail that needs to be provided. Petextrodon (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It can be reworded and summarised without excess details to make it more balanced. There is repetition in that paragraph, for example:

"The state-sponsored settlements of Sinhalese in the northern and eastern parts of the island which the LTTE considered to be the traditional homeland of Tamils became "the sites of some of the worst violence."

"The continuous inflow of Sinhalese settlers in Tamil areas since the 1950s had become a source of inter-ethnic violence and had been one of the major grievances expressed by the LTTE." Oz346 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You suggest deleting the existing paragraphs? What’s "excessive" is that more than half of the article is dedicated to the negative portrayal of the subject, which isn't neutral and is undue weight. -- Petextrodon (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Human rights violations section takes up almost half of the article with individual subsections and excess details but we aren’t allowed to provide any relevant background information? That is one-sided. Contrast that to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces counterpart, a paltry 3 sentences on war crimes, that too blaming both parties. Providing an explanation on why an incident occurred isn’t same as providing a moral justification of it, which is your own personal interpretation. Even human rights NGOs provide such explanations. As the other user noted, the HRW report that you cited does the same when it places the resentment of Tamil mobs in the previous anti-Tamil violence by local Sinhalese mobs as per the notes on pages 51 and 55. You’re the only one here who is engaged in a moral discussion which should be avoided as per WP:NPOV.

What’s excessive is that more than half of the whole article is dedicated to the negative portrayal of the LTTE (if you count in the proscriptions, suicide attacks and assassinations sections). What’s needed is addition of the other perspective, definitely not less. Anything else goes against WP:NPOV.

Also I feel undue weight is given to this 1987 Trincomalee incident since unlike the Jaffna Muslim expulsion it is not widely described as “ethnic cleansing”, a strong and contentious charge that might need analysis of experts who specialize in this field than a simple passing reference which even the cited HRW report doesn’t include. -- Petextrodon (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: I'm fine with your modifications to Weli Oya and the Muslim expulsion. Regarding Trincomalee, again, I think mention of the 1985 events is better suited for the page itself. I could understand your point better if there was no page for the 1987 events already. Regarding the HRW source, yes, I saw those footnotes, but only the first one alludes to 1985, and that too in a tacit fashion and not from an LTTE member.

@Petextrodon: First of all, by trimming down all this bloating as Oz346 suggests, we'll be reducing the overall size of the human rights violations section. The problem is that, in the past, people have tried to fit oversized summaries of events (like Weli Oya and the Muslim expulsion) that are better suited for individual pages. The other way to decrease the proportion of negative coverage of the LTTE is to add positive things they did in another section. As for the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page, I have not personally opposed a section about its human rights abuses.

Second of all, when I said "unless the argument is that those reasons somehow make its actions not human rights violations," I was not referring to morality, but legality. For example, I've come across people who claim that, if the Sinhalese settlements targeted in attacks were on lands stolen from Tamils, then those settlements were legitimate targets in war. Hence, this is not about subjective morality, but rather objective, legal human rights. Of course, such people would probably not view those attacks as moral crimes (or very weakly moral crimes), but that's not the point I'm making. You mention, "you can’t make sense of LTTE’s actions without placing it in the context of the government's stated policy of undermining the Eelam territorial claim with Sinhalese settlements" — yes, which is why I'm fine with the proposed change to Weli Oya which still includes mention of the issue. The other issue is that the provided context to Trinco and Weli Oya is not simply Sinhalese settlement, but Sinhalese settlement through Tamil displacement. Sinhalese settlement, before the war, was not (usually) done by expelling Tamils, and even during the war, I doubt every settlement created was formerly occupied by Tamils, or that only the settlements formed via displacement were attacked. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There are other sources which point to the events of 1985 having a direct effect on key Trincomalee LTTE members and their resulting attacks in 1987.

From chapter 5, Broken Palmyra:

"By the end of 1985, those of the Tamil residents of Trincomalee district outside the city who were alive, had become refugees. The L.T.T.E. leader Pulendran, who came to be feared by Sinhalese, is said to have seen most of his family killed by Sri Lankan forces before his eyes. In such a situation the killing and counter-killing of Tamil and Sinhalese civilians became the order of the day."

If the HRW report thought it appropriate to touch on this background, I don't see a good reason why it should not be mentioned here too. Its not excessively long either. Oz346 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you've conceded Weli Oya and the Muslim expulsion, I'll concede Trincomalee. Keep it as it is. I think we've come to a resolution, unless anyone else objects. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

With the reduction of citations, of course. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

War crimes

Does this section have any meaning at all? It has been crafted in a way to share blame and then when specific allegations are added, its been removed saying that it needs to be summarized? And that its a general article about the LTTE and then there is a whole load of WP:OR comparisons with the LTTE. This section needs to be rewritten to include exactly what the source content indicates without a watered down "summery". Cossde (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

And then the editors remove similar balanced content additions to the SLAF page stating that "explanation on LTTE article". Cossde (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

How interesting, when the same editors remove unfavorable content from the SLAF page stating "This section already blames both sides, no need for excess details on an unrelated organization". Cossde (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's because the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article does not have a dedicated human rights violations section with detailed subsections and subtopics taking up more than half of the page like the LTTE article does. It only has few sentences on war crimes by government forces which also blame the LTTE yet you want to add even more details about the LTTE which is clearly undue weight. As for the LTTE article, either we summarize or cut down on the entire section if you insist on bloating it up even further, in order to maintain some balance. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean hid the human rights violations of the ltte? Cossde (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean human rights violations section should be summarized without excess details for each subtopic. Even another Sinhalese editor agreed in the past the section was excessive. Yet you insist on bloating it up even further, although you won't allow the same for Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What have you been doing in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces section for well over a decade?

[1]

[2]

[3]

Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence

Is this not hiding?

You were removing reliably sourced minor mentions of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. Mere single sentences. This is a far cry from the overly long human right violations section here, that takes up half the page on this article, with multiple subsections and personal accounts. Definitely, wikipedia's current coverage of both parties to the conflict has double standards. Oz346 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you Petextrodon say "Sinhalese editor agreed in the past" are you bring in ethical bias to this wiki discussions? And may I remind you Oz346, that it was Petextrodon who threatened to "cut down on the entire section", hence my question, why Petextrodon wants to "cut down on the entire section" and human rights violations of the ltte. Cossde (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple reason: it's about balance. When one controversial section is given more weight that it takes up half or more of the whole article, it's not balanced but POV pushing. You would not allow that on Sri Lanka Armed Forces article, would you? --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Therefore you want to "cut down on the entire section"? I don't understand your point. Cossde (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes they need to be condensed and not further expanded as you're doing. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what you said before. You said "either we summarize or cut down on the entire section". Cossde (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)