This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Tamil Eelam, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.Tamil EelamWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil EelamTemplate:WikiProject Tamil EelamTamil Eelam
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOrganizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsocialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with theguideline, and discuss objections at therelevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here.
Dear admin Petextrodon, I don't get what you are saying here. First you want the content moved to the body of the article and then you want it in the talk page. Can you please let me know what is the process to get the page admin to approve the content on this article? I believe the two cited journals and publisher meet the requirements stated byWikipedia:Reliable sources. DoesWP:ONUS mean that your approval as page admin is needed to add content on this page? I don't see it any where.ÆthelflædofMercia (talk)13:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What if I were to write: Academics have found that the LTTE use of armed violence, demanded support from the masses through persecution, intentionally targeted civilians, suicide attacks, use of child soldiers and proactively involvement in internecine war, could be considered as a basis to define the LTTE as a terrorist organisation/movement.
In my opinion, the only problem here is your wording. Labels like "terrorist" need to be attributed perMOS:LABEL /MOS:TERRORIST; in other words, you have to say who's calling who a terrorist. "It has been found that..." is aweasel phrase, meaning the attribution is vague and unclear. You can say certain people argue that the LTTE is a terrorist group because it does this and that, but you can't say "it has been found that the LTTE is a terrorist group on the basis of this", because you aren't making it clear who's making the argument (and it can't be you making the argument perWP:OR). Otherwise, I don't see how it would be a POV issue as long as you attribute properly (say who said what).Yue🌙02:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ÆthelflædofMercia, I see you're keep bloating the proscription section although it's already a large section. Enough details have been provided about the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and your latest edit is a distortion. The ECJ did not claim that "LTTE had intention to continue terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka," but, on the contrary, criticized this statement from the Council of the European Union as unfounded. You need to exercise care in representing the sources accurately.
As for the terrorist POV, more than sufficient space has been given to both the terrorist proscription and LTTE's human rights violations (with multiple sub-sections too). Adding further POV details in this regard shifts theweight in favour of one side.---Petextrodon (talk)06:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there's an active talk discussion going on, you don't revert it until a consensus has been reached. To do otherwise would be considerededit warring which can get you blocked. Your editing pattern in other related articles also reveals you may be engaged innationalist editing where you seek to support/oppose one side of the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. Regardless of our personal biases, Wikipedia requires that you maintain aneutral point of view. One aspect of this is how muchweight we give to each POV. As I had already explained, enough weight has already been given to the terrorist POV and LTTE's human rights violations which not only have multiple sections but also sub-subsections! Yet certain editors insist on keep expanding that which shifts the balance in favour of a particular POV, thus becomes undue weight. Also, as I had already explained, the Proscription section deals with state policies, not the personal views of academics. POVs of all major players have already been featured. Sarvananthan is simply irrelevant. We have to draw the line somewhere otherwise users can keep on adding things indefinitely.---Petextrodon (talk)03:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, I can say that based on your editing you too are engaged in nationalist editing where you seek to support/oppose one side of the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. Your attempts to remove my content appear to be edit warring. Hence you are doing the very same thing you claim I am doing. I have introduced content supported by reliable source in the form of peer reviewed articles to indicate that the view that the LTTE is considered as a terrorist organization, that is a point that is so far not included in this article as Oz346 pointed out. Hence its not shifting the balance in favor of a particular POV, its expanding the coverage to an area that's not covered in this article. You didn't answer my question, do I need to convince you to agree to add any content?ÆthelflædofMercia (talk)14:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should not accuse editors of "edit warring" without evidence as that would becasting aspersions. I had already explained why I removed your content. Once again, the problem isn't with reliable sources but appropriate weight. @Oz346 did not point out such a thing. Read the materials carefully and accurately represent them. Continued misrepresentation could be regarded as acompetence issue. As I had pointed out, we already have an entire section on Proscription featuring this particular POV. Muttukrishna Sarvananthan is a Sri Lankan economist who doesn't even specialize in the terrorism field, nor is Proscription section an appropriate place to feature his view. I can cite even better qualified source, Professor Ahmed S. Hashim, who specializes in the field and who argues to the contrary that the LTTE was not mainly a "terrorist" group but an insurgent group that spent large amount of resources into developing conventional military capability:
Despite the tendency of states the world over to label even large, violent political movements backed by real popular support "terrorists" (or "bandits" or "miscreants"—the latter the favored Pakistani government term for Baluch insurgents in western Pakistan), the LTTE was not simply a terrorist organization. No "mere" terrorist organization could have created havoc and destruction to which the LTTE subjected the island for thirty years. No terrorist organization could have undertaken the well-organized attacks on military installations by LTTE cadres. The conflict was a full-fledged insurgency; that is, a war between a government with a conventional force fighting a non-state actor that used guerrilla or irregular tactics... What are the armed methods of insurgent organizations? Terrorism is one of them. The intent here is not to equate insurgency with terrorism. Terrorist and insurgent groups are not one and the same. Terrorist groups are usually small, often with have grandiose goals they have little or no hope of ever attaining. They have modest if any traction among the populace; furthermore, their modus operandi, terrorist action, often alienates. Terrorist groups never succeed in moving beyond terrorist acts against civilians or infrastructure; this is the extent of their combat repertoire. Insurgent groups are a different breed, even if hostile governments often refer to them as terrorists. Insurgent groups are large, they are functionally specialized, they seek and require the support of the populace, and terrorist actions are only part of their combat operations... The LTTE was not limited to terrorism and guerrilla tactics. It devoted considerable resources to building a conventional military capability. Much of the final campaign, known as Eelam War IV, resembled conventional warfare more than anything else.
From:When Counterinsurgency Wins: Sri Lanka's Defeat of the Tamil Tigers, pp. 25, 28, 30
In fact, in the past I had removed from this section the opposite POV expressed byKaren Parker, an attorney specializing in humanitarian law, whoargued the LTTE was not a terrorist organization but "an armed force in a war against the government of Sri Lanka."
When we have already featured the notable POVs of major players, these varying personal POVs of individual authors are irrelevant, especially in a section dealing with state policies.---Petextrodon (talk)01:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon, you tell me not to accuse anyone but you seem to be accusing me of a lot of things including incompetence, just now. And you seem to disregard Sri Lankan academics even if the publication meetsWikipedia:Reliable sources standards. I agree there can be different views in academia. Shouldn't that be shared?ÆthelflædofMercia (talk)10:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that a new section dealing with academic debate over the definition of terrorist be created? I think it is excessive and irrelevant. It reveals more about thelack of consensus in that field than anything objective about the LTTE itself and thus adds nothing to enhance our understanding of the subject of the article. By the way, continuing to make contentious POV edits while already being involved in disputes over other POV edits isn't a good idea.---Petextrodon (talk)11:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“unlike other groups…” and “sometimes civilians…” lingo seems biased or taking sides to to me. Feel like somthing like this should've been more technical. e.g., "The majority of LTTE suicide attacks targeted military installations, though attacks on civilian targets also occurred."Dumiar (talk)12:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to portray the experiences of fringe pro-government groups like UTHR as the typical experience of average Tamils when the overwhelming evidence already cited shows majority of Tamils voluntarily supported the LTTE and not due to fear or coercion. Even the better secondary sources which do mention coercion as a factor never present it in isolation as the primary factor. So you're trying to present both views as equally valid in violation offalse balance. Your broad stroke phrasing lacks any nuance. The current version is more balanced since it presents individual views as just that.---Petextrodon (talk)22:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the multiple sources that have been provided? Other sources including the UN and Human Rights Watch (HRW) do mention how LTTE ruled through fear and restricted freedom of expression.
HRW : "In the areas under its control, the LTTE has ruled through fear, denying basic freedoms of expression, association, assembly, and movement."
Human Rights Accountability in Sri Lanka by HRW : "..freedom of expression is tightly curtailed in the areas under LTTE control, that civilians living in the North would not dare to voice criticism of the LTTE.."
United Nations : "...LTTE violence directed against Tamils caused deep fear and suspicion within the Tamil community."
Human Rights in Developing Countries : "The LTTE completely controls the electronic media as well as the press. There is censorship on all printed material and all the people of Jaffna are being deprived of access information to information coming from the outside. Dissent and criticism of the LTTE are not tolerated..."
Are you trying to only keep UTHR because you can't call UN and Human Rights Watch Anti-LTTE? It is so weird that you tend to call UTHR Anti-LTTE when you yourself has used UTHR to report on Government violations such ashere but when reporting on LTTE Violations using the same source, you want to highlight that source as anti-LTTE. This inconsistent treatment of the same source reflects a POV editing approach of yours.
You can't simply remove the content sourced using reliable sources like Human Rights Watch and United Nations which covers about restricted freedom of expression under the LTTE.JohnWiki159 (talk)06:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2025
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Change any wording in the lead and background sections that portrays the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) primarily as a political, resistance, or liberation movement to wording that clearly and consistently identifies the LTTE as a militant separatist organisation designated as a terrorist organisation by Sri Lanka, India, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, and several other countries.
Change language that minimises or omits the LTTE’s systematic use of terrorism to include clear mention of suicide bombings, assassinations of political leaders, attacks on civilians, ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the Northern Province, forcible recruitment including child soldiers, and suppression of dissent among Tamil civilians.
Change any implication that the LTTE represented all Sri Lankan Tamils to wording that states the LTTE was one of several Tamil militant groups and that it violently eliminated rival Tamil organisations and intimidated Tamil civilians who opposed it.
Change sections discussing the Sri Lankan Civil War to explicitly state that the LTTE was responsible for numerous internationally condemned acts of terrorism, including the assassinations of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa.
Change any phrasing that suggests moral equivalence without context to wording that reflects the broad international consensus classifying the LTTE as a terrorist organisation, while maintaining a neutral encyclopaedic tone.WADNAVEENEW (talk)14:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore creating an edit request. Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.This edit request does not conform to the criteria for edit requests. It should be a clear "please change X to Y"-form request, but it is also clearly a not uncontroversial, as it touches on "moral equivalence" and "portrayal" which are POV and/or editorial decisions, and require consensus.Please fix these issues first. Happy editing.Slomo666 (talk)16:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore creating an edit request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.This edit request does not conform to the criteria for edit requests. It should be a clear "please change X to Y"-form request, but it is also clearly a not uncontroversial, as it touches on "moral equivalence" and "portrayal" which are POV and/or editorial decisions, and require consensus.Please fix these issues first. Happy editing.Slomo666 (talk)16:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
