Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iwazaki (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 19 October 2006 (→murder and scholars are removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• Talk:Velupillai Prabhakaran/Archive 1

Cult of personality

I had removed some of the more POV material in this section but it has been restored. The mere title "Cult of personality" is POV; "leadership style" would be more appropriate. Many of the claims are unsourced and seem outlandish to me, particularly:

• Prabhakaran has a cult of personality - that is an opinion, not a fact, and should be stated as such (and cited).
• Prabhakaran lets himself be worshiped as a Sun God - proof?
• Prabhakaran personally takes credit for every LTTE victory - proof?
• Prabhakaran is the "single biggest obstacle to peace" - the TIME article cited takes this from a single analyst at RAND corporation. This is POV, protected by the "Critics describe..." these are what are called weasel words.
• Description of him as totalitarian. It is true that case can be made as such based on the LTTE justice web site, but that should be presented as an argument, not a fact.

Meanwhile, we still need to add an actual biography, rather than blanket descriptions of the man. Tyronen 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I added the to this section.

• I thought VP is comming from a fisshing village in north. how come chollas are so called low caste fisherman.

--Terrance 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the whole thing. There's no source, it's nowhere near NPOV and reads like some sociological analysis. If there's a source about his leadership that remotely factual, then it should stay. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs complete revision and admin intervention

As per NPOV policies, this article is completely lopsided and does not project the Tamil Eelam perspective on Velupillai Prabhakaran, and does not have a balance in describing about Velupillai Prabhakaran. Needs complete revision to maintain a neutral stance.

It only shows Velupillai Prabhakaran as a barbaric, ruthless tyrant and does not include mentions of his achievements in terms of being the non-political representative of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and also about the de-facto nation Eelam that has been carved out within SL, which is completely controlled by the LTTE.

To straight-jacket Prabhakaran as a Terrorist or as a Child Killer, as per earlier edits and claims in this article, adheres to the biased version of the Sri Lankan govt which only talks of Velupillai Prabhakaran to be an outright barbarian whereas there are number of incidents and quotes available online which highlights his entire career and this needs to be revisited to maintain the neutral perspective on Prabhakaran. The existing article condones the Sri Lankan govt's killings and the turn of events that led to the formation of the LTTE and Velupillai Prabhakaran and therefore this article cannot be concluded to contain any real information as a biographical source of information about Velupillai Prabhakaran. Sudharsansn

First of all, please sign your comments on the talk page using ~~~~.

If you disagree with what is written you can change it, but you have to cite reliable sources, accroding to WP:RS policy. You cannot just write your opinion on Misplaced Pages.

And plase don't write your commentary on the main article. That is agianst WP policy. --snowolfD4 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'

Re: Needs complete revision and admin intervention

>>:First of all, please sign your comments on the talk page using ~~~~.

If you disagree with what is written you can change it, but you have to cite reliable sources, accroding to WP:RS policy. You cannot just write your opinion on Misplaced Pages.

And plase don't write your commentary on the main article. That is agianst WP policy.'

While I completely understand, pls refer to the history of this page and I had posted on the negative-bias on it already. Due to lack of time, I really am not able to revamp this though there really are citable evidence to strike balance.

To begin with all the info in this page pertains to the 'terrorist' Prabhakaran which is documented mostly by the Sri Lankan government. All I am trying to argue for is the presence of the other side of Prabhakaran, showing his accomplishments as the head of an organization, the evidence for which is available in a number of Canadian and British publications. If anti-Prabhakaran info is deemed to be 'valid' then so is 'pro-Prabhakaran' info.

Do you want to take info about Bhagat Singh from Indian media or the British Media? I'd say take it from both, so that it highlights him both as a martyr and a warrior and also the other perspective of him as a terrorist. Let the readers decide.

Reading the current article, readers are not given a choice of informed decision, if you would kindly understand what I mean. User:Sudharsansn

Re:Re: Needs complete revision and admin intervention

Snowfold, I am also a Sinhala speaker, as you are but yes, I want the readers to take a completely informed decision, something that is done when both sides are projected.

This article is being Vandalized and the Alfred Durairaj incident is being blown up beyond proportions when not much information is being given on what he did. Velupillai Prabhakaran, not adhering to his own principles are only to give a negative 'Cult of Personality' image and are completely not cited, and almost every piece of info in this article is biased towards the SL govt views as evident from the SL Wikipedians working on this article to promote their govt's stand on LTTE.

Needs Admin intervention, completely to prevent vandalism by pro-Sinhala, Anti-Tamil activists. Needs balance to be maintained. Readers are not given a choice of informed decision. Sudharsansn

Admin review required

Let the tag be removed by an admin who will go through the contents and finalize or make a decision on it. If you are removing this tag, give reasons in the talk page as per the Wiki policy. I have cited reasons why this tag was placed, whereas by removing it, you have File:Violated Violated the Wiki policy. I am placing it again for Admin review. Thanks User:Sudharsansn

Cite reasons to remove the Vandalism tag. All that has been asked for is a free and fair review, which only means more content getting added to support the neutral stance and not removal of existing content. Maintain your cool and wait for Admin intervention to sort out things. I hope you understand that it seriously is being vandalised by both parties. User:Sudharsansn Refer to this for more info Sudharsansn

I completely support user Sudharsansn view on this. This article is a real mess and appears to have been seriously vandalized. Elalan 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Admin review required

:: I completely support user Sudharsansn view on this. This article is a real mess and appears to have been seriously vandalized. Elalan 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Elalan, either we get the admins to review it soon or we clean it up ONLY to maintain the NPOV stance as per the This article is an outright violation of the pillars of Wiki and the best example being the fact that the cooked-up term 'Child Killer' was on the mainpage for a considerable period of time. This is enough to show that this is being constantly vandalized and these discrepancies are also being maintained by the vandals to ensure information being intentionally misconstrued. This article also needs to be put on sprotect edit lock after a final edit and review

Help is required in cleaning this up, and if somebody is on it already, some of us would be more than glad to help. Any more vandalizing or removing this current stance would be blatant violations of Wiki norms and would subsequentially lead to admin action.

Anyone willing to contest the current stance of the need to review and also prevention of Vandalism, pls go through this for more information. Thanks - User:Sudharsansn

User Sudharsansn is making a valid point, i have followed this article for quite a while, it has been again and again vandalised by pro-sinhala anti-tamil crooks. Article needs complete revision.--Npnkumar 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Admin review required

Thanks Npkumar for the concord. Everytime I place the vandalism tag, someone apparently removes it. I am placing it again to keep any more uncited or unwarranted updations on hold to maintain NPOV.

Kindly help maintain the status quo on this article. Thanks. Pls help us in this regard. Thanks again

Sudharsansn 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Admin review required

Bucketsofg and whoever is editing the tags, kindly cite reasons for the actions you take with respect to the removal or addition of tags. The reasons for having those tags are being clearly mentioned here in the Talk page, you cannot just remove those tags without proper citation or reasons just to defend your stand on this article. This is enough to suggest that it is being constantly Vandalized, I have clearly quoted why this was vandalized when I had mentioned someone adding the tag 'Child Killer' to him, which is not even remotely verifiably apart from the SL media. 'Child Killer?' LoL

Debate here and act on it than just reiteratively vandalize it again and again. Sudharsansn 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I took out the Speedy Delete tag; just because you personally disagree with an article doesn't mean it should be speedy deleted. If you think the article is unbalanced, add content to balance it out, or take out sections that are POV. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Stev0 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

>>I took out the Speedy Delete tag; just because you personally disagree with an article doesn't mean it should be speedy deleted.

Well, I was refering to this page being Vandalized every time a balanced edit is being made. Please refer to the page history (article) to understand what I literally mean, when I say 'vandalism'.

>>If you think the article is unbalanced, add content to balance it out, or take out sections that are POV.

While every effort is being made to ensure that the other version stays as it is, why is effort to balance this article, inspite of several edits being negated due to mass reverts? That's my whole point!! Why is a pro-Sinhala mafia thwarting every attempt to balance this article, inspite of several cited reasons behind Alred Durairaj, Child killer mentions, it always reverts back to the original Anti-Tamil, Pro-Sinhala version. I put up the vandalized tag to clearly suggest that every effort made to ensure NPOV is being negated. Any suggestions?? Sudharsansn 02:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page gets vandalized a lot. The articles on George W. Bush and Misplaced Pages get vandalized even more, yet I don't see anyone seriously suggesting deleting those articles. Try some other Dispute tag, just not the speedy delete one! Stev0 12:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Probably the 'noncompliance' tag is the perfect one to describe it as time and again this has been discussed here. Sudharsansn 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The noncompliance tag has been posted, and I agree that the speedy deletion was probably not suitable for the context. All arguments supporting the NPOV stance have been elucidated here. People wishing to contest this can pls cite reasons and work on it. In the mean time, every effort is being made to restore it to NPOV and not the current article's pretentious claims. Thanks Sudharsansn 17:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the tags that are on top of the article now. Stev0 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, let these be maintained so that we can work on improving this article Sudharsansn 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a whole of list of citation need tags for any fact that could be dispute and has no reference. This further justifies Sudharsansn reason for adding the dispute and verifiability tag for the page. Elalan 19:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation Problems

First of all everyone please remember referencs do not have to be websites only. Reliable books are also valid references
Next all the citation problems have arisen from Adhoc's previous mistake where he changed the word "References" to "Further Reading". All the content from this article had been from those books that are mentioned. Therefore the citation tags aren't neccessary. --snowolfD4 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing citation needed tags with mickey mouse reason such as this is making clear what the true intentions are for the article. I am sure any reasonable person will understand this. I would like to see each fact directly cited to its source. If this cannot be done or the citations are incorrect, then the statements must go. Because this subject is very controversial, the citation must be very specific and be explicit (it doesnt matter if its from the web or a book), it must be cited and this is the way forward to remove the tag. I have pain stakingly gone through all statement and tagged it as needing reference. Many of these statement are point of view bordering on fantasy. This needs to be qualified. If it can't be qualified it must be scrapped. Elalan 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation tags are not for one or two mentions but about 1200 other lopsided arguments which have been heaped against Velupillai Prabhakaran. Don't you even understand, without getting emotional, that we are not interested in showing him as a hero or as a terrorist, all we are asking for is verifiable claims to show him in a neutral light and let readers take informed decision about VP. This tag stays only to show the discrepancies in this article which need to be cleaned up. You cannot remove it without citing the source and books are not an alibi for removing these tags.

If you are going to remove the tags inspite of repeated discussions and clearcut reasons as to why the tags should stay here, we are only going to end up messing up more of this article, in which we can clearly understand that your intent is not neutrality. Pls think for a moment about all the reasons given till now and let us together help removing the crap from this page

Agreed Elalan, this is truly Mickey Mouse reasoning. Sudharsansn 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are over 30 citation-needed tags for this article, just in the upper section of the article, how can it be removed. Any more meddling with tags would have to be reported to admins as this seems to be some form of user vandalism. Elalan has put in over 40~50 of them and all of them are uncited and unverifiable. How do you know the VP let himself be worhsipped as 'Surya', the Sun god. Did he talk to you about it? This article, unless cleaned up and verified in a short time would have to revert back to a sub-standard article without any citations or information. Either citations are provided ASAP or these lines go, confirming to Misplaced Pages policies. Provide citation for all the pretentious claims, including the amazingly funny 'Sun-God' claim or as per WP:5P they will be removed in a short while from now. Thanks Sudharsansn 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are exactly 79 citation-needed tags here and anyone can check up that citation is DEFINITELY needed for those claims. This article is going to be revamped soon, ONLY with neutral and verifiable claims. Thanks Sudharsansn 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, the books links are nice but we also have verifiability concerns, especially because this is a living person. We must have citations in-line for most of the points of the article. If the sources are the books, then that's fine but the fact tags still belong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK agreed. I don't have any of those books so I can't say for sure whether the text is actually contained in them or not.
And wouldn't it be a lot easier (and more practical) to use something like the {{Not verified}} tag on top of the article than adding {{fact}} tags after every sentence. I think it will anyway.--snowolfD4 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a lot better to clean up this article in terms of verifiable and non-verifibale content than have a perpetual debate on whether to have those tags there or not? Isn't that a much smarter way to do it?Sudharsansn 23:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy and Ideology section

Beyond the obvious fact that the section is way way too large, we need to make sure that the article is specifically about cited views of Prabhakaran and not claims of the origanization. As with any organization, for PR purposes, they may spout a number of views but only those explicitly stated by him belong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had bookmarked Prabhakaran's interview, and I shall get it to be cited here to explain his personal opinion about things, pretty soon. I shall spend time tomorrow to classify info and post it. Geez, it's 5:25 AM here already. Thanks Sudharsansn 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations added

I have done some work on this article and all claims made are explicitly verifiable from all the information, taken even from the Sri Lankan media and also the international media to ensure a NPOV. The issuing of death warrants, the thileepan incident, the alfred duraiappah incident are all cited with background information and some hearsay remarks about his family have also been added with citation tags clearly. Let me know what you think about this version, we can refine it.

Sudharsansn 16:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Revamped

This article as of now, is almost completely revamped with regard to completely cited information about VP in a NPOV and all evidence is verifiable as stated - SL media, Indian media and the international media. Complete rework has been done on this article. Please read through it again, with all the exact citations and references provided and also some redundant sections trimmed down.

As of now this article, IMHO, seems to be perfectly NPOV - his murders, assasinations are also cited with evidence and so are his achievements as a military leader, both sides are portrayed equally - This should be fine enough for the reader to make a good, informed decision about VP.

Let me know your opinions. Ricky, Elalan, Npkumar and others - please read through it again if any fine-tuning is required. Thanks Sudharsansn 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Once reviews are over we can discuss about removing the tags and also protecting this page. Pls review the page once or twice so that we can proceed further on this page. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

203.94.94.3 can be banned for any repeated vandalism as two warnings have been issued already. Sudharsansn 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do throw in your opinion about the present page so that we can go ahead and protect this page. Thanks. Sudharsansn 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As per Sudharsansn, bloking for new and unregistered users requested --∞Sechzehn16∞ 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the new page, it's throroughly NPOV, presents all sides of the story, is to the point and conforms to the rules of a WIkipedia article. However, maybe a picture would be in order?

--Sharz 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) P.S It should be Protected immediatly as these issues are hotly contended

Thanks Sechzen and Sharz. I have a lot of images, but I am not too sure as to how to upload them here, though I can point it to the external link. Can anyone suggest as to how to upload them to Wiki Images? Sudharsansn 09:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one bit of tidbit info., that I believe is not from a credible source. That is the health of VP . The current source for this info, the Asian Tribune has been shown to be a not so credible source over a couple different subject matter (I think Sharz would agree on this, after reading through his discussion points). An alternate source that can verify the Asian Tribune claim would be satisfactory I think.

I should say article has been well revamped and I think Sudharsansn has done an excellent/super job in such a short period. Its certainly close to being/is NPOV as we can get at the moment. Now it is a matter of protecting and policing this against the onslaught of vandals. Elalan 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Elalan. With respect to your Asiantribune points I did not know that there were some issues. All the more I think this gives us only a picture of his background, family info and his illness. Others do throw in your opinion on whether to have this page or not and Elalan, could you pls tell me abt the other topic in which the Asiantribune credibility took a hit, bcos two or three info points like his family, and health info are quoted from that. Thanks again Elalan, Ricky, Sharz and Npnkumar for your support. Sudharsansn 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You've certainly done a lot of work on this, but I really haven't had that much time to go thru the article so I can't tell you what I think yet.

Regerding images, we certainly need some to make the article complete. You can click the link to the left of Misplaced Pages below the search box that says "Upload file", but that will make the images only available on WP. So its best to upload directly to Commons here so that it can be used in diffrent Wiki projects.

And I agree the article should be protected from anons. Not a comprehensive protection. --snowolfD4 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Snowolf, pls go through the article...I haven't written an anti-Sri Lankan version of it. It is still balanced. In fact I have added the death penalties issued by the Chennai high court and the Colombo bench for Premadasa's murder along with all citations that were actually required to justify pretentious claims such as the 'Sun god' one. Do go through this and comment on it. Sudharsansn 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudharsansn I didn't even suggest it was POV or anything like that. I just said I didn't have the time to read it fully yet. --snowolfD4 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that either, I just wanted to know about your opinion. That's all :-) Sudharsansn 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete citation - Internal and External - added to the 1974 Tamil conference incident and also the murder of Alfred Duraiappah. All completely verifiable and cited, with reports from Asia Times and other media. Thanks.

Some more fine tuning, and a picture and this should be a near-perfect article - NPOV and completely cited and verifiable evidence. Thanks.Sudharsansn 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Brammen, I really dont understand how VP, Eelam and SL could not be related categories and no Wiki policy states so. Unless you discuss it with others on the page, this change is going to be reverted endlessly. There is no propaganda being done for anyone here, and it is quite understandeable to add SL and Eelam to the VP page. With regd to your 'Detailed articles don't go in national categories', cite reasons, cite Wiki policy reasons and have them. Otherwise you are only trying to show ur presence there!! Show proof, discuss and then revert or change!! If you are going to cite reasons and discuss them here, fine otherwise, I am going to revert it tomorrow, to prevent the 3R rule.Sudharsansn 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, you have indeed done a great job in revamping this article. I still don't understand why so many people approch this artilce one sided and vandalise it. Sorry i could not contribute much these days but any ways will try to follow this article.

I changed the disputed category from "Sri Lanka" to "Sri Lankan people". Hopefully everyone can agree with that. Cos as User:Brammen said the "Sri Lanka" category should not be used for individual articles, and as Sudharsansn said Prabakaran is connected to Sri Lanka. --snowolfD4 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Snowolf, now I am sure that both the parties are contented with the NPOV stance. If someone can help me put up a picture or put up one by themselves, it would be great. I have uploaded a Prabhakaran_Eelam.jpg in Commons. If someone could advise or take it up from there, it would be great.

We will ask Ricky or some admin to review this and protect it so that we can rest in peace that this article portrays both sides and that we are giving the readers a well-informed choice as to decided whether VP is a hero or a murderer. Thanks. Sudharsansn 13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudharsansn there's a problem with the image you just uploaded. Images on WP have to be free to be used commercially and cannot be copyrighted. Unfortunately you can't just get an image from a website and upload it onto WP unless the website states something like "Public Domain" or "the content on this website can be reproduced". if not it will be deleted from WP. Also since the image you uploded doesn't have neccessary info, it will be deleted in 7 days . The policies are given here WP:ICT. So please try to get a free to use image.

Regarding protection, I don't think we should protect this article completely, cos that will be against the WP ideals. I think protection against anonymous uses is a good idea though, since they do them most damage. --snowolfD4 15:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"crushed" removed

i removed it because that article doesnt make sense at all..It seemed to be written by someone with a kindergarten level knowledge of SriLankan history and cant be taken seriously anyway.There are overwhelming evidence that sinhalese lived and ruled Northern part of Srilanka for centuries and historians overwhelmingly believed(with evidence) that sinhalese(kandyan kings) ruled present day eastern propvince until 1815. Getting back to the point, TULF was never crushed by any Srilankan government,they just simply couldnt achieve their demands. thanks --Iwazaki 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be really nice if you would read through the citation that has been added there. Refrain from your 'kindergarten' comments, we aren't here in this article because of kindergarten level knowledge. Your claims of 'overwhelming evidence' seems to overlook the fact that there was a Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna for ages. You might probably want to use something called as 'Google'. Sudharsansn 17:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

it would be really nice if you work on your reading comprehension skills..All my points remain valid and u only have one kindergrten level article to back upwhat ever you claims..yes, there was a tamil kingdom in jaffna,for couple of centuries, and i dont deny it.How about the article ?? doesnt it say, historically sinhalese lived in south and west and tamils lived in north and east ?? hahahaha...even as late as 1815, east was predominantly sinhalese and was a part of the kandyan kingdom.And for north,sinhala-buddhist civilization simply outdated tamil-hindu one by centuries.proof, mahavamsa written 5 th century onwards,records of all the foreign travellers(incl phahian) and tons of inscriptions which can be found in all over the north,or i can give you some sigiri graffiti written in perfect sinhalese by the people who came from north!! sorry i dont need google to know my mother lands history.

that article has no scholarly value..And there is no proof that Srilankan government "crushed" TULF.TULF(and other tamil parties) merely failed to achieve most of their day-dreams and some of their genuine grievance

thanks --Iwazaki 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to either, we share the same history. It is a well-known fact that the N and NE regions are majority Tamil, the regions around Jaffna(Yaazhpaanam/Yaapanaya) and Trincomalee(which by itself are Tamil names) and also the north central regions around Mankulam and Puliyankulam. Crushed has been rephrased and your citation needed tag can stay, it's fine. As per your other historical claims, I would only want you to read through history, not the Sri Lankan version of it, but the neutral version of it to understand more of your mother-land!! Sudharsansn 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i think u indeed depend on google a lot, which seems to be your sole source.

Otherwise you wouldn't say such things as 'historically north and east are tamils ' and blabla(sorry ,but most of the things u wrote dont even deserved blabla).And iam not sure what u mean by we.. for starters, NE was predominantly sinhalese for centuries,that doesn't mean there were no tamils ,BUT numbers were few,if not none!! I recommend you to read series, "inscriptions of srilanka" to grasp atleast the basic knowledge of our history,not google.And for the names, i forgive your ignorance and happily take this opportunity to enlighten you.Even as late as 10 th century A.D there were no tamil inscriptions of srilanka,So where was your tamil settlements in north and east ??? Jaffna is a new name, it was known as "nagadeepa" or "nakadiva" for centuries and those are "sinhalese names",same as many(almost all) the towns in north and east,were sinhalese origin !!and present days kytes was known as "uratota" a perfect sinhalese name.And even in the 16 th century ,main divisions of jaffna had sinhalese names, and there was a sizable sinhalese population at that time(read phillipus baldaeus book).

And east ?? starting with trinco which was knwon as "gokanna" ,a perfect sinhalese name,was never ruled by jaffna tamil kings ,and till 1815 most of the east was under the control of the kandyan king (read Baldaeus, and knox,and i think there are plenty of other document at our national archives)..SO what is your advice ?? should we follow indea and start re-naming our cities,with ancient(correct) names ??

people can change and twist names,but that doesn't change the history..Srilankan history is clear and there can be only one version of it,the version of truth --Iwazaki 15:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

since you have done nothing to justify the word "crushed" ,i thinnk its pointless to have it..so iam going to remove it again,correctly so --Iwazaki 15:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

murder and scholars are removed

The given references does not state those people who died in that incident were scholars.So unless someone comes up with a proper proof, i think we should simply refer to them as civilians

Also, iam not sure murder is the correct word to describe that unfortunate incident.See how DR Rajan hoole described this tragic incident.He wrote "Pandemonium broke loose and seven civilians died of electrocution when a power line came down".Police may be wrong in their action,but to lebel them as murderers is absolutely baseless.

--Iwazaki 10:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you want to put forth your pro-SL claims in an article which was NPOV. It is known that they died of electrocution, but the attack is what is being pointed out here. Neutral evidence shows tear-gas shelling and firing, why else would they fire, if not for the intention of dispersing the crowd? For fun? Pls read through all the citations before making changes Sudharsansn 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the other two aforesaid instances, it seems to look fine eitherway. Minor edits to encompass conflicting views about these have been done. Thanks Sudharsansn 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

for starters , yes iam very much pro-srilankan,and very proud of it..I being pro-srilankan has nothing to do with my edits .I use my brain to think rationally and the edits i made are within the rules of wikipedia..

tear gas shelling happens in many protest,i my self have suffered from police tear gas during my school days..IF some one comes and say ,police had the intention to murder us(university students) i would kindly ask that person to go to the nearest mental clinic..Police uses tear gas ,as you correctly stated to disperse people, regardless of their protest(esp in srilanka),or even ethnicity..And no way ,iam defending it.But to use the word "murder" to describe these are nonsense.

are there any evidence that the police shoot directly at people ?? Judge Sansoni couldnt find any evidence and why we should care about hypothesis created by some tamil politicians

--Iwazaki 04:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Judge Sansoni!! How do you know that he was neutral? Isn't it a well-known fact that so many cases of war crime against the SL Army have been brushed under the carpet!! What about the massacres in Mankulam, in Trinco district during the settlement times and also the mishandling of the 100,000 plantation Tamils who were sent back to India.......Buddy, these cases are closed......so stop making claims that the GoSL's stand on this issue is final. While I can agree with your statements about the intent of the police, I dont understand why police had to resort to such a move when it was a prestigious World Tamil Conference being held in their own country....... The word 'murder' was used as required in the context, as the LTTE alleged Duraippah for having murdered them, it is given as per the contextual meaning and does not vindicate both the parties of their claims. Eitherway, I am fine with the present version of this and any more changes can be welcomed with exact citations. Thanks. Sudharsansn 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral evidence shows tear-gas shelling and firing, why else would they fire, if not for the intention of dispersing the crowd. When we write about the LTTE firing on "civilians" we refer to it as "terrorism" because Misplaced Pages defines terrorism as the ""indiscriminate", targeting of civilians with disregard for human life". If you (Iwazaki) can point out to me why the Sri Lankan police would fire on a crowd of protestors without the (albeit not officially stated, but nontheless de facto motive of) "targeting of civilians with disregard for human life", I will agree to not terming the incident as an act of terrorism (or at the very least culpable homicide) on the part of the Sri Lankan police. Now, Iwazaki, please go ahead and enlighten me about why security forces (or anyone else for that matter) would open fire on a group of people without disregard for human life. Cerebral Warrior 13:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Point! When the former can come under 'terrorism' this comes under 'state-sponsored terrorism'. Either refute both or agree to both Sudharsansn 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

what about the Mankulam ?? i would love to hear your version, which no doubt come from your buddy "google" and most probably written by another "LTTE Scholar"..wow !!

and about the brushing under the carpet,yes indeed we have put many of them..esp the ones ltte claimed that IPKF did..So ,why dont you come with crimes which were allegedly carried out by SLA against civilians ?? then we can proceed.

and plantation tamils, havent you heard about sirima-shastri treaty ?? Whats wrong sending indian citizens back to india,after all they were in a semi slave condition under the white rulers.Although there is no question of their great contribution to our country,i must admit madam sirimavo did the right thing by sending some of them back to india,because with declining tea-prices we simply couldn't afford to have too many of them and for judge Sansoni ,i highly respect him and i think he did a very good job.Despite all the criticism,he was much more neutral than u think..

Fine, the IPKF screwed up in Sri Lanka, but that's nothing compared to what the Indian Army is doing on peacekeeping operations across the world. Do you know how many Indian soldiers have laid down their lives trying to maintain the peace in conflict-prone regions everywhere from El Salvador to Vietnam? Cerebral Warrior 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

and for the rest, i repeat my previous question

are there any evidence that the police shoot directly at people ?? If there are proofs that the security forces indeed shoot at the people with the sole-intention of killing them, they should be brought into justice or hanged immediately(with, if possible ,ltte and its boot-lickers)

--Iwazaki 15:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "shoot directly at people"? If you put a crowd of people in front of people, and I open fire it is almost certain that I will hit somebody. Add to that multiple policemen and a large number of civilians in a small area and the probability of people being hit is a certainity. Besides when you say that the police "shot at the people" you do generally mean "directly at the people", unless the Sri Lankan police are cockeyed. Cerebral Warrior 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

furthemore,ltte just dont fire at people, they cut people(including babies),send friendly suicide bombers and do such inhuman things far worse than, known terrorists, such as osama bin laden.Also, pls be noted ,prabha is a runaway assassin,who had shoot and assassinated a prominant tamil politician

thanks --Iwazaki 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LTTE does what it does to establish a Tamil homeland and fight against Sri Lankan ethnic discrimination. How is that compareablt to a man who wants to kill us all just because we don't follow his religion? By the way, haven't you heard of your army bombing Tamil schools? Cerebral Warrior 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

if you can elaborate the so-called dicrimination then we can proceed this talk..And for people like you seem to be rely on google search to find facts,thus getting brain washed by the ltte propaganda,i have a small advice..Didnt you parents tell you not believe everything u hear ?? so, why dont you think rationally before jumping into any conclusions ??

prabhakaran is a worse killer than osama bin laden,We can start with this by mentioning that osama has never directly killed anyone(to this date).But prabakaran started his thug life by killing a prominant politician.Secondly prabha kills anyone who doesnt listen to him,or go against him.Either we become followers of his cult or lose our desire to live,thats his motto.So he simply matches osama in that category..

What does any of this have to do with Vellupillai Prabhakaran article? Stick to topic please. Cerebral Warrior 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i was merely answering you and enlighting you in the process ^_^ ..remember you still havent answer my very basic question, which has a lot to do with the article

furthermore;though,words like "assassin" ,"terrorist" are tagged as loaded terms in here, i frankly believe prabha deserved both of them.

thanks--Iwazaki 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles