Talk:Anton Balasingham

PhD
The chapter "[Balasingham is a former journalist, who worked for a Colombo newspaper and as a translator at the British High Commission in Colombo. It is rumoured that he was a Ph.D candidate in the late 1960s, writing his dissertation on the psychology of Marxism at the South Bank Polytechnic in London, when the LTTE made the transition from Marxist Leninism to Tamil nationalism. The 63-year old British citizen had extensively written and published on the subject. According to published reports, the tutors at the polytechnic (now known as the South Bank University) still remember him as a bright, but unusual student.]" is not factually correct at all. I have spoken to everybody at Psycology at South bank to find out, there is noboidy who remembers an Anton Balasingham. The South Bank polytechnic wasn't in existence until 1970. I checked all the records at the university to find there was no such registration since the polytechnic was started in 1970. There was a small school called Borough Polytechnic in London in 1960's which did not have the status to offer PhD's. The Borough POlytechnic was merged with other training colleges in the area and elevated it to the Polytechnic status in 1970, when it was renamed the South bank Polytechnic. So this person should not have registered for a PhD there in 1960's when there was no such school. The polytechnic was promoted to university status in 1980's calling it the 'South Bank University' which was renamed in 2005 to 'London South bank University'. I will speak to the registrar of the school regarding this entry next week. Somebody's taken the leniency of the British university system and press freedom to include this chapter to justify Anton's continuos use of the title 'Dr', which obviously he is not. Since LTTE is branded as a terrorist organisation in almopst all major countries and the EU, the organisation may find it is important to have a doctorate to their theoretician and this is how they achieve it. A credible source like Wikipedia should not be allowed to misuse this way. (more about South bank Uni www.lsbu.ac.uk)(07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Well since you last posted the above in July, it is clear to me that it has taken you more than a Week and you are still unable to disprove that Anton holds a doctorate. It is quite strange that all the Sri-Lankan (Sinhala) newspapers and Tamil Press still refer to him as Dr Anton Balasingham. Also how is it you spoke to everyone at psychology when you can’t seem to spell the word correctly? Did you know that it is part of the data protection act of this great country of the UK which in turn ensures it is illegal for one such as yourself to delve into the information of another individual? In simple terms, it is impossible for you to verify that he has a PHD without his consent. So how is it you were able to check the records? Impossible, yet laughable Also in a Times UK article, they listed his credentials (of which amongst one was his PHD doctorate). I believe you need help as your telling tales or porkies. Please don’t try to take what little honour this Tamil individual has. P.S. Learn to spell and use grammar, since nobody can understand what it is your trying to state.


 * The page no longer has any mention of his so calld PhDRaveenS 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

remove tags
unsourced and NPOV I propose to remove or change the tags--Terrance 07:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold and remove after editing, which I just didRaveenS

Funeral in London
I have well placed the reference for the above article, please let me know where I stand.

Rajsingam 24 Dec. 2006

C.C:

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade

Rajsingam, start using the tags around links being used as references. See Footnotes for more information. — Wackymacs 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violation and POV pushing
It is sad to know that the pro eelam lobby who are hell bent on glorifing this terrorist who was the so called official spokesperson for one of the most ruthless and barbaric terrorist groups in the world, are blatantly violating copyright by almost verbatim copying the article from http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20673 which is a noted pro eelam site. In addition they are violating WP:NPOV by making blatant statements like "Balasingham was cremated shortly afterwards at a private ceremony leaving the people for whom he was fighting for by his intellectual wisdom." There is also vandalism by anonymous ip's via removal of cited content critical of the 8 million rupees spent to reserve the great hall when people are starving in the north and east.

I strongly urge the admins to keep a strict watch on this page with a zero tolerance policy for as a edit war is bound to ensure. Kerr avon 11:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth of the Message
If Anton Balasingham is a theoretician without using his intellectual wisdom what he will be using, what is there in Tamilnet, if we could use other Sri Lankan newspapers for reference? Take Daily News, the national newspaper of Sri Lanka which doesn’t bring any truth to the world on what is happening in the Tamil areas. When the Tamils are being murdered the Daily News will only justify the facts biased to the Government making every other Tamil as a LTTE member. Only Tamilnet has brought to the world the truth. Otherwise subsequent Sri Lankan governments might have already wiped out the Tamils from the Island. Even in Puthukudiyiruppu, there were 60 school girls killed in a carpet bombing by 5 supersonic jets continuously, but the Sri Lankan President apparently denied they all were LTTE members while the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission and other UN Agencies were telling, “they are only school girls”. So who are the real terrorists, tell me an example after independence any Tamil fought using guns or any other weapons against then Sri Lankan governments to demand their rights. The moderate Tamil politicians like S. J. V. Selvanayagam and others were attacked by mobs just in front of the then Sri Lankan parliamentary complex by stones and clubs. Could any one deny this? They brought Sinhala only policy and then standardization by marginalizing the Tamils in education and well before that they started planned colonization in the Tamil traditional home lands. That time Tamil politicians were democratically demanding their rights to live peacefully with equal respect. After all their attempts failed only there were Vellupillai Prabhaharan and other Tamil military groups among Tamils. Can any one deny these facts? There are many hardcover and paperback editions are available in the market with detail research. Anton Balasingham was a theoretician and he used his wisdom and fought for Tamils to gain the political rights. Whether he was attached to LTTE or a political party is a different issue. Sometimes he might have opted a military group to associate with, it was because of the past incidents what happened to other moderate Tamils. What do you mean by Terrorism? If Sri Lankan Governments can use the heavy Tanks and super sonic jets in a densely populated Jaffna Peninsula under the name of establishing sovereignty and could be justified those killing and then could glorify those military victories, then what is the difference between the Government and the LTTE, the way they are using to achieve their goals. It’s is pathetic to observe the amount they have spent for his funeral which could have utilized for the North East Tamils. Government is systematically starving the people and killing by artillery shelling time to time, no one is noticing. It is ridiculous those who are not bothering those now caring for Balasingham’s funeral money for those poor masses. Open your heart and mind; you will get the right picture. Not only will the Wikipedia Administrators, the entire world come to know the truth very soon.

Rajsingam 24 Dec. 2006


 * User:Rajsingam please understand that statements like "Balasingham was cremated shortly afterwards at a private ceremony leaving the people for whom he was fighting for by his intellectual wisdom" are highly POV and violate WP:NPOV. Please read WP:NPOV and see how important it is to confirm to a neutral point of view. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion regarding Bala, however wikipedia is not your soapbox. If you want to praise Bala with POV statements then please put up your own website. If you continue this edit warring I will report you to the admins.Kerr avon 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be POV-pushing in both directions. I understand that the subject of this article is a controversial topic, but Wikipedia needs a neutral and verifiable article. I will try to analyze the article and help out, maybe we can all work together to create a stable version of this article. --Oden 15:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your initiative. All what we want is a NPOV too.Kerr avon


 * I deleted a chuck of the text that was directly copied from the webpage http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=20673 with a few changes here and there. Please do not add copyrighted material onto Wikipedia. Also please read WP:COPY for more information. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The sad thing is hapenning is that the LTTE is creating a humanitarian disaster by preventing the government from supplying food to vaharai. Then the LTTE mouth pieces and the eelamist who reside abroad use various internet fora and misuse wikipedia as their soapbox to propogate their lies against the government. However as the following news item shows the goverment air lifted a large stock of essential items to jaffna. THe GOvernment sent by sea and air a total of over 42 million tons of food and essential items to Jaffna.


 * Of course it isn't Rajsingam or his cohorts who have the pleasure of living abroad in luxury who are paying for the food sent to jaffna, it is majority sinhalese, and the muslims and the sri lankan tamils who pay for it via taxes on their honest living. So remember that your alleged racists sinhalaya's are, and have been kind enough to keep paying out of there pockets to keep the tamils in the north from starvation all this years and at least have the decency to acknowledge it.


 * The reason for this agitation in the eelam lobby is that they are in dire strait's, there is no visible prospect of achieving eelam in the near future, LTTE's suicide attacks on the Army Commander, and the presidents brother all failed. The war is turning against them with them loosing heavily in the eastern province with a severe weapons shortage and we have a strong leader at last via President Rajapakse. That is why they are trying to use this internationally prominent media to try to discredit and rape our government.


 * I kindly request the wikipedia administrators not to allow this respected wiki to be defiled by allowing it to be used as a pro eelam and anti goverment attack site by the eelam lobby and the terrorists.Kerr avon 12:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would urge all editors to this article to remember that a talk page on Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion on the subject in general, but a place to discuss specific improvements to the article. If the reliability of a source is in question, then additional sources should be sought or the information should be removed. --Oden 14:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Truth of the Message - 2
It is so funny to know the fact that the LTTE is creating a humanitarian disaster by preventing the government from supplying food to vaharai. Closure of the A-9 and the Vaharai fiasco is only the Government’s agenda on Politico-Military level and nothing else. Sri Lankan Government first started its offensive in the Mutur area by a unilateral military offensive violating the ceasefire agreement in the LTTE control areas and LTTE strategically withdrew and then attacked in the northern frontier Muhamalai area. In retaliation to that only the Sri Lankan Government closed the A-9 rout and starving the people. If they are really caring the people they won’t do it. But the continuous chauvinistic sentiment for decades which is still prevailing in the mainstream Sri Lankan politics, Tamils are being victimized.

When the Tamils are going to raise their voice they used to be identified with LTTE and marginaling them by Eelamist, mouthpieces of LTTE and by various other slants.

After diplomatic pressures from India and various other countries of the Co-Chairs of Sri Lankan Peace initiative only the Government was forced to do something. It’s crazy to note a poor country like Sri Lanka is boasting it is airlifting the goods for Jaffna Peninsula while there is a major highway.

It is ridiculous to note the statement, 'Sinhalaya's are, and have been kind enough to keep paying out of there pockets to keep the Tamils in the north from starvation all this years'. Not only Sinhalese even the Tamils are paying Tax.

While Ranil Wickremesinghe was campaigning for a power devolution under 'Federal model', the Great Mahinda Rajapakse came with chauvinistic 'Unitary model' and defeated his opponent and paved the way for all recent chaos. I am not praising LTTE for all its activities or their killing but my understanding is a highly conservative southern sentiment towards Tamils in power sharing is the mother of all chaos in the ethnic crisis.

I too kindly expect the wikipedia administrators to keep an eye on by not allowing the respected wiki to be used by the chauvinist elements and the state terrorists of Sri Lanka, using another propaganda.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

Funeral in London
I did my edits to my best and hereafter I don't think so I could make anything for a neutral standing.

One editor Lakiru is taking Asia Tribune for reference, which is a well-known pro Sri Lanka Government media, nobody knows even from where it is operating. They cites Tamilnet as pro-LTTE, then how the Asia Tribune can be NPOV.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

C.C:

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade

Reliable sources
In my opinion, the Asian Tribune and Tamilnet do not qualify as reliable sources since they seem to be partisan sources. --Oden 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the conflict is so all-pervading that there is no NPOV in the situation. I myself am Tamil, but I try to view this objectively. My dislike for LTTE stems from the fact that they are not a Hindu group, but I also dislike seeing my Tamil brethren killed. The article seems to be NPOV right now (quite reasonable compared to Sinhalese propaganda and Eelam mouthpieces that other articles seem to be stuck between). Baka man  16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * why would you put tamil net ,which is a pro-LTTE pro-terrorist site and Asia Tribune In the same category ?? Could you please ,elaborate your claims against Asia Tribune ??--Iwazaki 16:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What we have is "terrorists" vs. "genocidal maniacs". Asia Tribune actually looks like it possibly could be reliable, but not really NPOV. Baka man  16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * so Asia Tribune is a genocidal maniac ??? That's interesting !! what next ??

have you even bothered to read what they write ?? could you please point out a single POV push they made..thanks --Iwazaki 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering you called Tamil's terrorists and Raj thinks that the Sinhala army/people/etc. genocidal maniacs, I merely put those terms in quotes. Obviously I think neither of the terms in quotes are accurate descriptors (thankfully my ancestors left Tamil Nadu to go north rather than south). Yes I did look at the site. Baka man  16:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I never call tamils terrorist ,but I do call LTTE terrorists.. Actually ,some of your ancestors who are doing quite well in Sri Lanka..And, again,why do you think Asia Tribune is POV ? --Iwazaki 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering my ancestors moved north rather than south, I hope that my fellow Tamils do well in Sri Lanka. This part of the site raised some questions as to its reliability. Baka man  17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * you mean the disclaimer ??? Well, for me it shows how transparent this News-Paper is..My friend, there is no absolute truth in the world neither absolute reliability.Many, neutral sources can easily be specious..So ,I strongly believe all the media,which are run by humans who are born to make errors, should carry disclaimers like the Asian Tribune.So instead of blindly accepting all of them, we can actually analyse them thoroughly and make conclusions..For what I have seen in Asia Tribune, It carries some flaws which  are general to every single media organization.And if we dismiss it as a POV pusher, I don't think we have much of choice left..The main point is, Asia Tribune is not a Sri Lankan government source,so unlike tamil net which is purely pro-LTTE, we just cant dismiss every thing written on it.thanks

--Iwazaki 11:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki makes a good point. The tone of the paper leaves a bit to be desired, but it does seem (like I stated above) to meet WP:RS. Sorry Raj, perhaps a Tamil Nadu newspaper would better serve to represent your side of the story for NPOV. Baka  man  20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Asia Tribune vs. Tamilnet
Once you read Asia Tribune you will come to know where it stands and who are really behind the 'Asia', at least Tamilnet is openly disclosing who are they, that is the difference.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006


 * U mean Associated Sinhalese Intelligence Advisors? Baka man  16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

nope..You are both disappointingly wrong !! Have you even bother to read ,what the write ?? Even in this case, there are pictures for god sake !! dont blame Asia Tribune for your vision problems --Iwazaki 16:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You go through Tamilnet at times they give prominence to Sri Lankan Government politicians. But the Asia Tribune once heavily attacked the former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, because he went to say something in his book supporting Sri Lankan Tamils. You do few 'google' search you will come to the shadow of the Asia Tribune.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006


 * Why dont you provide me the article ? you are the one,who is claiming some thing here, so why dont you give your evidences ?? then i can actually give my comments on it--Iwazaki 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was kidding about the acronym, but I do find that newspaper full of POV. They might as well throw in a qaseeda for Junius Richard Jayewardene while they're at it. Needless to say that Tamilnet is POV. Baka man  16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew you were ..But havent you noticed they have a scores of articles related to a lot of other issues, such as Aung sang suki(ex Burmese leader).So ,burmese junta may well come up with the similar arguments !! If, you seriously thinking they are POV pushers, why dont we take those disputed articles and analyse them ?? The problem of Tamil Net, is not that they are POV,but that they are inhuman and cant be used to represent human arguments.--Iwazaki 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Even Tamilnet is discussing on world Affairs, but I don't say because of that, that is a neutral one.

What is inhuman, if they publish few photos of a family where wife was raped, the two children and the husband were stapped by the Sri Lankan Navy and then hanged them on the roof in Mannar few months ago, you feel inhuman? Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006


 * Dear, you must be joking here !!! We cant fool everyone every time ,can we ??

LTTE and its bootlickers were fooling a lot of people before, but not any more..Pls have a look at this real murderers.Actually ,LTTE are quite good at killing people and blaming others for it. And not surprisingly, the boot lickers ,lose sense when it come to these,if they really have any.--Iwazaki 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not discussing about the LTTE or the Sri Lankan Forces but the realiability of the Asia Tribune and the Tamilnet, we can't divert our topic.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

I have gone through the Newpaper, this is the way you are fooling all. You asked the Bishop of Mannar, he will tell the actual facts than few editors who could be bought over by money and then could pulish it in a Colombo based newspaper under political influence.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

You read this story Bishop protests Police, Navy rapes and murders where Bishop of Mannar is disclosing the truth. Why they have published it in Tamilnet is simply because they can't do it in Colombo.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

I have added the story INDICTMENT AGAINST SRI LANKA which I quoted originally. Once you read carefully you will come to know who are the real culprits.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006


 * well well...you have failed raise a single argument against the Sunday times article.And I am not surprised at all !! The news paper ,is a neutral source and read by many SL tamils..Bishop of mannar !! ?? Or dear, that LTTE boot licker !! Who would love to keep an blind eye when tamils who opposed LTTE get hacked.And blame Anti-LTTE for everything.Can you show me a single comment he made against the LTTE?? .How many anti-LTTE Christians were murdered by the LTTE,

'''And why this guy is so silent of these ?? Well,we all know why,don't we ??'''


 * I read your article,at Tamil nation,or dear even that article failed to give any description at all,other than blaming the GOSL ..Unlike LTTE control area, where you must kiss the ar** of the sun-goat to survive, tamils have more freedom in South, and that's why thousands of tamils who are moving to south to live.And there are many news-papers and neutral media, which follows all the GOSL actions and questions them. If the army or navy ,do any wrong doings, necessary actions must be taken.'''But we cant punish Army or Navy, for murders carried out by the LTTE..can we ??

'''--Iwazaki 10:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are good Tigers and Sri Lankan Forces, but what I discussed is only the incidents and other evidences. But once you read those stories and analyse you will come to know the incidents were purported by some misguided forces. I am not blaming each and every one of the Sri Lankan Forces. If we are calling others terrorists then we should have more discipline and order.

Rajsingam 12:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rajsingam why is Asian tribune ok for you to steal Image:Anton_Balasingham1.jpg and upload it fraudulently as a book cover. Apparently Asian tribune is good for him to steal images from, but not for us to use as a WP:RS! Rajsingam, You have a history of fraud, ie uploading images under false licenses, violating WP:AUTO etc, if you continue to vandalise this wiki, I will report you to the admins, and request they take disciplinary action against you.Kerr avon 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can report Rajsingam 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Asian Tribune, one should consider it a WP:RS. There is no doubt it is noteworthy, for example, when the prominent indian plitician Dr Subramaniam Swamy wanted to issue a statement critical of Karunanidhi, the first media outlet he posted the statemement too to was the Asian Tribune. As such to deny asian tribune to be used as a source would be tragic.Kerr avon 13:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Subramaniam Swamy? Wow, that's pretty good, you got me leaning in your direction. Raj, Perhaps this is an argument you may have to concede. You do know that Tamil language newspapers, and Tamil papers in English can still meet wP:RS so maybe you should look into those. Baka man  20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Subramaniam Swamy is a politician trying to be always in the lime light by his time-to-time statements. When you read the Swamy's Swamp by Sahabzada Yusuf Ahmad Ansari, you will come to know where he stands.

I have already commented of my opinion on Asia Tribune and Tamilnet. I don't want to repeat it once again.

Rajsingam 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Asianet is reliable, but its not out of the park yet, it still looks to have an obvious bias. Subramaniam Swamy is a prominent Hindu figure, and the paper you noted is the opposition secular party's mouthpiece. Tamileelamnews sounds more reliable . http://www.tamileelamnews.com/aboutus/ about us section]. Raj, I think this is a good source for the Tamil Eelam perspective. Baka man  04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people here should really do their research properly before posting anything. For example, I would encourage all here to compare a BBC article against a tamilnet and against a Asian Tribute. A BBC article is truly WP:NPOV, you will note that Asian Tribute is opinionated towards the SL government and is generally anti-tamil, where BBC only report the credible facts. Projectkc 14:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

new section added
Quote's from LTTE on anton's death. Baka man  16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User:Rajsingam's msg
He only used his intellectual capacity not weapons at least to put him under "terrorists tag', then majority the Tamils are supporting the LTTE's "Cause", Do you think then they all are terrorists?

Absolutely True. In the civilized world anyone who directly or indirectly supports a crime is considered to be similar to actually committing a crime. You have clearly said that majority of the Tamils are supporting the LTTE. That is totally bull because I have been known many Tamil friends, eastern as well as northern, since I was a school kid. This is not a place to discuss such things. Talk pages are dedicated to talk about the article. If you want to eliminate that section from this article remove it from all the articles and come back here to talk with me about it. Happy Editing -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Terrorist Tag
First you should know the origin of the Sri Lanka ethnic conflict.

LTTE or other organizations came into the scene when the Tamil democratic leaders demand for a political devolution failed only.

I am not justifying the LTTE's violence, but again the Sri Lankan Forces and even the IPKF in their operation used "Tit for Tat" tactics and many thousands of Tamils were vulnerable for that (please read "Attributed State Terrorism"). To gain their goals they didn't behave like Jesus Christ.

Of course a large section of Tamils helped all the movements (not only LTTE). But it is the LTTE in the internal power struggle came to the top.

My strong standing is Anton Balasingham is a theoretician and used his intellectual wisdom.

If you are finding fault with Anton Balasingham's association with LTTE makes him a Terrorist then we can make others also "Terrorist" who were attached to the Sri Lankan Government which was directly or indirectly responsible for many thousands of Tamils and their disappearances (please read "Attributed State Terrorism"). Even in Puthukudiyiruppu, there were 60 school girls killed in a carpet bombing by 5 supersonic jets continuously, but the Sri Lankan President apparently denied they all were LTTE members while the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission and other UN Agencies were telling, they are only school girls.

Who first antagonised the Tamils?

I like to remind you, since the independence no Tamils fought using guns or any other weapons against then Sri Lankan governments to demand their rights. The moderate Tamil politicians like S. J. V. Selvanayagam and others were attacked by mobs just in front of the then Sri Lankan parliamentary complex by stones and clubs.

They brought Sinhala only policy and then standardization by marginalizing the Tamils in education and well before that they started planned colonization in the Tamil traditional homelands.

Whether Anton Balasingham was attached to LTTE or a political party is a different issue. Sometimes he might have opted a military group to associate with, it was because of the past incidents what happened to other moderate Tamils. I like to ask you "what do you mean by Terrorism? (Do you mean its only "Governmental Level" they have banned the LTTE? then, George Washington also a terrorist (that was the way he was identified in the American Revolution by the British Empire).

I like to ask once again, "If Sri Lank an Governments can use the heavy Tanks and super sonic jets in a densely populated Jaffna Peninsula under the name of establishing sovereignty and could be justified those killing and then could glorify those military victories, then what is the difference between the Government and the LTTE, the way they are using to achieve their goals."

Anton Balasingham tried his best for permanent solution with Ranil Wickremesinghe for power devolution under 'Federal model' but it was failed because of the Southern hardliners. Rajsingam 02:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rajsingam, I will restore the category again and if you revert it back I will warn you with a vandalism warning. If you don't stop with that, I will take necessary actions against you. Mind the policy WP:NOT and this section. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I cant even take a wiki break :-(To avoid unnecessary edit wars such contentious issues should be discussed here and get third party and neutral opinion before tagging. See comments below. Just every body cool down. This article is not going be deleted tomorrow, it is going to be here till Wikipedia lasts. Who called him a terrorist, is that source reputable and neutral and verifiable ? Answer those questions before we tag himRaveenS 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton Balasingham
Hi, The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer. Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this. I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth


 * B'Singham himself has not committed any terrorist acts, right? His group has. If his group affiliation renders him as a terrorist then why isnt Hassan Nasrallah also catted as one?Rumpelstiltskin223 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Dawood Ibrahim? Why isn't he catted as a terrorist? he's affiliated to terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba. What about Slobodan Milosevic? He was affiliated to Serbian nationalist terror groups. What about Jatin Das? Baruch Goldstein? Rumpelstiltskin223 10:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion, of sorts
Having looked over this, I see quite a bit of incivility. I would encourage everyone to take the rhetoric down a few notches, and to assume good faith on the part of those on the other side. Rajsingam, I would advise you to consider the position of those on the other side. They do have some valid concerns, and I would strongly encourage you to think over them-if this person did support terrorist actions, he may well be classified as such, even if he has also done a great deal of good. However, generally, when information in a biography is controversial, especially category tagging, it's generally best to leave the category out unless there is overwhelming consensus to include it. I would also remind Lahiru_k that, while repeated reversions may violate the three-revert rule or be considered edit warring, they are not vandalism, and it is not appropriate to call any edits but clear and obvious vandalism, such as random insertion of profanity or nonsense, a vandal edit. If there is genuinely no consensus here, a request for comment is often the best way to settle the issue-best to do an RFC on an article before they start getting filed on users! And everyone involved, please do beware of the tigers. Seraphimblade 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Attn: Rajsingam
While I hate dignifying puerile 'blah blah blah' by apologists of terror groups with responses, I am unfortunately left with no choice but to respond.

And I can only restate what I've already said. AB is a terrorist. Period. Even if u claim that he didnt murder children or rape women himself(a tall claim actually, considering his affiliations), as an avowed member of an internationally banned terror group, he is well within the realms of the "Terrorist" tag. And whether he suffered from diabetes or syphilis is irrelevant to the discussion. Keep that out of this discussion even if you cant help being awed by the fact that he had a screwed up medical history.

And, please dont give me nonsense like - "Why is Dawood Ibrahim not tagged?", "Why is Milosevic not tagged" etc.,. Those are the least of my concerns. If you feel that they ought to be tagged as terrorists too, please go ahead and do it. I cannot be expected to answer for articles that I dont edit.

A terrorist by any other name would stink just as bad. And, AB is a terrorist. Nothing more. Sarvagnya 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NO personal attack read WP:NPA do not attack of fellow wikipedians WP:ATTACK and assume good faith WP:AGF and maintain civility WP:Civil in all your conversations and discussions.


 * Also I reverted your edit, reasonable people are discussing this controversial issue on the talk page to resolve it. Follow wiki process show us WP:RS source before tagging thankRaveenS


 * Personal Attack? Where? I commented on the content and not the contributor. And I will not hesitate to repeat that Rajsingam's poor attempt at making a case for murderers and rapists like LTTE and its members IS 'puerile blah blah blah'.  So is his talking about this terrorist's health condition.  WP cannot be reduced to a platform for blatant propaganda by apologists of despicable organisations like LTTE.


 * Turning a blind eye to such attempts will, in the long run undermine the project. So, AFA i am concerned, I have a zero-tolerance policy for such shameless propaganda.  I treat it with the contempt it deserves and will continue to do so. Good luck trying to make a case for the ltte.  Sarvagnya 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encylopedia project not a personal blog, everything we write has to be attributed and cited properly. What you and I feel about him has no meaning in writing a properly cited and neutral article. Find a WP:RS source that is WP:V verfiable and and WP:NPOV neutral that says he is a terrorist and I will be the first one to agree with you to tag him. Meanwhile you are flaunting all wikipedia rules inspite of my requests hence as a step one I have reported you to admin and I will follow this up unless you follow wiki rules. Thanks RaveenS 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable sources to back up a "terrorist" tag, no matter what mischief LTTE is up to. Rajsingam's "case for murderers" is a fantasy as well. Not calling him a terrorist is hardly propaganda, as it seems right wing Sri Lankan neocons are the only ones calling him a terrorist. Accusing editors of complicity with separatist orgs is definitely a personal attack, and merely brings into prominence some deep rooted prejudices you have (note that no other ethnicity has a "militant" cat). Baka man  23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bakaman I agree, I think we should replace the Tamil militants with Sri Lankan rebels category also the onus is on the ditor to find the sources to back up his claim here. We will give him 5 days to do it and if he does not then revert it. Thanks RaveenS 23:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * O and for the record, I am not a supporter of LTTE (they are Dravidian nationalists, perpetrating racism in the south and indirectly advocating for terrorists like Abdul Nasser Madani) and RAveen i think is not Tamil at all. Baka man  00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Refered to Biography

 * Refered to Biography on Debate over whether it is appropriate to call Anton Balasingham a terrorist.Rajsingam 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attn: Sarvagnya

 * Reply Hallo, Sarvagnya, Check your sanity first. I meant his medical condition to justify, his tireless commitment for the peace process. Because of that only Mr. Erik Solheim, International Development Minister of Norway attended the funeral and commented on him in his funeral in London. Even Norwegian special envoy for the peace process in Sri Lanka Jon Hansen-Bauer praised late Anton Balasingam for his invaluable contribution to the peace efforts, and said "Norway will miss a much valued friend." And further went to say "Anton Balasingham was a theoretician. I had great pleasure discussing with him the key thinkers in Europe and relate their philosophy and approach to the peace process in Sri Lanka".


 * The Erik Solheim you have referred to is under allegation of having gifted a TV set to prabakaran, and receiving LTTE money to build his house in norway, and also giving 2.5 million dollar's subsequant to signing the peace acccord to Anton Balasingham. As such his neutrality and comments should be questioned as to there credibility. Of course Jon Hansen-Bauer would miss "such a valuable friend" as he too would have been expecting a house from the LTTE money as solheim got!Kerr avon 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Behind Asia Tribune Sri Lankan Government and the chauvinistic elements are there, they can make any one terrosit in the world through this media and fabricate stories, you can't take into consideration or discuss on this. But for all my statements in the Tamilnet there are podcasts about the speeches of those personalities than mere words.Rajsingam 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What on world when they all people failed to see him as a "Terrorist", which made you all to see him?


 * Don't come out with your silly examples like diabetes or syphilis here. Read the message from of Chief physician Dr. Per Fauchaldhis Surgeon report on his death. I am not discussing here LTTE, but only the Anton Balasingham. I am not debating here branding the LTTE alone is proper or not as a "Terrorist Organization" compare to the atrocities committed to the Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sri Lankan Forces and Indian Peace Keeping Forces. Even I don't understand what do you all mean by "Internationally Banned", do you think in a "Universal Referendum" where the people around the world participated rather than few "Governments"(Compare to the total UN member countries)?Rajsingam 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Balasingham is a first class terrorist whose primary achievement was through his gift for gab to try to gain a degree of international "morality" for the LTTE which is the most murderous terrorist organisation in the world which pioneered suicide bombing. Even Subramanian Swamy the prominent indian politician has said that "Balasingham was a terrorist who at least once has publicly and arrogantly relished the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. In 1995 he had warned the then President of Sri Lanka, Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga that she would face the same fate as Rajiv Gandhi if she confronted the LTTE".

Reply Once you read the Swamy's Swamp by Sahabzada Yusuf Ahmad Ansari, the world will come to know who is this Subramanian Swamy.


 * If the LTTE is murderous what about the following murders and atrocities by the Sri Lankan Forces.
 * Bishop protests Police, Navy rapes and murders
 * INDICTMENT AGAINST SRI LANKA.Rajsingam 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Balasingham gave a guarantee that surrendering Sri lankan police officers will not be harmed, yet the LTTE massacred 700 police officers who surrendered . Which shows the genuiness of Balasingham. I fully endorse any descion to label this LTTE frontman as a terrorist as this is a fundamental fact as proved by the above examples amongst many others.Kerr avon 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply:  Lankaweb like Asia Tribune  is not a reliable source for further research even the Sri Lankan Government can write anything there.Rajsingam 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to all, Raj some random Muslim fundamentalist talking crap about Subramanaim Swamy is irrelevant. Swamy is a conservative Hindu, of course a Psec anti-Hindu is going to get angry. O and btw, a large number of Kashmiri terrorists are not marked as such. Bala, who has not engaged in such acts can hardly be marked as one. Baka man  22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment reply
Stopped by from an RfC. First and foremost, I have limited knowledge of this subject, which means I don't have any stake in which labels are or are not applied to Mr. Balasingham. That being said: I'm not seeing any definitive proof, linked or in-article, that he actively participated in terrorist acts. I don't follow the argument that anyone that belonged to a group that may have had terrorist acts perpetrated by some of its members qualifies as being "a terrorist," or there'd be a lot of French Quebeckers and Irish folks with an awful lot to answer for. I don't think "terrorist" should be applied unless there is some incontrovertible proof that he actively engaged in terrorist acts; that wouldn't include celebrating them, writing about them or contemplating them publicly, no matter how despicable such things might be. Does that make sense? If somebody has proof that the man was a terrorist -- criminal conviction, self-confession, documented evidence -- then by all means apply the tag. But if he was just called a "terrorist" by people that were opposed to his politics and affiliations, that doesn't make the tag justifiable. --MattShepherd 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen MattShepherd. There is nothing even to discuss about this Terrorists category. I don't see anything here rather than the absence of common sense of my fellow Wikipedian. Anton Balasingham is the chief strategist and the chief negotiator or the apologist of one of the most barbaric terrorist groups that has carried out the highest number of suicide attacks and most of them were targeted at innocent civilians. And not even that, LTTE was banned by more than 20 countries including US, UK, Canada and EU. I've seen here a lame argument raised by one of my fellow wikipedians comparing the number of countries that banned the LTTE with the total number of countries in the world. He is the adviser in the top level who is also the composer of the LTTE leader's annual speech and a representer of LTTE in all the unsuccessful peacetalks since 1985. Obviously he definitely knows all the crimes being carried out by the LTTE even before the plan is taken into the discussion table. So my friend there is no need of any documented evidence or anything else other than the Human Rights Violations in the LTTE article and the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. One of my fellow wikipedians has started this, as he feels sorry towards Anton Balasingham. If you feel you should know something more than this, please contact SebastianHelm who is the Sri lanka related articles mediator accepted by everyone. Happy Editing! -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 10:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply DearMattShepherd you are right in your argument.

I don’t know whether he is thinking Wikipedia should be monopolized by the fascist Sri Lankan killers who are some or other way marginalizing the Tamils in Sri Lanka since the independence. He is talking about commonsense. I don’t think so even he has an iota of that.




 * Genocide '83


 * Disappearances & Extra Judicial Killings
 * Rape & Murder of Eelam Tamil Women
 * Torture of Eelam Tamils


 * War Crimes: Sri Lanka - the Record Speaks....


 * Media & the Tamil Struggle Selective Reporting, Disinformation & Murder of Journalists


 * SRI LANKA ACCUSED AT UNITED NATIONS


 * State Terrorism in Sri Lanka






 * He was the political adviser not the adviser to LTTE leader to carry out suicide attacks or to scheme military activities.


 * Composing the LTTE leader's annual speech or representing LTTE doesn’t qualify him for the "Terrorist Tag" at all.





For what? :Here anyone can comment independently and dragging a wikipedian to discuss with some other wikipedians is not acceptable. Then he can come out with his opinions here. :Others are also expert in the Sri Lankan Conflict here. Rajsingam 12:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.. - Abraham Lincoln Hope you can understand what I'm saying. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  Walkie-talkie |undefined 13:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: The advice from Abraham Lincoln could be applicable to all in this world.


 * I think you can understand what I am exactly trying to say.Rajsingam 14:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru, Rajsingham, I think maybe you could both benefit from a bit of a cooling-down period. You obviously both feel very strongly about the issue (and I'm sure you both have excellent reasons for believing what you do), but saying someone is a terrorist in the absence of concrete evidence isn't helpful on Lahiru's side, and Rajsingham, whatever the Sri Lankan government may have done doesn't change the material fact of whether or not Balasingham engaged in acts that are legigimately considered terrorism. You may feel that whatever actions he engaged in were justified, but that's not the issue at hand. Frankly, I don't feel qualified to define "terrorist" to universal satisfaction in an RfC, but I don't see anything in this article that says more than he was affiliated with a group that is considered by some to be a terrorist organization. --MattShepherd 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hence we can conclude that to tag anyone as a Terrorits he/she must have taken part in an act labelled as terrorist by a WP:RS. So any one who is categorized as a Sri Lankan Rebel can be tagged as a terrorist as long as in the talk page such evidence is provided ? Thanks RaveenS 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unnecessary wording"
In this diff, the attribution "anti-rebel" has been removed with the summery "Unnecessary wording". This is not unnecessary, but the result of a compromise. See WP:SLR and WP:SLR for why this is necessary.

However, the whole paragraph is not very encyclopedic; it can be easily argued that it doesn't fulfill WP:N. We therefore have two options: Since the latter is the less dramatic change I will do that one for now. &mdash; Sebastian 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove the paragraph completely per WP:N
 * 2) Reinsert the attribution.


 * I think that this should be REMOVED because as you stated of the Note. This is a biography of this man and we cannot just add stuff that is not at all related to him. This should be taken off immediately as he had nothing to do with this "Spending". What the LTTE do after his death is a whole different fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I took off the sentence as per WP:N. Also remember this is a biography what the LTTE did for his death does not have anything to do with his biography. He is not the one who asked for the 8 million rupee spending (even if we were to assume its true). Also on conflicting views LTTE has said no one in their de facto state was starving while the 5 year CFA was in place. So then we will have to add that source also as per WP:NPOV and then this will not be a biography anymore. Thanks Watchdogb 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are covering his "elaborate" funeral, then you have to mention the criticism of it. Either take out the the entire funeral section, or keep both sides of the story.
 * And I suggest everyone read WP:N very closely, as I don't see how it is even related to this paragraph. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly I did not cover his funeral. Secondly even if it did not fail WP:N then there is still a problem with the whole point of biography. This is a biography page. He did not do anything to spend the money as stated in the anti rebel website. Its not his fault that he died and its not his fault that someone had spend a lot of money for his funeral. Sorry reverting. Watchdogb 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PS the article says that some "People's retrieval force" has put out these posters. So back to the WP:RS... How are we going to assume that what the "People's retrieval force" is indeed saying the truth ? How are we to believe that the money came from srilanka ? Remember he worked in england and as I know the england pound is way over 100 Srilankan rupees. Please bring proper proof of the source of "People's retrival force" about this money comming from Srilanka and not the UK.


 * Your not clear with what your saying. Because if the funeral section is included, then the criticism of it should also be included. If you want wither delete the entire section, or leave the entire section.
 * It does not say as a fact that X money was spent on the funeral, it simply says that there were posters condemning the funeral. It's up to the reader to judge whether the posters were true or not.
 * And I'm just completely lost as to what the current exchange rate has to do with any of this.--<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 02:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I never said that we should keep the funeral section. I did not say we should take it off either. Thats not my problem however, my problem is adding the info without proper citation. Asian tribune is QS and it should not be used to establish notability according to WP:SLR. Also you obviously do not understand the fact that anyone could have written the posters without any proof or truth behind it. If I were to put up posters about the Srilankan army and if LTTEPS publish this info then are we going to add that to the SLA article ? LOL I allready know people who will jump on the oppertunity on deleting that part.


 * Again this fails WP:N as the Asian Tribune does not give proper reference to the article. Asian Tribune just simply says "Peoples retrieval force" posted these articles. As per WP:N Asian Tribune does not give detailed info about this incident and we would need some sort of RS to back up this information. Since we don't have any then this fails WP:N.


 * Moreover This is a biography and how is LTTE spending 8 million rupees on posters apply to him ? HE did not do the spending and he did not ask for such spending (especially the part about people starving in the east (again no proof)). This is more related to the LTTE than Anton himslef. His funeral ? I agree some of the part on the funeral does not belong here but again some of it does. Like the part about people weeping shows how much this man was loved by his people and the fact that many came from other countries also should stay to show the dedication of the people to this man. As for the parts that do not belong... you can take it off if you want. I do not want to look like I want to sabotash the article in anyway. Watchdogb 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 02:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who ever wrote the above paragraph disqualified himself from writing anything regarding LTTE and related issues.With such a naive knowledge of Sri Lankan issues I would kindly ask this above person to study the issue before even start touching the article..And I would also like to ask this person to use glasses and see what's written on those posters properly. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Way to go iwazaki way to bring your trademark attack on follow editor. Sorry I do not understand Tamil to read it . It does not matter who "wrote the article". It a point about it not being RS/QS. Watchdogb 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * way to go Elalan, with your hilarious editing.They were immediately reverted.Actually I am kinda surprised that You talk about AGF here while condemning Our country,Wikipedia Admins, several of Wiki Editors before..I still remember what You wrote at your Talk page ^_^.

O I perfectly understand what's written in the posters.. Who said Asia tribune is not WP:RS and why ?? Was it beloved Prabha ? Or the Tamil Canadians like you ?? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude the above was written by me... I have no Idea how I became Elalan. Asian Tribune is not WP:RS per WP:SLR. Please check it out thanks Watchdogb 04:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Per SLR? do you think a handful of users can decide to label stuff "pro-government", "anti-LTTE" etc etc? If I form a project and decide to call the LTTE terrorists in every article will that go? No. If you want to call a news organization something like that, you need to provide citations. And if this "is a biography" and the LTTE spending 8 million rupees on posters doesn't apply to him, what does "An eloborate funeral was organized at Alexandra Palace in north London"? He was dead so he didn't stage it. You're talking about a double edged sword here. Either both sections stay, or both go. I don't mind either way. --<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 07:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

<S>::::I have only one question about this whole series of edits. Where is the WP:V verifiability of the posters that were to have been pasted in Britain (all over Britain - removed it because it was silly) in Tamil language. We can verify so called elaborate (I removed it because it was un-encyclopedic) funeral from Tamilnet via pictures and TV programs, but how do we verify what Asiantribune says ?



Do we have a picture of the poster or do we have some other reputable news organization commenting about it. ?


 * Also this is what Wikipedia says about questionable sources - A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. For me Asiantribune may meet this definition and we can take it to mediation about it too, if that's what it takes. But we can talk about these things before that eventuality. RaveenS 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)</S>

I have been following these discussion and I have noticed how the hard singalese supporters allways claim anything that is anti-LTTE is Reliable source but then when it comes to sites that are Pro-LTTE they claim it is not. I do not see how that can be ? I think we need some admins to take a look at this. This is wikipedia not State-Terrorism promoting site. 130.63.110.21 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the outcome of this decision, I've moved the quote to a different section. Subramanian Swamy isn't a member of the Tamil Nadu government, so it doesn't make sense to place his reaction in a section headed "State Government of Tamil Nadu". There is also the question of whether he is sufficiently notable to have his reaction highlighted here, per WP:UNDUE. -- Arvind (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Explicit attribution of BBC
There needs to be no explicit attribution of the editor of BBC article as BBC is a neutral, mainstream WP:RS news. In addition other article which use BBC as a source do not explicitly attribute the editor and there is no reason to do so in this article. Watchdogb (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, BBC needs no explicit attribution per WP:SLR. Since this article is under SLDR all rules of SLDR applies and as such WP:SLR also apply. Any breach will be reported. Watchdogb (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image
The current image of the person was kept after a deletion debate. A picture of free use can be used in wikipedia and the only way to take care of concern of the so called "copy violation" is to address the problem on the page of the picture. Watchdogb (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)