Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Discussion on FBI notice

A long thread of arguments that has not been active since June 2023
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have previously shown the FBI notice to be unreliable with poor fact checking, for example, its claimed death toll contradicts it's other publications. it is not directly related to the proscription either. Oz346 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Regarding FBI source poor fact checking and unreliability: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#FBI_Press_Release_and_Potential_Clash_of_Numbers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War/Archive_4 Oz346 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC) I can say the same about Karen Parker.Cossde (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Can you? Can you please point out a factual inaccuracy in the Karen Parker reference? Because the FBI notice has an incorrect death toll figure which contradicts their own publications and conflates the entire civilians death toll (due to all parties) with just the LTTE. Oz346 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Who is Parker? An indivedual! who seem to have a diffrent opinion on the LTTE and uses an argument of its convencional warfare cablaiblity as means to claim its an armed force. Yet Parker forgets how it got there by enageing in terrrorit acitivities. In fact by saying the LTTE kills civilians, Parker justifies the kiling of civilians by armed forces. Where as the FBI artcile is used to cite not the figures here but share its anaylisis.Cossde (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I have added a secondary scholarly source directly dealing with the U.S. proscription. FBI’s primary source notice is redundant and it doesn’t deal with the proscription of foreign groups. Its role is to crackdown on the domestic activities of groups that the state department proscribes. So when you cite the FBI notice, it makes it look like the FBI’s 2008 claims were the reasons why the state department had proscribed the LTTE in 1997. It is original research to connect FBI’s claims to the terrorist designation since the notice itself doesn’t explicitly connect LTTE’s terrorist designation to its claims of "among the most dangerous and deadly extremist outfits in the world". As for Karen Parker, she stated other governments should stay neutral in civil wars, though she didn't explicitly deal with the proscriptions by governments specifically. Both can be removed. Petextrodon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) @Cossde @Oz346 NOTE as per WP:Consensus: “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.” I would like to address a point the other editor made: “the FBI artcile is used to cite not the figures here but share its anaylisis.” If the analysis isn’t based on facts and figures cited in the same notice, what is it then based on? “amongst the most dangerous and deadly” description could only refer to the kill count. By the way, the notice wasn’t meant as an “analysis”. It was just a notice warning people to be vigilant of LTTE fundraising activities which explains the sensationalism. As another editor already noted in that 2009 noticeboard: “it's essentially a pep talk to make police aware of LTTE.” Since neither FBI nor Karen Parker explicitly connect their statements to the proscriptions by governments, citing them here is WP:OR and/or WP:IRRELEVANT, therefore should be removed. Is this acceptable? Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) @Cossde Hello, could you address my points directly? Also sign your replies next time. Petextrodon (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC) @Petextrodon, thank you for reminding my typo in the signature. Its fixed. I don't HAVE TO address you. If you want you can take off Karen Parker's statement. To begin with its a personal opinion at the end of statements by Governments. Therefore, event if its there it has little to no worth. As appose to a government agency that has been hunting down terrorists since J. Edgar Hoover.Cossde (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC) well you have to address the editors in the talk discussion in order to build consensus, that's how it works. Could you show where in the FBI notice the claims "amongst the most dangerous and deadly extremists" is explicitly connected to the terrorist proscription, in order for you to include it under the section on government proscription? Petextrodon (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC) @Cossde I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Petextrodon (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC) @Petextrodon, you are free to file a complaint against me in ANI, however please remember that you are removing content cited that has been in this page for a long time and that has been been debated in the past this can be considered WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, might I remind you it was Oz346 that removed it from its original place in the HR violations [1], without consensus after it had been there for a long time and now you remove cited as well. Since you feel that this content is not suitable in this section I will move it to the lead and place it along side the similar AisaWeek comparison to Che Guevara. I have also added other RS that has citied this reference. Cossde (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War/Archive 4 a similar issue was raised on this page regarding use of this sensationalist source in the lead, and an admin @El C: ruled in favour of its removal. It is wikipedia undue weight, already there is mention of the LTTE as being labelled as terroristic and designated a terrorist organisation (including by the USA). An equivalent to this on the other side would be to get multiple sensationalist sources saying repeatedly that LTTE are freedom fighters. Already this contradiction has been summed up succinctly on the intro (guerilla vs terrorist). Adding this FBI quote is definitely not NPOV. Another third opinion seems necessary. Oz346 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Also the debate in the past was regarding its erroneous figures, which I have since conclusively shown to be false. There was no real consensus on that discussion in that link, instead one editor Wikireader41 who is a self proclaimed fan of the CIA and other intelligence agencies was firmly supporting the FBI (hardly free of bias that particular opinion - see his profile page), when in actual fact the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission is a far more reliable agency for the death toll figures. Oz346 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC) You should first engage in the discussion on the validity of the source and its claims before adding it into the introduction which can be considered undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. Remember what you had stated elsewhere: "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Petextrodon (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC) It's farcical, this FBI source has been conclusively shown to distort and amplify crucial figures like the total civilian death toll attributed to the LTTE in the prefinal phase of the war by many thousands, and is a source with proven poor fact checking. It is sensationalist and seems to have been written by a staff member with poor research skills. It really is not suitable for a high quality referenced encyclopaedia. If any source can be described as highly questionable it's this. Oz346 (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC) It was not a matter of "poor research skills" but an active propaganda campaign meant to support the police crackdown on LTTE fundraising activities right after the Sri Lankan government had pulled out of the ceasefire agreement and launched the final military offensive against the LTTE. As The Economic Times stated of the FBI notice: "the timing of the advisory comes as an indication that the Bush administration is openly siding with the Sri Lankan government in its war against the LTTE." It's a clearly biased source, not suitable for the lead section. Petextrodon (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC) You may be right about that. It’s like citing the FBI’s Red Scare propaganda notice on the introduction to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It is certainly not WP:NPOV for an introduction into the subject matter. https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare Oz346 (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)::::::It is also undue weight to include it, as one of the agencies of the US government has already been used to rationalize the proscription (which has far more relevance). Oz346 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC) The use of FBI as a source has been debated in the past. Something to do with their view of the LTTE links to terrorism dont seem to sit well with those who want to whitewash them. FBI meets WP the criteria for RS. If you look at the list of approved RS for Sri Lankan Civil War topics such as the Tamil Net and News media, get figures wrong at times and does a lot of sensationalize. So if we are to drop an official FBI article, lets by all means drop Tamil Net. Cossde (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Can you please provide evidence that Tamilnet which is noted for fact checking: TamilNet#Criticism and Counter-Criticism has made a distortion of figures as huge as what the FBI have said. The FBI in their sensationalist propaganda war have erroneously attributed the total 4000 civilians death toll of that phase of the war (the vast majority of which were actually due to Sri Lankan government forces) to just the LTTE, when the Sri Lankan Monitoring mission said that the figure was due to deaths by all parties. Oz346 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Tamilnet has already been discussed no need to discuss again.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed, it has been listed as a Pro-LTTE RS. Cossde (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC) the FBI notice does not fit the criteria for RS and has clear evidence of poor fact checking with false information and figures, that contradict it's other publications as well as other reliable sources such as ICG which quote the figures from the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission. Not to mention it's clear sensationalist language. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Wikipedia own policies on the reliable sources article I've quoted above clearly indicate that it unsuitable to be used to make contentious claims against 3rd parties. It should be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that needs to have quality control. Not to regurgitate unreliable sources with proven evidence of poor fact checking and sensationalism. Oz346 (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC) I can only agree with one thing, this might not be suitable in the header, therefore the history section would be most appororiate. All else what you said is good, if only there was RS to prove your hypostasis. You forget that you are refering to the principal federal law enforcement agency of the United States, I find it hard to belive that per Wikiepdia standards it can not be considered a RS. Furthermore, the Hindu and the Times of India has quoted the statement of the FBI and has arrested and procecuted several persons linked to LTTE over the past years. Therefore I don't see why this content was removed from this page to begin with.Cossde (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC) I see no useful purpose for its inclusion other than purely for its propaganda value. Enough U.S. state agencies have been cited against the LTTE and to add this would give undue weight to a party (U.S. government) who by its own words wasn’t neutral in the conflict but according to Sri Lankan government officials contributed significantly to the Sri Lankan government’s war efforts against the LTTE. FBI's crackdown on those linked to the LTTE only reinforces the notion that it's a biased source. As The Economic Times article that you cited stated regarding the FBI notice: "the timing of the advisory comes as an indication that the Bush administration is openly siding with the Sri Lankan government in its war against the LTTE." FBI may be “the principal federal law enforcement agency of the United States” but it’s still a government agency engaged in counterintelligence with a notorious history of discrediting the political opponents of the U.S. government. The purpose of its warning notice is NOT objective scholarly analysis but to serve the political objective of the U.S. government. Petextrodon (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Do you have RS confirming that FBI is engaged in propaganda for the U.S. government in support of the Sri Lankan government? If not there is no reason to state that this is propaganda. Even if is there are many pro-LTTE sources quoted here, some of which are clear propaganda. If what you say is correct, then these need to be removed to maintain WP:NPOV. WP:PARTISAN states "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. In fact Provisional Irish Republican Army page covers FBI activity in blocking IRA's arms supply from America. Furthemore, statements by US officals and other US Agenices have been included or citited in this page, even by you. Therefore, given that this content is properally citied, you have no clear grounds to object or remove it. Cossde (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Definition of propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." Yes this is clear propaganda. It has cooked up a false astronomically inflated figure of the civilian death toll due to the LTTE, and this is proven by it's own FBI yearly reports which have contradictory numbers (which incidentally are also full of sloppy errors and distortion), as well as the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War/Archive_4 Oz346 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) "Do you have RS confirming that FBI is engaged in propaganda for the U.S. government in support of the Sri Lankan government?" The Economic Times article that you cited connects FBI's notice to the U.S. government's open support for the Sri Lankan government. Therefore, it is a political statement in support of one side of the conflict, not a neutral analysis as you think. "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Yes, but only when you cite it accordingly, and not as a neutral analysis comparable to scholarly literature. But enough U.S. state agencies viewpoints have already been cited. You have now agreed that its inclusion to the introduction is inappropriate. Where do you then hope to add it and for what purpose? "In fact Provisional Irish Republican Army page covers FBI activity in blocking IRA's arms supply from America." But it's just a matter-of-fact statement describing an action by the FBI, not citing FBI's warning notice with contentious words like "most dangerous and deadly extremists" as a serious analysis. Petextrodon (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) That I can agree with, that this would not be situable in the lead, however it would be suitable in the history section under the subsection of military defeat, in addition to the FBI warring, content on FBI operations to precure weapon in the US can be included in it.Cossde (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Why do you seem so insistent on adding this particular notice when better reliable sources could be used for the same purpose? I realize its sensationalist claims have had much warm reception in Sri Lanka among the government and its supporters but for the purpose of a neutral encyclopedia its weight ought to be much less. Petextrodon (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC) And I do realize that it has not sat well with the LTTE or its supporters. Perhaps the US's stance and this view taken up by the FBI had played some part in the LTTE's downfall. I don't have any reference to claim it. However, it remains an historic fact that the FBI did make such a statement, when it did and had not retracted it since. Therefore, it is all but fair to include it in Wiki. Given that its cleary stated that its from the FBI, hence will not effect neutralality since, the US Governement had decalared the LTTE a terroirst orgernization well over a decade before.Cossde (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) My final stance on this issue is that we already have enough viewpoints of U.S. state agencies, therefore any more addition from yet another U.S. state agency is just excessive at this point. Let's see what a third party opinion that you requested has to say. -- Petextrodon (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) I am sorry to hear that you have adopted a final stance. However I am not surprised. I don't agree with your view since 1) this is an official FBI statement that has been republished by RS 2) I feel it does not violate WP:NPOV since there are many pro-LTTE sources cited in this article. If your logic is followed, then these need to be removed as well. 3) There is no Wiki rule limiting citied content on the basis of what you call "yet another U.S. state agency is just excessive at this point". This war has had involvement of multiple countries over the years. One can argue that there is enough reference to India or the EU here in this page, however such content still remains. Finally, your stance is not on adding of new conntent, but the removal of content that have been in this page for a long time that had been removed by Oz346 without common agreement.Cossde (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC) "One can argue that there is enough reference to India or the EU here in this page, however such content still remains." You're adding viewpoints, not simply describing an action of a state agency. If your real priority were just about describing FBI's crackdown on fundraising, there would be no need to add excess details about alleged influence on Al-Qaeda because even if the LTTE hadn't used the suicide tactic the U.S. policy would still have favoured the Sri Lankan government. "Finally, your stance is not on adding of new conntent, but the removal of content that have been in this page for a long time that had been removed by Oz346 without common agreement." The content was removed from sections unsuitable for it, which is why you have now suggested to include additional paragraphs to the history section just to accommodate this content. -- Petextrodon (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Who and how was it determined that it was unsuitable? Cossde (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) I've been asked to opine on the issue surrounding the FBI. So far, the FBI's claims seem fringe and inconsistent with other sources (including, I believe, Sri Lankan government accounting). At best, we should put something like, "the FBI claimed...". As for the broader implication, as alluded to here, of whether the LTTE's lower casualty level makes it more moral — not necessarily. I mean, I could just say that the Sri Lankan security forces were better at defending their people (Sinhalese, Muslims, and even Tamils to an extent). If you had to choose between two protection forces: one under whose watch 4,000 died, or another under whose watch 200,000+ died (according to the highest estimates), whom would you choose? SinhalaLion (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC) I have been asked to opine on the FBI issue would agree with Petextrodon and FBI's claims seem fringe and inconsistent with other sources and hence better sources can be used.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)