Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam/Archive 7

Removed bogus reference to drug smuggling, no credible proof for that

Sri Lanka's preoccupation with the LTTE depletes the resources needed to adequately address the nation's drug problem. The conflict with the LTTE absorbs the attention of the country's naval forces, preventing the adequate patrol of Sri Lanka's 1,100 miles of coastline. DEA intelligence suggests the LTTE finance their insurgency through drug trafficking. Information obtained since the mid-1980's indicates that some Tamil Tiger communities in Europe are also involved in narcotics smuggling, having historically served as drug couriers moving narcotics into Europe.

It say's that DEA intelligence suggests and Information obtained since the mid-1980's indicates. Sorry, but that is just not hard facts. For the last sentence, it's like saying that since some of the tamil's smuggle drugs, the LTTE is responsible. It may be so, but no proof again, so it should be removed from the article. Ulflarsen 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to actually read the report, you'll have noticed it isn't as much their finding, but the cited quotations of others, including the CSIS. But since I'm sure you'll continue to dispute that report, I added the CSIS article directlym and another one which quotes a Lloyds report

The LTTE owned four vessels: The Sun Bird, Golden Bird, Illana and the Cauline, all registered with the Panama-based Yarl Shipping Co. The internationat shipping magazine, Lloyd's List revealed that 11 ships registered in Panama, Honduras and Liberia transported heroin for the LTTE.

And remember, the wording isn't "the LTTE smuggled drugs, period". It is "the LTTE have been implicated in drug smuggling". --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think now we have enough reference that LTTE did smuggle drugs to finance their terrorist acts. This indicates that only Ulflarsen thinks that there is "No Credible Proof", because many international media and security intelligence community thinks Otherwise. Specially the DEA report produced to a senate committee is undeniable. A short stint as a SLMM monitor wouldn't make anyone an intelligence expert on LTTE to deny reports by the DEA or the international media. I think we have consensus on this. Please do not remove the comments or references unless you can prove these media/intelligence reports are incorrect. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 06:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am so appalled at the personal attack here on a completely neutral editor that too from harmonious club members. A short stint as a SLMM monitor wouldn't make anyone an intelligence expert on LTTE to deny reports by the DEA or the international media. This is completely uncalled for. It is totally against WP:NPA. Please refrain from concentrating on editors but on the content of editing. Look for compromises in these situations. What would you like to see in the LTTE article short of categorically saying they smuggled drugs. How about saying allegations of drug smuggling ? About reports to the US congress by this or that American agency is as credible as Colin Powell going to the UN claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when he personally doubted it. So guys lets discuss rationally and reach a concensus without attacking people. Thanks 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned anything but the validity of the links, to use my past one year with the SLMM in this discussion would be totally out of context. Besides that, the Essjay affair has shown us quite clearly that we should rely on the facts listed and references backing them up. Regarding the reference listed as proof here, I will check one by one.

The reference from Stratmag has statements like; " Depinder Singh argues that the arms obtained from the above mentioned Singapore source "confirms the suspicion of the drug connection." and "Victor Ivan, a JVP activist-turned-journalist informed the authorities heroin coming through India's northeast heroin is being supplied to Colombo big business in return for money, a view confirmed by Denis Perera. Ivan believes that drug trafficking is the LTTE's main source of money." Note the words suspicion and believes - no hard facts.

The reference from CSIS-SCRS likewise says: "One of the most recent apprehensions occurred in September 1998 when a 34-year-old Tamil was arrested at Maduari airport carrying 27 kilograms of heroin, worth approximately 54 million rupees. According to officials from the Indian customs Central Intelligence Unit, the quantity of heroin seized suggested that "very powerful people were involved in the deal." They also confirmed that they would be looking closely at possible LTTE involvement in the attempted smuggling operation." A tamil is taken as a drug courir, that is not a proof for the LTTE running drug smuggling.

The reference from svik.org says: "t is also believed the JI is cooperating with the LTTE drug smuggling activities." It is believed, that is the word. No hard facts from reliable sources.

The reference from DEA says: "DEA intelligence suggests the LTTE finance their insurgency through drug trafficking. Information obtained since the mid-1980's indicates that some Tamil Tiger communities in Europe are also involved in narcotics smuggling, having historically served as drug couriers moving narcotics into Europe." The DEA "suggests" and "indicates" - the last was linking tamils possibly smuggling drugs with LTTE. It would be as if some Norwegians smuggling drugs meant that the party they voted for was behind them. Again, no hard facts.

The reference from Mackenzieinstitute has a lot of statements regarding LTTE and drugs, but then ends up writing; "However, there is an important point to make. While various Canadian police forces are convinced that the LTTE is making money inside Canada through a number of legal and illegal means, they have yet to make a positive connection between drug trafficking in Canada and the Tigers, although individual Tamils have been caught smuggling heroin into Canada." So no hard facts and thus no positive connection.

The reference from The Economist Intelligence Unit says: "The LTTE is involved in drug smuggling to fund its operations and has adopted tactics similar to those used by organised crime, such as extortion and people smuggling. These activities, however, tend to occur outside Sri Lanka, among Tamil communities in other countries." The Economist is a good source, but from where is this information? Not a hint regarding where this goes on and how possible smuggling of drugs by tamils are connected to LTTE.

The reference from Sepiamutiny tells about an australian of Tamil origin that: "was sentenced to death this week for running a ring smuggling heroin from Bali to Australia". No doubt about that - but where is the connection to the LTTE?

The reference from The Hindu Businessline says: "India will be fully justified in proposing such action given the role of the LTTE in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and in its numerous terrorist activities, including gun running and drug smuggling across the world." Again, a statement - but no facts. Regarding this source it is interesting to note that in the beginning of the article it says "The Sri Lankan naval convoy was carrying the Head of the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission (SLMM), Norway's Major General, Ulf Henricsson." Henricsson was not with the convoy, and neither is he Norwegian - he is Swedish. If that statement is in line with the truth of the rest of the article, this one can surely be deleted.

I have checked each reference listed, not much to show for here. The one reliable source I would find interesting is The Economist Intelligence Unit, but there is no data backing it up and neither does it seem to be possible to find elsewhere. Using Google and searching for LTTE + drugs does not bring up much of value, most is diehard sinhalese propaganda.

If there is no better data regarding LTTE and drugsmuggling then the statement needs to be deleted from the article. We can not reliably show they are behind it, and thus it can not be there. Ulflarsen 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note - Sepiamutiny is a blog. Blogs do not meet WP:RS.Bakaman 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Well..Well...What a mind-boggling reply!! Does it even come close in making any sense? I am not sure what's MR Ulflarsen expecting here, may be an admissions by the LTTE it self ? Having read Mr Ulflarson so called analytical work on sources, not to mention SLMM had always got their numbers wrong, I am in a total lost..If we purely go by this logic, dismissing every source, just because they don't fit in someone's logic, we must start removing all the Amnesty,BBC,HRW citations. As many of them only state the incidents and do not give hard facts at all..Or, we may add a special rule here, I reckon imposing ,unless parabha admit it nothing can be true as a rule.I hope Mr Ulflarsen won't disagree here.Long live SLMM !! Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the LTTE, I am highly critical of them for several reasons; the proven record they have of child-recruitment, their terror tactics (murdering opponents), their disregard for democracy. So implying that I am supporting the LTTE when I ask for facts - as is also the policy of Wikipedia, I can just reply that there is no basis for that. And, the best way to beat the LTTE, is not to start using their proven tactic of not telling the truth. Anyone with knowledge about the conflict and the LTTE knows that they have been proscribed by a number of countries - for good reasons. For Mr Iwazaki, I ask you to check out the sources yourself, or try finding better ones. Ulflarsen 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely choose to ignore what I wrote before. So to make it very clear again, Lloyds, the highly respected shipping mag, reported

The LTTE owned four vessels: The Sun Bird, Golden Bird, Illana and the Cauline, all registered with the Panama-based Yarl Shipping Co. The internationat shipping magazine, Lloyd's List revealed that 11 ships registered in Panama, Honduras and Liberia transported heroin for the LTTE.

So please read what I said again and don't continue to waste everyone's time.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding ignoring, you have again added the link to www.svik.no, before you continue contributing to wikipedia you need to read up on this guideline Reliable sources and this policy Attribution. Regarding the reference you made, it seems it comes from this link [1] - and that article specifically states that: "Definitive proof linking the LTTE to an official policy of drug running has yet to materialize.(26) However, a number of analysts have pointed out that the LTTE is in a particularly advantageous position to traffic narcotics thanks to the highly efficient international network it has developed to smuggle munitions around the world." The only good source I can find among the various you listed is the one I have mentioned above, from The Economist, it does not however state any source for the information and as long as that is the only reliable source it should not be taken without careful checking it. It is strange, given all the allegations regarding LTTE drug smuggling, that so little - or any, hard fact is available on this. Ulflarsen 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of scholarly and intelligence-related articles that make reference to LTTE drug smuggling. Check out GoogleScholar Here is a very small sampling: Center for Strategic and International Studies; Smith, P. J. “Transnational Security Threats and State Survival: A Role for the Military?” Parameters, 30:3 (2000), pp. 77-91; Winer, J. M. and Roule, T. J. “Fighting Terrorist Finance” Survival, 44:3 (2002), pp. 87-104; Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I realize this won't make a bit of difference to those who are apologists for the terrorists, but this is supposed to be a scholarly project not an op-ed piece. It seems as though some on here would not believe the LTTE ran drugs unless they were able to buy the product directly from Prabhakaran himself. --King ravana 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I am very negative regarding the LTTE (I have seen too much of their fascist methods during the year I served with SLMM in Jaffna) I am very happy to hear that "There are tons of scholarly and intelligence-related articles that make reference to LTTE drug smuggling." But then - you disappoint me. The first link claims the statement below:

"The well-organized LTTE is deeply involved in drug trafficking through their "phantom fleet". Besides transporting timber, sugar and other commercial items, these ships also transport drugs from Myanmar (Burma) to Turkey. They also provide protection and courier services to the sea-borne drug shipments from Myanmar (Burma) to various countries around the world, mainly Europe and the U.S. The drug money is then channeled into arms purchases for continuing the Sri Lankan insurgency"

And I write "claims" as there are no proof listed. No arrests of proven LTTE operatives, no proof that links the LTTE to drug smuggling, just claims. Alas - no facts. And then the second link you provide, that is the same as I previously argued against over. It would be helpful if you were actually reading what I wrote, before you tried to answer to it. And as you write

"I realize this won't make a bit of difference to those who are apologists for the terrorists, but this is supposed to be a scholarly project not an op-ed piece."

-then I can again assure you that I would be just as happy as you were if Prabha were killed in a bomb attack of the Wanni. But again, as you also write, this is supposed to be a scholarly project. So as there are "tons of scholarly and intelligence-related articles that make reference to LTTE drug smuggling" - please show me that evidence. Ulflarsen 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my last edit in the sea piracy section should address, everyones concerns. Lets not fight over this. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 08:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not in a fight over this, I stay out of any more rewrites on this article, but I think you can do better than your last. If we are to record all rumours here we have some way to go, and it's not the way we try to build a solid piece that anyone wanting knowledge about this would use. Ulflarsen 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with a long reply for this since (if this was not Wikipedia I would say would say "just like the SLMM,") you completely choose to ignore any argument that proves your reasoning wrong and keep repeating the same thing. I suggest you look at articles like Uss_cole#Bombing or even Rajiv Gandi in which the actual perpetrators have not being confirmed 100%, but Wikipedia reports who is suspected by a number of reliable sources to have done it. Same case here. Like I said above, and you choose to ignore, the text never said it is absolutely certain the LTTE smuggled drugs.

And if you sidestep what I just said and continue along the same pattern of reasoning, I simply am not going to bother replying as it has wasted too much of my time already. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting development of this article. Drug smuggling (no hard evidence), forced prostitution of tamil women (again no hard evidence), one wonders what will be the next. May I suggest that LTTE was behind 9/11. Or that it was the LTTE that tricked the US into Iraq. Anyway - I have better use for my time than spending time on this article - so I leave it up to anyone interested. This does however show the need to change the process when it comes to contested articles, as today anyone with a bias can by just ignoring arguments hijack an article, not the way it was supposed to work, but alas how it is today. Ulflarsen 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are quite interesting, Wikipedia does not work the way you suggest, by stating that "there are allegations of LTTE involving in drug smuggling" is may be not proven, but we cannot deny the fact that these allegations are there, can we? So its our duty as neutral editors to cover all sides of the story, specially on a contentious subject like this. The claims are not without reference. Just because someone doesn't like it, we cannot remove it. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 13:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations are not facts and Wikipedia policy states that articles which "contains information which is particularly difficult to verify," should not have these facts included. The onus is on the editor adding the facts to PROVE the factuality and that the statements should be added. But as I have said before enjoy hijacking this article and fighting for your Sinhalese Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. - Share Bear 13:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you understand Wikipedia policies well before trying to quote them. First of all, read the first sentence of the verifiability guidelines, which neither you or Ulflarsen has done

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Understood? There is absolutely no requirement for editors to prove or disprove anything. Merely, editors should make sure everything included is cited from a reliable source. Everything added is well cited, so do not continue to add the {{totallydisputed}} tag and disrupt Wikipedia simply because you object to the material. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As you quote a official document of Wikipedia it is very interesting to see how you try to bend it to suit your own purpose. There is no doubt that the treshold for inclusion is 'verifiability, not truth. At the same time the page states in its summary that:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
• Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
• The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Since you obviously only want to adhere to the rules that fit your biased agenda, I will explain very clearly what you have done. The first sentence says that reliable sources is the one criteria. Several of the sources you have added are not such, like svik - but you have repeatedly refused to remove it and so broken a fundamental rule here.

Last but not least, please read para 3; The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

So, if you dont understand what it says - you are the one that have to go back and do your homework here.

From the sources listed I would say there is one reliable and that is as I have repeated above several times, the Economist Intelligence Unit. It is however strange that this is the only serious source that links LTTE to drugsmuggling as no other reliable source does so. If the LTTE had been into drug smuggling it would surely have been a point for law enforcement agencies, governments etc. No such source exists as far as I can see.

So a firm link to drugs is not proved, the best the article can say is that there are "rumours" regarding LTTE and drugs. When it comes to the info linking LTTE to forces prostitution by tamil girls it should be deleted, no reliable source for that. Ulflarsen 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE HARD FACTS THAT SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT THE LTTE SMUGGLED DRUGS. This is the last time I'm going to say this as I have already said 30 times before and you constantly ignore that fact. Your inability to understand that is just baffling. The DEA, CSIS, Stratmag etc, etc, etc, all link the LTTE to drug smuggling. Try to get that into your head. There are already enough reliable sources LINKING the LTTE with drug smuggling for it to be included in Wikipedia. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SAY THE LTTE SMUGGLED DRUGS per se. They only have to be reliable and mention that the LTTE are suspected to be smuggling drugs. That is why the article says

The LTTE has also been linked by various international organizations and intelligence agencies to involvement in drug trafficking

Did you post this lengthy comment without even reading the article? The fact that you said

the best the article can say is that there are "rumours" regarding LTTE and drugs

confirms that you haven't bothered to read the article, confounds this nonsense and proves my point that this entire discussion is a waste of everyone's valuable time and simply an attempt to hide the allegations of criminal activities by LTTE by supporters of the organization, and paint it as being almost angelic. This is Wikipedia, a reliable encyclopedia which is not biased and that will not be allowed to happen. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You just talk about 2 out of 7 refs for the drug trafficking. May be you are not aware about the refs of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. What do you think about those two? Are those bias? POV? bullshit? or rock solid? Tell me, here's the links.[2][3] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on the DEA link before in this section, but as you did not get it I will take it all over again:

"Sri Lanka's preoccupation with the LTTE depletes the resources needed to adequately address the nation's drug problem. The conflict with the LTTE absorbs the attention of the country's naval forces, preventing the adequate patrol of Sri Lanka's 1,100 miles of coastline. DEA intelligence suggests the LTTE finance their insurgency through drug trafficking. Information obtained since the mid-1980's indicates that some Tamil Tiger communities in Europe are also involved in narcotics smuggling, having historically served as drug couriers moving narcotics into Europe."

Then read it slowly. What it says is that it suggests. That's it. About tamil communities (and remember that tamil communities are not LTTE) it says indicates. If they had more firm data they surely would have written that. They obviously have very vague information, and that is why they use such vague and not definite language. I hope that we can have this particular link finally settled now. Ulflarsen 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then there is the second link (which I also have commented on before, in this very section), it start with stating that "Disclaimer: Publication of an article in the Commentary series does not imply CSIS authentication of the information nor CSIS endorsement of the author's views." If we look at the summary then there is no info there regarding LTTE and drugs - which it absolutely should and would, if this was a major LTTE thing. Ops - forgot - summary guys, that means that the most important points in the article is stated in a few sentences.

Then into the article (second time), it says that:

"There also have been suggestions that the LTTE raised money through drug running, particularly heroin from Southeast and Southwest Asia."

Again this word, suggestions. Now - to make myself perfectly clear, suggestions are not proof, contrary of what you believe, they are just - suggestions. Then the article goes on to say that:

"Definitive proof linking the LTTE to an official policy of drug running has yet to materialize."'

I am afraid that this is as clear as we can get it, Definitive proof is not available. Again, if there had been avalanches of such proof, the LTTE would have had to pay for it. Drug smuggling is just not acceptable by international standards and getting that label would harm the LTTE in a big way. So if we can prove this, it is big news. Problem is - we can not prove it.

So it is only in wikiworld that is goes for proven truth, not in the real world. If you are here to do decent work (not only with a biased agenda) I ask you to remove the vague info, relable it as allegations, or reinsert the POV tag - that would bring the article a small step closer to something worth reading. Ulflarsen 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Those suggestions were done by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service!!! Not by the Gov of Norway or by the Tamilnet. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We both agree on that those suggestions were done by DEA, however the CSIS was not behind the article, but all the same that article did not state that there were final proof linking LTTE to drug smuggling. Please read what your own sources say - and I have provided you with the essensial points in the article. These are the sources you try to use - but your sources does not give that proof that you try to put into them. Again, read the articles you have added, you can not use them for stating that there is final evidence that LTTE is smuggling drugs, the most they say is that they suggest. If you do not know what the word suggest means then check it with your teacher, but it does not mean the same as proof.

Government of Norway and Tamilnet? What has that to do with this? I am sure you are aware of this - but just to be sure I would remind you that Norway has been a close ally with the United states of America since 7. December 1941 - and ever since. Norwegian soldiers have been fighting together with US forces during WW2, the war in Korea, the Vietnam war and we have served together in operations as diverse as UNOSOM in Somalia, UNPROFOR in Bosnia - and right now we work closely with the US in Afghanistan. Norway is a original member of NATO and we work with our allies against terrorism and drug smuggling.

To round it up - the sections need to be labelled POV until they are rewritten as Wikipedia is about facts - not baseless or lightly founded allegations and biased comments from editors partial in an internal conflict. Ulflarsen 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What part of "THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SAY THE LTTE SMUGGLED DRUGS per se. They only have to be reliable and mention that the LTTE are suspected to be smuggling drugs" do you not understand? This is just stupid. I can't write it in simpler English, so if you don't understand that all I can say is you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that just because some reliable source says that they are "Suspected" then we can present it as "fact" in the article ? Shouldn't we have something like "The ltte are suspected by X to be smuggling drugs/peple" ? I just see huge paragraphs saying that they smuggle drugs and then have citation to a source. Thats now how we should present this info. Watchdogb 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Its nice to see you're getting the point Watchdog. And that's exactly why the text says

The LTTE has also been linked by various international organizations and intelligence agencies to involvement in drug trafficking

It is not presented as a fact, and that is why the sentence is not POV. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sounds like weasel wording to me. If there isn't good evidence to support the claim, then the mere mention of the claim is pushing a POV. However, even if you reject that, note that the use of the word "linked" instead of "accused" or some other word makes it seem that it is a statement of fact which was discovered by organizations, not, as it should be, a statement of the opinion of organizations. Lexicon (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good evidence? There are like 6 citation all from reliable sources. And if the wording has to be tweaked thats fine with me. I'll change it to

A number of international organizations and intelligence agencies have accused the LTTE of involvement in drug trafficking...

If that isn't satisfactory, I'll be happy to discuss further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowolfd4 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

After using Google I found this link to an article on BBC connecting LTTE with drug smuggling [4], it is from the Indian National Security Advicer M. K. Narayanan giving a speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. Mr Narayanan says:

"Funds from drug cultivation and trafficking in narcotics are extensively used to fund terrorist outfits. Both jehadi outfits and the LTTE rely heavily on such funds for their activities"

It seems that this is the closest we have come to "a smoking gun" on the issue; together with the statement from The Economist Intelligence Unit this should be considered a reliable source. Ulflarsen 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamil air power

Cud someone please add the fact that LTTE now has air power. LTTE has recently acquired two light aircrafts and bombed Srilankan air base near Colombo on 27 mar 2007

-news by Reuters. This being my first post on wiki and all, i dont really know what are rules to add these things.

here is the link: http://www.indianexpress.com/story/26768.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doped k9 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Removing POV tag

Has reverted it once and as it was removed again I will not revert it a second time, this is not the way to develop articles and I am not interested in engaging in revert-wars. The article is truly biased - even one that despise the fascists tendencies of the LTTE can see that. Alas, Wikipedia currently does not have any good system to deal with events as this, so again - I keep on working with articles that is not hijacked by one side of a conflict. Ulflarsen 12:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the {{Disputed-section}} tag to the disputed section please stop adding totally disputed tag at the top of the article, as your disputes are only with the criminal activities section. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good initiative - added the same tag to "Connections to other International Terrorist Organizations" as it is mostly highly speculative. Ulflarsen 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have added a reference to M. K. Narayanan regarding LTTE and drug smuggling. Have removed allegations of forced prostitution and cooperation with other organisations, both have no reliable sources. We need to have something like BBC or likewise - way too many POV pushers in the media regarding this issue, especially in the wake of 9/11. So - if anyone want to reinsert this then please find reliable sources. Have removed POV tags on sections as I think the content should be fairly correct, at least for those two. Ulflarsen 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the Mackenzie Institute is not a reliable source? This is just getting more and more ridiculous. What next? I suggest you read WP:RS clearly. And just to ensure you don't bring it up, here are a few links that establish that their work has been previously quoted by credible, third-party publications. [5] [6] [7] [8]

If that's still not good enough for you, I suggest you take it to some form of arbitration, because if everything that publishes something you disagree with is unreliable, there isn't anything we can do for you here. And I am going to revert all your blanking.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not take it to arbitration. I will just leave the article to you and yours. All the best. I will concentrate on areas where I can use my time effectively. So the article is all yours. Do as you please - at least for me. Ulflarsen 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have my reservations with regard to LTTE's immoral behavior on many fronts of this eelam war, but I believe wikipedia articles should be neutral and shouldn't be pushing our personal POV, the fact that allegations of Criminal activities by LTTE exist is undeniable, but the Criminal Activities section of this article uses lot of weasel words that makes one question the neutral point of view of the section. Please reconsider the entire section and re-write in a NPOV. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Netmonger, I would sign on to your message, but would say that regarding the LTTE's behavior it is not only immoral, but also violates the rules of war and as such Prabhakaran and his top staff should be tried tried and serve for life. Alas - this article as it stands now plays into the hands of the LTTE. How is that? Simply by showing how the LTTE came to light, as we know the foundation for the LTTE was created by the unfair treatment of the minority tamils. And they keep on today - as witnessed here.

I would applaud you if you try to change it, but it sucks up an awful lot of time - better used for other articles. Within a couple of years the problem with articles like this is probably adressed; the best would be to hand them over to some unbiased group of editors. Anyone with knowledge could then forward their input to that group and they would then produce some balanced text. Until then we will just have to live with that this (and similar not very popular contested articles) are not NPOV as is the situation here now. Ulflarsen 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe as editors we have to realize that wikipedia is not that important to the important people. What I mean is that no matter what we write here the people incharge on the war (both parties) do not care. Neither does the IC heads who are vital to the war or peace of the country. Only people we decieve (via POV article)are the readers who are not destined to make any change in the conflict. Why ? no one is willing to listen to someone who just reads a wiki article and makes their decision. Neither will it make any change on a proper researcher who is studying the situation. If we can keep this in mind then we can build many NPOV articles that does not degrade the wiki standards. Watchdogb 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding one of the sources that I have repeatedly asked to have removed from this article, it comes from the organisation SVIK [9]. It is run by the norwegian citizen Falk Rune Rovik, and as far as it is possible to see is a one man show from him. In 1997 the same Falk Rune Rovik murdered the owner of a pizzeria in Oslo, Norway [10] but as he was found to be insane he was not put to jail, instead he was sent to a mental hospital. The same Rovik is now involved in a conference in Colombo, and has written a letter to one of the main newspapers that the norwegian foreign department dismiss [11]. Someone should take action, remove this "source" from the article, tag it with a POV sign - at least then possible readers would know what to expect. Ulflarsen 11:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ulflarsen, as i pointed out earlier, the worth of the SVIK report is not their findings or suggestions, but the fact that most of their claims (including about the drug trafficking of the LTTE) are cited from other sources. I sadly don't understand Norwegian to read the article you cited, but if you really want we can remove the SVIK paper and cite the sources it relies on directly, but I don't think it matters either way given that there already are a number of references suggesting LTTE links in drug smuggling.

Tagging the entire article as POV because you disagree with just 1 source is pretty radical I would think. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the SVIK "organisation" - any 15 year old kid can make a website and claim he/she is heading an organisation. If you check the SVIK website you will not find any name, the only contact point is a mail address that goes to the same domain. This is the prime example of the kind of sources that are not reliable and such sources should not be used on Wikipedia - see the guideline for reliable sources [[12]], it says:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

I have repeatedly called for and tried to remove this link - alas it has again and again been reverted. This is bad for Wikipedia and may in the right circumstances give us bad publicity.

Regarding the POV tag, I have repeatedly argued against various links and either shown that they are not from reliable sources, their information is used for more than it is worth, taken out of context - or both. I have also added a link that actually gave proof to claims that I previously thought was not well documented (M. K. Narayanan regarding LTTE and drug smuggling), strangely enough this link was removed as well.

As this page is now, and with the reverts that is done again and again against arguments I believe it should be labelled as POV, at least the section "Allegations of links to other terrorist organizations" and the section "Criminal activities", as these two sections are not based on good sources. Ulflarsen 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article in the norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, this is one of the most reliable newspapers in Norway, it is center-conservative and highly independent. I may translate the whole of the article if needed, but basically it says the following:

"Norwegian sentenced for murder creates problems for Erik Solheim; The norwegian Falk Rune Rovik, sentenced for murder creates problems for development minister Erik Solheim in Sri Lanka"

"In a open letter to one of the leading newspapers on Sri Lanka, The Sunday Times, the Norwegian foreign department invalidates the claims from Rovik that Norway finance terror and train soldiers from the LTTE, the newspaper Dagbladet reports."

"The letter is an answer to a letter the sentenced murderer has got printed in the newspaper (The Sunday Times). In the letter Rovik claims that persons belonging to LTTE has stolen Norwegian passports that they have sold to a al-Qaida group."

"Terror seminar: This friday Rovik will be a speaker on a seminar in Colombo with the title "Norwegian support to the LTTE terrorists"."

"Falk Rune Rovik shot and murdered the owner of Papa Sigolo (a restaurant) in Oslo, Sagaheddin Payaslioglu in 1997. But Rovik was not sane and was sentenced to ten years preventive detention. In 1998 he was declared sane and was released."

"The Norwegian foreign department is now afraid of that Rovik's campaign will endanger nowegian lives in Sri Lanka, the newspaper VG writes. Sources in the foreign department says that Rovik has a sensitive and politically infected general public in Sri Lanka which may attack norwegian relief workers in the country."

"Proof for training: On his webpage (SVIK) Rovik has displayed a video of a group of LTTE members during a visit to Rena leir. The visit show, according to Rovik, that Norway gives the LTTE "training in operations with armoured vehicles and submerged maneuvres", VG wrote."

"His campaign is deeply immoral and highly irresponsible, and is both damaging for the peace process and a considerable security risk for norwegian citizens on Sri Lanka, a source from the Norwegian foreign department says to the newspaper."

That was a hasty translation - I believe it should be the vital stuff, have stuck to the paragraphs so one can follow the norwegian and english text if interested. As I written here before regarding Norway and similar allegations of linking with LTTE: Norway is a close ally with the US, a NATO member from the birth of NATO and very close to the EU - it is simply not possible that Norway is engaged in such activities. On the contrary - Norway has some 500 soldiers in Afghanistan working with our NATO partners and the US to secure that country - and when it comes to Sri Lanka Norway is invited by both parties and has the full support of both the EU and the USA. Ulflarsen 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Politics?

Maybe I missed it, but what does the LTTE stand for? Are they communist, nationalist, Catholic, leftist, etc? If they specifically don't take stances on such things and only say they are for the liberation of the Tamil people, I think that should be mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.150.109 (talk • contribs)

According to the infobox, they're Tamil nationalists. --Hojimachong^talk 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

New link - same story

A new link added to the article [13], with the same story:

But a Humberside police spokesman said: "Our evidence does not suggest there is a definite link with Sri Lankan gangs."

So there is a scam in Britain, which one of the parties in the conflict in Sri Lanka want to place on the other party - but that the local police says can not be proved. Why should we have such a link in the article about LTTE? And still the SVIK link is in the article - a link to a one man organisation. What about reliable sources? Ulflarsen 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)