Talk:Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a quotation from AsianTribune in the Criticisms portion of the article. I am going to remove this because that source seems to be pretty biased and untrustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.206.44 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading about the article about Srilanka Monitoring Mission, I found that this side is not reliable as lots of things done by the Srilankan government were hidden and the editor tried to show to the world that LTTE is bad. As a Srilankan I am aware of what is happening there. This site seems to bias to Srilanka or there should be some influence of Shinhala extremist behind this.

Ulf, Just wondering, what was the reason for removing "alleged" norwegian training of the LTTE?

There are at least three reasons:
1. The article is about the SLMM, not about Norway.
2. There is no proof that such training has been given by Norwegians to the LTTE.
3. And if there is proof - it is for sure mercenaries. You can see a lot of "soldiers of fortune" around the world, some also Norwegians. That does not mean the various governments side with what they do, mostly always they do not. As for Norwegians training armed groups without the consent of the Norwegian government, they would be breaking Norwegian, and most probably also international law.
In general I think you are expanding the article a bit too much, as the article is about the SLMM, not Norway as a peace facilitator. Some of the content you have added also seems to be biased towards the view that JVP/JHU has - and that is not the view of the government of Sri Lanka or all sinhalese for that sake.
Last but not least; Norway and the Nordic countries has the support of the government of Sri Lanka, the co-chairs (USA, EU and Japan), and India is also supportive. GOSL, India and the co-chairs are continually briefed about the situation, and if any of them expressed their wish for Norway and the Nordic staffed SLMM to leave, they would surely do so as fast as being asked for.
This has not happened, as the parties GOSL/LTTE and the co-chairs + India seems to realize that there is no alternative. Ulflarsen 15:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
After responding to your question I saw that the edits I made was changed, with "rv vandalism". I reported this to the administrators noticeboard as I believe you have a bias and want to forward your own personal view, and so are being POV. Ulflarsen 16:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ulf,

Thanks for the reply. You mentioned there are no proof regading Norway providing training to LTTE. However, there were speculations, and there was a news item I quoted with the URL from an international newspaper. Do you mean to say if a report says something in the tone "it is alleged....", that shouldn't be in Wikipedia?

You said this article is about Norway. But, I already mentioned strong connection of Norway with SLMM. Any dispute regarding the SLMM is directed to the Norway govenment by SL Goverment.Thus any accusation of Norway has a very high impact on the SLMM.

If you call me "bias" since I added material that questions the impartiality of SLMM/Norway from the public news sources, shouldn't the "bias call" apply to you as well since you added material that "stengthens" the part played by Norway/SLMM?

I did not say the article was about Norway, I wrote it was about the SLMM. That is one of the several reasons that the alledged training of LTTE cadres by Norwegians should not be there. Read what I write, and there are at least two other reasons as well. Ulflarsen 04:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ulf, sorry for the typo error, you said the article was about SLMM. The article says the strong connection between Norway and SLMM, thus any accusation of Norway has a very high impact on the SLMM.

Thus, as reported by international news sources, I suggest "ex-Norwegians allegedly trained the LTTE" should be there. I don't think you should remove it because you don't agree with it.

Further, If you call me "bias" since I added material that questions the mpartiality of SLMM/Norway from the public news sources, shouldn't the "bias call" apply to you as well since you added material that "stengthens" the part played by Norway/SLMM?

Regarding the report that Norwegians trained the LTTE, please read what I have written. It is not proved by anyone. And IF it is proved, it does not, I repeat NOT have any direct connection with Norway and official Norwegian policy. As an example, if I as an ex-military Norwegian commit a murder no one would argue that I did that on behalf of the Norwegian state. So - again, there is no proof for the rumor that Norwegians trained LTTE, and even if there was it has nothing to do with Norway and Norwegian policy in Sri Lanka.
Regarding bias; you added a lot of information that aims to portray the SLMM as higly unpopular in all quarters in Sri Lanka, some of it also clearly not true, or not proved, other info out of context. It was not true that the naval monitor called the LTTE, and it is not proved that Norwegians have given LTTE training. On top of that you labeled my changes "vandalism", without any discussion about it. The fact that it quickly was reverted back by an admin says what needs to be said.
Frankly, I think you have misunderstood this website, as it is not about internal quarrels in Sri Lanka - it is about building an encyclopedia, after the guidelines. It means that we should try to write articles that are balanced and presents all majority and minority views fairly:
"Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view".
To write something that is not true, or not proved, is not very fair, and rather biased I would say. Reading what you have added (and I have by no means removed all that I disagree with) I ask myself: "how on earth can they keep the SLMM, why dont they kick them out, if they are so bad?"
The very simple answer is: They are not. Some of the noise about the SLMM comes from internal sinhalese quarrels, some come from lack of respect for the CFA (Cease Fire Agreement) from the LTTE, but both parties want the SLMM to stay - and that is why it is there.
The SLMM is disputed, it has done mistakes, and both should be reflected in the article, but the major problem is not with the SLMM, it is only a monitoring organisation; tasked with recording violations, reporting them, and low-level mediation in the districts. That is the SLMM, a Nordic organisation - the rest is up to the parties: GOSL (Government of Sri Lanka) and LTTE. Ulflarsen 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi Ulf,

  • About your claim that it was not proved ex-norwegian forces trained the LTTE. You said, "To write something that is not true, or not proved, is not very fair, and rather biased I would say"

This is contrary to the wikipedia examples. Michael Jackson was not "proved" to have abused a child, but the allegations can be mentioned in wikipedia. Please refer to the NPOV tutorial link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Accusations

It also shows how to neutralise an accusation that you believe to be false. Simply "removing" it is NOT wikipedian. I suggest you read the above section, and add the link again (that you deleted) and neutralise if it you think it would be appropriate.

I doubt you ever understood the reason for this item be in the SLMM article. I guess since you are Norwegian and this news item has a negative connation of Norway, you were rather partial in understanding the good spirit of the purpose it was added to the SLMM article, and quicly removed it even without even discussing it in the "talk" pages.

It wasn't meant to incrimate Norway. Whether Norway had actually played role in it or not is important in this context. The accusation was reported in the Media and it has contributed to the view that SLMM/Norway was NOT impartial. That was why the orignal news item was added (that you removed), and that is why it should be in article.

  • You said, ""how on earth can they keep the SLMM, why dont they kick them out, if they are so bad?" The very simple answer is: They are not.

This clearly shows you have a POV and a bias. Whether SLMM is "good" or "bad" is not for us to decide. You believe SLMM is good and that is your POV. The matrial you've added strengthens your POV. You did not add material for "bad" or "perceived bad" side of the SLMM. I would like to remind, "Articles should be written .…presenting all majority- and significant-minority views fairly."

If you don't believe that you have a bias and POV, think of the current US intervention in Iraq. From a Pro-US POV, one could say "US intervention is Good, it has international support", which is exactly what you say above regading SLMM. A non-bias & NPOV view should be citing both pro-USA and anti-US views held and "perceived reasons" for such views.

Now don't claim I did not add any good points about SLMM -- that view was already there before I start contributing. I added different views of the SLMM (that was not presented in the article) in the existance and cited the sources.

Contents

[edit] Minor(?) edits

I changed two sentences in the article, because I felt that they are too direct:

  • "University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), Sri Lanka, accuses Norway's 'appeasing the LTTE' strategy responsible for the assassination of Foreign Minister" : to "strategy as being responsible", because "strategy responsible" sounds like "strategy that is responsible" and indirectly suggests that the accusation is actually a fact.
  • infighting among the Sinhalese was removed because there was no information in the article to say that the accusations are done only by Sinhalese. For instance, it's not clear how UTHR's claims are a result of "political infighting among Sinhalese". Ulf, could you please comment? Greenleaf 05:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the UTHR I did not add that comment, but the pattern of Norway being accused of what goes wrong in Sri Lanka is clear. How Norway should be responsible for 100 policemen not being able to protect the FM from having someone with a gun coming close to him is not clear to me.
There was no mention in the article that Norwey should have given personal protection to LK. The mention was that Norway's (let's agree that this should have been SLMM's, if necessary) lenient policy towards the LTTE is responsible for killings, in the sense of lack of punishment. (This indeed is a political claim, and I do not want to argue on that; my point here is only that UTHR blame on Norway was not about bodyguarding LK, hence your argument does not apply - not whether the claim was reasonable or not.) Greenleaf
If you remove the "infighting among the Sinhalese" you miss the central point in this conflict:
in my extra humble opinion, this is not the page to discuss that, because this page is about SLMM. There is a seperate page Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. But, let's forget that for a moment, and, Greenleaf
"Leading politicians in Sri Lanka today acknowledge that the Tamils have been wronged, and that the malpractice of successive governments is reponsible for the ethnic conflict. President Kumaratunga has repeatedly noted that Sri Lanka "has failed in the essential task of nation building" because successive governments "failed to address the issue of building a truly pluralist nation-state. She added: "It is Sinhalese racism that has become the greatest strength of the Tamil racism {practiced by the LTTE leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran}." From "Blowback - Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Etnich Conflict in Sri Lanka" by Neil De Votta, assistant professor of political science, Hartwich College, New York,
Thank you for the reference. However, I do not get what you meant; the quote says that CK acklowledges of Sinhalese racism. Infighting, as I understand, does not have anything to do with racism, because as I feel it's almost the opposite of that. Sinhalese couldn't be fighting with each other because they are racist. If CK used the word infighting, (and if you sufficiently explain UTHR et alia or leave out the word Sinhalese) I do agree to put that with the quote "others however say". (regardless of the fact that I still do not personally get the reason for that argument, simply because it's not given. That A causes B in itself is a proposition, not a necessary truth.)
Also, that "tamils have been wronged" is immaterial in this articles context, because this article discusses the SLMM. Greenleaf
About the same has been said from the current opposition leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe. If you write "Others however see the accusations as motivated by political reasons." you dont get the point, as it is the continous ethnic outbidding that created the Sri Lankan problem, and keeps it alive. So, I believe that the phrase should be kept, as however bad the LTTE are - and they are worse than bad, belive me - the problem was created by the Sinhalese, and can not be solved before the Sinhalese stop their infighting. Ulflarsen 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What I meant was this article is about SLMM, and critisism thereof. I saw the points mentioned on critisism section, reasonable or not, are relevent; however, I did not see how each of the points mentioned (for instance, UTHR's claims or Navel incidence), or any groups' intepretation of them, were results of infighting among sinhalese. I'm afraid that your quote from CK did not explain that either. The roots of the conflict may well have been for a totally different reason I do agree in principal, and Sinhalese might have been politically motivated by those same reasons to accuse SLMM, but that's as far as it goes in the context of this article IMHO, hence my change to "politically motivated". The proposition was that "these incidences are viewed by some as ..."; you did not, I'm afraid, show that how "these incidences" mentioned, or views thereon, (I'm not sure which of these two you meant because you referred to it as 'it': "Others however see it as the usual political") can be generated from "infighting among Sinhalese".
If you feel that the "root cause" should be included in this page, I'm open for discussion, because right now I prefer to stop here, for the sake of brevity. Please open a seperate subsection if you feel so, because this section is already tangled.
The time of this Signature applies to all the short signatures i made above, within reasonable context of course. Greenleaf 05:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Suggest then that the sentence "Others however see the accusations as motivated by political reasons." is removed, as that makes more sense. Ulflarsen 17:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that you suggest this? Sorry to disagree again, but that would lose what's (already inadequately) available for one side of the story. But since you added that part and I edited it, as a compromise I would agree with you. It would be great if you can improve it instead with counter-claims as you seem to be aware of them more than me. For instance, just now I checked up with SLMM website for press releases on the cited naval incident but failed to find anything - and I noticed your comment that it was not true that naval monitor called LTTE. Ideally, I would like if we can have each of the incident was seperately addressed, but you two may have differing views. and may be we can discuss whether "big picture" interpretations must be included.
And Mr. Anon, could you please sign your comments with notmal style? use ~~~~. I highly recommend that you register. Greenleaf (signature added late, so no point adding the time. sorry.)

Regarding the last comment, if its "Greenleaf" that wrote it (not signed), then I can just repeat, I believe one better remove the following sentence: "Others however see the accusations as motivated by political reasons." The reasons for that are simply that there is one part of Sri Lankan society that either fabricates, or takes events out of context, and that is the extreme Sinhalese, read JHU/JVP. Not the muslims, or the EPDP - but consistently the extreme Sinhalese. If one can not write that, then the sentence simply does not make much use, and is better removed. The ones who know will know anyway, and the ones who dont know anything about the conflict will not understand any more of it, or the critique of the SLMM and Norway's role. Ulflarsen 17:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Your claim is an opinion at best, and does not explain the factual content that is already in the article, for instance, about UTHR. Are you saying UTHR is composed of extreme sinhalese? Unless you cannot explain that, I wonder what basis your claim has in the context of SLMM or the critisism. If you claim that no one but extreme sinhalese criticises SLMM, please put that in the article and show evidence. If it is that obvious a truth, it cannot be that hard to find proper evidence for it rather than some unrelated quote from a politician. In my opinion, that CK/Ranil acknowkedges of Sinhalese racism is not a universal argument to prove any accusation against Sinhalese in any case. Talking about CK, here is a link where CK criticises SLMM, which is much more related to the context, than, for instance, your quote of her: " Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga has voiced her disapproval of the decision of the Norwegian-led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission" [1] "She also made no secret of her unhappiness over the way the Sri Lankan monitoring mission (SLMM) set up under the leadership of Norway"[2] "President Chandrika Kumaratunga's complaint about the head of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission being partial to the country's separatist rebel..." [3] "Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunge has criticized the decision of the SLMM ..." [4] Does this conclusively infer that SLMM was wrong? In my eye, it neither does that, nor implies anything about CBK being "extreme sinhalese, read: JVP/JHU". It was a politically motivated claim may be. I hope you would get the point, or explain whether you see CK also as an extreme sinhalese.
In my opinion, that "ones who dont know anything about the conflict will not understand any more of it" is not a support to over-hypothesize anything. Someone can as well come and add "some claim this all was Brits/India/SWRD/Chelva/Amir/Sirima/JRJ/Sinhalese/Tamils fault" and leave as well - believe me, I have heard them all. Keeping "politically motivated", imo, helps because they will at least know that these allegations are not universally accepted. If you want to say more than that, please do so, but do provide evidence, because your claim, as I feel, is not coherent with the facts regarding this article, no more than any of the above possible claims I mentioned. If you need more facts to make it coherent, I'd rather you added them. (obviously I am not going to add them, not because of a bias, but because there's no point of adding things I myself consider unsupported) However, if you insist that the removal of sentence is better, you have my consent anyway, given as a compromise rather than an agreement. If we can settle on that, consider this post final on removal, and remove it when you need.
About the links you cited (below) I do not know if Bala is the best, but I do enjoy reading his insightful HT articles. Your link seems to be dead though. About PiSL and TN, well you know what will be there even before you visit them. :-) Greenleaf 08:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
About a press release about the naval incident; there was never issued any, as far as I remember. SLMM dont issue much to the press. Most of its reports go to the parties (GOSL/LTTE), the Nordic countries that is behind the SLMM and the co-chairs (EU, USA and Japan). India is also regularly informed. Any of the parties, and most probably also the co-chairs AND India could terminate the SLMM if they wanted, on very short notice. Norway as the facilitator and the leading nation within the SLMM is of course aware of these "facts on the ground".
For learning more about the parties the website has a lot of material, for the LTTE I would recommend [5]. The best independent observer is "Colombo Diary" by PK Balachandran in Times. He knows a lot about the history, the present and he can write and analyze it. Ulflarsen 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ulf, "Frankly, I think you have misunderstood this website, as it is not about internal quarrels in Sri Lanka". (This is exactly what you've said above). "In fighting among Sinhalese", whether true or not, has no relevance here. Nor, this is about 'how to solve the problem in Sri Lanka'. -anonymouse contributor who is having a discussion with Ulf regarding a deleted link.

Greenleaf, regarding the sentence - I still believe it makes little sense. There is a lot of critique of the SLMM and that is just how it should be, from Amnesty, HRW etc. Part of it is due to the organisations misunderstanding the CFA, and the rest can probably be placed on the account for no-one being perfect.

But - the content added from the anonymous poster is as far as I can see of the kind that comes from JHU/JVP. Basically they want the SLMM/Norway out and the LTTE crushed in a new war. That's just fine with me - their country. But the problem with that critique in this article is that it does not show its flag. And just briefly about their want for another war, CBK just recently in connection with the P-TOMS said something like this: "You want war? You can have it, but that means mobilisation, not only the poor that fill the lower ranks of the armed forces now, and it means wiping out the corrupted officers that sell off arms and munition to the LTTE."

So, again - even though you keep on saying that I have not proved anything, I believe the the fact is that the various comments our anonymous contributer have added is not just any "accusations as motivated by political reasons" - but the almost continuous lamentation by the extreme sinhalese, the JHU/JVP.

But to round it up, I doubt if I will add much, at least at the moment - as the basic stuff that should be there is to be found. Regarding Balachandran, I have not found any better tham him on Lanka, please inform me if you know any. And even though both the "Peace in Sri Lanka" and "Tamilnet" is biased I do find them both very useful, and not always as predictable as one would assume, given their masters. Ulflarsen 18:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I said that as a disclaimer on my knowledge rather than disagreement; because whose work I remember enough consistently is only Balachandran and BBC's Frances Harrison (while she was there). Compared to Frances, Bala is miles ahead in my opinion. I guess in addition to BBC's trademark style of reporting, Frances only had a few opinions on big picture, but lacked insights.
Usually I get news through personal contacts in SL, so news I get from all these sources are somewhat less interactive than I would have them be :o).
Hi Ulf, you say, "I believe the the fact is that the various comments our anonymous contributer have added is not just any "accusations as motivated by political reasons" - but the almost continuous lamentation by the extreme sinhalese, the JHU/JVP."
  • I am wondering whether you believe Former FM Lakshman Kadirgamar, Present FM Anura Bandaranayaka & UTHR are "the JHU/JVP". Those persons, (and institutions) have continously questioned ("lamented", you say) the alleged partiality of SLMM and Norwegian governemnt.
  • The survery carried out by CPA, which is headed by a Tamil, says only 27% believe SLMM is impartial. Are you saying the rest, 83%, are extremist Sinhalese/JHU/JVP? -203.217.57.218 08:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Neither Kadirgamar, A. Bandaranaike or the UTHR are representing the extreme Sinhalese. The UTHR is probably a bit idealistic in their critique - as HRW and Amnesty.

2. You probably know that such surveys can give the result one want, regarding the question asked.

What is a fact - and now we talk about FACTS, is that the main parties in Sri Lanka, the UNP and the SLFP both support the SLMM and the Norwegian facilitation. These two parties hold a solid majority in parliament, given them by the Sri Lankan people in democratic elections. Those two parties are very well aware of that they can have the SLMM and the Norwegians out tomorrow, if they want - but they dont. Ulflarsen 15:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting

I belive this page should better have been named Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, because it's more descriptive and unique. There may be more SLMM's coming around.

For now, I created a page with that name and did a redirect; do we need to move the content there and make SLMM a redirect to Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission?

I feel that way very strongly; Ulf, and other anonymous contributors - any comments? And if you agree, could someone just move it? Greenleaf 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

A change of name is ok with me, but dunno how to do it, so good if you can do it. Ulflarsen 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Done. There's a neat little 'move' link at the top in case you didn't notice it. *too* convenient actually :o). Greenleaf 05:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
== BIAS ==

This is meant to be a page about the SLMM not about your personal views on the SLMM and the Tamil Tigers. Please refrain from using sources such as spurs.net, sisk.net etc.. Asian Tribune. Asian Tribune is fictionious, it doesnt exist, it is a site with no telephone number or press office. It is not recognised by any press body, you might as well put links to blogs!! This site should be about the wonderful work the SLMM perform, with constructive arguements for/against using sources from internationally reputable sites such as reuters, cnn, bbcnews. If you are going to quote SINHALESE sources, then maybe I should quote Tamil sources such as Tamilnet, TamilNation, etc.. Please refrain from defacing this pace. I have removed all relevent articles and will continue to do so. Please write fact and back it up with reputable sources, I could not find any information about wiretaps on the ambassador, so please don't lie either. If an ambassador had his phone tapped, it would hit international news surely? Not Sinhalese news organisation.

Please note there is an ethnic conflict going on in the island, so the two communities will have a different view of the SLMM. My personal view is that the SLMM are doing a fine job. But I have not edited the article to reflect this view.

[edit] Norway's role

Why is so much of the article about Norway? Norway's role as mediator and the SLMM are two very different things, and this article is supposed to be about the SLMM, not Norway's mediation. It seems to me that the criticism of Norway belongs in an article on the Sri Lankan peace process, and certainly not here. -- Arvind 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the lack of response means that nobody particularly objects to my implementing this suggestion. I'll wait a couple of days more, and then put it into effect. -- Arvind 17:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you - but I have had my share of quarrels over this article, so I more or less gave it up I guess... It's not good and good if you could edit it. Ulflarsen 17:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violations - Criticism Section

I believe the following items should be removed or changed so that the reader is aware this is not fact but assumptions made by one party. The site used as a source for these items obviously has an anti SLMM/Norway/LTTE POV www.sivik.org


A Chinese ship was attacked off northern Sri Lankan sea, on March 20, 2003 and it is widely believed this was carried out by the LTTE. At least twice, LTTE has previously attacked Chinese ships off Sri Lankan seas. [6] [7]
General Trond Furuhovde, a Norwegian and then Head of SLMM, indirectly suggested to the LTTE to put the blame on a “third party with stolen uniforms”. [8] No such “third parties” have previously carried out such attacks in Sri Lankan seas. SLMM later issued a statement blaming a “third party” without naming who that third party was.

Besides if we are to include conjecture as fact then it should also be noted that said Chinese vessel was thought to be an intelligence gathering ship used by the SL Navy, given the number of antennae etc.


The following is also sourced from another site with clear anti LTTE/SLMM POV not a neutral source www.spur.asn.au

On another occasion, the Sri Lankan navy was pursuing a suspected LTTE arms vessel, and a SLMM officer on board the Navy boat informed the SLMM HQ about the raid via a satellite phone. The SLMM HQ checked with the LTTE which allowed the LTTE arms vessle to escape. The Opposition party lodged the strongest protest and demanded government to declare the SLMM monitor in question as "Persona non grata" [9].

--Realstarslayer 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have served with the SLMM. I dont want to interfere more with this article as I have had my share of quarrels over it. But the SLMM is still there - and now as the LTTE wants it out - its suddenly acceptable for the sinhalese. Says the most I guess... Ulflarsen 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Its a shame people have put you off this, I think you make a valuable contribution having first hand experience of the ground realities.--Realstarslayer 02:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have made the following changes, rearanged where the two items lsited above appear and added a preface to them:
As an example of the more contentious criticism leveled at the SLMM, accusations from sources with a more hard-line Sinhala Nationalist leaning are listed below, these are so far unfounded:
A Chinese ship was attacked off northern Sri Lankan sea, on March 20, 2003 and it is widely believed this was carried out by the LTTE. At least twice, LTTE has previously attacked Chinese ships off Sri Lankan seas. [6] [7]
General Trond Furuhovde, a Norwegian and then Head of SLMM, indirectly suggested to the LTTE to put the blame on a “third party with stolen uniforms”. [8] No such “third parties” have previously carried out such attacks in Sri Lankan seas. SLMM later issued a statement blaming a “third party” without naming who that third party was.
On another occasion, the Sri Lankan navy was pursuing a suspected LTTE arms vessel, and a SLMM officer on board the Navy boat informed the SLMM HQ about the raid via a satellite phone. The SLMM HQ checked with the LTTE which allowed the LTTE arms vessle to escape. The Opposition party lodged the strongest protest and demanded government to declare the SLMM monitor in question as "Persona non grata" [9].
Realstarslayer,
  • The following is also sourced from another site with clear anti LTTE/SLMM POV not a neutral source www.spur.asn.au
It is important to visit the source before labelling a source "POV". On this occasion, the source you labelled merely mirrors two articles from external newspapers, The Daily Mirror(Sri Lanka) and The Hindustan Times(India). Neither of these sources have ever been accused of POV in regards to this issue.
  • The site used as a source for these items obviously has an anti SLMM/Norway/LTTE POV www.sivik.org
www.sivik.org web site hosts recorded audio conversations between "General Trond Furuhovde" and the LTTE to substantiate its claims. This is not a mere accusation. I have not seen/heard General Trond Furuhovde denying this conversation. Please update the references if you find anything to the contrary.
  • I believe the following items should be removed or changed so that the reader is aware this is not fact but assumptions made by one party.
This is not an assumption. This was reported on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2871201.stm
  • Besides if we are to include conjecture as fact then it should also be noted that said Chinese vessel was thought to be an intelligence gathering ship used by the SL Navy, given the number of antennae etc.
I suggest you quote references and add this to the article. Do you have any sources?
  • As an example of the more contentious criticism leveled at the SLMM, accusations from sources with a more hard-line Sinhala Nationalist leaning are listed below, these are so far unfounded:
The above assertion does not match with description it refers to.
1) BBC Reported "Tamil Tigers 'sink Chinese boat'" on LTTE sinking Chinese ship on 20/03/2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2871201.stm
2) It is false and incorrect to claim the BBC or MIPT(which carries a list of LTTE attacks) is "Sinhalese Hardliners".
Therefore, the vast majority of sources are not even from "Sinhalese"; let alone being "hardlined", hence the following text was removed.
"As an example of the more contentious criticism leveled at the SLMM, accusations from sources with a more hard-line Sinhala Nationalist leaning are listed below, these are so far unfounded:" -FriendOfPanda 10:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinking of Chinese Ship

Hello FriendOfPanda, please read the entire section, the reason that is listed as a contentious criticism is because of the accusation that the SLMM head gave excuses and ideas to the LTTE as to how they could claim it wasn't their attack, this is unfounded, not the actual attack itself. However I can see how it is confusing now so I will modify it to reflect this.--Realstarslayer 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Realstarslayer,

May I remind you that it is IMPORTANT to read what is said in sources BEFORE labelling them "Sinhalese hardlined"?
I notice the following errors.
ERROR 1 - Label www.svik.org as "Sinhalese Hardlined"
  • Hardline Sinhala elements claimed that General Trond Furuhovde, a Norwegian and then Head of SLMM, indirectly suggested to the LTTE to put the blame on a “third party with stolen uniforms.
Realstarslayer, Did you read the source? Here you accuse a Norwegian organization, SVIK, of being "Sinhalese hardlined", which does not make any sense. As seen from SVIK web site, SVIK may be anti terrorist, but it is certainly false to claim this Norwegian group is "Sinhalese Hardlined".
They may be located in Norway but do you know who they are? Fine I agree I cannot lable them as 'Sinhala Hardliners' it should be 'they espouse the same views as Sinhala Hardliners'. And I did see their site that is why I stand by my accusation that these are unfounded claims that the SLMM willining gave an excuse to be used by the LTTE, scratchy MP3s of so called 'tapped' phone messages are meaningless.
ERROR 2 - Label "unfounded" the information which seemingly is credible and not even denied.
This is not unfounded as you claim; the web site hosts a recorded audio conversation between the SLMM and LTTE in which the SLMM indirectly makes the suggestion. SLMM has not denied this conversation. If SLMM denies this conversation, this accusation becomes unfounded.
ERROR 3 - Deny SLMM blamed on "third parties"
  • They further claim that the SLMM later issued a statement blaming a “third party” without naming who that third party was, however the actual SLMM statement makes no such claims
All SLMM rulings may not be online in SLMM site but this matter was widely reported even in the international media. For instance, please look at the following Chinese newspaper, The SLMM has blamed the attack on the Chinese trawler on an unidentified armed group and urged both the government and LTTE rebels to identify and disarm them. [10]. It is a good idea not to do incorrect labelling, when in doubt or have no time to research sufficiently.
Fine I stand corrected on that point, however the main claim was that this was a concocted excuse given to the LTTE by the SLMM, this is still unfounded.
ERROR 4 - Tagging a large chunk of indepdent-sourced material from mirrored sources as "Sinhalese hardlined".
I already explained this to you and still wonder why you repeatedly label The Daily Mirror and The Hindustan Times as "Sinhalese hardlined". These information was not quoted from SPUR. This information was quoted from independent articles (who in turn quote the Sri Lankan president) which are mirrored at SPUR.
The fact that an article from The Hindustan Times being mirrored at a seemingly "Sinhalese hardlined" site does not make the original site "Sinhalese hardlined". If you follow this approach, you end up labelling even The Washington Post as "Sinhalese hardlined"! ;-) [11]
Please link the independant material if you can rather than the SPUR redirect in that case. I am not trying to prove any POV, if you have evindence to the contrary I am more than happy that it informs us more.
I notice that you have a difficulty in identifying "Sinhalese hardlined" elements. All of the above errors are of incorrectly labelling indepdent sources as "Sinhalese hardlined". Tagging quotes from The People's Daily of China or The Hindustan Times of India or SVIK of Norway as "Sinhalese Hardlined" is bewilderingly inaccurate, to say the least.
ERROR 5 - Deleting information without citing reasons.
You deleted the following vital information, No such “third parties” have previously carried out such attacks in Sri Lankan seas. This is an IMPORTANT piece of information. The fact that no such unknown third parties has ever carried out attacks in these area is a vital background information. Don't delete unless you have sources to say otherwise.
There was no malicious intent there, the accusation was that the SLMM was actively making up excuses and telling them to the LTTE, not whether the incident was actually carried out by third parties or not, as such this was not relevant to the particular accusation. Remember this is about the SLMM not the LTTE or GoSL so to delve into the actual attack would lead us down the wrong path was my thought anyway.


Due to the above FIVE ERRORS, I edited out your unfounded text. ( pun intended ;-) ) -FriendOfPanda 10:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments inline. Anyway if you could add some links other than SVIK or SPUR then I have no problem with it. Regards.--Realstarslayer 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winding up

I've moved the bit about the SLMM's hampered mandate to the operations section. While it was important enough for the lead when they were a functioning organisation, it's of less importance now and can safely be consigned to the body. -- Arvind (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)