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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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.