Jump to content

Talk:Sea Tigers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human rights section

[edit]

I think it is long overdue that we added a HR allegations section to this article. I have already added some facts. Any one care to expand it. OzLawyer 14:57 29 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Political impartiality

[edit]

Has the political impartiality of this article been tested by someone impartial on this issue? Added by: 210.50.143.20 11:05 6 February

This article is like any other article on Wikipedia, and its up to anyone with knowledge about the issue to expand it and/or to correct any information that is not correct. Ulflarsen 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know what you might think is partial in the article. King Canute 15:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by user Improv

[edit]

I find the edits done by Improv confusing and even misleading, one even changed the sentence so it makes no sense. As far as I can see "offense" is something like a joke, it's not equal to "offensive". Mullaitivu is a rather small city, more like a village, and mentioning that makes sense to place Sea Tigers in context. There is common agreement within the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission that Sea Tigers sank the chinese trawler etc. So I would ask you to argue your edits before you execute them. Ulflarsen 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's meant to be the tactical use of offense, e.g. some people are assigned to offense on a sports team and some to defense. WRT the common agreement, do we have sources reporting that common agreement? Are they reliable? I'm not super attached to my edits though, so if you want to undo part or all of it, I'm not going to complain. I do feel they make the article better though.. I'm taking the rest of the quote I cut in half out, because I don't think it aids the article and I worry that it makes the article feel slanted. Again, if you don't like it, no problem. --Improv 13:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Improv, while I appreciate your attempt to improve on the article, I am not certain that some of your edits are working that well. Perhaps if you could explain your reasoning for some of them it would help. It seems we are losing more of the descriptive aspects of the article and since it isn't overly long to begin with we gain nothing by doing so. Just a quick example might be the quote attributed to the LTTE leader; I think is an important insight into the LTTE rational for having a naval component, since they are one of the few if not the only rebel movements to have a substantial and successful naval force.--Realstarslayer 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that the longish quote, combined with other parts of the article, were in affect trying to give a sympathetic tone to the article rather than a purely descriptive one. I recognise that this is a delicate line to tread though. I felt the early parts of my edit were primarily to fix grammar/style points, the mention of the sinking of the Chinese ship didn't seem to be verifiable (common agreement is not reliable fact in all cases), and the comments about the "mood" of the Sea Tigers seemed ... really bizarre to include (and speculative). That's why I made the edits as I did. --Improv 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, yes I can agree with you on some of your points, like that about the mood of the ST, it did seem a little out of place. However I believe items like the sinking of the Chinese trawler did have a citation with it. Well I will go over it again and make note here of items that I have concerns with and we can discuss and go forward from there. Regards--Realstarslayer 02:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes to the Article

[edit]

I am just starting a new section so we can go over the recent changes without it being buried under so many indents. Please read and comment appropriately.

  • The first one I have concern with is the intro to the sea tigers background, now the last sentence seems out of place, if you are uncomfortable with a direct quote maybe something like this will work:
The leader of the LTTE, Velupillai Prabhakaran having grown up in the coastal village Valvettithurai with its rich smuggling traditions instinctively understood the tactical necessity of a naval force.
I have added this change then to the first part discussed above.--Realstarslayer 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Next under the Analysts' views of Sea Tigers section, though I understand and agree that perhaps the description of the motivation of the ST vs the SLN might be a bit off I think it is still an important factor: that the ST are more motivated than their SLN counterparts and thus it being one of the reasons for their success. So perhaps something as follows:
One factor in the Sea Tigers' success could be a result of the apparent motivation and spirit among cadres. Furthermore the Sea Tigers do not rely on communications with their command on shore during ongoing operations. The SLN's on the other hand are required to act in accordance with commanders onshore. Sea Tiger's intelligence has also played a key role in their operations, allowing for detailed and bold operations to be carried out in almost silent mode (highest EMCON).
The basis of ST offensive operations can be described as "hit and run" avoiding any attempt of sea control, but keeping the SLN on their toes with their extensive sea denial tactics in the northern waters of Sri Lanka. Some analysts say ST has adopted the military theory of 'Versatile Maritime Force'. Sea Tigers operations should also be seen as clear examples of asymmetric warfare.

--Realstarslayer 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first part looks fine. The second part seems really hard to quantify and source, and I'd suggest leaving it out. Third part looks fine, fourth part as well. --Improv 13:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Improv, how about the following then for the second section:
The fact that the Sea Tigers do not rely on communications with their command on shore during ongoing operations is one factor in their success. The Sri Lankan Navy on the other hand is required to act in accordance with commanders onshore. Sea Tiger's intelligence has also played a key role in their operations, allowing for detailed and bold operations to be carried out in almost silent mode (highest EMCON).
The basis of Sea Tiger offensive operations can be described as "hit and run"; avoiding any attempt of sea control, but keeping the SLN on their toes with their extensive sea denial tactics in the northern waters of Sri Lanka. Some analysts say the Sea Tigers have adopted the military theory of 'Versatile Maritime Force'. Sea Tiger operations could also be seen as a clear example of asymmetric warfare.
--Realstarslayer 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could work. Direct references to "high spirits" being a success reason are speculative and run us the risk of getting involved in original research. More specific statements like these are less problematic. It's important that we remain more likely to leave out possibly important but unsourced/speculative information than include it because of our goals as an encyclopedia. --Improv 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I went ahead and added that too, we can always change it if something comes up.--Realstarslayer 14:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostis humani generis?

[edit]

Are these Sea Tigers and Back Sea Tigers (kamikaze speedboats) considered extrajudical pirates according to international customary maritime laws? Do foreign navies destroy them if encountered, as usual with pirates?

The Indian Navy has on occasion clashed with LTTE vessels, and in the more recent incident with the 'Pearl Cruise II' apparently India had said they would engage the Sea Tigers if they had pursued the ship into Indian Waters[1]. As for the rest of the international community I think the point is moot since the ST have never used their ST suicide boats too far from SL shores, as they are mostly used to attack SL Navy vessels which themselves would have been close to shore to start with.
As for being considered as pirates I'm not sure that would apply, since their objectives in the past have obviously been one of attack versus capturing goods etc., though this may have been the case with the attack mentioned above, where they did not sink the Pearl Cruise II even with a clear chance to do so, or it could have just been the presence of an SLMM monitor on board. --Realstarslayer 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glorifying Terrorism

[edit]

It is a real shame that a reputed web resource like Wikipedia is trying to glorify terrorism. By highlighting the atrocities done by this bunch of criminals. The suffering of the Tamils in the Nothern Sri Lanka is due to the acts of these blood thirst cannibals. They have denied the Tamils the right to live, as exemplified by the recent attacks on the food shipments off KKS harbour and violated the international marine protocols by looting a Jordanian ship off the nothern waters of Sri Lanka.

NP Hong Kong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.8.173.37 (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Use of citation tag

[edit]

The article has been tagged with a load of citation tags. Most of them are not needed as what is listed there can easily be found with some seconds search on Google. As I wrote most of the original article I have however used my share of time on this, so someone else would either need to remove the tags, add citations or delete the content she/he do not care to search for. Ulflarsen 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulflarsen, unfortunantely its up to you to provide the citations and is not good wikiiquette to ask someone else to search google to find the citations fro what you added. Per Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So if no sources are found, the disputed content should probably be deleted. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for me, delete the whole article if anyone care to. What I wanted to say is that I find the citation tags here not very much needed, and I am not going to use any more time on this article. The way the citation tag is used here seems to be in line with how the use of the citation tag has escalated on enwiki. But again, not my baby and not my worry. Ulflarsen 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the use of the citation tags go uncontrolled on the articles will the good purpose with citations be a big problem. The work on the articles can be damaged and delete of another without conscience. I liked the article. Please not ruin the work here and the Wikipedia on the near future with the citation tags and new rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.91.246.189 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

efluxmedia

[edit]

efluxmedia has been used as reference on this article. It makes some stupid claims like "Nishanthan, then leader of LTTE's naval unit" which is wrong. The leader of the navel unit (the sea tigers) is Col. Soosai. It further claims that this leader "died" but there have not been any report about such death from a high ranking Tigers from the sea Tigers. As such false claims are made in this so called news website I dispute its reliability. If this citations reliability is not achieved it will be removed and the content that is backed by this website. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights section

[edit]

There is not claim that the LTTE was indeed in a mission to attack the civilians. Even the Sri Lankan Government does not claim this. What is said by the Sri Lankan Navy is that their attack boats were attacked by the LTTE while they were "escorting" the civilian ships. LTTE does not claim that they were attacking the civilian ships or that there were any civilain ship present. Since this is not really human rights violation I am going to remove the section. Watchdogb (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAAG

[edit]

Please note that SAAG [2] cannot be considered a "mainstream" source. In fact, it has not been covered in any major news groups or any other WP:RS. I am not totally contesting it's usage in this article but for a claim like "and it is common practice for them to kidnap and kill the crew members on board the hijacked vessels" is an exceptional claim that is not covered in major news group an other sources. Further the claim gives WP:UNDUE weight to claim by one source. Therefore I am removing this POV sentence and have fixed it to the current, and more NPOV, version. Watchdogb (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More info

[edit]

a little factbox of info that can very well be incorporated here: http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINCOL38066220081029 Lihaas (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sea Tigers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sea Tigers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sea Tigers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Tigers was a Non-State Navy. Not a Navy

[edit]

The naval wing of the Tigers' have fought so many naval battles against our navy in the SL waters. Some battles even went for days. e.g.: When they tried hard to defend 'Operation Thirividapahara' but we landed finally. lol. But they can never be stated as 'Navy' 'cause it only applies to the state's, not to Non State actors like Tigers. Also they cannot be classified because they have not attacked any international ships. They only hijacked Sri Lankan naval supply ships to Jaffna which were lanka's supply lines to the defenders of nation. An org. classified as terrorist cannot be termed as Navy, but can be termed as Non-State Navy. Also, one must keep in mind while writing history that the non state navy, Sea Tigers, never engaged in international piracy. So Violent non-state actors at sea does not suit them. History must not be twisted.(Okiloma) 10:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically one can argue that the LTTE it self can be called a Violent non-state actor, hence a the sea tigers a Violent non-state actors at sea. They did engage in piracy boarding international flagged vessels and operating rouge merchant ships in international waters. Cossde (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Tigers&oldid=1210285738"