Talk:Black Tigers

Ambiguity: trying hard to hide reality

The opening para of this article tries really hard to hide the reality of the black tigers and attempts to classify them as a special unit similar to British SAS but in doing so it ends up making the para completely ambigious. It states:

The black tigers were...composed of specially selected and trained LTTE cadres whose missions gave them little chance of survival.

While white washing their brutality, it distorts actual facts. Through out the history of the LTTE, it is wellknown that not a single black tiger has ever survived a mission given to him/her by there leader (in fact if he/she survives the mission he/she is not regarded a 'matyr' or a 'black' tiger). They are given the mission with the understanding that they kill themselves in carrying out the mission(when they die). They are therefore honoured before and after the completion of their mission (when they die). So it is a bit streching to say they have 'little chance' of survival and infact it should say 'they give themselves no chance'. Therefore I propose to change the opening sentence to:

The black tigers were...composed of specially selected and trained LTTE cadres whose missions involved committing suicide attacks against military and civillian targets in Sri Lanka. The civilian targets included places of worship, ports, airports and the assasination of high profile Indian and Sri Lankan dignitories.

In support of this edit, compare the opening para of Japanese 'kamikaze' bombers" who appears o be more civilised and only attacked military targets of the allied forces:

The Kamikaze (神風?, common translation: "divine wind") [kamikaꜜze] ( listen) Tokubetsu Kōgekitai (特別攻撃隊?) Tokkō Tai (特攻隊?) Tokkō (特攻?) were suicide attacks by military aviators from the Empire of Japan against Allied naval vessels in the closing stages of the Pacific campaign of World War II, designed to destroy as many warships as possible.

Please comment here or I will edit if no objections--203.167.243.169 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A fair description?

I understand that its totally unaccepatable to say that "the Balck tigers are a part of the LTTE terrorists organisation based in Sri Lanka." Obviously this would be a POV comment as they wont be terrorist for some people. But thambi, would it be ok to say that "the black tigers are the terrorist wing of the LTTE which is a rebel group based in Srilanka"? That way we dont accuse anyone of being terrorists but does bring out the true nature of the this kind of activity. Just a thought. No offence at all. Dis be ALI G 15:39 29 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Glorifying suicide bombers

some sentences of this article is on the borderline of glorifying suicide bombers,remenber innocent bystanders are also killed disregarding whatever political affiliation one adheres too

If you disagree in anything in the article please list it here, as the article in under expansion and improvement. You may also add it directly but if it is consideres POV it may be commented on or removed. Ulflarsen 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article glorify Terrorism and should be removed.

If there is anything in the article you disagree with, then write it here and it can be discussed and the article eventually changed, or just change the article - with a statement here with your arguments. Ulflarsen 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of introduction?

Please see following diff:

Rational134

This user's edits are not NPOV. Perhaps it can be added that civilians have indeed been killed in some attacks, however the POV of this user is that the attacks were primarily intended to cause civilian casualties, where as the Black Tigers are mainly used against military and economic targets as a counter balance to the military superiority of the GoSL. Whether this is right or wrong is not the point of the article, it is just a listing of the facts as to the LTTE rational for using Black Tigers and who they are.

I would like to change it to something as follows, removing the edits and adding a line about civilian casualties:

The Black Tigers are special operatives of the LTTE that commit suicide if needed to reach their objectives. They are considered to be one of the most elite and lethal suicide bombers in the world. More than 240 Black Tigers have died in various actions on land and sea, almost all in Sri Lanka. Their more prominent victims include Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa, however civilians too have been caught up in several attacks attributed to them.

This user has been vandalising other related pages, I will make notes in the pertinent talk sections.--Realstarslayer 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pregnant Bomber?

If we can't source that the bomber was pregnant or not, shouldn't we dis-include this infomation as it is purely speculative (something I have not heard of ever before)--Sharz 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, did delete the last sentence. Did however keep the reference to her alledged pregnancy as it was evidently used by her to gain access to the hospital that was on the army base premises. A clever way of circumventing security and as such I believe it´s typical of how the LTTE Black Tigers work. Ulflarsen 12:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Suicide bombers have no place or rank in this civilized world

I've removed the rank prefixes from the suicide cadre list. Better to have them at eelam.com or tamilnet.com. Light Years 01:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Special Forces of the LTTE

The Black Tigers are not suicide bombers, they are a group that will meet their goal doing what ever it takes. And often this means they cannot complete their mission and return to base. Would you call the SAS as suicide bombers? User:suj999 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Most western special operations units, including the SAS, make great efforts to complete their misssion and return to base. There certainly have been cases where members of a special operations unit, when a mission got into trouble, chose to take rear-guard and other roles from which they could not expect to return, as in the Battle of Mogadishu. Those soldiers, however, did not go into that operation expecting to die. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LTTE Today section...

This statement definitely does not have a neutral point of view. "The Black Tigers are believed to be the most idiotic, stupendous mentally ill unit of its kind in the world, as with the rest of the LTTE, it is also demonic." This article needs to be revised.Dreammaker182 08:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs)

Seems like vandalism to me and I have reported it to the page mentioned in the introduction. Normally I would just revert it but as this is about an internal war and as there are editing restrictions on this page I believe this is the correct action. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of suicide bombers or shock troops killed?

The Wikipedia article claims there have been 322 Black Tiger suicide bombers and links to an article that says:

A total of 322 Black Tigers have been killed in action from Captain Miller's death in 1987 until 30th June 2007, according to the Tamileelam Heroes Secretariat in Vanni.

"Twenty years ago, on 5th July, 1987 LTTE's first Black Tiger Miller drove an explosive laden truck on Sri Lanka Army (SLA) troops garrisoned in a school in Vadamaraadchi, killing more than 40 SLA troopers. "Since his death, 81 Black Tigers, 63 men and 18 women, have died in action on land, and 241 cadres, 169 men and 72 women, have died at sea, according to the figures published by the Tamileelam Heroes Secretariat."

But, to me, that statement is ambiguous and could simply mean that some (how many?) members died in non-suicide bombing violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.183.130 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Internet black tigers

@Copperchloride: Dear friend,

I don't understand your concern. I have already given more than enough references. Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply My friend, It is not the sources I have a problem with, it is the way you are wording the information wherein my concerns are. Peacock terms like terrorist group and cyber terrorists obviously indicate POV pushing, and ought to be cast aside. You know better. Provide facts(by which I am referring to events and acts) rather than designations and labels. Let the reader decide what constitutes crime and terror. --CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 16:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply @Copperchloride: I'm afraid I haven't used peacock terms and all the information given in the removed section is as they are given in the sources. Look for yourself. This is the section that you removed. Can you highlight the problematic phrases. ....The Internet Black Tigers or Internet Tigers are the first group to cyber attack on a government. In August 1997, the organisation claimed responsibility for the E-mail harassment of various Sri Lankan networks around the world. The group sends mass Email which containing the text "We are the Internet Black Tigers and we're doing this to disrupt your communications"... They were also responsible for repeated attacks on official sites of numerous other governments. The cyber attack in 1997 on Sri Lankan government and consulate network was the first recorded incident on internet terrorism by a conventional terrorist group. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Copperchloride - If you believe the wording is problematic, please re-word it in a more neutral manner. Deleting the whole section is wrong given that there are many reliable sources covering the issue.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply by CuCl2 In first revert I undid an edit which quoted this source and read: The Internet Black Tigers or Internet Tigers are the first group to cyber attack on a government. In August 1997, the organisation claimed responsibility for the E-mail harassment of various Sri Lankan networks around the world. The group sends mass Email which containing the text "We are the Internet Black Tigers and we're doing this to disrupt your communications". when the source as you can see, clearly says: In August 1997, a group calling itself the Internet Black Tigers (affiliated with The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) claimed responsibility for E-mail harassment of several Sri Lankan missions around the world.

The source only talks about a group calling itself (Only suggests a possibility;could have even be the SL govt themselves trying to disrepute the Tigers) Internet Black Tigers, while here it is exaggerated exponentially by the editor. When Nishadi undid my edit, it must have slipped her mind to take note of this discrepancy (which i had outlined in my edit summary) in her rush to add further derogatory labels like internet terrorism and conventional terrorist group and so on. Report incidents and facts rather than designated comments and opinions. Thank you.--CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 17:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Then the wording should be amended to say something like "A group calling itself the Internet Black Tigers claimed responsibility for...". There are far too many sources which mention this incident for us to ignore it.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply @Copperchloride:, As far as I can understand your concern should be addressed by the following claims, The LTTE used the internet to hack in to Sri Lankan government networks in 1997, the first recorded use of internet terrorism in the world by any conventional terrorist group.(Denning n.d.) A wing of the Tamil Tigers, calling itself the Internet Black Tigers, bombarded the Sri Lankan embassy and consulate networks with junk e mails, up to 800 per day. This cyber terrorist attack, which swamped the embassy computers for two weeks, is reputedly the first ever reported by US intelligence officials. (The Internet and Governance in Asia, p 184). Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply I'd like to reiterate against using contentious terms while incorporating any information. See WP:Terrorist, For the third time i am asserting this point, but for some reason you seem oblivious to it in every successive reply of yours. Opinions of US Intelligence and a few analysts cannot be the basis of designations especially since their neutrality is highly disputed and contended across several conflicts in the world. Use in-text notes within the article to add commentary. --CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 03:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply @Copperchloride:, Fair point, How about now.The Internet Black Tigers or Internet Tigers are the first group to cyber attack on a government. In August 1997, the organisation claimed responsibility for the E-mail harassment of various Sri Lankan networks around the world. The group sent mass Email which containing the text "We are the Internet Black Tigers and we're doing this to disrupt your communications". They were also responsible for repeated attacks on official sites of numerous other governments. According to Indrajit Banerjee, "This cyber attack in 1997 on Sri Lankan government and consulate network was the first recorded incident on internet terrorism by a conventional terrorist group". Nishadhi (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

With regard to WP:Terrorist I asked advice from more experienced users. I'll get back to you on that. Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply Yeah, but for the last comment. I reiterate opinions of some parties(even if they are major players like the US Intelligence) cannot serve as a milestone for use of contentious terms. This will only lead to someone else adding another According to....The Internet Black Tigers' attack was a landmark manifestation of Tamil resistance against Sri Lankan propaganda machinery. You can catch my drift, I hope. Its instead easy just posting the facts and let the reader's prejudice do the absorption and interpretation.--CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply OK I think this should do.The Internet Black Tigers or Internet Tigers are the first group to cyber attack on a government. In August 1997, the organisation claimed responsibility for the E-mail harassment of various Sri Lankan networks around the world. The group sent mass Email which containing the text "We are the Internet Black Tigers and we're doing this to disrupt your communications". They were also responsible for repeated attacks on official sites of numerous other governments. According to Indrajit Banerjee, "This cyber attack in 1997 on Sri Lankan government and consulate network was the first recorded incident on internet terrorism by a conventional terrorist group". What do you think? or we can get an outside opinion. (no point in wasting more time on this) Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed for factual accuracy

Hi, I have tagged this article for factual accuracy, statements like "The Black Tigers were believed to be the most effective unit of its kind in the world", they "carried out 100 to 200 missions" (50% +- is a big margin of error), are at most childish to say the least if not glorifying terrorism. I am a Sri Lankan and have been heavily editing on Sri Lanka conflict related articles up until the end of the war. I am not making any changes or correcting these mistakes as a personal choice, I request whoever has contributed to this article in the past to provide citation wherever it is requested in the many paragraphs in the article, and remove Original Research such as above statements. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Talk to me} 13:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing childish here is you. Grow up!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, I have to say, I think you should really take a step back from this article for a bit and rethink things. You are now resorting to ad hominem attacks, and I think you are having trouble maintaining neutrality in your edits here. You seem to be selectively enforcing a misguided idea of neutrality in this article, while defending or ignoring other clearly biased statements, such as the one pointed out above by Netmonger. Eric8886 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Obi2canibe, I believe you are not fit to edit this article on the basis of you supporting a separate state within Sri Lanka (as per your user page) please see WP:COI, which was the basis of LTTE, kindly do not resort to statements such as above it is against wikipedia policy. I did not state that you are childish or you have to grow up. Now I am doubting that your constant revert of my edits in some other article was due to me being past editor Sri Lanka War related articles (I am not confirming this at the moment, but stating the facts as I feel). All I have to say is, I dont know you nor do I hate you or love you there is nothing personal, I am not new to wikipedia, and have edited on it for the last 9 plus years.. so I am well aware of it's policies and procedures; again just stating the facts.. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Talk to me} 13:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Notable Successes

• I have moved this discussion from Obi2canibe's talk page to here, as I should have posted this here in the first place Eric8886 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, I'd like to discuss the "Notable successes" section of the Black Tigers article. Judging by your edit history, you likely know much much more about the subject of the Black Tigers and Sri Lanka as a whole than I do, but I have to say that I completely disagree with you on the this issue. A couple people have noted this on the talk page for the article, and I must say I agree with them that the article really seems to be glorifying suicide bombings and ignoring the brutality of many of the group's actions. If you read the actual attacks listed under "Notable successes", you will see that these were not military targets during combat, but also included civilians. Blowing up an international airport is terrorism. My edit was NOT personal commentary. I would say defining these attacks as successes is more of a personal commentary than anything. Is there a better heading that we can come up with that encompasses all of these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric8886 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article may look like it's glorifying suicide bombings but you cannot replace non-neutral content with opposing non-neutral content - see WP:TERRORIST. I am going to replace with a neutral wording.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we could agree on some terminology, although I still believe these are clearly terrorist attacks. I still don't understand your logic in reverting my change originally to wording which was obviously not neutral. Is it because "successes" was there first? This hardly seems like criteria for leaving it behind. I acknowledge that I should have cited sources identifying the acts as terrorist attacks, but just two sources from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandaranaike_Airport_attack alone refer to the Bandaranaike attack as terrorism. Also note that I did not specifically label the group as terrorists, but the act, so your style guide link has little bearing. It was clearly a terrorist attack. Why exactly are you reverting changes in this article which you believe paint this group in a bad light, but making no effort to fix those issues which portray their acts as noble? Please read your own quote from your user page and take a look at your own biases here. Eric8886 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044841/http://www.aruchuna.net/details.php?image_id=2780 to http://www.aruchuna.net/details.php?image_id=2780

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)