This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sri Lanka Armed Forces at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sri-lanka/ Source for more info however do not use information on what it says is miiltary currently as ithat is dated 1988, it will have to used in historical areas. but you can use data from historical periods to fill in incompletes areas, remember don't blatantly plagaise write it in your own words if you are going to undertake this. CooldogCongo 29 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)
I think it is not appropriate to say in the introduction that the "Sri Lankan Armed forces have been accused of human rights violations". It may have been, but that is hardly a central element of the military history. The Tamil Tigers are amongst the worst terrorists ever seen, it is not surprising that there may have been some retaliation in kind, they certainly deserved it.
125.237.109.203 (
talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history CooldogCongo
No mention was made to the killing of innocent civilians during the same period. Many of it blamed on the military. Nor any mention was made to the 30 odd missing person’s complaints made at the Human Rights Commission. Again all the missing persons reports suggested abduction by Sri Lanka Military.
Please bear in mind this is an Encyclopeida and not a platform to justify the appalling atrocities being committed by the Sri Lankan military against the Tamil community.
AGAIN SIGN YOUR COMMENTS and do not make claims without evidence, you will just get ignored.A complaint isn't the same as a conviction btw. Pubuman 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the "terrist" tag and have added "proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries". Please try to keep it NPOV and avoid such tagging. It is therefore best to write it as I have written (That is not my strandard but its how its writen everywhere). If you want you can add the countries but I thought that some would dissagree with it. Watchdogb 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:SLNS Ship pic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:SLAF kfir pic.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove what I have added. These are documented from both the State Department and the world Factbook. Wiki Raja ( talk) 06:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please state reason why * CIA World Factbook, 2005 edition should be added to the see also when there is no information about Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan Military on the wikipage. The See also should provide links to other wiki pages that contain additional information about the subject matter of the relevant article. Nitraven ( talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we can split the controversy into two questions:
— Sebastian 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Proposal to create a new article for "Sri Lankan paramilitary groups" has been moved to Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, where it fits to the existing discussion about the proposed name change. Let's fight discussion creep! — Sebastian 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
i think it is time to update the military expenditure figures since the 2008 figure is more than twice the sum shown in wikipedia. 124.43.44.53 ( talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is well known to have occurred. Do not remove well referenced and sourced material. The article is supposed to be impartial and the best sources are idependently varified ones. Furthermore, do not make the laughable claim that only LTTE has conducted civilian massacres anf the SLA has not. Both parties have been documented as having done so. Any deviation from presenting the facts is vandalism.
MentalDimension ( talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The LTTE article is filled with POV edits highlighting attrocities, whilst the SLA page has nothing mentioned about their attrocities in the opener. If you honestly want an impartial view, both must be highlighted in the opening section, or neither should be. If you actually read my edits on the LTTE page, I have not removed any sourced material at all. However, you have attempted to remove sourced material on this page which is unacceptable. I am not trying to cover any LTTE attrocities, but rather highlight that both parties have done so. The sources highlight that SLA have conducted human rights abuses and carried out civilian massacres. That is a well documented fact and is quite plain. The Sri Lankan military have frequently broken into undefended villages and blown civilians heads off, and that is well documented as well. I suggest you look up the meaning of 'original research' compared to 'documented and sourced facts'. If you are really concerned with the wording of 'notorious for civilian massacres', then you can start with not inserting it into the LTTE page since there is no source there using those words either. However it is quite clear that whilst the LTTE have massacred civilians, the SLA have massacred a far greater number of civilians and both should be mentioned in the article.
MentalDimension ( talk) 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The SLA opeing section and LTTE opening section should be equivalent, Detail is for the rest of the article. I have used the words "known as having " since that is what the article highlights.
MentalDimension ( talk) 11:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite clearly since a numebr of people who are editing the SLA page are also editing the LTTE page as well as for obvious reasons these two pages can be compared. What as Rajapakse got to do with Barack Obama? The link with LTTE and SLA is an intertwined issue so the two articles can be directly compared.
MentalDimension ( talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Added direct references from independent human rights groups who have catalogued the SLA's widespread killing of civilians, child abductions from displacement camps, and human rights violations.
18:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MentalDimension ( talk • contribs)
INCLUDE human rights violation PAGE by SLA and Terror Groups linked to SLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.65.233 ( talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
i think the page for the sri lanaksn army force used be updated specially, the commander of the army has changed and the number of active persons and rank by troops should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.25.124 ( talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Please update this quickly before someone read it ! It's been months after Fonseka's arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.232.249 ( talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Ensign of the Sri Lanka Air Force.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
Do not add war crimes allegation to the article, until credible proof as been established. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there any solid reason to oppose the inclusion of allegations of war crimes done by the exclusively sinhala armed forces of SL under the command of Sinhala President,Sinhala PM,Sinhala defense minister,Sinhala generals against Tamil civilians?These allegations have been aired in various international media with proofs and UN Secretary General's panel's report had accused the Sri Lankan state for killing 40,000 Tamil civilians ( Arun1paladin ( talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
Distributor's links can't be considered as neutral source.You don't want Sri Lanka's true face to be represented in [[Sri Lanka] page.Now you have started here too!( Arun1paladin ( talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
War crimes section is now removed as per this discussion, with majority 3 editors agreeing with the removal. If one wishes to appeal the decision further, please open a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is well sourced (seven sources for six lines of text), and it is short enough that it doesn't give undue weight. These allegations have been widely reported and qualify for inclusion. I think that they should be added back in.-- Adam in MO Talk 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The figures in the info box seem to not editable, I'm requesting to update Defence expenditure to $2.1 Billion and this would constitute 3.5% of current GDP (This would not need to be updated, as it is already 3.5%).
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5goy8ODeG_SrxWu97fFyiHOMvWVag?docId=CNG.f8680b7c6577581edbb44fca91d20f82.5e1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
We've made some infographics about the Sri Lankan military and we're putting them into the public domain. I was just interested if embedding them in this page is something the Wikipedia community would welcome. And if so how and where?
Here are the graphics in question: http://imagr.eu/up/513732533016f_SRI_infographic_fig3_B.jpg http://imagr.eu/up/5137320960c36_SRI_infographic_fig3_A.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.67.5 ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The info box to this article seems to be locked, the budget parameter has not been updated for quite some time, a cite within the article for 2011 confirms to budget to be $2.1 Billion USD [ [5]], another source verifies the budget to be US$ 2.2 Billion for 2013 [ [6]] Eng.Bandara ( talk) 00:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The War Crimes section has been repeatedly removed by User:Cossde and their sock-puppets User:59.191.193.96 and User:59.191.193.66.
The first excuse used was that these were only allegations and that the US Armed Forces didn't have anything about abuses in Iraq/Afghanistan. This is WP:OTHERSTUFF argument: The US Armed Forces article doesn't have anything about abuses in Iraq/Afghanistan, so we should not have war crime allegations on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. And in a previous attempt in January 2012 to remove this section two independent editors pointed out that Wkipedia was based on verifiability, not necessarily the truth. They also pointed out that the section was well sourced and short enough not to give undue weight.
The second excuse used was that it was repeating content in the History section. This contents were there in January 2012 and now all of a sudden it's unacceptable to mention war crimes in both sections?
The third excuse used is that contents of the War Crimes section were copied from Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. As WP:SUMMARY states, "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."
This is another straightforward WP:CENSOR from a user with a long record of violating Wikipedia policies.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this talk page. Wikipedia should not have double standards where human right violations of one armed actor are hidden away. I see some wiki users making up their own rules to support this censorship. This really needs a third party to chime in. Oz346 ( talk) 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
"The re-insertion of the section then becomes the presumed consensus." As stated by the neutral 3rd party. Oz346 ( talk) 05:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Consensus does not need agreement from all editors. The neutral 3rd party has explicitly stated that inclusion is the presumed consensus. So the burden now falls on the dissenting opinion to this presumed consensus of inclusion. You yourself had agreed to 3rd opinion involvement. This is now becoming obstructive. Oz346 ( talk) 06:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@ ParticipantObserver: can you please chime in. Oz346 ( talk) 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the summary being hidden away in a larger subsection, because it does exactly that, hide the information. Oz346 ( talk) 06:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Most people do not read all the reams of text of an article, if you think nothing is 'hidden' and that there is no difference, why are you arguing against it having its own heading and subsection? That would give the information more prominence, and it will make it more difficult to hide. Oz346 ( talk) 06:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Not at all as an independent section, already covered in the History section and under that section it can be updated or expanded if there is some need for it. That is it. 178.223.12.106 ( talk) 11:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
File:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This
In the first paragraph under History it is mentioned as if Malays were not locals. Is this true? ---- Pankajagodamunna ( talk) 15:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Shall the content proposed below, on human rights violations, in either of the two forms proposed below, be added to the article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Please enter Yes or No in each of the Survey sections with a brief statement. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion sections.
Shall the following separate section be added? Human rights violations
The Sri Lankan Armed Forces during the 30 year old Sri Lankan Civil War and the two JVP insurrections, have been implicated in several counts of violence against civilians including numerous instances of civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. [1] Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have also persisted in the post war period. [2] [3] [4]
Yes - the paragraph is a concise summary of a large, serious topic spanning decades, it warrants its own subsection. Oz346 ( talk) 00:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No - A separate controversy section for a military is WP:UNDUE because a military is controversial by nature and often see many conflicts. There is a separate page of the topic in Sri Lanka and state terrorism and the content being added here is already in the lead of another page. Better to follow how other militaries handle the issue like United States Armed Forces and US war crimes. Maintaining WP:NPOV in the page is more important than turning it into a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints. - UtoD 06:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No (other) - There is existing text in the history section with a hat note to a main article, Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. I support making the existing text a second level section within the "history section" but with the same title as the main article that is hat-noted. An addition to the text might be made to list the nature of the allegations specifically against the Sri Lankan military (ie civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders) but only where such allegations have been determined by sources/investigations of the highest quality to be credible. The UN investigation/report would meet this, as would some others of a similar calibre. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I am not satisfied that the sources being used in the proposal are adequate. Who is the International Truth and Justice Project or the People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka? My approach is to be conservative IAW policy on such a matter. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to the argument of there already being dedicated separate pages for the crimes of Sri Lankan Armed Forces, the same can be said for the opposing armed actor in the conflict the LTTE e.g. List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, but that does not stop there being extensive subsection summaries of the same crimes within its own main page LTTE. Having a dedicated article elsewhere for a subtopic of a subject does not exclude having a smaller summary on the main page. The neutral 3rd opinion already agreed on inclusion in a separate section. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page.
It is reasonable for 'human right violations' subsections to be present in both of the armed parties of the conflict. This is a long term phenomenon that has spanned decades, and has been picked up by reputed human rights groups. See this report by Amnesty International on the 20 years of impunity for the human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa370052009eng.pdf
WP:CORG clearly allows for a subsection in articles about 'controversies' in organisations. This same policy also says that sections texts should not be made so large by attempting to integrate every topic into them. For example, the suggestion to merge the text into the already overly long history section goes against this guidance. Oz346 ( talk) 07:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Shall the following be added to the History section? Accusations against state forces include civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. [1] Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have continued to the post war period. [5] [6] [7]
No - The existing history section is already overly long, and a separate, dedicated subsection is warranted. The use of the word 'accusations' for something that countless human rights groups have repeatedly confirmed with evidence is inappropriate. For example, we would not say "the Nazis are accused of killing the Jews". Oz346 ( talk) 01:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes- Most WP:NPOV option although is better not to add anything in the first place as the history section already have an adequate WP:CSECTION that is much more WP:NPOV. - UtoD 06:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No (other) - There is existing text in the history section with a hat note to a main article, Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. I support making the existing text a second level section within the "history section" but with the same title as the main article that is hat-noted. An addition to the text might be made to list the nature of the allegations specifically against the Sri Lankan military (ie civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders) but only where such allegations have been determined by sources/investigations of the highest quality to be credible. The UN investigation/report would meet this, as would some others of a similar calibre. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I am not satisfied that the sources being used in the proposal are adequate. Who is the International Truth and Justice Project or the People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka? My approach is to be conservative IAW policy on such a matter. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The claim that there is already an 'adequate CSECTION' in the history section does not stand up to scrutiny. The roping in of the LTTE into the sentence structure of the existing paragraph is misleading and hides the culpability of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces for their own gross human rights violations. The newly proposed paragraph refers specifically to the crimes committed by the SLAF not the LTTE. A reader reading the existing paragraph would be confused of who committed the mass rapes, massacres etc which have been repeatedly attributed to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces by multiple reliable sources. Sri Lankan Armed Forces crimes are a separate phenomenon from the crimes committed by the LTTE, and they should not be submerged in order to hide culpability. Oz346 ( talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
References
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"
@ Cossde: learn the meaning of primary source. A primary source would be directly from the victim or witness of the said events. The OHCHR is not a primary source, it's a secondary source. And it's from a reputable author the UN high commissioner of human rights office, not some biased sensationalising agency like the FBI. Oz346 ( talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I have been tasked with looking over this lengthy debate about one particular paragraph. I am not sure that I can disagree with
Petextrodon, that the reports are indeed secondary sources, not primary sources. They are also correct to point out other Forces' pages which have similar paragraphs and sections regarding their actions, and I am happy such material does not go against
WP:NPOV. Previous RfCs and discussions have also concluded that the text in question is not problematic, so I am more than happy for the text, along with supporting references, to stay.
Cossde's assertion that This is a very serious allegationis correct, but such allegations can certainly be included in an article when supported by reliable references, which I believe have been provided by the secondary (not primary) sources mentioned above. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
@ Mattdaviesfsic:, although I am not in 100% agreement with what you say, I do accept your opinion and stand down. Cossde ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Oz346Can you please explain why you reverted my edits condensing the war crimes part of the civil war section? I used the accused again because the section refers to the military specifically and many parts of the existing section are redundant, including the note which could be integrated to the existing para instead of repeating the same thing. - UtoD 18:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a clear attempt of WP:POVFORK by two editors here by replicating the same content from the Sri Lanka Army page on the Peacekeeping sex scandal. There is no mentioned about a similar case in by French peacekeepers in Central African Republic in the French Armed Forces. Cossde ( talk) 15:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The Burden falls on the user adding the content. If the content is disputed then the users adding it must first prove it before adding it. Also WP:INDISCRIMINATEly adding incidents as WP:POVFORKS and giving undue weight for a specific incident from 2004 is blatant WP:POVPUSHING - UtoD 15:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Oz346: So are you going to bother going to WP:ANI again instead of forcefully reverting while screaming "disruptive behaviour" in edit summaries? Because if my behavior is disruptive you should be in WP:ANI not in edit summaries brute forcing your edits which have been disputed both by me and @ Cossde: multiple times and you haven't exactly even bothered to defend your content. Either go to WP:ANI or stop reverting. - UtoD 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear User:Johnuniq could you please revert Cossde's latest edit [9], because he has falsely and disruptively claimed that the content was removed without discussion, when in fact, valid reasons have been given multiple times (the latest by me here [10]), but he refuses to play fair. His behaviour has become impossible.
Cossde falsely claims through his edits that the UN report supports the following sentence which he has added, which states "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
The UN report on Sri Lanka says nothing of the sort, and he has been apprised of this multiple times: [11], [12]
The UN report which is cited in the news articles after Cossde's OR sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts Cossde's claim:
"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))." [1]
There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises" as he claims. It has failed WP:BURDEN yet he persists. Thank you. Oz346 ( talk) 13:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Cossde ( talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding protection, see WP:WRONGVERSION which points out that pages are protected at the current version to stop an edit war. It is up to subsequent dispute resolution to determine what should happen. Please be sure to not repeat contested edits when the protection expires because that may result in a block. If there is a previous discussion showing a consensus for some version it might be reasonable for me to revert to that version. Otherwise, discussion has to proceed from where the article is now. I haven't examined the issue, but if the contested material has been recently added, the comment above saying that it is up to those supporting the addition to justify it is correct. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the section on alleged war crimes in the Sri Lankan Civil War currently reads:
The Armed Forces along with the LTTE have been accused of committing war crimes during the war, particularly during the final stages. A panel of experts appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the civil war found "credible allegations" which, if proven, indicated that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE, with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling, with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises.
Should the last phrase read:
with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on indiscriminate Sri Lankan Army shelling and the LTTE being blamed for using civilians as a human buffer.
with the LTTE accused of significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war, by using civilians as a human buffer and shooting civilians attempting to escape the conflict zone.
? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Please enter A or B with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise.
A - As this proposal is of due weight. The UN report itself documents more charges made against government forces which the existing section does not elaborate on. So the proposed sentence B does not reflect the weighting of the overall UN report, but gives disproportionate focus on the LTTE, and that too on a section that should be primarily focused on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces (the crimes of the LTTE are already extensively documented in its own page). If more of the UN report needs to be added, then it should be done in a proportionate way, and not cherry picked like proposal B. Oz346 ( talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
A - The focus of this section is on the allegations of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, not those of the LTTE. Option B gives more weight to the allegations against the LTTE despite the LTTE already being also blamed in the previous sentences, despite the section not being about the LTTE and despite the UN report itself detailing far more allegations against the government forces. Therefore, B is excessive and undue weight in a section that already downplays the war crimes of the government forces with only few sentences which blame both sides unlike the LTTE's article which has a dedicated and detailed section on its alleged human rights violations. --- Petextrodon ( talk) 03:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Please enter A or B with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey.are not appropriate; it would be entirely valid for a respondent to the RfC to offer and advocate for options different from either of the two offered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Neither If the exact extent of the blame is not clear, it would be better to leave it out. Senorangel ( talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A - I agree with option A because it’s proportional in contrast to option B which gives undue weight to subject not focus of the subsection. Laxshen ( talk) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
B or Neither - B is more balanced but the content is already covered in detail in other pages so Neither is also valid. - UtoD 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
A - The UN Report is absolutely clear: "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling".-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 20:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
A, per WP:NPOV. It explains what kind of war crimes the armed forced were accused of (indiscriminate shelling) and gives the context (LTTE's policy). Alaexis ¿question? 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Senorangel: the exact extent of blame is known and made very clear in the UN report. The question is, how much of it is appropriate to mention in this section about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces war crimes. It's a question of weighting. Mentioning the full extent would be too long, so some summarizing is necessary. Oz346 ( talk) 08:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@ UtoD: can you please explain how B is "more balanced", when this is a section focused on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces who the UN report accuses of more crimes, yet B has more details on LTTE crimes (which are relatively less in the UN report)? That's NOT balanced, that's cherry picked to disproportionately focus on the LTTE. Oz346 ( talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the following sentence be included after the heading Deployments in Peacekeeping Missions:
Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007. [1]
? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Please enter Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise.
Yes - it is relevant, not excessively long and supported by reliable sources: https://apnews.com/article/7ccc5fbc05124fa9b0f42ce2edb62d9d Oz346 ( talk) 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - One sentence about a major international scandal spanning 3 years and involving 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers is relevant to the section on peacekeeping and cannot be considered as undue weight. --- Petextrodon ( talk) 04:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No - As noted by @ Cossde: as well, it is WP:UNDUE. Per WP:PROPORTION individual events/abuses should not be indiscriminately added. Moreover, this individual event already covered in the Sri Lanka Army page, lack the necessary significance to warrant inclusion in this context and is more WP:RELEVANT to the SL Army Page (where it is already mentioned) than the Armed Forces page. Not to mention, adding them here makes them a WP:CFORK of the same section in the SL army page. This is the norm in all other major Armed Forces pages like the Israeli Defence Force, US Armed Forces etc so consistency in editorial standards should be maintained. Because if we are going to allow the WP:Scope of the articles to include cherry picking individual/isolated events of abuse from every branch of an armed force, such as this specific incident from two decades ago and allow them to be added indiscriminately to the main Armed Forces page, then it will be a WP:SOAPBOX or more specifically turning it to a WP:COATRACK. The entire argument being made for the inclusion is simply the WP:BITR which is not adequate and neither is is the "its just one sentence" argument to justify inclusion. - UtoD 06:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Not in that section which is about peacekeeping deployments and statistics in general. It looks like there is enough material for a short section about the allegations and abuses. That can all go under history, which is where scandals, atrocities and their allegations are usually included, if at all, considering the SLA page already contains more related information. Senorangel ( talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - That small sentence can’t be undue weight. Topic is relevant enough to be added there. Bureaucratic abuse of rules can’t be the reason for opposing it. Laxshen ( talk) 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes. AP is usually an unimpeachable source. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No. Maybe it could go in a less tangential "criticism" or "abuses heading or even the history heading, or alternatively not in the lead of the section. I have no issue with including the info, it's just that it seems out-of-place where it's been proposed. CVDX ( talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - The mass child-rapes committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in Haiti relates to a deployment in a peacekeeping mission so this is the section it should be included in.-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - It's one of the first things English-language speakers think about when they think of Sri Lankan peacekeeping forces, if they think anything at all. If they have any association with the topic, that is it. It would be weird not to include it. It would be like a page about Ronald Speirs not mentioning those surrendered German soldiers he allegedly executed. It's the thing that most readers of Wikipedia know about and probably are most interested to read about. Benevolent Prawn ( talk) 06:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes - As long as the statement is accurate and verifiable, then it's relevant and should be included. Coalcity58 ( talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Cossde:, please see MOS:UNDERLINK
"In general, links should be created for:
Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question."
This is not a controversial addition, so I am adding it back as per Wikipedia policy, which is absolutely clear on these matters. Oz346 ( talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
The consensus of the previous RFC supported the inclusion of mentioning this information in the article. Linking to a related article that goes into more detail is perfectly reasonable. So far there doesn't appear to be a policy related argument against linking. In light of that, I would support linking. Nemov ( talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sri Lanka Armed Forces at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sri-lanka/ Source for more info however do not use information on what it says is miiltary currently as ithat is dated 1988, it will have to used in historical areas. but you can use data from historical periods to fill in incompletes areas, remember don't blatantly plagaise write it in your own words if you are going to undertake this. CooldogCongo 29 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)
I think it is not appropriate to say in the introduction that the "Sri Lankan Armed forces have been accused of human rights violations". It may have been, but that is hardly a central element of the military history. The Tamil Tigers are amongst the worst terrorists ever seen, it is not surprising that there may have been some retaliation in kind, they certainly deserved it.
125.237.109.203 (
talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history CooldogCongo
No mention was made to the killing of innocent civilians during the same period. Many of it blamed on the military. Nor any mention was made to the 30 odd missing person’s complaints made at the Human Rights Commission. Again all the missing persons reports suggested abduction by Sri Lanka Military.
Please bear in mind this is an Encyclopeida and not a platform to justify the appalling atrocities being committed by the Sri Lankan military against the Tamil community.
AGAIN SIGN YOUR COMMENTS and do not make claims without evidence, you will just get ignored.A complaint isn't the same as a conviction btw. Pubuman 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the "terrist" tag and have added "proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries". Please try to keep it NPOV and avoid such tagging. It is therefore best to write it as I have written (That is not my strandard but its how its writen everywhere). If you want you can add the countries but I thought that some would dissagree with it. Watchdogb 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:SLNS Ship pic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:SLAF kfir pic.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove what I have added. These are documented from both the State Department and the world Factbook. Wiki Raja ( talk) 06:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please state reason why * CIA World Factbook, 2005 edition should be added to the see also when there is no information about Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan Military on the wikipage. The See also should provide links to other wiki pages that contain additional information about the subject matter of the relevant article. Nitraven ( talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we can split the controversy into two questions:
— Sebastian 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Proposal to create a new article for "Sri Lankan paramilitary groups" has been moved to Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, where it fits to the existing discussion about the proposed name change. Let's fight discussion creep! — Sebastian 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
i think it is time to update the military expenditure figures since the 2008 figure is more than twice the sum shown in wikipedia. 124.43.44.53 ( talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is well known to have occurred. Do not remove well referenced and sourced material. The article is supposed to be impartial and the best sources are idependently varified ones. Furthermore, do not make the laughable claim that only LTTE has conducted civilian massacres anf the SLA has not. Both parties have been documented as having done so. Any deviation from presenting the facts is vandalism.
MentalDimension ( talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The LTTE article is filled with POV edits highlighting attrocities, whilst the SLA page has nothing mentioned about their attrocities in the opener. If you honestly want an impartial view, both must be highlighted in the opening section, or neither should be. If you actually read my edits on the LTTE page, I have not removed any sourced material at all. However, you have attempted to remove sourced material on this page which is unacceptable. I am not trying to cover any LTTE attrocities, but rather highlight that both parties have done so. The sources highlight that SLA have conducted human rights abuses and carried out civilian massacres. That is a well documented fact and is quite plain. The Sri Lankan military have frequently broken into undefended villages and blown civilians heads off, and that is well documented as well. I suggest you look up the meaning of 'original research' compared to 'documented and sourced facts'. If you are really concerned with the wording of 'notorious for civilian massacres', then you can start with not inserting it into the LTTE page since there is no source there using those words either. However it is quite clear that whilst the LTTE have massacred civilians, the SLA have massacred a far greater number of civilians and both should be mentioned in the article.
MentalDimension ( talk) 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The SLA opeing section and LTTE opening section should be equivalent, Detail is for the rest of the article. I have used the words "known as having " since that is what the article highlights.
MentalDimension ( talk) 11:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite clearly since a numebr of people who are editing the SLA page are also editing the LTTE page as well as for obvious reasons these two pages can be compared. What as Rajapakse got to do with Barack Obama? The link with LTTE and SLA is an intertwined issue so the two articles can be directly compared.
MentalDimension ( talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Added direct references from independent human rights groups who have catalogued the SLA's widespread killing of civilians, child abductions from displacement camps, and human rights violations.
18:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MentalDimension ( talk • contribs)
INCLUDE human rights violation PAGE by SLA and Terror Groups linked to SLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.65.233 ( talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
i think the page for the sri lanaksn army force used be updated specially, the commander of the army has changed and the number of active persons and rank by troops should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.25.124 ( talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Please update this quickly before someone read it ! It's been months after Fonseka's arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.232.249 ( talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Ensign of the Sri Lanka Air Force.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
Do not add war crimes allegation to the article, until credible proof as been established. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there any solid reason to oppose the inclusion of allegations of war crimes done by the exclusively sinhala armed forces of SL under the command of Sinhala President,Sinhala PM,Sinhala defense minister,Sinhala generals against Tamil civilians?These allegations have been aired in various international media with proofs and UN Secretary General's panel's report had accused the Sri Lankan state for killing 40,000 Tamil civilians ( Arun1paladin ( talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
Distributor's links can't be considered as neutral source.You don't want Sri Lanka's true face to be represented in [[Sri Lanka] page.Now you have started here too!( Arun1paladin ( talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
War crimes section is now removed as per this discussion, with majority 3 editors agreeing with the removal. If one wishes to appeal the decision further, please open a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is well sourced (seven sources for six lines of text), and it is short enough that it doesn't give undue weight. These allegations have been widely reported and qualify for inclusion. I think that they should be added back in.-- Adam in MO Talk 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The figures in the info box seem to not editable, I'm requesting to update Defence expenditure to $2.1 Billion and this would constitute 3.5% of current GDP (This would not need to be updated, as it is already 3.5%).
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5goy8ODeG_SrxWu97fFyiHOMvWVag?docId=CNG.f8680b7c6577581edbb44fca91d20f82.5e1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
We've made some infographics about the Sri Lankan military and we're putting them into the public domain. I was just interested if embedding them in this page is something the Wikipedia community would welcome. And if so how and where?
Here are the graphics in question: http://imagr.eu/up/513732533016f_SRI_infographic_fig3_B.jpg http://imagr.eu/up/5137320960c36_SRI_infographic_fig3_A.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.67.5 ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The info box to this article seems to be locked, the budget parameter has not been updated for quite some time, a cite within the article for 2011 confirms to budget to be $2.1 Billion USD [ [5]], another source verifies the budget to be US$ 2.2 Billion for 2013 [ [6]] Eng.Bandara ( talk) 00:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The War Crimes section has been repeatedly removed by User:Cossde and their sock-puppets User:59.191.193.96 and User:59.191.193.66.
The first excuse used was that these were only allegations and that the US Armed Forces didn't have anything about abuses in Iraq/Afghanistan. This is WP:OTHERSTUFF argument: The US Armed Forces article doesn't have anything about abuses in Iraq/Afghanistan, so we should not have war crime allegations on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. And in a previous attempt in January 2012 to remove this section two independent editors pointed out that Wkipedia was based on verifiability, not necessarily the truth. They also pointed out that the section was well sourced and short enough not to give undue weight.
The second excuse used was that it was repeating content in the History section. This contents were there in January 2012 and now all of a sudden it's unacceptable to mention war crimes in both sections?
The third excuse used is that contents of the War Crimes section were copied from Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. As WP:SUMMARY states, "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."
This is another straightforward WP:CENSOR from a user with a long record of violating Wikipedia policies.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this talk page. Wikipedia should not have double standards where human right violations of one armed actor are hidden away. I see some wiki users making up their own rules to support this censorship. This really needs a third party to chime in. Oz346 ( talk) 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
"The re-insertion of the section then becomes the presumed consensus." As stated by the neutral 3rd party. Oz346 ( talk) 05:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Consensus does not need agreement from all editors. The neutral 3rd party has explicitly stated that inclusion is the presumed consensus. So the burden now falls on the dissenting opinion to this presumed consensus of inclusion. You yourself had agreed to 3rd opinion involvement. This is now becoming obstructive. Oz346 ( talk) 06:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@ ParticipantObserver: can you please chime in. Oz346 ( talk) 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the summary being hidden away in a larger subsection, because it does exactly that, hide the information. Oz346 ( talk) 06:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Most people do not read all the reams of text of an article, if you think nothing is 'hidden' and that there is no difference, why are you arguing against it having its own heading and subsection? That would give the information more prominence, and it will make it more difficult to hide. Oz346 ( talk) 06:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Not at all as an independent section, already covered in the History section and under that section it can be updated or expanded if there is some need for it. That is it. 178.223.12.106 ( talk) 11:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
File:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This
In the first paragraph under History it is mentioned as if Malays were not locals. Is this true? ---- Pankajagodamunna ( talk) 15:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Shall the content proposed below, on human rights violations, in either of the two forms proposed below, be added to the article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Please enter Yes or No in each of the Survey sections with a brief statement. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion sections.
Shall the following separate section be added? Human rights violations
The Sri Lankan Armed Forces during the 30 year old Sri Lankan Civil War and the two JVP insurrections, have been implicated in several counts of violence against civilians including numerous instances of civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. [1] Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have also persisted in the post war period. [2] [3] [4]
Yes - the paragraph is a concise summary of a large, serious topic spanning decades, it warrants its own subsection. Oz346 ( talk) 00:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No - A separate controversy section for a military is WP:UNDUE because a military is controversial by nature and often see many conflicts. There is a separate page of the topic in Sri Lanka and state terrorism and the content being added here is already in the lead of another page. Better to follow how other militaries handle the issue like United States Armed Forces and US war crimes. Maintaining WP:NPOV in the page is more important than turning it into a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints. - UtoD 06:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No (other) - There is existing text in the history section with a hat note to a main article, Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. I support making the existing text a second level section within the "history section" but with the same title as the main article that is hat-noted. An addition to the text might be made to list the nature of the allegations specifically against the Sri Lankan military (ie civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders) but only where such allegations have been determined by sources/investigations of the highest quality to be credible. The UN investigation/report would meet this, as would some others of a similar calibre. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I am not satisfied that the sources being used in the proposal are adequate. Who is the International Truth and Justice Project or the People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka? My approach is to be conservative IAW policy on such a matter. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to the argument of there already being dedicated separate pages for the crimes of Sri Lankan Armed Forces, the same can be said for the opposing armed actor in the conflict the LTTE e.g. List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, but that does not stop there being extensive subsection summaries of the same crimes within its own main page LTTE. Having a dedicated article elsewhere for a subtopic of a subject does not exclude having a smaller summary on the main page. The neutral 3rd opinion already agreed on inclusion in a separate section. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page.
It is reasonable for 'human right violations' subsections to be present in both of the armed parties of the conflict. This is a long term phenomenon that has spanned decades, and has been picked up by reputed human rights groups. See this report by Amnesty International on the 20 years of impunity for the human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa370052009eng.pdf
WP:CORG clearly allows for a subsection in articles about 'controversies' in organisations. This same policy also says that sections texts should not be made so large by attempting to integrate every topic into them. For example, the suggestion to merge the text into the already overly long history section goes against this guidance. Oz346 ( talk) 07:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Shall the following be added to the History section? Accusations against state forces include civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. [1] Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have continued to the post war period. [5] [6] [7]
No - The existing history section is already overly long, and a separate, dedicated subsection is warranted. The use of the word 'accusations' for something that countless human rights groups have repeatedly confirmed with evidence is inappropriate. For example, we would not say "the Nazis are accused of killing the Jews". Oz346 ( talk) 01:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes- Most WP:NPOV option although is better not to add anything in the first place as the history section already have an adequate WP:CSECTION that is much more WP:NPOV. - UtoD 06:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No (other) - There is existing text in the history section with a hat note to a main article, Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. I support making the existing text a second level section within the "history section" but with the same title as the main article that is hat-noted. An addition to the text might be made to list the nature of the allegations specifically against the Sri Lankan military (ie civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders) but only where such allegations have been determined by sources/investigations of the highest quality to be credible. The UN investigation/report would meet this, as would some others of a similar calibre. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I am not satisfied that the sources being used in the proposal are adequate. Who is the International Truth and Justice Project or the People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka? My approach is to be conservative IAW policy on such a matter. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The claim that there is already an 'adequate CSECTION' in the history section does not stand up to scrutiny. The roping in of the LTTE into the sentence structure of the existing paragraph is misleading and hides the culpability of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces for their own gross human rights violations. The newly proposed paragraph refers specifically to the crimes committed by the SLAF not the LTTE. A reader reading the existing paragraph would be confused of who committed the mass rapes, massacres etc which have been repeatedly attributed to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces by multiple reliable sources. Sri Lankan Armed Forces crimes are a separate phenomenon from the crimes committed by the LTTE, and they should not be submerged in order to hide culpability. Oz346 ( talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
References
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"
@ Cossde: learn the meaning of primary source. A primary source would be directly from the victim or witness of the said events. The OHCHR is not a primary source, it's a secondary source. And it's from a reputable author the UN high commissioner of human rights office, not some biased sensationalising agency like the FBI. Oz346 ( talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I have been tasked with looking over this lengthy debate about one particular paragraph. I am not sure that I can disagree with
Petextrodon, that the reports are indeed secondary sources, not primary sources. They are also correct to point out other Forces' pages which have similar paragraphs and sections regarding their actions, and I am happy such material does not go against
WP:NPOV. Previous RfCs and discussions have also concluded that the text in question is not problematic, so I am more than happy for the text, along with supporting references, to stay.
Cossde's assertion that This is a very serious allegationis correct, but such allegations can certainly be included in an article when supported by reliable references, which I believe have been provided by the secondary (not primary) sources mentioned above. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
@ Mattdaviesfsic:, although I am not in 100% agreement with what you say, I do accept your opinion and stand down. Cossde ( talk) 02:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Oz346Can you please explain why you reverted my edits condensing the war crimes part of the civil war section? I used the accused again because the section refers to the military specifically and many parts of the existing section are redundant, including the note which could be integrated to the existing para instead of repeating the same thing. - UtoD 18:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a clear attempt of WP:POVFORK by two editors here by replicating the same content from the Sri Lanka Army page on the Peacekeeping sex scandal. There is no mentioned about a similar case in by French peacekeepers in Central African Republic in the French Armed Forces. Cossde ( talk) 15:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The Burden falls on the user adding the content. If the content is disputed then the users adding it must first prove it before adding it. Also WP:INDISCRIMINATEly adding incidents as WP:POVFORKS and giving undue weight for a specific incident from 2004 is blatant WP:POVPUSHING - UtoD 15:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Oz346: So are you going to bother going to WP:ANI again instead of forcefully reverting while screaming "disruptive behaviour" in edit summaries? Because if my behavior is disruptive you should be in WP:ANI not in edit summaries brute forcing your edits which have been disputed both by me and @ Cossde: multiple times and you haven't exactly even bothered to defend your content. Either go to WP:ANI or stop reverting. - UtoD 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear User:Johnuniq could you please revert Cossde's latest edit [9], because he has falsely and disruptively claimed that the content was removed without discussion, when in fact, valid reasons have been given multiple times (the latest by me here [10]), but he refuses to play fair. His behaviour has become impossible.
Cossde falsely claims through his edits that the UN report supports the following sentence which he has added, which states "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
The UN report on Sri Lanka says nothing of the sort, and he has been apprised of this multiple times: [11], [12]
The UN report which is cited in the news articles after Cossde's OR sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts Cossde's claim:
"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))." [1]
There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises" as he claims. It has failed WP:BURDEN yet he persists. Thank you. Oz346 ( talk) 13:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Cossde ( talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding protection, see WP:WRONGVERSION which points out that pages are protected at the current version to stop an edit war. It is up to subsequent dispute resolution to determine what should happen. Please be sure to not repeat contested edits when the protection expires because that may result in a block. If there is a previous discussion showing a consensus for some version it might be reasonable for me to revert to that version. Otherwise, discussion has to proceed from where the article is now. I haven't examined the issue, but if the contested material has been recently added, the comment above saying that it is up to those supporting the addition to justify it is correct. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the section on alleged war crimes in the Sri Lankan Civil War currently reads:
The Armed Forces along with the LTTE have been accused of committing war crimes during the war, particularly during the final stages. A panel of experts appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the civil war found "credible allegations" which, if proven, indicated that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE, with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling, with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises.
Should the last phrase read:
with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on indiscriminate Sri Lankan Army shelling and the LTTE being blamed for using civilians as a human buffer.
with the LTTE accused of significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war, by using civilians as a human buffer and shooting civilians attempting to escape the conflict zone.
? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Please enter A or B with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise.
A - As this proposal is of due weight. The UN report itself documents more charges made against government forces which the existing section does not elaborate on. So the proposed sentence B does not reflect the weighting of the overall UN report, but gives disproportionate focus on the LTTE, and that too on a section that should be primarily focused on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces (the crimes of the LTTE are already extensively documented in its own page). If more of the UN report needs to be added, then it should be done in a proportionate way, and not cherry picked like proposal B. Oz346 ( talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
A - The focus of this section is on the allegations of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, not those of the LTTE. Option B gives more weight to the allegations against the LTTE despite the LTTE already being also blamed in the previous sentences, despite the section not being about the LTTE and despite the UN report itself detailing far more allegations against the government forces. Therefore, B is excessive and undue weight in a section that already downplays the war crimes of the government forces with only few sentences which blame both sides unlike the LTTE's article which has a dedicated and detailed section on its alleged human rights violations. --- Petextrodon ( talk) 03:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Please enter A or B with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey.are not appropriate; it would be entirely valid for a respondent to the RfC to offer and advocate for options different from either of the two offered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Neither If the exact extent of the blame is not clear, it would be better to leave it out. Senorangel ( talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A - I agree with option A because it’s proportional in contrast to option B which gives undue weight to subject not focus of the subsection. Laxshen ( talk) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
B or Neither - B is more balanced but the content is already covered in detail in other pages so Neither is also valid. - UtoD 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
A - The UN Report is absolutely clear: "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling".-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 20:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
A, per WP:NPOV. It explains what kind of war crimes the armed forced were accused of (indiscriminate shelling) and gives the context (LTTE's policy). Alaexis ¿question? 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Senorangel: the exact extent of blame is known and made very clear in the UN report. The question is, how much of it is appropriate to mention in this section about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces war crimes. It's a question of weighting. Mentioning the full extent would be too long, so some summarizing is necessary. Oz346 ( talk) 08:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@ UtoD: can you please explain how B is "more balanced", when this is a section focused on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces who the UN report accuses of more crimes, yet B has more details on LTTE crimes (which are relatively less in the UN report)? That's NOT balanced, that's cherry picked to disproportionately focus on the LTTE. Oz346 ( talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the following sentence be included after the heading Deployments in Peacekeeping Missions:
Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007. [1]
? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Please enter Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise.
Yes - it is relevant, not excessively long and supported by reliable sources: https://apnews.com/article/7ccc5fbc05124fa9b0f42ce2edb62d9d Oz346 ( talk) 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - One sentence about a major international scandal spanning 3 years and involving 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers is relevant to the section on peacekeeping and cannot be considered as undue weight. --- Petextrodon ( talk) 04:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No - As noted by @ Cossde: as well, it is WP:UNDUE. Per WP:PROPORTION individual events/abuses should not be indiscriminately added. Moreover, this individual event already covered in the Sri Lanka Army page, lack the necessary significance to warrant inclusion in this context and is more WP:RELEVANT to the SL Army Page (where it is already mentioned) than the Armed Forces page. Not to mention, adding them here makes them a WP:CFORK of the same section in the SL army page. This is the norm in all other major Armed Forces pages like the Israeli Defence Force, US Armed Forces etc so consistency in editorial standards should be maintained. Because if we are going to allow the WP:Scope of the articles to include cherry picking individual/isolated events of abuse from every branch of an armed force, such as this specific incident from two decades ago and allow them to be added indiscriminately to the main Armed Forces page, then it will be a WP:SOAPBOX or more specifically turning it to a WP:COATRACK. The entire argument being made for the inclusion is simply the WP:BITR which is not adequate and neither is is the "its just one sentence" argument to justify inclusion. - UtoD 06:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Not in that section which is about peacekeeping deployments and statistics in general. It looks like there is enough material for a short section about the allegations and abuses. That can all go under history, which is where scandals, atrocities and their allegations are usually included, if at all, considering the SLA page already contains more related information. Senorangel ( talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - That small sentence can’t be undue weight. Topic is relevant enough to be added there. Bureaucratic abuse of rules can’t be the reason for opposing it. Laxshen ( talk) 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes. AP is usually an unimpeachable source. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No. Maybe it could go in a less tangential "criticism" or "abuses heading or even the history heading, or alternatively not in the lead of the section. I have no issue with including the info, it's just that it seems out-of-place where it's been proposed. CVDX ( talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - The mass child-rapes committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in Haiti relates to a deployment in a peacekeeping mission so this is the section it should be included in.-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - It's one of the first things English-language speakers think about when they think of Sri Lankan peacekeeping forces, if they think anything at all. If they have any association with the topic, that is it. It would be weird not to include it. It would be like a page about Ronald Speirs not mentioning those surrendered German soldiers he allegedly executed. It's the thing that most readers of Wikipedia know about and probably are most interested to read about. Benevolent Prawn ( talk) 06:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes - As long as the statement is accurate and verifiable, then it's relevant and should be included. Coalcity58 ( talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Cossde:, please see MOS:UNDERLINK
"In general, links should be created for:
Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question."
This is not a controversial addition, so I am adding it back as per Wikipedia policy, which is absolutely clear on these matters. Oz346 ( talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
The consensus of the previous RFC supported the inclusion of mentioning this information in the article. Linking to a related article that goes into more detail is perfectly reasonable. So far there doesn't appear to be a policy related argument against linking. In light of that, I would support linking. Nemov ( talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |