Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces

extra information

http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history CooldogCongo

Add the Sri lanka Army Service Branch Flag

File:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This

RFC: United Nations Report on Sri Lankan Civil War

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus clearly favored option A. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:16, 21 April 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:

A 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.

OR

B 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.

Survey

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)

• Inappropriate RfC. A request for comments is a request for comments, not a request for votes. Instructions like 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)

  I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but the guideline under "Responding to an RfC" seems to allow polling: "Yet others offer one or more alternative proposals that are separately endorsed or opposed by editors using a polling process."

  Please do clarify if I have misunderstood it. Thanks. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:48, 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 seems more appropriate after reading what was reported. Senorangel (talk) 05:02, 29 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 article is about the Sri Lanka Armed Forces ,the focus of this section is on the of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces which is evidenced by the United Nations report. B is excessive and undue weight as mentioned above by Petextrodon.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:19, 28 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)

Discussion

@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)

Oz346 which page or document are you using for "most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling"? I am looking at the 2015 UN report. Senorangel (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20Rep%20on%20Account%20in%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf

page ii - "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by

Government shelling."

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/737299/files/The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf

Page 11 - "The COG had prepared a casualty sheet which showed that a large majority of the civilian casualties recorded by the UN had reportedly been caused by Government fire" Oz346 (talk) 10:42, 27 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on Peacekeeping Scandal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to include. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:21, 21 April 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.

? 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.

Survey

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 it is relevant, not excessively long hence not undue weight and supported by reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:23, 28 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)

• Yesper above arguments. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:39, 29 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)

Discussion

• Pl. cite reliable reference pl. Bookku (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Petextrodon.

  Since RS exists the issue ought to be taken encyclopedic note of. The sentence in the article UN child sexual abuse scandal in Haiti goes like ".. In November 2007, 114 members of the 950 member Sri Lankan Army peacekeeping mission in Haiti were accused of sexual misconduct and abuse. .." whereas lead sentence in the article Sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers seem to go like ".. An Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed in 2017 that more than 100 United Nations (UN) peacekeepers ran a child sex ring in Haiti over a 10-year period and none were ever jailed. ..". As and when I get time I shall join updating articles with google scholar. Mean while I suggest / request some one look into the details once more. Bookku (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Senorangel, there was another introductory sentence in that section but it was moved. I suggested expanding on the general history of that section so the Haiti scandal won't be the only sentence there. --- Petextrodon (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I mean there are allegations from the civil war and with respect to Haiti as well. A section under History can mention all of them in one place. Senorangel (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. On one hand this is a major event well supported by RS, on the other hand it wouldn't be right if this was the only sentence in the article. I'd urge the editors who are against the inclusion to add the general overview of the performance of Sri Lankan peacekeepers to the section to achieve a balanced coverage. Alaexis_¿question? 11:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

link to peace keeper scandal full article

@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)

It is a controversial addition, the above RFC as concluded it as it is. You are going beyond it. Cossde (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial to put a mere link to the topic page of the actual incident. But I've requested a third opinion to solve this impasse. Oz346 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Then why did you revert my change, without going to a third opinion? I request you to refrain from edit waring. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your change, because it makes no sense. Does every edit need to be approved by rfc to be added? I'm going to third opinion now, because you still have not provided an adequate reason for removal of the link, and it is clear we have now reached an impasse, as you refuse to budge from your position. I could not assume that you would still disagree. Before going to third opinion, there needs to be a talk page discussion. Oz346 (talk) 15:29, 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)

Although I don't agree with your view on the matter, I will respect it and let this stand. Cossde (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)