Source[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

extra information[edit]

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

Violence in December / January[edit]

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.

do you have conclusive proofs??

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)Reply[reply]

Following is the link to the full statement released by the European Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) with regards to recent incidents of violence in Sri Lanka.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5298748.stm
The statement clearly states that the Sri Lankan Military has carried out “war crimes”. --82.40.185.111 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement alledges that. It doesnt "clearly say" anything. Either find some proof or shutup and get lost. OzLawyer
This article is loaded with pro-government propaganda and POV. Just in the intro it uses the word "deadliest terrorist." Elalan 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No no, I dont think so at all. This is a very good article about SL forces. No need to change it. And bloody sign your posts next time you bloody guys. Child_Soldier 23:14 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SLNS Ship pic.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SLAF kfir pic.JPG[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

RE: Paramilitaries[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Oh is that the same State Department and the same CIA, who said there where weapons of mass-distraction in Iraq ?????Nitraven (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for opinionated blogging, but factual and neutral information. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True Very True !!!!!!! cant agree with u any more. However the listed groups are not official Paramilitaries. As termed Military of Sri Lanka these include the official state forces sanctioned by Parliament. But you seem to do exactly what you ask others not to do??? Adding that link without any credible and official references is in fact on different from "opinionated blogging" and can not be considered as "factual and neutral information". Therefore do not add these to the list unless you have credible and official references.Nitraven (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citations back these groups as paramilitary. For example, TMVP, is a widely known paramilitary organization. There are even allegations from RS that Karuna took many orders from Sri Lankan Military to kill people and so on. Watchdogb (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using fake references is bordering on vandalism, and if these groups are added back without references that explicitly state they are part of the "Military of Sri Lanka", I will take this to AN/I. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The U.S. State department web site is not fake and so is the World Factbook. Would you like to contest this to admin here in Wikipedia? Wiki Raja (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop blanking info backed by official sources. Also, please refrain from calling legitimate edits vandalism. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The text of the state department document does not state that these are groups funded by the SL Government but only goes far as to state that there is "suspected of being linked".
"There were numerous reports that armed paramilitary groups, suspected of being linked to the government or security forces, participated in armed attacks during the year. These groups included the Karuna faction of the LTTE, the Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP), and the People's Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). The LTTE continued to control large sections of the north and east and engaged in politically motivated killings, disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, denial of fair public trial, arbitrary interference with privacy, denial of freedom of speech, press, of assembly and association, and the recruitment of child soldiers. "
The official paramilitary units are clearly stated so,
"Following the November 17 presidential election, the government eliminated the Ministry of Internal Security and placed control of the 66-thousand-member police force, which includes the 6-thousand member paramilitary Special Task Force, under the Ministry of Defense."
Farther more wikipages such as the page on Indian Paramilitary Forces lists only state/central governmental paramilitaries that have been formed after being sanctioned by the Parliament.
Due to this reason stating that these individual groups are paramilitaries based on this document maybe legitimized, however claiming that they are official governmental paramilitaries is inaccurate, vandalism and opinionated blogging.Nitraven (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not important whether they are official or unofficial paramilitaries, but their functions are similar to regular paramilitaries of a country. US State Departments and CIA references[1][2][3][4] enough to categorise them as paramilitaries. If you want, refer them as "Unofficial Paramilitaries", but the attributions are encyclopedic and not contradicting with any of the wiki policies.Teasereds (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is about the Sri Lankan Military, a military of a Sovereign state if you go to state that we should have a link of paramilitaries of the country of Sri Lanka then you can go far as to add the LTTE since its engaged in paramilitary activities in the island of Sri Lanka. However is seen no reason why we should add them to the list of units of the Sri Lankan Military since there are not one of them. You may categorise them as paramilitaries in general but not paramilitaries of the Sri Lankan Military. By the way there is nothing called unofficial paramilitaries, thats just word used to term paramilitaries that are claimed to be associated with, yet is not proven to be.Nitraven (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You stated "a military of a Sovereign state", but still it is criticized by various groups globally for its various sorts of killings. So your "Sovereign state's military" doesn't take it anywhere. If you have citation that LTTE also involved on paramilitary activities, then add it. You state "yet is not proven to be", then how the CIA and US State Department relate things on their statements. If you are reluctant to use the word "unofficial", then you can state "Paramilitaries Aided by Sri Lankan Military". Don't try to purify the Sri Lankan Military. We are developing here a neutral encyclopedia.Teasereds (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible solution

I think we can split the controversy into two questions:

  1. Should non-governmental paramilitary groups be covered in this article at all? I think they should not; we already have the article Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, which already lists TMVP, EPDP, PLOTE and EPRLF (to which Razeek Group redirects).
    If this does not convince inclusionists, then I ask that they take a look at similar articles, which should be under Category:Military by country. If we find several articles that support inclusion, then we can take it from there. I advice the exclusionists to also look at articles that might back up their point, so we get a good basis for comparison.
  2. What is the right wording of the section? The current wording clearly refers to all paramilitary groups, which does not fit to the limited list. I will therefore change it from "There are only two Paramilitary Forces in Sri Lanka" to "There are only two Paramilitary Forces under the direct command of the Sri Lanka government. See also Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups." I'm no expert in military matters, please someone who knows better adjust the wording.

— Sebastian 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me suggest changing the name Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups to Sri Lankan Tamil paramilitary groups. By grouping all these paramilitaries with the LTTE, it makes it look like that all these groups are fighting against the Sri Lankan government, when in fact it is all these parmilitary groups that support the government. In the ethnic war there are two primary combatants which is the LTTE and the GOSL. As for the Tamil paramilitaries, they are used by the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, LTTE should be taken off the list on that page since they run a virtual de facto state with its own courts, police, and administration. The others on the list do not and are under the command of the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I see that this issue is connected with a possible solution to this discussion, I feel this should be discussed primarily at talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups#Proposed name change. I'm copying it there. — Sebastian 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the change of wording by Sebastian, however I suggest that the link to the Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups should be moved to the See also category from the sub-category of Paramilitary Forces.Nitraven (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree, since there are a total of five Tamil paramilitary groups used by the Sri Lankan armed forces. Also, the Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups should be changed to Tamil paramilitary groups. Or, I can kindly create a page for Tamil Paramilitary groups. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

the military expenditure[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — Sebastian 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, it is important, especially in this disputed area, to back up everything you write with reliable sources. — Sebastian 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Civilian Massacres and human rights abuses[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your effort to maintain NPOV here, but I must confess I'm at a loss to understand why the NPOV champion reworded the LTTE article to a very mild language and presented the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article in an entirely different tone. If "any deviation from presenting the facts is vandalism", then you have vandalized the LTTE page by removing sourced information.
As for the edit you have made to this article, I suggest you read the source too before you advice others to do so; the sources do not say that the military is "notorious for carrying out civilian massacres and human rights abuses", which makes your edit original research. The military have not broken into undefended villages and blown civilians' heads open unlike the LTTE. But they have been accused of human rights violations of course (which is not the same as being notorious for abuses, I may point out), which should be added to the article. Give me one day, I will add this information to the article in a proper way. ≈ Chamal talk 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

WP:NPOV doesn't mean removing facts from an article just because another does not have them. As for your removal of source info from the LTTE page, take a look at this if you've forgotten. And as for your accusation, I have not removed any material you have added; I have merely commented here. I assume you have noticed a message at the top saying that the article is subject to editing restrictions, which includes discussing before re-reverting. It would be appreciated if you followed that method. ≈ Chamal talk 10:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Look, we don't edit one article to suit another. Would you edit Mahinda Rajapaksa so that it says the same things as Barack Obama? So stop comparing the two articles. They have to be improved separately. Take whatever problems you have with the LTTE article to its talk page. I have added some information on human rights violations to the article, with the response from the government as well. I will try to find more. Also I have removed the Amnesty International ref; it does not mention anything about the military at all. ≈ Chamal talk 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)

Human rights violations[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

update[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Chief of the Defence Staff must be corrected[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

File:Ensign of the Sri Lanka Air Force.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not add war crimes allegation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

This is not gossip, it is credible allegations backed up with numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia does not censor content just because it may make some people uncomfortable.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The references you provided does not substantiate. Here is a newer report which shows sri lanka armed forces good ethical conduct during operation to degrade the combat effectiveness of the Tamil tigers. http://www.defence.lk/news/20110801_Conf.pdf Distributor108 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All reliable sources cited by obi2canibe does not clearly state that there were war crimes in Sri Lanka carried out by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Its all allegations not facts there is a clear difference in the two ! Cossde (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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))Reply[reply]


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))Reply[reply]

Arun1paladin, ideology is as repetitive as his rhetoric ! No credible war crimes chargers are yet drown up against the Sri Lanka Armed Forces, only allegations of possible war crimes !!! This is not a definite statement just play of word as such until credible war crimes chargers are leveled by the ICC this section should be removed. Cossde (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

We in Wikipedia don't resolve disputes by taking vote, we build a consensus. There is no consensus to remove the war crimes section. The merits of including Sri Lankan war crimes on Wikipedia has been discussed several times at Talk:Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War and Talk:Sri Lanka. The general view was that it can be included as long as they are backed up by reliable sources and state that they are only allegations. (P.S. if there was a vote it would be one man, one vote not one man, three accounts, three votes.)--obi2canibetalk contr 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Cossde, if an allegation is highly publicised by reliable sources, we need to include it (whether or not it is actually true) as Wikipedia is fundamentally based on verifiability and no original research. Wikipedia is not based on fact but verifiability. Omitting an allegation which had significant and well-documented coverage in the media is not in line with our policies and guidelines (except, in some cases, in BLPs. Our coverage of those allegations however, must be neutral and heavily referenced. —Dark 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite simply the ruling factor here is that its allegations, and there are allegations of war crimes on the United States, Pakistan , how ever it has not been mentioned on the United States Armed Forces or the Pakistani Armed Forces articles. The talk page on United States Armed Forces depicts clear reason for exclusion from said article.Cossde (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The depth of coverage of United States war crime in the media in comparison with the topic itself cannot be compared to its Sri Lankan counterpart. Perhaps that's an issue of systematic bias, but it is how it is. —Dark 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not allegations; mass civilian casualties were incurred through indiscriminate shelling. The SL forces were the only ppl capable of conducting this shelling who were present in the area. (LTTE was much too weak to direct most of it). BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the basis of this statement. The depth of coverage of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse was more prominent and extensive than the allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka. However it is not listed, or even mentioned in either the United States Armed Forces or the United States Army. Therefore dedication of a subsection is giving undue wight in an article on Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Cossde (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update figures[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Go edit Template:Military of Sri Lanka2. I have no idea why the infobox for this article is hidden in a template. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He can't. He's under a topic ban. —Dark 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then can you change it for me, instead of stating why I cant do it. try to be productive! 114.76.220.19 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If he's under a topic ban, ((edit protected)) is not the right template to use. I'll leave making the edit for someone familiar with the article, the user, and the topic ban. Anomie⚔ 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then put the appropriate template, Because someone hasn't addressed the issue. 114.76.220.19 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infographics?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Edit request[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

The infobox is at ((Military of Sri Lanka2)). You should be able to edit it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

War crimes section[edit]

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.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This coming from a user who has drafted articles creating undue wight in creating a negative image of the Sri Lankan Armed forces. My attempts to move the contents of the war crimes allegations was in line with WP:CORG which state that it is " not practical to integrate all the controversy material into the main article". Since WP:CORG further states that "describe its controversies in detail, as an independent topic", which as been done in this case with the article Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. My attempt was to create "a small summary overview of the controversies" in the history section, which included adding a clear link to the article on the controversy. Much of the contents in the "War crimes" section has been copied and pasted from the primary article and has been repeated in similar fashion in the article Sri Lanka Army, Sri Lankan Civil War, etc. Therefore if you want to re-add this content please take it up to WP:RFC without reading the content which is a clear violation of WP:CORG and WP:RSUW. Cossde (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More excuses for censorship. What WP:CORG actually states, in full, is:
  • "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources - other than the critics themselves - provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism. For example, the sources that discuss the 2008 Summer Olympics often describe its controversies in detail, as an independent topic. But the main article is very long and therefore it is not practical to integrate all the controversy material into the main article. Thus, the summary style guideline was used to create a sub-article Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, and the main article contains a small summary overview of the controversies"
In this case numerous reliable sources provide substantial coverage of the alleged war crimes. A sub-article - Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War - has been created to cover the allegations in depth. And a small summary overview of the alleged war crimes has been left in this article. Just like the Concerns and controversies section on the 2008 Summer Olympics provided as an example by WP:CORG.
And as for WP:RSUW, there are four editors, including two independent editors, who believe the separate section isn't giving undue weight to the allegations. You believe it does. What does that tell us? Next excuse please.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per WP:CORG, subsection in question in 2008 Summer Olympics is Concerns and controversies. It covers multiple controversies in a small summary overview. Do you consider a separate section a on singular issue as a "small summary overview of the controversies" ? This is a singular item which you are attempting blow out of proportion and I don't see the four editors taking part in this discussion now or supporting this argument of yours here. Hence your inclusion of this sub section, which mind you is NOT small summary overview of the singular controversy at hand can be considered arbitrary. Cossde (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I would consider a separate section a on singular issue to be a "small summary overview of the controversies", if there was a singular well-documented controversy and the section was kept to a small summary. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Dispute ended with the consensus to remove the all the way in 2013. -UmdP 10:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not 'consensus', the user Cossde who was using sock puppets did not get agreement from the dissenting party.
Here is a definition of 'consensus'
'CONSENSUS is a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group' Oz346 (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the definition WP:CONSENSUS. Don't try to re-interpret it on your own terms. -UmdP 12:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was there a sock puppet investigation for user Cossde with respect to the removal of this material in 2013? ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My read of WP:CONSENSUS, this talk page, and the edit history is that there is currently a presumed consensus on this section, but that can of course be reversed by anyone who has reason to re-add the section and dispute its exclusion. The re-insertion of the section then becomes the presumed consensus. Anyway, it seems reasonable based on the discussion here to include a small summary section that discusses the controversy. ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ParticipantObserver:: Cossde doesn't appear to have used a sock in 2013. The previous consensus is to have a section under history heading without creating a separate heading for WP:CSECTION similar to other militaries as the content is already present in the Sri Lanka and state terrorism, and this also the agreement in US Armed Forces talk page. I don't have a issue for a WP:CSECTION within the History heading however creating a separate heading would shift too much weight into this page as we are talking about multiple controversies across nearly half a century and will keep going to the future like a typical military. So is your recomendation for a section under separate heading or section under history heading.? -20:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@ParticipantObserver: Excellent. Completely agree, I will reinsert the small summary section as before. Having this information submerged in some non-specific history section, will hide this information and obfuscate things. 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 party 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. Oz346 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cossde/Archive
Confirmed sockpuppet use in the past. Oz346 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oz346: A list of attack page is not a criticism page. It's just a list which exists for the [[List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces| government as well]. The government already has its own entire page for the content you are trying to add in the Sri Lanka and state terrorism. So the state has a seperate page and it should go there. I am willing to allow a summary section in the history heading and also the link to the relevant articles but I have not provided consensus to a seperate heading but if you want to push you can go to WP:DRN. Thank you-UmdP 03:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well the burden is now on you to take it to WP:DRN, as a neutral 3rd party has ruled in favour of inclusion. I still disagree completely with you. Your argument does not make any sense to me and seems to be based on double standards.Oz346 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

Nope. It has not yet become the consensus. I have not agreed to a seperate heading and you want the inclusion of the content in a heading. If you want to push for that go for WP:DRN. - UmdP 06:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@ParticipantObserver: can you please chime in. Oz346 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have opened a WP:DRN in here. I have already agreed on inclusion of summary but under a different heading. Thank you. -UmdP 06:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thats your WP:POV, if you want to argue then go to the WP:DRN. Nothing is "hidden", anyoone can read anything. Thank You. -UmdP 06:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Well you asked me to open a WP:DRN for you and I have explained it there. -UmdP 06:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to be particularly helpful here, because I don't have a strong opinion on where the material should be placed. I do think that wanting to make some information particularly prominent (or not) is not a particularly objective or neutral reason for determining how the page should be formatted (what headers there should be, etc.). I think it would be reasonable to include in the existing history section, but I also think that a separate "controversies" section would be reasonable. So, as I said, I'm not going to be very helpful in deciding this dispute: I see merit on either approach. Hopefully the DRN will lead to a clear resolution. Sorry I couldn't help more! ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ParticipantObserver: Thank you for taking your time to give an opinion. Merry Christmas. -UmdP 17:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Merry christmas to you as well! ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Add the Sri lanka Army Service Branch Flag[edit]

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

Malays-weren't they locals[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

RFC on Human Rights Violation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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.


Proposed Separate Section

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]

Survey (1)

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)Reply[reply]

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 likeUnited 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Threaded Discussion (1)

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)Reply[reply]

Proposed Addition to History Section

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]

Survey (2)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Threaded Discussion (2)

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)Reply[reply]

@Cinderella157:@Buidhe: Regarding exceptional claims need exceptional sources. International Truth and Justice Project is a human rights group focused on Sri Lanka run by Yasmin Sooka, an internationally renowned Human rights lawyer, and one of the members of the said UN panel of experts (which authored the UN panel of experts report on SL). If this source is not regarded as reliable, then quite frankly none of the gross human rights violations committed by the SLAF post war will make the radar, as this is one of the only groups to be focusing on these crimes. It is quoted by international media like the BBC for example. Permanent Peoples' Tribunal can be read about here. Secondly, saying that existing war crimes page is sufficient will not work, as that page only refers to human rights violations committed in the final stages of the civil war (e.g. 2009). As for "human rights violations", being simply historical in nature. That is simply not true, they continue with impunity to this day, for every year after the war, including 2021: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24849699 Oz346 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are separate pages for the specific topics and most of the content in the paragraph are historical events some from the 80s. Wikipedia as a Human rights radar is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is more reason to avoid adding the content. Also considering the content is "submerged" in the article is a clear WP:POV issue and is not WP:NPOV to give WP:UNDUE prominence to specific aspects chosen by a person's POV. Its essentially WP:POVPUSHING and WP:ACTIVISM which are poor reasons -UtoD 11:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a huge body of reliable sources which demonstrate continuing gross human right violations by the SLAF in the post war period, trying to reduce this phenomenon to just the war is distortion. Oz346 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First the content refer specifically to events that happened in the 80s. Second not a Human Rights WP:ACTIVISM website. There are separate articles for Post-war as well in the Sri Lanka and state terrorism. Requesting prominence to a POV is still WP:SOAPBOXing. There are militaries with ongoing conflicts such as Syrian Armed Forces whose abuses are in a small summary in the History section without giving WP:UNDUE prominence. -UtoD 12:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is patently false, it refers to human rights violations spanning over 30 years, as well as those that occured in the post war period. Not just the 80s. That is quite explicit in its phrasing. Oz346 (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even linked to specific events from the 80s. Also it is WP:UNDUE to WP:INDISCRIMINATEly to list incidents from decades, specially when separate pages exists for those topics. -UtoD 12:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are throwing in a lot of policies and word-soups but without reading them. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion is continuing from multiple pages and the entire issue is being addressed. The accusations in the first proposal are linked to specific incidents from the 80s and according to the previous discussions the intention of a separate section was to continuously expand incidents across several decades just because they exist or documented which would be indiscriminate dumping just to push a specific POV. I was also addressing the claim that integrating the content to the body of article is WP:CENSORSHIP. The entire content dispute is due to the user complaining about "propaganda" in the LTTE page and then added the current content which is the point of the dispute complaining about "double standards". -UtoD 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sections of human rights violations in both the LTTE and the SLAF pages. Full stop. They are both major parties of the conflict. SLAF does not get its gross violations hidden just because some people don't like it.Oz346 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its "The conflict" for the LTTE's POV. -UtoD 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. Major Human rights groups cover this problem spanning decades, it's very normal to describe this as an ongoing phenomenon. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa370052009eng.pdf Oz346 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ a b "Genocide Against Tamil People: Massacres, Pogroms, Destruction of Property, Sexual Violence and Assassinations of Civil Society Leaders" (PDF). People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka (PTSL). Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  2. ^ Journalists for democracy in Sri Lanka, 8 September 2021, Frances Harrison, Alive from the abyss: continuing abductions and torture in Sri Lanka http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/analysis-reviews/human-rights/1040-alive-from-the-abyss-continuing-abductions-and-torture-in-sri-lanka
  3. ^ International Truth and Justice Project, 8 September 2021, Press Release: Sri Lankan security forces torturing and raping young Tamils https://www.itjpsl.com/assets/press/press-release-torture-report-FINAL-ENGLISH.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/three-killed-as-sri-lankan-army-clamps-down-on-protesters/article4990234.ece
  5. ^ Journalists for democracy in Sri Lanka, 8 September 2021, Frances Harrison, Alive from the abyss: continuing abductions and torture in Sri Lanka http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/analysis-reviews/human-rights/1040-alive-from-the-abyss-continuing-abductions-and-torture-in-sri-lanka
  6. ^ International Truth and Justice Project, 8 September 2021, Press Release: Sri Lankan security forces torturing and raping young Tamils https://www.itjpsl.com/assets/press/press-release-torture-report-FINAL-ENGLISH.pdf
  7. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/three-killed-as-sri-lankan-army-clamps-down-on-protesters/article4990234.ece

OHCHR report regarding sexual violence[edit]

"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)Reply[reply]

A quote from the previous RFC discussion on Human rights violations directly above:
"The UN investigation/report would meet this, as would some others of a similar calibre. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
In addition there are multiple other reliable sources showing the Sri Lankan Armed Forces committing brutal mass rapes of Tamil men and women. There is a rape culture among the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and this is well known. For example, page 5 of this report:
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/sri-lanka-bitter-peace
Human Rights Watch:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/02/26/we-will-teach-you-lesson/sexual-violence-against-tamils-sri-lankan-security-forces Oz346 (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are also reliable secondary sources on the brutal mass rapes committed by the Sri Lankan Armed forces against Tamil women, see the chapter "The fear of rape: Tamil women and wartime sexual violence" in this scholarly publication:
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Search_for_Justice.html?id=0krRDQAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false Oz346 (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very serious allegation, to say an Armed Forces of a country are engaging in sexual violence as a military doctrine. There are many cases of sexual violence during the civil war and there is a complete article on this. However, in similar cases such as the United States Armed Forces or the British Armed Forces, these pages don't cover such allegations since even though these are widespread in wars such as Vietnam and Iraq these have not been linked to military doctrine, hence these are covered in their own articles. In terms of credibility UN organizations have much the same as FBI when it comes to Wikipedia. If you dont chose to agree with that its up to you. I really dont care since its not relevant here. What is relevant here are the UN, HRW reports you are citing, they are Primary sources sources since they have first hand interviews in them, some evidence they present are after watching recorded news interviews. That's why WP states that "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and further says "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." Same can be said about the research papers in the book "The Search for Justice: The Sri Lanka Papers". This is in fact a very good reference to cultural aspect of sexual violence in Sri Lanka as it talks about sexual violence in the Muslim community. The "rape culture among the Sri Lankan Armed Forces" you refer to is in fact the rape culture in Sri Lanka both within and outside the armed forces. Reading these papers one can only think that the LTTE would have turned a blind eye or even encourage this as this would have given them a good source of recruits. Therefore you seem to use this ambiguity to further a political objective, why else do you want to misuse Primary sources? Therefore once the United States Armed Forces page adds the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse or the Military history of Japan mentions about comfort women, lets add this after it has multiple reliable secondary sources to confirm that sexual violence was used as a military doctrine. Cossde (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wow you really do not know what is a primary source. Feel free to ask a notice board regarding all the sources that I have cited whether they are primary or secondary sources. They are all secondary sources. Oz346 (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's on you since WP:BURDEN since you need to prove the sources you add.Cossde (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remind you are breaking wikipedia policies by reverting without reaching consensus. I will have to file a report with the admins if disruptive behaviour like this continues. Oz346 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC above favoured inclusion of this paragraph as part of the history section, and it has been WP:STATUSQUO for years, and now you are removing it on a whim. In fact, there were debates on whether a dedicated Human Rights Violations section should be included in this page, but the majority favoured this paragraph. You cannot just remove it and go against the majority of surveyed editors just like that. Oz346 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a laughable assertion. No you dont have to 'PROVE' each and every blatant reliable source. If that was the cases Wikipedia would be submerged in bureaucracy and the reliable source noticeboard would be inundated with blatant reliable sources. Such a policy would be nothing but obstructive. Oz346 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your are the one that does not understand WP:BURDEN and WP:PRIMARY. If you have taken the time and read this talk page this very topic had been discussed and no conclusion has been achieved to "include content of this nature". What has been added has been done so "arbitrarily". So therefore please take this to arbitration. Cossde (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cossde The UN and HRW reports are secondary analyses of primary accounts. Wikipedia articles on other armed forces also include allegations of human rights abuses. See the Myanmar military, Syrian Armed Forces and the history of the Rwandan Armed Forces for example. There's no Wikipedia policy preventing the inclusion of human rights violations allegations to the articles on the armed forces of states. Petextrodon (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Petextrodon, first of all reveted deleted content per WP:STATUSQUO, and including the OHCHR citation which set of this new round of dispute, seems that you are very keen to keep it in place. My object of it is not that the UN or the OHCHR is not a relibal source, which it is and I have even used it today for citation in another article. My ojectection here is based on the nature of the report. If you look closly at the page 117 which has been cited, it appears that much of the final concultion of the OHCHR is based on witness statements. These don't appear to be published witness statements, hence this report is the first appearance of such. Hence my question if this is report qualifies as a Secondary source or is infact a Primary source due to the unpublished witness statements. Now this can be urgued between us. However to save everyone's time I propose you to take it to a notice board for input of third part editors. If they agree that this report can be taken as a secondary source it can be kept. I would take it myself, however its your burdern per WP:BURDEN. Then coming to your last point, the militaries you mentioned have beening subjected to ICC proceedings or UN sanctions based on war crimes or HR vioraltions. There are so many militaries such as those of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, etc. that have been accused of war crimes in one or many of the wars that these countries have engagded in. However these have not been included in the brife history sections of these armed forces. Infact, the content you have included has been included in detail in the dedicated article on war crimes in Sri Lanka and the OHCHR claims that it is based on the 2011, Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts. Therefore, may I ask what is the objective of including this line here? Cossde (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OHCHR's conclusion is also based on HRW report, hence can be considered secondary. I also cited a note that has secondary scholarly analysis of OHCHR and other primary reports and which affirms the same conclusion. Primary sources are allowed and not all primary sources are equal. OHCHR is reputable enough to be included. As for why articles of some armed forces have allegations of human rights violations while others don't, that's not up for me to decide. What matters is Wikipedia policy doesn't exclude it as a rule and third party opinions have decided in favour of its inclusion for this article.
@Oz346 has asked for the opinions of third parties again, let's wait and see what they have to say. Petextrodon (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly the point I was making, Wikipedia WP:NPOV rules that "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."; that is why the history of the British Armed Forces does not include War crimes during the Malayan Emergency. Hence you have include alligations of sexual violence, when the para has referenced to the primary arcile on war crimes with what can be argued as a primary source. Hence the representation of proportionately and avoidance of editorial bias seems to have failed in this case. Cossde (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The charge has been discussed extensively in both primary and secondary reliable sources. When OHCHR cites HRW report for its analysis, it can be considered secondary, so it depends on the context. You bring up the British armed forces but I have already provided other examples of armed forces articles which do mention war crimes. Again, there's no Wikipedia policy preventing their inclusion. For this page specifically the previous RFC discussion decided in favour its inclusion. So for you to now remove the whole thing places greater burden on you. Petextrodon (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OHCHR cites multiple sources, however their conclusion they base on their own investigation hence the ambiguity. Furthermore, the militaries you mentioned have had investigations and judicial and/or UN sanctions placed (which you seem to overlook). Where as the militaries I have mentioned had war crime charges/allegations leveled by reputed organizations and have not proceed to ICC judicial and/or UN sanctions. The same can be said about Sri Lanka. The first report (which was called for at the time) was in 2011 (over a decade ago) and the second report was in 2015 (which was a routine HR country review and is over eight years ago) has not to date resulted in any ICC judicial and/or UN sanctions. Hence it falls on the to same category as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada per WP:NPOV which is the cardinal policy of Wikipedia.Cossde (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OISL’s summary that I cited in the article isn’t just based on the 30 survivors it interviewed but also “from other credible sources of information”(p. 120), hence secondary analysis. If you aren’t satisfied with it, I’ve also provided a secondary scholarly analysis in the note citation which affirms the same conclusion. You refuse to address that. Petextrodon (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is why I am asking you to simply get it validate and save all this argument?Cossde (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not asking to simple validate it. You are arguing on multiple different shifting lines. Firstly, you argued on the reliability of the source falsely claiming it was OR. Then you claimed it is a primary source and not suitable (despite another clear scholarly secondary source also being added). Then you argued that some other armed forces pages don't have mention of human rights violations (the same stale argument you have used years back, which admins have already rebuked). Now you are arguing that the Sri Lankan Armed forces have not faced sanctions from UN or criminal courts so therefore it should not be mentioned. All of these 'arguments' are bogus and have no justification in Wikipedia policies. The fact you are constantly shifting the goal posts and incorrectly citing wiki policies does not fill one with optimism that this is a productive conversation. Oz346 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, the RFC consensus had ruled in favour of war crimes inclusion. You need to address that first before you decide to remove the WHOLE section. Please show me the Wikipedia policy that states you can add war crimes allegations to armed forces articles only when there have been UN or ICC sanctions. If not, I kindly suggest you refrain from making up your own arbitrary rules as you go along. Petextrodon (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NPOV is not my own rule and I would also ask you which policy that states you can add alleged war crimes based on the fact that it was in another armed forces article? Oh wait isn't that WP:OTHER? Btw which RFC consensus are you referring to? Cossde (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I was referring to this rule: "you can add war crimes allegations to armed forces articles only when there have been UN or ICC sanctions."
Please show which Wikipedia guideline states this.
When did I mentioned that as a rule? I explained how histories of other armed forces have been written in a WP:NPOV.Cossde (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the purpose of mentioning WP:OTHER? Be more precise.
Your the one first cited militaries that have war crimes mentioned in their histories and stated "Wikipedia articles on other armed forces also include allegations of human rights abuses. See the Myanmar military, Syrian Armed Forces and the history of the Rwandan Armed Forces for example." you seem to be using WP:OTHER.Cossde (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the discussions above: users, including third parties and admins, agreed to the inclusion of war crimes allegations. Even you had suggested their inclusion under the history section. Why the change now? Petextrodon (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, I am confused here again. Are we discussing the retention of the war crimes allegations that was in place for over 2 years or the repeat allegation of a specific war crime based on the 2015 report you added a few days ago. I have been talking about that specifically since you reinstated it without consensus citing WP:STATUSQUO. However, after your addition of this line, which I feel is WP:NPOV, the existence of the other line is questionable since there has been no follow-up action on it in over 10 years. Cossde (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"may I ask what is the objective of including this line here?"
The paragraph had already existed for years. I just added a line on sexual violence because that's a major charge relevant to that section. More details on the subject existing on other articles doesn't preclude their summary existing on this article. But the issue is you removed the whole section, including the paragraph that had existed for years. Petextrodon (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You fixed that with the WP:STATUSQUO revert after Oz346 reporting it. However, your reason to add the line on sexual violence (into a section that had been undisputed for over an year) has not been made clear. Its included in the main article on allagede war crimes. Yet why add it here again now? Please do share your thinking behind it. Cossde (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I stated above, it's a major charge made by reputable human rights organizations against the Sri Lankan armed forces. It's of a different nature from the war crimes involving killings by indiscriminate shelling or extrajudicial execution. Petextrodon (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am confused, the main article on war crimes does include alligations of sexual violence. Why do you say these are seprate? Cossde (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The preceding paragraph mentions the crimes of both sides, while the latter charge is made specifically against the Sri Lankan armed forces as far as the last phases of the war are concerned. Petextrodon (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont understand, you first say the first report doesn't include allegations of sexual violence (where it does) and now you say you want to add the OHCHR 2015 report (which states the same as the 2011) because it "charge is made specifically against the Sri Lankan armed forces". Both reports cover the last phases of the war. And the OHCHR 2015 report is a country specific report hence only covers Sri Lanka. You seem to either contradict your self or dont give a clear reason why you added the OHCHR report in the first place.Cossde (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, i have not said such a thing. If your argument against the inclusion of sexual violence is that it's already covered in details elsewhere, then we can say the same thing about the preceding paragraph and remove the whole thing, but that goes against the consensus. I included it because it's a major charge specifically made against the Sri Lankan armed forces. What is your argument against its inclusion other than it's covered elsewhere? Petextrodon (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you did and I quote "It's of a different nature from the war crimes involving killings by indiscriminate shelling or extrajudicial execution", however the primary article on war crimes during the last stage of the war includes sexual violence. And now you are saying that it is specifically made against the Sri Lankan armed forces in the 2015, which was the case in the 2011 report as well. You are both contradicting yourself and twisting facts or simply lying to justify your action in adding of sentence on sexual violence based on the 2015 report, eight years after that report was published. As you say and I quote "I included it because it's a major charge specifically made against the Sri Lankan armed forces", therefore it is evident that your intentions here have not been to edit this article in a WP:NPOV manner, yet clearly aimed at WP:POV editing to high light one specific allegation, and this I see is a pattern of yours and your kindred spirit Oz346 as your own edit histories are predominantly limited on subjective WP:UNDUE editing. Cossde (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks and asserting your assumptions of other users' intentions as facts.
Point to the exact WP:NPOV guideline you think I've abused. Since the article in question is about the Sri Lankan armed forces, it is very much relevant to mention the major charges made specifically against them. On the LTTE article for example you wouldn't argue that we should not include allegations of human rights violations made specifically against the LTTE and should just mention both parties committed war crimes, would you? Petextrodon (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify certain misunderstanding: I did not claim that “war crimes does not include sexual violence” as you have accused me of having done in that now deleted Arbitration request. What I meant to state, as I subsequently clarified, was that I wanted to specifically mention sexual violence separate from the nondescript allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity which also involved killings, therefore are of different nature than non-fatal sexual violence. Petextrodon (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a personal attack, this is to indicate that you appear not to be editing in a WP:NPOV manner in this page. Else why do you give conflicting reasons to adding this allegation that is over 8 years old? Your objective from what you say is to draw attention to this point and the other editing your are doing. Cossde (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since a neutral third party opinion that you requested has approved of its inclusion and stated it does not go against WP:NPOV, there is no point in continuing this discussion any further as you had pledged:
"to save everyone's time I propose you to take it to a notice board for input of third part editors. If they agree that this report can be taken as a secondary source it can be kept."
Petextrodon (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Petextrodon, Yes agreed! Since you didn't, that is why I took it to first arbitration and failing which to third party intervention. We could have saved everyone's time if you had done it in the first place! Cossde (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As one of the admins @Diannaa: had already said in 2011, ”properly sourced content should not be removed”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=439264058&oldid=439092096
Initially 'war crimes' had it's own dedicated section on the 'Sri Lankan Armed Forces' page which Cossde removed citing that it can be covered within the history section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/551985936
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/550348573
Now Cossde again wants the whole war crimes paragraph removed despite being supported by reliable sources, which goes against the RFC and their own previous argument of having it in the history section.
The RFC initiated by admin @Robert McClenon: over a year ago agreed to maintain the paragraph regarding war crimes in the history section (and not as a separate section). A formally requested Wikipedia:Third opinion by @ParticipantObserver: also favoured its inclusion. Finally, the admin @DarkFalls: already told Cossde in 2012 that it should be included as it is highly publicised by verifiable reliable sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=469686949&oldid=469686281
All neutral observers have so far agreed to inclusion.
I would appreciate if any of these editors would again give their opinions on this recurrent issue. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oz346, can you please tell me why are you so keen to retain these new content without simply validating the OHCHR report as a acceptable refernce here. did that in the past. Furthermore why the personal attacks: [[7]] [[8]] ? Cossde (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 allegation is 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Condensing section[edit]

@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)Reply[reply]

Firstly, there is no need to 'condense' this short paragraph as it is already succinct and well written, and was deemed as appropriate in weight and relevance by the recently given neutral 3rd opinion.
Secondly, I still do not get your point about repeating 'accuse' again. It's already mentioned these are "allegations, that if proven..." The way you have worded it sounds weird, forced and long winded.
Regarding the note, this was introduced after user Cossde was adamant that a strong academic secondary source be cited, otherwise he would delete the sentence on sexual violence (which he did multiple times). As it's a note, it really does not bulk up the existing passage significantly. I personally don't think it's absolutely necessary, but Cossde insisted on a clear secondary source being cited. Now it's here I don't see the point in removing it, it emphasizes that these are not fringe views, and does not detract greatly from the overall paragraph.
Finally, the sexual violence sentence is based on later reports and works from 2015, not the UN panel report of 2011. It should not be merged with the UN panel report sentence, that would be an inaccurate mixing of sources. The sexual violence phenomenon by the armed forces spans not just 2009, but also the immediate post war years too, which is another reason to separate the two sentences. Oz346 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Repeating the same thing basically, again and again, is redundant. Sexual crimes are also part of the crimes against humanity and the aftermath of the war is also part of the war. Also, a note isn't necessary if the citations themselves are secondary sources. There is no need to make a list of organizations just for a specific allegation in a note, the secondary citations could be simply cited in the article itself. If Cossde@ has no issue then the note should be removed. -UtoD 08:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories