Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive 2

RFC on Human Rights Violation
Shall the content proposed below, on human rights violations, in either of the two forms proposed below, be added to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No in each of the Survey sections with a brief statement. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion sections.

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. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have also persisted in the post war period.

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)

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)

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)
 * No, mostly per Cinderella. The "human rights violations", more specifically war crimes, are historical in nature and should be covered in the history section. I agree with Cinderella that the cited sources aren't great, but sources like the UN report or this book would be better specifically for the Sri Lankan military's commission of war crimes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have continued to the post war period.

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)

Yes- Most WP:NPOV option although is better not to add anything in the first place as the history section already have an adequate WP:CSECTION that is much more WP:NPOV. - UtoD 06:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No (other) - There is existing text in the history section with a hat note to a main article, Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. I support making the existing text a second level section within the "history section" but with the same title as the main article that is hat-noted. An addition to the text might be made to list the nature of the allegations specifically against the Sri Lankan military (ie civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders) but only where such allegations have been determined by sources/investigations of the highest quality to be credible. The UN investigation/report would meet this, as would some others of a similar calibre. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I am not satisfied that the sources being used in the proposal are adequate. Who is the International Truth and Justice Project or the People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka? My approach is to be conservative IAW policy on such a matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this specific version for inadequate sourcing, see my comments above. Support some discussion on war crimes in the history section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You are throwing in a lot of policies and word-soups but without reading them. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Its "The conflict" for the LTTE's POV. - UtoD 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

War crimes section
The War Crimes section has been repeatedly removed by User:Cossde and their sock-puppets User:59.191.193.96 and User:59.191.193.66.

The first excuse used was that these were only allegations and that the US Armed Forces didn't have anything about abuses in Iraq/Afghanistan. This is WP:OTHERSTUFF argument: The US Armed Forces article doesn't have anything about abuses in Iraq/Afghanistan, so we should not have war crime allegations on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. And in a previous attempt in January 2012 to remove this section two independent editors pointed out that Wkipedia was based on verifiability, not necessarily the truth. They also pointed out that the section was well sourced and short enough not to give undue weight.

The second excuse used was that it was repeating content in the History section. This contents were there in January 2012 and now all of a sudden it's unacceptable to mention war crimes in both sections?

The third excuse used is that contents of the War Crimes section were copied from Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. As WP:SUMMARY states, "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."

This is another straightforward WP:CENSOR from a user with a long record of violating Wikipedia policies.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Dispute ended with the consensus to remove the all the way in 2013. - UmdP  10:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Here is the definition WP:CONSENSUS. Don't try to re-interpret it on your own terms. - UmdP 12:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * : 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)
 * 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)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Cossde/Archive
 * Confirmed sockpuppet use in the past. Oz346 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A list of attack page is not a criticism page. It's just a list which exists for the 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)
 * 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)

"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)


 * 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)

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)

can you please chime in. Oz346 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * Well you asked me to open a WP:DRN for you and I have explained it there. - UmdP 06:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for taking your time to give an opinion. Merry Christmas. - UmdP 17:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Merry christmas to you as well! ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Not at all as an independent section, already covered in the History section and under that section it can be updated or expanded if there is some need for it. That is it. 178.223.12.106 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)