Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive 3

OHCHR report regarding sexual violence
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's on you since WP:BURDEN since you need to prove the sources you add.Cossde (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * As one of the admins 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 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 Third opinion by  also favoured its inclusion. Finally, the admin  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)
 * @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. |You did that in the past. Furthermore why the personal attacks: [] [] ? Cossde (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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. |You did that in the past. Furthermore why the personal attacks: [] [] ? Cossde (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

, 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)

Condensing section
@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)


 * 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)


 * 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@undefined has no issue then the note should be removed. - UtoD 08:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Peacekeeping sex scandal
There is a clear attempt of WP:POVFORK by two editors here by replicating the same content from the Sri Lanka Army page on the Peacekeeping sex scandal. There is no mentioned about a similar case in by French peacekeepers in Central African Republic in the French Armed Forces. Cossde (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Spamming singular historical incidents across multiple pages is just POVFORKING and indiscriminate. - UtoD 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please expand on what you mean by these accusations and why they go against Wiki guidelines so we can better understand where you're coming from. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You both seem to not understand what POVFORKING is. Please read the actual wikipedia policy before blindly throwing the word out. POVFORKING is when "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created". This is not what is happening here, there are no conflicting POVS here. Oz346 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this is a WP:CFORK with the objective of introducing undue weight, why else is the same content repeated in two articles and a dedicated article created on an isolated incident? Cossde (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be throwing around these terms if you fail to explain what you mean by them.
 * "why else is the same content repeated in two articles"
 * Is there a Wikipedia rule that says an organization cannot have similar description, even if it's only one re-worded sentence, in more than one page? Please point to it. "isolated incident" is your POV. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Burden falls on the user adding the content. If the content is disputed then the users adding it must first prove it before adding it. Also WP:INDISCRIMINATEly adding incidents as WP:POVFORKS and giving undue weight for a specific incident from 2004 is blatant WP:POVPUSHING - UtoD 15:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Burden of what exactly? You keep throwing around these terms without explaining what you exactly mean by them. Again, point me to the Wikipedia rule that says an organization cannot have similar description, even if it's only one re-worded sentence, in more than one page? Stop being evasive and directly address my points. --- 15:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Petextrodon (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * UtoD, You did not only revert the bits about peacekeeping sexual abuses but also my edits on UN war crimes report once again without any explanation. I suggest that you at least reinstate that part or I will have to report you for this disruptive behaviour. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN refers to verifiability. It's reliably sourced, there is no question of that. Stop misusing and throwing around wikipedia policies that have no relevance. You have been doing this in the past also, as another user noted in an earlier discussion here: Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces
 * "You are throwing in a lot of policies and word-soups but without reading them. TrangaBellam" Oz346 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not my fault if you can't read. Using brute force is disruptive as WP:BURDEN explicitly states not to re-add challenged edits before reaching consensus. You have been notified of that before and your conscious refusal to adhere to that would ofcourse be considered disruptive. Also its up for you to remove specific parts that I have protested against which ofcourse you haven't done either.  - UtoD  12:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So are you going to bother going to WP:ANI again instead of forcefully reverting while screaming "disruptive behaviour" in edit summaries? Because if my behavior is disruptive you should be in WP:ANI not in edit summaries brute forcing your edits which have been disputed both by me and multiple times and you haven't exactly even bothered to defend your content. Either go to WP:ANI or stop reverting. - UtoD 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive revert/edit war by user Cossde
Dear User:Johnuniq could you please revert Cossde's latest edit, because he has falsely and disruptively claimed that the content was removed without discussion, when in fact, valid reasons have been given multiple times (the latest by me here ), but he refuses to play fair. His behaviour has become impossible.

Cossde falsely claims through his edits that the UN report supports the following sentence which he has added, which states "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."

The UN report on Sri Lanka says nothing of the sort, and he has been apprised of this multiple times: ,

The UN report which is cited in the news articles after Cossde's OR sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts Cossde's claim:

"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))."

There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises" as he claims. It has failed WP:BURDEN yet he persists. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Responce. Edit history of this page will indicate the process of reverts and additions that have taken place by all editors including Oz346. Hence Oz346 too has displayed similar behaviour as I have been accused.


 * Point 1: This episod of editwaring started when Petextrodon reproduced the content of the Sexual abuse scandal in Haiti that had been included in the Sri Lanka Army page which appears to be WP:UNDO, and Petextrodon and Oz346, refused to remove it stating "it applies to both pages. There are many things on both pages, because the SLA is a subset of SL armed forces. We wouldn't remove every overlap from both pages for example. Would that mean we should remove the whole section on peacekeepers from here too?".
 * Point 2: Sentenace on the LTTE, the UN report states in page iv in the exectuive summary that it found credible evidence that the LTTE was "using civilians as human buffers".

Cossde (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. Human buffers is not the same as human shields, as the UN report explicitly mentions. None of the sources cited after your sentence makes the claim of human shields, so it is original research.
 * 2. Likewise, the phrase you added claiming the "LTTE attempted to create a humanitarian crisis" is more original research not supported by the references cited. Oz346 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The content cannot be re-added per WP:BURDEN until the issues that have arisen are fixed as it explicitly says "(e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."


 * The issue of UN peacekeepers a singular incident from 2004 being given WP:UNDUE relevance in the Armed Forces page also remains an issue. This is not a place for listing singular historical incidents of abuse. Also, user OZ346 should cease throwing WP:LIAR and continuously putting "disruptively" to refer to challenging edits. - UtoD 16:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cossde, First, for your information, I did not reproduce the content. They are all my own words. Second, why do you want to add extra details about the LTTE war crimes when the article is about the Sri Lankan Armed forces? --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding protection, see WP:WRONGVERSION which points out that pages are protected at the current version to stop an edit war. It is up to subsequent dispute resolution to determine what should happen. Please be sure to not repeat contested edits when the protection expires because that may result in a block. If there is a previous discussion showing a consensus for some version it might be reasonable for me to revert to that version. Otherwise, discussion has to proceed from where the article is now. I haven't examined the issue, but if the contested material has been recently added, the comment above saying that it is up to those supporting the addition to justify it is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: United Nations Report on Sri Lankan Civil War
The first sentence of the section on alleged war crimes in the Sri Lankan Civil War currently reads:

Should the last phrase read:
 * A with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on indiscriminate Sri Lankan Army shelling and the LTTE being blamed for using civilians as a human buffer.
 * OR
 * B with the LTTE accused of significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war, by using civilians as a human buffer and shooting civilians attempting to escape the conflict zone.

? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Please enter A or B with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise.

Survey
A - As this proposal is of due weight. The UN report itself documents more charges made against government forces which the existing section does not elaborate on. So the proposed sentence B does not reflect the weighting of the overall UN report, but gives disproportionate focus on the LTTE, and that too on a section that should be primarily focused on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces (the crimes of the LTTE are already extensively documented in its own page). If more of the UN report needs to be added, then it should be done in a proportionate way, and not cherry picked like proposal B. Oz346 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A - The focus of this section is on the allegations of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, not those of the LTTE. Option B gives more weight to the allegations against the LTTE despite the LTTE already being also blamed in the previous sentences, despite the section not being about the LTTE and despite the UN report itself detailing far more allegations against the government forces. Therefore, B is excessive and undue weight in a section that already downplays the war crimes of the government forces with only few sentences which blame both sides unlike the LTTE's article which has a dedicated and detailed section on its alleged human rights violations. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate RfC. A request for comments is a request for comments, not a request for votes. Instructions like Please enter A or B with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. are not appropriate; it would be entirely valid for a respondent to the RfC to offer and advocate for options different from either of the two offered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but the guideline under "Responding to an RfC" seems to allow polling: "Yet others offer one or more alternative proposals that are separately endorsed or opposed by editors using a polling process."
 * Please do clarify if I have misunderstood it. Thanks. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither If the exact extent of the blame is not clear, it would be better to leave it out. Senorangel (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A seems more appropriate after reading what was reported. Senorangel (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A - I agree with option A because it’s proportional in contrast to option B which gives undue weight to subject not focus of the subsection. Laxshen (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

B or Neither - B is more balanced but the content is already covered in detail in other pages so Neither is also valid. - UtoD 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A The article is about the Sri Lanka Armed Forces ,the focus of this section is on the of war crimes by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces  which is evidenced by the United Nations report. B is  excessive and undue weight as mentioned above by Petextrodon.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A - The UN Report is absolutely clear: "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling".--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A, per WP:NPOV. It explains what kind of war crimes the armed forced were accused of (indiscriminate shelling) and gives the context (LTTE's policy). Alaexis¿question? 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
the exact extent of blame is known and made very clear in the UN report. The question is, how much of it is appropriate to mention in this section about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces war crimes. It's a question of weighting. Mentioning the full extent would be too long, so some summarizing is necessary.Oz346 (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oz346 which page or document are you using for "most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling"? I am looking at the 2015 UN report. Senorangel (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/POC%20Rep%20on%20Account%20in%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf
 * page ii - "Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by
 * Government shelling."
 * https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/737299/files/The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf
 * Page 11 - "The COG had prepared a casualty sheet which showed that a large majority of the civilian casualties recorded by the UN had reportedly been caused by Government fire" Oz346 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

can you please explain how B is "more balanced", when this is a section focused on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces who the UN report accuses of more crimes, yet B has more details on LTTE crimes (which are relatively less in the UN report)? That's NOT balanced, that's cherry picked to disproportionately focus on the LTTE. Oz346 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)