Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive 4

RFC on Peacekeeping Scandal
Should the following sentence be included after the heading Deployments in Peacekeeping Missions:

? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise.

Survey
Yes - it is relevant, not excessively long and supported by reliable sources: https://apnews.com/article/7ccc5fbc05124fa9b0f42ce2edb62d9d Oz346 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes - One sentence about a major international scandal spanning 3 years and involving 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers is relevant to the section on peacekeeping and cannot be considered as undue weight. --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No - As noted by as well, it is WP:UNDUE. Per WP:PROPORTION individual events/abuses should not be indiscriminately added. Moreover, this individual event already covered in the Sri Lanka Army page, lack the necessary significance to warrant inclusion in this context and is more WP:RELEVANT to the SL Army Page (where it is already mentioned) than the Armed Forces page. Not to mention, adding them here makes them a WP:CFORK of the same section in the SL army page. This is the norm in all other major Armed Forces pages like the Israeli Defence Force, US Armed Forces etc so consistency in editorial standards should be maintained. Because if we are going to allow the WP:Scope of the articles to include cherry picking individual/isolated events of abuse from every branch of an armed force, such as this specific incident from two decades ago and allow them to be added indiscriminately to the main Armed Forces page, then it will be a WP:SOAPBOX or more specifically turning it to a WP:COATRACK. The entire argument being made for the inclusion is simply the WP:BITR which is not adequate and neither is is the "its just one sentence" argument to justify inclusion. - UtoD 06:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Not in that section which is about peacekeeping deployments and statistics in general. It looks like there is enough material for a short section about the allegations and abuses. That can all go under history, which is where scandals, atrocities and their allegations are usually included, if at all, considering the SLA page already contains more related information. Senorangel (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes - That small sentence can’t be undue weight. Topic is relevant enough to be added there. Bureaucratic abuse of rules can’t be the reason for opposing it. Laxshen (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. AP is usually an unimpeachable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Maybe it could go in a less tangential "criticism" or "abuses heading or even the history heading, or alternatively not in the lead of the section. I have no issue with including the info, it's just that it seems out-of-place where it's been proposed. CVDX (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is relevant, not excessively long hence not undue weight and supported by reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes - The mass child-rapes committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in Haiti relates to a deployment in a peacekeeping mission so this is the section it should be included in.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yesper above arguments. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes - It's one of the first things English-language speakers think about when they think of Sri Lankan peacekeeping forces, if they think anything at all. If they have any association with the topic, that is it. It would be weird not to include it. It would be like a page about Ronald Speirs not mentioning those surrendered German soldiers he allegedly executed. It's the thing that most readers of Wikipedia know about and probably are most interested to read about. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes - As long as the statement is accurate and verifiable, then it's relevant and should be included.Coalcity58 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Pl. cite reliable reference pl. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Petextrodon.
 * Since RS exists the issue ought to be taken encyclopedic note of. The sentence in the article UN child sexual abuse scandal in Haiti goes like ".. In November 2007, 114 members of the 950 member Sri Lankan Army peacekeeping mission in Haiti were accused of sexual misconduct and abuse. .." whereas lead sentence in the article Sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers seem to go like ".. An Associated Press (AP) investigation revealed in 2017 that more than 100 United Nations (UN) peacekeepers ran a child sex ring in Haiti over a 10-year period and none were ever jailed. ..". As and when I get time I shall join updating articles with google scholar. Mean while I suggest / request some one look into the details once more. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Senorangel, there was another introductory sentence in that section but it was moved. I suggested expanding on the general history of that section so the Haiti scandal won't be the only sentence there. --- Petextrodon (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean there are allegations from the civil war and with respect to Haiti as well. A section under History can mention all of them in one place. Senorangel (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. On one hand this is a major event well supported by RS, on the other hand it wouldn't be right if this was the only sentence in the article. I'd urge the editors who are against the inclusion to add the general overview of the performance of Sri Lankan peacekeepers to the section to achieve a balanced coverage. Alaexis¿question? 11:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)