The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute over the origins of Matzoon. We have been having extensive discussion in the talk page whether or not Matzoon should be mentioned as a product of Georgian origin, alongside of Armenian origin or not. There are number of sources that mention the origins of the product as Georgian as well as Armenian. We need help resolving this dispute as the discussions are not going anywhere and because of the reason that opposition refuses to further discuss this issue.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Both countries should be included as origins of the product; As there are number of sources providing basis for this resolution.
Summary of dispute by Vanezi Astghik
I'm not the only user in the discussion and I will not be participating in this case for the following reasons: the discussion was opened only 5 days ago, imo it hasn't developed to the stage of requiring a DRN, the user still has not provided sources stating their claim of origin and mentions the same sources that don't support it here, and the user even tried to circumvent the discussion and their own DRN by requesting an extended confirmed edit (in the edit request they don't even mention the current discussion) with same unverifiable sources that were already discussed and shown not supporting their claim of origin - it resulted in a rejection by the edit request reviewer [1]. The kind of actions such as the latter (circumventing a discussion and requesting an edit despite users actively opposing them) additionally don't inspire me to participate in something initiated by this user. Vanezi (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Lemabeta
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
in the source it says: Springer. p. 212 - "Matzoon (En); mazun (Fr, De); matsun, matsoni, maconi. Short Description: "Of Armenian origin; Georgia, Caucasus (USSR); traditional product; the milk of ewes, goats, buffalo, or cows or mixtures thereof; yoghurt like product traditionally made from boiled milk and an undefined starter culture; firm consistency and acidic flavor."
My interpretation of the source is that the author names the countries from where the origins of Matzoon/Matsoni is from, thats why he mentions Georgia, Caucasus(USSR), alongside Armenia.
My oppositions opinion is that because it doesn't say specifically "Of Georgian origin" and says Georgia, Caucasus that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article that origins of Matsoni are also from Georgia.
My opinion is also also agreed by the European Union, Switzerland, United Kingdom through a bi-lateral agreement about Geographical Indications registration[2]
who recognizes the patented copyright laws and geographical distribution indication of Matsoni.
"DESCRIPTION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT AND RAW MATERIAL:
MATSONI is a Georgian traditional cultured milk product, which is prepared from the milk of cow, buffalo, goat, sometimes sheep or their mixing. The cultured milk fermentation gives the product named “Dedo”, which consists of bacterial strains, existed in the local area of Georgia.[3]
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF PRODUCTION:
Obtaining, processing and fermentation of milk for MATSONI production takes place in the whole territory of Georgia. Fermentation for obtaining of cultured milk product occurs by the “Dedo” consisting of local bacteria strains."[4]
Also the opposition, who are Armenians refuse to accept other kind of sources which also call Matsoni as "Georgian yoghurt", they delete the any attempt of writing it as "of Armenian and Georgian origins" even tho legally Georgia has more claim over it.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ali Amin Gandapur
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I think moving the Sobia Shahid audio to her page is a good idea, but I don't get why Sheriff keeps deleting my other edits. Mine are neutral, unlike his, which claimed, "Critics say his appointment as Chief Minister has damaged the party's image and ability to govern well." Gandapur has only been in power for a few days, so how did they come to that conclusion? I get that it's written in the article but we are supposed to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Your most recent edit also had its issues, which led to its reversal. You removed the sourced information from the start which captured the gist of everything about his remarks against Maryam. Additionally, what you assert you added concerning Maryam barely scratched the surface of the offensive remarks he made about her. Furthermore, your attempt to mitigate sexism against Sobia by introducing unwarranted and unrelated content from an unidentified Twitter account was questionable. Thus, the burden of explanation should fall on you instead of me in this instance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Ali Amin Gandapur discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Discussion has been in progress on the article talk page for only a few hours, not 24 hours. Continue discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours. Be civil, and comment on content, not contributors. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Ali Amin Gandapur)
I am ready to act as the moderator. Please read DRN Rule D. The subject of the article is a Pakistani politician, and articles about Pakistani politics and politicians are covered by the ArbCom decision on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I will repeat a few rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That already hasn't worked. The moderator (me) will ask the questions, and is the representative of the community. The editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community.
Do the editors agree to abide by the rules, and agree that the contentious topic procedure is in effect?
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will ask each editor: What do you want to change in the article, or what do you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change? You don't need to say why at this time. I will ask that in the next round. Exactly what is the content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree to abide by the rules and that the procedure is in effect. I'm sort of okay with how the page looks now, but the part about being "misogynistic" is being taken out of context. In Gandapur's speech, he quotes Maryam saying "jaisa moo vaisi chapair" which translates to "As the face, so the slap" in English. Gandapur then proceeds to respond to her threat with "I have a lot more to say but I will only say this to her (Maryam) that if we come to slap then you will get slapped so much that your [real] face will be uncovered from the Rs80 million [cosmetic] surgery you have done from our [tax] money." I believe someone who knows Urdu can vouch for me as there really isn't a misogynistic element here. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree by the rules and procedures. Currently, I have no intention of altering anything further, and I also prefer that other editor refrains from making any further changes to the "Controversies" and "Arrest" sections. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Ali Amin Gandapur)
It appears that one editor is satisfied with the current version of the article. I am not exactly sure what the other editor wants changed. I see that there is a controversy involving another politician, Maryam Nawaz, whom Gandapur says had expensive cosmetic surgery at public expense. I don't see any discussion of a controversy about cosmetic surgery in the article on Maryam Nawaz, and so wonder whether discussing it only in the article on a different politician is undue weight. However, I am asking the editor who wants to change the wording to indicate exactly what they would like the article on Gandapur to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
My position is that what he said was NOT misogynistic. He quoted Maryam's threats about slapping where she says "jaisa moo vaisi chapair" which translates to "As the face, so the slap", Gandapur replies to it by saying "if we come to slap then you will get slapped so much that your [real] face will be uncovered from the Rs80 million [cosmetic] surgery you have done from our [tax] money." I think a Wikipedia admin who knows Urdu can verify this. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I haven't found any evidence of Maryam saying what was quoted by the other editor. Furthermore, the sources characterize the behavior of Gandapur as misogynistic and sexist. I believe we should stick to what the sources say without adding our own interpretations. I'm fine with the current version of the article. If the other editor agrees, we can close this discussion. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to make changes that deviate from the sources' essence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Either there isn't a disagreement about the content of the article, or the disagreement hasn't been stated specifically. If either of you want any change made to the article, please read Be Specific at DRN, and state what you want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The other editor must clarify precisely what they wish to remove or add. They objected to the term "misogynistic," which has been removed. However, they still believe there is an issue, so they need to specify what it is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The designation of these 5 unique aircraft is incorrect in the article. Rolls-Royce and RAF original sources (documents, letters and performance charts and reports (all refer to the aircraft as the Mustang X not MK X. As the aircraft were limited in number, the effective manufacturer or design authority was Rolls-Royce and their designation should be used. I do not believe that the 'common use name' principle applies here. I have uploaded documentation to the talk page in support of this. it is a very narrow topic and the correct designation should be used. This has been discussed at length on the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Review the reasoning and sources behind this debate and decide on the evidence.
Rolls-Royce mustang Mk X discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
As the user who Completeaerogeek has a dispute with, I believe that it is far too early to bring this here. They have yet to open a formal move request on the article's talk page, and seem to have made little effort to seek a consensus from the rest of WP:WikiProject Aviation. - ZLEAT\C00:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Until the 07:45, 12 March 2024 edition, Taiwan, Kosovo, and Palestine were ranked in the article for a long time. User Beijing555 skipped the three countries mentioned above from the ranking and changed their ranking.
The first part of the article says "states with limited international recognition (such as Kosovo and Taiwan) are included in the list where they appear in the sources.", and if Beijing 555 were to exclude those three countries from its ranking, I think that sentence would have to be changed as well.
However, since the three countries have been ranked for a long time, I don't think it should be changed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
We would like to hear opinion or judgment on whether we should keep the version of the article as it was in the past or change it to be consistent with 北京555's edits.
Summary of dispute by 北京555
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute relates to the page of Ziyavudin Magomedov, a Russian oligarch imprisoned in Russia. I’ve had several disagreements with a fellow editor, Odlainer2024, over recent months and despite the fact we’ve traded several long messages on the Talk Page we haven’t reached a consensus. I’ve tried to integrate many of Odlainer2024’s suggestions, but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. The dispute is quite complex, but written as briefly as possible it essentially boils down to:
• The length of the lead section, and the prominence/due weight given to claims which are either: a) not relevant enough for the first paragraph, b) reproduced in a very similar form elsewhere in the article or c) overly detailed/obscure for the lead section.
• Along similar lines, there’s a question about the due weight/prominence given to certain material. This is primarily within the "Career" section, as well as the proposed “proximity to Putin’s regime” section. This proposed section details every potential connection Magomedov, or family members had to the “Russian elite” prior to his arrest which I’ve argued creates a misleading impression for readers. A very detailed breakdown of the problems here, and Odlainer2024’s responses can be found on the Talk Page.
• The length and use of quotes which are often several lines long and not properly summarised and contextualised. This means that the contents of the quotes are often deployed as an appendage to re-iterate/emphasise a particular narrative.
There are also disagreements about the approach to editing the page, and in some places, the actual content/sourcing and language used. I’m happy to provide more detail, but there is already a very detailed Talk Page discussion. The most relevant material will probably be found in recent posts.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Current dispute is over cited content has been removed by two users Oz346 and Petextrodon who have repeatedly removed cited content added by me claiming "ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details". Given the highly controversial nature of the article, I feel that the events leading up to the events of at the core of the article needs to be clearly stated to established the context of the events mentioned in the article. Furthermore, these events have been mentioned in the government commission that has been cited heavily to narrate the events that took place during the time covered by the article. However these editors feel that should focus on the pogrom which I feel that is non-WP:NPOV.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Decide if the content that has been removed should be kept in the article.
Summary of dispute by Oz346
User Cossde wants to have an overly long background section, which expands greatly on Tamil separatism, anti police violence and the 1977 Tamil electoral history. See his preferred version here: [10]. I think this is of undue weight and that the current background section already summarises these topics concisely, without submerging the actual topic of the article which is the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. His reliance on the framework of a government commission which has been described as being biased towards the government by other reliable sources, should not be the basis of how an encyclopaedic article on this topic is framed.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
1977 anti-Tamil pogrom discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator. Please read DRN Rule A and follow the instructions. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
Will each editor state briefly what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). It is not necessary at this time to state why you want to change it or do not want to change it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
Cossde: Yes please. I would greatly appreciate your involvement in this matter and agree to follow the rules mentioned.
The key dispute at hand is over the that was added by my and removed by these editors over the write up of the prelude to the events of this article. The removed content explains the events leading up to the riots in August 1977 and were fully citied. These are supported by both primary and secondary sources. A primary source, the report of the Government public inquiry was used since it was heavily cited to detail incidents that took place during the riots, coving majority of the written content of this article. My request is that you review the deleted content and consider what needs to be included to develop a meaningful prelude section that covers the events leading up to the riots in August 1977. Cossde (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes please, I would appreciate your moderation. I want to leave the current background section as it is, as I believe the proposed changes by the other user is of undue weight for this article, which is about the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. Oz346 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
One editor has said that they want a third party to review the content in question and decide whether it should be in the article. The usual function of this noticeboard is to facilitate discussion between the parties rather than to make a decision. I am willing to review the content in question and make a decision as to whether it should be kept, and how much of it, but only if the parties agree that they will accept and be bound by the decision. The reason that I insist that my decision must be binding is that I know that it is otherwise likely that one party will not accept the decision, and then it may be difficult or impossible to find a neutral mediator for the continuing argument. So I have two questions. First, do the editors want me to make a binding decision on the questioned content? Second, are the editors willing to take part in moderated discussion (mediation), which, if unsuccessful, will be followed by an RFC?
I think that the question that I asked to answer had to do with the addition and then removal on 19 February of several paragraphs of background information that was described as excessive detail in an edit summary. I don't consider it to be excessive detail to add to the background section. The details about the Tamil separatist movement and about the killing of the policemen help to understand the background of the violence. At least, that is my answer to what I think the question was. There may be some remaining issues about that content that can still be discussed, but my opinion is that it is useful additional background.
I think the additional section edits of "St. Patrick’s College Carnival" is not a good change, as the events of the carnival are already recorded in clear chronological order in this existing section:
I agree with Robert. Events leading up to the riots helps understand the background to the violance. Only one suggestion here, we could change "Events leading to August 1977" to prelude if that makes better sence. I disagree with Oz346, the section on St. Patrick’s College Carnival should be kept as it gives the diffirent conflicting accounts to the start of the violance.Cossde (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I did not think this was completely resolved. I left some concerns which went unanswered regarding whether to have a separate section on the carnival divorced from the overall chronology. I would appreciate the moderators decision on that before final closure. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
Will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what another editor wants to change in the article that they want left alone? The purpose of discussion at DRN, or any content discussion, is to improve the article, so state exactly what the issue is about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
I believe that a separate section entitled 1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#St._Patrick’s_College_Carnival is unnecessary, and that its current first paragraph should be removed, with the section being renamed back to the "the ethnic pogrom" as before.
The current first paragraph is as follows:
St. Patrick’s College Carnival
On 12 August, four policemen visited a carnival at St. Patrick’s College, where they assaulted Mr. Kulanayagam, who asked them for an entry free.[9][21] The policemen misbehaved and helped themselves freely to food at food stalls without paying.[21] The four off-duty policemen had tried to enter the carnival without paying the entrance fee, policmen were accustomed to using public transport and entering places of entertainment without paying entrance fee. Many policmen regarded this as a privilage. On 12 August the carnival orgernizers resisted and a scuffle ensued, with the uniformed policemen on duty coming to the aid of their colleagues. [15][better source needed] On the 13th, the same policemen again went to the carnival where they clashed with locals around midnight. Two policemen were injured and hospitalised as a result.[21] The policemen had claimed that they had gone in search of two men wanted for a rubbery, this was rejected by Sanson.[21]
This information is better integrated in the existing 1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#Jaffna_District section, where the chronology of events can be followed more logically from August 12th onwards. Having the events of the carnival separated from the subsequent days does not flow well. At the moment there is also repetition of content.
Finally, there has been a dispute about the reliability of a source used in that section, which I feel should not be in the article, as the author Chandraprema has been accused of gross human rights violations as part of the Sri Lankan security forces, and for glorifying Gotabaya Rajapaksa. See discussion here: [11]
I don't agree with Oz346, given that many sources accpete that rioting started after the events at St. Patrick’s College Carnival and that there are conflecting accounts of what happened there as shown in the current St. Patrick’s College Carnival section, it is common sense to keep it where it is. Much of the events there after are very much based on events reported in the public hearing. I leave it to Robert McClenon to make a call on it. Cossde (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I would like to raise another content issue that has come up. Petextrodon has removed a secondary source that have reviewed the report of the public hearing [13], which does not mentioned any bias and have stacked up sources to claim that the report is bias [14]. I reques that this be included in the scope of this DRN. Cossde (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
Read DRN Rule D again. There has been editing of the article. I had closed this discussion briefly, and some of you may have taken that as a signal to resume editing. So I am not going to parse the exact times at which the edits were made to determine which edits were improper. But do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If you continue to take part in this discussion, you are continuing to agree to DRN Rule D.
At this point we need to identify what the content issues are. I see at least two issues. The first is whether to have a separate section about the St. Patrick's College Carnival. I will only provide an opinion about keeping or merging the section if the editors agree to abide by my opinion (because otherwise we will need to find another mediator). The second is an issue about the removal of a source. There are also issues about the reliability of sources. Are there any other issues?
Any issues about the reliability of sources should be referred to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. I am asking each editor to please identify all of the sources about which there are reliability issues, and the points in the article that are the context for the issues. Please also identify any other content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
Yes, I agree. I think the issue of the reliability of sources has been settled via a RSN, with the source and related content removed based on the RSN outcome by me and Oz346 cleared the few bits I missed. Hence I feel that this issue is settled.
I feel the issues at hand are:
1. A separate section about the St. Patrick's College Carnival
2. The content on the section on the public hearing (Presidential Commission of Inquiry) the current narrative is not WP:NPOV, it gives WP:UNDU weight with several sources making it feel as if the report is generally accepted as bias, while other sources that have quoted it and does not claim its bias have been removed [15]. Cossde (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1. Yes the first issue is whether to have a separate section about the St. Patrick's College Carnival, or whether to merge it. I will agree and abide with your opinion.
2. The second issue, is that Cossde wants to add repetitive information about the Sansoni reports explanations for the riots. One source already summarises them (Kearney), there is no need to repeat them again with another source (Manogaran). In addition, multiple reliable sources do question the objectivity of the Sansoni report.Oz346 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1) Yes, I will abide by your opinion on whether St. Patrick's College Carnival remains as a separate section.
2) The second issue concerns a newly added content by Cossde which I removed. It's a summary of the Sansoni commission report by another author (Manogaran) which is unnecessary since the summary by another author (Kearney) already exists. Both authors give descriptive summaries of it but remain mute on the overall bias of the report. -- Petextrodon (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
First, my opinion is that a separate subsection on the St. Patrick's College Carnival provides useful background information. Second, if there are any changes that any editor thinks should be made to the article, please state exactly what language in the article you want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
\\First, my opinion is that a separate subsection on the St. Patrick's College Carnival provides useful background information.\\
If this information is already provided, why the need for a separate section? I do not quite follow the reason given above for a separate section. Clarification would be appreciated. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Robert_McClenon, I agree with user Oz346 here. It doesn't make much sense to have a separate section with the similar content repeated in a different section (Jaffna District). Background sections don't need to be so overcomplicated as they divert focus from the main topic which is the pogrom. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, separate subsection on the St. Patrick's College Carnival provides useful background information on the start of the rioting.
The subsection on the "Presidential Commission of Inquiry" needs to be writing as such:
President William Gopallawa appointed former Chief Justice Miliani Sansoni, who had served as Chief Justice of Ceylon from 1964 to 1966, as the Commissioner of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry on 9 November 1977 to inquire and report on the events "to ascertain the circumstances and the causes that led to, and the nature and particulars of, the incidents which took place in the Island between the 13th day of August, 1977 and the 15th day of September, 1977". Following his inquiry, Justice Sansoni submitted his report, which was known as the "Sansoni Report" to President Jayewardene in July 1980.
Over the years the Sansoni Report has been recived diffrent reviews. Robert N. Kearney found that the Sansoni Report explained the riots in terms of "Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the 1977 general election campaign". According to Chelvadurai Manogaran, the Sansoni Report attributed many factors as the cause of the riots, including "TULFs anti-Sinhalese proganda advocating separatism, Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese and acts of violence committed by the liberation Tigers". The immediate cause of the violence Manogaran finds is rumor of Sinhalese policemen been attacked in Jaffna by Tamil militants. He further states that due to the violance (in Augest 1977) and events that followed many Tamils both extreme and moderate were convinced the need to establish a separate state.
The current content appears to be WP:OR as the refs say something else and based on the opinions of some sources, concluding the report is bias is not how Wikipedia works. Cossde (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
One editor wishes to rework the section on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, also known as the Samsoni Report, by including a paragraph on positive and negative reviews of the report. Does any other editor oppose the expansion and wish to leave the paragraph unchanged, or does any other editor have an alternate reworking? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
It is incorrect to say that the current paragraph suggested by Cossde has positive and negative reviews of the report. The so-called "positive reviews" are merely a summary of the reasons given in the Sansoni report. They are neither positive nor negative. Nor are they the personal opinions of Kearney or Manogaran. In fact, they are unnecessary repetition. There is no need to have two secondary sources summarising the same thing in different words. To make this abundantly clear, I have made a table showing this repetition:
Table showing the reasons attributed by Sansoni for the riots (as summarised by Kearney and Manogaran)
terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism
acts of violence committed by the liberation Tigers
anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians
Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese
Repeating the same thing multiple times, especially something controversial, can have a Goebbelsian effect. It is not fitting of an encyclopaedia. Oz346 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
In addition, how does a separate subsection on St. Patrick's College Carnival provide "useful background information" that cannot be provided elsewhere? The same information is already mentioned here: [16] in a more chronological and logical order. Clarification would be appreciated. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Summarising this table I feel will be WP:OR. For example is Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands and TULFs anti-Sinhalese propaganda advocating separatism the same thing? Who is confirming this Kearney or Manogaran or Oz346? Lets stick to the writings in the sources, both Kearney and Manogaran has accepted the Sansoni report and presented its findings in their own interpretation which is the case of WP:SECONDARY, Manogaran goes on to added his own observations. Including this along with the contradictory sources is exactly how a Wikipedia article should be written. Cossde (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Kearney and Manogaran have not accepted the Sansoni Report. You have misunderstood their texts. They merely recount what the Sansoni reports says. Its original research to say that they have accepted it (or agreed with it). Neither of them do. Oz346 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Kearney states "The 1977 riots were explained in terms of Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terror-ist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the campaign" citing directly the Sansoni Report and Manogaran states "The reasons for the 1977 anti-Tamil riots were outlined in the
Report ofthe Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Incidents which TOok Place between 13th August and 15th September, 1977. It attributed the cause to many factors, including the TUlF's antiSinhalese propaganda advocating separatism, Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese race, and acts of violence committed by the liberation Tigers." citing Arasaratnam. I don't think thats a "merely recount", per my understanding thats not how WP:SECONDARY works. Cossde (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Cossde, none of that proves what you're saying. They are just summaries of the report, not meant as personal approval of them by the authors. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Oz346. Kearney and Manogaran both provide summaries of the report and it's repetitive to include both, therefore one of them should be removed. In contrast, the criticism of the report are explicit about the misgivings and are not just intended as summaries. Cossde seems to have difficulties telling the difference. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Robert_McClenon, I would request that this discussion remains WP:CIVIL, else I cannot proceed with it. I find Petextrodon's comment "difficulties telling the difference" here offensive, especially since Petextrodon has insinuated that I have "comprehension difficulties" [17] in the recent past, I will not accept such personal attacks. Cossde (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Hello, I and others attempted to reach a WP:Consensus regarding the role of Belarus in the article Russo-Ukrainian War, but the issue is quite complicated and requires a strong, broad and long-term WP:Consensus. I think that in the infobox (and elsewhere in this article) Belarus should be described as a "co-belligerent" or as "Supported by" in the side of Russia in this war (e.g. like that) because of Belarus exceptional role in this war which is already more than just "Supplied by" (e.g. military hardware to Russia).
The role of Belarus in this war is exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine), the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more info here: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that.
Many sources describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think that a qualified help is necessary to start a broad WP:RFC discussion (by informing as many users as possible through Wiki projects, etc.) and reach a WP:CONS. I believe that in the upcoming RFC other users should be informed about my arguments provided here in the "Dispute overview" section. To simplify the upcoming RFC voting, I think that the users should be given three options regarding the role of Belarus: A) Co-belligerent; B) Supported by; C) Supplied by.
Summary of dispute by Mzajac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
At its heart, the issue really is not about Belarus, but attempts to claim parity with NATO.
Belarus allowed Russian forces to launch attacks from its soil but did not (as far as I am aware) participate. As such it both did more and less than just supplying arms. This creates a rather odd situation where they are not (technically) a belligerent but also are not uninvolved. Thus is seems that they need a middle-ground approach. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Parham wiki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RadioactiveBoulevardier
I doubt that another round of discussions will forge a clearer consensus at this time, despite the passage of some real time and the topic-banning of a major and…polarizing contributor. I think Slatersteven is right about “wait for the historians” (which means big thick hardcover books of sober analysis, not ideology-laced works like those of Timothy Snyder and the infelicitously named Serhii Plokhy).
It sounds like Pofka wants Belarus listed as a co-belligerent. This is, as Cinderella157 said, WP:EXCEPTIONAL (since the term has a specific formal definition). The term has occasionally been bandied about by biased sources like our old friends at ISW (which is, last I checked, still a post-neocon Washington think tank) and stuff but it would be functionally equivalent to listing Belarus along with Russia with no caveats.
This possibility was at multiple points raised by Mzajac and, unlike the use of “supported by” to represent Belarus’ unique status during the initial invasion, was not endorsed by a plurality.
On other pages I’ve already stated quite a lot (although by the metrics a fraction of the amount several others have written). I don’t see the point in rehashing old arguments when diffs are forever.
In fact, I would like to continue the slow fade from talk pages in this topic area. I have better things to do –having already fallen down the rabbit hole that is EE studies at college, I don’t feel like being contrarian and realistic is consistent anymore with the part of me that enjoys sipping tea with cute refugees and erudite dissidents.
I hope some of this late-night stream-of-consciousness has been helpful to the DR process. While I’m not leaving RUSUKR entirely, I’ve pretty much had more than enough of the talk page atmosphere.
Summary of dispute by Cinderella157
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Slatersteven summarises the situation quite well. The evidence omits where Pofka added Belarus to the infobox under the heading of Co-belligerence. It was deleted by me with the summary: A WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. The status of belligerence is not supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is nuance to co-belligerence here. It is not consistent with the usual meaning - engaged in the fighting. From the discussions, there is clearly no appetite to add Belarus to the infobox as a co-belligerent because it is too nuanced in this instance. Supported by is depricated unless there is an affirmative consensus (RfC) to use it as in Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Russian invasion of Ukraine is a daughter article, of the Russo-Ukrainian War, I am in two minds that the RfC at the invasion article supports inclusion in the war article but other editors have indicated the need for a separate RfC in recent discussions. That is fine. Just start the RfC using the RfC at the invasion article as the template. On a side note, Supplied by in the war article is clearly and end-around the deprecation of "supported by", contrary to the spirit and intent of the RfC deprecating "supported by". It should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, the first question is whether Belarus should be listed at all. The second is how. But the distinction might be moot. My observation is that an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by" would likely gain consensus. An RfC with multiple options would likely result in "no consensus" just because that is commonly how non-binary RfCs conclude. A binary RfC for anything other than "supported by" will not, in my considered opinion, result in "consensus for". This seems to me to be an unusual DR, since the solution is evident - an RfC. It appears to be a case of asking advice on what the RfC should ask, when this usually occurs through TP discussion. My advice is to make an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by". It is better to go with the flow than to try to push shit up-hill with a pointy stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Russo-Ukrainian War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian War)
I am ready to act as the moderator for discussion that may lead to an RFC. We will use DRN Rule D because this dispute involves a contentious topic. Some topic areas in Wikipedia are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds in the past. Eastern Europe has been a battleground too many times in the past century and is the bloodiest battleground of the twenty-first century. If you agree to take part in this discussion, you are agreeing that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic.
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I fully agree that this contentious topic is highly problematic due to likely disruptive editing and that is why I have requested assistance to reach a long-standing WP:CONS about the role/status of Belarus in this war in order to prevent battleground editing in this article in the future. Currently, I have no additional questions to you Robert.
By the way, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), which makes it clear that Lukashenko also tractate the current Ukraine as the enemy of Belarus and seeks for Ukraine's defeat militarily (clearly acting as co-belligerent). I think "co-belligerent" is a suitable middle ground approach for Belarus between belligerents (Russia and Ukraine) and military suppliers (United States, France, Germany, Iran, North Korea, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
One editor has made a statement and thinks that Belarus should be listed as a co-belligerent. There was an opening comment that Belarus should be listed as providing support. If there are no other viewpoints presented, the RFC will ask the community whether to list Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent.
A proposed RfC must explicitly state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".
To choice a), listing Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent is not actually a binary question. Belarus is not listed at present. Continuing to not list it is an option.
To choice b) where multiple belligerents are listed in the same column of the infobox, they are ipso facto co-belligerents, by which, listing Belarus under an explicit heading of "co-belligerent" is redundant, if not ambiguous.
Trying to list Belarus under an explicit heading of co-belligerent is ambiguous and would attempt to convey nuance for which the infobox is totally unsuited. Such a proposal will (in my humble and experienced opinion) be shot down in flames faster than a SCUD missile heading for Jerusalem. If Pofka wants to continue to push this uphill with a pointy stick, then all I can say is knock your socks off (ie - go ahead). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
Is there agreement that the RFC should state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".?
@Robert McClenon: I mostly agree with the upcoming RFC voting choices suggestion described in your second statement (according to Cinderella157's first statement above), but I think that Belarus should be described as "co-belligerent" not only in the infobox of this article, but elsewhere in the article as well (otherwise it would likely violate infobox guidelines). Moreover, I repeat once again that information and sources from my initial statement ("Dispute overview" section) should be also provided in the upcoming RFC (before these a, b, c, d voting choices) because many users-voters might not be fully familiar with the role of Belarus in this war and why it is significantly different from other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Iran). Here is how I think the RFC should look like:
Extended content
This RFC was initiated because it is necessary to reach a strong WP:CONS in article Russo-Ukrainian War regarding the role of Belarus in this war.
The role of Belarus in this war is quite exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine) the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more information in dedicated article: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would possibly make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is possibly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article).
Popular sources already describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (e.g. 8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
Please provide your opinion how Belarus should be described in article Russo-Ukrainian War (in the infobox and elsewhere in this article where events since 24 February 2022 related with Belarus are described):
A) not as belligerent (in the infobox and content of this article);
B) without qualification (in the infobox and content of this article);
C) as co-belligerent in Russia's side (in the infobox and content of this article);
D) under a heading "supported by" in Russia's side in the infobox and as military supplier of Russia in content of this article.
I have created a draft RFC for review, at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus. Please review and comment on it. It is not an active RFC, and has tags to deactivate it until it is moved to the article talk page. Do not !vote in it. Comment on it here, not in it.
@Robert McClenon: If you think that a more extensive explanation why the role of Belarus is likely exceptional in this war should not be included, then I think the RFC draft (Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus) should be at least modified like that: "Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024): (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification?" The RFC should not be simplified only towards the infobox but must cover the whole article because with the provided RFC draft of yours, Robert, we will most likely be voting to violate/ignore WP:INFOBOX guidelines or no because information provided in the infobox must be described in the body of the article as well. We cannot vote to whenever describe Belarus as a co-belligerent in the infobox only, but not elsewhere in the article, so I disagree with your currently proposed RFC draft, Robert. Please add my suggested green text with a wiki link to article Russian invasion of Ukraine to RFC draft and then I will support it. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
User:Pofka - Please do not attribute positions to the moderator or lecture the moderator. I have no specific desire to present the role of Belarus in this war as exceptional. I think that you do, and I am trying to work to ask the community if they agree with you. If you want to help me help you, you can do it by not being harsh in your correction.
I have revised the draft RFC in accordance with your comments, and am now asking you and the other editors to comment further on whether it is ready to go live.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Fourth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Sorry if I sounded harsh. I was just trying to explain how I think the question in the upcoming RFC should be presented. I fully agree with the updated RFC draft, but I think there is a grammatic mistake with that dot between "in the infobox. and accordingly". Shouldn't it be a comma or brackets? -- Pofka (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
I have unarchived this thread. If there are no further comments on the draft RFC within 24 hours, I will move it into the article talk page and enable it to be a live RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Fifth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Just my final thoughts. I think we should make a minor non-disputed addition to the upcoming RFC text: "Should Belarus be listed in the infobox in Russia's side, and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024: (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification?". From the start it was not disputed that Lukashenko's Belarus is an ally/supporter of Russia, not Ukraine, so I think it can be added without further discussion. However, I think this minor addition should be made to make the RFC 100% clear and to avoid controversy in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, Cossde 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."
Despite this he has repeatedly reinserted this sentence not supported by the citations into the article.
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))."[1]
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.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By checking that the added sentence is supported by the existing citations or not, and to decide whether to keep it in the article.
Summary of dispute by Cossde
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Oz346 is correct in quoting of the UN report, however as ususal Oz346 has cherrypicked points, avoiding broader context. Said qoute comes from the chaperter titled "Legal Evaluation of Allegations" which states that "current evaluation is limited to the legal characterization of the allegations; the Panel's view that a certain allegation would not violate internaitonal law should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of the underlying activity." The UN report then goes to state that "The Panel's determination of credible allegations against the LTTE associated with the final stages of the war reveal six core categories of potential serious violations: (i) using civilains as a hunman buffer (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children (v) forced labour; and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks.". At one point the report states "Civilians were increasingly sacrificed as dispensable "cannon fodder" while the LTTE fought to protect its senior leadership.". It also mentions that "the role of the Tamil diaspora, which provided vital moral and material support to the LTTE over decades, and some of whom refuse to acknowledge the LTTE's role in the humanitarian disaster in the Vanni, creating a further obstacle to accuntability and sustainable peace". Frances Harrison in his book Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War does mention that credible evidence that the LTTE itself wanted to deliberately create a humanitarian disaster. Cossde (talk) 13:28, 7 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. Having a role in the humanitarian disaster is not the same as "attempting to create one". Oz346 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by UtoD
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My main opposition was the WP:UNDUE addition of an incident of sexual abuse by peacekeepers from 2004. It is extremely undue and would be indiscriminatory to add random instances of historical abuse to every SL armed forces page. I agree with Cossde's assessment assessment of the other issue on the UN report but I am willing to allow changes if the WP:UNDUE addition on the peacekeeper incident is removed. -UtoD14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Petextrodon
The dispute is over the following sentence that user Cossde added and user UtoD re-added:
"with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises"
Evidently neither user has bothered to read the cited source properly since the UN report explicitly contradicts the claim on the use of human shields as explained to them multiple times by myself and user Oz346. Furthermore, by placing that sentence right after "with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling", an impression is created that most civilian casualties were caused by the LTTE's use of "human shields" although the cited source does not state this. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Sri Lanka Armed Forces discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First Statement by Moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
I am ready to begin moderation of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and agree to abide by its rules. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
It appears that one of the issues is an edit that has been made and reverted concerning allegations of the use of human shields during the Sri Lankan Civil War and also concerning sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces. Is that the only content issue? If there are other content issues, please state what they are. Also, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the contested and reverted edit either should be restored or should not be restored?
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
First Statements by Editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
First statement by Oz346
(1) The following sentence is not supported by the citations:
"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 which is cited in the news articles after this sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts this 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))."[1]
There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises". I believe that this original research should be removed, as it is not supported by the citations and has failed WP:BURDEN.
(2) Regarding the sexual abuse by the peacekeepers, I see no valid reason why it should be removed from the section on peacekeepers. It is reliably sourced and not excessively long, and therefore neither fails WP:BURDEN, nor is it of undue weight. Oz346 (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
First statement by Cossde
First Issue: As I explaned before, the UN report clearly states that "The Panel's determination of credible allegations against the LTTE associated with the final stages of the war reveal six core categories of potential serious violations: (i) using civilains as a hunman buffer (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children (v) forced labour; and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks." Which represents the sentence in question. Similar counter accusations have been writen of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in the LTTE article. Hence it is due balance to either keep this sentance in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page or remove it and the accusations against the Sri Lankan Armed Forces LTTE article to achive balance. This has been prevented by Oz346 [21].
Second Issue: Regarding the sentence on the Sri Lankan peacekeepering scandle, the same content has been included in the Sri Lanka Army page. This is creating WP:UNDU having the same content repeated in two pages. Similar scandles reported in other armed forces such as the French Armed Forces have not been included.
1. Agreed with Cossde. If the issue is that the section is too much about LTTE then it should be allowed to be added to the LTTE page.
2. The Peacekeeper section is clearly WP:UNDUE, it is already mentioned in the Sri Lanka Army page, where it is still undue but less than in the Armed Forces page. There is no reason to add it to the Armed Forces page again, the page is not an indiscriminate list of historical individual instances of abuse and its inclusion in any way gives too much weight to it, making it a WP:POVPUSH. -UtoD16:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
First statement by Petextrodon
Yes, those are the two disputed issues.
First issue concerns the following sentence which I think should be removed: "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
It should be removed because: 1) it's not supported by the citation which in fact contradicts it as the quote cited by user Oz346 shows; 2) it's excessive given the LTTE's responsibility for war crimes, which isn't even the focus of the subsection, is already mentioned.
Second issue concerns the following sentence which I think should be re-added: "Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007."
Users Cossde and UtoD state that this sentence is WP:POVFORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. I still am not sure what they mean by the first accusation. I don't see how the existence of one sentence about a topic that has a separate article goes against Wiki policy. As for the last two, I don't think they apply since the issue of sexual abuse by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti is directly relevant to that section "Deployments in peacekeeping missions" and the case is notable enough as it was a major international scandal spanning three years involving 134 Sri Lankan soldiers. More details dealing with the general history and missions of the peacekeeping force can be added so that the sentence about the scandal becomes less prominent. In any case, a single sentence about a major and very relevant scandal is not undue weight. --- Petextrodon (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
The two issues are the contested statement about the use of human buffers toward the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse of the peacekeeping forces. I would like each editor to make brief statements (a) about the reason why the statement about human buffers should or should not be removed; (b) about why the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse should or should not be included; (c) anything else that should be changed in the article.Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
Second statement by Oz346
1. The contested statement is about the use of human shields, not human buffers. The UN report differentiates between the two, and rejects the definition of human shields. They are not the same thing, legally they are defined differently.
I repeat from the UN report:
"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))."[2]
The statement about human shields should not be included because it is not supported by the citations, and is OR.
2. Regarding the sexual abuse by the peacekeepers, I see no valid reason why it should be removed from the section on peacekeepers. It is notable enough to be mentioned by multiple reliable sources and is not excessively long. It therefore neither fails WP:BURDEN, nor is of undue weight. Oz346 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by Cossde
The UN report clearly states that it finds "credible allegations" against the LTTE for using civilains as a "hunman buffer", "killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control" and "using military equipment in the proximity of civilians".
Regarding the peacekeepering scandle, repeating the same senetances in the Sri Lanka Army page and in the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page is a clearly WP:UNDU and as I said before similar peacekeepering scandles (and sadly there are many) in other armed forces such as the French, doesnt appear in these pages. In the example of drug trafficking in the Haitian Armed Forces seems to be a very poor example, since it meets no WP standards, let along having proper citations. Furthermore, the Haitian Army doesnt have a page of its own and is redirected to the Haitian Armed Forces page itself. The primary issue here is that the same content is repeated in two pages Sri Lanka Army and the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Cossde (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by UtoD
1. There are multiple sources that explicitly claim Human Shields for example 12 pages 15, 38.
2. The peacekeeper claim is already present in the Sri Lanka Army page and even there it is WP:UNDUE and adding it to the Armed Forces page, which is not about individual historical incidents is extremely WP:UNDUE. It should not be added and preferably removed from the SL Army page as well and should be limited to the pages of the specific unit/mission. Because it is giving a single historical incident extreme undue weight. The pages are not for every single individual incident that a military unit got involved in during a military's existence. And when it is repeated indiscriminately upwards through articles by WP:CFORKING then it becomes a WP:ADVOCACY issue. -UtoD19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by Petextrodon
1) The issue is about "human shields", not "human buffer". Once again, the UN report explicitly denies that "human shields" as defined under international law were used. This is original research on the part of user Cossde. Cossde continues, stating the LTTE "attempted to create an humanitarian crises," which is again original research since the UN report only refers to "the LTTE's role in the humanitarian disaster", not that it attempted to create one. Finally, it's undue weight in a section dealing with the war crimes of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and not those of the LTTE (which is extensively documented in its own page), especially given that LTTE is also already named in the paragraph as a culpable party.
2) Child sexual abuse in Haiti by Sri Lankan peacekeepers should be included since it was a major international scandal and one small sentence is not undue weight nor excessive. The Armed Forces of Haiti page itself has an entire paragraph on drug trafficking by its military officers. --- Petextrodon (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
The two issues are the contested statement about the use of human shields toward the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse by the peacekeeping forces. I am now asking each editor who wants any change made to the article with regard to either issue to specify exactly what they want changed in the article. Also please identify any possible compromise language. If there is no compromise, we will compose and publish a two-part RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
Third statement by Oz346
1. I'm ok with the following reworded compromise for war crimes:
"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."
Anything else gives undue weight to the LTTE crimes when the section is about the crimes of the government forces, which are also much more detailed in the UN report, which the existing section does not elaborate on (e.g. extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearances etc). The LTTE page already has a huge section with multiple subsections on its human rights violations, in contrast to this paltry one paragraph tucked away at the end of this section in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces article. The current Sri Lankan Armed Forces article virtually censors its more extensive war crimes due to frequent removal of mentions of human rights violations by nationalist editors. There is a definite double standard here for both parties in the conflict.
2. I'm ok with the following reworded compromise for Haiti sex scandal:
"Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been accused of sexually abusing children in Haiti from 2004 to 2007."
I don't agree that similar sentence should be removed from the Sri Lanka Army page. There's no wikipedia policy which states a topic can't be summarised in one sentence in multiple articles. Oz346 (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by UtoD
I will agree that "the LTTE been accused of using civilians as a human buffer and shooting civilians attempting to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war" if the peacekeeper section is not added.
While Cossde's proposal to remove the peacekeeper issue section from the Sri Lanka Army page if it is added to Armed Forces page solves the WP:CFORK issue, the addition would not match with that of the Armed Forces page per WP:RELEVANCE and WP:SCOPE. It is of much greater relevance to the Army page than the Armed Forces page and it would be WP:UNDUE to add it to the Armed Forces page. I agree with Cossde on the WP:CANVASSING issue. WP:CANVASSING should be entirely banned if an rfc is opened and should be targeted towards neutral editors unrelated editors. -UtoD05:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by Petextrodon
1) I want the following OR line removed:
"with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
Please bear in mind that this part is supposed to be a summary of the UN report and not other sources not cited there which may use "human shields" in a non-technical way.
2) I want the following sentence re-added to the "Deployments in peacekeeping missions" section:
"Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007." --- Petextrodon (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Since I made the statement above, users Cossde and Oz346 have suggested compromises. Although it's not what I had initially proposed, I find Oz346's proposal agreeable. --- Petextrodon (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by Cossde
1) I am ok to the idea of rewording the sentence to "with the LTTE been accused of using civilians as a human buffer and shooting civilians attempting to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war". This will match the UN reports wording as close as possible.
2) I am ok with a sentence be added to the "Deployments in peacekeeping missions" section: "Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti were accused of sexual misconduct and abuse involving minors in November 2007" provided that the similar sentence in the Sri Lanka Army page is removed.
If you do proceed to RFC, I hope that it could be limited to Admins or an independent review since in the past it was common for RFCs on Sri Lankan Civil War topics to be heavily commented on parties who tend to be either pro-Sri Lankan or anti-Sri Lankan, when it becomes a simple voting contest. Cossde (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I honstly tried to compromise, but I cannot agree to both Oz346's statements. I am sorry, but I find Oz346's arguments contradicting each other. Oz346 is overly concerned about giving the slightest undue weight to the LTTE crimes in his lengthy argument, however Oz346 also finds no Wiki policy that prevents repeating the Peacekeeping scandal in both SLAF and SLA pages. Cossde (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
The two issues are the contested statement about the use of human shields toward the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse by the peacekeeping forces. I have a two-part task for each editor. First, propose language that you find acceptable, and that you think will be acceptable to the Wikipedia community, for each section. Second, in the sections for discussion, engage in back-and-forth discussion with the other editors to try to reach a compromise. These are the only sections in which back-and-forth discussion is permitted. Back-and-forth discussion will continue until either a compromise is reached, or the moderator thinks that the discussion is stalled.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
Fourth statement by Oz346
The language that I find acceptable: "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." Oz346 (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by Cossde
The language that I find acceptable: "with the LTTE been 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." Cossde (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by UtoD
Fourth statement by Petextrodon
I agree with user Oz346's proposal:
"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." --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I propose the inclusion of the wording "with the LTTE been 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." It is exactly what the UN Report has stated in its Executive Summery. This will also then be similar to what is in LTTE page. Hence I feel that this will be WP:BALANCED.Cossde (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
To be similar to the LTTE page, we will need a large dedicated section on the human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces on its page (similar to the human rights violations section on the LTTE page). As they were both parties to the conflict and you want to be WP:BALANCED, I am sure you will agree. Oz346 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Wait is this discussion on the war crimes allegations at the final stages of the war and the UN report or is it a broader discussion (i.e. human rights violations)? I am confused! Was it opened up? Did I miss something? Cossde (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
So you don't agree that a large 'human right violations' section should be on the Sri Lankan Armed forces page (as demonstrated by your frequent removal of this type of content), but you are happy that a large 'human rights violations' section is present on the LTTE page (the other party to the conflict)? That's not WP:BALANCED. If you are arguing for balance then there should be no double standards. Oz346 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Cossde, that's an excessive focus on LTTE when the section deals with the allegations against the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.
Compare the length of sentence dedicated to each side.
SLAF: "most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on indiscriminate Sri Lankan Army shelling"
LTTE: "the LTTE been 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"
This is not proportionate, is it?
It may be what the UN report states but the same report also details far more war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces which you want to conveniently leave out. Unless you also suggest expanding on the human rights violations by the SLAF, Oz346's proposal is more reasonable. --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you and Oz346 is asking for expand the scope of this discussion to beyond topic of war crimes in the final stages? Cossde (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde As for me, not necessarily. I'm only talking about the same UN report as you are, which deals with the war crimes and crimes against humanity in the final stages of the war. --- Petextrodon (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon, then lets keep "with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling, with the LTTE been 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." Cossde (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde Why do you want to give more weight to accusations against LTTE in a section specifically dealing with war crimes of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces? --- Petextrodon (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
You have incorrectly cited WP:FALSEBALANCE which refers primarily to fringe views. A section on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces should primarily be about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. Oz346 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde But you're the one who wants to add content from it so you have the burden to justify their inclusion. A reminder that WP:NOTEVERYTHING states the following:
"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."
Do note that your above justification to remove the whole war crimes section will be brought up the next time you engage in a dispute on the LTTE page. Also, you did bring up the Sri Lankan Army page multiple times although the discussion is about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde I don't know how that could be construed as a "threat". For the purpose of transparency, other editors and admins will be interested in reviewing how you interpret and use Wiki guidelines. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon, when you said "Do note that your above justification to remove the whole war crimes section will be brought up the next time you engage in a dispute on the LTTE page." I see it as a threat to take future action against me, as I see it delivered with the intention to intimidate me, specially due to your past personal attacks on me in DRN and [22], I will not engage in a non-WP:CIVIL discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde I'm sorry that you feel that way. In fact, I feel personally attacked by these baseless accusations of "threat" and "intention to intimidate me". Despite these insults, I am willing to put them aside for the sake of the discussion about the topic at hand. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The LTTE and the Sri Lankan Armed Forces were the two parties to the conflict, and you are specifically adding disproportionately more details about the LTTE on a section that should primarily be about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces (its a section on the 'Sri Lankan Armed Forces' page). So there is obvious relevance. Oz346 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The alleged sexual abuse by the peacekeeping forces, I feel that it can be completely done away with in this article since the subsection on peacekeeping only contains a table of troop numbers, to add to that a sentence on the sexual abuse scandal will only make it WP:UNDU and it has already been mentioned in the Sri Lanka Army page, repeating it here will be WP:UNDU. Cossde (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Cossde, I disagree. That subsection did have a background detail before you removed it. More details on the general history can be added as I explained above. Please point to the Wiki policy which states coverage of a topic in one sentence in multiple articles is undue weight and is therefore forbidden. --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon, you are asking for Wiki policy that states repeating the same sentence in multiple articles is undue weight, and yet in the above section you are asking that the length of sentence dedicated to each side, should be proportionate. Cossde (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde, they are two separate issues. Once again, since I could be missing something, please kindly point to the Wiki policy which states coverage of a topic in one sentence in multiple articles is undue weight and is therefore forbidden. --- Petextrodon (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde Major scandal involving Sri Lankan Army is directly relevant to articles or sections about the Sri Lankan Army, whereas LTTE crimes are not relevant to a section specifically dealing with war crimes of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.
Now, could you please kindly point to the Wiki policy which states coverage of a topic in one sentence in multiple relevant articles is undue weight and is therefore forbidden? --- Petextrodon (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Petextrodon thank you very much, you answered the question yourself when you, just said "Major scandal involving Sri Lankan Army is directly relevant to articles or sections about the Sri Lankan Army". There you have it. There is no reason to repeat the same in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces! Cossde (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Again you answered that for me, thank you. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and I quote you "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Cossde (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde Are you saying that rule I cited justifies your inclusion of excess details on LTTE war crimes in an unrelated article and section? --- Petextrodon (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde So which rule are you citing when you imply that coverage of a topic in one sentence in multiple relevant articles is undue weight and is therefore forbidden? --- Petextrodon (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cossde I'm not aware of such rules. You are the one making the claim, so justify it. Otherwise, would I not be reasonable in concluding that you made up a rule? --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Its an unnecessary WP:CFORK resulting in a WP:SOAPBOX:. It is more relevant to the Sri Lanka Army page and it is more within the WP:SCOPE of the Army page. Guidelines are to achieve the highest quality of articles and indiscriminately repeating the a single incident from 20 years ago on Armed Forces page when it is already mentioned in the Army page is WP:UNDUE. The Armed Forces page is not a indiscriminate list of singular instances of abuse by every single sub-organizations. -14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Cossde did not "made up a rule". WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a thing and so does WP:SCOPE of articles and WP:RELEVANCE all of which are better suited for the Army page where it is already mentioned compared to the Armed Forces pages. Just because a single incident from two decades ago involved a branch of the Armed Forces does not mean it should be listed in the Armed Forces page. - UtoD14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@UtoD It appears you didn't sign the previous reply. Could you please cite the Wiki rule and the exact wording which states coverage of a topic in one sentence in multiple relevant articles is forbidden on Wikipedia? --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I signed it, its a wiki issue. The argument is that because it is not explicitly forbidden, you can indiscriminately add it isn't going to run especially when its covered by multiple guidelines why it won't fly and is not how wiki works. However WP:BALANCE says For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Adding individual singular events on the entire justification of soldiers belonging to the army and Army is a branch of the Armed Forces thus individual events of abuse done by any unit involved must be added to the Armed Forces page is way past the acceptable limits of WP:RELEVANCE. You simply cannot just claim its relevant because its linked and indiscriminately start adding events to pages. - UtoD15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@UtoD Are you saying inclusion of one sentence about a major international scandal spanning three years and involving 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers is "disproportionate" in a section that deals with Sri Lankan peacekeeping missions? But somehow adding a longer sentence about LTTE's war crimes to a section dealing with SLAF's war crimes is proportionate? I don't see your logic. Doesn't what qualify here as disproportionate or proportionate subjective or based on personal whim?--- Petextrodon (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
I had asked each editor for proposed wording on the UN report on war crimes, and for proposed wording on the scandal about the peacekeepers. I have been given wording on the UN report on war crimes. So I am asking each editor to provide the proposed wording on the scandal about sexual abuse by the Sri Lankan peacekeeping forces in Haiti. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion is not working, and so I am stopping it. Address your comments to the moderator and the community, in particular about proposed wording on the scandal involving the peacekeepers.
Fifth statements by editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
Fifth statement by Oz346
I am now of the opinion, that there is nothing wrong with the original sentence added, which is reliably sourced and well written:
Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007.[3]
As I said before, I am ok with the addon "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." As for RfC, I request that this be done by admins or independent editors. Cossde (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the original sentence should be included:
"Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dispute relates to the page of Ziyavudin Magomedov, a Russian oligarch imprisoned in Russia. I’ve had several disagreements with a fellow editor, Odlainer2024, over recent months and despite the fact we’ve traded several long messages on the Talk Page we haven’t reached a consensus. I’ve tried to integrate many of Odlainer2024’s suggestions, but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. The dispute is quite complex, but written as briefly as possible it essentially boils down to:
• The length of the lead section, and the prominence/due weight given to claims which are either: a) not relevant enough for the first paragraph, b) reproduced in a very similar form elsewhere in the article or c) overly detailed/obscure for the lead section.
• Along similar lines, there’s a question about the due weight/prominence given to certain material. This is primarily within the "Career" section, as well as the proposed “proximity to Putin’s regime” section. This proposed section details every potential connection Magomedov, or family members had to the “Russian elite” prior to his arrest which I’ve argued creates a misleading impression for readers. A very detailed breakdown of the problems here, and Odlainer2024’s responses can be found on the Talk Page.
• The length and use of quotes which are often several lines long and not properly summarised and contextualised. This means that the contents of the quotes are often deployed as an appendage to re-iterate/emphasise a particular narrative.
There are also disagreements about the approach to editing the page, and in some places, the actual content/sourcing and language used. I’m happy to provide more detail, but there is already a very detailed Talk Page discussion. The most relevant material will probably be found in recent posts.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Extensive discussion has occurred on the Talk Page.
I did also post on this noticeboard a few weeks ago, but the discussion was seemingly closed down (I don't know why - it just says the topic has been deleted - i can't see any explanation, so I've posted again - is there any other place to post this sort of thing?).
I think both Odlanier_2024 and I want to reach a consensus but have disagreements about the due weight given to certain areas of the page which need a third-party to weigh in on.
Summary of dispute by Odlanier2024
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ziyavudin Magomedov discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since 2021, a page that was relatively positive and informational has had a series of edits that introduced negative bias. At this point the page serves mainly to discredit the practice of trap-neuter-return.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Looking for a neutral third party to mediate so this page can function as a neutral information source. Of the two editors involved, one is positive about TNR (myself) and the other is negative. Need to find the neutral middle ground.
Summary of dispute by Geogene
Academic sources have called the subject of this article "cat hoarding without walls" [25] and have suggested it may be enabling mental illness (How is the person who must save 25 to 30 cats in their home different from the person who sees themselves as the savior of 25 to 30
cats in a park? Some “cat people” may be “collectors,” and it is possible that TNR is enabling and supporting some people who need psychologic counseling and assistance.) [26]. To quote another paper, this one by a CDC researcher, Such programs generate support and enthusiasm from
many animal welfare advocates, yet these managed feral cat “colonies” are not innocuous.
Feral cats can cause considerable mortality to local wildlife (Jessup, 2004, Hawkins et al.,
1999, Baker et al., 2008), act as reservoirs for feline-specific diseases (Cohn, 2011, Al-
Kappany et al., 2011, Nutter et al., 2004a), and transmit zoonotic diseases to humans (Nutter
et al., 2004a, McElroy et al., 2010, CDC, 1995, CDC, 2008b). Additionally, claims by TNR
advocates that managed colonies can reduce feral cat populations and control rodents are
contradicted by research (Hawkins et al., 1999, Castillo & Clarke, 2003, Longcore et al.,
2009, Gunther et al., 2011). [27] And then we have this recent New Yorker piece, [28], which presents the TNR movement as not based on science but driven by an ideology that is unable to compromise. So what basis is there to expect a positive article? Geogene (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
trap-neuter-return discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
And additionally, I would like to point out this well-intentioned joke of yours on your talk page, where you told the opposition, I don't recommend going down that alley. If that alley has rats, any community cats can handle them better than you can[30]. Reliable Sources say that the term "community cats" is misleading, as it's a partisan misnomer used by TNR advocates to normalize cats in the outdoors, and falsely imply that they exist with the consent of the local community, and/or that the community has some kind of responsibility towards them, [31], and/or that it is "a message to the community" that the cats must be accepted if they're wanted there or not [32]. Additionally, cats, whatever you want to call them, are not effective against rats. [33]. I'm a little concerned to see a moderator on NPOV in the TNR article, repeating two different pro-TNR talking points unbidden. Let me just point out also that the internet in general loves cats so much that it doesn't take criticism of them well, and this is presenting issues here on Wikipedia already. Geogene (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon While I can't choose what option they'll take next, I think that, as a new editor with about 30 edits, they would do better learning the WP:NPOV policy than studying up on every possible avenue of dispute resolution. And then, they could consider responding to points I've already made with policy-based argumentation to defend their position. Geogene (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (TNR)
I don't think that I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. I am not sure what the next step should be, and so am not yet closing this case. It does not appear that mediation is likely to work, because both editors are approaching mediation with wariness and possible hostility. I see that both editors have established positions that are far apart on the overall outlook toward trap-neuter-return, largely because they are far apart on outlooks on the animals (feral cats) that are the subject of TNR. It appears that there may not be enough trust between the two editors to be able conduct mediation without checking on things and looking at the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I have posted on the Teahouse to request another moderator be added to this Dispute Resolution ticket with a short summary and also updated the trap-neuter-return Talk page with the current actions for transparency and record-keeping. Nylnoj (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
One possibility would be for the editors to find another moderator. I have no particular advice on how to do that, except that they could request one at the Teahouse or Village Pump (Miscellaneous). (I would be glad to have another moderator to share the case workload with.) However, I am not sure that another moderator will be able to bridge the distrust between these two editors, especially now that they know that their talk page will be watched and their humor taken issue with. Another option is WP:ANI, but that is often problematic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have followed the page for Mainstreet Research of and on for the past 7 years. I noticed that shortly after a polling error occurred in Calgary in 2017, that a full section was added to that company page referencing the error, then in 2019 when another error took place, it was added.
As someone who works in this field in Canada, I am familiar with both polling arror and the industry. Instead of being considered a subject matter expert, I am accused of conflict howevere. When I made the initial edit, I posted this message as the basis for the edits to the editor who reverted the document (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ontlib20)
I have cited every other public opinion firm page available, and cited "Controversies" each was involved with, yet this one firm is the only one with a section dedicated to it's polling errors. All polling firms have errors, it is a statistical gusrantee that this happens.
I am of the opinion that this is malicious in nature, otherwise even one other firm would have a similar reference.
Now I am being threatened with having my editing ability restricted. I have clearly explained multiple times with citations on why I believe the edit is reasonable.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion is here, it escalated to a threat pretty quickly, I don't believe either editor is familiar with either a) Canada or b) the polling industry and it appears nobody took the time to read my detailed response.
Allow my edits and stop threatening me, I have cited all the other industry pages, this feels like personal and malicious content. Or ask the editors who are insisting on the section staying to post all the polling errors for all polling firms, be consistent.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
- - - - - - - -
The CAHSR Authority has requested that trainsets built for the line meet the following specifications, among others: a maximum testing speed of 242 mph (389 km/h), a lifespan of at least 30 years, the ability to operate two trainsets as a single "consist" (a long train) which is no longer than about 680 feet (210 m), have at least 450 seats and carry eight bicycles, earthquake safety systems for safe stopping and exiting, business class and ordinary seating as well as child-friendly family areas, food service, and on-board Wifi and train information displays.
[PP] The train design, its development program, and procurement timeline is shown in more detail in a presentation to the Board in February 2024.[61]
- - - - - - - -
Does the second paragraph contravene Wikipedia rules? This is an example of an important issue, since there are a number of links to external sources where more information on that topic is available.
Thanks for your input.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:California High-Speed Rail#Clean-up and Harmonization
Talk:California High-Speed Rail#This article is a mess
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
(1) I think there is a great deal of value in providing references to more information in external links.
(2) CAHSR is undergoing a lot of different activities now. The project is not static, so an entirely historic perspective is inadequate. So, I think that timely/transitory information (which will eventually be deleted/replaced) should be provided.
My inclination is to try to do these, not whether or not they should be done.
What is the consensus on this?
Summary of dispute by Nweil
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Shannon1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by XavierItzm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Citing
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DracaenaGuianensis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
California High-Speed Rail discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The user is removing content which is notable enough to be on the page without providing reasoning, I have tried discussing this on the talk page with the user but they keep reverting the edits without reason or replying on the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Provide a third opinion and explain to the user that they should provide edit summaries or use the talk page in a content dispute.
Summary of dispute by NikeCage68
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of 2023–24 Premiership Rugby transfers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seamus Heaney
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There's an ongoing dispute on whether we should include Heaney's notable works in the infobox. Of the 4 editors involved, 2 support the inclusion and the other (including myself) oppose it. Martinevans123 has suggested keeping the information on a collapsed list.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I hope we can reach a consensus on this. Some advice on handling this kind of situations would be appreciated.
Summary of dispute by Martinevans123
I think the seven works listed should appear in the infobox, in a collapsed list if necessary, especially as they are all linked to articles of their own. I'm not too bothered about the list of awards, which I suspect the average reader would be far less interested in. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with major works being included and uncollasped. Not fond of the awards however. Meaningless trinklets and they make the whole box so long :( Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Anna Roy
I wasn't aware we were having a dispute. Some people think some infobox details some people useful to add, some people are anti info box detail on point of principle. No big deal. Anna (talk)18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ceoil
This is a routine content dispute, and not a very heated one as I recall. My preference is that infoboxes for writers, if we have to have them, should be as brieft as possible (see discussion and resolution for James Joyce), but not include sections like "notable works" which necessarily require editorial judgement. That said, I don't really care that much either; a benefit might that if the works included have separate articles, then having the links so prominent might attract readers to explore further. Anyway, fine with either outcome. Also to say, I think all parties here have been acting in good faith (Martin I know for years, Anna is a very solid and skilled contributor). Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment by KJP1
I’ve become a more frequent visitor to this page than I’d wish! But being here, and seeing this, I have to say it seems an odd referral. There’s a perfectly collegiate discussion on the article Talkpage, and all of the editors, three of whom I know, seem amenable to compromise. I’d think it very likely that an appropriate outcome could have been agreed without bringing the issue to formal dispute resolution. KJP1 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Its all now moot and resolved given this evenings agreement between myself and Thedarkknight that the infobox includes a few major works but no accolades.[34][35]. Thedarkknight, who has one of the coolest user-names on wiki, was probably overly litigious, but no harm done. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth question by volunteer (Seamus Heaney)
Has the article content issue been resolved by discussion? If so, thank you. If not, please read DRN Rule A, and then I will ask some other questions. Has this issue been resolved?
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The infobox in the article for Morocco gives ethnic statistics from a 2012 business brochure as added by Skitash, I removed this from the infobox arguing that this wasn't a category in the census and there weren't reliable enough sources, and whatever I was able to find contradicted one another, this is alongside the near-impossible task of distinguishing the Arab and Berber populations of Morocco. I hence deemed this too nuanced and controversial to be able to be conveyed through simple numbers, that it was better to remove it and elaborate further and give a nuanced view in the Demographics section of the article. Skitash reverted the edits and a heated argument ensued on the talk page which led us, despite some attempts to compromise, to run around in circles with no resolution. On the talk page, @Moxy agreed that such statistics shouldn't be included in the infobox. Despite this and after a failed attempt to raise this to WP:3O, Skitash has insisted on reverting all removals on the basis that "no consensus had been reached".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I trust the volunteers on the noticeboard to find a mutually convenient solution, as I have failed to do on many occasions.
Summary of dispute by Skitash
NAADAAN is insisting on the removal of the long-standing ethnic group parameter from the article, which has been in place for over a year, on the grounds of insufficient reliable sources. Contrary to this claim, I have provided numerous sources that consider all ethnic groups and establish an ethnic percentage range of 65-70% Arab and 30-35% Berber. In response, NAADAAN has presented their own sources, but I have pointed out that the sources they provided are either unreliable, inaccurate, or exhibit WP:UNDUE bias by focusing excessively on a single ethnic group.
Moreover, we have already reached a consensus regarding Morocco's ethnic composition on Talk:Moroccans#Third Opinion? a few months ago, with a nearly unanimous agreement on the established ethnic percentage range. In our efforts to find a middle ground, NAADAAN suggested adding a nationality parameter like the France article, although I pointed out the incompatibility of such an approach for the Morocco article, given the country's multi-ethnic and heterogeneous population, unlike France, where nationality is intertwined with ethnicity. The user also suggested using linguistical statistics based on estimates, when these would be contradicted by the official Moroccan census that explicitly states that 92% of the population speaks Arabic while 26% speaks Berber. In conclusion, I don't believe NAADAAN's proposal to omit ethnic statistics would be beneficial to the article in any way, especially considering that the articles for Morocco's neighboring countries such as Algeria, Tunisia and Libya do include ethnic group parameters with percentage ranges that largely align with those of Morocco. Skitash (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Egypt has had its ethnic statistics omitted since 2013(!) despite possibly being as multi-cultural as Morocco. I was unaware of the dispute on Talk:Moroccans#Third Opinion? and nowhere was it mentioned in previous attempts to resolve the dispute, I can gladly offer a myriad of sources contradicting one another but this doesn't involve the infobox on Morocco. I proposed putting linguistic estimates as well as estimates about ethnicity in the body of the article, I'm sorry if that was not clear. NAADAAN (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Egyptians are considered a distinct ethnic group per Egyptians and constitute 99.7% of the population of Egypt, thereby making Egypt a homogenous country unlike Morocco. Moroccans can belong to various ethnic groups; what unites them is their citizenship or nationality to the Kingdom of Morocco. These two cases are clearly different. I have informed you of the discussion on Talk:Moroccanshere. Skitash (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
There's a difference between Copts, Nubians and Arabs in Egypt is there not? Seems like I overlooked the paragraph about the last discussion, my bad. NAADAAN (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Morocco discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– New discussion.