Talk:Special Task Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Special Task Force article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.
Do not use this page as a discussion forum.
See talk page guidelines.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

Contents

[edit] Recent Changes

I'd just like to go through my recent changes to the article (and yours) though nobody will probably read this and just edit to their own whims and fancy.

I'd like to applaud the user who properly formatted this article, however throughout your re-formatting, you ommitted crucial infomation nessicary to this article

This same infomation has also been changed by another user, citing problems with the sources, however the new sources are that of the U.S State Department and the BBC, two organisations that are well renowned and known to be NPOV.

I have made the nessicary changes to rectify this and added in detail accounts (with sources) of the Ampora incident and will continue to add in incidents concerning Aid workers, Tamil civilians and early non-LTTE sepratist movements.

Thankyou --Sharz 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with user Sharz changes. There is an effort to whitewash gross human rights abuses with selective reporting of STF actions. Elalan 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Tamilnet is a reliable source as far as I see it, snowolf - who thinks Tamilnet is unreliable source and likes of him are the only one to do so. Stop vandalizing by blanking out pages related to STF and Tamilnet. Elalan 14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Elalan, I see the same two users on alot of the Sri Lankan Conflict related sites, though I must say that BBC, U.S State Department etc are far more reliable sources than the majority of Sri Lanka based news, sites etc --Sharz 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree Sharz. Elalan 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has not been attacked...

The comment that the STF has not been attacked in the region can't be sourced by the STF official site as much as Tamilnet can't be a referance, could you please find another referance--Sharz 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This artcale is been vandalized by the Ltte supporters

[edit] Blanking of article

The video interview given by the survivor of this attack cannot be disputed whereever it is taken from. Removing the link to it is vandalism. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 05:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Added infomation about the incident and added infomation relevant to the providence of the source. Also, cut the quote in half, seem the fact that they were 'wearing black pants' was irrelevant. Your move chuckles, lets see how 'unbiased' you really are when a bit more truth is slapped on. All infomation I added in is sourced (roughly 10 sources).--Sharz 07:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Of the articles you have cited, not 1 mentioned the STF. The arab news article did not even work. Just because some organization has accused Sri Lanka of human rights violations, that doesn't mean you can add it to this article. And unless an article dirctly mentions the STF, please do not add it to this page.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

A citation has been requested for the allegation of involvement in the incident dubbed Batticalo Massacare since October 19th.[1] If a reliable citation is not given that directly says the STF was involved in the incident (the STF is not part of the Sri Lanka Army), it probably means it is incorrect, and I will have to remove it within the next few days. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referances?

What's with all the biased referals (mostly .lk tamilnet and tamil nation?)--Sharz 03:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S State Department Source

I know that it's gonna get people all up in a ball of rage that a source says that the STF are involved in "arbitary arrest...", so instead of having to have discuss every technicality that you can think of, I've taken the liberty of defuncting them in advance. 1 - "The source doesn't mention the STF" 'which includes the 6,000-member paramilitary Special Task Force'

2 - "The Source is not reliable" The source is the U.S State Department. What more could you ask for?

3 - "The Source is biased" No bias of the United States government, or their State Department has been established to date, such would be like saying Amnesty International is biased against crimes against humanity.

4 - "I don't like what's on the page" Doesn't mean that you can delete it, as it's 'blanking content'.

Have a wonderful day =) --Sharz 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are talking about??? U.S State Department Source never ever told that the Special Task Force involved with the Arbitrary Arrest or Detention. Seems YOU never read even that section before, aren't you. SO READ IT. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted directly from the article, they have pertained that the STF is part of the "police force of 60,000, including 6,000 STF members", that has been engaged over the year in "arbitary arrest of detention". Thus therefore by State department definition, the STF is part of a wider police force, which is engaged in arbitary arrest or detention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sharz (talk • contribs).

[edit] Bold edits

I made some bold edits so that the real discussion can take place at the appropriate article. Pottuvil massacre has enough notability to warrant its own article. So I did. If I had offened anyone, my apologiesRaveenS 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pottuvil

Regarding the Pottuvil Massacre, it is important to note that initially that local muslim leaders accused the STF, and only weeks afterwards did the sole witness come forward, after which, the STF was cleared by what is essentially an another arm of the Sri Lankan Military. Everything said is factual is it not? that the STF was accused than later cleared by one of their own courts? Such infomation cannot be deleted. --Sharz 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, in regard to the Pottuvil massacre, the Sri Lankan government police and judicial systems have been accused of "subverting law and order", "uses un-ethical and un-orthodox intergotation practices, sometimes leading to death" and also "arbitary and unlawful punishment" by not one, but three respectable groups, The United Nations Human Rights Commsion, The U.S State Department and Amnesty International. This raises the possibility that such a "confession" by the sole witness was under duress, it is also palpable, because none of the respective news articles have been revoked. Thus the fact remains that certain muslim groups including the local (the muslim groups forementioned in the article isn't actually the local one but a trade union of muslim businesses, making it libel), accused the STF and pertain that it was the STF that carried out the murders. It is also to note that the Sri Lankan government refused an independent inquiry, as requested by the human rights groups in Sri Lanka and abroad and conducted the court case in private, essentially investigating the military with military personal then carrying it out in a backroom where no observors could critique it. I suggest you not only stop vandalising this article to serve your own agenda, but stongly re-consider your view on the matter. --Sharz 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

your allegations are flawed and your desire to push your own POV is ,rather becoming obvious here..You have done some　miserable edits here and I 'd like to advice you not to lower your reputation as an editor here. You seem to have a genuine problem with not appointing an international commission to investigate this incident, but You may ,not aware of the fact that LTTE is killing people almost every day and if we Appoint international investigations ,we may end up with "empty pockets !!" Unless its dubious ,there is no point wasting our tax money to comfort some baseless accusers. If you still doubt, I would like to ask you to take a tour to east , then you may get the opportunity to talk to people directly and hear their true voice..Not a single person accuses STF now , Or even before .Muslims were upset only because STF failed to protect them nothing else..And bear in mind, going against the LTTE is like risking your own life,but this time Muslims even did that.Hats off to them !! Finally, its amazing that,so far , ONLY you have accused STF for torturing the Sole survivor to get "biased statement"..And, naturally, wikipedia is not a place for your nonsense and I wouldn't tolerate it.--Iwazaki 09:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
,rather becoming obvious here..You have done some　miserable edits here and I 'd like to advice you not to lower your reputation as an editor here.

Are we here? (hehe, sorry sorry, couldn't help myself).

In reply to your comments, the "Point of View" that I am pushing is one of factual accuracy and truthful illumunesce, you can give yourself a good ole pat on the back by ommiting the attrocities and grave human rights abuses of the Special Task Force, as well as the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in general, however remember this, veritas omnia vincit, Don't thing you'll get away with it. As for baseless accusers, it seems you have a conumdrum on your hands, because, The Muslim community of the region and the international community as well as large media conglumerates (or your so-called 'baseless accusers'), based their assumption that the murders had to be STF members simply because the STF was incharge of the area and kept very high restictions on inflow and outflow of the region. So essentially if their claims are baseless, than you are claiming that faith that the Special Task Force has any ability to control regions under their command and secure the civilian populous from the Tamil Tiger sepratist, just an interesting sidenote based on your hypothesis.

Back to the article in discussion, as for this 'tour to the east', for one, I am not in Sri Lanka, nor do I wish to be in Sri Lanka, and two, Wikipedia clearly states, no original research, something you have clearly done to justify this deletion. As with much of the evidence that you have provided, what you have said is completely baseless. However, What I have said, that the STF, as well as other Sri Lankan judicial and armed forces have been involved in human rights abuses concerneing interogation and the judicial services, and sorry no, I did not 'travel east' to obtain this infomation, I simply read the dozens and dozens of reports that come from independent sources out of Sri Lanka, 3 of which I have formentioned. --Sharz 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry if I sounded harsh..But It is a sad truth that, you have done miserable edits here to push your POV. Sharz, do I really need to list them here ?? I mean any one who goes though the "edit summary" would know how did you behave, so far .How many times I have to tell you this, If you have evidences that the "sole survivor" was forced to make a confession then put forward it..You are trying to generalize everything and it doesn't make any sense！！STF safeguard eastern people but its impossible to save people all the times from the LTTE terrorism. LTTE do all their aristocracies in the Government held areas, they hit and run, they do suicide bombings, practically impossible to control 100% without wiping out them completely. You argument is weak and flawed. To sum this up ,

1: No one accuses ,not even the leader of the SLMC ,STF for killing 2: Sole survivor confirmed ,this was done by the LTTE 3: 100% of the local Muslim population thinks this was done by the LTTE. Some say this in public,others due to immense fear of LTTE prefer to express this privately. 4: LTTE has a history of killing people in the east. Sinhalese/Muslims have become soft targets for them. Are we done now ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

You need an extra line between each of those points.
In reply to your introduction, you have displayed absolute disregard for the spirit of Wikipedia in your edits here, you have used what is essentially a team force to get your P.O.V across. As for my behavior, I find it interesting how I made edits to certain segments so as to reach a neutral ground, whereas you decided to continously revert (breaching the 3RR I might add, something I did not report).

I won't go into your sledging of the LTTE as there is not much defence for alot of their actions, however, UN data indicates that the Special Task Force actively targets Tamil Males ages 15 - 30 and causes their 'disapperances', the data stands at 2.5% for the LTTE and 6.5% for the Special Task Force, makes you wonder if maybe there are just two groups of terrorist fighting in the jungle.

To address you four points, 1, do you have evidence of this, because I have provided in the article, evidence to the contarary. 2 - Solve survivor may have been co-erced, however, this is not the matter at hand, the matter is whether some speculate this was the action of the Special Task Force, contary to evidence provided. 3 - 100% is just a ridiculous figure and near impossible to prove and for sake of wikipedia, referance. 4 - What has this got to do with the Special Task Force?.

--Sharz 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


* Quick Reply
  • 1 : Evidence are given a long ago..Anyone can see them in the article.
  • 2 This is totally your POV and wikipedia is not a place where you can make article out of your personal beliefs.
  • 3 It is 100 % .If you dispute this, bring evidences. All you have to bring is , comments of Muslims leaders or people accusing STF for killing.
  • 4 Everything. It just shows LTTE is the obvious culprit.

--Iwazaki 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the Pudukudiirippu incident be included?

(Original title: "Dubious allegations !")

I found out this as a dubious allegation against the STF..The source does not given detail other than handing STF the responsibility..If anything this seemed to be a very weak argument..The bus with the civilians inside was caught in the cross-fire and STF asked them to move inside..How do we know for sure this was done with bad intention ??!! rather than stranding in the cross-fire, civilian may had a better chance in surviving by moving to the camp!! And this may have saved many lives !! If the source can't be more specific of this .I don't think this should be counted as a "human right violation by the STF"..One more, If I was in the bus at that day, I would have certainly preferred to move inside the camp,as it gives me a better chance to survive..I think the good intentions of the STF has been used against them..I remove this again,and If you have anything against this please bring clear evidences..Thank you --Iwazaki 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why on Earth should this be on the STF article? The STF didn't kill anyone. In fact if anything it should be on the LTTE terrorist attacks article cos they killed a bunch of innocent civilians in this incident. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To quote from the source "Early in the renewed conflict, there were isolated incidents in which security force personnel used civilians, some of whom suffered injury, as human shields to clear mine fields and to protect the perimeters of security force camps. The Government quickly put an end to these practices. However, in an incident in December, members of the STF in the east commandeered a civilian bus to move quickly to an STF camp at Pudukudiirippu in Batticaloa district which was under attack by the LTTE. They forced the civilians to remain on board, resulting in several civilian deaths when the bus came under LTTE fire."

From what I understand in this source, members on the Special Task Force in the east of the country commandeered a civilian bus to move quickly to an STF Camp which was under attack. No grand human rights violations, however they forced civilians to stay onboard, this is tantamount to a death sentence by bringing civilians into a zone of war, as well as basically using them as a human shield, no matter what 'good intentions' bringing civilians into a live combat zone could of involved. That is why the referanced infomation stays.

I'm betting if the LTTE grabbed a few civilians and used them as a human shield and the STF or another arm of the Sri Lankan State fired upon them, killing the Tiger and the civilian, I'd bet you'd call the death of that civilian on the LTTE, as would I. --Sharz 23:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • STF ordered the bus to come inside ::Done in good faith
  • STF ordered passengers to remain in th seats..probably due to that fact that there was a gun fire and to prevent passengers getting killed..Where should the passenger move ?? Camp is risky and they just can't cant randomly run away..Its too dangerous..So, STF had done this with good faith too..
  • Last but not least...LTTE attacked the bus..The source is specific on that..It clearly says The Bus came under LTTE fire !! Though references is incoherent of other details, its not with this..

I think the good intentions of the STF has been used against them..Arguments against the STF is very very weak !--Iwazaki 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If the STF acted in good faith, then this should be added as a glowing testament to their goodwill, however I believe that you have mis-interpreted the source. The bus was commandered elsewhere so that the Special Task Force members could make a hasty return to their camp which was under attack. Rather than bringing civilians into their camp for safe haven, they commandeered a routine bus and brought it into a combat zone, which lead to their deaths when the STF members in the bus were targetted by LTTE cadres. To support this arguement, you are excluding the fact that the source itself puts the incident in a context of "security force personnel used civilians, some of whom suffered injury, as human shields to clear mine fields and to protect the perimeters of security force camps." I have reverted accordingly. --Sharz 07:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There are many many security groups in Sri Lanka,or in any country in that case..I am not sure what made you think ,security force = STF ..No one is interested at your interpretation..And We have seen a quite few of your "own stories" here..--Iwazaki 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE "members of the STF in the east commandeered a civilian bus to move quickly to an STF camp"

It is an unquestionable reliable source on the matter, it states, Who? "The STF", When? "in December", What? "STF in the east commandeered a civilian bus to move quickly to an STF camp at Pudukudiirippu in Batticaloa district which was under attack by the LTTE. They forced the civilians to remain on board, resulting in several civilian deaths when the bus came under LTTE fire." Where? "STF camp at Pudukudiirippu in Batticaloa district" Why? "to move quickly to an STF camp "

This source is so clear cut, why is it so dubious for you? I suggest you cite reasons for why it is 'dubious'. P.S Please try to find the time, Before you post again, to read the specified section of the source, it will help in the discussion.

Ohh..please we already passed that stage,didn't we ?? I have raised the points above and if you have not answer to that please stop reverting.this is not your home page nor your blog..I have answered to this "why" thing before and I really don't think i should waste my time answering it again..Next time, before you hit the key board ,try to read what others already wrote.now,scroll up and read what i have already wrote before.Thank you--Iwazaki 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4 just deleted the passage with the explanation "this is just not notable enough to be on an article on Wikipedia. If anything it should be on the LTTE page [...]". I will not revert this, not only because I adhere to WP:1RR, but also because he has a point. Of course I didn't expect it in the main LTTE article, but I was surprised that the name "Pudukudiirippu" appears neither in Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE nor in Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. I propose that we first decide if the incident is notable at all.

If it is notable then it should be no more than one click removed from both the LTTE and the STF page. In the case of [[LTTE]], it should be one click to → [[* attacks attributed to LTTE]]. In the case of STF, I'm not sure yet. There seems to be no directly appliccable attacks page, so we would need to spend some more though on it. — Sebastian 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There was quiet a substantial section about human rights abuses and attacks by the Special Task Force under the "Operations Section" but it has been slowly eroded away. As for the Tamil Tigers causing these civilians deaths, I strongly refute this since, (as put in context of the source), the civilians were essentially used as human shields, when the bus came under fire it was a vehicle comandeered by the Special Task Force. This isn't entirely about the deaths, but rather the idea of violation of the Human Rights of the civilians. Clearly, the STF took these people from where they were in the pursuet of their normal lives, and brought them into a combat zone against their will and in conditions where they were easily in the line of fire and maybe even intentionally so, something that is strongly condemned by the Geneva Convention of 1949 or the Hague Convention of 1907 as a violation of the rules of war and also under the U.N charter a violation of the rights of man. May it also be reminded that the source places this as merely an incident in the context of further human rights abuses concerning civilians in war-time by Sri Lankan Security Forces, as forementioned in the same paragraph.

Oh and Iwazaki, I figured you must not of read the source if you posted a comment such as, The bus with the civilians inside was caught in the cross-fire and STF asked them to move inside..How do we know for sure this was done with bad intention ??!! rather than stranding in the cross-fire, civilian may had a better chance in surviving by moving to the camp!!

When a source such as this: "Early in the renewed conflict, there were isolated incidents in which security force personnel used civilians, some of whom suffered injury, as human shields to clear mine fields and to protect the perimeters of security force camps. The Government quickly put an end to these practices. However, in an incident in December, members of the STF in the east commandeered a civilian bus to move quickly to an STF camp at Pudukudiirippu in Batticaloa district which was under attack by the LTTE. They forced the civilians to remain on board, resulting in several civilian deaths when the bus came under LTTE fire." Comes up, and you say "the bus was caight in the cross-fire" when it clearly states that the bus was taken elsewhere from the camp so that STF members could move with more ease towards the camp which was under attack. And pray, why would the civilians have to be 'forced to remain onboard' when "civilians may had a better chacne in surviving by moving to the camp!!", UNLESS just maybe a Special Task Force camp under attack by Tamil Tigers was just a little bit more dangerous then a normal bus-ride in their local area?

You've provided no real arguement, you've only asked me to repedidly re-read your arguement that this source is 'dubious' and you skip over me knocking your arguement down, repedidly, to as me to re-read your statement of re-affirmation of 'dubiousness' once again. --Sharz 06:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of not reading things: Could someone  please read what I wrote just above Sharz's post - between the horizontal lines? I would really appreciate if we could first agree on the question if the case is notable enough to be included at all. After that we can talk about where  it should be. — Sebastian 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I replied to that with my statement about how it was a case of Human Rights abuses by the Special Task Force and in breach of international conventions and then hence worthy of notation. --Sharz 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I added about half a dozen incidents of Special Task Force Human Rights abuses all of which referanced from reliable sources. Removing such infomation would be vandalism. I also changed the format around so that Human Rights had it's own section, if you have a problem with this, feel free to put everything back into the operations catergory. If anyone bothered to read this before commenting, what do you think about a page such as "Human Rights Deprevations of the Special Task Force" or "Alledged Human Rights Abuses by the STF"?--Sharz 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paramilitary

Laihru, I believe you are mistaken in your definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary, Paramilitary are civilians trained to fight in a military style, as the Special Task Force does as they are not an official part of the Sri Lankan Armed services. --Sharz 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are correct and thats what I meant by adding the summary as No need to mention this, all police units are traditionally described as paramilitary units. In the intro of the article it clearly says The Special Task Force (STF) is an elite special force unit of the Sri Lanka Police. Police forces are the civilians that trained to fight in a military style for the law enforcement tasks, and the STF is the highly trained elite counter-terrorist special force unit of Sri Lanka Police. So I think there's no need to mention as this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 07:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point, but not all law enforcement acts in a military fashion and the STF are very distinct in their operational devices. Just one example is the fact that they keep camps, which are usually a wholemark of the military, whereas most police forces operate out of stations.--Sharz 12:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Content

I removed some content because of inaccuracy in sources

As a result of this mission STF troops able to kill four rebels and the STF commented that the militants were fleeing from the area without retaliating against their troops.[1] As a reaction for the this government calls to Surrender to Fleeing LTTE Carders.[2]

I checked source 1 International Herald Tribune, which commented that ths STF claimed the base, but the Tigers refuted this, but it states nothing about "without retaliation", I didn't check the second source because it is part of the Sri Lankan security forces and like TamilNet and Defence.lk, it is not a reliable source, as established in alot of previous discussions.

I'm having some problems verifying claims against the "Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation" mostly because one of the two referances added is down so I have to wait for their server to come back up, but the one referance that I could check stated that two water trucks of this group were found, however nothing about it being a front for the LTTE?

[edit] Cleaning up article

I'm making 2 major changes to the article. 1st Operation Niyathai Jaya should have its own page so I'm moving most of the stuff there and just leaving some basic stuff and a link here.

Next the I'm removing almost all the stuff added by Sharz in this series of edits [2] to simply attack and discredit the STF. There is no need to say the same thing over and over, most of the stuff are non notable in context of the article and also per the five pillars "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". If there is something important add it. Otherwise please don't disrupt Wikipedia to just prove a point. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a conflict of interest here, because, see I believe that if the Special Task Force has discriminately used force leading to the deaths of non-combatants, just as you mention their operations, lead to certain succsesses, it is notable. If you don't believe that the loss of human life for no crime is non-notable, then you hold a minority opinion not only on Wikipedia but in the world. I went through your reasoning for vandalising the Human Rights Abuses section with your wanton blanking and it seems that alot of the content you deleted you didn't even justifiy, and the ones that you did, like "the STF was not involved" was a case where 9 Special Task Force officers were indited of the crimes, so cry me a river. --Sharz 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth can what you described be a Conflict of interest? And, I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy about it but, plain English, DO NOT LIE. (read: like "the STF was not involved" was a case where 9 Special Task Force officers were indited of the crimes, so cry me a river). Again Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. We do not write articles about every single person in the world who has ever been killed. We do not mention every single person the US Army or the LTTE or similar military/ organizations have been accused of killing in their respective articles. Do not destroy this article on Wikipedia just because you want to attack the STF. If you want to list every single human rights violation the STF is accused of committing go make your own website. This is a neutral encyclopedia that is not biased toward or against anyone. And also most of the stuff is just blatantly copied from various websites and is copyvio anyway. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using Classification of sources

Talk moved from User talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Special Task Force

I have an idea: I just created a list at User:SebastianHelm/NCSLC or new project#Classification of sources, and I will use that later tonight to create a "first approximation" version as a compromise until agreement is reached. You both make valuable points which I will address, but you both also throw unnecessary dirt at each other. — Sebastian 22:09, January 27, 2007

[...] I don't this it's a question of sources but rather a question of whether every human rights abuse the STF has commited should be on Wikipedia. If so, then I will revert Snowdwolf's edits and if he deletes them again I'll go after him under the new WP: Censorship and if his arguement holds true, It would provide precendent to delete articles such as "Terrorist attacks committed by the LTTE" etc.--Sharz 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you mean Wikipedia:Censorship! "This proposal was rejected by the community" as of April 2006. This is no justification for reversions. Are you proposing we should have such a policy for Sri Lanka conflict related articles? If so, you could propose it as a guideline on User talk:SebastianHelm/NCSLC or new project.
Currently, though, we don't have such a guideline, so we have to go with what we have, which is WP:RS and the proposed Sri Lanka conflict specific guideline Classification of sources. — Sebastian 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummn dude, Snowolf here isn't questioning the reliability of the sources, but rather whether the infomation should be on the page at all...--Sharz 05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Reliability is the way to determine notability. I assumed you knew that. The guideline that regulates notability is Wikipedia:Notability. This guideline states: "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works." — Sebastian 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if you refer to my above comment, User Snofwold hasn't actually questioned the intergrity of my sources, but rather has stated that this infomation should be disincluded because "We do not write articles about every single person in the world who has ever been killed. We do not mention every single person", and thus I cannot see the validity of his arguements, as he has not questioned my sources. P.S, if you look at the referances I used, they are all very reliable sources, Amnesty, State Dep etc etc. (Unlike of coarse, some arguements presented in this article, that use Defence.lk and the asiantribune as sources, I will tag these comments and delete them in due time, so it's best off you if you replace the sources now or delete them yourself (To Snowolfd4 & Laihru_K in regards to the addtions to the operations section). --Sharz 10:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now I see! Thank you very much for your patience! I will reinsert your additions. (Exceptions: "The Special Task Force was instrumental in areas for the distribution of Tsunami relief, as per seen.", because I don't know what "as per seen" refers to, and the last section "In the months following the April ..." because it doesn't fit chronologically and because it's not well formatted.) Because the reliability of some of the sources has not been established, I will keep the {{disputed}} tag. — Sebastian 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
After spending 20 minutes, trying to reconcile the different versions, I realized that you created Human Rights Abuses by the Special Task Force in the meantime. I'm miffed that you didn't mention this here - I would have preferred to use my time more usefully. Anyway, I assume this matter is closed. — Sebastian 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but it didn't seem that all parties were willing to discuss so I acted unilaterally. --Sharz 08:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how the following information can be written on wiki on the basis of "Government has said"... " satellite and radio receivers, global positioning systems, power generators, boats with name and logo of the Non Governmental Organization "Save the Children", tents with the logo of "UNHCR" and a fully equipped hospital donated to the militants by a Dutch INGO named ZOA Refugee Care". I can see that the reference is a NPOV article but even on that article the beginning line starts off saying "Sri Lanka is investigating a number of foreign and local aid groups it suspects may be helping Tamil Tiger rebels, and may banish a Dutch organisation from the island, a top defence official said on Thursday." On this article it is stated like it is the fact but then how can that be the fact if srilanka (the gov) itslef has not even confirmed? Also most of the refrence article is quoted from a government's spokesman. How can this be written on wiki ? Sry I am not making a havoc here but just want to clear this artical to WIKI's npov strandards. Thanks Watchdogb 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have noted the edits and all the defence.lk and state security sources in the writing, sources that are in all essence un-reliable. However, dispute the infomation, and users (more specifically, two users) will revert revert revert, and I'm guessing, you like myself, cannot be bothered to fight an edit war. Don't believe me? check out the edit history regarding my inclusion of a Human Rights Section and how Amnesty International and the U.S State Department were deamed "unreliable sources" and/or "discriminate" because they ripped the STF. --Sharz 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Oh P.S, Check the ChinaPost source and other news agency's and they're infomation originates from government sources as well, so essentially the entire article is based on a singular Un-Reliable source. --Sharz 21:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did make a mistake of editing the article before posting this question up on the discussion page which was a couple of days ago. I am , however, getting familar with this. Anyway thanks for clarifying things out. Watchdogb 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section cleanup & disputed tags

The "Criticism" section of the article contains two tags: cleanup and disputed-content. I have peformed a cleanup and all of the content currently there is sourced. I will remove the tags in a few days if no one objects. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

The article under critism says that it is currently disputed and factual accuracy is disputed, I have read through the revised edits by Black Falcon and see that the tags are no longer nessicary. So thusly, I will remove the tags within 3 days if nobody objects. --Sharz 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings in Criticism section

The current series of reverts seems to be about the inclusion or exclusion of subsection headings in the "Criticism" section. I suggest discussing the matter on the talk page (rather than a potentially escalating series of reverts) as there is obviously disagreement between editors. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I personally prefer the section with headings as it subdivides the section into the two types of criticisms levelled against the STF: involvement in "disappearances" and "extrajudicial killings". The section seems more fragmented and awkward without the headings, especially considering how specialized the information is (the disappearances statistic is about one region only and the killings discussed occur in one short time period).
  • Agree With both points, to discuss and also that the removal of headers causes formatting issues in the text. However, I doubt either user Iwazaki or Snowolfd4 will stop their editing (using two users to surplant 3RR that is also going on in other articles currently) unless action is taken to stop this advantage over normal users. --Sharz 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
First, why don't YOU go ahead and take any "action" you want instead of simply complaining. Wikipedia has various polivies to protect users, and if you feel victimized why don't you do something about it.
Next, adding separate sentence headings for just 1 paragraph sections is pretty ridiculous and completely against WP:Mos and WP:FA guidelines. Look at any well written article and you wont see anything like this. Do you suggest we add section heading to every paragraph in Wikipedia? If not, please stop your disruptive POV editing.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, many articles on WP:FA have section headings or subheadings for single paragraphs: 2 of the first 5 on WP:FA (Matthew Brettingham, Buddhist art). I see the purpose of the section headings to provide a clearer separation of distinct criticisms. I am not opposed to their removal if the text is better integrated. In any case, I urge everyone to please assume good faith. To me, this is mostly a stylistic issue. If there are concerns that the inclusion or exclusion of the subheadings raises POV concerns, please express them. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I don't think the extrajudicial killing section should be on the main article..Remember this is the STF article so unless anyone can prove the STF as a whole organize this or orders came from the top of the STF,means DIG or the Ministry of defence, we should not have this in article..Disappearance section should stay BUT without any sub headings,we don't need sub headings to every paragraph..And I will re-revert sharz changes,to whom I am nothing more than a fool and a sock-puppet..And he especially hate all us--Iwazaki 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems Snowolfd4 did the reverting already.thanks machan--Iwazaki 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not think the "Extrajudicial killings" section should be removed. Although it is not claimed that the actions were perperated on orders from the STF leadership, both involved multiple members of the STF. I agree the section should not try to blame the STF for the actions of a few members (without proof that they acted on orders), but I believe the information should stay as part of the "criticisms" levelled against the STF: disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • First off, Adding section headings is POV? you throw that phrase around more than "terrorist" nowadays. Second of, I do think your nothing more than a sockpuppet? as for "he especially hate all us", where's your referance for that tough guy?. I re-affirm my position over the headers, they should be kept to help with the formatting of the page. --Sharz 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Addressing a wrong person..hence doesn't deserve a reply !--Iwazaki 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I just read the 2 sources again..And one of them don't even mention the name STF !! The other do not say STF is responsible..It says some officers were alleged to be involved ..Thats all !! These charges should not be generalised and used against STF..And I do not think this is strong enough to be in the main STF article..I am off for today,need to work on my Presentation which is due tomorrow..hope we can reach a compromise ,even though I am fool and a sock-puppet..thanks --Iwazaki 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, both mention the STF, but one doesn't mention the acronym (I'm assuming given the length of the sources you CTRL-F'd for STF, but search for "Special Task Force"). When writing the section (actually, semi-merging/semi-cleanup), I took care to not implicate the STF as responsible. The section clearly indicates that STF officers or members were involved. I personally don't think the information presented is sufficient to condem the STF as an organisation with responsibility for "Extrajudicial killings" (disappearances is another matter). However, these instances of killings have been used by others (published sources) as criticism of the STF and the Sri Lankan security forces more generally. That was and remains my rationale for supporting inclusion of the section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs).
          • Now I know why I missed it!! thanks for pointing out to me..There is absolutely no question about amount of hard work you put in to this article,esp in cleaning up the mess made by a certain editor with a vicious hatred of anything SriLankan..BUT, I do not agree with the inclusion of the extra-judicial killings, no matter how it is written, in the STF article as it gives an impression that the whole STF was involved in it,when they didn't..IF no charges were made against the culprits, we could have argued that there is something fishy about these incidents and STF as a unit may have involved in it. BUT those who responsible were charged with murder and the government condemned their actions..So to be included in the STF article is an insult to rest of the STF'ers who have dedicated their lives in protecting civilians,including tamils..thanks--Iwazaki 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I can understand your rationale, and agree that it would be POV (and also false) to accuse the whole of the STF of responsibility in the killings. However, considering that the section is titled "Crticism" and that these killings have been cited as criticisms of the STF by the sources, I'm loathe to see them removed without having them replaced them with some other statement. To completely exclude any mention of extrajudicial killings might be POV, especially for the first instance where the killings are alleged to have taken place at STF headquarters. The STF has been accused of extrajudicial killings--that is a fact which belongs in the "Criticism" section. That said, I do agree that the current examples are overly specific, but unfortunately that's all I could find. How about this: I can change the current text of that sub-section from:

At least two incidents of extrajudicial killings involving members of the STF have also been noted by the Sri Lankan government or outside observers. Following the newest round of fighting between the government and the LTTE starting in April 1994, the mutilated bodies of between 21 and 31 Tamil males were discovered in rivers and lakes near Colombo. On August 17, 10 STF officers (and 15 others) were charged with committing the murders, which allegedly took place at the STF headquarters in Colombo. In addition, at least 17 extrajudicial killings were carried out by Sri Lankan security forces (including the STF) in Eastern Province in retaliation for LTTE attacks. Although security forces insisted that the dead were LTTE fighters, "human rights monitors determined that these victims were civilians".[24][25]

To:

Members of the STF were implicated by the Sri Lankan government or outside observers in two cases of extrajudicial killings following the newest round of fighting between the government and the LTTE starting in April 1994. In the first case, 10 STF officers (and 15 others) were charged with murdering between 21 and 31 Tamil males, allegedly at the STF headquarters in Colombo. In the second, 17 extrajudicial killings were carried out by Sri Lankan security forces (including the STF) in Eastern Province in retaliation for LTTE attacks. Although security forces insisted that the dead were LTTE fighters, "human rights monitors determined that these victims were civilians".[24][25]

Would this be an acceptable (to you, Snowolfd, and Sharz, and any other editors who wish to comment) compromise? This cuts the length of the text by about one-sixth (thereby automatically placing less emphasis on the section) and also more prominently highlights that the killings were carried out by STF members (and not necessarily the whole STF itself). -- Black Falcon 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/e/Talk%7ESpecial_Task_Force_9282.html"