Talk:2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis
 | A news item involving 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 November 2018. |  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legality
editThere should be some discussion of legality on this page. The Guardian[1] says that the president cannot fire the prime minister, Human Rights Watch[2], among others, notes that this is prohibited under the nineteenth amendment. I've added a mention of the nineteenth amendment directly to the article, but there's probably more to be done.--Rxtreme (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Neutral POV
editI've tagged the article with the {{POV}} tag. There are too many problems to list currently; hopefully editing over the next day will improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki and Nika de Hitch: I'm not sure if I understand this cleanup tag here. Are there any statements in this article that appear inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
2018 Local Government Elections
editWould be it be relevant to mention the 2018 Local Government Elections within the background section. This election which saw Mahinda Rajapaksa winning with the incumbent parliament party only obtaining 30% --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Eng.M.Bandara, the local elections are already covered in the Uneasy coalition section. You can expand it a little if you want, but I think it doesn't need to have its own section or anything.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Info Box
editCossde this [[1]] edit you made where you changed the words "had therefore no force or effect in law. " to " was overturned" does not seem to be consistent with vast majority of articles that reported on the event. Such as [1][2][3]. One source does use the word "overturned"[4] however it does not mention this again in the main article, instead says "A seven-judge bench unanimously ruled on Thursday that Sirisena cannot sack the 225-member House before four-and-a-half years have passed since its election." This again appears to be consistent with the other sources in that the President did not have jurisdiction to dissolve the parliament, therefore there is no 'act' to be overturned.
Your opinion on this would also be appreciated Blackknight12.
References
- ^ https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/trouble-for-president-maithripala-sirisena-sri-lankas-supreme-court-says-sacking-of-parliament-illegal/330578
- ^ http://www.ft.lk/opinion/No-takers-from-UNF-other-than-Ranil-for-PM-slot/14-668944
- ^ http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/SC-rules-dissolution-of-parliament-illegal-159742.html
- ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/sri-lanka-supreme-court-overturns-sacking-parliament-181213113720319.html
Crisis Status
editHas it really ended since the Court of Appeal is yet to hear Rajapaksa quo warranto case on January 16th? CoolGin (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- CoolGin, Multiple reliable sources[2] are of the view that the crisis has ended. Your opinion that the crisis hasn't ended is not relevant here, unless supported by WP:RS--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)