Talk:Sri Lanka Army/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Sri Lanka Army. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

SLA and HUMAN RIGHTS Needs to be added ... SLA vs Media, SLA vs Liberal MP , SLA vs TNA MP , SLA and links to terrorism and Terror groups. Sri Lanka's support for Iran

Controversy and Human Rights Allegations NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE PAGE AS WELL

Definite equality with cited nonsence, unencyclopedic cruft, pov folk and violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN and WP:NOT#STATS. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Any can claim a list of WP rules are broken. You haven't explained or given any reasoning and hence this is an empty display. I didn't make this up! How can you claim all this to start with, the citation is to the BBC. BBC last time I check is a reliable media source. Sinhala freedom 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk archives. The Human Rights section was removed with community discussion. If you want to add it back, you need to achieve a consensus on the talk page to do so. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you and I agreed and someone else disagreed with the blanking of HR section. However, now I change my mind. Leaving you the only one against the HR section. Currently it is cited and backed by RS. Taking it off is considered vandalism. Thanks Watchdogb 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So now you "change your mind" and Wikipedia has to abide by your decision? Consensus doesn't depend on one person, and cannot be changed by just one person. If you want to add such a section back, discuss, and we can work to reach an agreement.

The reason I don't agree having such a section is that one, there is absolutely no proof that the Army it self ordered any of these "human rights violations", and just like a country/organization is not responsible for the independent actions of its citizens/members, neither is a military. Also, in such cases (My Lai etc.) it appears that the incidents are not listed in the individual military articles. Two, there is already a Human Rights in Sri Lanka article which covers this material, making a section here largely a duplicate. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is RS that accuse the army. No one is saying it is proven and no one is saying it's false allegations. This is why the wording is carefully choosen. It does not matter if other military has/has not HR sections. We have RS backing claims. Thanks. Watchdogb 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I could also find you "RS" that say an Army soldier ran a marathon yesterday. Do we include that as well in the article? Stop reverting and discuss the changes you want to make to the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing that this article has Humanitarian work of the SLA we should also add HR violations by the SLA to maintain WP:NPOV. Thanks Watchdogb 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Humanitarian work of the SLA", I don't have to say much else about that, do I? You already proved my point there. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? You just proved my point. Watchdogb 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The exact opposite of which you claimed I have proven.Watchdogb 12:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't mix the controversy section with other sections. Lahiru you haven't explained for why its a violation WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN and WP:NOT#STATS. Are you claiming BBC is biased ? Sinhala freedom 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now look at the content of this category. Not a single crime have listed on the dedicated Army article. Then why you trying to list down this section on the Sri Lanka Army page? Just for manage the temper against Sri Lankan Forces? Nah! then you have to place that on your blog, not in here.

And regarding the Controversy section, Its just an encyclopedic piece of crap. Please keep in mind that you we're writing an encyclopedia and not your personal blog. You can have the Controversy section in Wikinews but I feel that it would be worth to add to the UnNews. Then at least people who have some sense of humor can laugh till their ass off. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if US arm page has controversy and HR violations because apparently someone interested in that subject has not come along. While someone interested has come to write here. As I said, I will keep on expanding until you stop reverting. If there is a specific rule in wikipedia against my action of adding cited material please let me know. The HR section will keep on growing in number as long as you keep reverting. Thanks :) Watchdogb 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares, mind that Jayjj also had to face numerous problems when he put all the crap in the internet, into a wikipedia article. If you too do not make your additions in a neutral way, then you'd better get ready too to face the same problem which Jayjg had to face. Good luck --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg faced problems ? I do not see anything bad happening to his account. Anyway, you threats do not scare me. I will keep adding more information as you keep removing them. However, seeing that the Peacekeeping is an achievement that any one should be proud of showing I am leaning towards not adding these HR violations to the army page. But for the sake of a compromise to a NPOV version I suggest that the picture (of no relevance to text) taken off (the one with the old lady being carried away). This way we can leave the Humanitarian and HR violation sections away. Is that a plausible compromise for you ? Or are you not willing to compromise with a follow editor ? Watchdogb 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to threat anyone, but your offer seems fairer than reverting the nonsense. I always compromise with my fellow editors unless the compromisation is totally absurd. Hope you can still remember the Thandikulam incident. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes, I do remember the Thandikulam incident. Hope we can come to many other compromises like these :) Watchdogb 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is littered with reference to personal websites and blogs, which I am removing. Someone needs to get better references. Sinhala freedom 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC) How could anyone claim this is a reliable source ? [1] Sinhala freedom 20:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will say this just once, any attempt by you to remove cited content will be reverted as vandalism.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And any attempt to add your nonsense too! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also artillery usage in AD 433 ? Who are we kidding here ? Gun powder was invented after AD 1000. The article has very childish facts. Sinhala freedom 20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You should go back to school and learn what Artillery is without disrupting Wikipedia with your asinine edits. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your wiki reference to artillery precisely proves my points. Either you don't read these things or are ignorant of them. Thanks once again for undoing your arguments. Sinhala freedom 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm correcting myself. You need to go back to kindergarten to learn how to Read. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. There is hardly any evidence presented here to suggest artillery existed in Sri Lanka in year AD 433. This sounds like original research to me. Sinhala freedom 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This photius website [2] looks like someone's personal webpage. It hardly qualifies as a valid source for an encyclopedia entry. Sinhala freedom 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem of the controversy section ? It is backed by RS and it is definitely relevant to this article. The citation that I removed looks like it fails RS. I doubt that that website goes through any fact checking/ editorial. Please let me know if it does because that would change everything. Watchdogb 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New links

Hey will some one please add links the

from the Regiments category coz the subject pagers for these articles have been made. Thanks Nitraven 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Nitraven

{{editprotected}}

Please add Engineer Services Regiment and Sri Lanka Army General Service Corps to the Sri Lanka Army#Regiments and training centers section. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was just protected. Let's give it some time to cool off. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for adding Engineer Services Regiment and Sri Lanka Army General Service Corps. Could u please add the link to Sri Lanka Army Pioneer Corps also its the last article on the list of Regiments thanks Nitraven 05:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you explain the requested change in more detail? I am not familiar with this article. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of the regiments of the army its Sri_Lankan_Army#Regiments_and_training_centers in it is the Sri Lanka Army Pioneer Corps. Please crate a link to it from the Sri Lanka Army Pioneer Corps. Thanks Nitraven 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nitraven 14:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLCR-1-.png

Image:SLCR-1-.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please replace Image:SLCR-1-.png with Image:SLCR.png which can found in Wikimedia Commons. These images have listed in Sri_Lankan_Army#Regiments_and_training_centers. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected

... due to full-on revert-warring over quite some time. Can we please get to the root of this issue here and come to some compromise as to what to do with this article as all this wasted energy in revert-warring needs to stop. When you guys are ready, just let me know or post an unprotect request to WP:RPP but right now, it's time to talk. Thanks - Alison ☺ 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New link

Please create a link to Sri Lanka Military Academy which as been created from the list of Training Centers at Sri_Lanka_Army#Training. Thanks Nitraven 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Done - trivial change, no problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please restore these two edits.[3][4]--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Not done - please establish a concensus for this change befor re-requesting protected page edit request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over the Army's handling of its casualties and their families

May I suggest that editors debate the notability merits of this subsection here, rather than edit-warring through reverts. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

SL Army's Sexual abuse scandal

If it didn't happen, then why were they sent back to Sri Lanka? Are the Haitians are making this up?Wiki Raja (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In here, Wikipedia we are working on facts, not on individual's questions and POVs. This behavioral matter is still an allegation and UN is working on this issue in cooperation with the SLA to find out what was actually happened. Those service men were sent back to the their RegHQ in order to proceed for the usual military investigations. So if you do not have any idea of these common military procedures it's better to stay out of these issues without making unnecessary disruption to the community. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article: U.N. Confronts another sex scandal Wiki Raja (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

opps!--84.208.57.122 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegation from VALID groups

Per Wikipedia policy, allegation by every fringe group are not included in Wikipedia. Hence, the allegations by a few hundred LTTE supporters has no place in this article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you a crackhead? calling the Internation Commitee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International pro-ltte fringe groups? seriously? stop smoking that stuff it ain't good for u. These are well documented allegations, and they are widespread enough that they aren't a fringe theories. I know your not used to freedom of the press where u come from but seriously, lay off the crack. and don't label groups "pro ltte" just because you equate any allegations against the army as "terrorism".

File:ESR.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ESR.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011

What should I do?