Talk:Sri Lanka Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka Army article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum.

This article is within the scope of the NCSLC Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and to provide a balanced opinion on the ongoing crisis. The primary objective is to contribute and maintain pages pertaining to the Sri Lanka Tamils, LTTE and the Sri Lankan government's efforts towards resolving the crisis. NCSLC stands for Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Removal of HR section 2 Buffel mine confusion 3 Human rights allegations 4 Citations Needed

[edit] Removal of HR section

There is already a page detailing every single HR abuse by the SL army very clearly so another section here is unneccessary. A link to that page is sufficient. If you dont agree please justify the need for an additional HR section on wikipedia before reverting which would lead to the confusion of wikipedians. Forcibly_Recruited_Child_Soldier 20:31 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffel mine confusion

Buffel mine-protected APC - Body now built also by SL army Military with modifications - what modifications? what source? I can't find any source for the Buffel body now been maufactured in Sri Lanka --Jcw69 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 222.165.176.40 for the information --Jcw69 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights allegations

• I added a new section, human rights allegations, I thought that it is essential to understand the nature of the organization. A member har removed what I wrote there, which I reverted later. Anyone can you independantly tell your opinion whether it is needed or not? --∞Sechzehn16^Talk∞ 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• As I noted before, I think it is needed to maintain a seperate section regarding the human rights allegations. Deleteing that will violate NPOV. --∞Sechzehn16^Talk∞ 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the human rights allegations section needs to be added and is long overdue. Elalan 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Elalan for your opinion, hope you can help me to contribute more to the section. --∞Sechzehn16^Talk∞ 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll certain help where I can. Elalan 02:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank You for the references for the human rights section from Elalan/Sechzehn , well researched. Could you also find some references for the other sections as well. Also attempt to cite a fair and balanced description of the facts. Specifically the references from sangam.com and wsws.org are noted. Please try something from bbc etc, Im sure there's plenty. For more info see the help pages on referencing. Sankili_kumar 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• As it is obervable from the sites constant behaviour, Asian Tribune --explicitly politically biased source-- could not be trusted as a neutral media, I think it is necessary to delete/replace any citations from the site. --~~
• I removed sections cited with Asian Tribune and noted with citations with BBC and other reliable ones. Can you give me a list of sites that cannot be trusted? I know Tamilnet, [Sri Lanka Defence Ministy http://www.mod.gov.lk] and Asian Tribune is hard to trust. But we should make a complete list. Both who has Pro-GoSL view and Pro-LTTE view please help. --∞Sechzehn16^Talk∞ 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to remove this section, because there's no any STF in SL army.-- ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

Whole sections and paragraphs need citations. It looks as if they copied from somewhere whole-scale. Nevertheless the citations must be there to ensure verifiability of all the details. If the stuff can't be cited after three weeks, then it will have to be moved to the talk page. Elalan 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Some citations on the HR abuses section provide only accusations by certain opposing groups or individuals and do not prove them as facts. Especially references 4, 5, and 7 from the BBC only contain accusations by individuals. Please kindly find references to prove these are facts or acknowledge that they are only accusations which are POV and hence duely removed from the wikipedia article. Again please read the help section for guidance. Sankili_kumar 01:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation as long as they are verifiable (WP:Verifiability) is fine according to wikipedia policy. The use of the word allegation is sufficient to satisfy this concern. Elalan 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By asking all over the Sri Lankan Army article for citations it seems this guy(Elalan) should have a personal problem with them. If you don't have such personal problems with Sri Lankan Army Elalan, I'm ask from you to move your step towards Indian Army article. If my vision is ok, there should be hell lots of works awaiting for you. Especially the bottom section of that article. Happy editing!!! Sri119 13:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the official rule is to assume Good Faith (WP:AGF). I only stick to Sri Lanka related articles. They are collectively in a mess. I would rather stick to these articles than move onto the Indian ones. Again, the facts within the article need to verifiable. Otherwise the encyclopedia becomes a magnet for hearsay. I should point everyone wants their work to be appreciated and so we must collectively try to make the encyclopedia authoritative. Elalan 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:RS :

Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America and can be considered reliable.

Any references to blogs or bulletin boards will need to be removed, nevertheless I leave the citation tag for spots where we need to fill in better citations. I should say the situation is really on the borderline.

The picture of one of the tanks from the chinese blog does show the Sri Lankan flag in the background. A second source maybe necessary to show that it is indeed what it is independent of the blog source so that no one barks at it in the future. Elalan 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I should take the time to say Lahiru_k has done a good job filling in for quite a sizable number of references. I have also a filled in a few, where I a spotted stuff. There is still some left, but that should hopefully be taken care of soon. Elalan 15:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Phew, Citing references is almost finish except two of them(Personnel section) :-) Lahiru_k 08:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting changes by user Snowolfd4 citing mickey mouse claims. Elalan 05:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)