Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Also artillery usage in AD 433 ? Who are we kidding here ? Gun powder was invented after AD 1000. The article has very childish facts. ] 20:49, 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. ] 20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::You should go back to school and learn what ] is without disrupting Misplaced Pages with your asinine edits. --] <sup>( ] / ] )</sup> 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:56, 2 September 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 freedom18:52, 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. --snowolfD412:09, 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 Watchdogb13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So now you "change your mind" and Misplaced Pages 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. --snowolfD400:00, 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. Watchdogb01:40, 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. --snowolfD401:52, 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. --snowolfD422:03, 29 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 ♫♪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[REDACTED] 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 :) Watchdogb20:05, 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[REDACTED] 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 ♫♪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 ? Watchdogb16:06, 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 ♫♪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 :) Watchdogb14:32, 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 ? Sinhala freedom20:39, 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 freedom20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_logo.svg){kind=link}
