Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:15, 25 November 2006 edit125.238.104.244 (talk) →Violence in December / January ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:16, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,190 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
(339 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sri-lanka/ Source for more info however do not use information on what it says is miiltary currently as ithat is dated 1988, it will have to used in historical areas. but you can use data from historical periods to fill in incompletes areas, remember don't blatantly plagaise write it in your own words if you are going to undertake this. ] 29 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|sl}}
			{{Not a forum}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
			{{WikiProject Sri Lanka\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=C
			\|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
			\|B-Class-1=no
			<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
			\|B-Class-2=yes
			<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
			\|B-Class-3=yes
			<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
			\|B-Class-4=yes
			<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
			\|B-Class-5=yes
			\|National-task-force=yes
			\|South-Asian-task-force=yes
			}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 50K
			\|counter =4
			\|minthreadsleft = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive index
			\|mask=Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes
			}}
			{{Annual readership\|expanded=true\|days=365}}

	== extra information ==		== extra information ==
Line 5:		Line 40:
	http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history ]		http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history ]

			== Add the Sri lanka Army Service Branch Flag ==
	== Violence in December / January ==

			File:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This
	No mention was made to the killing of innocent civilians during the same period. Many of it blamed on the military. Nor any mention was made to the 30 odd missing person’s complaints made at the Human Rights Commission. Again all the missing persons reports suggested abduction by Sri Lanka Military.

			==link to peace keeper scandal full article==
	Please bear in mind this is an Encyclopeida and not a platform to justify the appalling atrocities being committed by the Sri Lankan military against the Tamil community.

			{{reply to\|Cossde}}, please see ]
	: do you have conclusive proofs??

			"In general, links should be created for:
	AGAIN SIGN YOUR COMMENTS and do not make claims without evidence, you will just get ignored.A complaint isn't the same as a conviction btw.] 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

			Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question."
	::Following is the link to the full statement released by the European Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) with regards to recent incidents of violence in Sri Lanka.

			This is not a controversial addition, so I am adding it back as per Misplaced Pages policy, which is absolutely clear on these matters. ] (]) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
	::http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5298748.stm

			:It is a controversial addition, the above RFC as concluded it as it is. You are going beyond it. ] (]) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
	::The statement clearly states that the Sri Lankan Military has carried out “war crimes”. --] 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
			::I don't think it is controversial to put a mere link to the topic page of the actual incident. But I've requested a third opinion to solve this impasse. ] (]) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
			:::Then why did you revert my change, without going to a third opinion? I request you to refrain from edit waring. ] (]) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
			::::I reverted your change, because it makes no sense. Does every edit need to be approved by rfc to be added? I'm going to third opinion now, because you still have not provided an adequate reason for removal of the link, and it is clear we have now reached an impasse, as you refuse to budge from your position. I could not assume that you would still disagree. Before going to third opinion, there needs to be a talk page discussion. ] (]) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

			{\| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; background: transparent; padding: 4px;"
	:::The statement alledges that. It doesnt "clearly say" anything. Either find some proof or shutup and get lost. ]
			\| ] '''Response to ]:'''
			\|-
			\| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" \| The consensus of the previous RFC supported the inclusion of mentioning this information in the article. Linking to a related article that goes into more detail is perfectly reasonable. So far there doesn't appear to be a policy related argument against linking. In light of that, I would support linking. <!-- Template:Third opinion response --> ] (]) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
			\|}

	::~~This~~ ~~article~~ is ~~loaded~~ with ~~pro-government~~ ~~propaganda~~ ~~and~~ ~~POV.~~ ~~Just~~ in ~~the intro~~ it ~~uses~~ ~~the~~ ~~word~~ ~~"deadliest terrorist~~." ] 02:17, 15 ~~November~~ ~~2006~~ (UTC)		::Although I don't agree with your view on the matter, I will respect it and let this stand. ] (]) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

			==References==
	:::No no, I dont think so at all. This is a very good article about SL forces. No need to change it. And bloody sign your posts next time you bloody guys. ] 23:14 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)
			{{Reflist}}

Latest revision as of 14:16, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sri Lanka Armed Forces at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sri Lanka High‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)

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

Military history: National / Asian / South Asia

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

extra information

http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history CooldogCongo

Add the Sri lanka Army Service Branch Flag

File:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This

link to peace keeper scandal full article

@Cossde:, please see MOS:UNDERLINK

"In general, links should be created for:

Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question."

This is not a controversial addition, so I am adding it back as per Misplaced Pages policy, which is absolutely clear on these matters. Oz346 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a controversial addition, the above RFC as concluded it as it is. You are going beyond it. Cossde (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial to put a mere link to the topic page of the actual incident. But I've requested a third opinion to solve this impasse. Oz346 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Then why did you revert my change, without going to a third opinion? I request you to refrain from edit waring. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your change, because it makes no sense. Does every edit need to be approved by rfc to be added? I'm going to third opinion now, because you still have not provided an adequate reason for removal of the link, and it is clear we have now reached an impasse, as you refuse to budge from your position. I could not assume that you would still disagree. Before going to third opinion, there needs to be a talk page discussion. Oz346 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The consensus of the previous RFC supported the inclusion of mentioning this information in the article. Linking to a related article that goes into more detail is perfectly reasonable. So far there doesn't appear to be a policy related argument against linking. In light of that, I would support linking. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with your view on the matter, I will respect it and let this stand. Cossde (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Categories: