Talk:Sri Lanka Army/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you 222.165.176.40 for the information --Jcw69 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffel mine confusion

message: *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? --∞Sechzehn16Talk∞ 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the human rights allegations section needs to be added and is long overdue.  Elalan 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Elalan for your opinion, hope you can help me to contribute more to the section. --∞Sechzehn16Talk∞ 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll certain help where I can.  Elalan 02:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to remove this section, because there's no any STF in SL army.-- ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  (Ŧ) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human rights allegations

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: The title Notable fallen heroes is very POV. I changed it to Notable casualties which is NPOV but got reverted without explanation. Bad show. Errabee 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, How about War Heroes as per Indian Army? Notable casualties never goes with the true meaning of that section. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problems with Notable fallen members. I do have problems with War Heroes (and I think the Indian Army article is also POV). Why not let it out, as it is not included in British Army, United States Army or Israeli Defense Forces either? As is stated in WP:NPOV, actions should speak for themselves. So if your fallen members acted heroically, it should become apparent from their actions, not because of the title. Also take a look at World War II, which never mentions any war heroes at all. Errabee 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First I appreciate that you have raised the same question on Talk: Indian Army and I will change the title as Notable fallen members now. BTW do you have any questions regarding the actions of those fallen heroes? Have you read their articles? Hope you don't have any knowledge regarding the fate of Dutch's, in front of the Sri Lankan kings on 1600s & 1700s. Isn't it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for changing it. I haven't read those biographies. If you say they are war heroes, who am I to say otherwise? As for the Dutch war heroes, we mostly acknowledge Michiel de Ruyter and Maarten Tromp (who, as you may notice aren't mentioned as heroes either). The problem with the term hero is always that they are hero for one side but evil for the other side of the conflict. Just let the facts speak for themselves is the best way to proceed. As for the Dutch who sailed to India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, I don't know much (anything, really) about them, so I cannot comment on those issues. Errabee 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not appreciate this insinuation that I am not neutral. Furthermore, what a new header should be is a lot less clear than in this article, but I'll give it a shot. Errabee 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV section