Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Violence in December / January

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.

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.

do you have conclusive proofs??

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.Pubuman 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5298748.stm

The statement clearly states that the Sri Lankan Military has carried out “war crimes”. --82.40.185.111 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement alledges that. It doesnt "clearly say" anything. Either find some proof or shutup and get lost. OzLawyer

This article is loaded with pro-government propaganda and POV. Just in the intro it uses the word "deadliest terrorist." Elalan 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Child_Soldier 23:14 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist

I have changed the "terrist" tag and have added "proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries". Please try to keep it NPOV and avoid such tagging. It is therefore best to write it as I have written (That is not my strandard but its how its writen everywhere). If you want you can add the countries but I thought that some would dissagree with it. Watchdogb 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLNS Ship pic.jpg

Image:SLNS Ship pic.jpg 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 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SLAF kfir pic.JPG

Image:SLAF kfir pic.JPG 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 01:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Paramilitaries

Please do not remove what I have added. These are documented from both the State Department and the world Factbook. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh is that the same State Department and the same CIA, who said there where weapons of mass-distraction in Iraq ?????Nitraven (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for opinionated blogging, but factual and neutral information. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True Very True !!!!!!! cant agree with u any more. However the listed groups are not official Paramilitaries. As termed Military of Sri Lanka these include the official state forces sanctioned by Parliament. But you seem to do exactly what you ask others not to do??? Adding that link without any credible and official references is in fact on different from "opinionated blogging" and can not be considered as "factual and neutral information". Therefore do not add these to the list unless you have credible and official references.Nitraven (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The citations back these groups as paramilitary. For example, TMVP, is a widely known paramilitary organization. There are even allegations from RS that Karuna took many orders from Sri Lankan Military to kill people and so on. Watchdogb (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Using fake references is bordering on vandalism, and if these groups are added back without references that explicitly state they are part of the "Military of Sri Lanka", I will take this to AN/I. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. State department web site is not fake and so is the World Factbook. Would you like to contest this to admin here in Wikipedia? Wiki Raja (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop blanking info backed by official sources. Also, please refrain from calling legitimate edits vandalism. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please state reason why *CIA World Factbook, 2005 edition should be added to the see also when there is no information about Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan Military on the wikipage. The See also should provide links to other wiki pages that contain additional information about the subject matter of the relevant article. Nitraven (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of the state department document does not state that these are groups funded by the SL Government but only goes far as to state that there is "suspected of being linked".

"There were numerous reports that armed paramilitary groups, suspected of being linked to the government or security forces, participated in armed attacks during the year. These groups included the Karuna faction of the LTTE, the Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP), and the People's Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). The LTTE continued to control large sections of the north and east and engaged in politically motivated killings, disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, denial of fair public trial, arbitrary interference with privacy, denial of freedom of speech, press, of assembly and association, and the recruitment of child soldiers. "

The official paramilitary units are clearly stated so,

"Following the November 17 presidential election, the government eliminated the Ministry of Internal Security and placed control of the 66-thousand-member police force, which includes the 6-thousand member paramilitary Special Task Force, under the Ministry of Defense."

Farther more wikipages such as the page on Indian Paramilitary Forces lists only state/central governmental paramilitaries that have been formed after being sanctioned by the Parliament.

Due to this reason stating that these individual groups are paramilitaries based on this document maybe legitimized, however claiming that they are official governmental paramilitaries is inaccurate, vandalism and opinionated blogging.Nitraven (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not important whether they are official or unofficial paramilitaries, but their functions are similar to regular paramilitaries of a country. US State Departments and CIA references[1][2][3][4] enough to categorise them as paramilitaries. If you want, refer them as "Unofficial Paramilitaries", but the attributions are encyclopedic and not contradicting with any of the wiki policies.Teasereds (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is about the Sri Lankan Military, a military of a Sovereign state if you go to state that we should have a link of paramilitaries of the country of Sri Lanka then you can go far as to add the LTTE since its engaged in paramilitary activities in the island of Sri Lanka. However is seen no reason why we should add them to the list of units of the Sri Lankan Military since there are not one of them. You may categorise them as paramilitaries in general but not paramilitaries of the Sri Lankan Military. By the way there is nothing called unofficial paramilitaries, thats just word used to term paramilitaries that are claimed to be associated with, yet is not proven to be.Nitraven (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You stated "a military of a Sovereign state", but still it is criticized by various groups globally for its various sorts of killings. So your "Sovereign state's military" doesn't take it anywhere. If you have citation that LTTE also involved on paramilitary activities, then add it. You state "yet is not proven to be", then how the CIA and US State Department relate things on their statements. If you are reluctant to use the word "unofficial", then you can state "Paramilitaries Aided by Sri Lankan Military". Don't try to purify the Sri Lankan Military. We are developing here a neutral encyclopedia.Teasereds (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

I think we can split the controversy into two questions:

1. Should non-governmental paramilitary groups be covered in this article at all? I think they should not; we already have the article Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, which already lists TMVP, EPDP, PLOTE and EPRLF (to which Razeek Group redirects).
   If this does not convince inclusionists, then I ask that they take a look at similar articles, which should be under Category:Military by country. If we find several articles that support inclusion, then we can take it from there. I advice the exclusionists to also look at articles that might back up their point, so we get a good basis for comparison.
2. What is the right wording of the section? The current wording clearly refers to all paramilitary groups, which does not fit to the limited list. I will therefore change it from "There are only two Paramilitary Forces in Sri Lanka" to "There are only two Paramilitary Forces under the direct command of the Sri Lanka government. See also Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups." I'm no expert in military matters, please someone who knows better adjust the wording.

— Sebastian 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please let me suggest changing the name Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups to Sri Lankan Tamil paramilitary groups. By grouping all these paramilitaries with the LTTE, it makes it look like that all these groups are fighting against the Sri Lankan government, when in fact it is all these parmilitary groups that support the government. In the ethnic war there are two primary combatants which is the LTTE and the GOSL. As for the Tamil paramilitaries, they are used by the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, LTTE should be taken off the list on that page since they run a virtual de facto state with its own courts, police, and administration. The others on the list do not and are under the command of the Sri Lankan military. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While I see that this issue is connected with a possible solution to this discussion, I feel this should be discussed primarily at talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups#Proposed name change. I'm copying it there. — Sebastian 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change of wording by Sebastian, however I suggest that the link to the Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups should be moved to the See also category from the sub-category of Paramilitary Forces.Nitraven (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, since there are a total of five Tamil paramilitary groups used by the Sri Lankan armed forces. Also, the Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups should be changed to Tamil paramilitary groups. Or, I can kindly create a page for Tamil Paramilitary groups. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Proposal to create a new article for "Sri Lankan paramilitary groups" has been moved to Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, where it fits to the existing discussion about the proposed name change. Let's fight discussion creep! — Sebastian 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

the military expenditure

i think it is time to update the military expenditure figures since the 2008 figure is more than twice the sum shown in wikipedia. 124.43.44.53 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — Sebastian 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That said, it is important, especially in this disputed area, to back up everything you write with reliable sources. — Sebastian 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Civilian Massacres and human rights abuses

This is well known to have occurred. Do not remove well referenced and sourced material. The article is supposed to be impartial and the best sources are idependently varified ones. Furthermore, do not make the laughable claim that only LTTE has conducted civilian massacres anf the SLA has not. Both parties have been documented as having done so. Any deviation from presenting the facts is vandalism.

MentalDimension (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to maintain NPOV here, but I must confess I'm at a loss to understand why the NPOV champion reworded the LTTE article to a very mild language and presented the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article in an entirely different tone. If "any deviation from presenting the facts is vandalism", then you have vandalized the LTTE page by removing sourced information.

As for the edit you have made to this article, I suggest you read the source too before you advice others to do so; the sources do not say that the military is "notorious for carrying out civilian massacres and human rights abuses", which makes your edit original research. The military have not broken into undefended villages and blown civilians' heads open unlike the LTTE. But they have been accused of human rights violations of course (which is not the same as being notorious for abuses, I may point out), which should be added to the article. Give me one day, I will add this information to the article in a proper way. ≈ Chamal ^talk 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The LTTE article is filled with POV edits highlighting attrocities, whilst the SLA page has nothing mentioned about their attrocities in the opener. If you honestly want an impartial view, both must be highlighted in the opening section, or neither should be. If you actually read my edits on the LTTE page, I have not removed any sourced material at all. However, you have attempted to remove sourced material on this page which is unacceptable. I am not trying to cover any LTTE attrocities, but rather highlight that both parties have done so. The sources highlight that SLA have conducted human rights abuses and carried out civilian massacres. That is a well documented fact and is quite plain. The Sri Lankan military have frequently broken into undefended villages and blown civilians heads off, and that is well documented as well. I suggest you look up the meaning of 'original research' compared to 'documented and sourced facts'. If you are really concerned with the wording of 'notorious for civilian massacres', then you can start with not inserting it into the LTTE page since there is no source there using those words either. However it is quite clear that whilst the LTTE have massacred civilians, the SLA have massacred a far greater number of civilians and both should be mentioned in the article.

MentalDimension (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean removing facts from an article just because another does not have them. As for your removal of source info from the LTTE page, take a look at this if you've forgotten. And as for your accusation, I have not removed any material you have added; I have merely commented here. I assume you have noticed a message at the top saying that the article is subject to editing restrictions, which includes discussing before re-reverting. It would be appreciated if you followed that method. ≈ Chamal ^talk 10:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The SLA opeing section and LTTE opening section should be equivalent, Detail is for the rest of the article. I have used the words "known as having " since that is what the article highlights.

MentalDimension (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, we don't edit one article to suit another. Would you edit Mahinda Rajapaksa so that it says the same things as Barack Obama? So stop comparing the two articles. They have to be improved separately. Take whatever problems you have with the LTTE article to its talk page. I have added some information on human rights violations to the article, with the response from the government as well. I will try to find more. Also I have removed the Amnesty International ref; it does not mention anything about the military at all. ≈ Chamal ^talk 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite clearly since a numebr of people who are editing the SLA page are also editing the LTTE page as well as for obvious reasons these two pages can be compared. What as Rajapakse got to do with Barack Obama? The link with LTTE and SLA is an intertwined issue so the two articles can be directly compared.

MentalDimension (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Added direct references from independent human rights groups who have catalogued the SLA's widespread killing of civilians, child abductions from displacement camps, and human rights violations.

18:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MentalDimension (talk • contribs)

Human rights violations

INCLUDE human rights violation PAGE by SLA and Terror Groups linked to SLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.65.233 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Source

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. CooldogCongo 29 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate to say in the introduction that the "Sri Lankan Armed forces have been accused of human rights violations". It may have been, but that is hardly a central element of the military history. The Tamil Tigers are amongst the worst terrorists ever seen, it is not surprising that there may have been some retaliation in kind, they certainly deserved it.125.237.109.203 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

update

i think the page for the sri lanaksn army force used be updated specially, the commander of the army has changed and the number of active persons and rank by troops should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.25.124 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Chief of the Defence Staff must be corrected

Please update this quickly before someone read it ! It's been months after Fonseka's arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.232.249 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Ensign of the Sri Lanka Air Force.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ensign of the Sri Lanka Air Force.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Update figures

The figures in the info box seem to not editable, I'm requesting to update Defence expenditure to $2.1 Billion and this would constitute 3.5% of current GDP (This would not need to be updated, as it is already 3.5%).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5goy8ODeG_SrxWu97fFyiHOMvWVag?docId=CNG.f8680b7c6577581edbb44fca91d20f82.5e1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Go edit Template:Military of Sri Lanka2. I have no idea why the infobox for this article is hidden in a template. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

He can't. He's under a topic ban. —Dark 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Then can you change it for me, instead of stating why I cant do it. try to be productive! 114.76.220.19 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If he's under a topic ban, {{edit protected}} is not the right template to use. I'll leave making the edit for someone familiar with the article, the user, and the topic ban. Anomie⚔ 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then put the appropriate template, Because someone hasn't addressed the issue. 114.76.220.19 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The info box to this article seems to be locked, the budget parameter has not been updated for quite some time, a cite within the article for 2011 confirms to budget to be $2.1 Billion USD [[5]], another source verifies the budget to be US$ 2.2 Billion for 2013 [[6]]Eng.Bandara (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is at {{Military of Sri Lanka2}}. You should be able to edit it. RudolfRed (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Infographics?

Hi,

We've made some infographics about the Sri Lankan military and we're putting them into the public domain. I was just interested if embedding them in this page is something the Wikipedia community would welcome. And if so how and where?

Here are the graphics in question: http://imagr.eu/up/513732533016f_SRI_infographic_fig3_B.jpg http://imagr.eu/up/5137320960c36_SRI_infographic_fig3_A.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.67.5 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not add war crimes allegation

Do not add war crimes allegation to the article, until credible proof as been established. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not gossip, it is credible allegations backed up with numerous reliable sources. Wikipedia does not censor content just because it may make some people uncomfortable.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The references you provided does not substantiate. Here is a newer report which shows sri lanka armed forces good ethical conduct during operation to degrade the combat effectiveness of the Tamil tigers. http://www.defence.lk/news/20110801_Conf.pdf Distributor108 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

All reliable sources cited by obi2canibe does not clearly state that there were war crimes in Sri Lanka carried out by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Its all allegations not facts there is a clear difference in the two ! Cossde (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any solid reason to oppose the inclusion of allegations of war crimes done by the exclusively sinhala armed forces of SL under the command of Sinhala President,Sinhala PM,Sinhala defense minister,Sinhala generals against Tamil civilians?These allegations have been aired in various international media with proofs and UN Secretary General's panel's report had accused the Sri Lankan state for killing 40,000 Tamil civilians (Arun1paladin (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

Distributor's links can't be considered as neutral source.You don't want Sri Lanka's true face to be represented in [[Sri Lanka] page.Now you have started here too!(Arun1paladin (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

Arun1paladin, ideology is as repetitive as his rhetoric ! No credible war crimes chargers are yet drown up against the Sri Lanka Armed Forces, only allegations of possible war crimes !!! This is not a definite statement just play of word as such until credible war crimes chargers are leveled by the ICC this section should be removed. Cossde (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

War crimes section is now removed as per this discussion, with majority 3 editors agreeing with the removal. If one wishes to appeal the decision further, please open a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.220.19 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We in Wikipedia don't resolve disputes by taking vote, we build a consensus. There is no consensus to remove the war crimes section. The merits of including Sri Lankan war crimes on Wikipedia has been discussed several times at Talk:Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War and Talk:Sri Lanka. The general view was that it can be included as long as they are backed up by reliable sources and state that they are only allegations. (P.S. if there was a vote it would be one man, one vote not one man, three accounts, three votes.)--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is well sourced (seven sources for six lines of text), and it is short enough that it doesn't give undue weight. These allegations have been widely reported and qualify for inclusion. I think that they should be added back in.--Adam in MO Talk 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cossde, if an allegation is highly publicised by reliable sources, we need to include it (whether or not it is actually true) as Wikipedia is fundamentally based on verifiability and no original research. Wikipedia is not based on fact but verifiability. Omitting an allegation which had significant and well-documented coverage in the media is not in line with our policies and guidelines (except, in some cases, in BLPs. Our coverage of those allegations however, must be neutral and heavily referenced. —Dark 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply the ruling factor here is that its allegations, and there are allegations of war crimes on the United States, Pakistan , how ever it has not been mentioned on the United States Armed Forces or the Pakistani Armed Forces articles. The talk page on United States Armed Forces depicts clear reason for exclusion from said article.Cossde (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The depth of coverage of United States war crime in the media in comparison with the topic itself cannot be compared to its Sri Lankan counterpart. Perhaps that's an issue of systematic bias, but it is how it is. —Dark 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not allegations; mass civilian casualties were incurred through indiscriminate shelling. The SL forces were the only ppl capable of conducting this shelling who were present in the area. (LTTE was much too weak to direct most of it). BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis of this statement. The depth of coverage of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse was more prominent and extensive than the allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka. However it is not listed, or even mentioned in either the United States Armed Forces or the United States Army. Therefore dedication of a subsection is giving undue wight in an article on Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Cossde (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Malays-weren't they locals

In the first paragraph under History it is mentioned as if Malays were not locals. Is this true? ---- Pankajagodamunna (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Centre for Research and Development manufactured MRLS.jpg
• UniCOLT 4x4 military logistical truck family.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)