Talk:Palliyagodella massacre

Tags
Although not disputing the incident itself what I am tagging this article is for it is lack of nuetrality in tone and original reseacg in some sections. These articles have to be re weriiten from a Neutral point of view without original researchRaveenS 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * well cited and well written article..rm malicious tags--Iwazaki 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not well cited because bbc didn't show any evidence that Tigers have done this perticular attack... Also the Tigers have denied that they have done it (that is somehow not written on this page). Also satp is not RS its QS so if you are going to add that then please add the proper suffix. Please clean up the problems before taking off the tag. Watchdogb 15:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rand.org conterdicts the bbc info therefore I it does not seem to be a RS. Also considering the reference of rand.org were newspaper that was released 4 years after the which is way too late (iwazaki's words not mine). Watchdogb 15:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you check all the citation ?? I guess you didnt !! plus, 4 years is fully acceptable..I was debating about something came 10-20 years after !!! My advice, read all the sources(including UTHR) before even touching this article..many thanks--Iwazaki 15:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)