Talk:Palliyagodella massacre

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palliyagodella massacre 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Military history: 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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

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

Sri Lanka Stub‑class Mid‑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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]