Talk:Subramaniam Ramachandran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page. |
 |
This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in one of the multiple Indic scripts; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Indic script. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Indic). |
[edit] POV tag
- I just took a look at the article. For starters, Taprobanus continues to use questionable sources like this one for example. Other sources like this one with their atrocious English make absolutely no sense. And then some sources like this one. Just who are these people? And how is it NPOV to write dozens of articles all sourced from self styled human rights sources? And on top of that, some of these sources contradict themselves. This one says that his family was waiting for him to come home for lunch. This one says he left his 'tutorial' "to his home"(sic) around 6.30pm 'as usual'. And the one feature common to all these reports is that they're speculative in nature. But in the articles, speculation turns into fact! Also what is the need to use sources like these in the first place?! This is a widely covered conflict and why cant sources like BBC, Reuters, The Hindu etc., be used? Once we get past the question of sourcing, there's huge POV, UNDUE and WEASEL problems with all these articles. But for some human rights sources, many of these people wouldnt even have any ghits to speak of.
- And then the article gleefully quotes the RSF(a third party with no locus standi on the issue) damning the SL govt. It says the SL has 'owned up'. If that is so, why cant we cite the SL govt itself? And in an article about an abduction, how come there's no mention of what the police said?! And what is with the harping on the 'minority' status of these 'victims'? Are Tamils the only 'minorities' in SL? What does being from the 'minority' have to do with the disappearances anyway? For that matter, I dont think they're even a 'minority' in Jaffna! I could go on about the content issues, but I think somebody should warn Taprobanus against using blatantly partisan and non-RS sources in his articles. We've already been through enough nonsense with the Tamilnet issue. Continually sneaking in non-RS sources hoping that nobody is watching is disruption. Sarvagnya 09:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry I did not create this article or bring in those citations, I only copy edited it. So avoid targeting editors (that too wronly) and concentrate on the content. Thanks Taprobanus 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Took off citations that were questions. Now all the citations are from BBC, AI and Reporters Without Borders. Which are all RS. If you have more problems address it. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
