Talk:UN hides facts about war in Sri Lanka, says French Le Monde
Add topicBiased
[edit]Lots of this is merely accusations but this treats it as thought it's fact. Things like 'it seems that even though the government of Sri Lanka assured it wouldn't bomb the region, it did, and the UN remained silent about it' sound terribly biased to me (the use of 'even though' and 'silent' especially). Computerjoe (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it --Fib2004 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- As long as we attribute the allegations to Le Monde, I think we can pass WN:NPOV. However, I can't review this, since the primary source is in French. --SVTCobra 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I speak French. Le Monde's article says exactly what this article says it says. Their headline, translated, reads "The UN hid the scale of massacres in Sri Lanka"; doesn't get much clearer than that. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Merged
[edit]As asked, this article was merged with Sri Lanka's victory over the Tamil Tigers costs 20,000 civilian lives and the latter redirected (according to Wikipedia rules, which I hope apply here ;-)) --Fib2004 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- no, it should be listed under a related news section. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Peer review
[edit]  |
Revision 826046 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 826046 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Attention: This newspaper is not in English
[edit]Is it really necessary to give Le Monde the title 'French newspaper'? We don't put 'American newspaper' or 'British newspaper' before The New York Times or The Times. Even that notwithstanding, Le Monde is internationally famous and published all over the world, just like the former two newspapers. I can go down the road and buy all three of them. We can either give the reader some credit and remove it, or clarify where all the newspapers are from. I don't care which, as long as it is consistent. --128.243.253.112 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but without knowing where you live, it's hard to put what you can buy into context. If you live in a major metro area or in Europe, you would be more likely to see the paper. I, for one, have never heard of the paper. The New York Times is a bit different as New York is in the title, whereas it is not in The Times. Without speaking for the original writer, it is customary to add a bit of context when you are referring to something, but you can overdo adding context. It is a tricky subject, but I, for one, would welcome additional input in this matter. Calebrw (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)