Batang Kali massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

[hide]Military history WikiProject (Rated Stub-Class)
	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
[show]Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force

Seeing as there are still no sources for most of the articles content and any new edits seem to take the form of a list of fairly inflammatory or at least POV statements I'm going to risk my neck and tag the article for neutrality. Grible (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've removed the following sentence from the original article:

Till today the British government has not made any official unreserved apology to the victims and family members that has been mistreated during the massacre.

I find this unecessarily POV, but I think we can reincorporate it into the document if we can answer the following issues:

• Who says that an apology it's deserved? When did they say it?
• Has the British government said anything about the incident, and any responses to groups demanding for an apology for the incident? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 08:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly your statement above is also not written from a neutral point of view. Perhaps the sentence above wasn't written well. Take a look at the following documents.

• www.petitiononline.com/19481212/petition.html for the petition letter
• The Star article regarding the above issue

It is impossible to put the link on WP since it triggers the spam filtration. Diagramma Della Verita (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Petitiononline is not link worthy for a good reason, since they're hardly notable. The Star article is better, why don't you cite that properly in the article? Annie D (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've just made some edits for style and tense. I tried not to change meaning. I also started tagging unsourced comments but there is a lot things so I didn't want to cover the article in tags. Can any one produce some sources? reports on investigation in 1949 or newspaper articles to firm up this article? Grible (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)