Talk:United National Party

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Reidgreg in topic Scope of article

References

edit

Not a single one in sight. Who wrote this article? Least you could do was put one reference. Web links dont' count, LOL, nah they do but this needs academic or official governmental references. Example; What polcies made Senanayake accepted at grassroots level???Savre (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Needs work

edit

I've flagged this with some templates, the refs need beefing up, and the tone and language are too pointed for an encyclopedia article. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United National Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pro-capitalist?

edit

The term "pro-capitalist" is often used, but is probably incorrect. The UNP is pro-free enterprise, which is quite different.203.80.61.102 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United National Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nationalism in 1983

edit

The party accepted the crimes against the Tamil Minorities so in the ideology section it needs to be written as Right-Wing or even Far-Right within the period of the second JVP insurgency and the beginning days of the civil war. Kommune12 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

When it comes to the country's ethnic minorities, most parties in Sri Lanka are right-wing/far-right, even socially liberal parties (UNP) or economically left wing parties (SLFP, CPSL, LSSP, JVP).--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Scope of article

edit

This article seems to be a hodge-podge of facts about elections, cabinets and leaders, and frequently loses its focus on the party itself. This is easily seen in how the sections have very different lengths. The article's scope needs to be better defined, and the superfluous information removed (except as necessary to provide context). There should be more about the party's political positions, ideology, alliances, and voter base. The emphasis on leadership makes it seem like a cult of personality. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply