Talk:Vaharai bombing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the NCSLC Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and to provide a balanced opinion on the ongoing crisis. The primary objective is to contribute and maintain pages pertaining to the Sri Lanka Tamils, LTTE and the Sri Lankan government's efforts towards resolving the crisis. NCSLC stands for Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] edits by bakilas

U have rv my edits saying they are pov. Please explain to me what qualificatoins u have to advise me on this. And clearly what part of my edits are POV. An encyclopedia is not aplace to convey your pov nly. you have been warned—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.167.92 (talk)

[edit] Survivors accounts from Reuters

I have added new information from Reuters which says survivors confirm the fact that the LTTE fired from near the camp first.[[1]] Considering what has been going on on WP over Sri Lanka related articles, I will just like to remind everyone that removing any of it will be regarded as vandalism. Please do not make POV edits to this artlce. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed incorrect use of terse edit summary to justify changes by user snowolfd4. What user citermon wrote was not POV. Elalan 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is only one supposed eyewitness source by anonymous person talking to Reuters and has to be stated so. All other credible independent sources say something else. Hence without confirmation from other credible sources, this is a minority opinion. Elalan 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the article well. It says, "On Friday, survivors who have since fled to a shelter in government territory in the east told Reuters the Tigers had fired first from near their camp in the rebel area." Note the word SURVIVORS. Plural. Although the article quotes only one survivor, that does not mean only 1 women told the correspondent that the LTTE fired first. And changing the wording to something like "An anonymous 27-year-old Tamil woman in government held territory " is pure POV so please do not do so.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You have selectively chosen one source that fits your POV and ran with it. I am not so sure what there to hide ? The majority of the credible sources don't match with the Reuters report. It has to be mentioned these survivors were in government territory when they spoke to Reuters. Elalan 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that it is anonymous 27 year old Tamil woman. Elalan 13:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More credible source such as the SLMM argue otherwise. Elalan 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1st show me a reliable article that says survivors said the LTTE did not fire motars first.
2nd the SLMM says that there are no military installations in the area. That does not mean the LTTE did not fire from there. The LTTE is known to use a number of highly moblie pieces of artillary. That is why the Air Force has done only limited damage to them. They fire from one location and move them somewhere else in a very short period of time.
3rd Reuters says survivors said that the LTTE fired first. Reuters is generally considered a RS on Wikipedia. If you dispute this report, and say the survivors interviewed were fake, get an admin to agree with you that it is not reliable. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is room for both views but at the end reuters justlike Tamilnet is a news reporting agency and have known to make mistakes and reflect the biases of local contributers. We can prolong the pain in this article or gon on to other creative articles. But at the end this article should reflect both the point of view as well as the missing warning from the US to SL that said even if it were a human sheild the SLArmy should not make this mistake in the future.RaveenS 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

RaveenS, I changed "unconfirmed" to "interviwed by Reuters". The reader should be given the chance to judge whether they want to believe it or not. I hope that is agreeable and is clears the confusion caused by the word "unconfirmed". --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a logical fallacy with the reuters and government report. If the refugees were held as human shields then the LTTE prevented them from leaving their territory. But according to the Reuters report, the survivors came into government territory, so then the LTTE didn't prevent them from leaving. Hence there is a logical problem with the "human shield" claim by the govt. Clearly the govt version of events conflicts with the Reuters report. Elalan 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unconfirmed has to stay, since this conflicts with the SLMM statement and with govt version of events, where the refugees were held as "human shields" by the LTTE. Elalan 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Added reactions by Humanitarian Law Project and US State department Elalan 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widely Agreed Upon Facts Come First

• I agree with Citermon's changes. Widely agreed facts come first and then the controversial stuff or unconfirmed stuff. The Reuters side of the story deserves to be in the article, but not before generally agreed upon facts. The Reuters report conflicts with the govt. events and has to be stated so. As Citermon mentioned, it would otherwise seem that wordings would attempt to justify the attack on civilians, on which literally everyone expect the SLA has severely condemned. Elalan 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Elalan about the matter and the report I saw in the Reuters could not be considered neutral, Reported by Ranga Sirilal in Colombo. One thing is the people were interviewed by Reuters could have been threatened to tell the story because east is full of kidnapping and killing of people opposing paramilitaries and the government. There may well be a chance for those people to not to be the real refugees. Anyway, I decided to keep the citation, but moved it to a lower order as per my opinion and Elalan's. -16^T 02:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You really need to look at what you're saying. Do you mean Reuters is a POV source? Or is it POV only if it the report contradicts what you want to believe? Reuters is considered an NPOV source on Wikipedia. Again, if you didpute that get an admin to agree with you.

Also, like I said above, the Reuters report is NOT contradictory to the SLMM statement. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Snowolf you have not shown the statement contradict the SLMM statement. This is a clear case of POV pushing, where you want your version of things in intro, with other stuff particularly from the Neutral SLMM wording off to the side. The SLMM view on this has more weight, since they were at the scene. The reuters reports from survivors who were interviewed in govt. area. There is no confirmation whatsover that these people were survivors. Snowolf you cant expect to revert to your version expect the rest of us to play dead. Elalan 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)