Talk:Chencholai bombing

Orphans or not

Hi Raveen , even the LTTE does not claim that these children were orphans or that this was a functioning orphanage.Therefore I am re-adding this to the article. Dutugemunu 07:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutigemunu, I did not create this article. I think you meant sobody else. Thanks RaveenS 13:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Template error corrected and UN statement with citation added Harlowraman 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss before undoing revisions Dutugemunu 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you all forget few of the basic facts/ground realities. a) It is customary for school girls in LTTE controlled areas to attend school in black trousers with folds rolled up. b) Weapons training and battle field medical assistance are part of the standard national curriculum of Tamil Eelam. c) Since the signing of the 2002 ceasefire agreement, the SL Armed forces haven't killed a single LTTE Cadre, all they've killed are innocent civilians, school children, fishermen, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.43.213.183 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Weapons training of any kind makes them legitimate targets. Malamockq 02:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I have deleted the whole list of categories which gives an impression to the readers that this is a terrorist act..From the sources we can easily come to the conclusion that

• LTTE uses large number of child soldiers hence these so called kids could well be members of LTTE
• even UTHR ,A tamil dominated human right organizations claims, that there was a LTTE training camp here
• Captured LTTE women cadres confirmed this as a LTTE training camp

Even though this incident, as any incident in that case, is extremely unfortunate, we can never tag this as a terrorist incident since the evidence clearly shows this was a legitimate attack on a terrorist target..thats all from my corner.thanks--Iwazaki 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That is simply one poiint of view only I agree it cant be termed a terrorist attac but civilians did die and UNICEF and SLMM and even the survivors say the same.RaveenS 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

with 18,000 recruited child soldiers ,we never know who was actually there..BUT what ever happened, to my above reasons, those categories are totally irrelevant.

plus some survivors confirmed it was a tiger base..case closed.Also,I think even the tamil-eelam category is not necessary ,but I ll let it stay--Iwazaki 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont give a damn about cat Tamil eelam, all what it is civilian masscare perod18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Civilian Massacre? The fact that the survivors admitted that they were undergoing military training in an LTTE base makes them combatants (ie child soldiers) and most certainly not civilians. I'm removing the category again. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is just according to the government, not according to SLMM or UNICEF. Also the so called interview is not corroborated by any independant agency such as UN agency on childrens. Why ? RaveenS 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when UN and all those Human right activists got the sole authority to judge every incident occur in our country ?? And who gave them that right ?? As I have said, every single incident and every single death is a tragic..Should be avoided...If this is a clear cut attack on civilians ,you can have whatever tag you want..BUT evidence shows the contrary..This is a legitimate attack on a terrorist base.And don't forget 18,000 child soldiers recruited by the LTTE !! I don't mind Terrorist calling this as a human massacre,since Terrorists also belong to that category(even though they deprive other humans rights to live ),but We,as wikipedians should not do it..These articles should not be used for propaganda..--Iwazaki 10:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then you agree that this is a military conflict between the government and LTTE inwhich mass number of alleged child soldiers died ? RaveenS 13:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I did not get a reply aassume that we agree that it was a mass killing of potential child soldiers in a military engagement. That's my understandingRaveenS 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Raveen , frankly speaking I have no idea of what are you talking about..This is a military conflict for sure,and isnt that why we have the article in the first place ??? As long as you don't bring those unnecessary categories i have not problem with it.--Iwazaki 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK it is a military conflict that resulted in mass deaths hence it cant be categorized as civilain massacre we agree and it is equal to the mass killing of policeman by the LTTE that is categorized as a massacre in Sri Lanka but not civilain massacre.13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

they are certainly not equal..Policemen were POW's surrendered,(because they were ordered to)to the LTTE..LTTE brutally killed them all.. Its not only a massacre its also a genocide !! How on earth these two are equal ?? !! Not in the minds of people with at least a bit of common sense!! Massacre of civilians should be under the police massacre page and we can add massacre of POW's tag to it too. --Iwazaki 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Asked for third opinionRaveenS 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Referance Issue

The referance that supposedly proves that the LTTE has reruited 18,000 child soldiers has no such infomation. If a more apropriate source (Amnesty International basically) is not provided I will clear the referance and then the uncited infomation. --Sharz 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a very important question

I have noticed that on Wikipedia on most other articles for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom) the claims made by the terrorist groups (or groups identified as terrorists by the international community) aren't represented, at ALL! So why are the LTTE claims constantly pushed through in these articles? This is not a political propaganda machine nor is it a discussion forum for opinion. In the above article I cited, and many more like it, the claims of the US government are pretty much treated as fact. If so why is it that when the Sri Lankan government statements are shown, the counter-claim by the terrorist group LTTE always appears next to it? I'm not saying that the SLGov claims should be treated as fact, what I am saying is there is no place on an encyclopedia for terrorist claims. SO either change the US related articles to include claims by AL-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Hammas, Taliban etc etc, or get rid of the LTTE claims... its about consistency people!!!! Pubuman 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you reverting it

I have provided references Irawaki.Please provide reason why you are reverting.Thank you Harlowraman 01:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't provide hilarious sites as citations. Plus, even UTHR says there was a LTTE camp at this area. if you need further details ,please read the archives, I am not going to repeat them again.Finally stop adding useless stuff to here.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I beg to defer the Asian Human Rights commission is not a hilarious sites and further it is non partisan.Please read the full report.Harlowraman 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And ???? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It clearly shows that the police violate human rights and statements are taken in duress and the victims are sinhalese also not Tamils alone this shows the general state of human rights in Sri Lanka .Hence added those comments.The victims in the report include sinhalese also hence choose it.Harlowraman 02:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are the removing the video .You removed the content okay.Now I am just adding the video what is the problem ? without comments . Harlowraman 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and primary sources

Quotes in the general press of Tamilnet and other partisan sites and groups (both sides) are being referenced as sources. This is specious. This article appears to be highly partisan (in both directions), and needs more attention than I, at least, am willing to try to give it. I have therefore tagged it. Until there is wp:consensus that the article is reasonably sourced and reasonably balanced, please leave the tags in. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be a good place to gather support for the idea that the article is OK... or if interested to recruit help for making it neutral... or balanced.Shajure (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I will leave the tags out until tomorrow, and restore them then, to provide the reverting editor time to review the wp:article tags article. Please restore the article tags, per the established consensus linked in the edit summary where I added them. One generally needs consensus to remove tags... not to add them.Shajure (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All these time, the article was very impartial justifying those murders. But when I re-correct things there are tags. Hillcountries (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

" This article appears to be highly partisan (in both directions)" - thus, the tag. You make no comment about the sources tag, yet have removed it twice.Shajure (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chencholai bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828020808/http://in.news.yahoo.com:80/060817/43/66qwy.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/060817/43/66qwy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174848/http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20060902_10 to http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20060902_10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728095828/http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2006/9/8387_image_headline.html to http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news%5C2006%5C9%5C8387_image_headline.html

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) 05:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chencholai bombing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506120322/http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-15T095840Z_01_SP305866_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SRILANKA-ENEMY.xml

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) 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)