This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)