Talk:Nagarkovil school bombing

NPOV

Sources are given from highly pro LTTE sites..Since most of their information is flawed and bias,I really don't think we can take them seriously..Provide neutral sources.Thanks--Iwazaki 16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the POV tag..The only source given is Tamil Nation and that's certainly not WP:RS..If anything, please remove the article,not the tags.--Iwazaki 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The only neutral source seems to be Sri Lanka monitor report..But the word "Nagerkovil" doesn't even appear their !! Please don't take Wikipedia for granted..If you have any problem with giving citations, You should seriously think about removing the whole article.But I hope you will be able to find neutral sources and come with them ASAP.Till then please stop removing my tags..Thanks --Iwazaki 05:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be different spellings for this name: Nagerkovil, Nagarkovil, Nakarkoyil. The second one occurs twice in the article. — Sebastian 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with hoax, that is to call me a liar and to mis represent what that tag is supposed to be, so I will remove that. Thanks RaveenS 05:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also this is what it says In September, students and teachers of Nagarkovil Maha Vidyalayam school commemorated the death of students seven years ago. On 22 September 1995, the Sri Lankan Airforce bombed the school killing 34 children and wounding 150. The Sri Lankan government denied that the school was bombed. I hope you are reading what I am reading. ThanksRaveenS

Also I dont understand your request to be ASAP And the Tamilcanadian is a secondary source of many primary sources including this gem from Sri Lanka monitor The British Refugee Council, Sri Lanka Monitor reported: "Hours after the Sri Lanka government imposed military censorship on press reporting of its bitter and unpredictable war... on 21 September, aircraft bombed a Jaffna school yard crammed with 750 children on their lunch break, killing 34 and seriously injuring over 150 others.This is not readily availble in the web but can be received from them via fax. So if you want to remove the Tamilcanadin source I urge you to take it to admin next and I apretty sure of the outcome. ThanksRaveenS 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Raveen, whether you like it or not the term HOAX best describe this article for several reasons..The incident happened in 1995 and So far you have failed to give a single new paper artcle regarding this..And Yes, I don't think any site with the name TAMIL in it can be considered as a WP:RS .I have seen loads of crap from Tamil net,Tamil canadian ,Sangam and else..So don't bring it them here..Also, I have reasons to suspect the Sri Lanka monitor too..It looks specious too.It says "The British Refugee Council established the Sri Lanka Project in December 1987, on the request of international NGOs". .so this is certainly not a international recognize organization nor a recognise News Paper..Furthermore, there is a problem with the name too..While you call this Nagerkovil massacre, They have it as Nagarkovil. Strange isn't it ?? Raveen, I will remove all the bias sources and yes I will put back HOAX tag..Thanks--Iwazaki 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have, as a problem resolution process invited neutral editors to solve this problem, let's see what happens, I will escalate it all the way till we take a decison on your statements as made above. Thanks RaveenS 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia "Hoax" tag

Although it is clear that the information presented in this article is highly controversial, the "Hoax" tag is not appropriate. The "Hoax" tag is for identifying fraudulent articles for deletion. But web searches (see also "Nagarkovil") indicate that a lot of people outside of Wikipedia believe that an event like the one in the article took place, making it notable. Even if conclusive evidence were to come forward that this incident was manufactured for propaganda (e.g. Nurse Nayirah), it would be all the more important for people to be able to read about it on Wikipedia.

It's true that most of the sources for this story are partial to the Tamil side of the related conflict. But bias does not disqualify a source according to WP:RS: "If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view." WP:NPOV notes, "All editors and all sources have biases."

Accordingly, the Tamil position should not be reported uncritically. The article could also be improved by including non-Tamil sources. Along these lines, I was able to find this statement from Human Rights Watch:

On September 22, as the army launched a major offensive on the Jaffna peninsula, the government imposed censorship curbs on war-related reporting, citing national security concerns and fear that reporting would inflame communal tensions. Those restrictions were lifted for foreign media four days later, but curbs on the domestic media remained in force. Among the first stories to be subjected to these censorship requirements were reports that on September 21 and 22, heavy shelling and aerial attacks by government forces on the northern Jaffna region had killed some seventy civilians, including many school children. A Reuter news story from September 23, which noted that the army had denied the incident, also indicated that the story had been "subjected to military censors, who deleted quotes from civilians on the reported deaths of twenty children." [1]

This would help to explain the rather one-sided coverage. If the official denials could be sourced, that would go a long way towards adding balance to the article. -- Shunpiker 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

first google search alone shouldn't be used as a evidence.There are heaps of sites tun by PRO LTTEers and those can't be used as evidences at all..Same goes for Tamil Canadian, Its a pro LTTE site and inherently bias..Its not like a mainstream media,where you can find bias and partitions in some occasions..This Site is "Always bias to LTTE "..I am not sure how this would fit WP:RS..Especially in these controversial issues,these bias sites should not be used..Anything there can be consider as WP:POV or many times WP:HOAX.

And the whole article gives an impression that, Air force did this with purpose..The first phrase says "civilians were massacred by Air force plain bombing" ,and this is editors POV..from What I see here, this is a genuine accident and not deliberate,hence the usage of words should be more neutral..While I have my own dislike for any kind of censorship, it should be noted that these measures are important to spread the false information..Esp when you deal with LTTE ,a organization so good at false propaganda, one can't blame the government for taking some actions to control media.--Iwazaki 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and also pointing out the inappropriate usage of Wikipedia tags in this context. The user has been noted and if he uses again then we can warn him appropriately. But meanwhile I will reword the article abased on your suggestion. Thanks RaveenS 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do it yet..I have just seen this and posted my reply..until we reach consensus please refrain from using Tamil Canadian,which is inherently Bias to LTTE--Iwazaki 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New start

I have updated the article with all possible angles in fact now it reads like an accidental bombing by a pilot who mistook the children for those who were commemorating Thileepans death. Without using Tamilcanadian reference along with UTHR that possibility cannot be brought out. RaveenS 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a pass with the main objective of trying to avoid presenting particular accounts of the events (such as UTHR's) as uncontroversial. For example, I can't find any impartial sources for the statement that the Sri Lankan government later admitted to the bombing -- whatever the justification. To the contrary, the Sri Lanka Monitor article from 2002 states that the government denied the bombing. I also could not find independent corroboration for the statements attributed to Médecins Sans Frontières (searching in French as well) or to Frederico Mayor of UNESCO. Here are a couple of things that I think would continue to improve the article:

• A report about the incident sourced directly from Médecins Sans Frontières or the United Nations, or from the international press quoting the same
• The location of the text of the September 23, 1995 article cited by HRW (Reuters), or an Associated Press article of the same day (reputedly called "Sri Lanka Bombs Civilians", but I am unable to locate it on the Internet)

-- Shunpiker 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work, I have created a to do list and will figure out how to get UNESCO documents and press relaese from about 10 years ago. Thanks RaveenS 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nagerkovil school 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/20030612092854/http://brcslproject.gn.apc.org/slmonitor/Sept2002/navy.html to http://brcslproject.gn.apc.org/slmonitor/Sept2002/navy.html

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) 15:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)