Talk:Navaly church bombing

See also section having American attacks
I dont agree that American air attacks on a religious place of worship are relevant enough to be on a Sri Lankan event. Under this broad categorisation, every attack page on wiki can have attacks from various different global conflicts on their 'see also' section, which is too far sweeping and messy. As you dont agree, I think it's better to get a third opinion. also in the past you removed "the list of attacks attributed to Sri Lankan government forces" from the 'see also' section of 'Sri Lankan armed forces' page, claiming that not all the attacks were committed by the armed forces. But the vast majority on that list are attributed to the Sri Lankan armed forces. In any case that page has FAR more relevance to the 'Sri Lankan armed forces' page than does an American airforce attack has to a Sri Lankan air force attack page. So I do not see any consistency in your actions regarding the "see also" section.Oz346 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Oz346, I don't understand your argument here. Please read the definition of the "See also" section. Cossde (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of a Mexican cuisine."
 * I do not think American attacks are sufficiently relevant to Sri Lankan attacks. You do. There is a disagreement here. In order to solve it a third party is needed. Can you understand this? Oz346 (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why you disagree? Both are air attacks that have hit religious place of worship. Both are "comparable articles" and therefore follow the WP Manual of Style defined for a "See also" section.Cossde (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree because American war attacks have no strong relevance to Sri Lankan war attacks (Just because America has bombed civilian targets does not mean Sri Lanka can also bomb civilians targets and that they are exactly similar).
 * It's Wikipedia policy that when there is an impasse on discussions, dispute resolution procedures are required. Hence why I'm asking for a third opinion. Are you going to follow the policy? Oz346 (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to ask a third opinion, I never said you can't ? How can you say such a thing as if the United States bombed civilian targets, others could do the same or not? Do you mean its ok for the United States bombed civilian targets? Mind sharing the logic that you used to go about adding List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces to so many articles? Cossde (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: The MOS:SEEALSO guideline notes a purpose of the section is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics [not otherwise in the article]; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. (Where it says category, I do not take this to literally mean a WP:CATEGORY, as we should not replicate the category system.) So the section's links should be of interest to the reader and be indirectly related to the subject. (If it was a strong, direct relationship, then the second subject should be mentioned and linked in the article's text). The See also link in question, 2017 al-Jinah airstrike, is for an event separated from the article subject by thousands of kilometres and twenty years, with no apparent overlap in participants. They are both, however, aerial bombings in asymmetrical warfare which destroyed a place of worship, killing civilians, and were initially denied by officials. Looking around a bit, I didn't find a category which covers both events, and Wikipedia articles on aerial bombings of places of worship seem relatively rare (not counting those destroyed in strategic/carpet bombing). This rareness of the subject matter could make the article of interest, while the tangential relationship and lack of a common category would make it difficult to navigate from one to the other. My opinion is that the link could be included with the caveat that this is indeed a rare topic. If a dozen other articles about an "aerial bombing of a place of worship" are created (or located), then they should be categorized together and the See also links removed. Because of the tangential nature of the link, I feel that its placement would benefit from annotation, such as that rendered by. I also feel that List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces should be included, and Aerial bombardment and international law might also be useful. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Apologies, I neglected to address the other articles mentioned at the 3OR: Padahuthurai_bombing, Chencholai bombing, Vaharai bombing, Nagerkovil school bombing, Mullivaikkal Hospital bombings, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers, 1984 Mannar massacre, and Cheddikulam massacre.  (These are not specifically discussed on this talk page, so do not technically qualify for 3O but I will try to assess on the same grounds as the above.)  These are all cases where Sri Lankan government actions were confirmed, reported or suspected in civilian deaths.  They all appear on List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, so listing them individually in the See also would be redundant. The only one of these which I'd consider including is Nagerkovil school bombing because it was definitively an airstrike and happened within three months. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Oz346 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)