Talk:Vaharai Bombing

Clean up
Reuters claims that escaping "survivors" said that LTTE fired arty. However, it only gave reference to one single person. Since Reuters were vague I am adding that only one person claimed this. On the other hand, Human Rights Watch claimed that they talked to 12 people who said that LTTE was not even around and did not fire anything at the Army. HRW also added 2 more eyewitness account who also claimed that they heard no guns arty being fired by LTTE. I took off minority view from lead paragraph and rephrased it in the body. Watchdogb 21:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire HRW report is dubious and its accuracy has been questioned. Also, if HRW interviewed survivors after the incident, why were there no report published at the time which included the interviews? Reuters is universally regarded as a reliable news source, and their report hasn't been questioned. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Lead is based only on the government version although it says it is a disputed event Taprobanus 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Snowolf, you don't decide if a report by a leading HR organization is dubious. It is VERY RS. If you don't like it then prove against it by providing RS. Until then it remains this way Watchdogb 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If a source is considered reliable, it should not be ignored simply because a user or two believes otherwise regarding a particular report. Reliable sources should always be included when relevant.  If there are two conflicting reports, it is our responsibility to present both reports, although it is not our job to try to prove one over the other.  Lexicon (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * HRW is clearly a WP:RS source. Thansk Taprobanus 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am taking off the NPOV tags. There is nothing that is POV about this article. If you want it there please discuss what is disputed Watchdogb 12:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

UN silence?
The following quote is from Peer review/Vaharai Bombing/archive1: Attracted considerable international attention because the UN security council choose to chastise Israel over its collateral damage in Lebanon which killed about 40 people at the same time but ignored the similar incident in Sri Lanka. If the UN's silence "attracted considerable international attention", this should be noted in the article. Chesdovi 09:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How is artillery a type of bombing?
Artillery isn't usually categorised as bombing.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So you would call it dropping flower petals? Watchdogb (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's shelling, quite obviously, although I suppose if the LTTE did such a thing, it would be liberation, no?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 02:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would but only because your alluding to it ? Watchdogb (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is relevant here what it would be called if LTTE did such a thing. We are not here to push our own POV's. I would support renaming the article as Vaharai Shelling or some other more accurate title. C h a m a l  talk 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Chamal, I admire your adherence to neutrality and ability to keep off mouthing irrelevant POV's. I agree it should be renamed to Shelling. Taprobanus (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then using Naming conventions, we cannot make up names as we go along in Wikipedia. We have follow what others call it. Vaharai bombing versus Vaharai shelling, the google hits are towards Vaharai bombing. Then it is also called Kathiraveli bombing as well as Kathiraveli shelling. So what rules should we follow ? Taprobanus (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Mass murder category

 * The word Mass murder(see Aggrawal A. (2005) Mass Murder. In: Payne-James JJ, Byard RW, Corey TS, Henderson C (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Vol. 3, Pp. 216-223. Elsevier Academic Press, London) is a neutral term compared to Massacre, as it may allude deliberation.


 * "Mass murder is also defined to be intentional and indiscriminate murder of large number of people by government agents. Examples are shooting of unarmed protestors, carpet bombing of cities, lobbying of grenades into prison cells, random execution of civilians." (see R. J. Rummel, Irving Louis Horowitz, Death by Government,  Page 35,  ISBN: 1560009276) Looking at carpet bombing of cities as a cited example, it indicates that it was a callous disregard for civilian casualty. If you read the Government reaction section of the article, it was admitted by the government and the fact is cited with RS sources) that it knew it was firing into a civilian infrastructure and in war situations such casualties cannot be disregarded.


 * "The military fired at the civilians to force them out of the area", this according to Harry Miller a Jesuit priest and neutral person from the area.

Given all this a neutral term like Mass murder can categorize this event. Taprobanus (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The definition comes from a reliable source. Watchdogb (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I further researched into this terminology, I came to the conclusion that Wikipedia does a very poor job of defining these legal terms. It is beyond poor :( Mass murder can include Genocide, Demicide, Politicide and Pogram.(see here). Each term has an acceptable definition with Genocide having very clearly accepted definition by the UN. I had categorized Ethnic riots, massacres and civilian casualties from government action as mass murder and in each case I can defend it with cited definition of mass murder. Taprobanus (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also opened a up thread in WP:SLR here to consolidate the discussion. Taprobanus (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)