Talk:Padahuthurai bombing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. |
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page. |
 |
Padahuthurai bombing has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Illupaikadavai versus Padahuthurai
Looks like instead of bombing Illupaikadavai which probably is an LTTE base the Sri Lankan Airforce bombed the settlement of refugees at the former jetty the Padahuthurai. Hence the government reasoning for Illupaikadavai is anaval base although may be correct does not make direct corelation to why it bombed Padahuthurai?RaveenS 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are the one who messed it up Raveen.
Look at the video released by the defence ministry first. It clearly shows at the start, "ILLUPPAIKKADAVALI SEA TIGER BASE ENGAGEMENT ON 02.01.2007". After that it shows some sat pics of the tiger base and a description of the base by pointed arrows. If you think that the content of the video is purposely create by the GoSL to cover-up the incident, you can try your own self on Google Earth, using Latitude- 9° 5'30.89"N ,Longitude- 80° 4'28.35"E. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don’t get your point Lahiru, yes they say they bombed Ilupaikadavai Naval base but the bombs seem to have fallen on the refugee settlement at the jetty known as Padahuthurai f 1.5 km west of Ilupaikadavai at least according some people as noted. These things do happen in war. Americans couldn’t bomb straight in Iraq either with their smart bombs. So what I looking for is a reference that says that it was not deliberate but potentially a mistake ? Also I did not watch the video till now because I know that people were dying during that episode, after you asked me to I did. It was a lot of smoke but it looked like the bombs fell everywhere from the jetty to the inland so called base area?According to google the exact location of Ilupaikadavai is Latitude : 9.100 and Longitude : 80.083 RaveenS
[edit] current event
I believe that the current event tag should be taken off. It happend a month ago so I see no reason in it being "on going"... Watchdogb 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of source from this article
See relevant policies. It says When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications that is from WP:SPS#Self-published_sources. Hence I conclude thar David Jeyaraj's version of the event should be left in the article, not deleted RaveenS 01:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not exactly a peer view
I was looking at the peer view section at my own Article (Starships!), and saw this article right below it, un-peer-viewed, like mine. I thought I'd take a look. I am astonished at how well layed out this article is. I know nothing of the politics or the circumstances, or on how biased or unbiased this topic may be, but I will say that this is perhaps the best article I've ever seen on wikipedia when you are considering spelling, grammar, asthetics, photos, and layout. If the material is unbiased, and I hope it is because I wouldn't know (it seems to be), then I see no reason this should not be a featured article. I wish Starships! was 10% of this quality. Matt Brennen 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully and strongly disagree with the above review. See my recent edits on narrative writing style, metric/english measurement flip-flops, messed up sentence structure, spelling errors, a random parenthesis (!) in the middle of a sentence, and a few sentences that were completely unnecessary to the article. I've re-written whole paragraphs. The quotes were badly formatted (blocked, but with no quotation marks!). I'd strongly encourage a few more people to critically proofread this article for spelling, grammar, typos and sentence structure. It does a decent job (as far as I can tell) of being NPOV despite a clearly controversial topic, and cites it sources well. After a few more people look over this and give it some more polish, I think it'd be a worthy GA candidate. Nswinton 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you both for the kind words and hard work, after all both go a long way in making wikipedia a better place. Number of editors were involved in creating this article. I am encouraged by the GA comment. We will keep at it, one article at a time. Thanks again Taprobanus 22:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
