Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani

message: * I appreciate the invitation to partake in this process, but I don't think I could reasonably be considered an involved party. I offered a Third Opinion precisely because I was an outside, uninvolved party to the dispute; one side thought the answer was reasonable and the other clearly did not. If the mediator would like my input, I will gladly provide it, but I respectfully decline the title of "involved party". Snuppy 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawing Name from Dispute

message: # No. Because it is not. I have given my thoughts on this many times, and I will be brief on this time. If we take definition of a mass grave, we can't have this as a such, because there isnt a proper definition for mass graves. So we have to rely on our common sense here. With only 2 bodies founded and most of the accusation came from a convicted soldier, our common sense clearly indicate this can never be a mass grave. 
# No.It should either stay like this or go away for good. Because Local and foreign experts investigating into the alleged mass graves at Chemmani in Jaffna have reached a unanimous decision that there are no such graves as originally alleged by the convicted prisoner Somaratne Rajapakse and others convicted of the Krishanthy Kumaraswamy rape and murder case Iwazaki  会話。討論 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iwazaki

message: # Yes, the category ":Category:Mass graves" should be applied to this article. As long as the article remains entitled "Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani" (or something similarly cautious), I think it would be helpful to keep the article categorized under :Category:Mass graves. The title makes it clear that whereas the article concerns the subject of "mass graves," it doesn't necessarily specify an incidence of "mass graves".
# No, the title should not be changed to "Chemmani mass graves", etc. "Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani" emphasizes the most notable, verifiable aspect of the underlying story: The allegations of mass graves received widespread international coverage (and are thereby easy to document), whereas the subsequent proceedings, including the exhumations, have been overshadowed by delays, inconclusive findings, and an intensification of the larger conflict. The current title reflects how much we know about the allegations, how little we know about the graves or how they correspond (or don't) to the allegations, and how sensitive the issue is.
-- Shunpiker 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shunpiker

message: 1. No, the category should not be added.
:First up, all editors have to remember we do not build Wikipedia articles based on speculation. In regard to this article, we cannot assume that all the bodies found at Chemmani were buried by the same people at the same time. There is no conclusive definition of what a "mass grave" is, so the best (if somewhat incomplete) one we have is the definition by the UN special rapporteur, which states at least three bodies have to be buried at the location for it to be a mass grave. The U.S military definition also dictates there should be a minimum of three bodies. Added to that, I think it should go without saying that to make a mass grave, the bodies at the location should have been either buried by the same people (e.g. by a serial killer) or at the same time (e.g. disaster victims buried by different aid workers). If three unrelated people bury 3 bodies at the same location 100 years apart, common sense would dictate that would not be a mass grave. 
:At Chemmani, two bodies were proven to be of people who disappeared around the same time. As yet no editor has been able to provide a citation giving information on the origin of the other bodies. As unlikely some editors may think, we can't dismiss the possibility that this was an ancient cemetery or a ritual burial ground or something along those lines. The remaining 13 bodies could have been buried apart in a cemetery and a soil movement could have over time brought them toghether. We simply don't know.
:My argument for the non inclusion of the category is that there is no information present as to how / when the other bodies ended up in that location, and simply assuming they were buried by the government just won't cut it on Wikipedia.
2. No, the article should not be renamed "Chemmani Mass Graves", although, as per below, I wouldn't mind a better title.
:To go into history a bit here, the initial allegations of the existence of mass graves at Chemmani were made by a soldier who was facing the death sentence for rape and murder. It created a lot of interest among both the local and foreign press. Most neutral articles which refer to the presence of the "Chemmani Mass Graves" giving that exact name were written during that initial period. After actual investigations were carried, it was conclusively proven that the allegations were fake; desperate attempts to win a reprieve by a guilty man.
:Pretty much along the same lines as above, there are no "mass graves" at Chemmani. This article simply documents the allegations and the subsequent investigation into them. Although admittedly this isn't the best article title on Wikipedia, it has to express that no such graves were found. Calling it "Chemmani mass graves" would make the title a classic (although rather distasteful) Hoax. --Snowolfd4 00:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snowolfd4

message: :1. Yes it belongs in the category Mass garves because  the United States Department of State's 2001 statement on Sri Lanka, which reads:
::"Exhumations in 1999 in the presence of international observers and forensic experts yielded 15 skeletons. Two of the victims provisionally were identified as young men who had disappeared in 1996. In late 1999, the Government submitted its forensic report to a magistrate in Jaffna; the report stated that 10 of the remains, including a skeleton that was bound and blindfolded, showed signs of physical assault that led to their deaths. The cause of death was not determined for the remaining bodies; however, the report stated that physical assault leading to death could not be ruled out in these cases. By year's end, 13 of the bodies had not been identified. Rajapakse and others named a total of 20 security personnel, including former policemen, as responsible for the killings. The remaining unidentified bodies were undergoing DNA testing for identification purposes at year's end. At year's end, the case still was pending, but continued disturbances on the Jaffna Peninsula have displaced key witnesses and delayed proceedings."
:The UN's definition of "mass grave", the full quote is: 
::"There is no legal definition of mass graves. Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has defined "mass graves" as locations where three or more victims of extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions were buried, not having died in combat or armed confrontations."
:Hence it is very clear from the United States state department description of the location where the mass burial of dead people and the UN's definition that it is belongs in the category mass grave. Taprobanus 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2.Yes it should be renamed as Chemmani mass graves and the word allegation should be removed. Because the allegations about over 500 dead people made by a Sri Lankan soldier convicted for the rape and murder of Krishanti Kumaraswamy should be dealt as a sub section of the article. But the article itself should deal with the actual findings of 15 dead bodies in the mass burial site. What is also should be made clear is that international observors, US state department, Human Rights organizationas and Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora groups do not generally agree that the Sri Lankan government has done everything possible to to assure that the rest of the bodies alleged to be buried in the Chemmani area are really not buried there. But nevertheless 15 bodies that show trauma prior to death were mass buried in that location hence the article itself should reflect that not the initial allegations that is yet to cleared by the various Sri Lankan governments. Taprobanus 20:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taprobanus

message: #Yes  believe that the category "mass grave" must be applied to this article because the article reads at least 13 dead bodies have been recovered from the area. It has all the qualifications to be a mass grave. There are mass graves of people who have died because of the same sickness and have been buried in a area. So I believe this article should also have the cat "Mass grave"
#Yes, as Taprobanus pointed out, there has been 13 bodies recovered in the same area. So the article should be name Mass grave at Chemmani. This is not allegation because even United States has said that there was 13 dead bodies recovered from chemmani. Watchdogb 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Watchdogb

message: See /Archive#Point A. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point A

message: See /Archive#Point C. -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point C

message: See /Archive#Point D. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point D

message: See /Archive#Point E. -- tariqabjotu 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point E

message: See /Archive#Point F. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point F

message: See /Archive#Compromise A. -- tariqabjotu 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise A

message: See /Archive#Compromise B. -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise B

message: See /Archive#Compromise D. -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise D

message: (Related to CAT) Another suggestion, create a sub category called Mass graves in Sri Lanka under Cat Mass graves to list all Sri Lanka related mass graves including alleged ones. Taprobanus 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any controversy about where the graves in question are located -- just whether they qualify as "mass graves", and whether categorizing an article about the relevant allegations under :Category:Mass graves implies either a confirmation of that description or of the allegations. So I'm not sure how this proposal would move us forward. -- Shunpiker 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise E

message: (Related to the category) The issue surrounding the name of the article appears to be cleared, and it now looks like the main issue is the category. Using just "Category: Mass graves" has been an issue. The same has gone for "Category:Alleged mass graves" and "Category:False/disproved mass graves". I'm not saying those ideas should be chucked out the window, but what does every think about another idea: having no category related to mass graves? (I know this might have been covered in the opening statements, but perhaps the sentiments of the participants have changed in the past month.) Although it has not been explicitly stated too many times, it is just too difficult to pinpoint this as a mass grave or not a mass grave; I'm sure at the end of the day, you'll each have your opinions on the matter. It looks like, based on recent discussion, the best route to a resolution is one which does not attempt to do that difficult pinpointing. Will this approach to the category suffice as avoiding that? -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps more important than whether the article is classified under :Category: Mass graves is that all parties to this mediation make concessions. It is entirely understandable that an article related to the history of an ongoing armed conflict is contentious, and I consider it fortunate that we have people of varying sympathies involved with this article. As a result, the article provides more balanced coverage of the subject than many of the write-ups returned by searching the internet with google, etc. But if the mediation concludes by only recognizing the grievances of one party, it sets an unhealthy precedent. -- Shunpiker 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the point of a compromise is to find middle ground. Thus, I would suggest you respond to Snowolf's latest post in Compromise C. -- tariqabjotu 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Shunpiker 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise F

message: It looks like an agreement has arisen in the Compromise section among some of the most recently involved editors. So, I want to clarify whether there is a consensus to apply the following two conditions (based on this discussion):
* Keep the article at Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani.
* Keep the category, :Category:Mass graves.
You are free, of course, to respond to the comments of others in this section, but it would be best if each person began with a bulleted Agree/Disagree and, optionally, a statement. This proposal (given the way it's framed) seems to avoid the hottest issue here (deciding whether or not this is a mass grave). Nevertheless, if there is quite a bit of disagreement, we'll move back to the compromise sections. -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yes, I realize that the positions of the most recently involved editors is not everything (or else I wouldn't have even created this section, as the positions of you, Taprobanus, and Watchdog are quite obvious). The problem is that this mediation is beginning to stall with many editors ignoring or losing interest in it. If the parties are no longer interested in the mediation and its outcome, this will have to be the end result. There is nothing wrong with the end result being that the status quo is maintained; there is no rule saying that the state of the article must be changed. -- tariqabjotu 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Lustead 14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase IV: Resolution 

message: Is there more to be said about this mediation, or has everyone lost interest? -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there have been no further objections to compromise C, I think we can assume that everyone agrees to it. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I dont agree to compromice C. Thanks Taprobanus 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither do I. You can continue this Tariqabjotu. I was just really busy last week Watchdogb 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there are a few things under the Compromises section that could be addressed. Look at the piece starting with <deindent> where I and snowolfd4 have presented a few points. And, of course, there's still the suggestion just above this section. Please remember that everyone is going to have to be willing to make a few concessions. Otherwise, we're not going to make any progress. -- tariqabjotu 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree to compromice C and the :Category:Mass graves is appropriate and should be kept.Lustead 15:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am more than willing to come to comprimise. However, those that oppose the cat and the name change are not willing to come to comprimise. The suggestion under IV seems a more than fair deal. I can comprimise to the converse of that also.  Watchdogb 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, I commented on the compromise on the 5th and Shunpiker agreed to it on the 7th. Afterwards, no one said anything opposing a new category. Now, when we could actually close the mediation, they disagree. Why? Even after Tariq mentioned the comments at Compomise C, I'm yet to see any new comments there as to why a category Alleged mass graves shouldn't be used. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the it is weasel category to deny the fact 10 bodies were unearthed. Thanks Taprobanus 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been on a wiki-break the past few days since I have been on vacation in New York City (and without access to the Internet). I will nevertheless review the events of the past couple days as I see there has been a bit of activity here. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall we continue?