Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani/Archive

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Iwazaki, in your opening statement you said "With only 2 bodies founded..." However, the article, and a couple of the other parties, noted that there were around a dozen bodies found. Do you believe the dozen figure is incorrect, or were just talking about the two people known to have disappeared in 1996? -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of those bodies only 2 had any sign of murdered marks on their bodies/remains . Rest, forensic experts are not even sure whether they belong to humans or not. Even with the ambiguity of the UN definition for mass graves (which clearly dis-qualified this as a mass grave) it clearly says there should be three or more victims of extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. But we have only 2 here hence even by proposition arguments this is not a mass grave. And of course I would not consider this alone in my opinion. I would like to take the the fact that there is no clear definition for mass grave exist, and since we write an encyclopaedia here we should refrain from adding any self contradicted inherently biased info. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip column, its an encyclopaedia and considering that we should strongly oppose things which going to harm its nature.ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Snowolfd4 suggested that the graves must come from the same time period to be considered "mass graves". Again, how does this idea stand up? Do you each agree or disagree? -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree, I think timing issue is wiki lawyering. No one has said that they were NOT buried at the same time, also I think it is imaterial. If more than 3 bodies are found with trauma in the same location then it is a mass grave without any attribution to time frame per the UN definition of a mass grave Taprobanus 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, if 3 people bury three bodies at the same location 100 years apart of each other do we still call the site a mass grave? I really don't think so. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to prove or disprove they were buried at different times. But I think in this case, the factor we have to take into account is that at the time of discovery, since this site was obviously kept secret, there were more than 2 bodies there.Thusiyan 01:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It's not a mass grave if each body is burried was 100 apart years long. However, it is when they were burried in a short period of time with a common reason and purpose.Watchdogb 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of order -- Thusiyan, if you're going to join this discussion, could you please sign up as a party to the mediation here and here? It looks like you must have been overlooked when they invited interested parties. Thanks, -- Shunpiker 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tabrobanus, how do you see the timing issue as wiki-lawyering? -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than formulating a precise -- and original -- definition of "mass graves", we could make an inventory of which sources use which phrases to describe the findings at Chemmani? -- Shunpiker 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That was close to what I wanted to do with Point D, but I'll restart the section with clearer instructions. -- tariqabjotu 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Snowolfd4 said "it was conclusively proven that the allegations were fake". Iwazaki also suggested the allegations were discredited, while others, such as Taprobanus, stated that multiple organizations believe the allegations. Can anyone present sources and evidence that support or oppose the accused soldier's allegations? -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The allegations which led to the media comming up with the name "Chemmani Mass Graves" were, quoting an Amnesty International Report from 1998, "that there were 300 to 400 bodies at Chemmani," and note it goes on to say "However, by the end of the year, exhumations had not yet commenced" meaning the report was filed prior to any investigations been carried out. At the time they refered to it as the "alleged mass grave" site.[1]

A U.S state department press release from the next year (1999) states " (according to the) forensic report on the results of an investigation into a multiple gravesite at Chemmani ... the remains of two of the fifteen bodies discovered at Chemmani in September 1999 had been identified and that eight of the bodies showed signs of torture." It also commends the investigation saying "The Government of Sri Lanka showed courage in conducting a serious, transparent investigation of alleged abuses committed by its own forces ... We welcome the government's decision to invite participation in the investigation by foreign forensic experts, and international media and observers, including State Department observers."[2] Granted, eight bodies showed "signs of torture", but like I've been saying all along, I have been unable to find, and no editor has been able to provide any further information about those eight bodies. In that light, we cannot assume they were buried there at the same time / by the same people. In any case, the allegations by the soldiers of 300 bodies been present were most certainly false. The presence of international observers and experts also confirms that a credible investigation was carried out, and there isn't any doubt about the findings.

Another key point; the State Department no longer uses the word "mass graves" to refer to the site. That in-itself is pretty convincing. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[3][4] Looking at the links above, it seems as if the govt. has not really pursued the matter. Thus the allegations have not actually proven to be false at all. The fact that the govt. seems so uneager to take the matter any further, actually suggests the complete opposite. Thusiyan 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Its been pointed that there was 15 bodies found. 8 with signs of torture. Its highly unlikely that they were burried ther without the knowledge of other bodies. So intuitively it's obvious that they were indeed burried there with the knowledge of other bodies by the same group of people responsible for the acts. Watchdogb 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Even New York Times reports that the Sri Lankan Tamil people and others belive that the grave site has not been fully investigated showing that the allegation has not been unproven yet. Not only that it is not an allegation anaymore. It is a fact that we have a mass grave of 15 and many more to be found Taprobanus 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but as usual, we get a citation from an LTTE propaganda website. Even though it claims to be an article from the Times, it is heavily edited and a lot of text has been left out from the original article. In any case, to quote the cited BBC article "Police informed court that they are waiting instructions as the findings of the investigation has been already handed over to the AG." and the AHRC article "...two of the bodies were positively identified. Under any other justice system, the next step would be the filing of indictments at a high court." What does that tell you? The Human Rights people are not complaining about the investigation itself, but the delay by the Attorney General to file charges over the two bodies that were identified. The investigation of the site done with international observers, which identified two bodies were commended, as I pointed out above. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus, per Snowolf's comments above, are you able to locate that article on the New York Times' website or elsewhere? -- tariqabjotu 23:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog, do you have a few sources to back up your statement. That's really what we're trying to work on. -- tariqabjotu 23:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, you say the allegations have been disproven because there were not as many bodies as the soldier suggested. However, how do you reconcile calling the allegations false (as you did under Point B) with the fact that there were bodies unbeknowst to the public buried at the location the soldier mentioned (even if there weren't as many as he said)? -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, here's the link.Forensic experts have clearly dismissed these allegations.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So Iwazaki brings a GOSL link in here and yet his buddy has said even a quote from a RS magazine which is quoted in a "Tamil propaganda site" is not allowed. Go bring some real sources.

Tariqabjotu, I was under the assumption you read all the sources given. They clearly say that 15 bodies have been found. 8 with signs of torture... It does not matter if they burried at same day or over the period of days/months. As long as there were bodies found in a general area provides basis to be called mass grave. The torture just adds to the fact that it is a mass grave. Only way it would not be mass grave is if it was a cemetary. However, because an accused soldier has revealed the existence of this mass grave it adds more to my argument. Why ? well how would the soldier have know about this site unless he had knowledge of this burrial. Watchdogb 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you were using Snow's source from the U.S. State Department. Just making sure. As for the link from the Government of Sri Lanka website, Iwazaki, it's not a horrible source, but perhaps you can see why they might want to report the allegations are false. Perhaps you all should be looking for sources from other places, such as reliable newspapers and different governments from around the world. -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• I'm going to close off Point D and restart the section with something slightly different and clearer. Can each person present sources that call this a "mass grave" or specifically note that this is not a mass grave? -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this BBC article [5] which reads

"Two skeletons that were discovered after the exhumation of an alleged mass grave in northern Sri Lanka have been identified." --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence to call it a mass grave is over whelming see below,

Journal articles

1,2

Media articles

1, 2

HR articles

1, 2

This is simply the tip of the ice berg. When the entire world of WP:RS sources call it a mass grave and just the Sri Lankan government releases a press release to say that it is NOT a mass grave then even by WP:REDFLAG we should call it a mass grave. Not to call it a mass grave would be a failure of open source wiki process. Thanks Taprobanus 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Both the CNN and BBC articles mention an "alleged mass grave". Do you have any other sources, or more recent sources from those two organizations that unequivocally call it a mass grave? -- tariqabjotu 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point everyone to the UN definition of "mass grave" (as mentioning in one of the opening statements):

"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."

I have not seen any alternate definitions, so how come this does or does not apply to this situation? -- tariqabjotu 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the definition itself was provided by a party that rejects the notion that it is a mass grave, I think it applies fully to this situation. Also NATO also seem to have a definition of a mass grave. I.E even more restrictive ofthe UN, it says 2 or more bodies found in one mass burial site is a mass grave. Thanks Taprobanus 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although this discussion has somewhat deviated from the original, there does not seem to be any disagreement on the fact that the number of bodies found was less than the number of bodies alleged by the soldier. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani article, and source 4, the soldier suggested that there were 300 bodies at a mass grave. However, as has been argued here, there were no more than fifteen bodies at the grave site (a couple say even fewer than fifteen, but no more than fifteen). Whether they were buried at the same time is not important right now, and neither is the exact number of human remains; the idea I'm trying to point out is that the number of bodies found in this location was far below three hundred, the number stated by the soldier. Can everyone agree on that? If we can agree on that, that would mean that the soldier's allegations were not correct (because he got the number wrong). He may have been lying, making something up. Or perhaps he didn't make up the idea of the mass grave and simply was mistaken (or exaggerating) about the number of bodies at the site. The nature of the allegations, however, are irrelevant. What would be clear, however, is that the allegations were not entirely correct. Can we, assuming the first part of this point is okay, agree on this point as well? -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is essential that the article present the discrepancy between the scope of Rajapakse's allegations and the findings of the investigation. That said, it is equally important that the article doesn't make judgments or evaluations of Rajapakse's allegations that cannot be attributed to neutral, reliable sources. -- Shunpiker 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that the soldier exaggerated the number. However, to make things clear, I do not agree that this mass grave was false. Just to be clear on my point Watchdogb 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont even know and cant even assume that the soldier made it all up. He made an allegation and what we have found is 15 out ofthe 300 hundred he alleged. International community and Sri Lankan Tamils agree that the investigation has not exhausted itself on that basis I may compromise to leave the title as an allegation but leave the category as mass graves. Thanks Taprobanus 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, the allegations were that the military murdered hundreds of people and buried them at this location. The fact that just two bodies were identified could mean instead of the military, either he alone or part of some criminal gang killed these people. That means this allegations would be entirely false. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And so what ? it does not matterr who killed them, the bodies were identified or not or even buried in the same time. Simply 15 bodies that show trauma were found in one location. So clerically and technically it is a mass grave withouit any attributions as to whom may have commited it. Thanks Taprobanus 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Related to the category) I didn't find much useful Wiki guidelines that could help us in this case, however WP:CAT says

Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

Note, Uncontroversial. Going by that policy alone, the fact that we need this RFM at all would be a good argument against the article been included in the category. But since some editors really want the category included, I could suggest the use of subcategories as a possibly solution that is more agreeable. As an example from a related topic, take the article about Tamil Eelam, the country the LTTE is hoping to carve out in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The LTTE hopes for it to be a country someday, but it is certainly not a country right now. So it does not go under Category:Asian countries which Sri Lanka comes under, even though it hopes to be an "Asian country" someday and is therefore "a topic related to" (as Shunpiker put it) the Asian countries category. Instead it is included in a separate category Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states, which is a subcategory of the main Category:Countries. I would think that applies in most similar cases. Simply because it is related to the category it does not go under the main category. Another example, Al Gore does not come under Category:Presidents of the United States even though he was at one time incorrectly declared by the media (sound familiar?) as the next US President. However as I believe Shunpiker means, and I agree to some extent, categories are there as sort of a documentation tool to group related articles together. So it would make some sense to connect this article to Category:Mass graves, even though it has been proven that it is not a mass grave. Therefore I propose we create a new subcategory, something like Category:False mass grave allegations or Category:Disproved mass grave allegations which, like the article title, conveys that this site is not a mass grave. We can then make that a sub category of Category:Mass graves. That way, while the article will be connected to and included in the category, it will also allay concerns that the category may mislead a reader of the article to believe that this was the site of an actual mass grave. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dissagree. Snowulf himself has added "Terrorist" cats to the LTTE. There WAS a lot of dissagreement there. Yet the cats still remain put. So if he is going to suggest and go by wikipedia rules then he should be the first one to take off the Cats from those articles. No hypocrism here sorry. Watchdogb 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree too, it is uncontroversal that we found 15 bodies with trauma in one location hence we dont violate WP:CAT by placing it in Cat mass graves. Thanks Taprobanus 12:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Related to the name of the article) Is this article supposed to about the bodies and the grave site itself or about the allegations? I say that because the article as it is currently written highlights the allegations; the intro begins by summarizing the allegations and the first section of the article summarizes the allegations. Is it possible, then, to keep the article about the allegations (and the findings related to them), and leave off deciding whether the facts surrounding the case make a mass grave? Ultimately, most here seem to agree about the basic facts – what the soldier alleged and the number of bodies found. Thus, the debate over the name of the article appears to be whether the findings are enough for one to call this a mass grave. Would it be enough, then, for the article to stay at "Allegations of..." and let those reading the article itself decide in his or her own mind whether the facts on the table make this a mass grave? -- tariqabjotu 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said in point F. Thanks Taprobanus 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Related to the name) Another suggestion: perhaps the article can be named Graves at Chemmani, avoiding the controversial term "mass graves". Any thoughts on this? -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be able to get common sence agreement that title may be left in as Alleged mass graves at Chemmani as the investigation has not exhausted itself. Taprobanus 16:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.