Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani

Withdrawing Name from Dispute

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)[reply]

Phase I: Opening statements

As is customary, we shall begin the mediation with each person making an opening statement. Since the issues to mediate are for the most part yes-or-no, I'm asking each person to answer each question with a simple yes/no, but then follow that with an explanation for his or her position(s). Please keep your rationale for each item under a paragraph (and thus, your entire statement under two paragraphs). Don't, however, feel pressured to write a paragraph for each; just write as much as it takes to convey your point. Please do not respond to other editors' comments under their sections; simply stick to your position and its accompanying rationale in your own section. The two questions, as mentioned in the request, are listed below:

Should the article be included in Category:Mass graves?
Should the article be renamed from "Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani" to "Mass graves at Chemmani"?

Below is an example of formatting...

Yes/No. I believe/think/[something equivalent] the category should be/should not be included because...
Yes/No. I believe/think/[something equivalent] the article should be/should not be renamed because...

Please be advised that with so many parties involved, this part may take awhile. I trust everyone will be patient, however, seeing as you all have had to wait a couple weeks for this to get underway (this phase will probably not take that long). If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update: Lustead (talk · contribs) appears to be taking a break from Wikipedia, so we may proceed without his opening statement. I have contacted Lexicon (talk · contribs) and Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) about opening statements (as they both have been online recently). Regardless, we should probably move on soon. I have a few things I want to start with, but I don't want to step on the remaining participants' toes. -- tariqabjotu 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki

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)[reply]

Lahiru_k

Lustead

Shunpiker

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)[reply]

Snowolfd4

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)[reply]

Taprobanus

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Watchdogb

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)[reply]

Phase II: Starting points

Alright; I'm going to keep going here. I've brought up four points I would like to address; each of them is based on something individuals mentioned in their opening statements. The idea is to try to come to an agreement (and perhaps compromise) on different items related to the two issues. I'm mainly going to start with the first issue, the one dealing with the category. Point A is addressed primarily to Iwazaki, and so everyone else is free to ignore it (for now). Points B, C, and D, however, are for everyone to address. I'm not just trying to see how many people agree with each point. Rather I'm trying to get (most) everyone to agree one way or another on these points, since they will form the foundation for the closing agreement. So, feel free to respond to each other's comments and continue the discussion; I'll chime in to try to move things along. From what I gather, the dispute appears to be centered around whether the facts in the article are enough to label these graves as "mass graves" or whether the status of the discovery remains uncertain (and thus are just "allegations of mass graves"). Hence, agreeing on definitions and shades of gray is a good place to start. -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point A

See /Archive#Point A. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point B

In Shunpiker's opening statement, s/he said s/he believes Category:Mass graves does not necessarily mean that the article describes actual mass graves, but rather that the article describes a topic related to mass graves. What do you all think about this assessment? Does this or does this not work? -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that stament, the category is in its infancy, it can be populated by any article that deals with a mass grave (alleged or not). Taprobanus 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Shunpiker's statement, I'm a little open as to whether the article should be included in the category. Currently the articles which populate Category:Mass graves are those about actual mass graves, and I don't see any similar cases. However I'll try going through other articles/categories and see whether categories are usually used in similar situations. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note, however, that not everyone has agreed about whether the allegations are "disproved" or "false" (see Point D). -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for you and me to make judgements here. Result is quite obvious.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. We have already wasted our money and time investigating these false allegations mainly to please certain human rightist who seems to care a lot about certain section of the people while completely ignoring the rest. Anyway, Forensic experts have made their conclusion and I am not sure whether it makes any sense arguing about this thing over and over.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, perhaps you should provide some sources, under Point D, supporting the idea that there is "a unanimous decision that there are no such graves as originally alleged". -- tariqabjotu 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Tariqabjotu, it hasn't been conclusively proven that there were "mass graves" either. Note most neutral news reports do not call it a "mass grave" anymore. The BBC article cited below [1] only refers to a "Chemmani massacre". The word "mass graves" is only used to mention the initial allegations. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there were mass graves and I'm not saying there weren't mass graves; I'm simply pointing out that your compromise may not be seen as a compromise by those who do not agree with the idea that the allegations have been disproved. You can keep the compromise on the table, but I would suggest you try to work on ironing out Point D. -- tariqabjotu 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth pointing out that the Mass graves article itself is classified under Category:Mass graves. If there were an "Alleged mass graves" subcategory, AMG Chemmani might fit better there. But perhaps there shouldn't be, just as there's no need for a "Concept of mass graves" subcategory for the Mass graves article. -- Shunpiker 16:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my point above, Counties is listed under Category:Countries and not "Concept of countries", while Tamil Eelam is listed under "Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states", which is a sub category of Category:Countries. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the analogy, Snowolf, but I don't think it's entirely apt -- listing a country by name in Category:Asian countries is not entirely analagous to listing an article called "Allegation of mass graves ..." in Category:Mass graves. If the article were called "Chemmani mass graves", however, I would take your point.

In the interest of consensus, I would agree to a subcategory of Category:Mass graves called Category:Alleged mass graves. That distinction seems to me unnecessary for an article which is clearly entitled "Allegations of mass graves...", but I'd rather see the article redundantly classified in such a way that Wikipedia is explicitly neither confirming nor denying the allegations, than have the article purged of its most applicable category. Whether or not there were "mass graves" found at chemmani, the topic of "mass graves" is patently relevant to the allegations and ensuing investigation. -- Shunpiker 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such title would make wikipedia comical..It should be either mass grave or nothing at all..Considering the fact that No clear definition exist for a mass grave, unless it is an obvious mass grave, these kind of cats should be avoided..If there are no mass graves in chemmani it is absolutely irrelevant to have mass grave cat here. All these times Mr Shunpikar and people who write to tamil racist web-site have failed to give at least a single good argument for having this.Hence I am glad to refer to others who made comments on this, such as the forensic experts who actually did all the hard-work on behalf of NGO's and GOSL. They dismissed such claims completely. And by considering the fact, that the wikipedia is neither a news-paper nor a propagandic site, we can simply come to a conclusion. In order to keep Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, dubious claims should be thoroughly dealt with. And this is merely such a case. Thanks and sorry for missing for a while as I was kinda occupied with my non-wiki stuff. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no affiliation with "tamil racist web-sites", nor with any Tamil web sites of any kind. Nor Sinhalese web sites, for that matter. My involvement with questions regarding the Sri Lankan Civil War begins and ends with a couple of articles on Wikipedia, which never would have come to my attention if they had not been erroneously tagged as hoaxes. While the articles were not hoaxes -- and they are no longer tagged as such -- they were tainted with bias and questionably sourced material. I find it bizarre to be accused of an affiliation with "tamil racist web-sites" since a good deal of my edits consisted of removing claims that could only be traced to pro-Rebel web sites. My sympathies are no more with the Tamil victims of nationalist Sinhalese violence than with the Sinhalese victims of nationalist Tamil violence, and I resent the implication otherwise. I think this goes to show that the problems afflicting the editing process on this article are not entirely political: There is a personal dimension. Some editors are respectful of others, even when they disagree. Others are quick to revert and make personal attacks. I think that this "courtesy gap" may be the elephant in the room. --Shunpiker 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has accused you for being bias for anyone. No one has accused you for writing to tamil-racist web sites. To understand my claims you need to go through wikipedia(history) a bit. Anyway I am willing to discuss things with neutral people like you not with people who writes to racist web-sties. Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my main concerns were not having the article shown in Category:Mass graves, but having the category mentioned in the article, which could potentially mislead someone reading the article (if that makes any sense). But anyway I can agree on the article been included in a category along the lines of "Alleged mass graves". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a sub category of Alleged mass graves under mass graves ? also how about a special category of Mass graves in Sri Lanka (a clerical category), under mass graves ? Taprobanus 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything to put so, why not ?? How about also, making an category for wikipedians who also write for racist web-sites ? I may even be able to help you there.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you evidence he is continuously writing for so-called racist web-sites? Better start category for Racist Wikipedians, I will fix you there.Lustead 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh..Even Rajasingha admit those sites are racist.What a wonderful surprise..BTW, what do u mean by, I fix u there..pretty bad usage of english for some one claiming to be a writer(?)..And talking about new cats, how about one for, wikipedians with most number of sock-puppets ? And wikipedians who confessed having used them..Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, you're not helping your position by making these types of remarks, especially because you have not responded much to any of the points and compromises. You would gain more by addressing your opponents' stances and the proposed ideas on this page. By resorting to questionable attacks like the ones above, you are giving the impression that you have run out of pertinent counter-arguments. If you have indeed run out of counter-arguments, please make that clear so we can free ourselves from the current stalemate. Otherwise, please get on point. -- tariqabjotu 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you here. Every comment I made in necessary to grasp the real situation here.. All I want to say some of these people are either sick puppets or writes to racist tamil web sites. Hence its kinda waste of time arguing with those people, not to mention they have playing the same music again and again, though those claims most of the time got hammered. Coming back to you r claims of my non-commitment in this debate, as I have said before I was busy and missed some of the actions. But I have already stated my points clearly and NONE of them have been disproved ! If you read my points I have clearly stated why both categories fails to justify their inclusion here. And let me know If I have missed any important issues made by YOU.Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Rajasingha? First you related with Taprobanus, then with Elalan, now with Rajasingha. When that fails try with some others. Get broaden your mind first. Lustead 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase III: Compromises

I would like to pause from the starting points for a moment and start working on a few compromises. Compromise 1 was suggested by Snowolfd4 a couple days ago, and I'm adding Compromise 2 now. Feel free to add your own compromise suggestions. We'll probably need to come back to the starting points to iron out the issue over the category, but I would at least like to see if we can straighten out the part about the name (we may not even be able to do that, but we at least need to have some concrete suggestions).

Compromise A

See /Archive#Compromise A. -- tariqabjotu 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise B

See /Archive#Compromise B. -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise C

(Related to the category) This is similar to Snowolfd4's original compromise (Compromise A), but it has been suggested that the article should instead be put in a Category:Alleged mass graves, which would then be a sub-category of Category:Mass graves. How does this work? -- tariqabjotu 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissagree. Why would it be alleged if there are bodies found ? It's like saying Alleged theory of relativity. Now something that makes sence. Watchdogb 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but do you understand what a theory is? (Tip: look up the first definition). --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy aside, you need to recognize that everyone still has not come to a consensus on whether this is or is not a mass grave. That is why I presented #Point E – to try to hash out this issue – and proposed #Compromise B – suggesting that the focus should be on the allegations, with the characterization as "mass grave" up to each individual reader. You all don't need to agree on whether this is a mass grave (especially because I have a feeling you all won't), but it would be nice if some sort of consensus could be formed on the way this is characterized by third-party, reliable sources. If even that consensus is not able to be formed, you all might have to resort to one of the current compromises (or one of the compromises that has not yet been presented). -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleged mass graves is an unstable category, it can easily be deleted in an XFD as Alleged is not a stable statement of facts. What this article is about an ongoing saga of alleged mass graves in in Chemmani that has yieled 15 bodies that show trauma, thus as a subject matter that deals with Alleged mass graves that has provided 15 out of the 300 alleged. Exceptthe Sri Lanka government, the international community and the victims do not agree that the search has been exhaustive, further the civil war is in the way of doing a proper search. Hence it uncontroversally belongs in the category mass graves. Thanks Taprobanus 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very important point which many users have missed. There wasn't ONE single grave site found in Chemmani. All 15 bodies were not found in the same location. The fifteen bodies were found in upto 8 (I'm not exactly sure how many, but the FULL TEXT of the NY Times article mentioned above says eight graves. The two bodies that were identified as Auto mechanics were found in one separate grave. To quote the article for anyone who doesn't have access

To test his credibility, Corporal Rajapakse was flown to Jaffna and taken to the Chemmani checkpoint in June 1999. He led investigators to a grave that held two bodies.

In late August, more than three weeks of full-scale exhumations began in the heart of the war zone. The atmosphere was tense. At the checkpoint, the condemned men were palpably scared, observers say. And international observers, worried about rebel attacks, were heavily guarded. (by the Army)

We'd drive like hell to get to the checkpoint, said Robert Stair, a forensic archaeologist from Canada who took part in the exhumations. We took a different route every day.

Corporal Rajapakse and the other soldiers eventually led the way to seven more graves, but the remains of only 13 people were found.

Foreign Desk; Section A

GRAVES OF MISSING HAUNT SRI LANKA

By CELIA W. DUGGER

1765 words

29 August 2001

The New York Times

Page 1, Column 1

I wasn't entirely familiar with this case so I had missed this point, but going over it, I'm now more with Iwazaki that the Allegations are not merely "allegations", but now confirmed to be "false allegations" as it seems highly unlikely the "3 identified dead bodies in a single grave" criteria will be met. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unlike what some users claim here, just eight of the 15 bodies showed torture marks. From the DoS citation mentioned above,

The report indicated that 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.

This could well have been the site of an old cemetery which the soldiers came across while they were stationed there. They may well have killed the two mechanics and tried to conceal their bodies at the same site. There fact that 300 bodies of murdered people were not found almost certainly proves the allegations were false. Also the fact that reports such as the US annual country human right report (correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been no mention since 2000 I think) and the Amnesty International annual report and others no longer mention this case may well mean human right groups accept the government's statement Iwazaki linked to above, which says the International Observers concluded that the allegations were false.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting someone will get you somewhere in a meditation snowulf? Don't take my modesty as my weakness. Watchdogb 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a Category:Alleged mass graves category would get the attention of XFD, and then our work of compromise would be undone. So I maintain that the best compromise is the status quo: Title of "Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani", categorized under Category:Mass graves.

I understand the objection that categorizing the article under Category:Mass graves could be interpreted as a comment on the veracity of the allegations, just as I understand the objection that naming the article "Allegations of mass graves" somewhat obscures the fact that graves were not only alleged but found. But I think that the arguments in favor of the title and category outweigh these objections, and that in both cases, the objectionable conclusions are countered by reading the article. -- Shunpiker 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the third opinion, the statement of a non involved third party like Shunpiker that the status quo is the best compromise that we can all rech. Leave the title as Alleged mass graves and the CAT as mas graves. Thanks Taprobanus 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where shunpiker is comming from. I can also agree to this as it seems to be a fair comprimise. Watchdogb 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<deindent>Given that, hypothetically, we'll have gone through a lengthy discussion here and found a solution, I really don't think we'd have a problem with a CFD on a new category. To prevent such a problem, in the the unlikely event that it did arise, we could easily create a more appropriate named category, for example Category:Unproven mass grave allegations or something of that order, although I still think Category:Alleged mass graves is the best solution we've seen, along the lines of other categories like Category:Accused Soviet spies, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators or Category:Alleged al-Qaeda safe houses

The only doubt against that is I'm still waiting on Iwazaki's opinion whether they are still "allegations" of "disproven allegations" (and hence Category:False mass grave allegations or Category:Disproved mass grave allegations)

Shupiker, you say "the arguments in favor of the title and category outweigh these objections". What are the arguments in favor that will not be satisfied by having a suitably named subcategory? If we, for example, we add Category:Murderers to the O. J. Simpson article because he was alleged to have committed a murder, could we also assume that it wouldn't be a problem as "it will be countered by reading the article"?

Which brings us to the point, why add a false category in the first place, when we could easily use a more definitive and indisputable subcategory? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not O.J. Simpson can be considered a murderer on Wikipedia is far more clear cut as it is in this instance; Simpson was acquitted in a court of law and he has never said he got away with murder. Here, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of a mass grave, let alone whether this situation fits that definition. Many of the starting points ended inconclusive, with the only thing without objections being the fact that the soldier's claims differed from the results of the investigation into said claims (see Point F). We could be here for months going in circles about whether this is or is not a mass grave. So the best thing to do is avoid declaring whether this is or is not a mass grave. You suggest the above proposal (and resolution proposal lower on this page) will suggest to the reader that these are mass graves without reservation. However, I'm wondering... How come you believe that these proposals will suggest that when someone looking at the category page (as well as the article itself) will see "Allegations of..." in the name of the article and/or the full details of the situation in the article itself? -- tariqabjotu 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say it yourself Tariq, there is no consensus on what a mass grave is and whether this is a mass grave or not. Then how can we add the category "mass graves" to the article? Potentially incorrectly categorizing an article and then leaving it up the reader to figure out if our categorization is wrong is just not how things should be done on Wikipedia.

Since there is no conclusive proof for or against the allegation that mass graves were present, the best compromise we have here, if/until further evidence is provided, is that both the article and category should contain the word "alleged". The only argument against that is there'll be a problem with a possible CFD, which, as I pointed out, shouldn't be a problem. Any other valid reasons not to go with that? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you approach the category like under #Point B, this might not be an issue. As Shunpiker rightfully noted below in Compromise F, everyone's going to need to make concessions to find middle ground. Regardless, I hope participants in the mediation will respond to this comment of yours. -- tariqabjotu 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice Snowolf's post until Tariq pointed it out to me -- sorry, Snow. I agree that categories like Category:Accused Soviet spies, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators are an apt comparison to Category:Alleged mass graves. If we can agree to defend such a category in the case that a CFD is leveled against it, I would support applying that category instead. Having a suitably named subcategory covers my objections.

Just to answer completely, and not that I think it's worth belaboring -- I don't think the O.J. case is such a good parallel. I would support, for example, the classification of an article called "Allegations of murder against O.J. Simpson" in "Category: Celebrity murderers". (All the same, and whether it was right by wikipedia's standards or not, I would expect Johnnie Cochran to object!) -- Shunpiker 01:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's not proper to flash these statements of User:Lexicon 1 and 2 at the mediation, his/her points clearly shows the Category:Mass graves is appropriate and should be kept.Lustead 14:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise D

See /Archive#Compromise D. -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise E

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Compromise F

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. -- Shunpiker 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase IV: Resolution

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)[reply]

Agree Taprobanus 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Watchdogb 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, per comment on Compromise C, the reason we came here is the "Mass Graves" cat was not acceptable. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Shunpiker 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC), but wish to point out that 1.) it's important to get the buy-in of editors of various sympathies in this dispute -- not just the most recently involved ones; 2.) that "Mass Graves" was not acceptable to some editors is half of the reason we came here; the fact that the title was not acceptable to other editors is the other half.[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree Lustead 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Though I haven't expressed my opinions, I have observed carefully the discussions since the start of the mediation and agree with the suggested conditions.[reply]
Disagree per Snowolfd4. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you comment on some of the open compromises since this is your first time contributing to the mediation? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lustead 14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we continue?

Is there more to be said about this mediation, or has everyone lost interest? -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I dont agree to compromice C. Thanks Taprobanus 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. You can continue this Tariqabjotu. I was just really busy last week Watchdogb 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because the it is weasel category to deny the fact 10 bodies were unearthed. Thanks Taprobanus 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]