![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia isn't about our personal convictions: It's about what can be verified with reliable sources. The Wikipedia "hoax" tag is used to flag suspected non-notable hoaxes for verification or deletion. If reliable sources could be found to show that the existence of Chemmani mass graves was out of the question, the subject would still be notable: It has received sustained international attention. In that case, I would expect Wikipedia to have an article explaining how the question first arose, and how it was disposed of.
The current article is based on information that can be cross-referenced between the BBC, the U.S. Department of State and the government of Sri Lanka. I tried to keep it minimal, with the idea of expanding it, hopefully with consensus.
Here are a few directions that I think would help to address concerns on each side:
1. The use of the term "mass graves"
How many bodies constitutes a "mass grave"? The government of Sri Lanka uses the words "Chemmani mass graves", but has also stated that "there are no such graves as originally alleged". Rajapakse and his co-defendents alleged hundreds of bodies, but only fifteen were found. Nevertheless, the government continued to use the word "mass graves" in discussing the case, in particular in connection with the military personnel who were arrested. (Same links as above: [1] [2] [3] [4]. ) That said, some web sites talk about "mass graves" as if Rajapakse's allegations were proven, or even go further, alleging that large numbers of people who disappeared in Sri Lanka are buried in Chemmani. I think it would be helpful to address how "mass graves" in the context of Chemmani is used by different people to mean different things.
2. Forensic evidence
The article could use more information about the identity of the 15 bodies that were found, as well as evidence about when and how they died. I would also like to see more information about the people who have been charged in connection with these deaths, and the nature of the evidence that implicates them.
3. Conduct of the investigation
The U.S. Department of State initially praised the Government of Sri Lanka for applying the rule of law to its own forces ("There was no attempt, as in the past, to use the ER to cover up security force misdeeds." [5]), but subsequently cited criticisms about the "slowness" of the investigation. [6] A more recent BBC story quotes a Colombo magistrate saying that the investigation has been subjected to "unacceptable" delays. I think the article could benefit from exploring both the findings of the investigation and its conduct.
-- Shunpiker 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
first, I think the wording of the article should be changed..Its not the government who declared this does not exist..It was the experts.see, 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 .This should be highlighted in the article..If you disagree, please provide other reports made by the forensic experts. second,the word "mass graves" ,was used by everyone when the allegation came to being..But now, people know its a fake..some people thought earth is the centre of the universe and everything rotate around it..BUT now we know its not true. Does Wikipedia need an article says "Earth is the centre of the world" ?? And add arguments for it(taken from ancient people) and against it ?? this is simply ridiculous ,isnt it ?? Its the same here. years of investigations found only 15 body parts ?? So, this isnt a mass grave at all..Also,we never know how did they die in the first place..LTTE ruled these areas for many years till late 1995, and they could also ,had a hand on these murdered people. thanks-- Iwazaki 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the article from Chemmani mass graves to Chemmani mass graves investigation. A redirect exists so that people searching on the so-called "Chemmani mass graves" can read up on what was alleged and what was actually found. By having an article on this subject, Wikipedia is fulfilling its encyclopedic purpose by presenting a notable topic with a neutral point of view based on reliable sources. Without this article, people who heard about the allegations of mass graves at Chemmani and searched Google would probably only be able to read the Tamilnet accounts. I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. I would encourage you to try patrolling Category: Suspected hoax articles so can see what the {{ hoax}} tag is used for. It is not for articles about notable hoaxes or notable subject which some people believe to be hoaxes. -- Shunpiker 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
BUT still, by 1999 forensic experts were able to go and search the whole area..And as a result, we know that 15 bodies were founded..Then comes the legal process..As A SL and a person who studied law, Let me tell you that the legal process in SL in complex and cases drags forever..So there is no point accusing GOSL for delaying this..if anything praise the GOSl for sending all the forensic experts to Jafnna and carrying out investigation(with our tax money ,of course) for years just to appease international and local media....
finally, some editors using this to prove the existence of "state terrorism in SriLanka" ..SO they declare GOSL did this hence this is a part of state terrorism..Could you please tell me your thoughts regarding this too ??-- Iwazaki 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is how hoax is described in wikipedia..A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it is sometimes abused to perpetrate a hoax.
And nothing qualify this better than this article,which is a cheap attempt to make users believe in a certain incident never existed !! thanks-- Iwazaki 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
finally, desire to fool wikipedian community it quite obvious here..Giving sources far from being WP:RS..pathetic and disgusting.thanks-- Iwazaki 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether there were mass graves at Chemmani or not, it seems from a quick google search that the subject has received sustained attention not only from Tamil groups, but also from the Sri Lankan press [18] and the Sri Lankan government [19]. Because of this, it appears to me to be a notable, if contentious subject, and therefore not a good candidate for the "hoax" tag, which is generally a prelude to deletion. Iwazaki, correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like your intent is not to nominate the article for deletion, but to suggest that the subject of mass graves at Chemmani is war time propaganda. I wholeheartedly agree that this article is one-sided and needs a balanced telling and better sourcing. (Perhaps these links could be a start?) -- Shunpiker 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Snowolf, I rewrote the article based on what I think are pretty uncontroversial sources. Let me know what you think and I'm glad to continue working on this -- although my main interest is the correct use of the "hoax" tag, and not the Sri Lankan Civil War (though I'm getting an education in the latter thanks to the former). It seems to me that the official Sri Lankan position is that Rajapakse's allegations are misleading, at least as far as the scope of what happened. That said, the government arrested a number of people in connection with this case who as far as I can tell are still facing charges. And government press releases use the phrase "Chemmani mass graves" [20] [21] [22] [23]. So I think it would be inaccurate to write this off as a "hoax", or as "proven false" without being precise about just what is fraudulent or discredited. I would welcome renaming this article to "Chemmani mass graves investigation" or "Chemmani mass graves allegations" or something of the like if that is generally agreeable. -- Shunpiker 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As snowolf has correctly pointed out, why would we need an article for something which did not occur ?? If chemmani mass grave a true thing, I would make no objections..But since it just an allegation by a convicted Army personal, probably made to take away the attention away from him, why do we have to use wikipedia for this ??? you have sated several Local newspapers also used the word "Mass graves" ..Yes you are right..When the allegations came out, we were shocked !! News papers and TV media gave a huge publicity and continuously used the word "mass graves" ,I as a university student made protest to the GOSL regarding this..It took a while to realised that we were all fooled by some..LTTE supporters used this to tarnish the government(they still do despite no proofs)and thats why you can still see , tons of internet sites having articles related to this..BUT not a single mention of the actual event is stated at those sites..Now after the proper investigation we all know that, this event is a certain Hoax.. There were absolutely no mass graves in chemmani!.. its just like the The 'Surgeon's Photo' nessie.People believed it(made to) but finally turned out to be a HOAX!! Since article was made after the investigations, why do we have to go back to the hoax again ?? thanks -- Iwazaki 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the article has come a long way in a short time. Is it still {{ totallydisputed}} by anybody, or can we either do away with that tag or apply it (or even just {{ disputed}}) to a section in particular? -- Shunpiker 07:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1) I have a proposal for a change of this titlke in to Mass graves in Sri Lanka because I have material to write about at least another 2, one is Mirusivil mass grave the other was of dead Sinhalese civilians allegedly killed by the LTTE. Instead of creating thre individual mass graves articles, I propse we jointly create one article with sub sections on each mass grave 64.201.162.1 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to collectively create the article called Mass graves in Sri Lanka that would have included all the incidents. As you are not the only Wikipedia editor, I will await concensus on this before moving on in that direction RaveenS 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:raveen , if you have evidences feel free to create anything you want ,even though they certainly wont serve any good for our country and probably will destroy our valuable wiki- time with endless edit wars.. .BUT don't make terrible blunders ,such as adding non existence mas graves in to the article..you know what I mean don't you ,raveen ??-- Iwazaki 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Iwazaki you should understand that this is wikipedia and thus it should serve as a information page. Your argunment "I dont know how it is going to help our country in this case" is pointless to me because Wiki is not here to "help" any country... It is just like any book you come here to get information. Also I do not appericiate your attack on not only raveen but also on a race (tamils) as you imply that tamils use wiki to put down Sri Lanka... With that being said I love Raveens' idea and I can contribut if needed. Watchdogb 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
U didnt read all of my post ,did you ?? As a free encyclopedia,wikipedia has given us the opportunity promote our country..yes, I used the word promote ,because our articles in wikipedia is read and referred by thousands of people around the world..By doing that we are also promoting or expanding wikipedia too..So its a mutual relationship..I don't think I have to reply to your other nonsenses,do i WatchdogB?..I would like to finish this short reply by saying that ,I would keep an eye(or two) on that project and certainly won't allow to add non-existence mass graves such as chemmani into it.Also ,I will make sure that the definition of a mass grave is strictly applicable to every incident in the project.thanks -- Iwazaki 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No one is implying that you shouldn't keep an eye (or two) on the project... I think we would appericiate if you would. Thanks Watchdogb 14:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What ever said and done Chandrika was the only human being in this conflict of demons and devils. All what I can write is because she took responsibility for her governments actions. Fighting the LTTE is one thing, no one will ever question that. But fighting a civilian population is completely another sick dimension and all fair human beings will fight it. She was a rare Sri Lankan with a basic human trait of taking responsibility for barbaric actions that even most Sri Lankan Wikipedians don’t have decency to take responsibility for. This article was a pathetic propaganda piece when you started putting the hoax tag and fighting it. Now it is a descent article. That’s’ the strength of the Wikipedia process. This will go on even after you and I dead. No one can ever stop information from coming out. RaveenS 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this article qualify for category:mass graves ? I think it does. It contained 15 bodies. Anyone with opinions ? RaveenS 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
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..Sorry raveen ,even the UN,who care so much about human rights and mass graves and even willing to consider 3 as mass,don't think 2 is mass !! Hope this will put the case into rest.-- Iwazaki 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
making articles dedicating to assaulted2 people buried in grave ??? perhaps they use common sense in defining the word mass..Or they may go by the UN ,which says more than 3 is mass..Unless you come with any new points ,I am not going to bother replying here..I still hope, you will create real mass grave articles not the dubious ones in the future..good luck -- Iwazaki 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a game of semantics. No one disputes that more than two people were buried in this grave; the question appears to arise from when and how they were placed in the grave. I have reviewed 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.
Opinion: The United States government has no compunction about calling this a mass grave. Neither should we. Whether or not all the bodies arrived in the grave at the same time, all them did arrive in the same grave under circumstances of considerable physical duress. Though it did not contain as many corpses as alleged by Rajapakse, it is unquestionably a mass grave.
Further, I went looking for the quote Iwazaki provided regarding the UN's definition of "mass grave". Interestingly, the full quote reads:
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.
If someone wishes to add a section to the article disputing the findings of the international investigators, they should certainly feel free to add a well-cited and verifiable paragraph free of weasel words.
I will keep this page on my watchlist for a few days; I hope that this will help settle the edit war. Snuppy 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
10 of the remains, including a skeleton that was bound and blindfolded, showed signs of physical assault that led to their deaths.
References
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
First of all, a reminder, this is Wikipedia, not speculatopedia. Unless something can be proved for certain, we cannot include it as a fact on WIkipedia. In this instance, their is absolutely no proof that all the bodies were buried here at the same time. Does that mean for certain they weren't buried at the same time? No. But it is also possible that it was the site of an ancient cemetery or different serial killers found this the perfect place to bury their victims or ... You get my point. Let your imagination wonder how they all ended up their.
And the fact that just 2 bodies were identified causes doubt on the claim they were all buried at the same time. If they were all kidnapped from Jaffna and their relatives did all they could to identify the bodies, why was not a single one of the other bodies not identified?
But again, it's not up to us to decide whether or not this was a mass grave. On Wikipedia, we simply include the proven facts about an incident. In this case, if we cannot find any sources which say for certain the bodies were buried here at the same time, then, per the United Nations definition, we cannot call it a mass grave, hence the title, and the removal of the category.-- snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't, from what I can see, answer my argument. Here it is again, please see and respond to each issue.
And a response back:
Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on this edit and this edit, the Cat is appropriate and restored. Lustead 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia isn't about our personal convictions: It's about what can be verified with reliable sources. The Wikipedia "hoax" tag is used to flag suspected non-notable hoaxes for verification or deletion. If reliable sources could be found to show that the existence of Chemmani mass graves was out of the question, the subject would still be notable: It has received sustained international attention. In that case, I would expect Wikipedia to have an article explaining how the question first arose, and how it was disposed of.
The current article is based on information that can be cross-referenced between the BBC, the U.S. Department of State and the government of Sri Lanka. I tried to keep it minimal, with the idea of expanding it, hopefully with consensus.
Here are a few directions that I think would help to address concerns on each side:
1. The use of the term "mass graves"
How many bodies constitutes a "mass grave"? The government of Sri Lanka uses the words "Chemmani mass graves", but has also stated that "there are no such graves as originally alleged". Rajapakse and his co-defendents alleged hundreds of bodies, but only fifteen were found. Nevertheless, the government continued to use the word "mass graves" in discussing the case, in particular in connection with the military personnel who were arrested. (Same links as above: [1] [2] [3] [4]. ) That said, some web sites talk about "mass graves" as if Rajapakse's allegations were proven, or even go further, alleging that large numbers of people who disappeared in Sri Lanka are buried in Chemmani. I think it would be helpful to address how "mass graves" in the context of Chemmani is used by different people to mean different things.
2. Forensic evidence
The article could use more information about the identity of the 15 bodies that were found, as well as evidence about when and how they died. I would also like to see more information about the people who have been charged in connection with these deaths, and the nature of the evidence that implicates them.
3. Conduct of the investigation
The U.S. Department of State initially praised the Government of Sri Lanka for applying the rule of law to its own forces ("There was no attempt, as in the past, to use the ER to cover up security force misdeeds." [5]), but subsequently cited criticisms about the "slowness" of the investigation. [6] A more recent BBC story quotes a Colombo magistrate saying that the investigation has been subjected to "unacceptable" delays. I think the article could benefit from exploring both the findings of the investigation and its conduct.
-- Shunpiker 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
first, I think the wording of the article should be changed..Its not the government who declared this does not exist..It was the experts.see, 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 .This should be highlighted in the article..If you disagree, please provide other reports made by the forensic experts. second,the word "mass graves" ,was used by everyone when the allegation came to being..But now, people know its a fake..some people thought earth is the centre of the universe and everything rotate around it..BUT now we know its not true. Does Wikipedia need an article says "Earth is the centre of the world" ?? And add arguments for it(taken from ancient people) and against it ?? this is simply ridiculous ,isnt it ?? Its the same here. years of investigations found only 15 body parts ?? So, this isnt a mass grave at all..Also,we never know how did they die in the first place..LTTE ruled these areas for many years till late 1995, and they could also ,had a hand on these murdered people. thanks-- Iwazaki 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the article from Chemmani mass graves to Chemmani mass graves investigation. A redirect exists so that people searching on the so-called "Chemmani mass graves" can read up on what was alleged and what was actually found. By having an article on this subject, Wikipedia is fulfilling its encyclopedic purpose by presenting a notable topic with a neutral point of view based on reliable sources. Without this article, people who heard about the allegations of mass graves at Chemmani and searched Google would probably only be able to read the Tamilnet accounts. I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. I would encourage you to try patrolling Category: Suspected hoax articles so can see what the {{ hoax}} tag is used for. It is not for articles about notable hoaxes or notable subject which some people believe to be hoaxes. -- Shunpiker 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
BUT still, by 1999 forensic experts were able to go and search the whole area..And as a result, we know that 15 bodies were founded..Then comes the legal process..As A SL and a person who studied law, Let me tell you that the legal process in SL in complex and cases drags forever..So there is no point accusing GOSL for delaying this..if anything praise the GOSl for sending all the forensic experts to Jafnna and carrying out investigation(with our tax money ,of course) for years just to appease international and local media....
finally, some editors using this to prove the existence of "state terrorism in SriLanka" ..SO they declare GOSL did this hence this is a part of state terrorism..Could you please tell me your thoughts regarding this too ??-- Iwazaki 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is how hoax is described in wikipedia..A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it is sometimes abused to perpetrate a hoax.
And nothing qualify this better than this article,which is a cheap attempt to make users believe in a certain incident never existed !! thanks-- Iwazaki 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
finally, desire to fool wikipedian community it quite obvious here..Giving sources far from being WP:RS..pathetic and disgusting.thanks-- Iwazaki 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether there were mass graves at Chemmani or not, it seems from a quick google search that the subject has received sustained attention not only from Tamil groups, but also from the Sri Lankan press [18] and the Sri Lankan government [19]. Because of this, it appears to me to be a notable, if contentious subject, and therefore not a good candidate for the "hoax" tag, which is generally a prelude to deletion. Iwazaki, correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like your intent is not to nominate the article for deletion, but to suggest that the subject of mass graves at Chemmani is war time propaganda. I wholeheartedly agree that this article is one-sided and needs a balanced telling and better sourcing. (Perhaps these links could be a start?) -- Shunpiker 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Snowolf, I rewrote the article based on what I think are pretty uncontroversial sources. Let me know what you think and I'm glad to continue working on this -- although my main interest is the correct use of the "hoax" tag, and not the Sri Lankan Civil War (though I'm getting an education in the latter thanks to the former). It seems to me that the official Sri Lankan position is that Rajapakse's allegations are misleading, at least as far as the scope of what happened. That said, the government arrested a number of people in connection with this case who as far as I can tell are still facing charges. And government press releases use the phrase "Chemmani mass graves" [20] [21] [22] [23]. So I think it would be inaccurate to write this off as a "hoax", or as "proven false" without being precise about just what is fraudulent or discredited. I would welcome renaming this article to "Chemmani mass graves investigation" or "Chemmani mass graves allegations" or something of the like if that is generally agreeable. -- Shunpiker 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As snowolf has correctly pointed out, why would we need an article for something which did not occur ?? If chemmani mass grave a true thing, I would make no objections..But since it just an allegation by a convicted Army personal, probably made to take away the attention away from him, why do we have to use wikipedia for this ??? you have sated several Local newspapers also used the word "Mass graves" ..Yes you are right..When the allegations came out, we were shocked !! News papers and TV media gave a huge publicity and continuously used the word "mass graves" ,I as a university student made protest to the GOSL regarding this..It took a while to realised that we were all fooled by some..LTTE supporters used this to tarnish the government(they still do despite no proofs)and thats why you can still see , tons of internet sites having articles related to this..BUT not a single mention of the actual event is stated at those sites..Now after the proper investigation we all know that, this event is a certain Hoax.. There were absolutely no mass graves in chemmani!.. its just like the The 'Surgeon's Photo' nessie.People believed it(made to) but finally turned out to be a HOAX!! Since article was made after the investigations, why do we have to go back to the hoax again ?? thanks -- Iwazaki 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the article has come a long way in a short time. Is it still {{ totallydisputed}} by anybody, or can we either do away with that tag or apply it (or even just {{ disputed}}) to a section in particular? -- Shunpiker 07:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1) I have a proposal for a change of this titlke in to Mass graves in Sri Lanka because I have material to write about at least another 2, one is Mirusivil mass grave the other was of dead Sinhalese civilians allegedly killed by the LTTE. Instead of creating thre individual mass graves articles, I propse we jointly create one article with sub sections on each mass grave 64.201.162.1 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to collectively create the article called Mass graves in Sri Lanka that would have included all the incidents. As you are not the only Wikipedia editor, I will await concensus on this before moving on in that direction RaveenS 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:raveen , if you have evidences feel free to create anything you want ,even though they certainly wont serve any good for our country and probably will destroy our valuable wiki- time with endless edit wars.. .BUT don't make terrible blunders ,such as adding non existence mas graves in to the article..you know what I mean don't you ,raveen ??-- Iwazaki 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Iwazaki you should understand that this is wikipedia and thus it should serve as a information page. Your argunment "I dont know how it is going to help our country in this case" is pointless to me because Wiki is not here to "help" any country... It is just like any book you come here to get information. Also I do not appericiate your attack on not only raveen but also on a race (tamils) as you imply that tamils use wiki to put down Sri Lanka... With that being said I love Raveens' idea and I can contribut if needed. Watchdogb 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
U didnt read all of my post ,did you ?? As a free encyclopedia,wikipedia has given us the opportunity promote our country..yes, I used the word promote ,because our articles in wikipedia is read and referred by thousands of people around the world..By doing that we are also promoting or expanding wikipedia too..So its a mutual relationship..I don't think I have to reply to your other nonsenses,do i WatchdogB?..I would like to finish this short reply by saying that ,I would keep an eye(or two) on that project and certainly won't allow to add non-existence mass graves such as chemmani into it.Also ,I will make sure that the definition of a mass grave is strictly applicable to every incident in the project.thanks -- Iwazaki 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No one is implying that you shouldn't keep an eye (or two) on the project... I think we would appericiate if you would. Thanks Watchdogb 14:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What ever said and done Chandrika was the only human being in this conflict of demons and devils. All what I can write is because she took responsibility for her governments actions. Fighting the LTTE is one thing, no one will ever question that. But fighting a civilian population is completely another sick dimension and all fair human beings will fight it. She was a rare Sri Lankan with a basic human trait of taking responsibility for barbaric actions that even most Sri Lankan Wikipedians don’t have decency to take responsibility for. This article was a pathetic propaganda piece when you started putting the hoax tag and fighting it. Now it is a descent article. That’s’ the strength of the Wikipedia process. This will go on even after you and I dead. No one can ever stop information from coming out. RaveenS 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this article qualify for category:mass graves ? I think it does. It contained 15 bodies. Anyone with opinions ? RaveenS 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
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..Sorry raveen ,even the UN,who care so much about human rights and mass graves and even willing to consider 3 as mass,don't think 2 is mass !! Hope this will put the case into rest.-- Iwazaki 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
making articles dedicating to assaulted2 people buried in grave ??? perhaps they use common sense in defining the word mass..Or they may go by the UN ,which says more than 3 is mass..Unless you come with any new points ,I am not going to bother replying here..I still hope, you will create real mass grave articles not the dubious ones in the future..good luck -- Iwazaki 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a game of semantics. No one disputes that more than two people were buried in this grave; the question appears to arise from when and how they were placed in the grave. I have reviewed 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.
Opinion: The United States government has no compunction about calling this a mass grave. Neither should we. Whether or not all the bodies arrived in the grave at the same time, all them did arrive in the same grave under circumstances of considerable physical duress. Though it did not contain as many corpses as alleged by Rajapakse, it is unquestionably a mass grave.
Further, I went looking for the quote Iwazaki provided regarding the UN's definition of "mass grave". Interestingly, the full quote reads:
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.
If someone wishes to add a section to the article disputing the findings of the international investigators, they should certainly feel free to add a well-cited and verifiable paragraph free of weasel words.
I will keep this page on my watchlist for a few days; I hope that this will help settle the edit war. Snuppy 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
10 of the remains, including a skeleton that was bound and blindfolded, showed signs of physical assault that led to their deaths.
References
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
First of all, a reminder, this is Wikipedia, not speculatopedia. Unless something can be proved for certain, we cannot include it as a fact on WIkipedia. In this instance, their is absolutely no proof that all the bodies were buried here at the same time. Does that mean for certain they weren't buried at the same time? No. But it is also possible that it was the site of an ancient cemetery or different serial killers found this the perfect place to bury their victims or ... You get my point. Let your imagination wonder how they all ended up their.
And the fact that just 2 bodies were identified causes doubt on the claim they were all buried at the same time. If they were all kidnapped from Jaffna and their relatives did all they could to identify the bodies, why was not a single one of the other bodies not identified?
But again, it's not up to us to decide whether or not this was a mass grave. On Wikipedia, we simply include the proven facts about an incident. In this case, if we cannot find any sources which say for certain the bodies were buried here at the same time, then, per the United Nations definition, we cannot call it a mass grave, hence the title, and the removal of the category.-- snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't, from what I can see, answer my argument. Here it is again, please see and respond to each issue.
And a response back:
Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on this edit and this edit, the Cat is appropriate and restored. Lustead 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)