Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 21 May 2007

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.

	Sri Lanka Reconciliation (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Sri Lanka ReconciliationWikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationTemplate:WikiProject Sri Lanka ReconciliationSri Lanka Reconciliation

An entry from Duraiappa stadium mass grave appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 May, 2007.

Image not necessary

I removed Image:Duraiappah Stadium.jpeg for being violation of Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Policy item 8. In short, there is no need for us to have a picture of the stadium under reconstruction. Having this picture does not give the reader any more information than can be understood from the text alone. As such, it serves only a decorative purpose. It could easily be replaced a picture of the modern stadium that has the caption, "Duraiapph Stadium, where a mass grave was discovered during reconstruction." howcheng {chat} 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will try to find a picture of the modern stadium if available Taprobanus 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the dispute

Please state it Taprobanus 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Sources

2. Sources

3. Sources.... get it ?Iwazaki 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No I dont, because although you may think that I can be at 2 different places at the same time and be two different ethinicities at the same time, I dont have mind reading abilities yet so please state your actual reasons for tagging or I will take it to ANI next. Thanks Taprobanus 12:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,dont blame me for your comprehend problems.I have said it many times,the sources you give and the Human right groups you quote are absolutely not-notable.Can you show me,where they have condemned LTTE or other tamil groups for killing Innocent Sinhalese people ? Or suicide bombings in that matter ? Dont bring one-sided pathetic bias sites to wikipedia.As long as you do that, I am going to dispute it..And finally, don't REVERT it like without bringing substantial arguments.Hope this will clear the dust.Iwazaki 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am really trying to understand, can you specifically write what your concerns are about source 1, source 2, source 3 because you have not done it yet in over 2 days. Also remember you seem to follow all my edits against WP:Stalk. Thanks Taprobanus 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

or raveen aka wikramaditya aka Taprobanus aka whatever, you know what I mean, dont you ? ? MOST of the sources are not neutral.Starting with Of course the very first source.Find reliable sources until then this is remain disputed.Iwazaki 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accusing me now directly as wikramaditya, this is exatly what I was waiting for. Really thanks you Taprobanus 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

HEY, I guess this is the 100th time you accuse me for stalking ? When ever I edit your articles you accuses me for stalking, FUNNY isnt it ??!! sharz,watchdog,citermon,rajasingham and hundreds of others have/had also edited your articles.How about issuing a stalk warning for them too?? please use whatever common sense you may have.cheerio Iwazaki 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki has raised concerns about the neutrality of the sources. Fine. I will have a look at them when I have the chance - maybe they're neutral, maybe they're not. That does not solve the problem of the category removal - why does this article not belong in Category:Mass graves or Category:History of Sri Lanka? These, at least, should remain in the article. PaladinWhite 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

first, because these skulls may belong to people who died in natural courses..This article is written in way to show readers that SL force are responsible when no one is absolutely sure of it.I dont mind having a mass grave tag IF editor can prove these people were murdered and buried there.Secondly, I dont think we need History of Sri Lanka cat here.Do we ?Iwazaki 02:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Including it in Category:Mass graves has nothing to do with how the bodies ended up there, or the political situation that may or may not have caused them to be there. Mass grave yields: "A mass grave is a grave containing multiple unidentified human corpses." Is that not true of this case?
• I think you're asking the wrong question... Instead of "Why should it be in Category:History of Sri Lanka," you ought to ask, "Why shouldn't it be there?" This is a historically-significant location and event in Sri Lanka, and therefore, the category is warranted. - PaladinWhite 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• First here is no definite definition for mass graves..Hence we have arguments and counter arguments for it..So inherently that term is disputed unless we could be sure it is absolutely a mass grave,such as Mass graves in Cambodia and Nazi Germany.But in this case its not definite hence term is disputed inherently..If we take Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions,he 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..Do we know definitely how these people died ?? Do the forensic experts say these people were murdered ?? Is this another pure LTTE propaganda and smart anti-GOSL campaign by the tamil diaspora and the heavily biased Amnesty(we all know what they tried to do during the cricket world cup) ?? So far we have NO EVIDENCE to show this should be categorised as a mass grave ,not according to common sense not according to UN.
• Your second answer really brought a smile to my face..This place is NOT A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT LOCATION and this event is not an important event, if anything this is an unheard event occurred(if it ever happened)in a insignificant place..That's all..WE degrade the proud History of Sri Lankan if we add these nonsense to it.Iwazaki 11:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I invite you, Iwazaki, and anyone else interested in this dispute to present their reasoning at the section I've created at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, so that we can get a more varied group of editors involved in this discussion. I also request that all parties keep the process civil, refraining from personal attacks and immediate dismissal of positions, and sticking to reasoned discussion of the facts of the case. PaladinWhite 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paladin, you valiant attemt here is commendable. I am on a business trip for the next few days and I will be back after that. But I now have enough information to take some editors for ANI and Arbcom because of incivility and beyond. That has no bearing on this article. The fact is the article alludes that most of the evidence points to the rebel LTTE or the IPKF as the potential forces reponsible for the mass grave not even the government of Sri Lanka but that seems to be lost on those who have not read the article at all. Thanks 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Times" source

I have a few questions about the text about "Paramanthan Selvarajah"

1. Which "the Times" does this refer to? I'm assuming its the Times of London and not say a shortened form of the NY times, LA times, Sunday Times etc.
2. Which page / section does the article appear, if available?
3. Does the article in anyway link the disapperance of Selvarajah's son to this Duraiappa incident? Because as the article stands, the only connection seems to be that Selvarajah was a witness to the incident. That does not mean we can elaborate on his son's disappearance in this article. Because his son disappeared in 1996 and the grave in dated to the 1980s, I see no connection.

Appreciate is someone can answer these for now. --snowolfD4 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At least some relevant questions, yes it is Times of London, I will get the exact page number that this appeared on when I am back Taprobanus 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Does the article in anyway link the disappearance of Selvarajah's son to this Duraiappa incident? --snowolfD4 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer wiling to discuss piece meal with you about this article, if you want to fully particiapte on the complete article issues such as totally disputed tag, sources, categories and its relevance to eye witness account then we can talk comprehensively. Thanks Taprobanus 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> From the fact that you chose to ignore the question, I'm assuming that there is no link between the two incidents. Therefore Selvarajah son should not even be mentioned in this article. If you continue to refuse to discuss this, I'm sorry but I guess the only thing I could do would be to request an edit to the article to remove that bit of text. Will that be agreeable? --snowolfD4 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your question, what is needed is a comprehensive discussion about this article. About Selvarajah's sone we dont have consensus. Why not his eye witness account not part of the article, whay not the fact his son was missing this part of the article ? He is an eye witness and his son is missing. It should be part of the article. Period. To make it easy for you to discuss I will list out the differences. They are

• (1)Totatly disputed tag

• (2)Sources used

• (3)Selvarajah's ey witness account

• (4)categories

These are the differences. If you want to talk, Let's talk from item 1 to item to item 4. Otherwise I am going on to other articles such as Embilipitiya massacre and mass graves and yet other countless masacre, mass grave and raped and killed women. Dont waste my time. When you are serious about talking, let's do it otherwise sayanora Taprobanus 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

Due to edit warring and this report at the ANI, i've protected this article until you resolve the issues on hand according to related Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Once you're done, please feel free to contact me or any other admin to unlock it. -- FayssalF - 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Request I made mistake that assuming, I am “Reverting to PaladinWhite version” of this,I wrongly reverted to this. Please unlock or revert to what I intended.Lustead 12:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Request rejected - I understand that it was a mistake but i am sorry. We have to understand that "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Content disputes for more details.

To further explain my desicion i'd invite you to read this. You'd also find a label about the "wrong version" at the bottom of my userpage. Please try to communicate and resolve the dispute as i haven't seen any comment from anyone since the page was protected 2 days ago. -- FayssalF - 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought to the Administration's attention to involve in resolving the issue based on this edit. But I made mistake leaving the subcategory Mass grave out and I believe that that S.Category well fit for that. I never expected you would ptotect the Page either. So I had to express my opinion which I originally intended. Now I cleared the contradictary statement in the Edit Summary and the Edit actually I did on the Page.Lustead 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you ahve reached a consensus? -- FayssalF - 22:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Only on the categories see here All were invited but thos who showed up agreed on the categories but not on the rest of the article. The article still needs to be protected. Thanks Taprobanus 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why this isn't being discussed on the article talk page I really don't know. But there certainly is no consensus to include any of the categories.

About the mass graves cat, it simply cannot be included until there is conclusive proof that this actually was a mass grave.

As for the History of Sri Lanka category, it won't make much sense to include every single incident that has occurred in Sri Lanka over the course of history in this category. Notable incidents only. This certainly won't qualify as notable.

Also, I'm still waiting ofr a reply to my question, which is, for the 3rd time now, Does the article in anyway link the disappearance of Selvarajah's son to this Duraiappa incident? If not, it would simply serve to mislead a reader of this article that there is some sort of connection. --snowolfD4 21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This was being discussed on the article's talk page, (see What is the dispute above,) but it seemed that no one but I and Iwazaki felt any interest in discussing it. We were talking in circles, so I made the decision to open the discussion to a larger group of editors interested in the topic, as you would have seen if you'd read the preceeding discussion here.

I've said it at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, and I'll say it here - the category's title is not Extremely notable incidents in the history of Sri Lanka, it's simply History of Sri Lanka; thus, any article which discusses a topic pertaining to an event in Sri Lanka should be eligible for inclusion.

The reason that "no consensus has been reached" as of yet is that only about four editors seem willing to engage in the discussion; I was hoping that opening a section at Sri Lanka Reconciliation would help to resolve the lack of opinions issue, but maybe it's time to move to another of the options at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. PaladinWhite 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

These editors are not willing because there is no point to discuss by them except user:Snowolfd4. He has raised a few good points but I am unwilling to deal with just them without a comprehensive talk about this whole page about categories, sources, totally disputed tag. If he wants to tak about them, he can join us where substantail discussion is taking place Taprobanus 12:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You should seriously thinking about taking a couple of reading comprehension classes Or should I say you have a very short memory of things..I have given my opinion and arguments already, in here and in several other places at different times about the Sources and the categories. And since all of them stand and you have never really answered those why would I bother play the same music here again ?? If the primary details comes from a disputed Human right organization which has never really pointed out atrocities carried out against Sinhalese or if citations come from a human rights group whose member/co founders are from a leading Pro-LTTE party, why would I even waste my time uttering the obvious ?? Your sources fail WP:RS miserably and there is no way, people with common sense can accept those.Iwazaki 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No body gives a damn as to what is in your mind or what you said somewhere elese. List out each source and discuss. I have 9 sources here not one all saying that it was a mass grave of 25 individuals potentially killed by the LTTE or the IPKF and found in the stadium. Now first thanks for standing up for the potential murderers and second I still have not seen step by step discussion of each source. List out the source such as

Source one is not acceptable because .....

Source two is not acceptable because .....

Get it? or this article stays like this and I go on to the other 5 more mass grave articles that I have material on to create and you to follow me around there too. Happy editing 17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs)

I hope you are just kidding here.. Even in my last reply I have said why MAIN sources(where bulk of the accusations come) failed WP:RS. And I have already had several debates with you regarding this. If you don't even remember them, its not my fault..I shouldnt be blamed for others lack of memory.Iwazaki 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who brough the issues about sources, as you have been unable list out your grivences, I will request the admin to consider this point mute because no reall discussion will take place with someone who is unable to write it down. The only party here who seems to have valid point to discuss in Snowwulfd, I will deal with him in that section Taprobanus 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevant talk from SLR page

Category inclusion conflict at Duraiappa stadium mass grave

Problem statement: Dispute over whether this article should be included at Category:Mass graves or at Category:History of Sri Lanka

Discussion

First off, let me say that this is my first "formalized" conflict resolution attempt, so any guidance in the process is appreciated. Now, onto the problem itself (which is only one among many with this article):

Duraiappa stadium mass grave has been added to and reverted out of Category:Mass graves and Category:History of Sri Lanka multiple times now. I believe that the categories are warranted:

• Category:Mass graves is appropriate because the most basic definitions of a mass grave, including the one used at mass grave, include this site.
  • At its most basic, a "mass grave" is simply a grave containing multiple bodies. The term itself does not denote any judgement about the condition of the bodies, their political history, or how they came to be there. Some specific organizations, including some UN bodies or personnel, seem to have more specific definitions, as presented by Iwazaki at Talk:Duraiappa stadium mass grave; however, Misplaced Pages is organized by or subject to none of these organizations, and therefore, should use the most basic definition in order to aid user navigation.
• Category:History of Sri Lanka is appropriate because the discovery of this grave site is, quite simply, an event in the history of the country.
  • Again, inclusion in this category is "connotation-less" - it demonstrates no judgement about the bodies or the conditions of their deaths. Iwazaki says, "This place is NOT A HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT LOCATION and this event is not an important event," calling the grave "insignificant," but these judgements are irrelevant. The relative "importance" of the gravesite in the "big picture" of Sri Lankan history has nothing to do with the fact that it is located in the country, and its discovery was part of the country's history. The category isn't called Category:Really important events in Sri Lankan History; it has no such qualifier, and is simply titled History of...

I have invited Iwazaki and any other interested parties to visit this page and engage in civil discussion so that we can get this dispute worked out. PaladinWhite 18:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment, since it relates to something that happened on Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani as well: If the article is in Category:Sri Lankan Tamil history, then it should not be in History of Sri Lanka, since the former is a sub-category of the latter, and generally if an article is in a sub-category, it is not placed in the category above (now, whether that sub-category is somewhat of a POV creation so that the main category doesn't show on articles, that's another issue entirely). Now, as for removal from Category:Mass graves, on this article and the Chemmani one, there is clearly some serious POV going on with the removal of the articles from that category, and I urge the removers to look into their hearts (kind of cheesy, but, really, I do implore you to do it), before pushing any more obviously improper POV in relation to this subject. Lexicon (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment regarding Category:History of Sri Lanka makes sense - I have no experience with the history of the subcategory, but either way, one of them should be included.

I've also realized something else I'd like to point out. The title of the article is "Duraiappa stadium mass grave"; this alone seems to justify the article's inclusion at Category:Mass graves. It seems that, if the definition of "mass grave" is disputed, the first thing that ought to be disputed is the title (the first, and arguably most influential, thing the reader sees), not the category (the last item in the article). PaladinWhite 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist indicated that Iwazaki had reverted the categories again; I refrained from re-reverting them, and instead decided just to leave a note at User talk:Iwazaki requesting that he refrain from making any more reverts until the dispute has been settled. PaladinWhite 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

People assume that in Misplaced Pages our personal opinions have a say but in reality it is a misunderstanding. We cite from reliable sources what others say. In regards to that almost 9 cites have called it a mass grave, hence the category mass grave is appropriate and per user lexicons logic only the category Sri lankan Tamil history applies. I think we should take this concensus to Admin Faysal. Thanks Taprobanus 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on this edit and this edit, the Cat is appropriate and I restored.Lustead 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the whole "mass grave" debate, on the wikipedia page for Mass graves it states a "mass grave is a grave containing multiple unidentified human corpses"... So far this falls under that category.It goes on to say, "In disasters, mass graves are used for infection and disease control. The motivation for using mass graves in war and genocide is usually to conceal the existence of war crimes. Exceptions to this rule include the various mass graves created by Allied soldiers to bury victims of Nazi war crimes, where the motivation was disease control and no attempt was made to hide the existence of such graves." So even though the Allies were just burying vitims of war crimes, the term "mass grave" is still used. The point I'm trying to get at here is, it doesn't actually matter how these people died, it was still a mass grave. Even if these people did ALL die of natural causes (which in this case seems quite unlikely), is it still not a mass grave? True there may be other definitions according to different organisations, but according to the WIKIPEDIA definition, it is a mass grave. I really don't see the debate about this issue. Thanks.Thusiyan 02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Mass grave

Is it a mass grave ? (yes/no)

• Yes Taprobanus 12:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes PaladinWhite 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil history

Does it belong in Sri Lankan Tamil history ? (yes/no) * Yes Taprobanus 12:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• No PaladinWhite 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lankan history

Does it belong in the Sri lankan history (yes/no)?

• Yes Taprobanus 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics