Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 16 June 2007 (→Watchdogb: fixed numbering). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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:

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

Below is an example of formatting...

1. Yes/No. I believe/think/ the category should be/should not be included because...
2. Yes/No. I believe/think/ 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)

Iwazaki

Lahiru_k

Lexicon

Lustead

Shunpiker

Snowolfd4

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)

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)

Watchdogb

1. 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"
2. 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)