Talk:Chemmani mass graves investigation

Archive 1

Ideas for improving the article

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)

• short reply;

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)

Hi Iwazaki, I added a summary at the top of the article to try to make it clearer that the original allegation of "mass graves" was much broader than what the subsequent investigation uncovered. I also added detail on the foreign observers, who are mentioned in several of the references, and included some more of the forensic findings. I would be glad to continue working on this article. I'm afraid, though, that it may not be possible to please everybody. Some people want to push the original allegations that hundreds of the disappeared are buried at Chemmani. Other people want to overlook the 15 bodies that were exhumed and the 7 people who were charged with their deaths and call the whole affair a fraud. Neither of these points of view seem to be supported by reliable sources. I think the current state of the article, however, is getting close to a neutral and thorough coverage of what reliable sources have reported. Do you have any further suggestions to improve the article in this regard? -- Shunpiker 16:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is no one has proven mass graves ever existed in Chenmmani. On the contrary, international experts agree no such graves even existed. Having a article on Wikipedia about something that is proven as fake is completely against policy. Either the article should be renamed to something like "allegations of mass graves at chemmani" or deleted all together.

About the use of the {{hoax}} tag, it states

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.

If the article remains under the current name, it will certainly be "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" since the existence of any "mass graves" hasn't ever been proved.

Wikipedia isn't a gossip column, plain and simple. Why do you think organizations like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have failed to mention it in their annual reports for a long time? They publish pages and pages of reports on Human Rights activities in Sri Lanka but simply don't mention Chemmani. Why? Because they accept that no such graves ever existed. They did get on the band wagon like all other media in the late 1990s when the allegations surfaced, but after the excavations they realized there was no truth behind the allegations.

And if it was as notable as you claim, why has there been virtually no media coverage of the incident since around 2001? I feel like I'm repeating myself but, because they accept that no such graves ever existed.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:55, 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)

How about a section on reactions from International Human Righst agencise, local HR agencies, Tamil polical parties, Tamil diaspora all these are important paort of this phenomenon called Chemmani mass graves. Also what about the reality of 400 peope who really did dissapear during that time in jaffna, the hopes of the relatives to find those bodies in the so called mass graves why shouldnt a neutral article bring all those aspects into discussion ? RaveenS 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raveen, if you can find information from human rights agencies which is not already in the article, please do include it into the article -- particularly if the information can be sourced directly from the human rights agency. I'm not sure how to fit information from the Tamil political side into the article. I have seen a number of articles from those quarters that seem to imply, without independent corroboration, that the graves at Chemmani contain the bodies of the people who disappeared. I'm not sure what to do with that. That said, I think the article still fails to fully recognize the criticism that the investigation has received for unexplained delays ("Critics contrasted the prompt investigation of the Durraipa stadium graves with the slow investigation of the Chemmani mass graves." [7]) and the failure, some seven years later, to either acquit the suspects or bring them to justice. -- Shunpiker 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi shunpiker,I ll highly admire your effort here, spending your precious time trying to make this article more neutral..BUT I must tell you this, you dont really need to do that here..Wikipedia doesn't need an article saying "earth is the centre of the universe" ,so why do we need an article for "chemmani mass graves" ,when the whole thing did not exist at all !! Also, I have noticed that every time you mention about the investigation, you have used the word "Government appointed"..You are giving an impression that investigation team is not neutral..I think this is kinda insult to those forensic experts, as it was them not the government declared there is nothing in chemmani...Only 15 body parts were founded and out of them only 10 had any signs of assaults..There is no point bringing earlier accusations made by the human rights groups..Its ridiculous..Just like bringing facts from early primitive people to prove the earth is flat or centre of the universe..As snowolf has correctly pointed out. we now obviously know chemmani mass graves do not exist..Why would we waste our time arguing for this ?? About the unexpected delay , investigations were carried out in jaffna and I dont think I have tell you that there is a war going on there.And this was expected to take some time to finish due to the difficulties of guaranteeing safety of the expert team..

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)

Hi Iwazaki,

I think this article is a good use for my time. It has taken quite a bit of it to get a sense of how the Chemmani case came about and where it stands, but the next person who wants to read up on the subject will not need so much time, and as long as the article maintains its present course, they will also have a fair and mostly comprehensive presentation of the facts at their disposal.

I disagree when you say this article isn't necessary. 15 people are dead, 7 people were arrested, and whether their suspicions are ultimately justified or not, some people believe that the circumstances are connected with the disappearances of hundreds of more people. All of this centers on the Chemmani case, and so I think it is important that people who want to know the facts about this case have a place to find them.

You make a good point about the investigation being delayed by the fighting in Jaffna. That is mentioned in a U.S. State Department report ("The case was pending at year's end, but fighting near Jaffna displaced key witnesses and delayed proceedings."[8]), and should be incorporated into the article. Another cause for delay is the difficulty in identifying the remains. ("The remaining unidentified bodies underwent DNA testing for identification purposes. The Attorney General's office has indicated that it was not satisfied with the inconclusive initial results and reportedly was searching for funds to provide for a more detailed test." [9] and "CID pointed out that DNA test results on the remains of the deceased are also due from India." [10].) This should also be woven into the narrative.

However, there are also criticisms which are unrelated to fighting or identification of the dead, and should receive attention: "The Government was slow to move on the case; however, due to international pressure the process again was put in motion early in the year." [11] "Critics contrasted the prompt investigation of the Durraipa stadium graves with the slow investigation of the Chemmani mass graves." [12] Or the "magistrate who said that it is 'unacceptable' that an inquiry takes so long". [13]

I don't intend to cast any aspersions on the investigators when I specify that they are with the government. I think it's important to be as precise as possible about who the actors are, and in this case I was echoing the U.S. State department's description of "a team of Government investigators". [14] Where possible, I have tried to identify non-governmental actors: For example, the excavation witnesses from Amnesty International.

Regarding the forensic results, there are more details to weave into the article. Though the cause of death was not determined for some of the bodies, "physical assault and murder could not be ruled out" [15]. I would also like to see if I can find more information about the results of the DNA test that were "due from India" in 2006. [16]

I get the impression that the Chemmani case has been an important one for the National Human Rights Commission (HRC), and it has been singled out for both praise and blame for its role in the investigation. This could be worth including in the article.

I am unsure how to relate the allegations of what happened in Chemmani to state terrorism. State terrorism, as I understand it, is state-directed violence against civilians. In this case you have, on the one hand, government actors on trial for the murder of civilians. On the other hand, they are being prosecuted by the state, which is an argument against government complicity in the crimes that they have been charged with.

--Shunpiker 16:26, 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)

There is no hoax about this [17] the author needs to find WP:RS about it. All what a neutral wikipedia article has to demonstrate is that the sources are reputable and different perspectives about the subject matter is dealt with. No one can get away by censoring a well written article. Wiki process will take care of such people. In my view this articlke needs to demonstrate that it is notable eventWP:N and verfiable WP:V and is from reputable sources WP:RS. It does not have to prove one way or the other wether it happened or not. That is up to the reader to figure out. ThnaksRaveenS 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

there are several factual errors in the above reply! let me address them first..

• There are no WP:RS regarding chemmani ..because incident simply did not happen !!
• No one is censoring anything... Why on earth people should censor something which did not exist !!
• GOSL did a full investigation and the so called mass graves did not come out!!
• there was a full scale investigations for over 2 years !!! yes !! 2 years spending lots of our tax money to please some shouting tamil diaspora!! and it was a total waste !!
• If I write a book saying, there are mass sinhalese graves in jaffna, can i create an article and have my book as a source ?? Internet is a free world and people can create what ever they want.BUT wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and giving correct info to the readers should be the priority..Its hilarious to ask readers to figure it out while deceiving them to believe in what you write.
• please provide reports of the forensic experts, please provide the report of the GOSL investigation..NOT fairy tales written by PRO-Tamil sites

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)

We will give the author a couple of weeks to come with with a good article, if not I will write a neutral artickle about this subject when I have time, your point of view will be just one of those views. Thanks RaveenS 17:04, 4 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)

They incident did receive a lot of attention in the late 1990s when their existence was initially alleged, but it was soon proven to be false. For that reason the tile itself, "Chemmani mass graves", is inherently wrong because there were nothing as such.

For example, some people have alleged the Bush Administration was complicit in 9/11 and those claims have got attention in some media. But, just because of that we don't create a article titled Involvement of the Bush Administration in 9/11. Similarly just one convicted soldier alleged the existence of graves in Chemmani, and it was picked up by people who wanted to discredit the military. It would be wrong because that never happened, and creating articles like this would needlessly dilute the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:08, 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)

Dear Shunpiker, since it was me who tagged this as a HOAX,its my duty to clarify my position here..first let me start with by these words.."Chemmani mass grave is a hoax". there is not a question about it..With 4 years of investigation, only a dozen of bodies came out from that grave..And we don't even know whether these people were killed by the Army or not.Please bear in mind, most parts of jaffna was under the LTTE rule till 1995 and the founded skeleton and human body parts could easily belong to that era too..

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)

Still disputed?

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)

I dont think that this article as written can be disputed at allRaveenS 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New direction for this article

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 grave64.201.162.1 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be happening a lot these days doesn't it? You don't like the articles after they have been made neutral and devoid of LTTE/Tamil propaganda and completely want to get rid of them now. Based on the discussions we had above, it appears this incident does deserve a article of its own to let anyone know what exactly happened to the "mass graves" so don't even think of trying to get rid of it. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you personally attacking a fellow wikipedian in good standing against WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:ATTACK instead of addressing the points raised above ? I think you are also against WP:LIBEL if you cant prove the following.

A) You don't like the articles after they have been made neutral and devoid of LTTE/Tamil propaganda

Show me a single article that I don’t like, like you can read my mind but just show me a place where I don’t like the article ?

Second you say Based on the discussions we had above, it appears this incident does deserve a article of its own to let anyone know what exactly happened to the "mass graves" so don't even think of trying to get rid of it

If I may interpret the language after I remove the threatening words used, you mean to say that I should create an article called Mass graves in Sri Lanka separately and link this article and the article about Mirusuvil mass grave to it. — RaveenS 16:55, 15 February 2007 — continues after insertion below

New article "Mass graves in Sri Lanka"

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 directionRaveenS 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An article called Mass graves in Sri Lanka sounds like a good title for an encyclopedic article. There are already several articles in Category:Mass graves which can serve as a model. — Sebastian 20:00, 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)

That's what I want to talk about, do you know there are mass graves of Sinhalese youth too, I have the reference[24] for it but it is marginal, I want to work together so we can all come up with an article that is proerly referenced of all incidents. Can we start a project page for it so people can work on it together rather than in the wikipedia space ?RaveenS 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

first please read the definition of "mass graves" and take your time to compare what you write with what already exist in the link given here by Mr sebestian..Remember you just cant add things like "chemmani" as it is obviously not a mass grave, since ONLY 15 body part were founded and ONLY couple of them had any indication of torture !! There may be mass graves in SL..But frankly I dont know how it is going to help our country in this case..Instead ,it will going to further damage our countries image, which is already in a terrible situation..Why do we need to spend our valuable time to destroy our countries image ?? Why cant we form project such as "History of SriLanka" ,"Greatest SriLankan" and so on ,to show the good part of our country..In 3 rd century we had the worlds 2 tallest building !! We have temples bigger and taller than Pyramids ,and foreigners dont even know that !! We have oldest "brahmi script" and one of the oldest existing inscriptions of the wrold,and no one knows them !! Damascus_steel was a SL invention ,but somehow Indians taking credit for it ,because we are stuck in disputed templates and articles created by you and other tamils...There are so many things Sinhalese(And others) made to the world and sadly no one knows them ..Instead of appealing our heritage and achievements, you are defaming our country with totally irrelevant and unnecessary articles/templates/tables..You can go ahead and create the "mass grave project" ,even though it will serve no good for our country,hence I prefer to stay away from it..BUT I will definitely keep an aye on it ,and wont allow to add defamatory info to it. thanks--Iwazaki 03:45, 17 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)

Just to reiterate my point of view. Yes Sri Lanka that I was born was a great country, people that I knew and interacted were the best. My first language was Sinhalese not Tamil because everybody around us spoke Sinhalese. But that is besides the point today we have this pointless war that I think has been dragged on for more than 20 years for no reason other than involved people’s lack of vision, lack of cranial capacity, total lack empathy for common people’s requirements, manifest racism and war profiteering when most of the elite’s children are abroad living in safety.

But all of us are driven by certain things, what drives me is Human Rights violations weather it is Sri lanka, India or Lesotho. If not for Sri Lanka, I will be writing about Human rights in Sudan. Because that’s what I am. If Iwazaki is interested in Great things Sri Lanka then he should write about it. As far I am concerned Chemmani was a mass grave because it did contain 15 bodies and the government stopped the investigation citing neutral sources but that was secondary information. I want to see the primary source that says the neutral people said that there is no pint in looking. Where is it ? Asking the Sri Lankan government to investigate itself is like asking a thief to give the judge incriminating evidence when there is neither a carrot or stick attached to his behavior. I think I am violating WP:SOAP by saying all this. Enough said. RaveenS 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Began the project page [25] all are welcome to contribute —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaveenS (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Regardless of what Terrorist and tamil diaspora say, Sri Lanka is still a GREAT NATION..I have no doubt that Sri Lanka will overcome its problems, mainly terrorism and terrorist and Sinhales with the help of muslims and tamils (who are not terrorists) would make this a nation to be proud of,just as it was in the history..With all the investigation with our tax money to satisfied some NGO 's and Human rights activist, we found only 2 bodies with any kind of assaults signs at chemmani..And you call this a "Mass Grave" ?? Do you have any idea what this "MASS" means ?? Then comes your ranting !! its not only a WP:SOAPBOX,its a mere pretext for your to create this project..You blame the Government of ex-President chandrika here,while praising her excessively in other places in wikipedia,and its becoming hialrious!! Why did you only blame Chandrika's government ?? How about condemning the Jaffna residents who did not die so they couldn't end up at chemmani ?? How about blaming LTTE for not killing enough people and burying them at chemmani ?? Or how about blaming all the Srilankan who did not end up at the chemmani mass grave ?? GO ahead with your project,As I said before "I will make sure that the definition of a mass grave is strictly applicable to every incident in the project" And I ask you,kindly, not to make terrible blunders ,such as adding non existence mas graves in to the project.Look forward to see all the mass graves articles. thanks--Iwazaki 13:44, 20 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)

Categorisation

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)

The fact that only 2 people were identified as those who died during 95/96 means it cannot be categorized as a mass grave. For all we know the others could have been buried in a family grave a hundred years ago or be part of a mass suicide cult. Unless it is definitely identified that they were killed and buried here together, it cannot be categorized as a mass grave. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole argument is whether this is mass garve or not, not that 2 people were of the 548 dissapeared were buried and therest 13 were unidentified. It has nothing to do with whether it is a mass graveor not. From the definition of mass grave is A mass grave is a grave containing multiple unidentified human corpses. There is no strict definition of the minimum number of bodies required to constitute a mass grave. The term is generally used when a significant number of bodies have been buried. A mass grave may hold the bodies of a dozen, hundreds, or even thousands of people. it is from mass grave. It appears that 15 corpses were buried in the same place not even the government dosent argue it. Who cares whether it has 2 people who went missing. It is simply a grave of more than 1 person. So it is a mass grave. No conotations made about it RaveenS 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So raveen, 2 is mass ??? If there are two people ,you call them , mass number of people ??!"!!! see below how UN sees this.

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)

Good you have a nice citation. Can you get me the link please ? anyway I think the question is not 2 were identified and the rest were not identified. Not identified does not mean anything they could or could have been part of the 548 but that is besides the point. This is simply a mass grave because 15 bodies were found and probably like Snowolfd4 says the rest(i.e 13) may have been killed by the LTTE and buried there but not bury themselves in a suicide pact!!. Hence it is a mass grave of more than 3 people. Further what about the mass graves of Tsunami victims ? 100's were buried across Sri Lanka in mass graves. You mean to say they are not mass graves? That's why the mass grave article does not assume that mass grave means something negative like the UN. Wikipedia definition is broader. It classfies it as a burial custom. RaveenS 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

raveen,did you care to read what i have wrote above??..you seemed to confused cemetery to mass grave..mass grave is not a cemetery and vice versa..tsunami victims are not in a mass grave..They are buried in a grave/cemetery just like every other dead SriLankans..If the definition for a mass grave is arbitrary ,which means its questionable,esp in these case where only 2 bodies had any signs of assaults..Even the UN who are ,amazingly willing to call,3 is mass, do not call 2 is mass..And yes heres the link.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes I did and by that defintition too this is a mass grave because read what the article says In December, a government team of investigators reported that 10 of the remains, including one skeleton that was bound and blindfolded, showed evidence of assault and murder. The cause of death was not determined for the remaining bodies.. It shows 10 bodies showed evidence of assault and murderRaveenS 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Raveen, could you please scroll up and read I have been saying..I have already answered all your questions..Also, apart from the definitions we need bit of common sense here..I wonder why no one in the world

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)

You are struck with 2 identified but I am saying 15 were buried with shows torture and myurder. So even by youir definition (that does not say the 3 have to be identified people) is a mass grave. I am going to put it for Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Thanks RaveenS 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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)

I knew what I was quoting..If I merely go with the thing, there is no clear definition for mass grave ,then the whole thing will become arbitrary and disputed..If there is no clear definition, then we have to use our common sense here..Its all about numbers and the cause of death..Since only 2 of them were identified as the disappeared, common sense would say(since no clear definition for Mass graves)this is not a mass grave..Even if we go by the dictionary meaning of mass , two is not considered a mass..Mass is simply large number of people !! furthermore, this article is written in way that gives the impression the ARMY did all these massacres..This could well be false..LTTE ruled Jaffna till 1995 and these murdered people could well be their victims!! couple with the fact,allegations it self were made to take away the attention from the rapists, we can safely conclude this is not a mass grave..I will revert raveens last edits, since it does not make any sense at all!! if anything, 60,000 people died in the war and how can we say these bodies could belong to anyone!!--Iwazaki 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's all about the numbers and the cause of death. Do you contest that there were more than two bodies in this grave? Do you contend that only two of those bodies showed any signs of physical abuse?

10 of the remains, including a skeleton that was bound and blindfolded, showed signs of physical assault that led to their deaths.

If a serial killer were to kill victims one by one, over the course of several years, and deposit their bodies in a single location, that single location would rightly be defined as a mass grave. Likewise, a grave containing 15 bodies, at least ten of which showed signs of physical abuse that led to that death, could be considered a mass grave. You can rewrite the article to help shed doubt on the perpetrators of the killing, but it is disingenuous to suggest that a grave containing the abused bodies of at least 10 people is not in any way a mass grave.

Anyway, I've provided my opinion. If you don't want to accept it, well, there's always a more formal mediation process. Good luck. Snuppy 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All things considered, the fact is since just two of the bodies have been conclusively identified, no one has been able to provide proof that the bodies were buried here at the same time or by the same person/s. That fundamentally eliminates the ability to identify this as a mass grave. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't generally dig up an old grave and re-insert new bodies as they are "created". Serial killers, for instance, usually bury their victims (if they bury them at all) in different locations, even if at the same general site. The example of Robert Pickton, a Canadian serial killer currently on trial, is a perfect example of this--the bodies were buried all over the property. The only logical reason to bury a bunch of people in one place is generally because you have a bunch of bodies at the same time. Add to that the argument that even if the killings occurred separately, and were, for some reason, buried in the same place, there is no real reason not for calling that a mass grave either; one grave, a mass of bodies, and those people were killed in a way which was not through act of legal war or whatnot. Further, to argue that there is a chance that the bodies were buried by "different people" (you'd need different factions, as workers of a single faction would be a single "person" for all intents and purposes) is rather stretching the limit of the imagination--are you suggesting that individual non-politically motivated murderers have each accidentally stumbled across the same place in a quest to find a place to hide a body and each miraculously dug up the same spot and each buried their body in that same location? You, my friend, cannot be serious. Anyway, to go even further, graves set up by recovery/cleanup crews of victims of major disasters (such as the tsunami), which are quickly dug and filled are regularly referred to as mass graves even though they have no connection to extra-judicial killings--they are simply graves which are mass. And finally, if there are other reputable sources who consider the graves to be mass graves, who are we, editors of Wikipedia and supposed documenters of fact, to argue against that? To sum it up, there is no compelling reason to deny that the graves are mass graves. Lexicon (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So the article it fits the general categorization of a mass grave per above conclusion by two neutral editorsTaprobanus 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Mass grave? Where's the proof

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)

Pardon, but the UN has no definition, and the statement made by a UN official quoted above says nothing about "at the same time":

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.

In addition, while only two bodies were identified, TEN were shown to have been killed in a way that was, well, not natural causes. Ten murdered people, in a single grave, would HAVE to be a mass grave. This was, of course, argued above, and you said nothing in response to that argument. What is your response? Lexicon (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I already did answer your argument. But again you say "would HAVE to be a mass grave". Your assumptions. Like I said, there could be a number of ways they all ended up at that site in Chemmani. Regardless of whether they are plausible or not, you cannot eliminate the possible coincidence that the bodies ended up there at different times in history, unless conclusively proven otherwise. Right now, all we know is two of the bodies buried there were of those who disappeared from Jaffna and were probably buried together. Until there is conclusive proof how the remaining bodies ended up there, you cannot arbitrarily assume that this is a mass grave. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:28, 14 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.

1. There is no agreed-upon legal definition of mass graves. In the absence of such a definition, the only use of the term "mass grave" is then the common sense one, which is of course, "a grave containing a mass of bodies".
2. The one attempt at definition by a person in a position of "authority" presented so far does not make any reference to the need for the bodies to have been buried at the same time, which appears to be the first prong in your argument against the existence of a mass grave at Chemmani.
3. The identification of the individuals whose bodies are found in a grave containing several individuals has never been introduced as a necessary step in the identification of a grave as being a mass grave except by you. This is the second prong in your argument against the grave at Chemmani being a mass grave, and this is again an argument based on nothing but your own exclamation of necessity. It does not follow the common sense definition of what a mass grave is, and should not be considered to be of importance.
4. Even the identification of the bodies in a grave as having to have been those of individuals subject to extra-judicial killings or similar fates is not, in the common sense definition of the term "mass grave", a necessity. It has been argued above that any mass of bodies in a single grave that are of individuals killed at the hands of other human beings, aside from act of legal war, constitute a mass grave. As there is evidence that:

   a) at least ten individuals in this grave were killed at the hands of another;

   b) two of those individuals were identified so as to even fit the extra-judicial possibility (only one short of the "three or more" number quoted by the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions as required for his (not the UN's) definition of a mass grave), and;

   c) there is no evidence that the remaining eight individuals (not to mention the other individuals in the grave whose cause of death is currently unknown) were killed as a result of legal war and were hastily buried en-mass in order to prevent the problems associated with masses of decomposing bodies,

   it then seems obvious, by the common sense definition, that a mass grave exists at Chemmani.

5. Finally, there is a very good argument to be made that any site where a mass of bodies is buried, no matter what the reason for the burial, can be called a mass grave (the mass grave article on Wikipedia certainly uses this definition). Hastily dug and filled graves for tsunami victims, for instance, have been called "mass graves":

The Independent (London): [26], [27]

CNN: [28], [29]

The Hindu: [30]

UNICEF: [31]

FOX: [32]

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Lexicon (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one by one then,

1. Given the fact that the most commonly cited definition of "mass grave" is that of the UN special rapporteur, we should stick to that, or other similarly respected definitions, instead of trying to introduce a definition from the exact term 'mass graves", which would not be a good precedent (imagine how many incidents would then fall under "Category:September 11, 2001 attacks". All "attacks taking place on September the 11th"?).
2. It follows from common sense that if three bodies are buried at the same location 100 years apart by completely different people, the location would not be called a "mass grave". If you dispute that, since you seem to be very willing to provide so many references, I'll like you to find a few articles which call a site where bodies were buried at different times by different people a "mass grave". And please DO NOT say that there is no proof the bodies at Chemmani were buried at different times / by different people, because there is no proof that they were either.
3. The identification of individuals would be necessary to identify when they were buried at the given location. While the exact names etc. of the dead need not be found, it would have to be obvious that it has to be shown that some of the bodies are not that of ancient humans who lived at the location 2000 years prior.
4. no argument with the first part, but

a) When? and by how many "others"?

b) UN definition? where? And like I said, we should stick to the commonly accepted definition (which is of the special rapporteur), which like you said, leaves this grave one short

c) there is no evidence that they weren't killed by little green men or, for that matter, that Russel's teapot doesn't exist either

5. Q: What's common with all the articles you cite?

A: It can be conclusively proven that all the bodies were buried at the same time (ie following the disaster) by roughly the same people (aid workers).

Non of those criteria apply here--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And a response back:

1. "September 11, 2001 attacks" has an understood meaning (that is, it's based on one of those assumptions you say we can't make here). "Mass graves" does not. As for the rapporteur's definition being the "most commonly cited", it appears to be the only one, aside from the common sense definition, cited here at all, and has only been brought up that one time and is now being commented on. I'm sure we could find others, but even if we could, as there is no "official" definition, we have to go by common sense. Common sense says this is a mass grave and the the US Department of State says it is a mass grave, it appears, to me, to be a mass grave.
2. Indeed, it does follow that three persons buried 100 years apart is not a mass grave. But there seems to be no indication here that bodies are "old". That is, it appears, from everything that seems to be said on the subject, that the bodies are of "modern vintage", and even if they were not buried at the same time (although it appears that at least two were, all we'd need is a third, and bam, you'd have no leg to stand on whatsoever), it is almost inconceivable that TEN BODIES, all of which were killed by human hands, two of which are identified, were buried in this same location over hundreds of years. I'm not sure there's really any argument out there besides yours that these bodies are all recent. The only argument, then, is whether the bodies were placed y unrelated individuals, and that is highly unlikely.
3. The identification is, as far as I know, stalled on who the individuals are, not on whether they are perhaps "ancient humans" as you suggest. It is rather unlikely (this is the understatement of the century) that a bunch of bodies of people killed at the hands of others coincidentally show up in the same place. This is generally not how burial works. Your argument goes against common sense and seeks to enforce some sort of "until it's absolutely certain, we have to pretend it's not true" argument.

4. a) I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be any argument out there that the bodies are not "recent", as you are suggesting. The bodies are located in an isolated area near a government checkpoint, and so the likelihood of "accidental" burial in the same location, which is astronomically small in a regular case, seems to be just about conclusively ruled out by common sense in this case. Maybe you haven't yet figured this out, but I like common sense.

   b) What I meant was his definition is not an official definition of the UN, and so even if we consider it persuasive, we cannot assign it to the UN and give it some sort of status as "international law" and feel bound to follow it.

   c) I'm sorry, you seem to be misunderstanding my meaning. It appears to have been ruled out by the situation that the bodies are a result of legal war or other similar event. While many like to argue that it is impossible to prove a negative, this is, of course, not true at all.

5. Indeed, it can. However, if you are accepting the UN rapporteur's definition as persuasive, this argument doesn't seem to matter.

Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, been a bit busy, so here's the reply

1. I was simply giving you giving you an example of such a situation. There are loads of other definitions that aren't exactly as the category name implies. And by "most commonly cited", I meant on the internet, not here. In my opinion anyway, after a simple google search.

And one thing needs to be very clearly understood, although I'd assume it would go pretty much without saying, that the UN rapporteur's definition is one that describes mass graves that "could" have been present if the soldier's testimony was right, and does not encompass one's that are say dug to bury disaster victims.

But we shouldn't have to worry about such graves, cos that clearly is not the case here.

2. AGAIN, you say stuff like "there seems to be no indication here that bodies are "old".", " whether the bodies were placed y unrelated individuals, and that is highly unlikely". Where did you get these assumption from? This is Wikipedia, not your personal blog. Your (or my for that matter) assumptions don't count for anything.

3. Again, as per above, do you have psychic powers to say "The identification is, as far as I know..."? As for the rest, I think you really need to go through Wikipiedia policy again. Until it's conclusively proven to be a mass grave, we cannot label it as such, although it doesn't have to be a mass grave to have an article about it.

4. (a)"an isolated area near a government checkpoint". Are you sure? And how long was there a gov, checkpoint there? Was it there in 1893?

(b)Do you suggest we instead go by your "a grave containing a mass of bodies" definition instead?

(c)In that case, I'll like you to go ahead and prove it, or find some proof to back up your claim.

5. Already explained this is the first bit. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"At his sentencing in the Kumaraswamy case, one of those convicted, former Lance Corporal Somaratne Rajapakse, claimed that he had knowledge of mass graves at Chemmani in Jaffna where the bodies of up to 400 persons killed by security forces in 1996 had been buried. On July 22, 1998, the Ministry of Defense (MOD) issued a statement indicating that the police criminal investigation department had been directed to examine the allegation. In August 1998, the MOD stated that a forensic expert, a government analyst, and police detectives would visit the site. The HRC also was involved in investigating the claim and asked for United Nations forensic assistance. The Government was slow to move on the case; however, due to international pressure the process again was put in motion early in the year. On January 7, the Attorney General filed a request in the Jaffna magistrate's court to order exhumations of the Chemmani site. In March a team of Government investigators visited the site and collected preliminary soil samples. On June 16, Rajapakse identified one site; excavations witnessed by international observers yielded the skeletal remains of two persons. The two victims were provisionally identified as two young men who had disappeared in 1996 (see Section 1.b.). In August and September, 5 persons convicted in the Kumaraswamy case identified a total of 16 sites where they said they had buried between 120 and 140 bodies on the orders of their superiors. Exhumations, again observed by international experts, resumed on August 30. During this phase of exhumations, an additional 13 bodies were uncovered. On December 6, the Government submitted its forensic report to a magistrate in Jaffna; the report stated that 10 of the remains, including one skeleton that was bound and blindfolded, showed signs of physical assault and murder. The cause of death was not determined for the remaining bodies; however, the report stated that physical assault and murder could not be ruled out. By year's end, 13 of the bodies had not been identified." This is direct quote from the US gov site. Says 13 bodies were found. I don't think much is needed to proof that this is a mass grave. Remember that a Corporal himslef admitted to this and the bodies have been recovered (though not 400...) Watchdogb 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussions above. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You have allready made up your mind that anything said by anyone is false. There is no ground for discussion with that type of mentality. Yes, I have read the discussion above. Still have no proof against the fact its not a mass grave. Watchdogb 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, but, where is the proof that this a definite a mas grave ?? Except for some weak arguments, none of the definitions fits here. Remember, burden of proof is always on the side of positive claimants. If positive claimants can't prove it then its their business.. If they can bring clear arguments for their sides, then I am most certainly willing to accept it.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We dont have to make any claims here, this is a documentation project not a truth telling project. We say what others say as long as it comes from a reputable source. Period. Dont invent stories that is called a hoax. All citation say that it is a mass grave. Two editors to be precise want not to call it. Then the best thing to do is to take it to mediation. Watchdog, please can you take it to mediation. Thanks Taprobanus 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think the name should be changed to mass grave and not alligation. Watchdogb 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock pupptery accusation

Based on this edit and this edit, the Cat is appropriate and restored.Lustead 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits fully justified having that cat.This is a disputed event, and there is an ongoing debate over it, so why don't you first sit-back and read what both sides has to sayin instead of pushing your POV, which seems to be your only interest here..I am rather surprised with the fact that a new user like you, who has done absolutely no editing other than RV some stuff(mainly here), asked an Admin to intervene here. And you amazingly know how to post at administrators notice board too !! haven't seen much of that from new-users !! Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that he is somebodies sock puppet, then make the case like I am going to about Ramkupta or just deal with it. Thanks Taprobanus 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While sockpuppets are actually allowed so long as they're not used for vote-stacking, getting around 3RR violations, etc., they really shouldn't be. Clearly somebody (perhaps more than one person) is using sockpuppets. It really would be nice if he, she, or they (whoever they are) would stop. This is especially important if any of them are members of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Lexicon (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed whole heartedly..I hope Mr Wikramditya is reading this too.And of course Mr Lustead, who seems to know a way too many for a New user. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But this guy is violating WP:MEAT. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, and relating me with Mr Wikramditya and others only shows total ignorance. There is nothing to discuss here to derive at square one again and again. If those who are involving the issues related to Sri Lanka Conflict, take upper hand that they are not obliged to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, then seeing me a total stranger as a WP:MEAT, won't help making a balanced encyclopedia. Lustead 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Make the accusations very clear USER:Iwazaki has publicly accused me of being USER:Wikramadithya without any evidence. I will take him upto ANI for this when I am done my reaserch of all his attacks aginst me including stalking. Now he is accusing User:Lustead as USER:Wikramadithya, indirectly saying that User:Lustead is me. But that is all evidence for me when I go to Arbcomm. But is User:Lahiru also saying that user Lunstead is a meat puppet of me ? Be claer of your accusatiosn because you guys have to live by your words. Thanks Taprobanus 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we all know(including Citermon) who will be in trouble if any case is filed regarding this matter. And I will appreciate it a lot, if you work on your reading comprehension skills as you clearly have problem in fathoming what others say. By giving totally unnecessary replies, you are actually adding weight to whatever curiosity other users may have(if they really have). And please don't make me laugh,AGAIN, with your hilarious stalking accusations.Stories are for the kids not for adult Wikipedians. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have doubts take to admins rather than to WP:ATTACK long established editors like myself and totally uninvolved guy like User:Wikramadithya, just because you disagree with him/her too. You have been warned in your talk page by an admin not to do it so you are a repeat offender now by attacking me as somebody else. About WP:STALK, you have left a trail behind me including talk page messages with another editor as soon as I finnished editing Ilayathambi Tharsini suggesting an AFD.

Well Taprobanus if you hop into this diff you can clearly understand to whome I was answering and what I meant by. Any doubt further? ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear, you said User:Lustead is meat of some one, Iwazaki says Lustead is a sock of some one. Then he says hope Wikramadithya is reading this just after accusing that I am him. So I was being polite in asking you as to what do you mean. Of all people you should understand the implications of false accusations. Are you accusing Lustead of being a meat of somebody ? then who is that somebody ?Are agreeing with the indirect statement made Iwazaki that Lustead is is me ? Because in wikipedia we dont accuse people unless we have some evidence. I am accusing Iwazaki of attacking me because he left a trail of evidence, that's all. Thansk for the understanding Taprobanus 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am not clear, you said User:Lustead is meat of some one - Yes
• So I was being polite in asking you as to what do you mean. - Sure, Lexicon told sockpuppets are actually allowed so long as they're not used for vote-stacking, getting around 3RR violations, etc. I just wanted to add WP:MEAT to that list.
• Of all people you should understand the implications of false accusations. - Then Lexicon too
• Are you accusing Lustead of being a meat of somebody ? - Ummm yeah me and Lexicon.
• then who is that somebody ? - Thats what I even looking for.
• Are agreeing with the indirect statement made Iwazaki that Lustead is is me ? - Since there's no any evidence, No
• Because in wikipedia we dont accuse people unless we have some evidence. - Of course
• I am accusing Iwazaki of attacking me because he left a trail of evidence, that's all. Thansk for the understanding - Welcome. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)