Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Sri Lankan Civil War

Mediator comment

OK. In light of Realstarslayer's lack of activity and the amount of time that has already accrued since this request for mediation was made, I suggest we get started. As a few starting points:

1. I understand that this is issue is controversial and invokes strong feelings, but please try to be civil and show respect for other's points of view
2. I you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential

I have read all the previous discussions that were flagged up on the page. WjBscribe 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening statements

I think it would be helpful to start by letting everyone have a chance to make clear their stance on Image:Aranthalawa Massacare 1.jpg. I am going to create a section for each participant below. Please state your opinion on:

1. Do you think the image should be included in the article at all?
2. Should the image displayed on the page, or should it be linked to (the compromise suggested by Khoikhoi)
3. Any prefered text you have for the caption if the image is included (or linked to)
4. Your reasons for those answers

I would suggest you try to express youself as briefly and clearly as possible. This should provide a foundation on which to build further discussion. WjBscribe 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Krankman

1. Definitely not.
2. Neither displayed nor linked to.
3. "Bodies of young Buddhist monks killed by the LTTE in Aranthalawa in 1987"
4. • The picture is too graphic for an online encyclopedia where everyone--including children and faint-hearted people--comes to look for information.
   • It is unneccessary to illustrate a text dealing with massacres with photos.
   • The inclusion of the picture is demanded by the respective users not for encyclopedic reasons but to cause bad blood against the Tamil rebels.
   • Anyone can google "ltte massacre photo" (or something similar) and find hundreds of pictures like the one concerned.

snowolfD4

1. I added the picture in the first place, so yup.
2. Like I've said a number of times before, Wikipedia is not censored. Linking to the image would amount to blatant censorship and the idea was unanimously rejected by the community (a proposal to display disputed images only on request was also rejected).
3. The way it is would be alright, but maybe modified a little per WP:CAPTION to provide some context.
4. There have basically been 2 arguments on why it shouldn't be included

(i). "That the image is too graphic"

This argument goes against one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, that, no matter what guidelines other encyclopedias / websites etc. follow, Wikipedia is not censored.

(ii). "That the image has nothing to do with the article"

One of the highlights of the conflict (i.e. the topic of the article) has been the numerous massacres of civilians carried out by the LTTE. Therefore an image is required to portray these massacres. Out of all of them, probably the most notorious is the Aranthalawa massacre. Almost 20 years after it occurred, the BBC did a follow up on the event introducing it as "one of the most devastating atrocities ... committed during the history of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka"[1], and it is frequently mentioned in contemporary news reports. This image would do best to depict to readers of the article the true brutality of massacre. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The freddinator

1. If an alternative image is not available I am OK with the inclusion of this picture but only as a linked image. I understand that the image is, as snowolf said, one of the more recognizable pictures from the war, but I also think that the image should not be included based on its ability to produce bias because of its graphic nature.
2. As stated before, unless an acceptable alternative can be found, I think the image should be linked to
3. None.

The freddinator 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sharz

1. No
2. No
3. Caption already adequatly portrays picture
4. Picture is entirely irrelevant in the article, and hence, should be removed.

Voidvector

1. No, I don't think the image is needed in any of the current three articles (List of terrorist incidents, Sri Lankan Civil War, List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE), linked or otherwise.
2. Linked.
3. No opinion.
4. Reasons:
   1. I feel the image is too graphic for encyclopedia. None of the article is about the Aranthalawa massacare. Even if a future article is composed on the Aranthalawa massacare, a less graphic image is available for it. (That image is pretty graphic as well, but acceptable to me as thumbnail)
   2. Given the binary choice of "linked" vs "displayed", I highly prefer "linked" because the image is too graphic for an encyclopedia.
   3. I am not an expert on this topic.

--Voidvector 23:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ĽąĦĩŘǔ

1. Of course why not
2. Should be linked, see point 3
3. I have create a brand new template for this issue. ({{Imgwarn}}) Further info is available here. If the final consensus decides not to use this template, I recommend to attach this image with a caption like Warning! Highly sensitive image.
4. 1. LTTE is one of the most barbaric terror groups in this world and these pictures contain their barbaric acts. All these pics are related to the subject of the section and not simply put up in the article for propagandistic purposes. So since there is a cause to have this(these) image(s) on the article, why we should remove those while having an alternative options on our hand?
   2. If these two[2][3] photographs won the Pulitzer prizes and still being used in numorus articles without hiding the thumbnail, why can't we use these pics in the articles by hiding the thumbnail?

--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb

1. No

2. Possibly linked

3. Text can remain the same

Reason : Its a very gory image. People reading this article may not necessarily want to see this image. If we can have a link (as suggested) then they have a choice to view the picture or not. If they do not wish to see it then they will not be show the picture. Best compromise...

Watchdogb 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus

1. No
2. Neither displayed nor linked.
3. "Bodies of young Buddhist monks killed by the LTTE in Aranthalawa in 1987"
4. • The picture is very graphic in nature for an online encyclopedia where as pointed out young children and faint-hearted people come to look for information and it does not add any encylopedic value to the article.
   • It is unneccessary to illustrate a text dealing with massacres with photos. The number of massacres in Sri Lanka by the government soldiers and the LTTE is too many and each has graphic pictures galore. Do we want to inundate Wikipedia with all these pictures or links to them ? definitely not.
   • Part of the reason that people want graphic pictures to be included in texts is to keep it as a memorial for each others atrocities and to keep pepetuating such atrocitioes by generations to come as was the case in Bosnia. It is also make wikipedia a propaganda tool of one side or the other instead of a place of neutral information. Sri Lanka civil war article will become a competing arena of whose picture is more gory!!!
   • As pointed out anyone can google "ltte massacre photo" or ltte atrocities and find hundreds of pictures like the one concerned to their hearts liking. Taprobanus 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki

• 1 yes
• 2 yes
• 3 the way it is.
• 4 This is the most significant event in the civil war. And readers have to be told about this. And the best way to do it,is to have this picture.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thusiyan

• 1 No, not at all
• 2 I don't object to a link of the image being placed.
• 3 Well no caption, since I don't feel it should be here
• 4 Honestly, it really is to gory to be up here. Wikipedia is used in schools and such, and that image isn't suitable. It isn't censorship if a link to the image is provided, because it isn't as if the image is being banned completely. Just shilded from innocent eyes. I wouldn't quite agree with this being the most significant event of the war. Also, as previously mentioned, this is the exact parallel and opposite of the photos of the 2006 Mannar massacres, because that image is an extremely iconic one also. Thusiyan 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jabin1979

• 1 No
• 2 Don't object to an image.
• 3 No caption.
• 4 "No censorship" -- this is a horrible argument. Let's just add the text "asfsafadkj" after every sentence. Why not? You can't censor wikipedia!

"completely relevant"  -- pick any event in history and you can convey that important event sans the picture

The editors of the article are so obviously biased it boggles my mind (check out their user pages). There is no need for pictures that will steer people away from knowledge. You know what? No, I think they're right. I'm going to go find a picture for "rimjob", "anal sex", "faces of death videos", and "disembowling". After all, wikipedia isn't censored, and these pictures are quintessentially related to the various topics! Give me a break. Jabin1979 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Status of mediation

I had deliberately held off moving the discuss onwards until the outcome of the deletion discussion on Commons about the image had been concluded - I had not anticipated it being so long. Given that due to licensing the image has now been deleted, is there more to be discussed here or should this mediation be closed? WjBscribe 01:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Close it The freddinator 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Continue: What if someone re-upload it with correct license? Is this the wiki process for mediation, waiting till the topic gets deleted? I'm confused. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Continue: Lahiru's point is correct. Furthermore, as someone who regularly edits conflict-laden Sri Lanka related articles, I'd like to have the result as something like a guideline. Krankman 11:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  As I pointed out to Lahiru the problem is that at best it would only be a guideline as between the parties to the mediation. It could not be binding in any way on new parties that objected/supported the inclusion of this image should it be uploaded in future (or any other image). WjBscribe 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand why WJB was waiting. My suggestion is we should continue the mediation and we should come to a rock solid guideline which can add to the Wikipedia guidelines even :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Continue if the decision will be enforceable in the future. Lots of discussion has taken place regarding this image. Being that this is a hot topic, it might reemerge if a decision is not made. If we can draft some kind of Wiki guideline on handling graphical/obscene/NSFW images, it will be even better. I think I am dreaming on the drafting guideline part. --Voidvector 11:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing case

Three of the parties have expressed a wish to continue with this mediation, three have expressed a wish to discontinue (see also my talkpage archive). Mediation cannot proceed without the agreement of all parties and so I am closing this case. This is without prejudice to a new mediation request should a copy of the photo with acceptable copyright information be uploaded. WjBscribe 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)