Talk:1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

message: It is clear by this definition that mass murder incluses rioting or ethnic pograms . Hence I will restore the cat back. Taprobanus (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not mention rioting at all. No WP:SYNTH. YellowMonkey  (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "Definition does not work" ? why, care to explain Taprobanus (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of a neutral category mass murder

message: I have added a district-by-district breakdown of the rioting. I believe that the incidents that you outline in "Sexual Violence" section should be contained within this, and I have added the incidents in the appropriate district sections. I did cut down on some of the writing just to maintain concision and a more even flow in the text. If I have omitted any incidents or failed to describe them in sufficient detail, you are more than welcome to add them in.  Your statistic on the number of Tamil women raped can be put after the sentence which gives the official count of the dead. Do you agree to this? SinhalaLion (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsuming sexual violence section into the pogrom information? 

message: @Cossde this is not a page on the Sansoni report. this is page on the 1977 pogrom. The extensive background information completely ruins the page and takes away the focus from the actual pogrom. stop editing warring and discuss here. Oz346 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oz346, it is you that have engaged in editing warring, by reverting cited content. Mind I remind you that bulk of the article contain events mentioned in the Sansoni report. My additions have only been to expand it. Cossde (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sansoni report is not a scholarly reliable secondary source to be basing this entire article on. It's a qualified source if anything to use with attribution as it has been done for the actual events of the pogrom. You have violated undue weight policies with your edits. Oz346 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oz346, you can't have it both ways. Either you use it to cover the events leading to and the riots. Or non at all. Cossde (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is an article on the pogrom. Not Tamil separatism. This whole section you have added "Events leading up to Augest 1977" is completely undue weight in this article. The existing background was sufficient. You have completely ruined the flow and succinctness of the article by bloating it with these details which already have dedicated pages. Oz346 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: According to you is it? Cossde (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have opened this up on Wikipedia:Third opinion, regarding these two possible versions  and  Oz346 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: This is not supposed to be a page with extensive details on Tamil separatism. That has already been briefly touched on and summarised succinctly in the existing background. This is a page on the 1977 pogrom. You have flooded and ruined the page with excessive background details. Use of the Sansoni report for the details on the actual events of the 1977 pogrom have great relevance. Oz346 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oz346, Sansoni report details the actual events leading to the event as well. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That has been summarised already in the previous background section. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oz346, I disagree. It had left out key facts. Cossde (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Having extensive details on Tamil separatism and the Vaddukoddai Resolution, Tamil election history etc is definitely undue weight for a page which is focused on the pogrom of 77. I see you are continuing to revert war as you usually do. I will wait for the third opinion to bring this to a close. Oz346 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree, the Sansoni report cited heavily here clearly states that the events leading up to the riots in August. These need to be stated to give context to the events in August 1977. I feel its your intention to only portray the events of August 1977. Cossde (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The events of Tamils voting for separatism are already mentioned in the original shorter background section. That is suffice. So your claim that the events of August 1977 are only mentioned is nonsense. Besides, Sansoni Report is not a scholarly reliable secondary source for deciding what the actual triggers of the pogrom were. His conclusions have been heavily criticised by actual reliable sources like UTHR as biased and politically motivated, and to whitewash and fit the narrative of the government. In summary, the Tamil separatist election history and Vaddukoddai resolution did not directly trigger the pogrom. It was the police violence which directly triggered it (as the RS indicate.) There was no pogrom straight after the election, which supports this. There was a significant delay. Other factors were more responsible, such as the actual violence by the police in August. Oz346 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "Sansoni Report is not a scholarly reliable secondary source" then why cite it extensively in the events of August 1977. Furthermore, scholarly sources presented here seem to contradict on the reasons for the start of the riots. Cossde (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the contradictions of the scholarly sources you claim? The Sansoni Report was first extensively cited by a Sinhala editor, SinhalaLion. It was used in a limited fashion for the actual events of the pogrom by him, and with explicit attribution. Not cited for any biased analysis. He is a more careful editor, and he probably saw the nonsense that Sansoni was claiming. Oz346 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "There were different beliefs on how the riots started. Some believe they started when there was a dispute that began when four policemen entered a carnival without tickets." "Others have the view that the carnival incident was a pretext, inquiries revealing that it was conducted in an organized manner and was hence a pre-planned attack." Cossde (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those possible reasons provide justification for such an extensive section on Tamil separatism and political history. It is already briefly touched on in the background section. Which is what a background section should be, a short summary. Your desired version completely submerges the actual topic, the pogrom and the immediate events preceding it. It reads more like a page on Tamil separatism than the actual pogrom for the initial reams of text. undue weight for sure. Oz346 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so do you want to only talk about the pogrom here? Cossde (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should focus on the pogrom. There is already summarised mentions of appropriate background details. Oz346 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand. I really don't. What do you mean focus on the pogrom?Cossde (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

text: That's a pity, as I think an additional opinion outside of the current editors would likely have solved this impasse quickly. Is there any possibility of updating this strict policy of only having 2 editors involved in order to get an additional opinion. As just a "third opinion", rather than the possibility of a "fourth opinion" seems quite arbitrary. Perhaps it could be renamed "additional opinion"? Oz346 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, DRN is your best path forward in this case. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom_discussion has been raised. Cossde (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: @VQuakr Hey, I wasn't actually involved in this specific discussion but only reverted the disruptive additions without reaching a resolution. --- Petextrodon (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on background section

message: I have declined a request for a third opinion because there are three editors involved in the recent history. Please consider using the dispute resolution noticeboard for mediation. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pity, as I think an additional opinion outside of the current editors would likely have solved this impasse quickly. Is there any possibility of updating this strict policy of only having 2 editors involved in order to get an additional opinion. As just a "third opinion", rather than the possibility of a "fourth opinion" seems quite arbitrary. Perhaps it could be renamed "additional opinion"? Oz346 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, DRN is your best path forward in this case. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom_discussion has been raised. Cossde (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: @VQuakr Hey, I wasn't actually involved in this specific discussion but only reverted the disruptive additions without reaching a resolution. --- Petextrodon (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:3O 

message: The last paragraph on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry currently reads:
One editor wants the last paragraph to be changed to the following, as he believes both the Kearney and Manogaran sources have "accepted" the reasons attributed by Sansoni for the riots, whereas other editors believe that those sources are merely summarising Sansoni's reasons, and are not personal approvals. Do you agree with the proposed change below?
Oz346 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be worse, because it would open up an infinity of possibilities, and be another discussion, and not an Rfc. Carry on, I guess, but it's too convoluted for me; hopefully others will disagree and participate. Mathglot (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: Report on 1977 anti-Tamil riots

message: NO - There is no need to have two secondary sources (Kearney and Manogaran) summarising the same thing in different words. Both offer a summary of the reasons attributed by Sansoni for the riots, and are neither positive or negative reviews. It is needless repetition. Likewise, Manogaran's personal opinion of the cause of the riots (the rumour of policemen being attacked) and its aftermath (the increased support for Tamil separatism) is not directly relevant to the Presidential Commission of Inquiry, so it should not be under this section. Oz346 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This is the last step in an ongoing dispute process, where one editor is adamant that the second option replace the current one. No compromise was possible in the failed dispute resolution noticeboard. A simple yes, no or other option would be the simplest solution in resolving this dispute. Do you think adding 'other' to the question's possible answer be sufficient to avoid the binary options? Oz346 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be worse, because it would open up an infinity of possibilities, and be another discussion, and not an Rfc. Carry on, I guess, but it's too convoluted for me; hopefully others will disagree and participate. Mathglot (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion