Talk:1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

Removal of a neutral category mass murder

It is clear by this definition that mass murder incluses rioting or ethnic pograms [1]. Hence I will restore the cat back. Taprobanus (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

"Definition does not work" ? why, care to explain Taprobanus (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, mass murder and massacres are the same, as is obvious. However, nothing there says that all riots are mass murders or massacres. Where is the source that says this incident is such and such. V and SYNTH are the policies. You need a source. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom → 1977 Sri Lankan riots
• 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom → 1958 Ceylonese riots

– As per Wikipedia naming conventions, it is neutral and NPOV and stays in line with the rest of wikipedia (1929 Palestine riots, 1947 Jerusalem riots, 2005 Cronulla riots, 2006 Brussels riots, 2011 England riots). The current articles have been hijacked by editor(s) sympathetic to the nationalist cause and so have taken a highly POV and skewed tone. The term pogrom is highly problematic as it is a term used against jews and their persecution, which does not apply here but has been used for effect. These riots were political riots in response to the political situation of the island at the time, not an organised attempt to ethnically cleanse. People on both sides died and were led by political groups on both side. Ultimately the proposed changes are less controversial, neutral and to the point. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Blackknight12 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Renaming of both these articles had been extensively discussed here leaving no page unturned. Its just the initiator of this move continues to ignore and disregard community inputs, and each time hits on a fresh nomination to frustrate the whole point of consensus building. His arguments make little or no sense except his repeated showcasing of his blunt understanding of Wikipedia's NPOV which is as follows:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.

There are eight and six reliable sources for both articles respectively, that classify these events as Anti-Tamil pogroms. The magnitude of deaths and destruction endured by the Tamils has led to the predominant stance of Anti-Tamil across these sources. So all these claims such as "These riots were political riots in response to the political situation of the island at the time, not an organised attempt to ethnically cleanse. People on both sides died and were led by political groups on both side. Ultimately the proposed changes are less controversial, neutral and to the point." constitute WP:OR and persistent POV pushing, nor has the editor has been able to answer a single point raised in the discussion here. --CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subsuming sexual violence section into the pogrom information?

@Oz346: 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)

It's fine as it is, the more detailed accounts should be kept in. There is a need for both. Your paraphrased district by district summaries, and more detailed personalised accounts in this section. Having these more detailed accounts in the district by district section would just bloat it. Whereas removing these detailed accounts would detract from the article. Oz346 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

dead link?

@Cossde:, how can you say its a dead link?

https://lankafreelibrary.com/2019/10/15/sansoni-commission-1980/

And cherry picking? why were not the prior events of violence added in the summary? @SinhalaLion: has recently changed this page using this source, and you had no issues with it. Why are you selectively removing the mentions of violence against Tamils? Oz346 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I take that back. I had an issue accessing the link, its not a deadlink.Cossde (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Since I can now access the report, can you please tell where the report states these:

1. It began with police violence against Tamils in Jaffna, followed by Tamil violence against Sinhalese in the city. .

2. also attacked in Tamil majority areas

3. On 15 August, a mob of about 100 people were reported to be causing damage to lights and signs near the Jaffna Bus stand.

4. This false rumour was one of many created to stir up anger amongst the Sinhalese.

5. Several Tamil civilians including S. Vartharajah, T. Suriyakumaran, S. Kailasapillai, S. Gopalakrishnan and K. Edirimanasingham accused the police of shooting them on the morning of the 16th as they were walking to work. All received bullets in their bodies, with Vartharajah having his right leg amputated as a result.

6. On the morning of the 16th at 5am, MP V. Yogeswaran stated that a number of people came to his house to inform him that 10 policemen in Khakis had set fire to shops in the Old Market at 1.40 AM.

Cossde (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I will like to state that the Sansoni commission report has been noted to be biased against Tamils by other sources like UTHR and T.Sabaratnam (who has been cited by other reliable sources as a respected journalist):

https://www.sundaytimes.lk/080224/Columns/focus.html

https://www.uthr.org/Book/CHA02.htm#_Toc527947390

https://sangam.org/pirapaharan-vol-1-chap-18-tamils-lose-faith-in-commissions/

I will be adding these criticisms to the report in this article in due time.

1. read no. 2-3 and the UTHR account on the violence.

2. All the attacks on Sinhalese were in Tamil majority areas, as the report shows. Rather than just writing "areas in the northern province and eastern province", just saying "Tamil majority areas" is more concise. The intro text added by SinhalaLion was too long winded. Are you questioning whether the attacks in places like Jaffna, Kilinochchi and Batticaloa were actually Tamil majority areas? Because it is an established fact and is supported by the census data.

3. read from no. 15

4. read from no.101 and the UTHR account.

5. see no.45

6. see no.20 Oz346 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346 why did you cite the Sansoni commission report in the first place? You are not making sense? Cossde (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The report was first cited extensively by SinhalaLion, which he prefaced with explicit attribution at the outset, so I have no problem with its presence. However, it does not tell the whole story and Sansoni's conclusions/opinions/inferences are often very biased and wrong. However, the basic events he recounts (although he does not recount all of them, hence the need for other sources to supplement) are generally accurate. Oz346 (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I still can't understand what source you are citing since, you seem to be heavily paraphrasing content with editorial bias. Cossde (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

without even reading the source you claimed with no evidence that I was cherry picking, which shows you were making false accusations just to justify your removal of mentions of crime against Tamils by the security forces, which has been a constant feature of your editing history. Both sansoni and uthr says that the police first attacked and threatened the locals, before a full clash occured. Oz346 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

uthr and other more objective sources than the biased Sansoni report clearly point to the police being responsible for damaging Tamil people's market and properties. Oz346 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: paraphrasing, wikipedia has rules against plagiarism. Many of your edits would violate this rule, as you do not sufficiently paraphrase and copy whole phrases of 5 words or more. Helping yourself to food you should have paid for is STEALING. I don't know what is controversial about that. Now you have just ripped word for word from the source. Oz346 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, your editing here has been clearly biased and NPOV, its clear that you have been cherry-picking content and wording it in a way that's clearly not NPOV. Given the sensitive nature of the content here its better to quote it word to word than defer to your NPOV editing which is clearly anti-govermnent. For example why has UTHR has stated that the policemen were helping them selves to the food. In the 1970s this was a common practice among policemen not just in Sri Lanka, but world over. It was not called stealing, its Police corruption, in fact this was common in the NYPD. Your rewording of the lead appears that general police violance triggered the rioting, where as both Sansoni and UTHR mentioned that this as an incident which is cleary NPOV. Cossde (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You throw a lot of accusations with no evidence. You accused me of cherry picking a source, when you did not even read the source to begin with! That shows the baseless nature of your accusations.

Regarding the police taking the food without the consent of the sellers. That is clear theft. This is the definition of stealing.

Reliable sources indicate that the initial police actions triggered the violence.

I quote verbatim from the UTHR reliable source cited:

"There was disorder in Jaffna that resulted from deliberate provocation by the Police who continued to be a part of it."

Similarly, the cited report of Minority Rights Group states:

"The trouble began in Jaffna, capital of the Northern Province, when Sinhalese policemen, believed to have been loyal to the defeated Sri Lanka Freedom Party of Mrs Bandaranaike, acted provocatively by bursting into a Tamil carnival."

You are trying to remove this just like you tried to remove similar reliably sourced mentions of crimes committed by the security forces from countless other pages. This is WP:NAT. Oz346 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, wow the pot calling the kettle black, tell me again what topics have you been editing on Wiki? Cossde (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I quote verbatim from the wikipedia WP:NAT policy:

"This includes being here to promote ideas, without reliable sources and due weight".

I am using UTHR which is a wikipedia vetted reliable source. You are trying to remove reliably sourced material without any contrary reliable source evidence. Without any reliable sources you are promoting the idea that the security forces were not the first to attack during this bout of violence. That is what your edit history on this page is consistently indicating. It fits WP:NAT. Oz346 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, do you confirm or deny that you only contribute pro-Tamil Eelam and anti Sri Lanka content? Cossde (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That is your own idea. Nothing I add with reliable sources is "anti Sri Lanka". If anything it is pro Sri Lanka, as it increases the general knowledge of the population regarding what has happened in the country, and that is something that all Sri Lankans (and for that matter all wikipedia readers worldwide.) deserve access to. Hiding human rights violations and encouraging impunity and a breakdown in the rule of law is not good for any country. Those who do that are the ones who are anti-Sri Lanka in my opinion. WP:NAT fits those who do biased edits while going against the reliable sources. Oz346 (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, can you please answer the simple question, do you confirm or deny that you only contribute pro-Tamil Eelam and anti Sri Lanka content? Cossde (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to answer your loaded questions which are not relevant to the issue at hand. I contribute to the Sri Lankan civil war related pages, as this is my area of expertise. Keep to the current topic of this page and do not derail the discussion. Oz346 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

And i've have already answered your question, Nothing I add with reliable sources is "anti Sri Lanka". Oz346 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, ok that means you don't do "anti Sri Lanka", but you do "Pro-Tamil Eelam" then? Cossde (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I do neither. I repeat, stop derailing the discussion at hand. Oz346 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, your edit history doesn't show any contributions outside these topics. Cossde (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on background section

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

According to you is it? Cossde (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have opened this up on Wikipedia:Third opinion, regarding these two possible versions [2] and [3] Oz346 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Oz346, Sansoni report details the actual events leading to the event as well. Cossde (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That has been summarised already in the previous background section. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, I disagree. It had left out key facts. Cossde (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Ok, so do you want to only talk about the pogrom here? Cossde (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The article should focus on the pogrom. There is already summarised mentions of appropriate background details. Oz346 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

WP:3O

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)

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)

In my opinion, DRN is your best path forward in this case. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom_discussion has been raised. Cossde (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Gota war source

"policmen were accustomed to using public transport and entering places of entertainment without paying entrance fee. Many policmen regarded this as a privilage." Can you please provide me with the direct quote from the reference you are citing which claims this. About how the police were accustomed to using these things for free and regarded it as a privilege. Oz346 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Btw I can get access to the Gota war book, but it will require me to visit a library. So please make sure your quote is verbatim. As I will eventually cross check. Oz346 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Policemen are accustomed to using public transport and entering places of entertainment without paying the entrance fee. Many members of the force regard this as a harmless privilege they enjoy." Pg 78. Cossde (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Learn to properly cite your sources. Page numbers are missing. Besides, C. A Chandraprema is a Sri Lankan government official accused of involvement in a paramilitary death squad: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/proposed-sri-lankan-envoy-to-geneva-c-a-chandraprema-was-a-member-of-prra-death-squad/

He's not a reliable source. It's like citing a book authored by an LTTE member.

What's the point of this following sentence that you added?

"The 1977 riots had been seen as a "Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terror-ist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the [1977 general election] campaign"."

If you look at the citation, it's only a summary of the accusations in the Sansoni commission report which itself has been criticized for bias. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, learn to talk properly. As usual you come to Oz346's aid. Funny you argued differently here. Cossde (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Except N. Malathy was never an LTTE member nor accused of involvement in a death squad. --- Petextrodon (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Malathy did worked for the LTTE. Chandraprema was accused, but not convicted. Cossde (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes because criminals don't convict their own. Still not a RS. --- Petextrodon (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Is that a fact or your POV? Cossde (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Proven fact. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Chandraprema? Please share details. Cossde (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That he's a government official by itself makes him biased source but the accusations by human rights groups makes him totally unreliable hence should be removed. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's your POV, not proven fact. Cossde (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable source noticeboard then. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Like you did for Malathy. Cossde (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Chandraprema serving in the UN means nothing. Many war criminals have served there including the notorious Shavendra Silva. It does not make him a RS. Stop making your own rules up. Oz346 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Militant activity

@Cossde what does the Militant activity section have to do with the pogrom? --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That they made use out of it. Cossde (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the pogrom hence can be removed. ---- Petextrodon (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's your POV. However Militant activity took place during the rioting and needs to be mentioned. Unless that is you want to only talk about the pogrom here.Cossde (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Cited source does not attribute the thefts to Tamil militants. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sabaratnam states that "Emboldened by the murders by Pirapaharan group and the respect it had earned among the Jaffna public, the Thangathurai group also became active. Both groups struck during August, when southern Sri Lanka was rocked by anti-Tamil riots. " Cossde (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK but broken citation. Sansoni report does not attribute the different set of thefts to Tamil militants. Both can't be combined like that as that would be original research. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cossde (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you not previously call into question the reliability of the same Sabaratnam book? You're rather selective about when a source is RS. ---- Petextrodon (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not. I still don't think that's an RS. However, it seemed that you are more likely to accept it than any other source I could give. Cossde (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you seem to have reversed your opinion and do agree that it's a RS: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom&diff=1209560958&oldid=1209557074

What is the purpose of two sentences about activity unrelated to the pogrom with a dedicated section of its own? Is it not undue weight? ---- Petextrodon (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I stil say Sabaratnam has not been established as an RS. If you feel its not an RS, please go and remove it from this page and all others it has been cited. Cossde (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It makes no sense. You keep flip-flopping as it suits you. If you didn't agree with me, then why cite my explanation given on another page? You didn't address my second point. --- Petextrodon (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You and your friend has removed my citations based on your own theories. When I ask you'll to prove your RS based on WP:BURDEN you refuse. Therefore, I am only left with using the refs you have used. If you don't agree I am happy to remove this too. As to your second point, its valid as it has been indicated in the Sansoni report. Cossde (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sansoni report bias

@Cossde: Just because Manogaran does not mention Sansoni report bias, does not mean that he did not find it biased. Omission is not the same as contradiction. Oz346 (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, that's your WP:OR. Cossde (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that's your OR. Contradiction means someone disagrees. Manogaran does not disagree with the notion that Sansoni was biased. I think you have trouble understanding what the word contradiction means. Here is the Cambridge dictionary definition of contradiction:

"a fact or statement that is the opposite of what someone has said".

In any case there are many more sources which point to his bias, here is another one:

Nagaioh Manoharan · 2008, p.90, source - Democratic dilemma : ethnic violence and human rights in Sri Lanka, Samskriti, New Delhi, ©2008

... "Commission under Justice Sansoni was appointed to find out the causes and recommend remedial measures to prevent such riots in the future . But the Commission was disappointingly biased"

Another source, eminent lawyer Kishali Pinto Jayawardena, who criticises the Sansoni commission, agreeing with UTHR:

https://www.sundaytimes.lk/080217/Columns/focus.html

https://www.sundaytimes.lk/080224/Columns/focus.html

https://www.sundaytimes.lk/071028/Columns/focus.html

" Should not an insistence that the officers of the Attorney General be involved in the inquiry process tantamount to an insistence that the police be put in charge of investigating allegations of abuse by police officers, which, as well summed up by that pithy Sinhalese saying, is similar to 'asking the mother of the thief to identify who the thief really is?" (horage amma gen pena ahanawa wage)."

"In fact, the happy collusion of officers of the Attorney General with politically motivated Commissions of Inquiry is also a matter of historical fact. Rajan Hoole, in his inimitably styled book "The Arrogance of Power; Myths, Decadence and Murder, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) 2001" pointed to the way in which the assistance of then Deputy Solicitor General G.P.S de Silva (later, Chief Justice of Sri Lanka) was dispensed with, in regard to the Sansoni Commission. Though this withdrawal was ostensibly cited to be due to personal reasons, the actual reason was government displeasure with the fair manner in which evidence was being led by then DSG de Silva. His place was taken by a state counsel whose manner of leading the police witnesses were objected to by the lawyers appearing for the victims of the ethnic violence in 1977 but to no avail."

And Amnesty International have also criticised it:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa370052009eng.pdf

"The Act has been used in a human rights context since President J.R. Jayawardene appointed retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice M.C. Sansoni, to examine the causes and events surrounding ethnic violence in August 1977. But instead of improving the situation, the government enacted new legislation to shield errant government forces from prosecution. The CoI’s proceedings were reportedly hampered by political interference." Oz346 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

btw if we still cant agree on this, then we need to add this to the currently open dispute on the dispute resolution board on 1977 anti Tamil pogrom. Oz346 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have already done that. I dont want to waste my time arguing with a person who said "Contradiction means someone disagrees. Manogaran does not disagree with the notion that Sansoni was biased." and thats not WP:OR. Clearly you seem to believe all commission reports are bias, you made that clear when you called them "bogus clown" [4]. Cossde (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No I don't believe all commission reports are biased. However, the Sri Lankan ones are, as other RS like Amnesty international have also noted: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa370052009eng.pdf Oz346 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde Your revert explanation has nothing at all to do with what I stated in my explanation. If you have comprehension difficulties, you could have asked me here to clarify than to go straight to edit warring. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde Why did you file a new ANI complaint instead of continuing the discussion in the talk page where we are engaging and waiting for you to reply? But I need to address your unfair accusations to clear my name:

"Petextrodon has removed cited content [22] without engaging in the talk page."

In fact, I gave a long explanation in the edit that you linked, which you apparently did not understand, which is why you should have taken it to the talk page and asked for clarification instead of reverting. You added that content recently hence the burden is on you. The fact that you can't differentiate between a conditional statement and a question only reinforces my point. I had in the past raised the issue of your lack of English fluency with you and you did not dispute it but instead suggested I correct your basic spelling errors of which there are many in this very article:

"inprisoned" "rubbery" "burnted" "authroities" "actition" "immposed" "increaed" "campaigne" "inturn" "lanuage" "imporved" "frist" "violance" "contuned" "realtionship".

If you aren't fluent in English, you can always ask editors for clarification instead of assuming bad faith on their part. --- Petextrodon (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion, as a major contributor to this page, let's hear your opinion.

Cossde thinks Kearney and Manogaran are agreeing with Sansoni's reasons for the riots, whereas Oz346 and I think they are simply summarizing without either agreeing or disagreeing, or, at least, there's no sufficient information to infer either way.

Kearney: "The 1977 riots were explained in terms of Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the campaign." source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45315688 (p.110)

Manogaran: "The reasons for the 1977 anti-Tamil riots were outlined in the Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Incidents which Took Place between 13th August and 15th September, 1977. It attributed the cause to many factors, including the TULF's anti-Sinhalese propaganda advocating separatism, Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese race, and acts of violence committed by the Liberation Tigers." source: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/4f3811e7-1962-495d-bad0-12f31e6754d9/content (p.63)

What do you think?--- Petextrodon (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A RFC has been opened for precisely this topic which can be found below. Oz346 (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Chelvanayakam clashes

@SinhalaLion You added the following recently under the "1977 General elections" subsection:

"On 3 June, Chelvanayakam's ashes were taken to Trincomalee. This led to a three-day clash between Sinhalese and Tamils in the area that led to injuries on both sides. While various witnesses to the Sansoni commission saw the August 1977 violence as a continuation of the June riot at Trincomalee, Sansoni maintained the incident was unrelated, and that the Trincomalee MP R. Sampanthan was not responsible for the incidents. Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike claimed that she had prevented the violence from spreading by having the army to contain it and by forbidding the press from reporting on the trouble."

If this had no causal link to the riots and was suppressed, why even include it, especially under an unrelated subsection that specifically deals with the elections, featuring it so prominently too? It looks WP:indiscriminate and WP:undue weight. In any case, I think we should give it a rest to Sansoni and not turn the article into just a summary of a disputed primary source. Background sections are needlessly complicated as they are. --- Petextrodon (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people, presumably (but not necessarily) from the Trincomalee District, saw the August violence as a continuation of the June incidents so I thought it was worth mentioning. I put it under the election subsection because I saw it was the most chronologically fit place to put it though, yes, it's not ideal. But I could not think of a better place to put it. Also, the Sansoni dispute is related to certain things he said, but so far this June riot in Trincomalee is not one.

That said, I'm fine to reduce the text. I also think the "Tamil Separatism and the quest for Tamil Eelam" section is unnecessarily detailed. How about this: "A three-day clash between Sinhalese and Tamils occurred in early June at Trincomalee after Chelvanayakam's ashes were taken there. Some witnesses to the Sansoni commission saw the August rioting as a continuation of the June violence. However, Sansoni rejected this hypothesis, and Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike claimed that she prevented the June incidents from spreading by forbidding press reports on them and having the army contain the violence."

Finally, as for WP:Indiscriminate, given that I mentioned why the June clashes were relevant, I do not think this issue still arises. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I had never seen this incident mentioned in the mainstream narrative of the riots, so it can be original research and giving undue weight to potentially fringe views. If it was promptly suppressed with press censorship, I'm unsure how the violence erupting elsewhere two months later can be considered a "continuation" by any stretch of the imagination. If these "some people" in question are the witnesses to the Sansoni commission whose opinions were rejected by Sansoni himself, I don't see how adding a negative could potentially enhance the article.

Agreed on the unnecessarily detailed section which was added by another user and the mediator in DRN advised against adding more content while the session is active. --- Petextrodon (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Sansoni commission report be a mainstream narrative? Whether you agree with all its content, it's very frequently used, even by critics. Rajan Hoole, Donald Horowitz, Neil DeVotta, etc. have all cited it to various degrees. Also, I don't have access to the press reports about the commission's hearings, but I would think that the witnesses were from Trincomalee and they felt that the August violence in Trincomalee, not necessarily everywhere else, was a continuation of what happened in June. But in any case, it looks like Sansoni used his own judgment to rule out the continuation hypothesis rather than a consensus, so I'm not sure that we could consider the witnesses to be "fringe." SinhalaLion (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The only relevance seems to be that it's mentioned in Sansoni report although Sansoni himself dismissed its relevance to the topic at hand. It would be indiscriminate to include every random detail simply because they appear in Sansoni report. How does a negative enhance the article? -- Petextrodon (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not putting every single topic; I'm doing those that have been proposed to be connected to the riots (rightfully or not). I would also do the same for the infamous "shoes out of Sinhalese skin" false rumor if I can show that people accused the alleged statement of inflaming rioters. How do negatives enhance the article? They show the questioned legitimacy of conceptions people may have or have had about the riots and their contextualization. It's the same reason I put other disagreements between Sansoni and the witnesses (e.g., Mannar MP claiming the murder of the Sinhalese family was not racial). This is not to say that Sansoni was right to doubt the witnesses; just that he did. And again, like it or not, Sansoni is the most mainstream authority for the 1977 riots as a whole - pretty much the 1977 equivalent of Tarzie Vittachi. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sansoni himself didn't bring this issue up, did he? It was brought up by some "witnesses". Neither have any secondary sources in the mainstream narrative of the riots. I'm unable to find anything on it (you can refer me to RS if you have any) and Sansoni himself refused to go into details. I don't think it enhances the article.

But it might be ok as a simple background detail without excess details:

"On 3 June, after Chelvanayakam's ashes were taken to Trincomalee, a three-day clash between Sinhalese and Tamils in the area resulted in injuries on both sides."

By the way, why did you twice repeat "two-sided violence" for Trincomalee District although sources don't use this phrase? It implies both parties were equally responsible for starting the violence there and caused equal destruction, although evidence doesn't seem to indicate that. --- Petextrodon (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If we add that some proposed its relevance to the August riots and Sansoni's subsequent denial, I have no issue with your contraction.

As for the repetition of "two-sided," this is partially inelegance on my part. I was trying to summarize thousands of words and I certainly made many errors in the course of writing. I am fine to remove it from the "Trincomalee District" part but keep it at "Trincomalee Town." As for the what you allege it implies, that's a complete strawman that not only am I shocked to see uttered on Wikipedia, but also in my experience, has been used as an excuse to give minimal to no attention to Sinhalese victims not just for Trincomalee in 1977, not just the 1977 riots, but pretty much the whole conflict since 1956. SinhalaLion (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be OK:

"On 3 June, after Chelvanayakam's ashes were taken to Trincomalee, a three-day clash between Sinhalese and Tamils in the area resulted in injuries on both sides. While some witnesses saw the August violence as continuation of the June violence, Sansoni maintained they were unrelated."

As for "two-sided", they are unnecessary and creates certain impression through biased framing. It connotes bilateral responsibility. Readers can come to their own conclusions through plain descriptions alone.

"has been used as an excuse to give minimal to no attention to Sinhalese victims"

Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't just about indiscriminate collection of details no matter how true, but notability and mainstream narrative. Anything else borders on original research, which can be said about the addition of hitherto unknown details from the Hansard records to 1958 pogrom for example (I'm not so bothered but a more scrupulous editor might be). --- Petextrodon (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on the alleged connotations of "two-sided" but am not so wedded to the usage of the term that I think it has to be kept. I agree readers can come to their own decision.

"On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." the hansards have been published, so definitely not original research. And I haven't tried to synthesize them to reach a conclusion. Not mainstream is not equal to original research. SinhalaLion (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Bilateral is one of the dictionary definitions of two-sided, which means "affecting reciprocally two nations or parties" and reciprocal can also mean "mutually corresponding". But I digress.

As for the second part, I was referring to WP:NOTEVERYTHING:

"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." --- Petextrodon (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears I didn't add that Sansoni disagreed with the Mannar MP. Time to fix! SinhalaLion (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

\\I also think the "Tamil Separatism and the quest for Tamil Eelam" section is unnecessarily detailed.\\

You are free to paraphrase and make it more concise. That will probably be the best thing, as other users have reached an impasse with it. Oz346 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346 I'm happy to do so if the content isn't still under DRN. However, I also think that the Jaffna District section is also unnecessarily detailed. Including the names of the people shot by police and an including an entire quote from one eyewitness is a bit much IMO. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Report on 1977 anti-Tamil riots

The last paragraph on the Presidential Commission of Inquiry currently reads:

Following his inquiry, Justice Sansoni submitted his report, which was known as the "Sansoni Report" to President Jayewardene in July 1980. The riots were explained in the Sansoni Report in terms of "Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the 1977 general election campaign". The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias, being hampered by political interference and for "victim blaming" Tamils.

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?

Following his inquiry, Justice Sansoni submitted his report, which was known as the "Sansoni Report" to President Jayewardene in July 1980.

Over the years the Sansoni Report has been recived diffrent reviews. Robert N. Kearney found that the Sansoni Report explained the riots in terms of "Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the 1977 general election campaign". According to Chelvadurai Manogaran, the Sansoni Report attributed many factors as the cause of the riots, including "TULFs anti-Sinhalese proganda advocating separatism, Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese and acts of violence committed by the liberation Tigers". The immediate cause of the violence Manogaran finds is rumor of Sinhalese policemen been attacked in Jaffna by Tamil militants. He further states that due to the violance (in Augest 1977) and events that followed many Tamils both extreme and moderate were convinced the need to establish a separate state

The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias by Rajan Hoole of the University Teachers for Human Rights and T. Sabaratnam in his biography of Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Oz346 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Click [show] to view References for above content
References

Please enter YES or NO with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Discussion section, but be civil and concise. Oz346 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

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)

NO - Both authors Kearney and Manogaran are summarizing the Sansoni commission report with similar points, therefore it's repetitive and excessive to include both.

Kearney: "The 1977 riots were explained in terms of Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the campaign." - source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45315688 (p.110)

Manogaran: "The reasons for the 1977 anti-Tamil riots were outlined in the Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Incidents which Took Place between 13th August and 15th September, 1977. It attributed the cause to many factors, including the TULF's anti-Sinhalese propaganda advocating separatism, Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese race, and acts of violence committed by the Liberation Tigers. The immediate cause of the violence, however, was the rumor that Tamil militants had attacked Sinhalese policemen in Jaffna." - source: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/4f3811e7-1962-495d-bad0-12f31e6754d9/content (p.63)

The "immediate cause" explanation seems to be Manogaran's own and therefore does not come under a section specifically dealing with the "Presidential Commission of Inquiry".

Furthermore, the Sansoni Report hasn't been criticized only by those two authors as named in the second paragraph but more as shown in the first paragraph, therefore the first paragraph is preferable, without excess biographic details about the critics too. --- Petextrodon (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

NO - I agree with the above assessment that Kearney and Manogaran were merely summarizing the report's conclusions. I doubt they were endorsing them so much as acknowledging them as back then, and arguably even to this day, the report was the most authoritative document on the 1977 riots and its causes and effects. They say nothing that we Wikipedians could not have just by reading the report. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

NO I agree with above assessment that Kearney and Manogaran are summarizing the Sansoni commission report and it would be to include both.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

DECLINE to !vote – This Rfc, despite a surface choice of YES or NO, is not really a binary choice, as it compares one option having a single paragraph, to another option having three paragraphs. There could be dozens or hundreds of ways to describe or render the differences, and it really isn't a YES-NO choice. What is your central point in this Rfc? What is it about the first option that you object to, and what is it that you like about the second option and why? If you withdraw this and rewrite it in a manner more compliant with WP:RFC, then I will !vote. If you need assistance, raise a discussion at WT:RFC, or at WP:Help desk. Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Mathglot: 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)

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)