Talk:List of riots in Sri Lanka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV dispute[edit]

The large scale expulsions and attacks on villages by LTTE etc. should also be included. Minimally a link to the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE should be placed, so that people understand that the pogroms were not one way. Johansosa (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and add that to the SEE ALSO section, if it is not done already. If you want to include any incident in the main body then you have to find an RS source that calls an LTTE instigated incident as a RIOT or Pogrom and the coverage has to be substantial. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in 1961?[edit]

I've seen references to incidents which took place in 1961, where Tamil writers have alleged the killings of Tamil civilians. Does anyone have any info on that? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about it but I have not seen any books on them. Taprobanus (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Coppercholride (talk · contribs) you should go to the talk page before reverting edits you don't like. Yet you should know this by now... This article is a list, whether it is a list of 2 or 100 it is still a list article, it is clearly stated in the lead. The state the article is currently in (the one you are reverting back to) is a very messy and unorganized one. In fact a few of the instances stated are not even riots! All I have done was clean up the article and reorganized it to fit the standard of other riots in x articles. None of the information is lost as all of the information relating to riots exists in their respective spin off articles, while information not related to riots in Sri Lanka should not even be on this article. I will wait for your reply soon, as you have been quick to revert my constructive edits. In the mean time don't edit war.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you must know that the same applies to you. All Our previous exchanges don't inspire confidence to do so anyway, I have given my revert by WP:TW, and yours was the second revert, not mine... so its more or less obvious on who intends to edit warring. Now Im very well aware of what a list-class wiki REALLY IS, so pardon me if you feel Im turning a deaf year to your opinion on this. Firstly The nature of this article wasn't meant to be a list article, it is more of an encyclopedic article with mostly referenced content all around. So possibly you could create a different article such as List of Riots in Sri Lanka as such and then cut down all the verified and referenced content, if you are willing to take the trouble. This is a well referenced encyclopedic article with links to their individual main articles. So what you are basically trying to do is vandalizing the wiki, by taking out info and then you are trying to explain it as a clean-up and a constructive edit? --CuCl2 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting through WP:TW does not give you any validity over not reverting through it. It depends on the content you are reveting, and FOI I have only reverted once, while you have twice, so yes you are right.
You did not create the article so you can not speculate on what its "nature" is. This article is far from well referenced, it is not properly organized, nor does it have sufficient content to be its own article. The content it does have is a synthesis from existing spin off articles. Yet still placed in list form, as the title in the lead says.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What content I was reverting? You were basically REMOVING REFERENCED MATERIAL from the wiki no matter how hard you make it try to sound as not such, I have reverted twice? My reverts followed yours and not the vice-versa.Never mind, coming to the article, its absolutely rubbish for only creators to decide the nature of the articles they create, frankly I hope you don't mistake Wikipedia as not your personal notepad I suppose? This has been reviewed as a start-class article, and the volume of the article surely does not require any clean-up as according to the reviewers. So perhaps its just you pushing in with your POV.

  • Not properly organized? - It basically follows a timeline, which probably is the standard way to organize an history-related article.
  • Sufficient Content to be its own article - Well, get it recommended for deletion then, and tell them your views on why, not vandalize the article altogether.
  • Content from existing spin-off articles - They provide a 3-line descriptions(average) of

the respective main articles, and there is nothing constructive about removing them. You may want to check that this article perhaps fulfills and meets every objective of the [1].

  • As for the lead title: can be no justification for your act of vandalism, The list just indicates the order/set of collection, not necessarily does list articles specify how much information can an article hold unless you can prove otherwise.

Also I've noticed that in your first edit here: [2], you have intentionally deleted four subcategories as whole from the wiki, riots in the year 2000, 2001 riots and the two sub-sections of riots in the year 2006. You should possibly explain that out to perhaps inspire confidence on your constructive and genuine intent you seek to propagate.--CuCl2 15:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious there is no point trying to reason with you as you always think you are in the right, you have hardly addressed what I have said instead spending more time accusing me of POV and Vandalism. I'm not sure if that is because you don't understand or if you are not willing to understand, but you are definitely not willing to collaborate. I never denied removing referenced material, I removed it because there is no point having the same material twice in two places when they both link to each other. And it does not make sense to include massacres and pass them off as riots. Also there is no point deleting the article if there is room to improve it.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, both of you should cool it, otherwise you're both going to end up being blocked.

@Blackknight12, you're correct that the lead does say this article is a list but when the article was created seven years ago the author included a lot of prose in the article suggesting that it wasn't meant to be a list by modern standards. Back in 2006 Wikipedia was new and there probably wasn't clear definition of what was a list. Even by today's standards there is nothing to prevent a list having prose - have a look at some of the articles at WP:FL. This article had kept the prose until this dispute arose suggesting that most editors were happy with it. This article is a good example of WP:SUMMARY where brief summary is provided in the parent article and more detailed information is provided in the child article. If the child article doesn't have enough content to warrant a separate article it should be redirected back to this article. My view is that the lead should have been changed to remove any reference to "list" and the prose kept. --obi2canibetalk contr 12:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Obi2canibe, I really don't mind if this is a list or just a regular article, and I am well aware that lists can have prose. However I do expect the article to be either a list or an article, but not somewhere in between. The article is quite outdated with both unbalanced content and the inclusion of massacres. Had these massacres turned into a riot that would have been acceptable though there is no mention of that. All I have done is cleaned the article up and removed the irrelevant information. Seeing as this dispute has gone long enough I shall make some compromises and add a short summary to balance the article out.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Firstly, I bear no grudge against a genuine clean-up for this article nor am I opposed to Blackknight taking the initiative perhaps the basic being the current version. But check the edit history to see what I mean. The sudden splurge of interest from Blackknight to sort the article came only hardly a week after I've added particular info which apparently he intended to remove in his first edit here and again in a revert when there was no justification he could offer.

In the current version(as well as the previous ones), you can see information related to the Massacre in Mawanella, the 2006 unrest of whose, all vital info(well sourced and written) have been completely taken out, though they are significant cases of 'riots' and 'civil disorder' between different ethnic groups though they were incidents on a smaller scale. Blackknight12 could never vouch for that in his statement here, nor did he give a reply thus making, convenient for me that he was in no mood for working out a consensus(while he tosses that blame upon me) and more so interested in POV pushing when he reached out to an admin whose trust he enjoys to sort out this matter instead.

Again, I seek to clarify, debating on the nature of the article is point-less, since it has been a summary rather than list for a good long time, and there is nothing much to convince Blackknight's edits were rather intending to disrupt me from editing/and adding to the wiki rather than sorting it out as a list article.--CuCl2 13:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you have some sort of distrust in me, although I'm not exactly sure why? I edit all articles related to Sri Lanka, whether Sinhalese or Tamil related, and I watch many articles too. That is how Wikipedia and collaboration itself works, building upon the works of others. I didn't have any reason to "target" your edits, yet your constant edit warring, lack of discussion, and constant baseless accusations would lead people to assume otherwise. Just because there was a "sudden splurge of interest" is no reason to suspect anyone. If there was some kind of disagreement with my first edit, the first thing you should have done was come and started a discussion.
I have justified all my edits in this discussion and if you still can't understand that then there is not much more that I can do. This article is about riots yet you insist on including massacres. That does not make sense. Did the massacres turn into riot? If so please show me some evidence. If there is one or two instances of massacres on this list, what is to say every other massacre in Sri Lanka should not be here? And FOI I reached out to an admin to get a third opinion as you, like you have now, are not looking to collaborate.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, plain as it may seem I bear no distrust towards anybody, but I' am not all that dumb either to believe every alibi you can come up with to prove your innocence(of handicapping my edits). But right as you are in one thing, it really does not matter except that suspecting or not suspecting you is going to make any difference.

My point is you have been involved editing this article at least once(or more I may presume) by the Page History statistics. Back then it was even poorly organized and incidents of 'massacres' were quite visible to readers' eyes even back then. Why was it that only now do you seek a clean-up? and hold me accountable for 'preventing you'?

Firstly as User Obi2Canibe had mentioned, everything except the lead in this article says its a summary. Why suddenly conditioning it to a list was an explanation not featuring in your I have justified all my edits in this discussion. You were the one tampering with the default version, so you must realize I have no business for discussing things with you when I' am pretty sure its petty vandalism, with quite some intentions to prevent me from contributing to the wiki sensing how vociferous and time-bearing your urge to 'clean-up' has become ONLY succeeding my additions. A massacre is basically killings/violence suffered by one community at the hands of another where the perpetrating party are perceived to be in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived to be helpless and/or innocent with regard to any legitimate offense. Riots are events in which more than one party engages in active violence/protests/attacks etc against one another, the intensity or scale of which may vary. Look into the article again(and the individual spin-offs) and you'll get to know that.

Clearly, Thats not the reason I can presume. Except for maybe a couple, all the incidents mentioned are cases of riots with well written and properly cited content. Removing everything and calling it a clean-up/blaming the lead is a cute case of vandalism and will be dealt as such. And in your case, I have not been engaging in edit warring of any kind but repeatedly reverting multiple instances of vandalism.

  • Please do let me know if your interested in letting me create List of Riots in Sri Lanka, where you can do your clean-up and cutting down in peace(with my assistance of course). As for this article, you may just have to stick with improving it not through removing things. --CuCl2 17:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Coppercholride - No, a List of Riots in Sri Lanka is not a good idea. It would merely repeat this article's contents.
@Blackknight12 - As I stated in my previous comments, I believe the creator of this article intended it to be an "article", not a list. Perhaps something akin to Mass racial violence in the United States? Some of the events in this article have articles called "massacres" but if you look at the detail of what happened, they do fall under the definition of riot.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of riots in Sri Lanka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_riots_in_Sri_Lanka&oldid=1218919531"