This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1977 anti-Tamil pogrom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
– 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
"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)
@ Cossde what does the Militant activity section have to do with the pogrom? --- Petextrodon ( talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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. [1] 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". [2] The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias, [3] [4] [5] [6] being hampered by political interference [7] [8] [9] and for " victim blaming" Tamils. [10]
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. [1]
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". [2] 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 [11]
The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias by Rajan Hoole of the University Teachers for Human Rights [12] and T. Sabaratnam in his biography of Velupillai Prabhakaran. [13]
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)
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)
@ 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1977 anti-Tamil pogrom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
– 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
"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)
@ Cossde what does the Militant activity section have to do with the pogrom? --- Petextrodon ( talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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. [1] 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". [2] The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias, [3] [4] [5] [6] being hampered by political interference [7] [8] [9] and for " victim blaming" Tamils. [10]
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. [1]
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". [2] 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 [11]
The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias by Rajan Hoole of the University Teachers for Human Rights [12] and T. Sabaratnam in his biography of Velupillai Prabhakaran. [13]
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)
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)
@ 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)