Talk:1958 anti-Tamil pogrom

NPOV

List the reason(S), just dont put tags as you feel like it. Also read [1] this before editing this article. RaveenS 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1958 Riots in Sri Lanka

SentinalG346 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC) please rename the article, officially the country in which the riots occcured is called sri lanka, i know some tamils like to call Sri Lanka Ceylon as they did not like the way the british gave the whole island independence. This is unethical and misleading and it only makes things worse as now people who browse this page will see the riots occured in ceylon and it could be inffered that the riots occured under British rule, or worse they may not even make the link between todays Sri Lanka to Ceylon... SO Change the Name please

SentinalG346 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)i am going to edit the page soon

The country is called Sri Lanka,which is its current name and that is where the riots occurred, therefore it shouldn't be called riots in Ceylon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SentinalG345 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I assume the events are all during 1958 but I wasn't positive. I would suggest adding the year after perhaps May 22 and May 25. I know it's in the title, but it's a bit confusing and might read a little easier to have it listed in the article. Tygartl1 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How does one edit the introduction? I think it could be made more accurate by including how it started as the brief lacks context. Can someone help me out here, as being new to the wiki I'm not sure how to contact Wikipedia about this. MuraliG 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't the Sinhalese have a side to this story?

I noticed this article was mainly sourced on www.tamilnation.org, which is a Tamil site. That suggests the article is not NPOV, as it's only based on one side's part of the story. There presumably are Sinhalese accounts and/or neutral/observer accounts out there as well. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The definitive Book on 58 riots was written by a Sinhalese. There cannot be a Sinhalese and Tamil version to these issues. Just the facts from an RS source. Tamil Nation is not the source, simply a redistributer or information.Taprobanus (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a neutral category mass murder

It is clear by this definition that mass murder incluses rioting or ethnic pograms [2]. Hence I will restore the cat back. Taprobanus (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was my edit regading the category mass murder reverted, please cite your reason ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also per above definition a pogrom is a mass murder, and the 1958 riots is considred a pogrom see here.Taprobanus (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly that reference does not say mass murder at all. You can't glue two things together and make your own conclusion. That's synthesis. Not all pogroms are mass murder because some of them don't involve killing. Murder also requires intent. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference says that it was a Pogrom then in the definition of mass murder from the above cited book, it reads Pogroms are committed a group of incited thugs against vulnerable groups excluded from mainstream society which is also a type of mass murder. So very clearly this is a mass murder is'nt it ? Another definition of mass murder is the death of number of people at the same time. We have citation that says over 300 people died over 3 days. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

your reasoning is not valid at all. Multiple deaths doesn't automatically imply murder, eg accidents. Other is still synthesis, because there are many definitions and using one guy's observation stuck together with another person's definition doesn't work if the observer is using a different definition. Eg, not all people define pogrom tp be killing. A BBC journalist yesterday was talking about some riots that he called a "pogrom", although nobody was killed. So obviously he is using a different definition, because by your book's definition, pogroms are mass murders. So if you put one categorisation by one person with a reasoning by another person, the logic doesn't work if they are using conflicting defintions. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to keep this conversation going, on page 54, Chattopadhyaya in Ethnic Unrest in Modern Sri Lanka: An Account of Tamil-Sinhalese Race Relations published by South Asia Books in 1994 (isbn:8-1858-8052-2) call the deaths mass murder. I will be citing it accordingly. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on this direct cite, we can add the category back cant we ? Taprobanus (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stil waiting 24 days gone Taprobanus (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 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: not moved. Number 57 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

1958 anti-Tamil pogrom → 1958 race riots in Sri Lanka – Firstly, "1958 race riots" is the commonly used name.[3] [4] secondly, using the term "anti Tamil" is misleading, as during the riots, both the Sinhalese and the Tamils turned on one another in the districts where they were in majority [5] (This is the link to "Emergency '58 – The Story of the Ceylon Race Riots" by Tarzie Vittachi, mostly used reference to this article. Read the chapters named Batticaloa Killings, Jaffna Reacts for references to violence against sinhalese. in the preface he correctly says "...Many Ceylonese—Sinhalese and Tamils—lost their lives in the riots of May and June. Many of them lost their children, their property, their means of livelihood and some even their reason. In Colombo, Jaffna, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Batticaloa, Eravur, Kurunegala and many other places where the two communities clashed the ugly scars will remain tender long after time has buried the physical signs of chaos. There is no sense in putting the blame on one community or the other. A race cannot be held responsible for the bestiality of some of its members. Neither is there any sense in trying to find a final answer to the question: who started it—was it the Sinhalese or the Tamils? The answer depends entirely on how far back in events you want to go—a never-ending and unrewarding pastime....") Nishadhi (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with change. "Pogrom" is (opinion) not a good word to use here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 May 2015

• Oppose There are several RELIABLE sources supporting the claims of pogrom. A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group.... A couple of reprisal attacks does not conceal the fact that the violence and massacres were a part of a larger anti-Tamil hatred(I have provided multiple sources as proof to this) carried out in impunity by Sri Lankan state and members of Sinhalese public. Anti-Tamil nationalism had taken roots even prior to the island's independence and the cause of the 58 massacres is attributed to the opposition of Sinhalese people towards parity of Tamil language in the island. Even though the preface of Tarzie Vittachi's books says otherwise, his narration of the happenings qualifies the events to be a part of a country-wide anti-Tamil pogrom. --CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 10:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Should 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom be included in this request? --BDD (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: Dear friend, not at the moment. I'm still researching on that topic. I don't want to rush before i complete my research and get an good idea about the whole story. Who knows? It may be correctly titled. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't feel strongly enough to vote, but I would definitely want to avoid the term "pogrom" for non-Jewish groups unless that's the term most common name used by reliable sources. Certainly pogroms can target non-Jewish ethnic groups, but that is the dominant usage. On the other hand, the current title does specify "anti-Tamil", so it's not too misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: Actually, my point is, in a race riot between Sinhalese and Tamils, if the both parties has suffered and been subjected to violence, Is it correct to title the article as a "anti Tamil" event? Then it gives a false impression that, only Tamils were subjected to violence. That's why i think that part also should be changed. "1958 race riots in Sri Lanka" is neutral, Won't cause a POV issue. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect you're right. Again, I don't think the question is whether this can be called a pogrom—it certainly can. The question is whether that's the best term for it. I don't think so. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:TITLE requires page titles to based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Many reliable sources refer to them as "Anti-Tamil riots". Here a few examples:

BBC - "1958 - Anti-Tamil riots leave more than 200 people dead. Thousands of Tamils displaced";

Loss and Hope: Global, Interreligious and Interdisciplinary Perspectives edited by Peter Admirand - "The following are representative examples of remarks made by Sinhala members of parliament in 1958 after an anti-Tamil riot";

Playing the "communal Card": Communal Violence and Human Rights by Cynthia G. Brown - "Anti-Tamil riots erupted in 1956 and 1958...";

Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict ... by Neil DeVotta - "...the 1958 anti-Tamil riots were influenced by...";

Land Rights, Ethno-nationality and Sovereignty in History edited by John H Munro - "In fact, the first ant-Tamil riot in 1958...";

Sri Lanka Literary Essays & Sketches by Charles Sarvan - "The emotional and explosive potential of language is seen in the anti-Tamil riot of 1958..."'

Economy, Culture, and Civil War in Sri Lanka edited by Deborah Winslow - "...after the ant-Tamil riots of 1958..";

Social Studies Revision Guide S3 Ne by Lim Phay Yen - "Other anti-Tamil riots followed in 1958, 1971, 1977 and 1983"

Whilst there may have been some Sinhalese victims (mostly as a result of mistaken identity) and a few clashes between Sinhalese and Tamils, the riots/pogrom were in essence systematic, organised attacks on Tamil targets by Sinhalese. That is why so many reliable sources refer to them as "Anti-Tamil riots".--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Obi @Obi2canibe:Hi Obi, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I never said during the riots the Tamils were not systematically targeted, my problem is that even Sinhalese were systematically targeted. So is it right to label this as an anti Tamil event when sources says otherwise. Besides, this article was named "1958 riots in Ceylon" till a week ago. Anyway, I have listed here the reasons for the requested the move,

1. WP:COMMONNAME :"race riots" "1958" sri lanka in google books - 711 results, "anti Tamil" "1958" pogrom sri lanka - 188 results
2. WP:RELIABLE : Ethnic Groups in Conflict,University of California Press [6], Sri Lanka in the Modern Age: A History of Contested Indentities, University of Hawaii Press. [7], Electoral Allegiance in Sri Lanka, Cambridge University Press [8],The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy, Routledge[9] or they use the word "communal riots" - Anthropology of Violence and Conflict, European Association of Social Anthropologists. [10], Manor J.Self Inflicted Wound: inter communal violence in Ceylon, 1958. The Collected seminar papers of the institue of the Commonwealth studies,University of London.1982(30):15-26., Sri Lanka: Current Issues and Historical Background [11],
3. WP:NPOV: Although you mention "some Sinhalese victims (mostly as a result of mistaken identity) and a few clashes between Sinhalese and Tamils" the sources says otherwise, this is just a sections from Tarzie Vittachi's book which mentions violence against Sinhalese in some parts of east. Here (Pls read, i hate when people comment with out reading.) Here also.[12] Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Although "anti Tamil" "1958" pogrom sri lanka only returns 188 results, "anti Tamil" "1958" riots returns 708 results. Many of the results for "race riots" "1958" sri lanka are actually referencing the title of Vittachi's book, the sources aren't calling it race riots.

2. Some more RS in addition to the eight given above which call these events "Anti-Tamil riots": 9 Michael Edward Brown; 10 Niranjan Dass; 11 Donald L. Horowitz; 12 Damien Kingsbury; 13 Chelvadurai Manogaran; 14 Emmanuel Sampath Nelson; 15 Nira Wickramasinghe; 16 Roshan de Silva Wijeyeratne; and 17 A. Jeyaratnam Wilson.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

3. From page 36 of Vittachi's book: "On the night of the 23rd at 9.15 p.m. the Batticaloa— Colombo train was derailed at the 215th mile on the Batti­caloa—Eravur line. Two men, Police-Sergeant Appuhamy and railway porter Victor Fernando, were killed in the wreck. Many others were injured, some of them very seriously. Hoodlums, on the watch for Vavuniya-bound passengers, attacked the wrecked train. Fortunately there were only forty-seven people on that train. The wreckers had made a serious miscalculation. There were very few Tamils on board. And it was the Sinhalese who suffered most. At 6 p.m. on May 24 a crowd—nearly a thousand strong— again invaded the premises of the Polonnaruwa railway station. They assaulted everybody in sight, including Sinhalese travellers and railway officials, and damaged a good deal of railway property."

From page 39: "On May 24 and 25 murder stalked the streets in broad day­light. Fleeing Tamils, and Sinhalese who were suspected of having given them sanctuary, had their brains strewn about."

From page 41: "The targets were to be the refugee camp and the police station in which the public officials—mostly Sinhalese—--had flow taken refuge. The basis of the war had shifted it was an all—out struggle against the forces of authority who stood in the way of the Sinhala Hamuduwa taking complete control of Polonnaruwa. That morning at about 8.30 Government Agent Aluwihare and a Land Development Officer, Vasa de Silva, who was doing yeoman service in the district, were jeeping down a long lonely roadway which led to the bund of the Parakrama Samudra. They were on the look-out for a suitable site for a second refugee. camp, away from the main centre of excite­ment. Suddenly they saw signs that the goondas had passed that way. There were three bodies on the road. They stopped the jeep and dismounted to see if there was any life left in the bodies. The first man they looked at was very dead indeed. His brain had spilled out on the roadway. As Aluwihare was turning away he heard shouting and saw a huge truck load of about fifty thugs advancing on them from the front. They were shooting ‘There’s the Government Agent. Kill him. That’s the rascal who is helping the Tamils. Kill him!"--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Obi @Obi2canibe: As I said, this is not a question about whether the Tamils were targeted. The question is whether the Sinhalese were also targeted. I have provided the sources for that effect. Because If Sinhalese were also attacked the phrase "anti Tamil" is violating NPOV. Anyway you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Pogrom was documented to be organized against the Tamil minority, but there were attacks against Sinhalese both due to mistaken identity and in some instances in Tamil majority areas. I suggest as a compromise that we create a section called, Sinhalese casualties or Attack against Sinhalese within the main body as opposed to changing the title. Kanatonian (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Anti-Tamil" should be there in the title. Though entire Sinhalese community was not responsible for these atrocities and some of them even recused affected Tamils, the organizers of these atrocities were from the extremists of the Sinhalese community itself with Ant-Tamil agenda.Lapmaster (talk) 07:49, 20 May 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.

A section from Tarzie Vittachi

"Soon after the Polonnaruwa incidents of May 23 and 24 the madness spread to Eravur in the Eastern Province. The Tamils in this area retaliated against isolated Sinhalese homes and trades people. Tamil fishermen waged a sea-shore battle against Sinhalese fishermen who were driven out to sea. They dared not return to the east coast and were not seen for days. Police feared serious loss of life at sea but later reports indicated that the fishermen had landed here and there on the south coast. Tamil goondas set up road blocks and interrupted traffic. Like their Sinhalese counterparts they cross-examined pas­sengers who were dragged out, beaten up and deprived of their belongings if they were suspected to be Sinhalese.

One Sinhalese driver whose duties had taken him to Batti­caloa was returning to Colombo on May 26. They caught him near a causeway and interrogated him. His terror was so great that he could not speak. ‘Who are you?’ they asked. ‘Are you Sinhalese or Tamil or Muslim?’ The man was still speechless. They persisted. Eventually he found his tongue. When they asked him for a tenth time to state his race: ‘Lanji,’ he splut­tered, trying to make ‘Lansi’ (Burgher) sound Tamil. Immedi­ately he realized his mistake but the thugs were satisfied. They let him go on his way.From May 23—when the first train derailment took place— up to Tuesday, May 27—the day on which a State of Emer­gency was declared—the highest incidence of violence in the Batticaloa district was in the Eravur area. With the news of the first train derailment, many Sinhalese in the area had already left their homes and begun a hazardous trek to places of safety. Some went into the jungles where many of them gave up their lives to hunger and to the animals. When the number of police in the area were augmented by military personnel, on May 27 and 28, they drove along the edges of jungles announcing through their mobile loudspeakers that people who were within hearing distance should come out to safety. Those who were still alive accepted this offer. The corpses of the others were discovered in various stages of de­composition. In one case, the police found the bodies of a mother and child whom she had been breast-feeding at the time of death. The Sinhalese who had not fled their homes or who were intercepted in flight by berserk Tamil goondas suffered a similar fate.

In the heart of Eravur a Sinhalese man and his wife were assaulted and set on fire. Their belongings were then looted and their dwelling place burnt down. Homes which had been evacuated were given the chulu light treatment. First: goods which could be of any use were looted. Then, a liberal dose of kerosene was splashed on the walls of the house, and a chulu light was flung at it. The police were helpless. Their numbers were too small—they did not even have sufficient men to release one or two of them to guard the Public Works Department powder magazine at Batticaloa— and, besides, they had received no orders to shoot and fight back with methods which would give them some hope of getting the Tamil hoodlums under control. In a few places hand-bombs were thrown at cars. Mercifully, by this time people had been sufficiently scared for many of them to cancel proposed trips to the area. The damage might otherwise have been much greater.Ironically, in the town of Batticaloa itself—the area chosen as the centre of the Tamil Kingdom of the Eastern Province by Tamil extremists—the damage to Sinhalese life and property was relatively small. In fact, Tamil kiosk keepers closed shop and sought sanctuary in areas where members of their own community were amassed in greater numbers at the very hint of disturbances. ...... Blood was all that the goondas wanted. In the chaos that followed it was almost impos­sible for anybody to keep a count of who had been injured, who had been lynched, and what had been burnt—so swiftly did the goondas move from area to area, and so ruthlessly did they set about their tasks of destruction.

The official figures are: 56 cases of arson, and ii murders in the Batticaloa Administrative district. But there is reason to believe that more than that number of killings occurred in Karativu alone, where the Sinhalese—many of them migrant fishermen—were massacred. Men, women and children were pulled out of their homes— wailing, and screaming for mercy—and beaten, more often than not, to death. Houses were set ablaze and law officers were powerless. Meanwhile in other parts of the district houses were still blazing, looting was proceeding apace, and the search for victims was still on. Many of the migrant fishermen in the area had left their homes earlier. What they had left behind was quickly grabbed and shared among the goondas.' Some of this was discovered later and a small-time politician who was found to have a sizeable stock of madhal, or home-spun fishing nets, in his house stated that he had taken all this under his roof for protection. In the Eravur area there were other incidents of goonda activity and in many cases both the police and the military were fired at when they attempted to intervene. In one in­stance, police and service personnel had to fire several rounds at a blood-thirsty crowd before they could rescue alive two men who had been set afire."

Nishadhi (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1977 anti-Tamil pogrom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy

@Suneye1: the redundancy is where the sentence starts with "Tarzie Vittachi recounts the frequent use of rape by Sinhala mobs" and then later goes on to say "rampage raping, looting and beating up hundreds of Tamils." We only need to mention the use of rape once. Emergency '58 doesn't even state that rape was especially used in comparison to other mob attack methods (e. g. arson, assault, looting, murder, etc.). SinhalaLion (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

SinhalaLion, Why should the mention of rape be used once? Tarzie Vittachi stresses the frequent rapes here. You must explicitly state what the sources say not WP:OR and why was this sentence, Sinhalese who were believed to be hiding Tamils "had their brains strewn about" removed? SUN EYE 1 13:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Suneye1 doing a quick Ctrl+F on the PDF of Emergency '58 renders this sentence in relation to the topic of rape by Sinhalese laborers in Polonnaruwa: "Labourers from the Land Development Department, the Irrigation Department and from the Government farms who made up the Sinhala Hamudawa were constantly on the rampage, raping, looting and beating up Tamil labourers and public officers." As we can see, rape was part of the rioters' arsenal, but Vittachi does not attach any particular significance to the mobs raping relative the other forms of mob violence. Why should rape be given its own exclusive clause when looting and assaulting aren't?

I removed the "brains strewn about" sentence because the section already mentioned: "Tamils were killed in the open, as well as Sinhalese who protected them.". SinhalaLion (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with your response to the rape, I was confused by your edit summary. The sentence about the brain thing must not be removed as the first sentence summarized the paragraph and the paragraph goes on to explain things in detail including a death of a deaf, mute labourer. The article is not that big and does not need more summarizing. SUN EYE 1 14:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Kantale

@Obi2canibe: So I was actually the one to add that piece of information years ago, but upon further research, I have found that Kantale was actually peaceful during the 1958 riots. The one who claimed that Sinhalese Catholics were killed in Kantale was not even in Kantale during the riots (I mistakenly referred to him as a witness). The one saying Kantale was peaceful was C. Suntheralingam, who said as much in parliament in 1958. Suntheralingam was certainly not the sort to downplay Sinhalese violence. SinhalaLion (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion: I can't access Parliamentary Debates, Volume 33, Issues 12-23 but I'll take your word for it.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Neil de Votta

@Petextrodon: while I'm not against having DeVotta's analysis in this page, the way it's set up now might be giving it undue weight given that it's only one scholar's analysis (and a so-so one in my opinion). SinhalaLion (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) SinhalaLion

You are welcome to add another scholarly analysis (preferably ones not associated with the GoSL as in Prof. Rohan Gunaratna) for balance if you want, though that might bloat up the already long background section. Petextrodon (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can cut down the word count. For example, the three conditions for riots are not DeVotta's own; they're Donald Horowitz's and DeVotta then argued that they applied to the 1958 riots. I'll come up with an alternative, condensed paragraph that captures the key points later. SinhalaLion (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

DeVotta's analysis requres a section on its own either before the events or after the events as its a post incident critical analysis of the riot it self and not the background that set the context of the riots. A counter analysis by Gunaratna can be added to give a balance view.Cossde (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Something like this should be sufficient:

"According to Professor Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese rioters who attacked Tamils felt justified in their actions due to the popular belief about the island as a Sinhalese Buddhist land and the justification of violence by activist Buddhist monks to uphold that status, with Tamils being depicted as posing a threat to it. Sinhalese mobs were led to believe by Sinhalese politicians that the government would not punish them for anti-Tamil crimes. In the colonization schemes, Sinhalese colonists feared that the Federal Party threatened their upward mobility. There were also Sinhalese businessmen in the south who had used the riots to destroy businesses of Tamil competitors. The UNP had also influenced some rioters with its propaganda that called upon the Sinhalese to kill Tamils."

The information about leaflets and boycotts afterwards can be put within the rough timeline of events before the riots that's been established. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"According to professor Neil DeVotta, anti-Tamil climate generated by the Sinhala Only Act was broadly culpable for the riots. He explained the conditions that had existed which were conducive to the riots. The Sinhalese rioters who attacked Tamils felt justified in their actions due to the popular belief about the island as a Sinhalese Buddhist land and the justification of violence by activist Buddhist monks to uphold that status, with Tamils being depicted as posing a threat to it. Sinhalese mobs had been led to believe by Sinhalese politicians that the government would not punish them for anti-Tamil crimes. The Sinhalese colonists had felt their upward mobility threatened by the Federal Party’s attempts to stop the colonization schemes. Also in the south, Sinhalese businessmen had sought to exploit the riots to eliminate Tamil business competition. The UNP had also influenced some rioters with its propaganda that called upon the Sinhalese to kill Tamils."

This should be acceptable. I will edit it. As for the leaflets and boycotts, they started in April but the timeline below starts in late May. It seems fine. Petextrodon (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@SinhalaLion Didn't want to start a new discussion but this reply concerns the same prelude section.

“On May 15, a Sinhalese trader had been shot dead in Chenkaladi and another Sinhalese was severely wounded by stabbing...”

Could you explain why you thought this claim by the Prime Minister, who has already been accused of inflaming the riots with the D. A. Seneviratne incident, was important enough to be included, when he himself stated “We do not know the reason” on why the killings had occurred. He goes onto state “the news spread and the feeling of uneasiness grew,” but doesn’t connect it to communalism or to the riots. It’s a bad practice to cite a major implicated party the way you did. It should be removed.

Also I’ve not been able to find the claim you attributed to M. W. H. de Silva (minister of the implicated party): “On 14th of April, a Sinhalese man was murdered by a Tamil in Trincomalee for communal reasons. This led to tension and a few incidents at Trincomalee, but no prolonged trouble or violence. Soon after, Buddhist organizations began calling for the boycotting of Tamils in Sinhalese areas.”

The Prime Minister does acknowledge this murder, though doesn’t mention the ethnicity of the culprit nor does he even attribute a communal motive, nor mention the Buddhist boycott. (p. 15)

Could you also give the exact page number for the following claim which you attribute to M. W. H. de Silva: “In Welimada, the electorate of the ultranationalist K. M. P. Rajaratne, a rally on April 24 resulted in several attacks on Tamil boutiques.” Petextrodon (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Chenkaladi: this was brought up in Bandaranaike's (admittedly partisan) contextualization of the riots. I think it's absolutely fair to mention. MWH de Silva also brought it up and noted that "tension rose." As for his statement on Seneviratne - as he clarified, Sinhalese were already well aware of Seneviratne's murder before. I think Vittachi (and some politicians in the debates) were unfairly trying to blame him. The explosion on the night of the 26th is probably more attributable to the fact that rioters are generally more active at night-time. They learn about the incidents in the morning and then act on it in the evening/night. However, regardless of my opinion, I don't see why that incident should be omitted.

Trincomalee: this information is not in the parliamentary debates that were recently released in Google Books. This is volume 12 of the Senate parliamentary debates, col. 9. I can add these details in should the template permit it.

Welimada: Ibid., col. 10. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

But Bandaranaiked didn't even know the reason why it had occurred and he just vaguely referred to "feeling of uneasiness" without directly connecting it to communal unrest. It's too vague and that too from a party with vested interests in the issue to deserve highlighting. It's not just Vittachi and some politicians, but also post-incident analyses from people like scholar Neil DeVotta and the prominent journalist D.B.S. Jeyaraj: "In fact, an address to the nation by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike actually helped to exacerbate the violence instead of quelling it."

and yes it would be helpful if you added the full quotes from the volume 12 in the citations.Petextrodon (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll add in the citations later. Also, MWH de Silva says (based on police reports) that the perpetrators of the Chenkaladi shooting were Tamils and tension rose. I will add a citation for that.

I wouldn't be surprised if DeVotta and Jeyaraj just blindly followed Vittachi's two-cents rather than do their own investigations. This is one reason why I consider DeVotta's analysis to be "so-so." He claims that Bandaranaike was flummoxed by the riots, when Manor (whose work DeVotta considers to be an "excellent biography") says otherwise. One place he doesn't blindly parrot Vittachi is the train derailment, which he falsely claims was "carrying delegates to the Federal Party convention in Vavuniya... was derailed and its Tamil occupants were beaten." Actually, as Vittachi notes, most of the injured were Sinhalese. This is because Federal Party delegates didn't want to travel on the train as they learned about the assault at Polonnaruwa. And as Manor noted, the perpetrators were likelier to be Tamils since the derailment occurred at Batticaloa. I would never cite it here, but there was a Tumblr post that went very deep into the details of these things, and yes, the accused in this case were Tamils.

Like how you're auditing me, I've privately audited the work of professionals like Jeyaraj and DeVotta, and yes, even the pros can be sloppy. SinhalaLion (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

DeVotta is probably the only scholar who has done extensive research into 58 riots. you can tell by his footnotes he has gone through the Hansard from that time. but i digress. it's not our job to asses the competency of reliable sources but only to go by them. It’s well-known Bandaranike was brought to power by a coalition of rabid Sinhalese Buddhist racists and he empowered them. He’s hardly a reliable source to cite in the manner that you did. His views are better suited for other sections where it would be appropriate to cite him to hear his personal views. Petextrodon (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we're beholden to the experts, which is why I haven't challenged the inclusion of the allegation that Bandaranaike inflamed the situation by referencing Seneviratne's murder.

Regarding Chenkaladi, even if we agree that Bandaranaike is not a good source, MWH de Silva says more or less the same thing. de Silva would be a reliable source since he was not an SLFP member, and he talks about incidents on both sides, unlike Bandaranaike. However, also unlike Bandaranaike, he flat out says that the perpetrators were Tamils. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

could you provide a link or full quotation of MWH de Silva? Petextrodon (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. SinhalaLion (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if, strictly speaking, MWH de Silva was an SLFP member. He was a government minister, but ministers don't have to be of the same party as the PM. He certainly was not an MP.SinhalaLion (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Minister of Justice is appointed by the head of state. Petextrodon (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You’ve quoted the same Minister of Justice twice for accounts of Tamil-on-Sinhalese killings. I think it’s an undue weight given to one government official with vested interests. Better to remove one of the allegations, perhaps the weakest one of the two. Petextrodon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

He may be biased, but he gives a very wholistic account of events leading up to the riots, including anti-Tamil incidents (like at Welimada). Unfortunately, vested interests are pretty much part and parcel of any source from Sri Lanka. Of all the politicians who've given their testimony, M. W. H. de Silva is probably the fairest. SinhalaLion (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

But secondary non-government sources (preferably scholarly) have more weight, even if they're from Sri Lanka. Too many citations have been given to this single government official, most regarding Tamil-on-Sinhalese violence. To maintain balance it's better to remove one from the prelude section. by the way do you have a link to the Hansard in question? It doesn't seem to be online. Petextrodon (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No I don't; I got a copy of his speech via other means that I don't want to disclose. You'll have to take my word for it. SinhalaLion (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you can copy/paste my quotes into Google Books. You should see snippets of his speech from Parliamentary Debates (Senate) Vol. 12 returned. That's actually how I was originally alerted to his testimony. SinhalaLion (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

on a side note, show caution with Manor’s biography. I don’t think speculations of a western sociologist in 1989 should have equal weight or precedence over an award-winning contemporary account of Sri Lankan journalist Vittachi. Manor accuses Vittachi of making a claim without supporting evidence but then he goes onto do the same regarding the train derailment incident and 70 dead figure being "probably an overstatement".. Petextrodon (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

So Manor is not a sociologist, but a professor of commonwealth studies who specializes in South Asian conflicts and has written a number of times on Sri Lanka. Actually, he wrote a paper on the 1958 riots entitled "Self-Inflicted Wound: Inter-Communal Violence in 1958." He conducted numerous interviews and consulted contemporary press sources for his research. So DeVotta is not the only scholar to have done in-depth research about 1958. As for his claims, may I remind you that he said "probably," whereas Vittachi is rather definitive in his statements. He's definitely more impartial than Vittachi, who was the editor of the Ceylon Observer, a notoriously pro-UNP newspaper (along with other Lakehouse publications).

Vittachi's contemporariness is both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength in that he got fresh information, but it's also a weakness because, truth be told, it takes time for a lot of information to come out. Court cases, for example, would take months. SinhalaLion (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

alright, He's a RS but just wanted to highlight that issue. As for Vittachi's definiteness, maybe he had access to some sources that he didn't mention? though that would be a pointless speculation.

Since i have no way of accessing the full hansard, if you come across any reference to anti-Tamil violence fit for the prelude timeframe please do include it for some balance. Petextrodon (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pretty much the only violence he states in that timeframe are the murders of Sinhalese. The anti-Tamil incidents he talks about are mostly incidents where hatred is drummed up against Tamils. These include meetings to boycott and evict Tamils. The thing is, that stuff has already been explained here, and I doubt de Silva gives anything of additional substance other than specific details about dates and participants. I don't have a source at the moment, but from what I recall, there were some looting and arson incidents against Tamil boutiques. Perhaps consult the recently released Hansard or some of the books referenced on the page. SinhalaLion (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Pogrom?

Where did the term pogrom come into the name of this incident. There seem to be no academic reference to this incident as a pogrom. Future more pogrom is a term associate with Jews and from what it seems from the references provided it is a term coined by the Tamil Diaspora propaganda.Cossde (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Only refence included is a passing reference Alka Kurian in 2012, which seems to be based on the above mentioned sources and even conflicts with the analysis of others such as Neil DeVotta as Kurian oversimplification fails to differentiate between different political policies of different administrations since 1948, which she doesn't mention include times of national government. Hence more detailed RS than WP:TRIVIALMENTION is needed to continue the use of the term pogrom.Cossde (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have provided 4 more reliable academic sources from non-Tamils referring to the events as pogrom. Pogrom is no longer just a term associated with Jews, you need to learn the basic modern definition of it (it originated with Jews, but now is used frequently elsewhere in non-Jewish contexts). "A pogrom (Russian: погро́м) is a violent riot incited with the aim of massacring or expelling an ethnic or religious group".

"Oxford dictionary - pogrom: an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group"

Furthermore, WP:TRIVIALMENTION does not mention anything of the sort that you are trying to use it for. It refers to the notability of a TOPIC, not to the significance of a descriptor. It also does not say anything about needing more than one RS to justify the use of a particular term. Do you actually read the policies that you cite? this is the second time you have incorrectly used a policy. Last time you falsely claimed a blatant secondary source from (AHRC) was a WP:PRIMARY source! I recommend next time you cite a policy, you quote the text from it which is supposed to justify your argument. Oz346 (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oz346, personal attacks of this nature are beyond WP:EQ. Appreciate you stay on topic here. Now of the references you provide have not been proved by you as WP:RS, as the editor adding these it is your burden to prove that these are RS per WP:BURDEN to a level acceptable to this forum or to another acceptable forum such as the RS noticeboard. And then for the topic of Pogrom. The refences you have provided are all post 2009 and in tern cite Tamil Diaspora sources to refer to a "Anit-Tamil pogrom in 1958" as a passing refence, while others can not be accessed to verify. Yet you have failed to provide a source that analyses the incidences between April and June 1958 and conclude that it is in fact a pogrom per your above definition. On a controversial topic of this nature its common to include more than one RS for WP:NC. I remind you, yet again to prove that this was in fact called a pogrom by the global community in the years immediately after it took place, is yours per WP:BURDEN should you insist to do so. Even one of the major pro-Tamil sources in this article, Vittachi doesn't once refer to this as a pogrom in his book, yet keeps referring to it as riots. Which was the main ref used when the [of the topic was executed from riot to pogrom] in 2015, with no talk page consensus. Therefore, if no RS is provided that analytically proves that the Anit-Tamil riots in 1958 had been a pogrom per the definition you gave above, we may have to change to name of the topic. I am iniciating the process. Cossde (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"to prove that this was in fact called a pogrom by the global community in the years immediately after it took place"

why does it have to be in the years immediately? Unless you can show a Wiki guideline that says this, it looks like an arbitrary rule that you've just made up. Petextrodon (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Because that is the queastion at hand. This incident was called for what it was riots, that is what it is called in the Vittachi in Emergency '58 in 1959. This article was originally written in 2008 as riots and changed without a consensus in 2015. Therefore its clear that the term pogrom appeared in the post 2009 period and can be traced to the Tamil Diaspora. Therefore, if this had been established as a pogrom it should have been done in the immediate years past. This stands to the core values of Wikipedia layed out in Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOT. Cossde (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

But it appears there's no policy explicitly forbidding titles based on post-incident analyses. All that is required is a reliable source regardless of date. Petextrodon (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NDESC, states that "avoid judgmental and non-neutral words", here we have a word that's meaning in this context is questioned. Therefore as an encyclopedic article such ambiguity is not correct. As you can see, Encyclopædia Britannica has avoided formally linking pogrom to non-jewish incidents. Apart from passing reference, there is no major works that clearly articulates or supports the use of pogrom in reference to this article. Hence it is clear that the post-incident analyses is an attempt to introduce a new hypostasis.Cossde (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You cite Encyclopædia Britannica but ignore vast majority of other reputable sources which don't restrict the definition of pogrom to Jews alone.

Cambridge Dictionary defines pogrom as: "an act of organized cruel behaviour or killing that is done to a large group of people because of their race or religion"

The main difference between riot and pogrom seems to be that the former is more spontaneous mass violence and latter is organized mob violence. Given contemporary Sinhalese observers noted a pattern of organization with goons being brought from elsewhere in government vehicles to cause violence, it's reasonable for post-incident analyses to come to the conclusion of pogrom. Petextrodon (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

can you please explain to me the "core values" of those Wikipedia policies that make this title invalid, despite there being 5 reliable academic sources from well renowned academic publishers? Oz346 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refer above.Cossde (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You have incorrectly used wikipedia policies in the past (or more than one occasion), hence you need to be clear on what you mean. Otherwise it is hard to take your arguments (and use of wikipedia policies) as serious. Oz346 (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

---

1958 anti-Tamil pogrom → 1958 Ceylonese anti-Tamil riots – No credible soruces to clearly define why the incident is called a pogrom. It appears that renaming this incident as a pogrom is based on the post 2009 claim by Tamil orgernizations. Cossde (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, multiple reliable academic sources refer to this as a pogrom (5 of which which are currently cited), not just Tamil organisations as claimed by the Sinhalese editor. The claim of "no credible sources" is an absolute falsehood. Oz346 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply: Some of the sources provided can not be accessed to verify, while others only make a passing reference. All of these are post-2009 when it seems Tamil orgernizations began using the term pogrom. Where as the primary source used for citing much of the detailed content of this article does not have any mention of the term pogrom. Hence it appears to be a recent creation and event this page had been changed to it in 2015 with discussion. Hence the request is to revert to the original title to be inline with WP:POVNAMING.Cossde (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

google book links have been added to the sources now, so that argument can no longer be used to deny 'verification'. 'passing reference' is irrelevant, whatever thats supposed to mean. The fact is these reliable academic sources have described it as a pogrom. These are all non Tamil academic scholars and major international publishing houses. Please elaborate on the use of that wikipedia policy you cite, because it is not clear at all. Oz346 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It is patently false that pogrom is a post 2009 description of these events.

A. Sivanandan quote from 1984:

"There have been no race riots in Sri Lanka since independence. What there has been is a series of increasingly virulent pogroms against the Tamil people by the Sinhala state"

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030639688402600102

https://books.google.com/books?id=GNKGAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Oz346 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply:: Thank you very much Oz346, really appreciate your research. We may now have the origins of the use of the word "pogrom" to define or replace "race riots" in Sri Lanka by Sivanandan. This is the root of use of the term which has since been used post in the post-2009 period by Tamil Orgernizations and has then been picked up by other researchers as a passing reference. Therefore, a theory put forward by Sivanandan as become a common usage. Where as majority of the sources since 1958 have referred to the incident as race riots. Per WP:NDESC, states that "avoid judgmental and non-neutral words", which is the exact reason Encyclopædia Britannica has formally linking pogrom to non-jewish incidents. Wikipedia should follow the same. Cossde (talk)

• Support removal of pogrom In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  you realise that 5 reliable academic sources refer to it as a pogrom? How can a removal be justified when the highest level of reliable sources support the description? Oz346 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  As long as reliable sources have been cited, I don't see any good reason on why the title should be changed. The points raised by @Oz346 should be seriously engaged before taking any decision. Petextrodon (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in on this issue as a contributor to the page. I agree that "pogrom" can be kept. Regarding the argument that it was not referred to as a pogrom when it happened: perhaps the meaning of "pogrom" was exclusively used for anti-Jewish riots in the 1950's, but now it's used for other Tamils (and perhaps other groups).

@Cossde: you must remember that Wikipedia is merely a regurgitation of the reliable sources, not necessarily the truth. I certainly don't agree with all academic consensuses, but that's not relevant here. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to your point of "passing reference"; I have a feeling that, at least among modern academia, they just saw the term "pogrom" being used to describe 1958 and other episodes of anti-Tamil violence and decided to go along with it without making a determination for themselves whether the term was accurate. I also suspect that the usage of the term to describe these episodes started out of a desire to portray the Sri Lankan Tamil plight as comparable to that of European Jews. But, regardless of my own feelings on the matter, we are but beholden to academic majoritarianism, and for that reason, I see no reason to remove "pogrom." SinhalaLion (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply:: Thank you SinhalaLion for pitching in interesting views, however, if we are to beholden to academic majoritarianism then we will have to drop "pogrom" since majority of the sources since 1958 uses the term riots or race riots and compared to that only a few use the term "pogrom" and that a passing reference. Besides Encyclopædia Britannica has avoided formally linking pogrom to non-jewish incidents. Cossde (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Its not a judgemental word. It's a fact. They were organised acts of mass violence. It's not being judgemental to call a spade a spade, it cannot be censored just because some Wikipedia editors don't like it. Reliable sources repeatedly describe it as such. Pogrom is not an exclusive word for anti-Jewish mass violence. Oz346 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

according to that logic every pogrom which is described as such on Wikipedia needs to be retitled to avoid being judgemental, such as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom_against_the_disabled_(1943)

facts are not being judgemental. Oz346 (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply: This article is an exactly what we should avoid, poorly sourced and lacking clear academic substance. As to your comment on that this "its not judgmental, its a fact", that is exactly what I am asking here, a strong academic basis to establish the use of the term. Passing references does not provide that strong academic foundation here. So far there has been none, just personal interpretations and opinions other than passing references which are most likely based on the former (full sources are not publicly available to confirm). Where as Encyclopædia Britannica is clear in not linking "pogrom" to non-jewish incidents. That is why I suggest that we stay in line with Britannica. Cossde (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You've repeatedly invoked Encyclopædia Britannica but ignore vast majority of other reputable sources which don't restrict the definition of pogrom to Jews alone. Cambridge Dictionary defines pogrom as: "an act of organized cruel behaviour or killing that is done to a large group of people because of their race or religion..." The main difference between riot and pogrom seems to be that the former is more spontaneous mass violence and latter is organized mob violence. Given contemporary Sinhalese observers noted a pattern of organization with goons being brought from elsewhere in government vehicles to cause violence, it's reasonable for post-incident analyses to come to the conclusion of pogrom. Petextrodon (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Also would like to add that violence against Sinhalese in the Eastern Province (and possibly Jaffna) could qualify as a pogrom as the intention was to kill or drive away Sinhalese. SinhalaLion (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, as a long-term editor of Sri Lankan articles, I have been requested to share my views on the requested title move by one of the participants in the discussion. After reading through the various comments above it would appear that the arguement is whether the 1958 incidents fall under the definition of a pogrom or a riot. On that basis a riot is a violent public disturbance against authority, property, or people whereas a pogrom is a violent riot incited with the aim of massacring or expelling an ethnic or religious group. Given the various descriptions regarding the incidentsof 1958 I would have to conclude that they were best described as a pogrom rather than a series of riots. Dan arndt (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there is a distinct difference between the words and pogroms fits better to describe these events than a mere riots. —- Kanatonian (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Progrom is supported by the sources, no need to change the title. It is a word not just for Jews. Laxshen (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Dan arndt and Kanatonian.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.