Jump to content

Talk:2022 Sri Lankan protests

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


Requested move 10 May 2022

[edit]
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: No support for the move by other editors. Early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sri Lankan protests → 2022 Sri Lankan unrest – It's becoming increasingly apparent that this is more than protests, with political figures as well as civilians being killed and the military getting involved. Many major news outlets are beginning to report the ongoing events as "violence" or "unrest" instead of just protests: The Guardian, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera Maykii (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now: Extreme violence was limited to a few days and "unrest" also includes the 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis. Regardless of violence "protests" is still the best word in my opinion.- UtoD 11:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requesting new article on July 9 events

[edit]

I am requesting there be a new article regarding the July 9th 2022 Sri Lankan Protests. It is of the biggest protests Sri Lanka has seen. It could lead to change and it is extremely significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeveralst (talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPLIT could be justified if someone were willing to do the editing work and if an acceptable temporary title were found, e.g. 9 July 2022 Colombo protests? Boud (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9 July 2022 Sri Lankan Protest, see article Theeveralst (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be moved, the capitalization at least is wrong (protest should be lowercase), not sure to what though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done moved to 9 July 2022 Sri Lankan protest. 🔮Plpm2021💬 19:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should wait until their resignation before creating a new article about it but even then I don't think we would need a new article because pages of Gotabaya and Mahinda would be enough as well as this article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A WP:SPLIT would not just require editing work and an appropriate title, but also sufficient material and/or sufficiently many reliable sources that consider this as a notable enough phase of the overall 2022 protests to be split off. My impression is that the 9 July protests were the culmination of a long cycle of sustained civil disobedience rather than a sudden separate event. And there doesn't seem to be consensus by active editors for a split. Boud (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the article "2022 Sri Lankan political crisis" which was split from here. What to do with it: merge or keep it apart? --Fontaine347 (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sri Lankan political crisis is a good place where we can expand about resignation of Gotabaya and Mahinda whenever they will happen, instead of creating separate articles. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 23:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2022

[edit]
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 — speedily closing per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) HurricaneEdgar 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sri Lankan protests → Sri Lankan Revolution – Though the name is found on Twitter and barely on some Google search results, I think this will be similar to Sudanese Revolution. 184.146.37.152 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, while this now has the properties of a revolution its too soon to see if this will become the common name for it or not. Suggest maintaining the status quo for now and re-addressing this issue in a week or two. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should 112.134.244.170 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 13 July 2022

[edit]
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. There is little evidence supporting the proposed title. As noted by some opponents, the notion of "revolution" includes not only a change of rulers, but a significant change in the political system as well, which has not happened yet. If anything, this is WP:TOOSOON. No such user (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sri Lankan protests → 2022 Sri Lankan Revolution – Following Gotabaya Rajapaksa's flight to the Maldives, the protests have taken on both the form and definition of a revolution, having resulted in the ouster of the existing government and president and their replacement. While still further political restructuring could well take place, the ouster of the Rajapaksa administration qualifies this as a change justifying the phrase revolution. Marquisate (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait The government has been ousted but as of now there is no regime change and no credible source has named it a "revolution" yet Twa0726 (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The regime has not been ousted. [4] ― Tartan357 Talk 06:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually turning out to be a historical revolutionary moment in Sri Lanka as the protestors who went onto storm Presidential Palace depict the essence of major revolt in political history. However, it is ideal that we go with the current title as protests as most of the media outlets consider it as protests. Abishe (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should at least add (Aragalaya) to the title of the wikipedia article. Anu (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abishe: We are not here to write history in Wikipedia.
    @Auduwage: What is the need to include "Aragalaya"? This is English Wikipedia not Sinhala Wikipedia. 🔮Plpm2021💬 06:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree. I think because the resignation was in the midst of the protests, I think we can most likely say that the resignation was a result of the forceful break-in of the Presidential Palace, making it a revolution. Disabled Lemon (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I can also say we should wait. What I just said was assuming that he'd never come back but there's also a possiblity that he might Disabled Lemon (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But seeing all the other mass resignations I also kinda doubt that he will they will come back. Disabled Lemon (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as we have yet to fully see how successful the protests will be in overturning the existing political system. Of particular note is the protests' goal to rewrite the constitution, which could substantiate a revolution if realized. Some outlets are also already referring to the political situation as a revolution. AlexKitfox (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closing admin, kindly consider the support !voters relative inexperience and disregard of the relevant guideline, WP:COMMONNAME. "protests" is the commonly used term according to the search results data given below. Cheers Chanaka L (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: Though it may have all the characteristics of a revolution, hardly any sources have referred to it as such yet, probably since it's only been a few days since everything's happened. Manong Kimi (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
search string Google Google news
"Sri Lankan protests" 73,000 6,390
"Sri Lankan revolution" 1,820 86
"Sri Lanka protests" 1,980,000 65,100
"Sri Lanka revolution" 8,630 3,520
"Sri Lankan protests 2022" 5,470 0
"Sri Lankan revolution 2022" 6 No results
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.

Undue emphasis on Chinese lending

[edit]

Under "background", the following sentence should be removed: "As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis". Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this.

Reasons: WP:NPOV - undue emphasis on Chinese lending when China owns 10% of the overall debt. World bank, Japan, and Asian development bank owe ~10%. if you include Japan's stake in the Asian development bank, their share is well over 10%. market borrowings = 47%. https://www.dw.com/en/sri-lanka-crisis-not-over-despite-pm-mahinda-rajapaksas-exit/a-61750808

Sri Lanka's collapse due to its inability to service debt, which include Chinese debt holders. it is not the cause. Many lenders, including China, G7, India, IMF and world bank, have decided to help the country restructure loans, and lend more money to SL.

BBC makes it clear that collapse was due to multiple factors. Chinese lending was not one of them: "The end of its civil war in 2009, Sri Lanka chose to focus on providing goods to its domestic market, instead of trying to boost foreign trade. This meant its income from exports to other countries remained low, while the bill for imports kept growing. Sri Lanka now imports $3bn (£2.3bn) more than it exports every year, and that is why it has run out of foreign currency. At the end of 2019, Sri Lanka had $7.6bn (£5.8bn) in foreign currency reserves, which have dropped to around $250m (£210m). Mr Rajapaksa was also criticized for big tax cuts he introduced in 2019, which lost the government income of more than $1.4bn (£1.13bn) a year." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61028138

"Debt-trap diplomacy" is an allegation that has been contested, and is more appropriate under the debt-trap diplomacy article. If user wants to read about arguments and counter-arguments, they can find it under debt-trap article. Sentence goes out of its way to list the accusations against China, and completely ignores the counter-arguments. saying "...others have disputed this" is not impartial and gives more weight to the allegation than the counter-arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair statement that briefly mentions both sides of the argument.
As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis".[1][2] Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this.[1][2][3][4] FobTown (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already addressed in the last paragraph. You are partially blocked from editing 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis article, engaged in edit warring, and blocked multiple times in the past. Best to wait for other users to comment and build consensus, and avoid edit warring WP:EW. Saying it is sourced doesn't address the issue I brought up. LilAhok (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This statement has been in the article for a long time, until you showed up on 19 July 2022 to delete it[5] and then did the same on 24 July 2022 [6]. A lot more scrutiny is on the debt owned to China, rather than other lenders, due to white elephant projects and high interest. This statement is only meant to be a summary as the article's main focus is the protests. If you want to indulge in details then go to the main article of Debt-trap diplomacy where the full debate is being fleshed out. FobTown (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In particular this is the reason why China's debt has been spotlighted over Japan or the ADB: China is, however, facing more scrutiny over its investments and assistance, and has been pushing back against “debt trap” claims.[7][8] FobTown (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your concerns:
  1. "This statement has been in the article for a long time, until you showed up on 19 July 2022 to delete it[5] and then did the same on 24 July 2022 [6]." Keeping things up to date and having debates on the information available is the essence of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how long the information was on the article, as long as I have sources and use Wikipedia guidelines to support my rationale. I've provided that.
  2. "If you want to indulge in details then go to the main article of Debt-trap diplomacy where the full debate is being fleshed out." I've already said that in my post, "Debt-trap diplomacy" is an allegation that has been contested, and is more appropriate under the debt-trap diplomacy article. If user wants to read about arguments and counter-arguments, they can find it under debt-trap article." I've already mentioned that in my post. The information pertaining to Sri Lanka is quite long, so it would be excessive to repeat arguments and counter-arguments in this article if it is already available in Debt-trap diplomacy.
  3. "Steep payments on international sovereign bonds, which comprised nearly 40 percent of the country’s external debt, put Sirisena’s government in dire fiscal straits almost immediately. When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5 percent was because of Hambantota. The Central Bank governors under both Rajapaksa and Sirisena do not agree on much, but they both told us that Hambantota, and Chinese finance in general, was not the source of the country’s financial distress." https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ This source provides data to support its argument. A country defaults when it can't service its debt obligations. 5% of total debt payment was attributed to the Hambantota port. How does 5% cause collapse? what about the other 95%? Again, undue weight by focusing only on Chinese lending. lengthy arguments and counter-arguments don't need to be repeated in this article, and can be found in debt-trap diplomacy.
Again, avoid edit warring and wait for other users to build consensus. Also, I've provided sourced information on how the country depleted its foreign reserves, and how that contributed to the crisis. Unless a valid reason is provided for the removal, stop removing it. LilAhok (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis" - This statement is well supported and doesn't need to mention "debt trap".
Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this. - This is a brief mention of how its described and disputed as a debt-trap, while avoiding going overboard on the academics or think-thanks for either side. FobTown (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a couple more sources, explaining why China gets more scrutiny than Japan or India.
Where China is at fault, according to Alan Keenan from International Crisis Group, is in encouraging and supporting expensive infrastructure projects that have not produced major economic returns.[9]
In Sri Lanka’s case, China is hardly the only creditor. India and Japan, among other nations, account for a considerable portion of Sri Lankan debt and are also enmeshed in complicated talks over further repayment and aid. But China’s engagement with the country has been more conspicuous and problematic, argued Alan Keenan of the International Crisis Group. That includes Beijing’s “active political support for the ruling Rajapaksa family and its policies. … These political failures are at the heart of Sri Lanka’s economic collapse, and until they are remedied through constitutional change and a more democratic political culture, Sri Lanka is unlikely to escape its current nightmare,” Keenan told the BBC. [10] FobTown (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you're moving goalposts. You went from high interest loans and white elephant projects to China being the sole supporter of catastrophic green policies.
Sri Lanka green policies were endorsed by the UN and ~30 member states. SL initiated the Colombo Declaration.
https://apps1.unep.org/resolution/uploads/colombo_declaration_final_24_oct_2019.pdf
https://www.unep.org/fr/node/26645
  • "Spearheaded by Sri Lanka, United Nations member states endorsed a proposed roadmap for action on nitrogen challenges called the Colombo Declaration on Sustainable Nitrogen Management."
  • "As part of the Declaration, environment ministers and officials representing the governments of more than 30 countries endorsed United Nations plans for  a campaign on sustainable nitrogen management called “Nitrogen for Life..."
LilAhok (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral view is to show readers who holds precisely how much external debts and info about the maturing soverign bonds, considering they are the largest portion of the debts. But you cannot follow a paragraph stating that Sri Lanka's external debt increased rapidly. And then mislead the readers into believing it's all just one country alone. And then completely remove info of all other people who owns the external debt over the decades and by how much. The external debt did increase a lot. But if you look at the data, China only holds 10 percent of it. Experts like Chatham house did a study on this and why they concluded that the debt crisis can't be fairly blamed on China given the data, and instead if anyone is to blame. It's the domestic gov plus western central bank's monetary policy of quantitative easing, that pushed interests rates down on international sovereign bonds, in which is what facilitated the President's borrowing and spending spree by burning through ISBs and that make up the largest portion of the external debt increase. Sri Lanka’s debt crisis was made, not in China, but in Colombo, and in the international (i.e. Western-dominated) financial markets. By 2016, 61 per cent of the government’s sustained budget deficit was financed by foreign borrowing (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2016: p. 69), with total government debt increasing by 52 per cent between 2009 and 2016, to Rs. 9.4 trillion ($64.5 billion). Of this, 34.2 per cent ($22 billion) comprised external borrowing, while debt servicing absorbed 44 per cent of government revenues (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2016: p. iv). Rajapaksa’s borrowing-and-spending spree was facilitated by low global interest rates caused by the policy of quantitative easing favoured by many Western central banks. Three-quarters of external government debt was owed to private financial institutions, not to foreign governments (IMF, 2017: p. [11]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's worse is especially when the first sentence says that Sri Lanka's external debt increased rapidly. You follow that paragraph closely with China and remove all mention of other holders of stock, to mislead readers into thinking that BRI and only China is responsible for all that debt increase alone, which is disportionate and against npov . As that is ridiculous to blame a country that holds ten percent of external debt. As for Sri Lanka’s debt, 9.8% is held by the Chinese. That’s not a typo: less than 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt is held by China. The rest is held by Japan, the Asian Development Bank and private lenders. How is Sri Lanka’s gross mishandling of its own economy somehow China’s fault, when it holds less of Sri Lanka’s debt than Japan does? [12]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are so offended that China is singled out and feel on the defensive (above is the same argument that China state-owned media uses). The percentage of debt from Japan and India are acknowledged, but China's debt is spotlighted for the reasons below. In Sri Lanka’s case, China is hardly the only creditor. India and Japan, among other nations, account for a considerable portion of Sri Lankan debt and are also enmeshed in complicated talks over further repayment and aid. But China’s engagement with the country has been more conspicuous and problematic, argued Alan Keenan of the International Crisis Group. That includes Beijing’s “active political support for the ruling Rajapaksa family and its policies. … These political failures are at the heart of Sri Lanka’s economic collapse, and until they are remedied through constitutional change and a more democratic political culture, Sri Lanka is unlikely to escape its current nightmare,” Keenan told the BBC. [13]
Where China is at fault, according to Alan Keenan from International Crisis Group, is in encouraging and supporting expensive infrastructure projects that have not produced major economic returns. [14] FobTown (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even hear yourself? You are stating that you are just singling out one country as if they are to blame for Sri Lanka having too much external debt. You seem to only want to blame everything on one country alone which is not (npov). Because data shows China having only ten percent of that external stock and hardly the primary driver of that increase in external debts. You're just making the same circular arguments. We can agree that Sri Lanka debt crisis was due to having too much debt. But most of it was to ISBs whereas as stated again, China only has ten percent stock. You really cannot simply blame Sri Lanka for having too much external debt on one country alone. You have to show everyone and how much debt each hold. And according to Chatham House, the largest portion is due to ISBs and if anyone should be blamed for the large external debt. It should be the ones that hold the most which is the international financial markets, where Rajapaksa burned through ISBs like there is no tomorrowz and the data backs it. If you cannot understand that, please consider third opinion noticeboard because I have done this dance with you too many times, and don't want to keep repeating it. And you are already even blocked for a very similar topic for the very same info too. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, rather this is an attempt to deflect criticism from China's loans which are more problematic than those of India or Japan, for instance the IMF acknowledges that the debt has to be restructured with China first. And its also clear that China's loans were used for white elephant projects. Since the terms of the lending were not transparent, it is an underestimation to suggest that 10% of Sri Lanka's debt was held with China. Critics have accused Beijing of what they call a “debt trap,” saying countries that owe money to China may be forced to sign over national territory or make steep concessions if they can’t pay up. China denies those allegations. Sri Lanka said that as of April last year, China accounted for about 10% of its total debt, but Moramudali said in reality that’s probably not the case. “I mean this 10% is also an underestimate,” he said, underlining that further research provided a more accurate picture of China’s lending to Sri Lanka. “Sri Lanka’s [debt] to Chinese creditors comes about 20%, not really 10%. So all these 20% will have to be restructured. That means you’ll have to look at how China Development bank will deal with restructuring and China’s Exim bank will deal with restructuring,” he added. [15] FobTown (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
omg, if I have to explain to you again why Sri Lanka is not even in a Chinese debt Trap when data doesn't show it for like the 15th time within a month....Yep, I am not doing this discussion again especially when you never seem to get it. You're not happy unless we put in your pov pushed edit that Sri Lanka crisis is due to Chinese debt trap. And go ignore all reasonings explaining that can never happen as long as Chinese debts do not make up the majority of the external debts. Because Sri Lanka is not in a Chinese debt trap. Despite China's deep involvement in the island nation, it is not the major culprit in the current debt crisis. In fact, international sovereign bonds constitute the largest proportion of Sri Lanka's external debt at almost half of total foreign debt repayments. China makes 10 percent. Even if 20, that still won't make up a majority to be deemed a Chinese debt Trap. Flooding the article as if "Chinese debt trap" is proven to be real and also the largest culprit for all of this is both against npov and undue. I really strongly suggest you stop replying to me if you cannot even understand that basic fact. And go to Third opinion noticeboard or at least find a source that claims that China has majority stake in external debt, which nobody is claiming. Despite multitudinous commentary, Sri Lanka is not engulfed in a Chinese debt trap. External debt owed to China amounted to about 10% of the debt stock in April 2021. The bulk of Sri Lanka’s external debt stock is owed to international capital markets (47%), followed by multilateral development banks (22%) and Japan (10%)[16]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
China is widely blamed for this crisis, as a lot of the funds went towards white elephant projects. Debt trap or not debt trap, its still fair to mention it briefly. There is no further mention of debt trap in the rest of the article except for this part here. As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis". Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this. FobTown (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not many. Some do but plenty of experts have strongly refuted it and harshly called it ludicrous to claim it as so. And it is not fair to blame the crisis largely on a non proven Chinese debt trap. Just because there are no shortage of hawks willing to hype up the claims as if Sri Lankan debt is dominated by China. The facts do not show it. Many believe Sri Lanka’s economic relations with China are a main driver behind the crisis. The United States has called this phenomenon “debt-trap diplomacy”. ..However, loans from China accounted for only about 10% of Sri Lanka’s total foreign debt in 2020. The largest portion – about 30% – can be attributed to international sovereign bonds. Japan actually accounts for a higher proportion of their foreign debt, at 11%...Defaults over China’s infrastructure-related loans to Sri Lanka, especially the financing of the Hambantota port, are being cited as factors contributing to the crisis...But these facts don’t add up. The construction of the Hambantota port was financed by the Chinese Exim Bank. The port was running losses, so Sri Lanka leased out the port for 99 years to the Chinese Merchant’s Group, which paid Sri Lanka US$1.12 billion....So the Hambantota port fiasco did not lead to a balance of payments crisis (where more money or exports are going out than coming in), it actually bolstered Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange reserves by US$1.12 billion.[17]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are passionate about your side, so is still okay to mention debt trap once in the article while saying that it is debatable. FobTown (talk)
Fobtown, Also quit edit warring. I or lilahok haven't even first agreed to you adding your edit. [18] The reason why I willfully haven't reverted your latest edit is because I don't want to keep doing this. You have also been blocked only 2 days ago, (Which I got in my notification) for literally edit warring on the same information in a very similar topic of Sri Lanka's economic crisis. If I reverted again and again. You and I both be blocked for 3RR and I don't want that. But starting to sympathise how Floydian felt on what he wrote in confronting your pov pushing, at your edit warring admin board. I am done here. I really hate to have to deal with you for two years and hope never again.[19]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as a compromise I've included both our preferred content in that paragraph. FobTown (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read this entire preceding chunk of text, but I believe FobTown's wording maintains neutrality by using words like "accused" and "argue." (Although "said" would still be better.) If good sources mention the existence of a debt-trap, and if that is relevant to the protests, then let the page reflect that. Example: if Obama made statements saying the world is flat, it would be acceptable to say "Obama said the world is flat" on a Wikipedia article, even though the world is in fact spherical. Everyone should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground and it's okay to temporarily not have the page to your liking while consensus is established. BooleanQuackery (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we know what the guidelines are. I'll highlight a few.
Sentences: As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis".[5][6][7][1][2] Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this.[1][2][8][9]
Wikipedia:Citation overkill - according to this guideline, one cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring. "In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to "outweigh" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims." 5 sources follow the first sentence and 4 sources follow the last sentence, falsely misleading the reader and giving them the impression that China was the solely responsible for the collapse. FobTown added two more sources to support the accusation. 8 out the 9 citations blame China for the crisis and repeat the same thing. there are plenty of other scholarly sources that refute this accusation, and they were not included in any of those citations. The first and second sentence can be condensed into one sentence - a sleazy tactic to include more citations to mislead the reader into thinking this point is valid. The two sentences can be condensed into one sentence with 1-2 citations. it doesn't require 9.
Under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it clearly says, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The accusation elaborates on how the China contributed to the crisis. the counter-argument is "but others have disputed this" doesn't satisfy this guideline, as it doesn't elaborate on the counter-arguments, and 8 out of the 9 citations blame China for the protests. Both views have not been represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. All significant counter-arguments have not been shared and elaborated.
If you want to settle this and want to keeping that info, we can repeat the lengthy section that includes both the arguments and counter arguments in Debt-trap diplomacy about Sri Lanka, have an outcome that looks like 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis "debt-trap" section, and have that information repeated for every single crisis and protest that occurs in Sri Lanka. Under Debt-trap diplomacy, if you read the arguments and counter-arguments about Sri Lanka, every single sentence can be attributed to someone, with more scholarly sources attributed to the counter-arguments. LilAhok (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC
Wikipedia should only mention the views of Nobel prize winning economists and professional respected Think tanks like Chatham House who actually researched the economics and know who is to blame for the economic crisis. Take a look at the actual sources that claims debt trap diplomacy. People like Peter Hartcher are just the usual tabloid China hawks, and they are not even economists.
  • "Whereas actual Nobel prize winner economists from CEPR and professional think tanks like Chatham House, were able to see that the debt crisis had much more to do with US policy of quantitative easing and in their professional words, state it is "clearly absurd to claim that Hambantota Port, or even Chinese lending in general, caused Sri Lanka’s debt crisis".[20]
  • "The hypocrisy is that if Sri Lanka was in Debt crisis when it gave up their port. It was to mostly to pay off western creditors and not Chinese loans in 2017. [21] Chinese loans may be big but hardly enough to be the major culprit. The Sri Lankan government heavily borrowed low interest ISBs the most. After 2013, the winding-down of quantitative easing in the US, was what actually sharpy increased Sri Lanka's borrowing costs and doubled interest rates. They only leased the port because of a predominantly western policy driven crisis. The debt crisis was precipitated by the winding-down of quantitative easing in the US from 2013, which sharply increased Sri Lanka’s borrowing costs. From 2011–16, interest rates on Sri Lanka’s short-term borrowing doubled, to around 10 per cent, while long-term rates increased from 7–8 per cent to 11–13 per cent; meanwhile, the rupee fell 36 per cent against the dollar, further increasing repayment costs (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2016: p. 32; IMF, 2017: p. 19) Desperate to pay off mostly western creditors, (hypocritically), that is why Sri Lanka actually leased the port to China in order to strengthen their foreign reserves to help pay off mostly Private companies. By 2017, three quarters of Sri Lanka's debt repayments was to private investors and not to foreign governments.[22]
  • "It is no co-incidence that so many actual western professional economists constantly refute the debt trap diplomacy narrative. It's because there's a good reason for it. Yet previously the critics of debt trap diplomacy were hardly given any mention. Just a single sentence saying "others dispute it". The poor quality sensational journalism shouldn't even be there. Wikipedia should ONLY cite professional sources for this matter, and not give weight to some sensational tabloid hawks.Simpleshooter99 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Mallawarachi, Bharatha; Pathi, Krutika; Mcdonald, Joe (2022-05-19). "China becomes wild card in Sri Lanka's debt crisis". ABC News. Retrieved 2022-07-11. Cite error: The named reference ":11" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d "China's 'debt-trap diplomacy' behind Sri Lanka crisis: Report – Times of India". The Times of India.
  3. ^ Wignaraja, Ganeshan; Attanayake, Chulanee (26 August 2021). "Sri Lanka's simmering twin crises". The Interpreter. Lowy Institute. Archived from the original on 18 December 2021. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  4. ^ "Sri Lankan Crisis between Debt-trap and Strategic-trap: The Chinese Stake". 26 April 2022.
  5. ^ ""Debt trap diplomacy:" China's hand in Sri Lanka's economic crisis". The Washington Post. 2022-07-20. Retrieved 2022-07-30.
  6. ^ "China, Sri Lanka and a developing debt crisis". Sydney Morning Herald. 2022-07-19. Retrieved 2022-07-30.
  7. ^ Tewari, Suranjana. "Sri Lanka crisis is a warning to other Asian nations". BBC News. Retrieved 2022-07-30.
  8. ^ Wignaraja, Ganeshan; Attanayake, Chulanee (26 August 2021). "Sri Lanka's simmering twin crises". The Interpreter. Lowy Institute. Archived from the original on 18 December 2021. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  9. ^ "Sri Lankan Crisis between Debt-trap and Strategic-trap: The Chinese Stake". 26 April 2022.

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose merging 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis into 2022 Sri Lankan protests as almost everything in the former article is already mentioned in this one. Or we can merge into an umbrella article 2022 Sri Lankan crisis as this is already not only a political or economic one.

  • Sources calling "Sri Lanka crisis": Here, Here and Here Sgnpkd (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose There is clearly a lot about the overall crisis in the protests article, so as currently written, editors and readers of the protests article may not realise that there's an overview article with a broader view. However, a merge to the title protests would restrict the scope, and some Wikipedians would try to follow a "protests versus reactions" format, which doesn't make sense with a long chain of overlapping events having effects on each other; a merge to the crisis title would tend to undervalue the fact that mass civil disobedience has been (and probably still will be) a major factor affecting the events in terms of formal governmental power.
    2022 Sri Lankan political crisis does currently seem like reasonably OK as an overview article. I think that some work to reduce redundancy between this whole set of related articles is needed, but I think that this needs careful use of summarising, using {{main}} and {{see also}} in sections or subsections where the topic is already covered in more depth in one of the other articles, or is more appropriate to the other article, or to a new split article. Judgment of what section starts going too much out of scope of a particular article is needed. This work needs to be done carefully with good edit descriptions explaining what is being done, so that editors don't feel that their work has been wasted. If editors feel that their work has been removed and don't realise where it has been shifted to (in a likely new format), then they risk recreating material in the places that create too much redundancy. Boud (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC) A rename from ... political crisis to ... crisis (without "political") might seem justified for this overview article. But that would be a WP:RM, not a merge. Boud (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article 2022 Sri Lankan protests seems to focus on the antigovernment moments of the civilians while 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis focuses on the political instability in government and authorities. I don't see reseaons to merge the two and merging will possibly cause confusion. 2022 Sri Lankan protests article is already lengthy and merged article will be too long. It is true that media sometimes call this "Sri Lanka crisis" but they also introduce them as "political crisis" The Guardian, Time and "protests" The Diplomat separately.
Furthermore, I oppose on the suggested title "2022 Sri Lankan crisis", since economic crisis will be misunderstood to be a part of it. (Economic crisis initiated years before 2022.) 🔮Plpm2021💬 10:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 12 May 2023

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 18:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sri Lankan protests → 2022 Sri Lankan Revolution – Following the president's resignation from exile, the protests have taken on both the form and definition of a revolution, having resulted in the ouster of the existing government and president and their replacement. While still further political restructuring could well take place, the ouster of the Rajapaksa administration qualifies this as a change justifying the phrase revolution. This is a historical revolutionary moment in Sri Lanka as the protestors who went onto storm Presidential Palace depict the essence of major revolt in political history. Lowy Institute 105.184.226.147 (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Convert to proper RM - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYMan6 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - claiming that "This is a historical revolutionary movement" is not a reason for a move request. Most reliable sources I've found do not use "revolution". However, I have found a number of sources which use "uprising" [23][24], so I would support a move to 2022 Sri Lankan uprising. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Sri_Lankan_protests&oldid=1196921084"