I stand corrected, you weren't being pedantic at all. I guess all those people lined up outside the bank, ready to riot, were waiting for the government to give them their money back.
To quote the Wikipedia[1] article on the riots:
"The uprising was a predominantly middle-class uprising against the government of President Fernando de la Rúa, who had failed to contain the economic crisis that was going through its third year of recession".
"The unrest started when Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo introduced restrictions to the withdrawal of cash from bank deposits, intending to stop the draining of deposits that had been taking place throughout 2001 and had reached the point where 25% of all the money in the banks had been withdrawn." People had were previously gradually withdrawing money over time.; no 'bank run' had occurred. The Corralito occurred, which among other political factors lead sections of the populace to riot. Read the article.
Moreover, the panic unleashed a wave of riots and other forms of domestic unrest. The ultimate result was an increase in the state's police powers, including more professional police forces.[17][18]
The Baltimore bank riot of 1835 was a violent reaction to the failure of the Bank of Maryland in 1834. The riot, which lasted from 6-9 August, was aimed at the homes and property of a number of former directors of the bank, who had been accused of financial misconduct and fraud
The Cyprus riots were not due to a bank run; they were due to the government's decisions to prevent citizens from withdrawing their money. From the article you linked: "Riots are now being reported in Cyprus as citizens are furious at the Troika’s decision to rob the citizens to pay for the bad debts of banks."
I'll give you the others, however. The fact that two are from over a century and a half ago however seems to support my implication that bank runs don't necessarily lead to riots (and more specifically, that not bailing out banks won't necessarily lead to riots).
The riot was because the government froze deposits so people weren't allowed to withdraw money from the banks. My original (implied) point was that bank runs themselves don't necessarily cause the chaos they're made out to, so if anything this supports my case: if the government had allowed the bank to collapse, there may not have been riots.
I don't see how whether they cannot withdraw because the government blocked withdrawals or because the bank has no money to give away matters. The riots are caused by inability to withdraw money in any case.
No, they weren't. To quote the Wikipedia[1] article on the riots: "The uprising was a predominantly middle-class uprising against the government of President Fernando de la Rúa, who had failed to contain the economic crisis that was going through its third year of recession".