Talk:2019 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka

Riots are ongoing?

There doesn't seem to be any news of rioting going on and curfew has been long past lifted. Shouldn't it be changed in article by now? There could be hate attacks and vandalism but no rioting is being reported anymore. UmdP 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried to change that and remove non-riot material. 117.199.83.182 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Government actions?

Can somebody please inform me why the list of government actions are considered "anti-Muslim"? How is deporting 600 foreigners who were residing in the country unlawfully "anti-Muslim"? That entire list really ought to be placed on the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings article page, not here. It's clearly not neutral to place the list on this article and categories everything as "anti-Muslim". Wikipedia is a neutral place. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:E5F4:4278:204B:AEA9 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC))

I noticed and removed it. Most of it is in 2019 Sri Lanka Easter Bombings page. There can be some overlapping due to the incidents being related. UmdP 10:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Too much poorly and insufficiently sourced content added back without explanation, in addition to out of topic content.

Dear User:El C, User:LightandDark2000 and User:Xinbenlv. Please care to explain what you think was insufficient explanation? I had said multiple timed whenever I edited - none of the content I removed is connected to the riots.

The "anti-Muslim incidents" I removed were prima facie not a riot or even a violent incident. The riots according to the article already stopped on 16 May. 7D News on 16 May: Riots brought under control.

Yet you have been allowing content that is in no way connected to them, which is what your huge amount of removed sourced content comes from. Not one of them is actually a riot or a violent incident which this article is supposed to be about.

Then there comes the question of links of Muslim politicians to terrorists being a cause for the violence. Now this section mostly doesn't even mention any incident where alleged terror or extremist links are related to the riots. There doesn't seem to be any source connecting them with the riots.

But regardless, the language of the article clearly suggests no link except in case of Rishad Bathiudeen. None of the sources utilised however for him ever linked his suspected terror links as a cause of the riots. Seems like a hit job, none of these news articles used for him mention the link to the riots "Minister Bathiudeen made a request: Army Chief", "Ten charges levelled against Rishad in no-confidence motion", "Sri Lanka Minister says he is being falsely accused following the terror attacks"

You haven't checked any of the sources and the genuineness of the content on the article? Whether it's large or small, I think libels especially unsourced and out of topic things should go. 117.199.84.53 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not mind readers. Erasing a good portion of sourced content from the article with nothing but edit summaries counts as an insufficient explanation. Edit warring over these removals instead of taking your objections to the article talk page was the wrong call. I don't necessarily have an objection to your edits, but I would like to see it all laid out. El_C 01:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to read minds, just read the summary which isn't hard to understand. It is your duty to read the sources to check the genuiness and make sure the content added is within context. When they are not, they must be removed.

The content I removed here isn't linked to the riots in any way. The "anti-Muslim incidents" I removed were not violent in any form and occurred long after the riots were over. Read any of them or their sources. Claims about alleged connection of Muslim politicians being a cause of the riots, aren't backed by any of the sources. You want me to lay it out? How do you want me to lay out something that doesn't exist and not even connected to the topic? 117.199.84.53 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

By going passage by passage rather than removing that much sourced content wholesale. Like that. El_C 02:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So you want me to list and justify removing every individual incident or paragraph, because you won't bother to check their genuiness or whether they're relevant yourself. I already debunked the passage regarding Rishad Bathiudeen above, you should delete it because it falsely links him to the riots when none of the sources, which I listed earlier, do. 117.199.84.53 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK if individually listing everything is the only option to have this garbage removed, I'll do it. But this problem has only arisen because you people let others add whatever they wish without scrutiny. 117.199.84.53 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You people? We are all volunteers here. Where were you when these were added? Sorry but, yes, you're gonna need to substantiate the sourced content you intend on removing. El_C 10:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Didn't expect this article will be ruined with impunity. Uh, I did substantiate about Rishad Bathiudeen but you haven't responded. The news articles I linked above, and below too, contain no claim that his terror links were a cause of the riots. But the only way to confirm this is by reading the articles. You likely haven't read them, am I supposed to read them out for you?

"Minister Bathiudeen made a request: Army Chief", "Ten charges levelled against Rishad in no-confidence motion", "Sri Lanka Minister says he is being falsely accused following the terror attacks". 117.199.93.210 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You know what? I don't appreciate your tone and I no longer wish to participate in this article or its accompanying talk page. G'luck. El_C 15:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@117.199.84.53: I genuinely believe you are in good faith, seeing you trying very hard to justify the edit (massive removal) with discussion on Talk page. I did that too. However, editorial opinion-wise, I agree with @El C: that the burden of proof now lies on you when you are removing them. That is, when the pieces were recently added to the page, you could quickly revert them if you believe there are no evidence or cited sources or non-relevant. If the original editor insisted to add these content, it would be their burden of proof to justify. But when these pieces are there for a while, and you want to to remove them, but someone else has raised objection of your removal, it's your turn of burden of proof to justify your removal. I learned this the hard way. But after a while of volunteering in Wikipedia I believe this rule makes sense.

Another suggestion for you in this particular case is to use a named user account rather than an IP address. It makes it much easier for people to read your track record and when they need to notify you, they know where to find you, which build trust much easier.

Regardless of our different opinions on individual articles, I appreciate that you take time to do corrections that you believe is true, and take to talk page to explain them. In contributing to Wikipedia, we are all the same. Kudos Xinbenlv (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I did explain. I removed what is original research, libelous and unsourced, still I have not opposed reversion of my edits. I reminded many times to El C to review all the sources regarding Rishad Bathiudeen after explaining that his actions were not a cause of the riots in any manner. I'll always be available at the talk page and I'll explain, but please do read explanation of my edits or it becomes pointless to have a talk page. 117.199.80.108 (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

M. L. A. M. Hizbullah, the governor of Sri Lanka's Eastern Province until recently, has no connection with the causes of anti-Muslim riots. The article doesn't have one word about his alleged terror links being a cause of the riots.

He is alleged to have links with extremists like the Easter bombings mastermind Mohammad Zahran Hashim. But not word links it to the riots as you can see in the news reports used here, "Former Governor Hizbullah blames Zahran for 2015 election loss", "Former Governor Hizbullah blames Zahran for 2015 election loss", "Sunday Times - 2015 general election candidates signed agreement with Zahran : Hizbullah", "We informed Office of Prez, PM and IGP about extremist groups: Sahlan Maulavi", "Informed authorities on Zahran’s call to kill all non-Muslims - Moulavi"

He is also alleged to be supporting Islamic extremists replacing Sinhala signboards with Arabic ones. But again as you can see, nothing about it being a cause of anti-Muslim riots. Does any of this mention it being a cause of the riot? "Extremists replacing Sinhala signboards with those in Arabic: Prelate", "නැගෙනහිර සිංහල ජනතාව අරාබි මුස්ලිම් පාලනයකට යට වෙලා - විසදුම් නැත්නම් ජනාධිපති අගමැති කාර්යාල වටලනවා" , "Hizbullah began Arabization in Kattankudy: Muslim Org,"

But not even once any mention of all of these allegations or links being related to the anti-Muslim riots occurs. There were hartals and protests in Eastern Province due to MLAM Hizbullah's extremist links, but clearly no violence or anti-Muslim incident occured there. Tell me if you can find any in the news report "Hartal against Hizbullah".

It is imperative to remove such libels. Does anyone have an actual news report that any of it was linked to the riots? 117.199.80.108 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ada Derana bias

An very crucial point I'd like to mention: News sources like Ada Derana are now becoming obviously untrustworthy as their bias was clearly seen in the past breaking news they published. I'm sorry, I don't have direct references at this point, but they are widely accused of indirectly fuelling the tensions by always mentioning the religion and full name when a Muslim is involved (convicted or not), even more so on their SMS breaking news. In light of this clear obvious bias, which I believe is now becoming significantly noticed by the public, I feel Wikipedia must blacklist Ada Derana as a trusted source (similar to what has been done with UK's Daily Mail). Just passing by. Cheers, P31?P40? (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

9 deaths is false

I couldn't find any source to support the "9 deaths" figure. The only victim is Mohamed Salim Fowzul Ameer. - UmdP 13:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this titled "anti Muslim riots". This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's standards against bias.

Please change the title, It's not like the Palestine-Israel conflict is called the Anti-Muslim war. So why is this treated differently?WikiHelper200 (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Run-on sentence doesn’t make sense.

I’m trying to parse:

On 17 June, chief prelate of the Asgiriya chapter Warakagoda Sri Gnanarathana claimed that Buddhist women the doctor involved in the sterilisation controversy stoned and approved their statements.

But I’m unsure of what it is trying to say. Could someone who is familiar with this topic please edit this sentence so that it makes sense?

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because... (Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed) --Asitha1234 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Why is this in favour of muslims when clearly the Christians people who died Terry is life (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)