Talk:2018 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka

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

Proposed merge with 2018 anti-Muslim riots in Kandy, Sri Lanka[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge the Kandy page into the Ampara page for an overall 2018 anti-Muslim riots page - ක - (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The violence is now on a nationwide scale. It makes sense to have one article, in order to avoid multiple smaller ones. Rehman 08:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I wouldn't mind merging myself, but the internet here is very choppy now. The government has (partially) also blocked facebook, youtube, whatsapp, and maybe some others as well, in order to stop the spread of false info, as clearly the riots greatly escalated due to the spread of fake news. Please remember to clearly WP:SOURCE and maintain WP:NPOV. The government is doing all they can to control the violence, and if Wikipedia is flagged for being biased or harbouring fake info, it can too be blocked. We do not want that. Yours truly, Rehman 09:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Rehman: You are right with this case, as I also strongly recommend to describe these 2 incidents in a single article rather than breaking it into 2 pieces. Please see this, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka#2018_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka But when compared to the Ampara violence, the violence which was held in Kandy is a serious one which caused to impose State of emergency in Sri Lanka. Abishe (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: @Abishe: @Leftwinguy92: Agreed, although "nationwide", Rehman? I was under the impression Kandy was calming down? Info's a bit hard to come by down here in Colombo. I've never done a merger before, lemme have a look at how it's done. - ක - (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - ක -. Thank you. Yes, incidents are reported to have occurred in places outside Kandy and Ampara as well. After the first curfew ended in Kandy, things only got worse. Hence the TRC ban (which we should include in the article as soon as a solid source is online). I didn't know you are based in Colombo. Nice to know :-) We should do some offline Wikimedia events sometime. Cheers, Rehman 09:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: @Abishe: @Leftwinguy92: Do we take it that a consensus is reached here, then? And the TRC stuff is already on the Kandy page, under the Response section. - ක - (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I Do. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@- ක -: I don't think it will be an issue. Since you guys are the significant contributors to the articles anyway - and none of you have objected, it is unlikely a third-party will object. This is uncontroversial, IMHO. And spending more time will only end up with having a bigger mess to deal with. Traffic (including IPs!) will soon increase on this page. Rehman 09:35, 7 March 2018 (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.

Pictures[edit]

We need pictures in advance to prove the information whether we are accurate in providing the information in this manner. Rumours can be spread through these violent crime incidents. Abishe (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: Agreed. I've been hunting Flickr in the hopes of finding some, but no luck yet. - ක - (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

In this article,there wasn't mentioned about the truth behind these series of actions.The author mentioned that the target were mosques.There is no any word regarding the killed sinhalese people and desroued buddhist temples. VishadaUdayanga (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-muslim or Anti buddhist ? Are the buddhist the only ones who want to answer for this? What about the killed sinahalese? This article was created by a extremist who tries to turn this island to coffins.. VishadaUdayanga (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VishadaUdayanga: There are no details because there is no reliable source that we can quote. There is no media release, no official statement about any Sinhala deaths. WhatsApp messages, "ape eha gedara ayya danna ekkenek kiwwalu eyage maama inna patthe pansalak gini thiyala kiyala" type rumors and inflammatory Facebook posts may be regarded as authoritative by some, but here on Wikipedia, they aren't. I suggest you read up on WP:VER.
Secondly, Wikipedia isn't your personal political soapbox. We remain neutral here, or at least try our hardest to. You will notice that I removed a paragraph about the BBS in the 'Background' section since it seemed the author of that paragraph was trying to imply the BBS was to blame, even though we have no info on such a connection. We can't cover every article, since the number of Sri Lankan Wikipedians that actually understand how to edit a page properly and can understand and follow the rules can be counted on two hands. On this article, however, we've covered the assault of the lorry driver by a bunch of drunk thugs and we covered how it then led to violence. That is all the article is meant to do. This isn't a political rally or propaganda outlet. I'm not interested in engaging you in a debate that you're hilariously unqualified to even initiate.
Thirdly, this nonsense about bias didn't start until the TRC began blocking social media sites, which seems to have led a lot of people here to try and vandalize this page and push their narrative through it now that they've been prevented from using places like Facebook and whatnot. Allow me to point out that the people in Ampara and the Kandy District were well on their way to creating coffins and rioting even before this article was created. So no, I don't think this article will create anything but anger among a certain section of Lankan society that's angry at not being able to control the propaganda machine.- ක - (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now Randeepa has added a sourced claim about the alleged temple attack. You could have done this, except you spent more time making random edits (I'm assuming you're the user from the 174 IP address I warned earlier today) and accusing people of being biased. - ක - (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2018[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the article at this time. Although it is a good impulse to search for neutral titles, we generally follow the usage of reliable sources (see WP:NPOVNAME). Further, the discussion below does not exhibit a consensus in favor of a move to any particular title. Dekimasuよ! 16:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this as this violence was caused against both Muslims and Buddhists in the country. Muslims destroyed Pansalas while Buddhists attacked the mosques. It was my fault to have created the article with the heading stating that the violence was conducted only by the Buddhists against Muslims (I mainly focused on the Ampara incident during the attempt to create this article) Abishe (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against: I'd say this is premature. The assault on the lorry driver was not, as far as we can tell, racially-motivated. It's been alleged now that a temple was pelted with rocks, but this comes 2 days after the Digana riots. Anything that happened after the riot started by the Muslim side is basically the cycle of violence continuing. That doesn't change the fact that, as of right this moment, there is nothing to suggest the Muslim citizenry started a riot. - ක - (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per ක above. Also, the tag on the main page may be a bad idea as traffic on this article is spiking due to blockage of a number of other sites in Sri Lanka. That would funnel a lot of unregistered users here, and may flood any chance of rational conversations between existing editors. Rehman 15:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jesuschristonacamel: VishadaUdayanga a particular novice Wikipedian has tried to create bias and rumours stating that I (as the author of the article) was unfair against Buddhists as I started the article (but I started to write the article in a neutral way as I also committed some errors), 2018 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka initially describing about the communal violences held in Ampara. The particular User has created a guilty consciousness to me with the following paragraph, Anti-muslim or Anti buddhist ? Are the buddhist the only ones who want to answer for this? What about the killed sinahalese? This article was created by a extremist who tries to turn this island to coffins Abishe (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, everyone calm down. There is no need to move this page, regardless of who says what, since there genuinely is no reason to do so with the information we have available now. If more details emerge and we find that it was the Muslims who started the violence on or before the 2 March, then this becomes a general ethnic clash. Until then, this remains an anti-Muslim riot. - ක - (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is its the Muslims are that are being targeted for reasons that have been reliably proven to be false. The attack on the lorry driver had no racial or religious motivations but the attacks on Muslims do. UmdP 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@UMDP: I wouldn't say they've been "reliably proven": nothing's been reliably proven other than the fact that a man died after an assault, and that there have been riots targeting Muslims. Motives, counterattacks, shadows moving in the night are all a mystery right now. All we have at this moment are rumors and what little the media can gather, which, if you look closely, are also mostly anecdotal. All we can do is make the best we can out of the situation and hope someone actually does an inquiry after all this is over with a report that won't suddenly get "lost". - ක - (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current title seems ok, but consider to more suitable title if there any need. I don't find much news/source in English, but local language news has more update. Eg: There are reported incidents in East (Akkaraiapattu, etc), Vavuniya and Matale. Also, there were minor clash between Tamil and Muslim. Also. see Sri Lanka Deploys Police, Military After Buddhist-Muslim Clash --AntanO 21:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the Wikipedia policy on non-English sources anyway? Any chance the Tamil articles could be cited here? - ක - (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can use non-English sources. WP:NONENG --AntanO 22:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. 45.116.233.23 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this page title needs to change then the 2014 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka title should change as well because that riots started again with Muslims attacking. Both sides Fighted so if this page title changes then that page should change. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made a mistake by recommending to change the article header as the article's heading has been renamed a few times after the Kandy riots. I conducted this discussion because to get clear idea from other experienced Wikipedians and to reach a clear consensus. If the editors propose for a strong oppose decision, then I will accept the decision. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the title can be a little bias they do have Buddhist victims by Muslim. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can show that the riots were initiated by Muslims, please do go ahead and rename it. Until then, the riot itself, which is the topic of the article, is an anti-Muslim one. Reprisals are obviously going to happen once something like this starts. That doesn't make this an anti Buddhist riot or incident. I've said this before, I don't see this needs to be brought up again and again. - ක - (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was started by Muslims. At 2 PM on 22 February 2018, a Sinhalese lorry driver from Ambala, Medamahanuwara was subjected to an assault by four Muslim youths in Karaliyadda, Teldeniya. The victim was admitted to the intensive care unit of the Kandy General Hospital and died on the night of 2 March from his injuries. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for repeating back to me information that I myself added to the article. That incident has not been confirmed as a racial incident by the police. By all appearances it appears to be a personal dispute. The fact that some people started a riot using it as a reason does not mean that the people that did it started the riot. How is this so difficult to understand? - ක - (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't it possible to use a title that does not specify which party started the conflict? I find both the old and the new name problematic. Aren't both names violating WP:NEUTRALITY?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable suggestion, although I don't see how it violates NPOV. If we do go ahead with a name change, no doubt we will also go back and change all such titles, including the one of the 2014 riots. - ක - (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the title “anti-Muslim riot” not neutral? JahlilMA (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a neutral description, because it implies that the causes for the conflict are religious. There are other causes in play as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Assuming that the article is unbiased, it seems the description strongly suggests that religious conflict is the main factor of the riot. JahlilMA (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about communal violence, and add the period in brackets?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal[edit]

  • Comment: After reading these comments I am proposing title "Communal Violence" rather than "Anti Muslim violence" since many foreign media also reported this as Communal Violence. 'Communal Violence' is a moderate name. Randeepa
  • Comment: I would prefer the title as a Communal Violence, better and free from controversy. -Nizil (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move based on this comment below. Moving this article may also require moving other related articles, as mentioned by one editor above. Rehman 03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with both 2018 Communal violence in Sri Lanka and 2018 Buddhist-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka names. Since majority thinks this name should be change, better to do this quickly, its more than one week since this happen. Randeepa (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover comment[edit]

NO ACTION
Kindly post your comments/opinions in section(s) above.

The following discussion 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.

@Usernamekiran: Instead of your suggestion 2018 Communal violence in Sri Lanka I have already suggested to change the header as the 2018 Buddhist-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka because it gives more clarity to others without just saying it as a communal violence. Abishe (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: yes, that is sort of my point. I am saying to come up with a good suggestion, instead of vague suggestions. :) There were already three supporters to the vague suggestion of "Communal Violence", so I added it as an option. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:50, 15 March 2018 (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.
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.

Grenade blast as a part of this violence[edit]

A person was killed in a grenade blast as a part of the communal violence in the country yesterday.[1] (place is unknown) Abishe (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing fact[edit]

Hi,

The source of escalation of violence is captured in the below article

"More than 150 homes, shops and vehicles were estimated to have been destroyed in riots on Monday and Tuesday, which were sparked at the weekend after a group of Muslim men in Digana town allegedly killed a Sinhalese man. Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese population makes up about three-quarters of the country’s total population.

Muslim-owned properties were attacked soon after the man’s funeral but the violence escalated after two hardline Buddhist monks with large social media followings and a history of inflammatory rhetoric arrived in Digana to negotiate the release of accused rioters.

When police refused, dozens of Muslim properties were set alight and a curfew was imposed in two towns in the district. On Tuesday morning the body of a 24-year-old man was pulled from one of the houses set on fire the previous day."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/07/sri-lanka-blocks-social-media-as-deadly-violence-continues-buddhist-temple-anti-muslim-riots-kandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.18.53 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amith Weerasinghe[edit]

I believe everybody who followed the events of the riots know Amith Weerasinghe. It appears that he is the main figure behind the riots and has been arrested

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/article/1040371/main-suspect-in-kandy-violence-arrested

He is also called the mastermind of the riots and even international media has picked up his and his "Mahason Balakaya". I believe that this needs to be added to the article and as a major point. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/sri-lanka-imposes-state-emergency-communal-violence-180306080251131.html http://www.colombopage.com/archive_18A/Mar08_1520518224CH.php


UmdP 14:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UMDP: Yes, you are exactly right, new reports state that 81 suspects have been arrested by the Sri Lankan police including the main suspect, Amith Jeevan Weerasinghe. I got to know this from a Tamil source. Abishe (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kotahena shooting[edit]

A shooting incident had held in the area of Kotahena leaving one dead and 2 others being hospitalised. I think this incident is related to the communal violences in the nation. But these incidents have been occurred in areas like Kotahena in the past and I suggest that this shooting incident may have been planned after the arrest of the main suspect who was the mastermind behind the anti-Muslim riots in Kandy. (I am not sure with this).Abishe (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe, don't speculate. Stick to WP:RS and not to WP:OR. Cossde (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Advantage of Being a Minority[edit]

Muslims in Sri Lanka have always been welcome as part of the Sri Lankan community. However, an extremist Muslim minority is working towards damaging the peace among the people in Sri Lanka. This article is a good proof of their deeds. Turns everything that happens in Sri Lanka about anti-Muslim activities. Kotahena incident is pathetically linked to Amith Weerasinghe's arrest which everyone in Sri Lanka knows is a big lie. But the writers only need the sympathy of the out side world, making their bias (Muslims) look innocent.

This incident started when the Muslims killed a Sinhalese man. Why not mention that as the cause? Why not name the article as "Sinhala-Muslim clash"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upulwicrama (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Upulwicrama. I'm responding to you as an uninvolved third-party. My involvement here largely includes technical adjustments and whatnot, and smaller areas such as int'l response info. So rest assured, I'm all ears. I would like to direct you to ක's valid point made on 7 March 2018 at 8:39 pm (in the move request section above), including conversation before and after that post. The title will remain unless that could be proven.
Furthermore, we cannot base on claims like "Kotahena incident is pathetically linked to Amith Weerasinghe's arrest which everyone in Sri Lanka knows is a big lie". If you can prove it with verifiable sources, the changes can be made. Every statement in this sensitive article is sourced. And if you feel otherwise, you are free to flag here. But keep in mind that doing this and disrupting work here will only get you blocked.
Thank you for your understanding. Rehman 09:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rehman. Read the section that Abishe added about the Kotahena incident. He's linking that with Amith Weerasinghe's arrest. "..I suggest that this shooting incident may have been planned after the arrest of the main suspect who was the mastermind behind the anti-Muslim riots in Kandy". I added my comment before he appended "I'm not sure" part within brackets. Shouldn't you have asked for proof or source for his claims like you do to mine? Also In ක's comment, he says "..If more details emerge and we find that it was the Muslims who started the violence on or before the 2 March, then this becomes a general ethnic clash. Until then, this remains an anti-Muslim riot." How is this fair? If nothing has been proven, that's when the article should be named "Ethnic riots". If Muslims were found to have started this clash, then the name should changed to "Anti-Buddhist riot", and vise-versa. Isn't this the case? You as a person who claims to be an uninvolved third-party shouldn't call ක's comment a "valid point" as it is clearly biased.
--Upulwicrama (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the calm response, Upulwicrama. Replying in point form:
  • Regarding Abishe's comment above: I think you misunderstood the role of talk pages. What he said has not been added to the article, because it cannot be proven with any existing source. His post above is simply to let other editors know that such an incident had happened, allowing others to keep an eye out to see if there are any verifiable claims that these events are linked. For example, I could post a new talkpage section saying that I think Trump and Kim are meeting because of the riots. That does not mean anything, and cannot be added to the article unless otherwise it can be proven.
  • With regards to ක's comment, it is very clear that the initial incident was not racially motivated (i.e. was simply a road rage incident). But the escalating violence is clearly not a response to the said isolated road rage incident (i.e. unrelated people are attacking other unrelated people). This has been proven in a number of local and international news venues linked in the "References" section in the article.
Since there are no heated or offense arguments escalating, I would like to encourage you to directly reach out to either of the editors above, should you have further queries. I would be happy to step-in, should a third-party involvement be required. Have a great day, and thank you for your understanding. Rehman 02:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a reliable source showing that the Muslims that killed the Sinhalese man were motivated racial or religious reasons that just being drunk during a road accident then it could be done. UmdP 03:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"This incident started when the Muslims killed a Sinhalese man. Why not mention that as the cause?"
I would, but seeing as it's already in the article, I'd say it's fairly redundant to mention it again.
This is getting embarassing now. You clearly didn't read the article, and seem to have no idea of how a Talk page works, since you think a comment on the Talk page about Kotahena is the same as putting it in the article. My guess here is you saw the title, or was directed to this page by someone, tried to edit it, found out you can't since you're not autoconfirmed (your first two edits were random test edits on a non-Lankan article, presumably to see if you could edit other articles) and decided to start a pointless argument here.
I 'm trying so hard to have these discussion by assuming good faith, but when people who have no clue how Wikipedia works come up here accusing me of being involved in some conspiracy, it's hard to assume you're anything other than a troll. Especially seeing as you edited my comments on this very talk page, putting your twisted opinions into them. The fact that you think you have any right whatsoever to take some sort of moral high ground after that move makes me laugh. The fact that you haven't been banned yet is a sore disappointment. - ක - (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ක. As you have taken the trouble to research and rightly pointed out, I am not an experienced Wikipedian. Everything else you say is incorrect. Since the situation has calmed down I do not want to lengthen this argument. I rather wish peace be established in my country. But here's an explanation for you to correct your incorrect assumptions.
As the government blocked social media and regulated news on other media as well, I wanted to see what kind of information is available online for an average Joe who wouldn't use VPN or proxy services. On a quick search I came across this article. (No body directed me.) I read the article in full. When I saw how the wording is biased, I wanted to correct it but realized I did not have access to the article. I saw biased comments and decisions made on the talk page too and wanted to raise my voice. In the part that I quoted from your response earlier, your logic seems to be "If no proof, then Anti-Muslim Riot. If Muslims proved guilty, then Ethnic clash" where as for any rational person the logic should have been "If no proof, then a neutral topic (like Ethnic clash). If anyone proved guilty, then Anti-XYZ riots", hence my initial few edits to the comments. I wasn't aware of how a comment can be added to the talk page until Rehman pointed out that I was doing it wrong. Since the moment I learnt it, I have been following the accepted practice in Wikipedia. Upulwicrama (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're putting words in my mouth, trying to push an obvious agenda. I also don't see you admitting you were wrong for alleging the article had no mention of the lorry driver's assault and death when it was one of the first edits I made to this article days ago.
What you're doing now is called a strawman argument. "If no proof, then Anti-Muslim Riot. If Muslims proved guilty, then Ethnic clash"? What I said was that there is no evidence that the event at Teldeniya with the lorry driver had anything to do with race. I, like you, live in Sri Lanka and drive on its roads. I know how tempers run high- one does not need to be a racist to want to assault other drivers the way people drive here. What I have said, repeatedly on this page, is that the riot, the actual topic of the article, was anti-Muslim in nature. The assault is the background to the riot, not an article by itself. The assault was not a riot, unless you define a "riot" as any fight between individuals. The assault also predated the riots by about 8 days. The reason we've named it an anti-Muslim riot is because that's how the riot began. There is no mention of a temple being attacked until 5-6 March, by which time the events at Digana had already happened. It takes a serious amount of mental gymnastics or desire to spread propaganda to say this is a clash where both parties are equally wrong, when the second party didn't react until 3 days after the violence by the other party began, with one reported incident , according to the news reports we have now. If it is established that the Muslim community in the Kandy district started attacking Sinhala property for some reason before the 2 or 4 March, you can claim it was a general ethnic clash. You can't call it a general ethnic clash when one party burnt shops and houses for three days before the other party started seeking revenge. You're also very conveniently ignoring that the riots in Ampara, which are also covered in this article, and which have now been proven to have been entirely one-sided, with fake news about "sterilization pills" being used to start violence against Muslims in Ampara.
I'm going to stop responding now, because I've already explained my position three times on this page. You also don't sound like you have any interest in doing anything other than pushing your own agenda, which I find tiresome to deal with. By all rights, I should have had you blocked for what you did here, editing my comments and vandalizing a discussion page- take it as a sign of respect I even bothered to engage in a discussion of any sort with someone that has done nothing but twisted my words and misrepresented everything I said.- ක - (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Upulwicrama: Please don't make advantage by hurting others. This is a neutral place where editors very often discuss the issues in the talk pages of the article mainspaces in a friendly manner. No one is politically motivated in any case over here. I wanted to explain these stuff as you are a newcomer to Wikipedia but you have been doing some ugly things on this particular article. The communal violences are over now with the tense situation around the Kandy District have been controlled with imposing curfews at times and the article has been protected from spreading false information and rumours on this incident. The contents in the article have been written in a well organised manner with so much references to support the information. No one is permitted to write special notes in a biased way or advertise about this violence through this particular article unlike the social media networks. Note that, Wikipedia is not a social media and it is about knowledge website. On the other hand, I should note you that several editors have helped to improve the quality, reliability of this particular article apart from myself as a page creator. The real incident has been reported over here to the whole world unlike the false and fake news which have spread in social media daily. Yes, there were some mistakes and I accept my mistake in my controversial call about relating the Kotahena incident to the arrest of the main suspect, Amith Jeevan Weerasinghe who was the mastermind of the Kandy violence which was a foolish statement provided by myself in this talk page but I also mentioned it as a doubt rather than original research within the brackets. But apart from this, I didn't Insert any information to the article without providing proper sources. Please be nice towards other Wikipedians and I suggest you to contribute to the Wikipedia by doing constructive edits on other articles before making any attempt to edit the content in this article as you are not allowed to edit the content because the page has been protected from disruptive editing and you need to have at least more than 250+ constructive edits by spending 4 days to get the rights including the autoconfirmed and extendedconfirmed rights, so you can do constructive editing over here after some time. I hope you get it. Happy editing. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The riots are over[edit]

@Rehman:, @Jesuschristonacamel: Now it is the time to change this incident from the status of ongoing to closed. The curfew has been removed in the Kandy District and the situation has been under controlled by the forces, social media networks have also resumed to normal conditions. Foreign tourists have also started to visit Kandy District. Schools in the Kandy administrative district are also set to re-open on Monday. But I must ask you all when did this violence ended as I am confused to update the Infobox without knowing the actual date. Please help me out with this situation. Abishe (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe:, @Rehman: I updated it with the 10 March as the end date. It seems fair, since that's when the Police said they would no longer enforce a curfew, which shows they think there's no danger of more rioting. The article still needs a LOT of work, but unfortunately I won't be able to contribute soon, since I've got some personal issues that is taking up time, and because I think it's best I take a break from the incessant arguments on this page. - ක - (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesuschristonacamel: Thanks for your great work in updating the coverage of this article and you deserve a special mention and honour as you have assisted to improve the quality of the article. I think you should take a break for sometime after some serious arguments and issues about the communal violences over the last two weeks in this discussion page. Abishe (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2018[edit]

OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) OIC Calls upon Government to take immediate action to protect Muslims in Sri Lanka. URL: https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=17455&t_ref=9254&lan=en Azmath shamrad (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Spintendo      20:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti muslim[edit]

This is not only an anti muslim riot. Both groups attacked each other. Not only the muslims, buddhists too suffered from these riots. Pf194647 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken wings?[edit]

"Chicken wings" in opening paragraph I don't think is supposed to be there... (2804:D41:7EAD:DE00:5016:D92D:288A:FBE6 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Edit request ("Kandy district" section, 5th paragraph)[edit]

Hi,

There is an obvious mistake in the last sentence of the 5th paragraph in the "Kandy district" section.

This sentence erroneously states that "Many Muslim monks also visited Muslim churches during the Friday prayers in March 9th to express solidarity with Muslims.[26]", whereas the reference cited (aljazeera.com) writes about Buddhist monks visiting the mosques ("Muslim mosques" would also be better as "Muslim churches" in this sentence).

Additionnally, the very last sentence of the section ("Hundreds of Buddhists monks from the National Bhikku Front also launched a peaceful protest in Colombo accusing the rioters of destroying national unity.[26]") essentially repeats the same information and can be deleted or merged with the above-mentioned sentence.

Kudos for your good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.11.69 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - infobox[edit]

"Ampara – Flour clumps in the food served by a Muslim restaurant being accused of being sterilization pills"

Please change this to: "Ampara – Flour clumps in the food served by a Muslim restaurant were accused of being sterilization pills"

129.97.58.107 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) @129.97.58.107 Thanks for reminding this about the need of changing the tense and the use of incorrect wordings. The error has been rectified. Abishe (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018[edit]

The sentence now stating "Many Muslim monks also visited Muslim churches during the Friday prayers in March 9th to express solidarity with Muslims.[26]" should be changed into "Many Buddhist monks also visited Muslim churches during the Friday prayers in March 9th to express solidarity with Muslims.[26]" De Houthal (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018[edit]

mobs of Muslims attacked Buddhists Temples and Sinhalese citizens Shifan razick44 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough credible evidence that 'mobs of Muslims attacked Buddhists Temples and Sinhalese citizens'

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 07:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Apology[edit]

In May 2020 Facebook apologized for its role in the communal unrest that shook Sri Lanka. There was an investigation (note: I believe internal but, need to research more) that found that hate speech and rumors spread on FB may have led to violence against Muslims. I think this should be a subsection on this page. Big tech being involved should be noted. I will mark this page and come back to it when I have time. But, if anyone else wants to take this on-- that would be wonderful. MorganLMartinez (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicole0018 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nicole0018 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka&oldid=1217256614"