Talk:2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

26 April Raids

User:Steven (Editor) That was a good pick up on a remote rural town, I checked to google and it does indeed seem to show them as two different towns, Sammanthurai being located West of Sainthamaruthu. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 18:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eng.M.Bandara and yeah both of these places have articles on here too. The confusion definitely lies in the reporting. For example, this Independent one reports about the shootout and explosion happening in Sammanthurai as well as mentioning the stock being found here too. I was trying to sort this text out last night, but ended up getting a headache haha, managed to do it today - further reporting also helped. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone has made a separate article on the shoot out April_2019_Kalmunai_shootout. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Surely we don't need a separate article for this or do we? The aftermath on this article is slightly incorrect as it doesn't mention about it being another search operation in Sammanthurai. Plus this entire article is covered in one small paragraph in this article and the search operations being carried out are part of the Easter bombings. I think this article needs to be deleted Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I did notice that too, the explosives and other articles were recovered in a separate raid conducted based on a intelligence briefing. I am on the sidelines whether the article should be kept, in the absence of the Easter Sunday bombings, this would have been a major incident. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep and you're right, this would have been a major incident. I think it's covered well in this article, it's mentioned in the intro and in the aftermath section. I've PRODed the article for now Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Dematagoda Bomb

Is it appropriate to consider Dematagoda explosion as part of the main attack, when it was a result of police breaching and entering into a suspect premise? The only way I see it could be included as part of the main attack is if the perpetrator was anticipating police arrival at that particular property and set up and ambush. In this event Police Officers also be added as a target. This seems ever more likely as recent raids on 27 April conducted in Kalmunai, following the shoot out there, had recovered evidence possibly linking the group to the murder of two police officers in November 2018, and the attempted murder of another person in March 2019, making it earliest events associated to the group. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

International Responses - Facebook/Zuckerberg

The line "Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie criticised Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's role in spreading religious intolerance in Sri Lanka" seems take "Facebook's role..." as a matter of fact, rather than what would otherwise be quite a contentious claim.

— Ruyter (talk • edits) 15:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

New

2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings develops other events such as 2019 Kalmunai shootout. So, we could start new one like Islamist insurgency in Mozambique. Also refer ISIL territorial claims. --AntanO 15:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

okay Anatoliatheo (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont think Sri Lanka has an Islamist insurgency.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

What about article like Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sinai Province and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Libya? According to medias, IS affiliated attack started in Batticaloa by killing 2 police officers, then it develop Easter bombings and Kalmunai shootout. Also, many suspects were arrested and captured weapons. Still the country in panic so and so. --AntanO 02:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no active militancy in Sri Lanka, sporadic isolated events cannot be considered active and WP:CBALL applies here. The current police crackdwon after the Easter Sunday bombings, led to the discovery of possible linkage to the killing of 2 police officers. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Indian Intelligence claim

Sources in Sri Lankan media claimed that state intelligence service received information from India and US on 4 April 2019, 48 hours, 24 hours and 10 minutes before the attacks. The US later denied providing any information (When questioned about what the sri lankan MP claimed about the US providing intelligence the spokesman stated that she cannot speak for others). Multiple media sources then claimed information came from India. When the State Minister of defence was questioned if India provided information relating to the attacks he stated "We maintain links with a number of foreign intelligence agencies including India, there has been a flow of information from multiple sources" when he was questioned directly whether India specifically provided any intelligence relating the attack he stated that "I cannot divulge that information". The intelligence briefing went out as a memorandum from the Inspector General of Police, states that he is relaying intelligence received from state intelligence service about possible attacks. It appears to me that claim that India provided intelligence has not been established by any official source, as this information is likely restricted. What's been reported by multiple media sources appears to be a bounce off each other, based on the initial erroneous source. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 21:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

PM of Sri Lanka seems to acknowledge the Indian claim. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indian-police-uncovered-a-plot-but-sri-lanka-didnt-act/2019/04/27/426095f2-68ef-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html?utm_term=.737498a3d468 “The fact is, it’s very, very specific information and that has been conveyed to everyone in writing. That is the action that was missing in some cases. That’s what we’re investigating,” Wickremesinghe said. DoomDriven (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@DoomDriven: If you read the source you provided this what it quotes the PM saying " “The fact is, it’s very, very specific information and that has been conveyed to everyone in writing. That is the action that was missing in some cases. That’s what we’re investigating,” Wickremesinghe said."--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Bomb Scare in Tamil Nadu Maharashtra Andhra karnataka kerala etc in India

this is following blasts in sri lanka. Anatoliatheo (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anatoliatheo: About 3 suspected links with ISIS were caught and arrested by NIA in Kerala on 28 April 2019 following the bombings in Sri Lanka. The incident is allegedly linked with the Sri Lankan attacks as one of the ISIS footage videos which were released in Arabic even had translations in Malayalam. According to the Indian local sources Sri Lankan terror mastermind had close links with the state of Kerala. This is a hint which can be added in the content of the article under the section of the identification of the bombers. Even one suicide bomber killed himself in his house in Kerala immediately when he got to know that he was suspected. Abishe (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/nia-conducts-raids-3-kerala-houses-questions-3-suspected-have-links-isis-100850

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/terror-mastermind-had-links-in-state/article26973608.ece

https://www.thedailystar.net/india/news/india-searches-suspects-houses-kerala-1736410

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/suicide-bomber-man-carrying-country-bomb-kills-woman-and-self-kerala-100817

Bombs were not identified in Kerala but I adamantly added the information which was supplied here and also I am from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.68.134 (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Added a subsection niqab ban under social impacts

I added the government's new law as of 29 April 2019 on banning all types of clothing covering the face to avoid identification of a person including the burqa and niqab. Abishe (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to acknowledge the fact that the content was already covered under the subsection of precautionary measures. Sorry for my error. Abishe (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Further events too prominent in lede?

The lede appears to give as much space to the relatively smaller explosions during raids after the initial bombings as to a description of the bombings itself. Should we not remove some if not all of the follow-up explosion details from the lede and replace with something more summatory? This is the paragraph:

In further events, a minor explosion of a motorbike was recorded in Savoy Cinema, Colombo during raids conducted by police officers on 24 April 2019.[22] On 25 April 2019, another minor controlled explosion of a motorbike was reported at a bus stand in Moratuwa during police raids.[23] On 26 April 2019, three explosions and a shootout occurred during a raid in Sainthamaruthu. Three suicide bombers blew themselves up, killing nine of their family members, including six children, while three terrorists were shot dead during the gun battle. A civilian was also killed and two others injured during the shooting. A curfew was later imposed in the area indefinitely.[24][25]

Thoughts? Micronor (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Micronor: Agreed that it should be removed per WP:WEIGHT and replaced, however as the investigations are still in it's early stages, any changes we may make now maybe likely replaced by more signfacant events. Such as findings from the Presidential Commission of Inquiry. However if you want to remove and add breif summary up until now, I have no objections to that as per WP:CBALL. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph as it was given undue weight compared to the importance to the article as a whole. The explosions of three suicide bombers during raids may be added again, but currently there's no good place to put them next to the three existing paragraphs. Micronor (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Pregnancy of suicide bomber

There is a clear consensus to reinstate the information that one of the suicide bombers was pregnant.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

I am making a request for comments on the issue of whether the pregnancy of suicide is relevant, WWGB made the following revert [[1]], with edit summary commenting "you cannot be serious! For a woman to kill her own children shows a state of mind that has been dulled by religion. And it is published in many reliable sources." . This argument does not support the establishment of any fact for the incident that occurred, this article is not about a mental health inquiry of the suicide bomber or how religion may have any mental health impacts, and in my opinion, it is simply an irrelevant fact. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that she was pregnant and killed her own three children is published widely in reliable international sources and clearly satisfies WP:GNG. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] WWGB (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a suicide bombing, pregnancy has nothing to do with it. I am not disputing whether or not she was pregnant, it is simply an irrelevant fact --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

But "shows a state of mind that has been dulled by religion"? What's that all about? Drmies (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WWGB I am going to remove the references to the sucide bombers Pregnancy for now as per WP:BURDEN, unless a consensus emerges here for its inclusion . --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Let me remind you of three things: (1) RfC consensus takes more than six hours to emerge, (2) this article is covered by 1RR and you have already reverted me once today, and (3) I have clearly shown above that the pregnancy and child killing satisfies WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing that her three children were also killed in the blast must have been done in error, so I have restored it. El_C 08:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: I understand a consensus takes more than 6 hours that's why it been removed as per WP:BURDEN until a consensus emerges. MOS:WORDS applies here. You need to establish why the pregnancy had anything to do with the outcome of the bombing. I see no applicable relevance here unless you're saying the fetus should be counted as a civilian casualty (in which case WP:ORIGINAL would apply). --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I'm totally confused by what's going on here. Let me summarise discussion until now: 1. It is unquestionable, based on the reliable sources provided above that the suicide bomber was pregnant. 2. The fact that the suicide bomber was pregnant is usually seen as noteworthy when reporting casualties for example in traffic accidents. So there's no clear reason why the adjective "pregnant" can't be added to "suicide bomber". The unborn child died in the bombing. That's the connection. I don't see any arguments listed why one should go against this common practice, here. @Eng.M.Bandara: your turn. Micronor (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Micronor: Can you provide some examples of articles where a pregnancy (or other miscellaneous facts such as hair color) that had played no part in outcome or relevance towards to the main topic of the article justified the inclusion of that fact in the main article? We can just as easily say the "The blue haired sucide bomber......"(whether or not she had blue or green hair plays no part in the main topic of the article) --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Micronor.--Kimdime (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hair colour is clearly a Straw man argument by User:Eng.M.Bandara. Here are examples where pregnancy is mentioned as an attribute of casualties: [13] [14]. There's even an article for Murder of pregnant women, I doubt there's one for Murder of blue haired women. Does anyone have new arguments against adding/retaining "pregnant" before suicide bomber other than that it is irrelevant and not common practice? Micronor (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Include the mention of pregnancy. Its coverage in the media (rather than the color of her hair) reflects an understanding that this is relevant to the situation. Jzsj (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Micronor: My argument still hinges on the relevancy of the fact towards the overarching article. The example article you gave of murder while someone pregnant is not relevant to this article because the article is about exploring the legal aspects of killing the 'host' should be considered also as killing the 'fetus'. The next Wikipedia article you gave of the Malabar rebellion, (haven't read the entire article just skipped the section "nature of crimes") it appears the relevancy of pregnancy is again exploring the same legal issue, whether killing the 'host or life support system' for the child has any legal implication. The media coverage alone doesn't warrant inclusion, there has been widespread media coverage of the "horrific crimes" and other colorful words, we don't use these kinds of words, but instead, cherry picking to use pregnant for some odd reason.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 18:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Those "horrific" kinds of adjectives impart someone's subjective opinion. "Pregnant woman" relays a plain fact, as dryly and meaningfully as "Christian churches", "luxury hotels" or "commercial capital". It's not a huge detail in the big picture, but it's also a very small word in the article (nine characters, space included). Seems a fair reflection. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why not mentioning the pregnancy with such a level of coverage by media? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Include. I can understand the sentiment that the pregnancy is only tangential to the bombings themselves, but it has been deemed relevant by a bazillion reliable sources and therefore should be included. R2 (bleep) 19:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Include – Pregnancy is not a trivial detail like hair color or eye color. And if you don't agree, that's OK, because it's really not up to us to decide what is and what isn't trivial; it's up to the RSes. With so many (most?) articles about this mentioning the suicide bomber's pregnancy (and kids), it should be included. Leviv ich 04:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Include. In articles about murders in which victims are known to have been pregnant at the time they were killed, we state that fact in our articles - including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Omagh bombing - because it's relevant enough to include. For a suicide bomber to be pregnant is more relevant and therefore should certainly be included. Jim Michael (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Include. Per coverage in reliable sources - e.g. ABC.au - it is rather obvious that the the pregnancy + killing 3 of her own kids + police is relevant. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Include. Per above discussion and GNG guidelines relating to RS. Micronor (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstated. It has been more than three days, and there is no support to remove the word "pregnant". It has been reinstated. WWGB (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, consensus is to include. Probably better to say little support since Eng.M.Bandara doesn't seem to have changed their mind. Micronor (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Sri Lankan police have identified nine suicide bombers.

Identities of the bombers section needs update: See Identities of Easter Sunday Suicide bombers revealed for the first time and Tamil news --AntanO 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: refer the link and change as per... --AntanO 01:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Peace TV block in Sri Lanka

I also added a paragraph under social impact regarding the ban of controversial Peace TV by the cable operators in Sri Lanka. The move seems to be the direct decision by the cable TV operators without the approval or intervention of government. So I didn't add it under the section of Government response. This is a channel which is also often accused of spreading hate speech and it is believed to be used by ISIS for brainwashing youngsters. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of multiple landmarks

The version I have currently reinstated is the version that was unofficially agreed upon last week. Why are more landmarks and buildings being removed? We made it a lot shorter last week so there is absolutely no need to make the paragraph even shorter. (101.182.86.164 (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC))

Adding Sub Judice template to editing page

Should {Sub_judice_Sri_Lanka} template be added to the editing page of this article? The article contains matters that are currently before multiple courts in Sri Lanka. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

shutdown of Schools

There has been no coverage regarding the shutdown of all schools and universities article. Does anyone think this should be included in the aftermath? --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Chinese defence grant

Should we add China's grant for defence to the international reactions? http://www.dailynews.lk/2019/05/15/local/185671/china-grants-rs2600-million-boost-sri-lanka%E2%80%99s-defence - UmdP 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If it turns out in a be a significant collaboration, it could be added into a separate section, but still too early. There has been speculation about Sri Lanka learning from Chinese experience in effectively controlling the Xinjiang province (using AI to assess in risks that individuals present and to use this classify people and take them into custody on the basis of the assessment). The president and high-level delegation is currently in China. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

the INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE section of Sri Lanka Bombings - an improvement suggestion

"International responses Numerous world leaders expressed condolences and condemnation.[i] President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani referred to the bombings as an act of genocide."

In the citation i you include the United States. I would add, then, that some of the Political leaders' 'condolences' be recognised at this time for their disrespect at a time when Sri Lankan Christians were killed and needing support. Most notably, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's use of "Easter Worshippers". The very denial to use 'Christian' is an offense, and denies respect. Christians are most certainly not "Easter" worshippers, and that has connotations to the pagan Ishtar worship, or to the simple worship of East holiday - none of which happens, and are neither Christian values of faith. And as politicians both growing up in Christian values and schooling, they knew what they were doing. I suggest this, because it should not be hidden away, and 'Christian' became politicised, and a small 'movement' within US and UK social medias called upon it and called them against it, with changing their names to 'East worshipper (name)' or such.

Difference in Christchurch and Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1120013694073810944 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1106532154232766465

Difference in Christchurch and Sri Lanka, Barack Obama https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1119964696810070017 https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1106544510555824128

ISIS funded Sri Lanka Easter bombings with Bitcoin donations

Should we include this? 1. P31?P40? (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Large protests against NTJ dating as far back as 2017

There seems to be a number of noticeably large protests by the Muslim communiy in that region, against the NTJ. But it seems like the government is blocking the controlled-Media from publishing those, as that is the centerpiece of government failure during the bombings. How can we mention and cite this? After much digging, I found the following facebook link. Notice the date of the original post: https://www.facebook.com/nooruljihad/posts/1396502160401334 . There are more on that profile, but I cannot understand the languages. Strangely though, (please correct me if I'm wrong) no news agency covers this, or has any pictures of this. P31?P40? (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Internation Drug dealers behind the attack

Srilankan President Maithripala Sirisena has claimed that the bombings were done by International Drug dealers. This needs to be added to the article. Irfannaseefp (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Reactions

Some U.S. political figures, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, condemned the attacks on Twitter and described the victims as "tourists" and "Easter worshippers". The use of the term Easter worshippers instead of the term Christians was criticized by some.72.76.163.6 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Is "259 people were killed" correct?

Hi! This article says "259 people were killed" with 3 references. But the references doesn't say "259 people were killed".

• Reuters 2019/4/24 : "Death toll from Sri Lanka bombing attacks rises to 359: police"
• USNews 2019/4/23 : "Death Toll Rises to 359 in Sri Lanka Bombings, More Arrested"
• ColomboPage 2019/5/8 : "With her death, the total number killed from the Easter Sunday attacks raised to 258 including 45 foreign nationals."

I can find many references for "258 people were killed" on India mediums such as [15][16][17]. And also I can find references for "259 people were killed" such as [18][19]. However there are no India mediums. Is it correct? Honeplus (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Honeplus: Good question. But as a Sri Lankan citizen I also do not know the exact amount but sources mostly say 259 people. One or two deaths were reported about 15 days aftermath the incident. Earlier authorities miscalculated the number of deaths around 358 and it was false. I want to just mention that US President Donald Trump, most reliable person on Planet Earth mentioned in a tweet that 138 million people died in the bombings. The Sri Lankan population is just around 21 million. If I add this according to what Trump said it won't be accepted by fellow Wikipedians. Abishe (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Abishe. Additionally, I was able to find Sri Lankan news sites about 258 and 259.

• Daily Mirror 2019/5/9 : "AFP: A US official wounded in Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday suicide bombings has died in hospital, raising to 258 the total number killed, including 45 foreigners, officials said yesterday."
• Daily Mirror 2019/10/3 : "At least 259 people had been killed, including 37 foreign nationals and three police officers, and at least 500 were injured in the said bombings up to date."
• Daily News 2019/7/15 : "They are also inquiring if they were in touch with the perpetrators of the Easter Day blasts which killed 259 people and left 1,000 injured."
• Daily News 2019/8/24 : "The suicide attacks on three prominent hotels and three churches crowded with Easter celebrants killed 258 people and injured many others last April 21st."

I'm still confused why the killed people rise and fall on the same news site. But I confirmed it is correct that Sri Lankan news said "259 people were killed". I'll update old 3 references. Honeplus (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Domestic radicalisation

Okay, to avoid a rollback-war now a more detailed proposal. If no objections posted here, I'll implement in 2 days time (Sunday evening). I already posted yesterday in the talks page of User:Kingsif, who rolled back my initial changes, but no response from that side as to why and which improvements are suggested.

Background, hence not for the wiki: after a discussion on Quora we found out that Wikipedia has a nice factual overview, but solely the _direct_ facts. And hence was used incorrectly in discussions by stating that the radicalisation of Lankan Muslims came falling out of the air. It did IMHO not, there is much more to be said about what happened since the eighties. But that is not relevant for this specific wiki. However the fact that at least two reliable sources, and I could probably find a lot more, mention a _possible_ cause-and-effect link between the events in 2014 and 2018 and these bombings, means it's something worth mentioning in the wiki page. Wikipedia does not give opinions, it just collects facts and opinions.

Proposed changes:

• Change heading 'Islamic radicalisation' to 'Islamic radicalisation - foreign'

(As this is about the foreigners, their impact on school books, and the Lankans travelling to work with ISIS)

• New heading 'Islamic radicalisation - domestic'.

Text (with of course using proper ref-tags and links):

"Relevant sources give strong indications that next to this foreign influence the radicalisation of a section of Sri Lankan Muslims was also fueled by local interracial tensions. See e.g. https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-easter-attacks-commission-recommends-criminal-proceedings-against-president-sirisena-79087/ and https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-easter-bombings-in-sri-lanka-a-reflection-one-year-after/; for the riots that these sources mention, see e.g. 2014_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka and 2018_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka. "

That's all folks! Erikdr (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Erikdr: DO NOT make these changes - a discussion on Quora that people think this article is only the basic facts is no ground to change anything, and only supports that the content is correct. Not only is "Islamic radicalisation - domestic" no actual description with clear meaning ever used by anyone, it is also completely WP:OR. As a side note, your poor grasp of English and Wikipedia formatting makes me encourage you to not edit anything until you have improved on both fronts. Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that sounds as a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Wikipedia rules by you. I give TWO external references, one being the draft official investigation of an official governmment committee on these bombings, that both clearly and consistently say that domestic radicalisation (caused by terror against Muslims) is a contributing factor to the start of the 2019 bombings. And those references clearly mean that the current wiki is totally biased and incomplete. I could find 4-5 at least more references, all from leading journalists and newspapers just like the two given. Of course if those are needed, I'll add. That is not Original Research of mine, that is just quoting additional sources to make the Wiki more balanced. Quora just brought to light how bad this wikipage was. And editing English can also be done later, I'm not a native speaker but my written English sadly is often better than that of an O-level graduate in the English spoken world ;-) Same for wikipedia formatting - yes generally I stop at a basic level, upto others to improve on that if they find the format worth that extra time.

Hence next round to User:Kingsif. My statement is and remains that "as Wikipedia does not give opinions, it just collects facts and opinions" the current text needs strong improvement by adding these extra opinions (which themselves are a 'fact', being that there is no broad agreement that the radicalisation came purely from abroad...); and that fact is currently misrepresented in the text. Of course I want to avoid rollback wars, so await Kingsif's next round... Erikdr (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you really just say the current text needs strong improvement by adding these extra opinions - please read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You are insisting on inserting text, based on a discussion of people with no understanding of Wikipedia policies on another website, and went and found a primary source that does not support the context you are trying to frame. This isn't a fight with rounds, this is me trying to explain that you are wrong to insist on making these edits. Go get some experience on Wikipedia before trying to push a narrative in controversial topics. Kingsif (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well yes I meant that. The current text is not neutral, the proposed new one is. You don't seem to have much understanding of the situation concerned at all. And neither seem to be willing to read what I wrote: the Quora discussion was just the trigger, I simply found a serious mistake in a page (this one) where only one set of opinions was mentioned, not the other set. The other one (which I want to add) is also quite official, even a government committee, but comes to a less precise conclusion as the initial one. That is why the proposed text is 'give strong indications that' and not a 100% certainty. And if you see my history in Wikipedia you'll see some 8-9 years with hundreds of approved edits. Hence downplaying someone else is not clever, and starts feeling like you're at the edge of breaking the netiquette and Wiki rules on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. Anyway up to you to choose the next round out of the mechanisms mentioned here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol

The 'third opinion' could be a first one to try, but further escalation might be also an option? Awaiting your proposal, Erikdr (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Over 8 years and you still think these edits are a good idea. And don't know how to indent or even wikilink? Forgive me for assuming this article was the first you've touched, but that is exactly how it appears. I also don't think it's relevant to bring up a track record when you want to fly in the face of policy with these edits and somehow think that a quora discussion is a good basis. There needs to be no more intervention, just don't make the bad edits, they without a doubt would constitute disruptive edits. Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well your attitude is flabbergastingly against netetiquette and the Wiki guidelines. Putting the stress on formatting and not contents is exactly NOT what we need, we need proper and neutral content (and yes readable formatting but to me that is secondary) and my proposal improves the neutrality of the story instead of it being pro-government PR as it now more or less is. I'll put it up on the DRN somewhere in the next few working days, so as to improve Wikipedia content and have some helpful assistance; I offered third-opinion but you clearly are not open to that. And probably in the meantime I'll add 3-4 extra link suggestions here backing my proposal; then in the final outcome, if my proper edits win from your disruptive sticking to wrong text, we can together choose which of these links are best, I am not stuck to exactly the two mentioned above.

Your 'assistance' definitely up til now does not look helpful at all, sorry to say... Erikdr (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

my proposal improves the neutrality of the story instead of it being pro-government PR - this entire assertion is untrue (even if your proposed edits were accurate and necessary, making a non-standard distinction between types of radicalization in no way affects neutrality, something inexperienced editors like to claim to try and get their way). The fact that you seem to believe it makes it clear you don't understand policy. My note on formatting was to explain why it seemed so clear to me you were a brand new editor, I wasn't trying to shift focus. Kingsif (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, just preparing for the DRN in a few days, but if you or someone else wants to decide with some space for the needs I feel before then that is fine (and saves all of us a lot of energy). I gathered some more sources. Text remains then "Islamic Radicalisation" (header) The Sri Lankan government was aware of some foreigners arriving in Sri Lanka to spread what justice minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe called Islamic extremism. In November 2016 he told parliament that 32 Sri Lankan Muslims from "well-educated and elite" families joined the ISIL.[49] On 25 April 2019, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe revealed that the government had known of the Sri Lankan nationals who had joined Islamic State and returned to the country – but they couldn't be arrested, because joining a foreign terrorist organisation is not against the law.[50][51][52]. Also in the aftermath of the bombings investigations revealed that school textbooks for Islam published by the government also encouraged radicalisation of Muslims. The school books since the 1980s called for the death sentence for those who leave Islam.[53][54]

(So all I change here is combining the two subparagraphs into one).

Then added: "Independent sources, including the government-appointed Easter attacks commission, give strong indications that next to this foreign influence the radicalisation of a section of Sri Lankan Muslims was also fueled by local interracial tensions. "

Then the two interlinks, of course nicely formatted 2014_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka and 2018_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka, and then up to six references. The first one is essential as the commission has some more standing than all the others which are newspapers, HR organisations etc.

See e.g. https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-easter-attacks-commission-recommends-criminal-proceedings-against-president-sirisena-79087/ and https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-easter-bombings-in-sri-lanka-a-reflection-one-year-after/; for the riots that these sources mention, see e.g. 2014_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka and 2018_anti-Muslim_riots_in_Sri_Lanka. " https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14812

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26662255.pdf

https://ctc.usma.edu/terrorism-teardrop-island-understanding-easter-2019-attacks-sri-lanka/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/magazine/sri-lanka-brothers-bombing.html

And yes this adds a lot of neutrality. The current text gives the impression that all who were to blame were the authorities for the security lapse and the Muslims, mainly from abroad, for bad influence. That is sadly far from the complete story; the six sources (and the two other Wiki pages) make clear that the radicalisation, and hence part of the blame for the attacks, comes from these local interracial tensions, including some deliberate and as yet unpunished killings of Muslims...

Good luck! Erikdr (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Well no further response. I've now decided to work with a few piecemeal changes, first round done now, and this specific section with Interlinks comes later then. If someone wants to improve the style etc fine, that is what crowdsourcing is about. If someone simply (again) rolls back lock, stock and barrel without giving an explanation making any sense to me (and probably most other editors/readers, this is about making the story more neutral!) it'll be a fullblown DRN process. Erikdr (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Response of Kingslif was on my talk page, to explain a lock-stock-barrel rollback. Hence not put this on the DRN board. To keep the discussion central all copied to this Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Discussion mainly in the Talk page on the Article. This part on my own Talk page:

“Hello, I'm Kingsif. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. I know very well you refuse to believe your editing is disruptive, but trust me, it is. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)" Sorry my trust for your understanding the Wiki techniques is probably decent. My trust in your understanding what is neutrality and what is the proper information representation of a case like this is zero. What I am doing is constructive and what you are doing is the opposite. Will soon have to make time for a DRN procedure, sorry.

My response on the content (not the language, that is so much against netiquette that it’s not worth responding to): “Okay, the comment on The report still is in progress early 2021, but more information is getting reported about it. Is simply not at all read/understood by you. READ the external reference please. I see from this quite trusted source that the wiki statement about the Presidential Inquiry Commission, about a final version in 2019, in hindsight is incorrect. As there is another version in 2021. Sadly the report itself is still unpublished but ‘more information’ about it is in the reference. That is not Original Research, that is simply an update on the outdated current wiki info. And for the other undo, the Interlink in the Islamic radicalisation section to ‘Islam in Sri Lanka’, you don’t even give any reason. It’s an improvement (as this other section gives more perspective) and the rollback is nonsense!

Erikdr (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC) User:Kingsif Please respond to the DRN page, I mentioned above I would post it there but no response so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Erikdr (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Radicalisation discussion continued

After a few steps in the DRN process we're back here. With the rationale given above, and not understanding any comment that this would be breaking the (no) 'Original Research' (OR) or 'Keeping the Neutral Point of View' policies of Wikipedia, my proposed edited section next to the old one is now visible for all in my sandbox: Erikdr Suggestions on why or why not (in the latter with rationale) this is an improvement are very welcome here; I'll post the change to this page around April 17th. (And yes editing improvements are always possible, e.g. mentioning the authors of the references. Feel free to do so after it's modified here, these are not the kind of things to fix in the sandbox IMHO.)

@Kingsif: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Erikdr (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC).

Same person

The article mentions the following- A maternal grandson of Bangladeshi politician Sheikh Selim.[108] A relative of British politician Tulip Siddiq.[114] Sheikh Selim is a cousin of Sheikh Rehana, who is the mother of Tulip Siddiq. Tulip's mother is also the sister of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. They are talking about the same person.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Trial

See also: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2023_March_25 § Did_the_2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings_trial_resume?

The article says: "The trial was delayed until March 20232022". Is there any new information? Apokrif (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No valid reason to remove links to list of attacks pages

There is simply no valid reason to remove links to the 'list of attacks' pages. It really does not stop people from clicking on the other links to pages on terrorism and state terrorism. Oz346 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)