Talk:1985 anti-Tamil violence in Karaitivu

Leadup to event

There are two competing themes as to the buildup to this event. Prior experience discussing this topic on this website leads me to believe that this will be a point of contention, hence I am initiating this talk page discussion in a preemption, though hopefully we can come to a resolution quickly if need be.

The themes are:

1. The Tamil militant groups treated the Muslims well and the Sri Lankan state launched a nefarious plan to drive a wedge between the Muslims and Tamils in the east by instigating the former against the latter, even going so far as to bring outside Muslims to the east.
2. The Tamil militant groups were behaving aggressively towards Muslims and the Muslims finally retaliated against their mistreatment.

Not every one believes in these views to a tee necessarily, as M. A. Nuhman's contextualization is a middle ground between these two. But generally, those are how the buildup to the Karaitivu attack has been narrated.

The article previously alluded to theme 1, and my content has sprinkled in some theme 2. I believe there is sufficient WP:RS evidence for both themes and both should be included for WP:NPOV. SinhalaLion (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The article didn't allude to such a theme since it didn't even mention the militants at all, hence it's entirely your own assumption. How does the second theme fare with the allegations that thugs had been brought from Colombo who obviously weren't victims of Tamil militant extortions in the east? What you're suggesting was also the government's line but this source states the mainstream view went against it: https://noolaham.net/project/32/3138/3138.pdf (p. 4). The same source cites a report by a Muslim journalist suggesting that goondas and agents provocateur were responsible for the extortions that the government blamed on the Tamil militants. The state forces were also distributing leaflets with fabricated militant attacks against the Muslims. Outsiders were also observed in organizing the hartals in Akkaraipattu. None of this is to say Tamil militants maintained completely cordial relationship with the eastern Muslims, however.

It's a fringe theory that the security forces simply took advantage of preexisting local animosity against Tamils as a whole over militant actions rather than actively organizing the violence by recruiting thugs from the outside. This doesn't look like spontaneous communal violence from ordinary Muslims affected by militant activity. Evidence before and after the pogrom doesn't indicate widespread local Muslim animosity against Tamils as a whole. Muslim journalist Qadri Ismail reported no indication of Muslims in the area feeling threatened enough to resort to violence a month earlier and a post-pogrom report by F. Jayasinghe suggested that the majority in both communities desired to restore and maintain communal harmony and cited the example of Muslims from the nearby area arriving with aid and apologies for the victims. State instigation does seem to have been the primary factor here as of 1985.

By the way, you retaliate against those that actually attacked you, not third parties that didn't, which would be to aggress against. It's not comparable to the 1985-87 Trincomalee violence, where Sinhalese settlers expelled Tamil civilians who then responded in kind. Your wording in the article itself is more acceptable and I've just condensed it with some caveats.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it, but I'm quite surprised with your questions and commentary given how other articles have been written, and how Sri Lankan history has played out more generally. You're coming across as quite defensive of the Tamil militants here.

1. How does the second theme fare with the allegations that thugs had been brought from Colombo who obviously weren't victims of Tamil militant extortions in the east? They could still be motivated by reports of the harassment. Also, didn't Eastern Muslims participate in the violence? F. Jayasinghe said that the Muslims were locals, and Rajan Hoole says that it would be difficult to transport Muslims from Colombo to Karaitivu without it being known.
2. What you're suggesting was also the government's line but this source states the mainstream view went against it: https://noolaham.net/project/32/3138/3138.pdf (p. 4). This is the comment I received earlier, but why should the Tamil Times be the sole arbiter of what's "mainstream" here? I think Nuhman is a more impartial source than the Tamil Times.
   
   Here's a quotation from Nirmala Rajasingham that was used to defend its qualification as an WP:RS:
   

   In a few years, developments in Sri Lanka created a divergence of perspectives within the editorial group, where some supported militant Tamil nationalism unequivocally. Raja and others were perturbed by the intolerant nationalism, militarism, Tamil-on-Tamil violence and the crushing of dissent within the Tamil polity. Raja found the LTTE’s claim to be the sole representative of the Tamils abhorrent. By around 1987, the disagreement was settled in Raja’s favour, and he continued as the editor until January 2006. As Raja’s editorials became increasingly critical of armed violent actors, he was subjected to threats and intimidations.

   
   The attack took place in 1985, so there could easily have been pro-militant agendas influencing the Tamil Times' writing. I think it should disqualify the newspaper as an RS for before 1987, but in any case, I'll take an academic work by a more neutral third party (author of the Jaffna library poem at that) over an editorial piece.
   
   Also, while I haven't read Ismail's article in The Island, here's what he said regarding goondas and agents provocateurs in his article that's cited on this page:
   
   "For instance, there has been a history of border disputes and more recently, a lot of extortion of both money and paddy from the Muslims - by either militants or agent provocateurs or both." He's not entirely casting aside the culpability of militants. I have a feeling that the Tamil Times exaggerated or even twisted his words to make it sound like he was wholesale absolving the militants.
   
   To end this, I have other RS that back up what I'm saying and I will introduce them here in short order now that the moment calls for it.
3. The state forces were also distributing leaflets with fabricated militant attacks against the Muslims. Outsiders were also observed in organizing the hartals in Akkaraipattu. So any Muslim feeling or expression of discontent with the militants was just the big, bad state deceiving and manipulating the ignorant Muslims? That's a bit insulting towards them. And again, I don't trust the Tamil Times on this issue one bit.
4. None of this is to say Tamil militants maintained completely cordial relationship with the eastern Muslims, however. Saying that the militants were merely not "completely cordial" is so vague, it's approaching MOS:WEASEL. "Not completely cordial" can range from 0% (inclusive) to 100% (non-inclusive) cordiality. At least you seem to concede that the militant groups erred in their behavior - can't say the same for Phil Miller, who's cited in the article. Can you also consider the possibility that the errors have consequences (i.e. FAFO)?
5. It's a fringe theory that the security forces simply took advantage of preexisting local animosity against Tamils as a whole over militant actions rather than actively organizing the violence by recruiting thugs from the outside. No, the fringe theory would be that there was no state involvement and the Eastern Muslims went violent on their own. Once the state involvement is acknowledged, there are diverse views on the culpability of the Tamil militants. I'd argue that the Tamil Times is the fringe if anything.
6. Evidence before and after the pogrom doesn't indicate widespread local Muslim animosity against Tamils as a whole. Muslim journalist Qadri Ismail reported no indication of Muslims in the area feeling threatened enough to resort to violence a month earlier and a post-pogrom report by F. Jayasinghe suggested that the majority in both communities desired to restore and maintain communal harmony and cited the example of Muslims from the nearby area arriving with aid and apologies for the victims. Except for the Ismail citation, I think this is a non-sequitur. Your argument doesn't discount the possibility that there were grievances that the Eastern Muslims had against the militants, but that there was at least a section of Eastern Muslims who decided that said grievances were grounds to attack Tamils once the state instigated them.As for Ismail, it looks like the month of April, leading up to the attacks on Tamils, changed the dynamic a lot. Also, he's just one source, and I have other sources attesting to the militant harassment in months leading up to the massacre.
7. By the way, you retaliate against those that actually attacked you, not third parties that didn't, which would be to aggress against. It's not comparable to the 1985-87 Trincomalee violence, where Sinhalese settlers expelled Tamil civilians who then responded in kind. Not sure that I agree with this, both in general principle, or in the cases of Karaitivu and... Trincomalee Tamils of all people. But if you feel that way, please also take this up with another user on this website who quite readily uses the r-word to describe the actions of Tamil racists attacking innocent Sinhalese who did them no harm. SinhalaLion (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

   "You're coming across as quite defensive of the Tamil militants here."

   No, you're coming across too militant-focused here when the focus should be the victims of the pogrom, as per your own words, "When writing about the victims of violence, how many people feel the need to add the perpetrator's incentive, especially when the victim had nothing to do with said incentive?"

   "They could still be motivated by reports of the harassment"

   It's not our job to speculate.

   "Also, didn't Eastern Muslims participate in the violence? F. Jayasinghe said that the Muslims were locals"

   Jayasinghe said they were also brought from outside in government boats.

   Regarding Tamil Times neutrality, that particular report is based on other RS reports including journalist Qadri Ismail whose statements were the ones I was mainly citing.

   "He's not entirely casting aside the culpability of militants."

   Neither I nor Tamil Times said he did. Perhaps a qualifier like "some of the" would have helped.

   "Can you also consider the possibility that the errors have consequences (i.e. FAFO)?"

   Are you trying to blame Tamil civilians for the extortions/abductions allegedly done by a few militants? Not even the local Muslims did as per Jayasinghe. It looks you trying to justify the pogrom more than anything.

   "he's just one source, and I have other sources attesting to the militant harassment in months leading up to the massacre."

   Except Jayasinghe interviewed local Muslims immediately after the violence to assess the prevailing mood. Sure other sources attest to militant harassment, but how many say ordinary Muslims collectively blamed Tamils as a whole for that?

   I'm not too opposed to your current edit but anything more is POV-pushing and undue weight. ---Petextrodon (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

   No, you're coming across too militant-focused here when the focus should be the victims of the pogrom, as per your own words, "When writing about the victims of violence, how many people feel the need to add the perpetrator's incentive, especially when the victim had nothing to do with said incentive?"

   The page is called "1985 anti-Tamil violence in Karaitivu." It's about the event and its causes and effects. If it was a page about a survivor of the riot, say Mr. Krishnapillai, then my earlier statement would apply.

   Jayasinghe said they were also brought from outside in government boats.

   In my very quick scan, he said that Muslims were brought in boats. Please quote the passage of relevance.

   Are you trying to blame Tamil civilians for the extortions/abductions allegedly done by a few militants? Not even the local Muslims did as per Jayasinghe. It looks you trying to justify the pogrom more than anything. I'm blaming the extremist militants. I'd also similarly accuse extremist Sinhalese and Muslims in other cases whose foolish actions have repercussions on their community more widely. Sri Lankan ethnic conflict since forever is a series of FAFOs.

   Except Jayasinghe interviewed local Muslims immediately after the violence to assess the prevailing mood. Sure other sources attest to militant harassment, but how many say ordinary Muslims collectively blamed Tamils as a whole for that?

   If you count the Muslims "from the surrounding villages" (in Jayasinghe's own words) who participated — so that puts the number at at least 3,000 — pretty much every source does to some degree? Even if a minority, there were still plenty of racist Muslims who lumped in innocent Tamils with the militants. Again, I feel this argument is a non-sequitur.

   I'll take up further discussion in the new section. SinhalaLion (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

   "It's about the event and its causes and effects."

   You did include militant violence. It's succinct. Anything more is undue weight.

   "I'm blaming the extremist militants."

   That doesn't make sense. How did the Tamil victims here "FAFO"? It's justification of racial persecution and is nationalist editing, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

   This is what Jayasinghe states: "indicated the great desire of the Muslim community, undoubtedly shared by the majority in both communities, to restore and maintain communal harmony." It's not relevant to the content in the article itself anyway so won't be debating any further.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

   "and Rajan Hoole says that it would be difficult to transport Muslims from Colombo to Karaitivu without it being known."

   You took it out of context. He was not disputing it but cited it as an example of government exposing its complicity.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

The article, as it stands, gives too much weight to militant-exonerating perspectives when there are WP:RS that indict the Tamil militants' behavior before the violence. There were also attacks on Muslims by Tamil militants during the week or so of violence that have been ignored. My recommendations are the following (ordered from most to least important):

1. Add violence against Muslims. Like how we add Tamil violence against Sinhalese in the anti-Tamil pogrom articles.
2. Add a background section that captures the various perspectives on the leadup to the violence. We shouldn't have quote blocks from MPs (obviously biased parties). Weightage to the perspectives will be based on what the RSs say. However, I will warn others that there are quite a number of them that call out the militants. I had three at the ready as I knew this day would one day come, and I'm sure I can easily find others.
3. Rename to 1958 Tamil-Muslim riots. It seems to be a better reflection of the sources that have blamed both sides for the violence, even though Tamils were the majority of the affected. However, it's not as important as the other two. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Also: Karaitivu was not the only affected place. Even the sources that were present before I made my contributions note this. Hence we need to broaden the scope of the article. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. You gave more than enough weight to background details about militant action. Anything more is undue weight and POV-pushing that diverts from the main topic. I'm fine with your current rename as it exists but am opposed to this new rename proposal. There are enough RS to describe this as mainly anti-Tamil violence.---Petextrodon (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"gives too much weight to militant-exonerating perspectives"

None of them explicitly exonerate militant violence. Once again that seems to be your own POV based on conflating absence of explicit affirmation with its denial. So if anything the article is imbalanced in favour of militant-blaming POV which you apparently want to expand even further.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Tamil Times routinely calls accusations against the militants "discredited," features voices that accuse outside, agent provocateurs, and political forces of trying to divide Tamils and Muslims, calls the militant behavior "unaccountable." Furthermore, it said that Sinhalese thugs transported from Colombo attacked the Muslims in the east on April 13. To me, it's very explicitly exonerating of the militants. The Wiki article gives an entire blockquote to some ex-MP, who I don't even think was from the area (was a Mutur MP), as well as a contested quote from Thondaman saying that Colombo thugs had gone to the east,. All this added up, and no inclusion of RS that blamed the militants despite such RS being readily available, renders net effect of exonerating the militants and thereby being POV.

The article says nothing about the militant attacks on Muslims after the Karaitivu violence, again in defiance of many RSs, so I will be reinstating the POV tag as I do not think that we have resolved this issue. SinhalaLion (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Where has Tamil Times's own editorial perspective been cited in the article?

"and no inclusion of RS that blamed the militants despite such RS being readily available"

You already included one.

"renders net effect of exonerating the militants and thereby being POV."

Once again, that's only your POV. They are not mutually exclusive.

"again in defiance of many RSs"

Wiki policy doesn't state we need to include every detail not directly connected to topic simply because RS include them.

You haven't explained why the paragraph you added isn't enough and how expanding on it is due weight.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon: you're not supposed to remove a POV template just because you don't personally agree with it or have accusations against me. There are specific stipulations as to when the template gets removed. I won't get into an edit war with you, especially since now we're under WP:CTOP, but I think removing it twice was unwarranted.

You have now accused me of WP:NATIONALIST based on a strawman, falsely accusing me of "victim blaming an ethnic group" by saying that "Tamil civilians" "F**ked around and found out." This is in spite of the fact that I had clearly mentioned that the errors that constituted the FAFO were those of the militants. The reason I asked you about whether you could accept that those actions had consequences is because it was not clear to me that you accepted the RS view that the militant behavior was a cause of the riots. How on earth this could have been taken as me blaming civilians is beyond me as I never even mentioned the word "civilian," (this is not a case of Tamil civilian mobs attacking Muslims, though in other riots it may be the case) and I hardly even discussed the civilians. It's you, if anything, who seems to be conflating militants and civilians, which is WP:NATIONALIST. This is also, as I earlier mentioned, not a case of adding such details to a page about a victim, like the Nagadeepa Purana Vihara. If it was, I would agree that it would be irrelevant and victim blame-y to put the motivation of the Muslim mobs (unless the reason was related to that victim specifically).

Regarding the Tamil Times, you cited it when you put in Ismail's goondas and agents provocateur line, which I felt was reproducing the Times' stance since Ismail has stated elsewhere that militants may have been involved. Granted, you may not have been aware of Ismail's other article, but I feel that the wholesale-manner in which non-militant forces were blamed for the harassment of Muslims was a Times-specific stance, not one that the RSs generally support. However, to your credit, we've changed the source to something that we can more readily verify was said by Ismail and one that may blame the militants.

You haven't explained why the paragraph you added isn't enough and how expanding on it is due weight. - I have:

• 44 words
• 1 source
• A vague mention of "others."

You have:

• 164 words (including quotes)
• 2 or 3 sources (I think Hoole has been miscited for the Majeed quote)
• 2 quotes

Clearly, there is undue weight on perspectives that only blame outsiders (and, in effect, exonerate militants given that the context of such utterances was internal divisions versus externally-induced divisions). To be completely fair, however, it looks like Majeed's words may have been misrepresented as he didn't say "outsiders." If Hoole was wrong to suggest he was blaming (only) outsiders, then I was wrong to do so too.

But, assuming Majeed was accusing outsiders, then I would feel that the militant-blaming perspective is entitled to at least the following:

• An additional 120 words (quotes included). They can be used to describe the hartal.
• One or two additional sources for the additional wording
• 2 quotes blaming militants (can be from politicians, ordinary civilians, civil society groups)

Furthermore, there should be a paragraph that outlines damages done to Muslims by the militants following the Karaitivu attack in places like Akkaraipattu. We can also include the violence against Tamils in these areas too as the damage figures mentioned in this article are already for the east as a whole. Hence, I believe in a scope increase; focusing on Karaitivu alone is like making an article solely dedicated for the 1958 riots in Polonnaruwa. If I tried to make a separate article, that could be seen as WP:POVFORK. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"you're not supposed to remove a POV template just because you don't personally agree with it"

As per Template:POV#When_to_remove: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." A militant-blaming perspective had existed for months and your explanation why it deserved any additional weight made no sense and violated WP:UNDUE.

"This is in spite of the fact that I had clearly mentioned that the errors that constituted the FAFO were those of the militants."

Except it was Tamil civilians who "found out", so you did in fact victim blame. We can take it to ANI if you want. Users have been sanctioned for far less.

"not a case of adding such details to a page about a victim, like the Nagadeepa Purana Vihara."

Hairsplitting. The basic principle still stands. Your ethnic double standard here along with victim-blaming only reinforces my point that you are in fact engaged in nationalist editing.

"which I felt was reproducing the Times' stance since Ismail has stated elsewhere that militants may have been involved."

So, this is your original research although you stated you had no access to the The Island source that Tamil Times was citing. Now that you have modified it beyond recognition, there's no line explicitly exonerating the militants. I don't know how any reasonable person can still demand even more weight be given to your POV after this.

"Clearly, there is undue weight on perspectives that only blame outsiders (and, in effect, exonerate militants given that the context of such utterances was internal divisions versus externally-induced divisions)."

Tamil militants were not the culprits of the pogrom which is the topic of the article, so of course more space will be given to the actual culprits whether outsiders or insiders. External instigation isn't a fringe view either; RS are unanimous STF was involved. You're definitely POV-pushing by wanting to give outsized weight to this background detail which should not be equal in weight to the rest in the first place.

"there should be a paragraph that outlines damages done to Muslims by the militants following the Karaitivu attack in places like Akkaraipattu."

Wikipedia is not a space to feature your singular obsession with blaming Tamil militants. This is about state-backed mob attack on Tamil civilians in Karaitivu, not militant attacks on Muslims in Akkaraipattu afterward. It's a small article but everything you're suggesting gives disproportionate weight to issues not directly connected to the topic.

"focusing on Karaitivu alone is like making an article solely dedicated for the 1958 riots in Polonnaruwa"

This wasn't violence that was pan-island but had Karaitivu as its center stage so its scope is limited.---Petextrodon (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Except it was Tamil civilians who "found out", so you did in fact victim blame. The militants found out when their reckless actions put ordinary Tamil civilians in danger, thereby harming the very people they (claim they) wanted to protect. By definition, the innocent civilians could not be guilty of FAFO as they didn't do the "FA" part. Let me make it patently clear: the Tamil civilians were not guilty of FAFO. The militants were.

Also, my record speaks for itself:

1. Eravur massacre may have been in retaliation for Muslim attacks on Tamils, as well as generally noting that there was a tit-for-tat situation (note that I was the sole contributor to the article, save for a small clerical fix, up to that point). Am I victim blaming Muslims here?
2. murders of Sinhalese at Gal Oya were "in return" for attacks and murders of Tamils. Am I victim blaming Sinhalese here?
3. "Jaffna turned violent on May 28 with the arrival of the news of the murder of the Panadura priest." Am I victim blaming Sinhalese here?

With all this, I would prefer this argument to end. I will consider further accusations to be violating WP:NPA for making a false and damaging statement and potentially engaging in WP:HA for continually making the accusations against me despite my repeated clarifications.

Now that you have modified it beyond recognition, there's no line explicitly exonerating the militants. I don't know how any reasonable person can still demand even more weight be given to your POV after this.

Why is there a blockquote given to Majeed who says untruths as per this article? "Lived in peace for hundreds of years" is misleading at best given we know militants had become aggressive in the past few months. Actually, if we axe this quote, then I'll rest my case as the WP:UNDUE for this perspective will have been mitigated. Majeed himself was not an MP or a minister at the time, not from the area, and didn't make the statement in the area, so I don't think he should be given any prominence.

My new proposal:

1. Add a line about the hartal. This may include the addition of one source.
2. No quotations for militant activity.
3. Remove Majeed's quote for being misleading + lack of authority.
4. Add more details about violence against Tamils in Karaitivu.
5. Write about violence against Tamils in other areas after the Karaitivu attack. You can do this if you don't trust me to.
6. Once the violence against Tamils has been added, add the post-Karaitivu violence against Muslims. The majority of violence was directed against Tamils, so the majority of the article will be for violence against Tamils.

I think this resolution should be satisfactory and is well precedented by other articles we have written of a similar nature. SinhalaLion (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you say so, but Tamil militants didn't "find out" anything. That's a bizarre use of FAFO which would not make sense outside the aforementioned context.

"Why is there a blockquote given to Majeed who says untruths as per this article? "Lived in peace for hundreds of years" is misleading at best given we know militants had become aggressive in the past few months."

That's a relevant perspective of an eastern Muslim leader given at a Muslim cultural venue. There's no rule we should only quote individuals from affected region. Two cited RS thought it relevant to include so it's not like it was dug out of nowhere. It's customary to include at least one block quotation in these massacre articles and you yourself have made use of extensive POV quotation in Eravur massacre article. Majeed actually stated, "The Tamils and Muslims have been living peacefully for hundreds of years," referring to the whole communities but once again you've conflated Tamil civilians with militants. In any case I can summarize and condense the quote as a compromise than completely removing it.

"Add a line about the hartal. This may include the addition of one source."

That's succinctly covered by the Nuhman citation: "eastern Muslims showed stronger opposition, providing the government with an opportunity to incite Muslims against Tamils". He mentions the hartal in the source. It can be reworded to accommodate that ("showed stronger opposition via hartal...") but makes no real difference.

As for 4-6, it's not a pressing need and I would have to do more reading. I wasn't looking to get caught up in a major content dispute. All I did was to condense and add a line but your response I feel was disproportionate when you could have simply modified my Ismail line. I would leave it for now.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine to condense the quote. I take it you are fine to add the hartal(s), so I will do so. Please do read more through the material you have more and revert at your earliest convenience. I think this is article is analogous to the anti-Tamil pogrom ones so we have lots of room for improvement, both for anti-Tamil and anti-Muslim violence. I'll rest my case now. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, even the Sinhalese editor of Saturday Review hinted that state forces had a role in staging the hartal. Whatever biases Tamil Times had, it wasn't simply fabricating things out of thin air as you suggested. It can usually be corroborated by other sources though censored national press won't be of much use. But I won't bother with it for now.---Petextrodon (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)