Talk:Violence against Muslims in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The most frequent form of anti-muslim violence[edit]

All sources concur that mob violence by hindus during riots is the main source of religiously motivated killings of Muslims in India. Denying this, or requiring specific citations is just silly. Perhaps it is also the case that mob violence by muslims against hindus is a major case of anti-Hindu violence, but there is another page about that. (I think it would make more sense to have a single page on Hindu-Muslim violence in India, but we dont currently). I supplieda citation from Brass, though apparently there is something fishy with the publication years given by google, it seems that it is in fact 2003 though google says 2011 and a previous google search apparently turned up 2005 for the same book.19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

In my opinion your wording "frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus" -- that is a charged statement with a major accusation that needs strong direct backing not inferential. Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Note that I am not undoing your edit without having a consensus here. I disagree with your reasoning of "... requiring specific citations is just silly" in this case. Jyoti (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The incidents themselves are enough to nullify what you think about charged statement thus it is obviously silly to request specific citations. Edmondhills (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I have put appropriate tags and opening one section for each specific tag, we can continue the discussion on specific doubts raised in specific section. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

neutrality is disputed for the opening statement "frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus"[edit]

WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to this statement. If you look at the last sentence of this first paragraph also Among the largest incidents were Bihar in 1946,[1] Nellie in 1983[2] and Gujarat in 2002 the first was basically anti-Hindu riots and Muslims were killed in repercussions, second was violence against Illegal immigrants from Bangaladesh (not exactly translatable into Anti-Muslim violence in India), and in third article we see SIT appointed by Supreme Court of India maintained that burning of train was caused by rampaging mobs and was not caused due to any accident and a section Attacks on Hindus also. I am making my stand clear that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and it remains a POV-statement unless backed by strong multiple sources and the reason for such riots are also mentioned (read my previous sentence on the three largest incidents). Jyoti (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The text is directly supported by the cited source, which is an academic specialist published by an academic imprint. From the source:
"The social exclusion of the community is matched by real, symbolic, and potential violence. Violence perpetrated against Muslims is now naturalized: riots are “well-known and accepted transgression of routine political behavior in India.”6 Therefore, a constant threat of persecution looms large. Members of the community have not only experienced incessant vilification and demonization but have also been subjected to pogroms. The demolition of the centuries-old Babri Mosque in Uttar Pradesh by Hindu militants in 1992, followed by violence in Bombay that killed hundreds, and the Gujarat massacre in 2002 that cost thousands of lives, have received some media coverage.7 But few in the international community know that “Hindu-Muslim riots and anti-Muslim pogroms have been endemic in India since independence.” These pogroms, as Paul Brass has correctly pointed out, are “classified in the press, by the authorities, and by the public as riots,” and hence blame is equally portioned between victims and perpetrators, creating an environment of impunity to the instigators.8 This engenders a culture of fear under which the victims have to live."
Wikipedia is based on sources, not the opinions individual editors have on topics. Giving your personal opinion on issues, without backing it up with sources is irrelevant, and you cannot refute statements supported by high quality academic sources with your own personal views. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
My comment of the three incidents come from the respective article content and are referenced with WP:RS there. I am saying I am making my stand clear that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and it remains a POV-statement unless backed by strong multiple sources and the reason for such riots are also mentioned. In my opinion it is a strong statement and qualifies for WP:EXCEPTIONAL specially when it is the first statement of the lead. We should provide the context behind each 'largest' incident also succinctly in the same para for WP:NPOV. Jyoti (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I will provide the context behind each 'largest' incident succinctly in the same para. Jyoti (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed the tag but I think it should go. The article is about violence against muslims and it doesn't seem controversial to say that this violence takes place in the form of mob attack on Muslims by Hindus. Not sure what's not neutral about that. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you discuss this in the "Tagged the article with 'POV' and 'context' based on the preceding on-going discussions." section below? Regards. --Jyoti (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring only to the neutrality tag attached to the mob attacks sentence, not with the overall neutrality tag (which, I believe, should stay because the article is a non-neutral hodge-podge of statements - but that can wait). --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your opinion. --Jyoti (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

undue weight -- The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages...[edit]

The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population.[3] This view is given undue weight in the lead and projected as a conclusive analysis -- which is clearly not the case!

Taking the case from the previous paragraph again Among the largest incidents were Bihar in 1946,[1] Nellie in 1983[2] and Gujarat in 2002 the first was basically anti-Hindu riots and Muslims were killed in repercussions, second was violence against Illegal immigrants from Bangaladesh, and in third article we see a section "Post Godhra violence" as the reason behind the riots (in which both Hindus and Muslims were killed). Jyoti (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim that undue weight is given to this fairly straightforward claim about the history of hindu/muslim relations in India you need to show that there is an opposing view that is more prominent. The same goes for your second claim, you dont demonstrate any thing by just contradicting a source - you need to show that there is disagreement about the claim in the actual literature. You may not personally consider the Nellie massacre an example of an anti-muslim riot but the literature does not agree with you.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·. I am not contesting the claim about the history of hindu/muslim relations in India. I am contesting that the proposed view is not the conclusive roots of the post-independence day violence but one of the viewpoints and not demonstrably most notable. I am not contradicting a source but saying WP:UNDUE. It is sufficient that there are other views, a disagreement is not required. I wished to point out that the Nellie riots were due to illegal immigration -- the roots of the violence in this particular incident. Jyoti (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not how it works. You are simply saying that you disagree with this statement, but that doesnt mean that it is given undue weight. It is undue only if you can reasonably show that this is a minority viewpoint in the literature. The weight given to different views is assigned based on their relative weight in the literature. The personal opinions about how much weight different statements should have is not relevant unless supported by references to the relevant literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not presenting my personal opinion. If we look at the three largest incidents as mentioned, each has its wp article and there is discussion there about the root cause of the respective incidents from reliable sources. And they differ from the viewpoint here The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population. I summarily presented differing views from them without reproducing references in this discussion. Jyoti (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I will attribute this view to the particular author instead of presenting in Wikipedia voice as a conclusive statement. Jyoti (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
And I will revert such an edit untill there is a consensus for it on this talkpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
We are in disagreement. How do we proceed for a consensus? I think I have demonstrated that there are other views and this has got undue weight. I haven't done such edit at all, I began on the talk page itself and wait for a few days for inputs from other editors after each comment. Insistence on reverting is uncalled for. But lets us not discuss on this line. Can you please look up the three largest incident articles (linked in the article), they are backed by reliable sources, none of the three fall under this proposed explanation as the root cause. It is an academic analysis and should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as a fact. Jyoti (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If academic opinion states that the roots of anti-Muslim violence in India lies in its history, then pointing to specific triggers of specific incidents is not going to help and is probably original research anyway. Regardless, I don't really see a contradiction between the roots statement and the specific causes of particular incidents. The underlying roots could very well be historical in nature. Maunus is right here and attributing generally accepted academic opinions to specific authors is not just unnecessary but would also incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean that the root cause of specific incidents can be different and you may completely ignore all differing views and attribute one academic theory to all of them as a final conclusive fact? Specific triggers do matter, the proposed theory encompass them but are contradicted in their context. It is not a generally accepted academic opinion since we find other opinions for the most prominent incidents. Jyoti (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I will WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jyoti (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is a difference between root causes and proximal causes. The statement in question is about root causes. Rioters, and this should be obvious, don't go around muttering "that's for the thousand years of muslim rule" when they attack muslims or their homes. The proximal causes will always be something else but will, in essence, be rooted in a dislike for "the other" (in this case the other is muslims) that is based on a much longer history. Do you have sources that discuss other roots for the anti-Muslim sentiment in India? --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said that, WP:FOC. The article starts with post-independence discussion and I limit myself to that. You want to keep the so called three largest incidents and say their root does not have to match with the proposed root cause but it is the definite root cause and need not be attributed either? Jyoti (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You are saying exactly that. If I read your last statement correctly, you're saying that the article should only focus on the actual (proximal) post independence causes for riots in India and should ignore any historical roots. That doesn't make sense to me at all. If scholars believe that the roots of anti-Muslim violence in India lie in its historical past, then we should say that - whether or not actual incidents of riots cite this historical analysis. If there are other scholars who argue that this historical analysis is incorrect, then we should say that as well - but I don't see any such scholarly refutation. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
My response was to this from you: "don't go around muttering "that's for the thousand years of muslim rule" when they attack muslims or their homes.". I haven't said that. What I have said is "The article starts with post-independence discussion and I limit myself to that". "Partition of India" can be argued to be a root cause for something post-independence only, No? Please do not use 'scholars', we are discussing view presented in one book. Analysis has to be read in context -- not every report has to use the exact phrase 'historical reasons'; insisting on exact words is pointless. (To make my point clearer this article also presents one view where 'Muslim appeasement' is interpreted as the 'root cause' of the violence.) I am not discussing its fallibility -- if presented this analysis deserves attribution. Jyoti (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let's start again since I can't really figure out what you've written above. You're saying that the statement "The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population" is given undue weight in the article. Why is it undue? Is it because it is a minor factor behind the violence and shouldn't be included in the lead? Is it because there are alternative views on the roots of this violence? Could you, in one sentence, explain why it is undue? --regentspark (comment) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have got my point right. I am saying WP:UNDUE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I am not presenting my personal opinion. If we look at the three largest incidents as mentioned, each has its wp article and there is discussion there about the root cause of the respective incidents from reliable sources. And they differ. It is an academic analysis and should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as a fact. We find other opinions for the most prominent incidents. The article starts with post-independence violence discussion and I limit myself to that. We are discussing view presented in one book. This article also presents one view where 'Muslim appeasement' is interpreted as the 'root cause' of the violence. Jyoti (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see a contradiction between the longer term cause and the shorter term causes mentioned in the riots articles. Looking at the causes of specific incidents and then using those to discount another stated opinion is original research that is better left to scholars. However, if only one scholar has identified historical reasons for the violence then, I suppose, it should be attributed. If it were a more widely held scholarly opinion then it would not need attribution unless there were alternative explanations that specifically discounted this one. --regentspark (comment) 13:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you say there is not really a contradiction, I will revisit and check if my understanding was flawed, I may not be able to do for a few days. You have expressed that if there is only this scholar who has identified historical reasons then it should be attributed; I had tried searching for similar references from other scholars which I could not, I will try once more. Jyoti (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

neutrality is disputed -- The BJP, and its predecessor the Jana Sangh, have used these communal riots and anti-Muslim propaganda as a part of a larger political strategy.[edit]

WP:LABEL and WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. The statement gives no indication of counter views to such strong accusation. I consider it POV-statement. Jyoti (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The text is supported by a published academic expert who states that: "[T]he Jana Sangh and then the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - resorted to anti-Muslim violence to polarize the electorate and solidify the Hindu 'vote bank'."
If you have a source of similar quality that would alter an alternative viewpoint please cite it, but unreferenced assertions cannot challenge what has been published by high quality academic sources. Dlv999 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Claiming that a party resorted to violence is not a mild charge when the court has not given any such decision. Presenting such a conclusion, even though from a book, is not neutral. There are references of BJP working with Muslims also. My contention is that it should not be projected as a statement of conclusion. We can instead write: academician Jaffrelot says that The BJP, and its predecessor the Jana Sangh, have used these communal riots and anti-Muslim propaganda as a part of a larger political strategy. Jyoti (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well there is a difference in source quality between an opinion piece published in a newspaper and an academic research publsihed under academic imprint. On top of that there is nothing in the opinion piece which calls into doubt the sourced statement that the parties have "resorted to anti-Muslim violence to polarize the electorate and solidify the Hindu 'vote bank'". I agree it is s strong statement that would require excellent sourcing. Fortunately we have an excellent source to support the statement. If you want to present the statement as an attributed viewpoint you will need to find a source of equal quality that specifically contradicts the statement. In that case we can present the opposing views per WP:NPOV. It is not okay to present the statement as a viewpoint unless you can show there are significant opposing views on the point. Dlv999 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
From WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
When a historian states that X happened in the past, then that is not "opinion", but a statement of fact - UNLESS there are other notable historians who contradict that. Can you present some sources of comparable reliability that states that the BJP and Jana Sangh has not used riots and anti-Muslim propaganda in their political strategies? This is not just something Jaffrelot invents, this is something that many other sources state as fact, and which is amply documented (e.g. [1]).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not have such references at hand. I understand your point. Jyoti (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I will remove the tag shortly unless some other editor has a comment or a reliable reference with a differing view is available. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Tag removed. Jyoti (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which Scholars?[edit]

WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:LEADPARAGRAPH should be referred for this statement: In particular, organizations associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal are all considered by scholars[who?] to have a central role in the violence. This has been written as a definite statement without mentioning any counter view (can be found in the respective articles). Jyoti (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Added 'who' tag to the immediately preceding statement also: According to political scientists[who?], organizations with roots in Hindu nationalism have played a large part in these incidents of anti-Muslim violence, and in generating anti-Muslim sentiment. Jyoti (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest simply removing the "by scholars" part since this is widely agreed upon. Attributing it to specific people would suggest that it is a minority view which it is not. This should simply be stated in wikipedias voice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There have been denial from the side of the organizations and there is not any conclusive court proceedings to this effect, should that be completely ignored? Isn't "In particular" in lead WP:EDITORIALIZING? Jyoti (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The absence of court proceedings is not relevant (though he RSS has been outlawed several times over), nor is the denial by the organizations themselves when there is a preponderance of reliable sources that link them to the violence. It is very hard to find a source about RSS or the Bajrang Dal that does not mention their involvement in communal violence. So again you would need to look at the scholarly literature about RSS and the other Sangh Parivar organizations and then demonstrate that it is a common view that the organizations are not linked to communal violence. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not think I have to demonstrate that it is a common view that the organizations are not linked to communal violence. It cannot be presented as a fact completely ignoring denials because there exist denial and there is no such judgement. Denial of the organization has its due (lesser) weight -- can it be discarded altogether? RSS has been banned and then honorably acquitted too, do you deny that? I confine myself here to the concerned sentence in the article. Jyoti (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The literature treats it as a fact. So should wikipedia.16:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I beg to differ, can you please guide me to relevant policy if I am mistaken? I feel you haven't responded to my question It cannot be presented as a fact completely ignoring denials because there exist denial and there is no such judgement. Denial of the organization has its due (lesser) weight -- can it be discarded altogether? Jyoti (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Look, it the fact that denials exist is only relevant if they are considered relevant in the literature. Wikipedia represents the literature. NPOV does not mean that all views should be represented. It only means that all significant views should be represented and which views are significant is determined by the literature. this is basic wikipedia stuff. You are simply wasting my time and other editors by continuing this discussion without providing ANY sources in support of your views and suggestions. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The statements seems well supported in the main body of the paper. I agree with Maunus that the "with scholars" and "political scientists" should be dropped. Both are unnecessary qualifications. --regentspark (comment) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Providing 5 references here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 falling under WP:RS WP:SECONDARY. These organizations are working honorably without a legal sanction and their is no judgement to the effect so it should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as factual statement ignoring contrary claims. I am not convinced that it is the only significant unopposed view available in reliable sources. Jyoti (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess I should commend you for finally presenting something that resembles a source. They are however not sources contesting the claim that is being made, namely that the RSS and several other Sangh Parivar organizations have participated in violence. They are all either denials of having participated in specific violent incidents, or statements of not having the intent to use violence in the future. Neither of these sources adress whether these organizations have used violence in the past. Even if they did they are not of comparable realiability to the many academically published works that support the claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. They qualify WP:RS. denial is what I claimed. If I may repeat These organizations are working honorably without a legal sanction and their is no judgement to the effect so it should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as factual statement ignoring contrary claims. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jyoti (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but as I have now told you several times that is not a valid argument. Repeating it does not make it so either. Also you do not seem to understand what source reliability is and how it is weighed. I am not going to spend more time explaining this to you, just note that you have no consensus for your proposed changed here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Also you do not seem to understand what source reliability is and how it is weighed. can you please talk specifically? I think I do. I think the sources I presented are reliable, are they not? You asked for sources for contrary claims and I provided them. You also have apparently conceded that contrary claims exist. Jyoti (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You demonstrate that you dont understand reliability when you argue that statements in academically published sources care of comparable reliability to online news articles and claims from the organizations in charge. I have never denied that the organizations themselves claim that they are peaceful. But their claim is contradicted by their own histories and by reliable sources and therefore has no weight. Further more as I have already told you, but which apparently you did not understand, none of the sources contradict the claim that the article and the reliable sources make. The article and the sources say that they have had a central role in the violence. The news paper articles do not say that they havent. One article says that one organization claims they didnt have a central role in the Babri mosque violence. It says nothing about other organizations or other acts of violence. One of the articles say that one organization states that it is peaceful and has no intent on using violence. That is a statament about the future and does not adress the question of whether they participated in violence in the past. So no, the sources are neither particularly reliable nor are they relevant in relation to the claim that is being made.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:NEWSORG has more weight than when you cite a book. Can I say that our agreement is on three points: 1. The organizations themselves claiming that they are peaceful. 2. The statement being a claim and 3. These organizations are working honorably without a legal sanction. To answer your question of exact contradiction BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal did not even exist for the entire duration for which the claim is made, do you expect to find a statement on behalf of VHP which was constituted in 1964 to denounce their involvement in violence of 1946 or on behalf of BJP which was formed in 1980? Jyoti (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I will WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jyoti (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Jyoti (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

clarification needed -- These incidents of violence against Muslims have marred India’s post independence history with a spill-over effect on India’s cause in the Kashmir conflict[edit]

The statement is not clear. Jyoti (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will remove this statement from the lead. Jyoti (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed. WP:WONTWORK. Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious -- Hindu right-wing politicians will often legitimize instances of mass violence against Muslims as a natural reaction to actions perpetrated by Muslims in the past and the present.[edit]

It makes a sweeping comment without sufficient backing. Again WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Instead of a sweeping "Hindu right-wing politicians" without defining it -- specific incidents and persons ought to be mentioned. Jyoti (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, this is too sweping a claim, it would be good to attribute specifically - for example with an example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, is there a way I can find which editor added this content? That way I can possibly bring it to their notice and persuade them to add details. Jyoti (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I will remove this statement from the lead. Jyoti (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed. WP:WONTWORK. Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagged the article with 'POV' and 'context' based on the preceding on-going discussions.[edit]

Announcement section, not a discussion thread. Jyoti (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the issues listed above, I guess the tags are appropriate (and need to stay until resolved) as per observations here and here. A lot of editors in good standing have expressed doubts about the article's neutrality in its current form. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 08:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Remarkable. Thank you for bringing that up. The deletion page also is important. Jyoti (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence[edit]

This section seems highly biased to me. First time reader might get the impression that after the riots, nothing happened to the people responsible for violence, and only Narendra Modi was investigated and no evidence was found against him. There is no mention of the fact that people like Maya Kodnani, Babu Bajrangi and 30 others were found guilty and sentenced for life.

Also, the upto 2,000 deaths figure is WP:UNDUE, no news source, Indian or international claims it to be "2,000". The final global consensus is "1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslims". see (in no particular order) CNN, BBC, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Tribune, The Washington Post, The Economist, The Economist (2), Hindustan Times, The New York Times reports/editorials of some of the most trusted sources of information in the world, showing global consensus that the figure to cite for the riots is 1,000, not 2,000.

These deficiencies should be rectified ASAP. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, fix it. Give proper citation. The article was nominated for deletion and consensus was delete then user darkness shines created a pov fork and that survived in the present form. Jyoti (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The article gives a range from 700 to 2000, and the 2000 number is well sourced (I checked the source). --regentspark (comment) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Violence between Hindu and Muslim community in India.[edit]

The subject of this Wikipedia article is not appropriate meaning if somebody will just read subject and not content, then it sounds like india is a country where violence against muslim is conducted and which is not true. India is one of the big democratic countries in the world and many time the communal riots happen in past between Hindu and Muslim community because of very low level thinking/misunderstanding of some people from both community which created riots in which all time people of both community suffered. This does not mean that violence happen only against muslims in India. Rather it should say "Violence between Hindu and Muslim community in India." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.156 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Riddick 2006, p. 118.
  2. ^ a b Ganguly 2007, p. 135.
  3. ^ Smith 2005, pp. 11–12.