Talk:Anti-Muslim violence in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Proposal for move or merger[edit]

Maunus suggested in the above section that this page be retitled Hindu-Muslim violence in India, we already have a page Hindu-Muslim riots that redirects to Religious violence in India. I suggest this page be merged with the "Religious violence in India", are there enough incidents which had Muslims were killed for being Muslims (so the Assam massacres are not to be counted as the victims were killed for being illegal migrants and not Muslims) and did not have Hindus being killed in return, there have been individual incidents in a larger chain for example Gulbarga society or the one in which Jaffery. Even in Gujarat 2002 proportionally more Hindus were killed than Muslims, there are ten times more Hindus in Gujarat than Muslims. Alternately we can have a title Incidents of anti-Muslim violence in India that contains various incidents, such as Gulbarga society and others. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is contrary to the sources and as such unacceptable. The notion that "in 2002 proportionally more Hindus was killed" is so false that is ridiculous. Did you even try to think about the statistics of it?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The page is not getting moved, it is notable in it's own right as a standalone article and is well covered by academic sources, to suggest a merger or move is preposterous. To say more Hindus have died in these incidents of mass killing are bordering on denial, should this behaviour continue I will be not be happy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yup. This is a non-starter. The topic is notable, describes a phenomenon that is well defined and well discussed in scholarly sources, and has different causes and effects than the more general religious violence in India. We definitely need a stand alone article on this. --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There are various options, Incidents of anti-Muslim violence in India would satisfy the stand alone criterion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"To say more Hindus have died in these incidents of mass killing are bordering on denial, should this behaviour continue I will be not be happy." is a threat. Don't threaten, agf. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You are calling incidents that are tit for tat for tit for tat events as isolated mass killings, that is hyperbole that Wikipedia should stay away from. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is just another hamfisted try to turn a well sourced article into a list, as you proposed above, give it up, learn to listen, this article is not going anywhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I've heard you and you've heard me, let us listen to others too. "Well sourced" is your position, don't judge yourself. IMO Incidents of anti-Muslim violence in India is a neutral and accurate title. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The addition of "incidents of" adds nothing to the title in terms of accuracy scope or meaning it simply adds a word and which falsely suggests a list article which this article is not and will not become.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That is your opinion, let us have others opinions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A reviewer at the DYK writes: "I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence." The title I suggest addresses these concerns imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You have three editors here telling you the article is not going anywhere, let alone be butchered and turned into a list. Maybe it is time you started listening and stopped being tendentious. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Read; the section is titled "Move or merger". Does it mention "list" anywhere? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Tell me, how exactly does your proposal improve this article? Other than losing the 5000 dead from Nellie how would a move make any difference? Other than that name is suggestive of a list article of course, in which case a well sourced article would be butchered and turned into a list, do you think everyone dense or something?. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It addresses concerns like "I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence." Concerns raised by an uninvolved editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not what Gato said, you already know from the ANI you tried that you ought not misrepresent what people have written, but as we are quoting uninvolved editors get this "Anti-Muslim violence in India" is treated as a coherent phenomenon by dozens of reliable scholarly sources. You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this topic is well-studied, and that many credible authors interpret this violence as coordinated, systematic persecution" Keep reading that till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I've quoted the said editor verbatim, copy-paste, lesson learnt at the aforementioned AN/I. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
No you have not, as you have left out the fact that he has yet to look at the sources, which he said. So he has yet to actually form an opinion on the content. That is misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
He said, "On the other hand, I share groupuscule's concerns above that the article may be presenting a somewhat one-dimensional view of the conflict. I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence. I think therefore that the next step will be to spend some time reading the source material to see how it compares. I probably won't have time to do that today but will endeavour to do so tomorrow." There hasn't been any misrepresentation. He shares his concerns with another, that makes two uninvolved editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Would that be the same groupuscule who told you "Anti-Muslim violence in India" is treated as a coherent phenomenon by dozens of reliable scholarly sources. You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this topic is well-studied, and that many credible authors interpret this violence as coordinated, systematic persecution" and has since written on the DYK page "From where groupuscule is sitting (in the library) the article is reasonably well-sourced and reasonably well-written. ALT2 is accurate and central to the topic as its presented here. This topic seems to be attracting a lot of controversy—at least within Wikipedia. Let's quickly run it by DYK talk just to get a few more eyeballs on it." So tell me, what were his "concerns" again? Looks to me like your back to one, who has not yet formed his opinion, so that would make zero. The article is staying put, and that is it. Drop the stick. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also the editor's username isn't Cato as you've written, it is Gatoclass. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Nellie will be staying due to the source and content I just added which states explicitly that the violence was religious in nature. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The Article is in contradiction and totally biased, things are being reported solely based on outcomes of clash, the reason for violence in not reported. Example- 2002 Gujarat violence in this article is reported, but the reason for the cause is not reported, Riot was started because illegally burning Sabarmati Express by Muslim mobs on 27 February 2002, in which 58 people including 25 women and 15 children were killed, all were Hindus, this violence by Muslims created agitation and resulted in Hindu-Muslim Riots later Supreme Court of India Given clean chit to Narendra Modi and rejected all accusations and charges against him , in 1992 After babri Masjid(also Known as Disputed Structure) demolition in ayodhya, muslim sections of society involved in Hindu people Massacre in the state that later spread in all parts of india, after illegally thousands of Hindus have been murdered, raped and looted, later Hindu had also responded , also BJP, which represents major political party in India is illegally pulled several times in this article, by citing unreliable resources and own researched authored, which are never recognized as reliable source by either any Indian Constitutional body, Indian Govt. or any News paper. This is very Serious Issue, artical is very critical, blaming and falsify or twist the original occurrence. Anti-Muslim or any "Anti-Religion" is never allowed in India, as it is against Constitution of India. This is considered as blaming Indian Secularism and diminishing India's Image in the World, It seems some Users from Pakistan are trying to do so. I do Agree with UserYogesh Khandke ,Either this article should be Deleted, or moved to Hindu-Muslim Violence. KLS 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Learn how to sign your posts, use four ~. Every source in the article is reliable, where do you get the notion that a source is only reliable if the Indian government says it is? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Why you keep urself blind always? KLS is my sign, can't you see? Mr. Dark don't keep self and other users in dark, reflecting only a side of incidents and hiding other faces will not help you to mislead others. This article is heavily biased. Although i can understand you belongs to pakistan and you are muslim, that doesn't means you twist the facts and mould whole incidents to prove things. If you presented voilence then also give reason for that incident. Every section of the society is affected in riots including hindus, muslims, christians, sikhs and all others, not only muslims, but reporting only for muslims and creating article like "Anti-Muslim Violence in India" is no where justified, I can produce huge amount of sources for the incidents you have reported, that will make story just opposite to what you are reporting, and article will become "Muslim Violence in India" later "Muslim Violence in World". Thing is there is no use of that and a self evident truth that requires no proof, But you are considerably removing all other user's edit everywhere, which conflicts your perception. Well, I am helpless for you. Make many edits as much you can, try hard but i am sorry you can't change truth!!!

"Satyamev Jayate" Remember always. KLS 07:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to go into user preferences to set a sig, what you have is not one. I am neither Pakistani nor Muslim, kindly keep your guesses as to my religion and nationality out of conversations. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't accused you of being muslim, pakistani or terrorist, why would I? It's your choice to act like or be like want you want. It was in your user page as "Irony" you recieved as appreciation or disgrace whatever, I recalled that. I don't want to Know you or talk about you, please be in dark!!! You just waved others away from the Topic. I want to Recall others to discuss on the deletion of the topic. I think it should be deleted, or atleast moved!!

KLS 09:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Kswarrior (talk)

Do you think me dense? Although i can understand you belongs to pakistan and you are muslim Christ on friday, can you not go find something useful to do? You are obviously not competent to be editing contentious articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why should i care for you, i have many things to do, not useless as you are, please give your time to some creativity. I think, it should be my question for you "can you not go find something useful to do?" You can reach up psychi and help yourself, after being Normal resume here. Again you are distorting the topic, can you refrain yourself from this nonsense. Let others give there opinion and don't disturb. Seriously, give others a chance for Christ sake. This Article needs to call off. Kswarrior (talk)
Others have given their opinion, and like you, they were wrong. I have no idea what the rest of your post is about. The article is not being, deleted, merged nor moved. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

So which sources call the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots an instance of Anti-Muslim violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The last revert gave two URLs, one does not say these riots are an instance of Anti-Muslim violence, it is a general search of a newspapert, the second source is not RS. @Rasulnrasul: either provide some RS which state this is an instance of Anti-Muslim violence or I am removing it again as OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

anti-caste mentions it as anti-muslim riot.Also its under anti-muslim tag in Economictimes. This site thenews also but we can't take it as proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasulnrasul (talkcontribs) 23:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you not read my post? anti-caste.org is not RS, it is a blog run by some communists. A search of a newspaper does not meet RS, you need to provide RS which state this was an instance of Anti-Muslim violence, otherwise it is OR. You have till tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

An appeal[edit]

There are many things that the Government of India has done for muslims - (a)Reservation in education and Government jobs, (b)20% reservation for muslims in the police force, wherever muslims are more than 20% of the population (deemed communally sensitive areas), (c)Rs.50,000/- dowry (Bidaai) to muslim girls at the time of their marriage, (d)Implementation of the recommendations of the Sachar committee (see the matter at Sachar Committee Report) and so on. I therefore appeal to everyone to include these in this article. Muslims do not live in fear in India and they are hardly persecuted - in fact, they are a pampered lot. Remember, this article could be used by Pakistan to brain-wash people to terrorize India (and terrorists kill indiscriminately, without distinguishing between Muslims and others) and that will be a problem (even for Indian muslims). I also observed that many references/citations do not show what the preceding sentence says; should we delete them?—Khabboos (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You will delete nothing. What citations do not support what content? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Citations 1-67 and Citation 70 onwards do not show what the preceding sentence says.—Khabboos (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Please also comment about my other points.Khabboos (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, are you seriously saying that all but three references in this article do not support the content? An example please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Please click on the cited links and see, do they really say what the wikipedia sentence says?—Khabboos (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not need to check them, I wrote the article. So either let me know what references do not support the content or leave it be. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
O.K., so can you also please mention the 4 points I mentioned at first (and whatever else that shows that the Indian Govt. is doing whatever possible for muslims in India) in this article?—Khabboos (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
So are you now saying that the references are fine? I would like to get this out of the way before we discuss another issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm a wikipedia novice and so I can't comment about the links (perhaps I made a mistake and I'm sorry if that offended you). I'm ready for any type of discussion and I'm sure we can work on this article without being argumentative.Khabboos (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I only speak English. Regarding the other stuff, I do not see what it has to do with violence against a minority group? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a sentence that says, 'Others argue......although...... many muslims have been successful......'. I'm sure we can have a sentence like, "the muslims in India do not live in fear, the way minorities in Pakistan live, as the Indian Govt. has many welfare schemes for muslims, like (a), (b), (c), (d) .............and muslims are pampered as a part of vote Bank politics'.—Khabboos (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, I added the above sentence in this article (I'm sure you know that they are true statements), but AcidSnow removed it. I therefore need your help and support in restoring that sentence. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You provided no source for the claim so I removed it (I even said this in my edit summary). AcidSnow (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
They are true statements; why don't you find references and add them instead of removing the sentence?—Khabboos (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why I have to do this since you are the one who wrote them while claiming they are "true statements". You are also the one who had a problem about how the article contained content that the references already provided did not state even though they did, yet you went on and added unsourced content yourself? Not just those, but since you provided no sources for your claims, it's WP:Original Research; which is not allowed on Wikipedia and must be removed (I have told you this numerous times). Also, could you please stop playing the "novice card" every time something does not go your way? If you have a problem regarding Wikipedia please view the polices about it (also told you this before and so have others) and don't say "I am a novice" nor tell someone else to do it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
O.K., I have cited references I could find online with only the appropriate sentence (I did not have the time to find sources for everything). I don't see anything wrong in asking someone else to do it (cite references one can find with the appropriate sentence). Is there a wikipedia rule that I should not request other editors to find references?—Khabboos (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You can politely request anything, but noone here owes you that favor. The burden of proof for any statement you want to include in the article falls on yourself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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)