Talk:Religious violence in India

protected until disputes resolved

Because of the large number of reverts in the ongoing edit war, I have protected the article. Please resolve your disagreements via discussion. If disputes are resolved, I will unprotect the article. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Marad Massacre.

I will proceed to add this incident after the article is unlocked.Nambo (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues in article

The issues I identify in this article are as follows:

• The 2007 Orissa violence which saw despicable looting and vandalism of churches as well as 9 deaths is being mentioned as a major incident along with Gujarat violence (2000+ deaths), Ayodhya riots (1200+ dead) and Anti-Sikh riots (1200+ deaths). This is not to say that the Orissa violence wasn't a despicable act of violence which should be condemned, it's just to say that this incident is being described as major and other incidents which claimed a similar number of casualties are being claimed as minor.
• The attack on Graham Staines is given a paragraph that explains the nature of the attack, the event, the background of Staines and the perpetrator. An attack on Shanti Tripura earlier had a sentence on it, now it has been removed because the Staines incident is notable and the Tripura incident is not. But if the BBC reported it as a murder and if Tripura has his own article, then I believe both should be mentioned.
• The Moplah rebellion is not being allowed one sentence in the history section of the article, with some arguing it wasn't religiously motivated despite the fact that vandalism of Buddhist stupas which some argue didn't happen and some argue happened as as result of Pusayumitra Sunga's usurption of Ashoka's throne gets a paragraph. The Anti-Sikh riots get their own section when they weren't religiously motivated.

These all fall under the category of Undue weight. That's what comes to mind at the moment. If an unrelated third party disagrees with these then I will happily stop reverting the edits. On the whole this article is a decent summary of a very disgusting aspect of Indian society. It just needs to weigh itself up a bit more evenly. I also understand that Anti-Christian violence doesn't have its own article while the rest of the incidents do, so I have no qualms that that section is larger than the sections for the mass murdering which occurred in the Gujarat violence and Anti-Sikh riots. Darrowen (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Moplah Rebellion needs to be covered in more depth as the attacks were clearly religion-based. Graham Staines and Stanti Tripura should receive equal coverage in the article (2 sentences, perhaps?). We don't need that much depth, since articles on the subjects' murders already exist. The 2007 Orissa violence was tragic, but historically, it wasn't an event that would deserve significant coverage in this article. I disagree with your claim about the anti-Sikh Riots. The actions were in retaliation for the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. The subsequent violence targeted only Sikhs. It does not matter if the perpetrators of the violence were not of a particular religious group. People who supported Gandhi lashed out at a single religious group, in political and religious vengeance. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point about the Anti-Sikh violence. Thank-you for your opinion. Darrowen (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yellow

Journalism based on yellow journalism has to be yelow and the way this article has long way to go before becoming any thing nutral.

Mahitgar (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Evangelical missionaries

"Anti-Christian violence from Hindu groups is largely a response to zealous proselytizing activities and aggressive attempts to pull down Hindu theology and mythology by the numerous Evangelical missionaries in their primary goal of converting Hindus to Christianity and eliminating Hinduism, such as distributing evangelist pamphlets in Ramlila grounds." [1]

The source do not say anything like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Christian violence from Hindu groups is largely a response to zealous proselytizing activities and aggressive attempts to pull down Hindu theology" - the source do not support this claim. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes I did add a bit of the bleeding obvious. I wonder what your views of Evangelists in India are, or whether you know of what activities they are involved in India, and whether you know that Hinduism is not an exclusive religion. I have tons of incidents I can cite but they will deleted by you or Relata Refero as a biased source, (the irony).KBN (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is not saying that anti-Christian violence in India in general is a response to zealous proselytizing activities and aggressive attempts to pull down Hindu theology. It is going to be hodge podge and nothing but misrepresentation of source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to remove the hodge podge and WP:SYN and rewrite the paragraph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what worries me about KBN (talk) statement, aside from the obvious POV and bias, is it matches perfectly what is said in another piece of info in this section "The attacks often accompanied by large amounts of anti-Christian hate literature". It sad that wikipedia is infected with this kind of prejudice.--Friedricer (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 63.196.193.21

Special:Contributions/63.196.193.21 - Added non-RS hate site Crusade Watch and non-RS partisan source Christian Science Monitor claiming them reliable source. This is nothing but disruptive POV pushing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor isn't exactly a "non-RS partisan source", but the article used doesn't address the northeast conflict. it may be useful in the Anti-Christian violence section. "see also"s linking to a partisan sources though, are a no-no. i've rewritten the section, based mostly on Bhaumik's piece, but it needs to be expanded to include the rise in Islamic radicalism in the area as well. Doldrums (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

CSM is an acceptable source, of course. Relata refero (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased against Hindus

(continuation of the above discussion)

The "rewrite" is a complete deletion of the RS sources I've provided. Additionally if you look at the anti-Christian violence section it's clear that undue weight WP:UNDUE is being put there compared to the Christian violence against Hindus section. The former has 20 links to external sources, some used several times for a total of 28 links and the latter has a total of 4. How is that anywhere close to fair? Then look at the language used, for example in the anti-Christian section "In India, there is an increasing amount of violence being perpetrated by Hindu Nationalists against Christians", "In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in violent attacks on Christians in India", "The attacks often accompanied by large amounts of anti-Christian hate literature" but in the anti-Hindu section the violence is only "alledged", and there's a statement that "Hindu nationalists, upset with the rapid spread of Chistianity in the region..." as if they are not at all bothered by the disrespect to Hindu religion and customs the Christians obviously are spreading. To top it off the section title "Christian militancy in North-East India" is quietly changed to "Militant separatism in North-East India" so as to make the link between Christians and violence in the region even more obscure. According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial says, "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV ... Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds) ... Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". About the CS link not addressing the northeast conflict, this is really splitting hairs. The article is about "Religious violence in India", which should take precedence over the subtitle. Thus the subtitle should be changed. Additionally the article refers to "northern India" and "North India" and also says "evangelical Christian groups in India are continuing in that tradition". It also refers to the north eastern state of Orissa. It in fact includes all of India with the word "nationwide" and "the Indian subcontinent". It's pretty clear that the same thing is happening all over. Contrary to what Otolemur crassicaudatus seems to think, this is not supposed to be a subjective article written only from a Christian POV. 63.196.193.21 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The writing will follow the sources closely. If you can find sources of equivalent quality and relevance, we'll use them, otherwise not.

And "the north-east" in India traditionally does not include Orissa. Relata refero (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Equivalent", meaning that you intend not to use CSM because of that silly north-east India subtitle thing? About Orissa not being in north-east India, since there are no absolute lines delineating north, east, south and west it's a bit subjective. However a lot of people seem to think so [2][3][4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] 63.196.193.22 (talk) 04:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• the rewrite replaces selected material gathered from news reports with a summary from a secondary source on the topic, the appropriate way to write an encyclopaedia entry. if you believe this leaves out relevant facts or views, pls point them out.
• the CSM article, whose gist essentially is that evangelicals' practices may have served to instigate anti-Christian violence, makes no reference to north-east India, evangelical groups operating in the area or the separatist violence there. extrapolating its reporting on Jhabua, Orissa, tsunami-hit regions or Gujarat to the north-east by sticking a reference to the BWA member list is classic WP:SYNTH, serving to misrepresent Ajai Sahni's words which do not address the topic of this section.
• "upset with the ... spread of Chistianity" reports exactly what the source says.
• the change in the section heading stems from the fact that the source talks about religious violence involving more than just Christian groups.
• the use of "alleged" (and it's non-use in reporting, for example, NLFT's actions) once again follow exactly what the sources say. Doldrums (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I do not need to restate that complete inbalance between the anti-Christian section and the anti-Hindu section, it's quite obvious. See above.
• Again the title of this Wikipedia article is "Religious violence in India". Are you telling me that you are going to censor information about religious violence in India just because the subtitle has been named "Militant separatism in North-East India". That's just completely lame. A change the in subtitle is called for. It's not hard, you just did it yourself. Additionally there should be a separate section for Islamic and Christian militantism. The fact that CSM doesn't explicitly use the words "north-east India" is a non-issue. It's clear that it's the very same problem. But they do, as I pointed out above, refer to other parts of India including the north. The BWA member list was pointing out the link between the BWA and the Baptist churches in the area some of which are responsible for much of the violence.
• "'upset with the ... spread of Chistianity' reports exactly what the source says". Um, the link to the article you left in, Hindu nationalism, makes this statement "Various Hindu reform movements, led by Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda and others, originated as a reaction to what was perceived as offensive propaganda of Christian missionaries, a Westernization of many educated Hindus, forcible conversion to Islam and Christianity". It sounds to me like they are concerned about more than just increasing numbers.
• About the use of the word alledged, yes the BBC article uses that word. It also says in the sentence just before that "The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels". I am not trying to be difficult here. But come on, how about some integrity and balance in editing here? 63.196.193.21 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen, you need to find a source that specifies that this group's violence is directed against specific religious groups. Merely having something saying that "the Church backs them" is not enough. Relata refero (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that their targets are Hindus. It's silly to require that the article specifically state that. Would you require that an article about Texas must specifically state that Texas is part of the United States if some bozo was contesting it? Or in an article about the earth would you have to find an source that stated that the earth is in fact round if someone refused to accept it? No one disputes that the Christians in northern India have been involved in a war of sorts with the Hindus. However, the article in fact says "The NLFT is accused of forcing Tripura's indigenous tribes to become Christians and give up Hindu forms of worship in areas under their control". And the article doesn't simply say that the church backs them, it gives a specific case of terrorism in which the church was involved. 63.196.193.22 (talk) 04:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur you must realize that you are not the authority on this article. Using Fox News as a reference then claiming CSM is non-RS is a bit rich. Violence against Christians, who make up a small percentage of the Indian population, in reality is relatively little compared to other religious violence and here the article seems to have a disproportionate amount concerning Christians clearly misleading readers. It cannot be more evident that you are trying very hard to keep Christianity in an innocent light, keeping out the realities, in this article.KBN (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OC calling anyone a POV-pusher is an obvious joke. The articles in question state Christians are behind some religious persecution of other groups in India. That is undeniable, and plays a large role in the Seven Sister States.Bakaman 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After one reversion of his deletion of my sources he says in the edit summary, "next time rvert, report you for vadalsim". Then in a private message he warned me that he would have me blocked. The bozo. 63.196.193.22 (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To complete his dishonesty Otolemur crassicaudatus is removing my comments on this page [12].

responding to 63...

• "another section has lots of references, this one doesn't; so i'll replace a secondary source with a bunch of primary sources" isn't fixing WP:UNDUE, it's just, to put it bluntly, lame.
• the quote in CSM is in the context of about violence against Christian evangelicals by Hindu nationalist groups and can only be used on WP in that context.
• once again, we can neither use another WP article as a source, nor quote Saraswati, Vivekananda or anyone else unless they're talking about the subject at hand.
• finally, allow me to change the emphasis in the TOI quote, "The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence...". that's why alleged is used.

i see nothing here which warrants reverting yesterday's rewrite, especially to restore the current version with all its problems. so i'll be reinstating the rewrite. you are welcome to tag the section as disputed and continue the discussion here, seek another opinion or actually fix it, but without creating additional issues (such as the "see also" link to crusaderwatch). Doldrums (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"another section has lots of references..." who are you quoting? I disgree with everything else you said but don't have the time or inclination to get into an endless war with partisans about it. I've already explained my reasoning adequately I think. Hopefully someone else will take up the fight. I am going to add a couple more balancing sources, one from the periodical Chistian Century and another from the Vatican which you will probably revert as non-RS, OR or some other acronym. It's obvious the slanted nature of the edits you and OC are attempting to foist onto Wikipedia. For the record I am not an apologist for radical Hindus and have no doubt that they are equally guilty of contributing to the violence and thus have never, that I can rememeber, removed sources, information or tried to water down the anti-Hindu side. Facts are facts and we follow the truth wherever it takes us. By the way, for others, I realize that the sources I am adding are long quotes; I have no problem with them being summarized and linked to. 63.196.193.130 (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

have summarised Vedantam but removed the CSM piece as well as the Catholic news article as they do not address the northeast conflict, but address evangelical activity in India (Cath. News; in other countries) in general. neither piece addresses violence by Christian groups, instead they're talking evangelical activity and violent response to t.

have once again reverted 63...'s edit for the reasons i've indicated before - it represents material not addressing the northeast insurgency as having to do with it, the see also link is inappropriate, the "Although fierce prosylization by missionaries is fueling the situation" was an unsourced addition, the MIPT classification and the cadre denomination stats are being used to synthesize an argument.

i understand you believe my version is biased. the way to fix it is to tag the section as disputed and discuss on the talk page, bringing in fresh eyes if needed (see WP:DR), rather than simply reverting back to a version which has already been identified as having major problems. Doldrums (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Doldrums, could you apply your summarizing techniques on the disproportionate anti-Christian violence section too?. KBN (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You Can't Handle the Truth!

As evidenced above, there is no reasoning, no fact that is good enough when certain people just won't allow it. That's the major shortcoming with Wikipedia, and it's unfortunately inherent to wikis. Partisan bozos who can just keep on deleting, reverting obfuscating ad-infinitum and rationalizing it with every spurious idea they can think up. The information presented and decided on is dependent upon how many people one particular side in a debate can muster - it's truth by numbers/votes, and it's ultimately decided upon by who has the power on a particular Wikipedia page and his/her particular partisan bent NOT by the actual facts. It also depends on who outlasts who in the reversion wars. That's why Wikipedia is said to be unreliable for citiation. And it's sad. For those who may want to view the facts that have been removed and compare it to some future version, here is a link [13]. Hmmm, I wonder if it will be deleted as well? 63.196.193.225 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fox News

what's the reliability concern? an AP report published on Fox is a reasonable source for a recent event. for a historical claim, we can try and do better than Fox, of course. Doldrums (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fox news is not considered RS by some users telling it is biased towards Christianity. But they could not prove it. Or in same line, it can be said that BBC is also not RS because their are controversies surrounding BBC, Criticism of the BBC. BBC has been accused of anti-American bias, but BBC is used as reference in US related articles in wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to attack here, but for the record I think that it should be pointed out that it is apparent that OC is bent on propagating an anti-Hindu flavor in many articles. Part of statement removed per WP:NPA, see diff Examples: here and here where he deleted information on the persecution of Hindus but added info on the persecution of Christians [14]. His adding of the section on India to the Anti-Christian sentiment page again which gives only one side of the issue. The anti-Hindu comments he inserted on the Islamophobia page [15]. By the way, I've not noticed a similar devotion to deletion on these pages by Hindus. 63.196.193.225 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the above statement was removed by OC per WP:NPA.Bakaman 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fox news is a widely perceived to be heavily biased right-wing Christian news source. Even moderate Christians in US hold that view, so I am not sure how it can be perceived as reliable source, specially when commenting on issues involving other religions. Desione (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair removal

Can Bakaman explain why he removed the following, esp. since it is sourced to reliable sources?

Hundred gold coins were offered for the head of each Buddhist monk. The years to 1000 CE saw suppression of Buddhism, some Hindu kings took military action to suppress Buddhism, and Hinduism gained strength at the expense of Buddhism

Bless sins (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight obviously, Pushyamitra Sunga's notability is basically confined to wikipedia and mirrors, while documentation of Ghazni and the whole Mujahedeen and their exploits is widespread.Bakaman 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument of undue weight (while I disagree with your comment on Ghazni). Anyways, its best this stays out.Bless sins (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand if some users continue to try and change the balance of the article the [16], I will have to re-insert the above statement.Bless sins (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious harmony in India

Article Religious violence in India is giving totally one sided and wrong picture of India , So I have started a constructive article at Religious harmony in India and request every constructive Indian Wikipedian to contribute article

Mahitgar (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether do you see Religious harmony in India in red letters then it is true.Those who want to keep this link are making die this article before its birth.Any way since everybody from any side of any relegion would be trigger happy to kill any article which talks of peace.Mean while some one says that he has done a job of courtesy by preserving the intended article at my user space, And I have recieved few more fnny responses .To read responses one can visit User talk:Mahitgar/Religious harmony in India if you want to read a killed article before its birth read User:Mahitgar/Religious harmony in India

Thanks any way to all non violent people editing article about violence and has no time for harmony.

Mahitgar (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

I have re-added text which was removed for no plausible reason. This is my policy:

1. If source is not reliable, add a tag. DO NOT REMOVE THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH. 2. Follow tersely: WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV

--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Debate if you think I am wrong. I hate edit warring.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source is unreliable, the onus is on the inserter to provide a more reliable source.

A single report on "banning" of a religious festival is not religious violence.

A statement that a particular separatist group share the same religious composition as the ethnic group from which they spring is not religious violence.

etc., etc. Relata refero (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but what you think is not related to violence, is actually factually related. Your opinion does not count.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And DO NOT blanket revert just because you think of something. Being a deletionist the onus is on you to explain why you think you deleted something - every single line that you delete.

That's the way Wikipedia work.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 13:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If its related to violence, the onus is on you to demonstrate how it is. Directly, through reliable sources, not through forbidden methods of synthesis. And I assure you, anything not relevant or cited to reliable sources can be deleted at any time. Relata refero (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that I did not blanket revert:I removed some statements, moved other statements. I see no effort to either support your claims or attempt a compromise from you. Relata refero (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

During the almost 800 years of Muslim conquest and rule in India, Islamic invaders and rulers destroyed and replaced many Hindu temples with mosques. In more recent times, Hindu groups such as Vishva Hindu Parishad are attempting to reclaim some of these sites, which include some of the most scared sites such as Ram Janmabhoomi and Krishnajanmabhoomi. This attempt to reclaim such sites has often led to tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities in India.

was changed to

Muslim invaders and rulers are believed to have destroyed and replaced many Hindu temples with mosques.

Nice try, but the book doesn't say "believed", it says it happened. If you think they are the same, I would gladly add "believed" to every other line. See WP:WEASEL for reference. Also, please read WP:UNDUE.

Regarding A+B = C iff C is cited, I have added the citation with quotation.

Now this:

Orthodox Hindu king Pusyamitra Sunga of the Sunga dynasty adopted an anti-Buddhist policy

was changed to

In ancient India there were incidents of violence against the followers of Buddhism by orthodox followers of Brahminical Hinduism.

Why exactly? Which one is more factual? What about this quote in the same article:

(Pusyamitra) "Who was responsible for the wanton destruction of the original brick stupa of Asoka and when precisely the great work of reconstruction was carried out is not known, but it seems probable that the author of the former was Pushyamitra, the first of the Sunga kings (184-148 BCE), who was notorious for his hostility to Buddhism, and that the restoration was affected by Agnimitra or his immediate successor."

If pillaging a building is violence, how come you have problem with obvious acts against Hinduism in North-East?

And I am FINALLY really tired of dealing with POV pushers disguised as self-proclaimed authorities of truth, so it is quite possible my bitterness got spilled. I will try to keep it down.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way... the destruction of Babri Masjid is not act of violence according to your definiation. One the other hand, hundreds of Hindus were killed in police firing. The act of violence was THAT, and the riots which ensued - but not the destruction. Do you think we should remove that too?--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand that you have objections to "believed", and I think on reflection that that is fair enough.

Your other objections are less clear to me. So far you have amply demonstrated that some of the militancy in the North-East is supported by the Baptist church and is religious in orientation. I urge you to add this to appropriate articles. I am not sure that this is one, though. Is the violence explicitly religious? Are people being killed because of their religion? The citation you have provided does not support that. (It is, however, eminently useful, and I urge you to add it to the NSCN article). That being said, you still haven't established that "a particular separatist group share the same religious composition and convictions as the ethnic group from which they spring is not religious violence" is relevant to that separatist group's violence being religious in nature. That will require a specific citation. I hope you understand my point.

The destruction of the BM is indeed not an act of religious violence. Neither was the firing. The riots afterwards, however were.

I'm not quite certain what else you're complaining about. I'm so accustomed to being accused having several mutually contradictory POVs that I will ignore that part. Relata refero (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "violence against Buddhists", it is a truth and I am not working to hide it."In ancient India there were incidents of violence against the followers of Buddhism by orthodox followers of Brahminical Hinduism" is one big extremely poor prose, and anyone will agree with me (what does "incidents of violence" mean? "incidents" happen on daily basis!). The article looks like crap and making it concise and readable is first plan. I admit that the sentence I added was not good as lead, so I have edited it once again.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 20:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At 1st it did seem the intent was to obscure the truth of "violence against the Buddhists", when you remove the cited text, but I seen your present edits are fair and agreeable, I have no problems with them. As of "Brahminical" hinduism, it seemed like it help distinguish the strain of hinduism dealing with the incidents against the buddhists (I feel its not fair to label all of hinduism if it only involved one part) which seems to be a more fair and accurate depiction. But again your present edits are more agreeable than the previous. Thank you--Kathanar (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

Actually, If you were to ask me, I don't even know why this article even exists! It is not like "Religious violence" is a trademark on India or something, it has been happening ever since two religious communities came in contact: right from the first contact of two tribes of cave-men who didn't understand eachother's language - and since then it has always been about devouring the resources than religion. And all this has happened more in the other countries (expansion of Christianity/Islam?) than in India. I don't see a reason to list all the "atrocities against minorities" in one page - atrocities are always against minorities who are not in power, anyone who has heard otherwise?

All the information is listed in all relevant articles: Sanchi, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, Direct action day, Khalistan movement... upto 2002 Gujarat violence.

And!!! And most of that information is not being "debated" endlessly.

And the article Religious violence lists these as further read:

* Ritual killing * Witch-hunt * Mormonism and violence * Hundred Years' War * Religious fanaticism * Pacifism and religion * Religious violence in India

To me, something looks odd. Don't you guys think so?--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Its the anti-india propoganda that is rampant all across wikipedia's India articles. Nothing odd about it. I have added a section called "Background" to provide some perspective to this article. Good luck fighting it and get used to anti-india POV pushing on wikipedia at least until more Indians come online into wikipedia. I can see some comments from well known POV pushers above. Desione (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I’m fighting on it. It is irrelevant here & moved to the right place i.e see also. --Harjk talk 09:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevent, why? It provides important well rounded perspective. Desione (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shivaji and Aurangzeb

Some reference for conflict between Shivaji, Sambaji and Aurangzeb should be included in article. vkvora2001 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BJP and anti-Sikh riots.

Both sources state that BJP helped Sikhs during the 1984 riots. Rewording sentence to better reflect sources.KBN (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, both sources state that one person claims it, namely LK Advani, who is hardly a reliable enough source. Relata refero (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In the original source- there is an example of a real instance, it is the narrative of a journalist, all other sources there are no real examples of what specific help, who was saved or where nor are their any dates - if we are going to make a statement that the party helped Sikhs then we would need verified examples and not claims by politicians. Haphar (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Voting commenced (Background section)

I am against adding biased & pov fork Background section added by User:Desione and he keeps reverted my edits. He also accused a new editor as sockpuppet who also supported my edits. I am yet again inspired by this occurrence and forcing myself removing the biased section. I therefore am asking other editors opinion on this issue.

In short, I want to know whether editors supports/against adding Background section in the article. Sockpuppets are requested to stay outside. Harjk talk 05:47, 17 March 2008

• Polling result is out after a reasonable time of polling (per WP policies, 7 days is enough reaching a consensus).
• Current result: AGAINST=4, FOR=1. --Harjk talk 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Harjk, I think it would be useful if you explained what parts of the background section are POV. Some parts of the background are probably gratuitous and should be dropped, for example, the second para that lists high offices held by religious minorities, but the first para seems to provide a useful perspective. However, on the face of it, neither para seems to justify the POV accusation. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a main article for it i.e Religion in India. The entire stuff is pov fork copied from there and deleted Religious harmony in India and some other articles. It is reasonable if that main article to add under see also section. Unfortunately, biased pov pushers are adding it here with no reason. This article deals with Religious violence occurred in many Indian places that deals with different issues. Adding this sort of unnecessary forks background is unacceptable, inappropriate and irrelevant and moreover spoils the enhancement of the article. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a POV history here. However, the article as written gives no context information and the lay reader will probably think that religious violence is the norm in India. A bit of background would be useful as perspective. It is probably not necessary to have a separate background section because all that really needs to be said is that there are many religions in India and that these sometimes coexist peacefully and sometimes coexist uneasily. Religious violence follows from the uneasy part. Perhaps the article can start with (I've left the intent of the existing content intact and :

Religious violence in India includes the targeting of religious institutions, the persecution of people on the basis of their religion. A predominantly Hindu country, many different religions are practiced in India (Hindu x%, Muslim y%, Sikh z%, Christian xx%, Buddhist ....) and while people of these faiths often coexist peacefully, the country has also been prone to outbreaks of religious violence. Religious fundamentalism is a major cause behind this religious violence; with Hindu nationalism, Khalistani activists, Fundamentalist Christianity, and Islamic fundamentalism acting as major forces. Major conflicts include the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, the riots in Mumbai in 1992, the 2002 Gujarat violence, the 2007 Orissa violence. Lesser incidents occur in many towns and villages.--RegentsPark (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Users AGAINST Background section

• (Per my comment above) Harjk talk 05:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• -- The way it is written right now is definitely non NPOV. It can be salvaged by fixing the last portion if the percentages given at the top are found to be useful for the article. --Ubardak (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn’t lacking NPOV and not much big deal. Just add 5 tides (your signature) below For/Against subsection to get a clear consensus. That’s all. (I hope you are against it since you are here) --Harjk talk 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is about "AGAINST Background section". The article is not a FA right now - if you are unhappy with "current" state, please improve it.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 11:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• The section is POV fork and original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Users FOR Background section

• I shouldn't even get into this but I don't see how one can have an article about 'Religious' violence without background information about the 'religions' in India. The current version, which seems to say that many religions coexist in India, seems innocuous to me though it could do with some copyediting. Perspective is always healthy! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• The section provides important perspective which I have explained many times and people are continuing to blindly deleting the section without giving reasons. Desione (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comments

What the hell is this voting? Is this supposed to mean anything?.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 13:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, a straw poll is helpful if it helps editors actually reach true consensus. In this case reaching to the consensus level was hard as the whole edits reverted by others and croseed 3RR. --Harjk talk 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment stating the article is POV, and I return after several days and you have started a Poll stating a meager "Background" section is "POV fork" (wth is that, btw?), and then went ahead to recruit supporting votes. It is indeed a jocular attempt that cannot be argued about. And while your revert, calling me "vandal", could have been a mistake, when did I violate 3RR?

It only means one thing - you are least interested in a discussion and are just trying to somehow manage this whole ridiculous article. If you have a sane comment to pass, please proceed - I am not falling for "straw pool" tactics.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 10:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, my comment is not "additional comment", it is rejection of your poll. Take a deep breath and accept it.--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 10:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who are disrupting me & my edits. Don’t simply accuse established editors with unconstructive urging. If you are adjacent to the poll put in your comments under Additional comments (already here) or add your user name below Users FOR section. I am telling you seriously that if you disrupt it, I will incontestably report it in Admin notice board. In addition, I want to say that it is as per WP:VOTE and WP:PSD, a straw poll is helpful if it helps editors actually reach true consensus. In this case it was difficult to reach a consensus (see the history) of removing the background section. It is clear pov fork and I want to know about other users supports adding it or not. --Harjk talk 10:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, now I noticed that one thing you have accepted it is a POV. That’s ok and since you have voted against adding it, I appreciate your support removing some of the cruft and POV fork from it. I therefore am asking you to do participate well in removing the whole flippant and ridiculous garbages from here. I furthermore appreciate your support. Thanks. --Harjk talk 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone please explain to me why the "Background" section is being voted on considered as "POV". The background section is simply pointing out the obvious: 1) india is a diverse country (both religiously and otherwise), 2) religious diversity extends to the top of the government, and 3) incidences of religious voilence are not common in india and isolated when they happen. Casual readers (who are primarly readers of wikipedia articles) need some perspective and the "background" section simply puts things in proper perspective and scale. Thank you. Now can someone please explain why this would be considered a POV. Desione (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is all I wanted to see. User:Harjk, the "established editor" since 23 Feb, 2008, is trolling and I am going to follow WP:DNFT. As a last resort, I would ask him to not remove this comment as "vandalism".--ÆN↑Þƺ§®»Ŧ 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Check my userpage. I’m an established editor who uses multiple accounts in a manner permitted by policy. What else you need to know from me? Additionally, it is not trolling. Don’t misinterpret WP policies. I have clearly stated the reason why the poll commenced. It is you who are again disrupting me & other editors who had participated in the voting. --Harjk talk 05:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Harjk's process (straw poll) to reach consensus is legitimate. The problem with the section is that it is WP:OR and WP:CRUFT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a great reason to delete the whole page then, since it is a cesspool of OR and CRUFT.Bakaman 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus yet

I am not reading a consensus here yet given that ÆN↑Þƺ§® and User:Desione have protested the vote itself (in which canvassing was used) and User:Bakasuprman has argued for deletion of the article itself. Plus no one has explained why the background section needs to be removed. This is not a consensus. Desione (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are you blind? ÆN↑Þƺ§® had a vote at FOR section has voted in AGAINST section. Apart from that, another 3 editors have already against it. Even ÆN↑Þƺ§® opposes it, 3 are still against adding it. In short, 2 are FOR and 3 are AGAINST. Majority+consensus=Accept. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the history, his comment against the vote was modified into a vote to support removal of the section. Desione (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he is still in FOR section, cant you see it properly? He did not altered his comment. You are acting against consensus. I'm repeating my words: Majority+consensus=Accept. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See this [17]. The diff clearly shows you (User:Harjk) modifying a negative comment into a positive vote. Please revert back to including the Background section or I will file a complaint. Desione (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I’d been arranging it in order-wise. Not modifying his comment at all. You are mistaken. If that is the case, he could have reverted my edit since he was watching it. Even he opposes it, another three are still supporting it. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not an excuse. You need to revert your own mistakes. Also you have used canvassing and that still does not mean that there is a consensus since two users oppose the voting itself and one wants the page to be deleted. So please revert or I will be forced to file a complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be childish. First of all, you come to the point. The section itself is highly pov push that neither fit in the article nor from RS. A total irreverent and inappropriate to the topic and this is why nobody has come to vote in the FOR section. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not to feed the troll, but for the sake of record: I haven't voted on the poll. I posted a comment for User:Ubardak, and rejected the poll. There is no other interaction in the "polling" process by me whatsoever.--talk 06:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it is all about bad faith attack because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India.

--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

en:Religious harmony in India listed for deletion

The article en:Religious harmony in India listed for deletion second time.I wonder why people should have POV against en:Religious harmony in India but that POV is quite apparant that is the reason it is listed en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India here.

I request those who want to keep this article do vote at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India so I can keep working further on this article.

If every 10 minutes if some one or other wants to delete the article how do I spend more time to improve the article ? Openion from people working on India related projects is needed urgently.

Thanks and looking forward to support

Mahitgar (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section

Clearly, and with minimal fuss, will those who disagree about the section please lay out the arguments here. Please justify your stance with reference to our core policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Parallels to similar sections in other articles, if any, will also be appreciated. Please refrain from [[WP:EW|while this discussion is underway. Go! Relata refero (disp.) 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a simple question. If someone has a problem with some text, he or she should discuss. Why the hell you should revert it before and then call for "discuss"? Relato, you are not a guardian of this article.

In other words. I would like to ask, the onus for explanation is on you, because you think it is POV. When did Wikipedia become a place where one has to discuss every sentence before addition?--talk 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anupam, it becomes that when a dispute/edit war takes place. Now please discuss, while remaining civil and avoiding WP:EW. To start off with, please detail in neutral language why this section is important and encyclopaedic, as well as relevant to an article about religious violence. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I am as civil as I could be.
2. The section provides "Background", and so it is important. It provides background for "religious violence" in India, so it is relevant for an article about religious violence in India.

Now your turn - what is POV about it?--talk 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nice try - it is not a "non consensus" version - a rigged poll is not a measure of consensus. It is a disputed version.

I guess I should answer the question! I don't think a background section contributes much to the article. As written, the section tries to provide an artificial balance to the presence of Religious violence that is not necessary (I should think that India's religious diversity is strong enough to survive without artifice). A line in the lead that indicates the largely peaceful coexistence of the many religions of India is more than sufficient. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It provides a much needed balance. A background section is much needed for undue weight. The current article is biased and reads like India is the only country with historical presence of "religious violence". Also, "presence of religious violence" in India is not a plague. There is no country without "presence of religious violence", now or ever.

Not only that, it is needed for a better prose. We are talking about incidents -> background section is essential.--talk 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• At the cost of expanding your brief, I think the problem with the article is that it is trying to do too much. The entire article should be simple and straightforward with the current lead (copyedited), a section on 'Hindu-Muslim Conflicts' that discusses the history, the nature, and the major incidents (briefly, since they have their own articles anyway); a section on 'Anti-Christian violence' that does not seem to have its own article; a section on 'The Sikh Riots', but very very brief since it has its own article, and perhaps the Media section. The 'Ancient India' thing must go. What does a discussion on the 'Goa Inquisition' and the anti-Buddhist policies of a 'rising Sunga emperor' have to do with 'Religious violence in India' of today? The purpose of this article should be to bring the threads together, not expound in detail on any one thing.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To RegentsPark: The "Ancient India" should not go, simply because there is no way to define what is "today" and what is not. The title was given by me while copyediting, for the lack of better term, and for grouping what appeared to be already present in the article.

But I see the problem you are mentioning.

The problem is here because the article exists for no reason other than advancing someone's point of view.

Anyway, maybe we can decide on its form. I think there are two possibilites:

1. "India has diversities -- violence against Religion no.1, violence against Religion no.2, ...., conclusion(?)."
2. "India has seen religious violence seen long time before -- ancient India -- medieval India -- modern India."

As you might have guessed, I oppose both :) But I think number 2 will be a better poison. Other options are welcome. If a consensus forms for one of the options, I will calrify by position.--talk 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that 'Religious Violence in India' typically refers to Hindu Muslim conflicts. The term 'Religious' applied here has two consequences, one fortunate (bringing the relationship between Anti-Christian violence and Hindu fundamentalism to the fore) and the other unfortunate (diluting the virulence and persistence of the Hindu-Muslim issue). Either way, historical incidents like the Goa Inquisition and the anti-Buddhist policies of a long forgotten emperor have about as much place on a discussion on religious violence in India as the the Spanish Inquisition has on an article on anti-semitic graffiti in French cemeteries. However, let's wait and see what others have to say about this.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There, that's what I am trying to say.

• Hindu nationalism has an already an article. I don't see the point of reiterating it here again.
• The article was NOT created as an extension of Hindi-Muslim conflict. That part is already mentioned here: Islam_in_India#Hindu-Muslim_conflict. If you think that is what needs to be done, please move it to Hindu-Muslim_conflict.

Anti-Buddhist can be removed, specially since his son himself corrected the mistakes. But on the otherhand, anti-christian, muslim, sikhism, hindu - they are fought over petty local policies and given the color of religion by recalling ancient atrocities. It would be akin to Spanish acquisition causing anti-Spanish violence now.

While you and me know what 'Religious Violence in India' typically refers to, a year from now it will refer to what the article's name suggest, with a new batch of trolls and POV pushers revert warring every edit. The article was created to quench the India-bashing thirst. At least I fail to see any other reason for its existence, because otherwise we wouldn't be discussing what the article really refers to etc.

Also, don't forget then the anti-Hindu violence, specially in southern India and eastern India - places where Hindus are in minority. And don't forget that the riots are never one sided. Right now the article looks like a list of religious atrocities committed in India, which is a ridiculous topic, but I believe it can be turned into a comprehensible and well cited article. That's why I think going according to "time" will help.

The problem with going X vs Y vs Z position is that it will never be NPOV, it will never be factual, and it will never be comprehensible.--talk 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)