Talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India

Hemantha's reverts

Hemantha instead of using your half-baked understanding of WP:PRIMARY and the scope of this page, you should use talk page. You can't use a quote to build up your own conclusion as it violates WP:SYNTH because we expect the secondary reliable source to make conclusion.

I have already explained a minor revert by you, so I don't think I need to explain further about it.

It was not even long time ago when this page only included the major incidents of violence as Vanamonde93 and Kautilya3 can confirm too and in the recent times the page has started to provide coverage to non-notable incidents of violence. You should avoid diluting the page further by including instances of Cyberbullying because they don't justify inclusion on a page called "Violence against Muslims in India".

I believe the page should be reverted back to the last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents because it provides a misleading notion that these are all the incidents that took place so far in independent India. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I've explained that the quote is used by Jaffrelot in the same context. No editors here are building up quotes and conclusion. Jaffrelot is quite clearly a secondary source. The article is correctly referencing both Jaffrelot and Golwalkar. I don't see the synth issue here.

On issues of cyberbullying, I think a discussion is required before removal. Scope of the article is nowhere restricted to physical violence only per my reading. Hemantha (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel, I'm sorry but I had to revert your changes to your earlier comment since I had already replied to it. Please add it back as a new reply. Hemantha (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The reply came at the same time and you could have modified your reply. This is the revert about which my original post here talked about that isn't where you said that Jaffrelot used the quote, but on another revert where you were supposed to fix the problem instead of relying on edit summaries and expect others to fix it. Anyway, I have added the actual secondary source here.

The actual scope of the article remained restricted to the major incidents of violence where there were enough deaths. I am fine with hearing what others say about the scope. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You appear totally confused - two edits can't happen at the same time. Let me repeat - by the time you changed your post, I had already replied. I didn't even get an edit conflict, look at the history.

You are also confused about the secondary ref. "The Sangh Parivar: A Reader" which was already there from before your removals, carried the quote. I don't know why you felt the need to add one more, but it doesn't hurt.

There is a minor point about your edit though. You've changed the meaning a bit - previous text said This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's writings. Writing about Hitler's Nazi-Germany, Golwalker observed which says that his writings on Germany was one instance of a number of such evidences. Current text says This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's about Hitler's Nazi-Germany where he observed which makes it sound as if his writing on Germany was the only instance of such evidence. The second is, I suspect, not what Jaffrelot is saying IIRC. So I'd like you to change it back to previous text. The paragraph was clunky already, so again your addition to the clunkiness doesn't hurt too much. Hemantha (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure what this argument is about anymore, but FWIW; I don't think minor incidents ought to be mentioned in list form at all (on this page, or any similar overarching page about violence). Of course, that tends to be a pointless argument; every page has its POV pushers demanding the inclusion of every last incident. The inclusion of the Golwalkar quote seems quite appropriate; the sourcing issues seems to have been fixed, and that analysis of his writing is entirely mainstream in scholarly work discussing his ideology. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  On the sourcing issues seems to have been fixed, do you think there were any to begin with? The previous situation where Golwalkar's quote was sourced to his own book "We, or Our Nationhood Defined" appears more appropriate to me than Aman's change, which sources it to Jaffrelot. I know RSS has tried to claim Golwalkar didn't write "We", but I can't think of any sane reason why that book shouldn't be the source for the quote. Hemantha (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  We should always prefer a secondary source to a primary one. Occasionally, a secondary source will only cite a specific passage, and in that situation a primary source may be useful in addition to reference the quote itself; but in other circumstances, there's no reason to use it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Jaffrelot's "The Sangh Parivar: A Reader", which had been there since before Aman's changes, was that secondary source. It carried the quote within the context. So the previous situation was somewhat similar to the "occasionally" scenario you outline. Currently there are two repetitive (IMO) secondary sources - two different Jaffrelot books - in there (which of course isn't an issue). Hemantha (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request

I'm am creating a talk article for debate on deletion of this page. It's incredibly misleading and seems politically motivated. It also doesn't take into account the scale of Islamic extremism in India and how that fuels communal violence every now and then. This also doesn't take into account religious appeasement policies and anti-Hindu rhetoric from elite political parties that further fuel the cause. The cause section is extremely misleading as it puts the blame on a single party when the contrary is well known. Astral Destroyer (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request

It is totally misleading and false information and can cause social problems and riots 2409:4060:294:67CA:0:0:98F:8A1 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

PLease read wp:afd, you can't ask for an article to be deleted on its talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Large revert

User:Aman.kumar.goel, your recent edit, it appears to me, has mixed sections from different revisions and has without explanation, reverted a number of intermediate edits unrelated to the objection you've raised. See for eg some edits from Special:Diff/1067075319/1071899614 series from Feb, Special:Diff/1051646803 from Oct 2021, Special:Diff/1013293252 from Mar 2021 which fixed sfn target errors, Special:Diff/983126787 from Oct 2020 - all of which were there in the revision immediately preceding your large removal but do not appear any more after you were done. Some of the changes give an appearance that changes unrelated to the given reason have been made and given that you have a history of silently reverting to very old revisions, I'm not going to spend time trying to verify any more but am reverting your edits.
If you wish to remove incidents other than major ones (where is the discussion about this btw?), I do not understand why you couldn't just remove the "Other incidents" section. If you wish to reinstate your edit, please tell us exactly which edits were reverted or explain why such a major wide-ranging and confusingly complicated change is required here. Hemantha (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: As my edit summary already mentioned, the discussion is just above where I had mentioned that "The actual scope of the article remained restricted to the major incidents of violence where there were enough deaths".

I and Vanamonde93 agreed to restore the "last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents". This is why I restored the long standing version just before when this page started to provide coverage to insignificant incidents.[1]

To understand how this version was longstanding can be understood by comparing this version March 2016 version with September 2020 version. You will find no difference when it comes to "Major incidents" other than the addition of 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots and 2020 Delhi riots, to which I don't object.

It is because this page is supposed to cover only major incidents as noted by Vanamonde93 that "I don't think minor incidents ought to be mentioned in list form at all (on this page, or any similar overarching page about violence). Of course, that tends to be a pointless argument; every page has its POV pushers demanding the inclusion of every last incident."

Even if you were unaware of this, still you shouldn't have restored "Other incidents" section which is unsourced POV and provides coverage to non-major incidents and the section "Approximate total victims due to major incidents", which is unsourced.

You were a part of that discussion, that's why you shouldn't be making these misleading arguments. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The amount of disruption here in reverting to years old revisions based on a two comments is extraordinary. As I said above, given your history and the specific instances listed above, I do not have any confidence that you haven't sneaked in other changes. So either explain every single change or make precise edits. Hemantha (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Those "two comments" happened months ago and were enough. See WP:NOTAVOTE. You are clearly assuming bad faith here. I have already explained my reason. You can take your time to read it and tell me which part of my message needs more clarification. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I listed several edits which you've silently reverted. I see no explanation.
• Once again, I do not see why you need to restore old revisions, instead of simply removing the "Other Incidents" section.
• Your claim - I and Vanamonde93 agreed to restore the "last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents" seems to be misrepresenting User:Vanamonde93's comment. I have pinged them, but they might be unable to respond for a while and I believe the article should be in its status-quo version till they can contribute. Hemantha (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't "silently reverted" anything. I read that you falsely accused me of having such a "history" but I ignored it because it does not belong here.

I had already pinged Vanamonde93. You can tell now if you have a good reason that why we should change the scope. See WP:STONEWALLING. You had the opportunity to argue back in March 2022 that why we should include insignificant incidents here and you had provided no reason to change the article's scope. This article is not alone who's scope is restricted. It is same as Persecution of Hindus. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Alot of the material removed looks relevant to the article, I don't see why all of it should be removed in one big swoop. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Like what? You really need to get WP:CONSENSUS before you attempt to unilaterally expand the scope of the article to include minor incidents. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not unilaterally anything. You removed content that was in the article since 2020. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You are doing it unilaterally without responding to any of the concerns raised above as well as here where it was agreed to restore the last stable version. What I removed simply came after September 2020 because this page's scope does not allow coverage of minor incidents, as already described above. The edits you are restoring also had opposition back in the day. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an agreement like that. The last discussion was over two relatively small incidents of bullying, which could maybe go, though I don't see an agreement over it. You went ahead and took the article back to 2020. Removing many things including a table that summarizes the major incidents. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between "September 2020" and "2020". We were talking about restoring the "last stable version" and you have been already provided evidence that how I was restoring the last stable version. Obviously it included removal of unsourced table since it fell under the section "Major incidents". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anyone agreeing with you about the last stable version, and I don't see anyone agreeing that some version from 2020 is the last stable version. Where is this agreement? All I see is you typing last stable version, but without saying what counts as stable or anyone agreeing with you. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already described what was the last stable version before minor incidents were included here. Do you have explanation otherwise? You can read WP:STONEWALLING. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The other incidents contains mob lynchings. These aren't minor. The clubhouse cyber bullying maybe counts as minor, but that's it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You are again missing the fact that it has been already discussed above that we should be restoring "last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents".[2]

Mob lynchings are happening since 2012. Why they were not included before but only during the last months of 2020? If you want to expand the scope then you need consensus for it and you don't have it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

All I see is YOU typing in "last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents". I don't see OTHER users agreeing with that. I don't see anyone saying, including YOU, that the 2020 version is the last stable version. Lynchings aren't minor incidents. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yet you are not proving that when the consensus was built to include those minor incidents. Can you show if you have one? The consensus and general understanding of the article supported inclusion of only major incidents. Read Talk:Violence_against_Muslims_in_India/Archive_3#What_constitutes_a_major_incident?, Talk:Violence_against_Muslims_in_India/Archive_3#Separate_pages_for_list_of_incidents_and_Islamophobia_in_the_local_context? and there is probably more in archives. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Mob lynching aren't minor, and I don't see any defined agreement in those two years old discussions you are linking to now. And this doesn't explain at all the removal of the very useful summary table. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha

That is your personal view. You are asked when did lynchings qualified the definition of 'major incident' for this page and you are also asked to show where it was agreed to include these minor incidents (according to this page's scope) and you are not showing it all. "WP:ITSUSEFUL"(though used in AfD) is not a good argument against those discussions that I cited. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I have no stomach for the endless back-and-forth above. AKG, the status quo version may need to remain while a discussion occurs, but having reverted to the status quo, you need to explain your objections to the content, not just cite a lack of agreement. Hemantha and StellarNerd; please step back for a moment and consider carefully whether you want to start including individual incidents of mob violence here. This page is about the phenomenon of violence against Muslims in India; it's history, politics, and sociology. The history of necessity includes the major incidents, but if you attempt to include any incident of anti-Muslim violence, you will quickly turn this into a list article with no substance. Conversely, if there's sources treating incidents of violence as a group, a separate list article may also be worthwhile. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, sure. Here is what I removed:

A section on: "Approximate total victims due to major incidents" because this list is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.

Section on "1969 to 1989 Gujarat riots", and "1989 Bhagalpur violence" because long-standing version covered both incidents under the same heading "1969 to 1989" but now it is using a misleading title "1969 to 1989 Gujarat riots" while providing coverage to Bhagalpur (in Bihar) in Gujarat's section as well as its own separate section.

The whole "Other incidents" which has 4 subsections: 1) "Approximate total victims due to other incidents", a table that is providing coverage to insignificant or non-notable incidents, 2) "Mob lynching" which also covers only insignificant or non-notable incidents, 3) "Sexual assault" a single one-liner which is obviously insignificant for this article, 4) "Hindu event calling for genocide of Muslims" a one-liner summary for Haridwar hate speeches which is just same as the rest of other incidents.

While I was reverting, this edit kept getting in my way which should be ignored, otherwise my edit only involved removal of the sections I noted.

Currently we have a template for Template:Violence against Muslims in India where incidents are listed but only major ones, just like it is with Template:Violence against Hindus in independent India. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)