The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
A fact from Violence against Muslims in independent India appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the majority of instances of anti-Muslim violence in India have occurred in the northern and western states of India?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
