Talk:Religious violence in India

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

Hogwash[edit]

This article, for the most part, is a complete hogwash of synthesis and original research. These conflicts have more to do with ethnicity and race than "religion" per se. Religion is often used as a cover for ethnicity in south asia, but this article seems to ignore that, perpetuating the orientalist myth that everything in South Asia is somehow related to religion.14.139.193.45 (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Awkward First Paragraph[edit]

Just a quick note to say that the second sentence in the first paragraph is a little awkward:

Religious violence in India includes acts of violence by followers of one religious group against followers and institutions of another religious group, often in the form of rioting. Religions such as Zoroastrianism and Judaism have survived peacefully with Hindus for thousands of years.

The article ignores Zoroastrianism mentions Judaism only in relation to the Portuguese Inquisition. Why make general statements about Zoroastrianism and Judaism but not mention Hinduism or Islam? I think that second sentence should be removed. Perhaps it could be replaced with something like:

Religious violence in India, especially in recent times, has generally involved Hindus and Muslims, although incidents of violence have also involved Christians, Jews, and Sikhs.

Any thoughts? --Mvblair (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make that change for the reasons noted above. It just seems more relevant. Mvblair (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg[edit]

File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed removal[edit]

diff Which part is copy-vio here and what is the source page from which it has been copied? diff

The sources

  • Swell, Robert (2004). A Forgotten Empire: Vijayanagar (reprint ed.). Kessinger Publishing. p. 144. ISBN 1419101250. 
  • Farooqui, Salma Ahmed. A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: From Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. pp. 124–125. ISBN 8131732029. 

They corroborate the content. Darkness Shines, tell me which part is the copy-vio and I will paraphrase. If somebody doesn't come up with a valid response I am going to put it back, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are going to restore a copyvio? And unsourced content? Interesting. Hindu culture during and after Muslim rule: survival and subsequent challenges 1994 p43 Originally from Sewells A Forgotten Empire who died in 1925, so the content is not PD. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? I explicitly mentioned that I will paraphrase. I even cited sources. Yet you interpret that as, "I am going to restore a copyvio and unsourced content"? Really, I am concerned about you, are you okay? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Which portion is COPY-VIO tell me I will paraphrase. Hindu culture during and after Muslim rule: survival and subsequent challenges ← what is this? Is it the source from which the content has been copied?? If yes, the page 43 is not an exact copy of the whole content. I ask you again, tell me which part is the copy-vio and what is the source of the copy-vio?? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines

I am going to give you another chance kindly tell me which portion is copy-vio and I will paraphrase. If you don't take part in the discussion then that means you don't have a valid rationale for deleting them. Kindly elaborate your rationale. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave you the book and page number above, go look at it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, don't delete other's comments, be careful.
Secondly, I checked the book and the page 43 it was not at all clear which portion was the violation. Which edition (you didn't specify)? The content you removed first was mostly inside quotation marks, it could not have constituted a copy-vio, I hope you know. Tell which portion outside of quote was a violation? If you don't I am going to restore that section and paraphrase what was outside the quotes. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The removed comment is a Nangparbat sock. I have told you where it is copied from, that really is all I can do. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You claimed where it was copied you didn't specify which portion of the content deleted is the copy-vio.
You deleted other sections also, with the same claim, for which you've given me nothing. What about them? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, how can something be "copyvio + unsourced"? If its a copyvio, that's the source!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The other sections had no sources, Dharmadhyaksha a copyvio has to be removed immediately, you cannot cite what it is copied from as a source, it is still a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I was commenting on your edit summary and not action. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Old vandalism may still need cleanup[edit]

Just came across this [1] old set of edits by a POV vandal IP from 3 April, which apparently involved some rather blatant falsification of sources and referenced content. At least some of the vandalism (the complete reversal of the claim from the NYT source [2]) was only cleaned up today. Editors might want to check if there is anything else that has slipped through and needs to be fixed. Fut.Perf. 09:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Stupa, John Marshall, Guide to Sanchi and Pushyamitra[edit]

The image caption has this as support -

"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." in John Marshall, A Guide to Sanchi, p. 38. Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing (1918).

Here is the problem:

  1. I find no such support on page 38 or anywhere else in that 1918 book by John Marshall. (Therefore I have removed that alleged cite, and tagged cite requested)
  2. After an exhaustive search, I find no scholarly peer reviewed journal article or book quoting John Marshall as having written that.
  3. Independent of John Marshall, I found no scholarly peer reviewed source reaching the same or similar conclusion as the caption (about Sanchi, vandalism, religious violence and Pusyamitra Sunga).

The current image and caption challenges wiki policies WP:YESPOV and WP:V. Unless someone provides a reliable source in the coming weeks, I will remove that image and caption. AmyNorth (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Popular Front of India[edit]

Interested users are requested to look at the latest edit war in Popular Front of India. Thanks.--Cosmic  Emperor  10:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was merge ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Utcursch has suggested, and I support the suggestion, that Religious conflicts in India be merged into this page. There is no content there which is unique (or if it is, then there is no reason it should not be added here). It was created by a now-banned user, and is generally in poorer shape than this page is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as stated above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as above. ScholarM (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)'

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Report[edit]

I've copied some of the content and omitted the parts which I think is irrelevant or already mentioned in detail here. There might be still content salvageable there, see it here. Content related to Terrorist attacks, weakly sourced I've intentionally ignored.

  • "Muslim and Hindu conflict": already covered, taken a few bits, remaining seems weakly sourced.
  • "Muslim-Sikh conflict": covered
  • "Hindu – Christian conflict" covered
  • "Muslim-Christian conflict" Tipu-related covered
  • "Muslim-Buddhist conflict" no, too weakly sourced ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ugog. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Religious violence in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religious violence in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Vijayanagara violence[edit]

Maestro2016, this is also a pretty outdated source. Ferishta did write a lot of stuff, but it is taken with a large grain of salt by modern historians. For example, Eaton[1] doesn't corroborate any of this. Pinging Utcursch for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, in this edit, you haven't said who has exaggerated. And you removed a page needed tag without supplying a page number. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The reference cited (R. C. Majumdar, p. 481) mentions this as a quote from Firishta, a court historian employed by the Deccan Sultanates. It is not appropriate to present Firishta's statements as historical facts without corroboration from modern historians.
Joan-Pau Rubiés (2002)[2], discussing this specific account of Firishta states (pp. 283-285): "It seems clear that Firishta was here setting the state for a considered discussion of why the holy war against the infidel should have been undertaken, and with such success. To begin with, there was a religious offence which was obviously intolerable... <description of Rama Raja's alleged atrocities> [...] We can conclude that for much of his much of his narrative Firishta is extremely unreliable, even though his account may have a factual basis, because from his Deccani perspective (which was also that of many of his sources) Vijayanagara represented only 'the other', whose role was to fall victim to the success of Muslim Sultan."
Several other authors have also described Firishta's claims as inaccurate. For example, see P. Sree Rama Sarma (1975):[3] "Recounting the effects of allied advance into Ahmednagar Ferishta observed, "the infidels of Bijanagar who for many years had been wishing for such an opportunity, left no cruelty unpracticed. They insulted the honour of Musalman women, destroyed mosques and did not respect the sacred Qur'an." Apart from the prejudiced and exaggerated accounts to which Ferishta was accustomed [...] It is unthinkable that in the presence of the three Muslim soverigns in a State governed by another Muslim, the Hindu soldiers and their ruler would have been permitted to lay their hands on mosques and chaste women and humiliate the Muslim population in the Deccan [...]".
utcursch | talk 02:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much. I was wondering if this was still an unsolved problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting find. But shouldn't Sarma's explanation be mentioned in the article? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eaton, Richard M. (2005), A Social History of the Deccan, 1300-1761: Eight Indian Lives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-25484-7 
  2. ^ Joan-Pau Rubiés (5 September 2002). Travel and Ethnology in the Renaissance: South India Through European Eyes, 1250-1625. Cambridge University Press. p. 283-285. ISBN 978-0-521-52613-5. 
  3. ^ P. Sree Rama Sarma (1975). "Rāma Rāya's Policy". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 36: 142–156. 

Academic Holocaust deniers[edit]

Quoting a holocaust denier like Audrey Truschke doesn't add credibility. When it comes to Aurangzeb, J Sarkar is the authority.49.207.61.24 (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of J. Sarkar ever claiming a "holocaust" either, if that's what you're implying. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Content removal and addition[edit]

Maestro2016 it has been told to you already that whatever you are adding is not relevant to the article because those sources are nothing about religious violence. Maddison and Colin have not discussed religious violence. Sambhaji's armies had killed 20,000 people regardless of their religion, such massacres took place often in 1200s to 1800s, not all of them can be added here. Information on Durant is accurately attributed to him, and it is relevant because and he is not stating something that has been disputed. Geunineart (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sambhaji was executed specifically because of anti-Muslim violence, as stated in the cited source. As for Durant, that is a colonial-era source from 1935. Here is what User:Utcursch had previously told me regarding the use of colonial-era sources: Please have a look at WP:HISTRH. Colonial-era history textbooks are obsolete: you should avoid using them as sources, wherever newer scholarly work is available. Several modern books cover the topic of Maratha-era atrocities: please use them as references instead. Quotes from British civil servants like V. A. Smith about the predecessors of the British have no place in Wikipedia articles, unless referenced with commentary in a modern scholarly work. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That is not what source reads, you are doing your own research here. It only says that Sambhaji was executed by a panel of ulema and also "his companion were hacked to death and the pieces thrown to the dogs". That has nothing to do with this article though. Why you are trying to put trivial incidents that have to do nothing with the religious violence? Durant is a respected and reliable source and still usable, you should be happy that he is attributed with his opinion if anything. Capitals00 (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Maestro2016 you are not understanding or deliberately ignoring the type of information that is being provided, you also don't have a good understanding of the sources that you are using, stop creating a WP:POINT. I just looked at above sections it really seems that you should stop editing this article because of you care more about POV pushing than editing in a collaborative environment. Geunineart (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, the Sambhaji source states that he was executed for "having slain and captured good Muslims", specifically referring to violence against Muslims. And secondly, and more importantly, Will Durant is a colonial-era historian. Vincent Arthur Smith was also a respected historian from that era, from a respected publisher like Oxford University Press, yet @Utcursch: strongly advised me not to use colonial-era textbooks. Yet you are arguing that an exception should be made for Will Durant, another colonial-era historian, which would be double-standards. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
So because a kangaroo court sentenced him while committing atrocities themselves we should treat it as religious violence from Sambhaji and that you have to dedicate a particular section for him.. That's WP:POVPUSHING. Historian has to be relevant. Lots of modern scholars cite Will Durant when they are discussing Muslim histories in India.[3][4][5][6] Why you are not agreeing to cite him? Geunineart (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The source does not refer to it as a "kangaroo court", but that is your own WP:POVPUSHING bias speaking there. As for Durant, if there are modern historians that reference him for something, then reference those modern historians, not Durant himself. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
First the edits like "Will Durant claimed that",[7] were introduced and then "Alain Danielou claims that" was introduced along with removal of Will Durant as a whole.[8] Though Will Durant is really not making a claim that "is uninteresting to scholars" or "is it weighty enough to include in the encyclopaedia" per WP:HISTRS. Also why Caste system in India[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_violence_in_India&diff=815874637&oldid=815872491 was added? It is irrelevant. Capitals00 (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
See the section WP:HISTRS#What is "recent" scholarship in history?, which advises against using older sources and advises to use recent scholarship. As I said above, if there are modern historians saying similar things to Durant, then cite those modern historians, not Durant himself. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That is why I had pointed you modern scholars, if they feel acceptable to cite Durant, so you should. Geunineart (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
According to what Utcursch told me above, a colonial-era textbook should only be "referenced with commentary in a modern scholarly work". And according to WP:HISTRS#What is "recent" scholarship in history?, "new historiographical models come into use. They are usually added to old models, but sometimes older models are rejected or abandoned." Colonial-era textbooks are a reflection of outdated historiographical models. Durant needs to be subject to interpretation and scrutiny by modern historians, therefore cite the modern historians who agree or disagree with his points, not Durant directly. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am not particularly in favor of Durant here, I am just finding it uneasy that why it is being removed eventually, you can't really find someone who disagrees with Durant. Geunineart (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Will Durant#Durant criticism for an explanation of why his historical methodology is outdated. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)