Talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal for move or merger

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

The proposal is contrary to the sources and as such unacceptable. The notion that "in 2002 proportionally more Hindus was killed" is so false that is ridiculous. Did you even try to think about the statistics of it?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is not getting moved, it is notable in it's own right as a standalone article and is well covered by academic sources, to suggest a merger or move is preposterous. To say more Hindus have died in these incidents of mass killing are bordering on denial, should this behaviour continue I will be not be happy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. This is a non-starter. The topic is notable, describes a phenomenon that is well defined and well discussed in scholarly sources, and has different causes and effects than the more general religious violence in India. We definitely need a stand alone article on this. --regentspark (comment) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are various options, Incidents of anti-Muslim violence in India would satisfy the stand alone criterion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"To say more Hindus have died in these incidents of mass killing are bordering on denial, should this behaviour continue I will be not be happy." is a threat. Don't threaten, agf. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are calling incidents that are tit for tat for tit for tat events as isolated mass killings, that is hyperbole that Wikipedia should stay away from. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is just another hamfisted try to turn a well sourced article into a list, as you proposed above, give it up, learn to listen, this article is not going anywhere. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard you and you've heard me, let us listen to others too. "Well sourced" is your position, don't judge yourself. IMO Incidents of anti-Muslim violence in India is a neutral and accurate title. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The addition of "incidents of" adds nothing to the title in terms of accuracy scope or meaning it simply adds a word and which falsely suggests a list article which this article is not and will not become.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That is your opinion, let us have others opinions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A reviewer at the DYK writes: "I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence." The title I suggest addresses these concerns imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You have three editors here telling you the article is not going anywhere, let alone be butchered and turned into a list. Maybe it is time you started listening and stopped being tendentious. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Read; the section is titled "Move or merger". Does it mention "list" anywhere? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Tell me, how exactly does your proposal improve this article? Other than losing the 5000 dead from Nellie how would a move make any difference? Other than that name is suggestive of a list article of course, in which case a well sourced article would be butchered and turned into a list, do you think everyone dense or something?. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Not what Gato said, you already know from the ANI you tried that you ought not misrepresent what people have written, but as we are quoting uninvolved editors get this "Anti-Muslim violence in India" is treated as a coherent phenomenon by dozens of reliable scholarly sources. You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this topic is well-studied, and that many credible authors interpret this violence as coordinated, systematic persecution" Keep reading that till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've quoted the said editor verbatim, copy-paste, lesson learnt at the aforementioned AN/I. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No you have not, as you have left out the fact that he has yet to look at the sources, which he said. So he has yet to actually form an opinion on the content. That is misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

He said, "On the other hand, I share groupuscule's concerns above that the article may be presenting a somewhat one-dimensional view of the conflict. I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence. I think therefore that the next step will be to spend some time reading the source material to see how it compares. I probably won't have time to do that today but will endeavour to do so tomorrow." There hasn't been any misrepresentation. He shares his concerns with another, that makes two uninvolved editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Would that be the same groupuscule who told you "Anti-Muslim violence in India" is treated as a coherent phenomenon by dozens of reliable scholarly sources. You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this topic is well-studied, and that many credible authors interpret this violence as coordinated, systematic persecution" and has since written on the DYK page "From where groupuscule is sitting (in the library) the article is reasonably well-sourced and reasonably well-written. ALT2 is accurate and central to the topic as its presented here. This topic seems to be attracting a lot of controversy—at least within Wikipedia. Let's quickly run it by DYK talk just to get a few more eyeballs on it." So tell me, what were his "concerns" again? Looks to me like your back to one, who has not yet formed his opinion, so that would make zero. The article is staying put, and that is it. Drop the stick. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Learn how to sign your posts, use four ~. Every source in the article is reliable, where do you get the notion that a source is only reliable if the Indian government says it is? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

You need to go into user preferences to set a sig, what you have is not one. I am neither Pakistani nor Muslim, kindly keep your guesses as to my religion and nationality out of conversations. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accused you of being muslim, pakistani or terrorist, why would I? It's your choice to act like or be like want you want. It was in your user page as "Irony" you recieved as appreciation or disgrace whatever, I recalled that. I don't want to Know you or talk about you, please be in dark!!! You just waved others away from the Topic. I want to Recall others to discuss on the deletion of the topic. I think it should be deleted, or atleast moved!!

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

Do you think me dense? Although i can understand you belongs to pakistan and you are muslim Christ on friday, can you not go find something useful to do? You are obviously not competent to be editing contentious articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should i care for you, i have many things to do, not useless as you are, please give your time to some creativity. I think, it should be my question for you "can you not go find something useful to do?" You can reach up psychi and help yourself, after being Normal resume here. Again you are distorting the topic, can you refrain yourself from this nonsense. Let others give there opinion and don't disturb. Seriously, give others a chance for Christ sake. This Article needs to call off. Kswarrior (talk)

Others have given their opinion, and like you, they were wrong. I have no idea what the rest of your post is about. The article is not being, deleted, merged nor moved. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

An appeal

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

You will delete nothing. What citations do not support what content? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations 1-67 and Citation 70 onwards do not show what the preceding sentence says.—Khabboos (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also comment about my other points.—Khabboos (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, are you seriously saying that all but three references in this article do not support the content? An example please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please click on the cited links and see, do they really say what the wikipedia sentence says?—Khabboos (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not need to check them, I wrote the article. So either let me know what references do not support the content or leave it be. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K., so can you also please mention the 4 points I mentioned at first (and whatever else that shows that the Indian Govt. is doing whatever possible for muslims in India) in this article?—Khabboos (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So are you now saying that the references are fine? I would like to get this out of the way before we discuss another issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a wikipedia novice and so I can't comment about the links (perhaps I made a mistake and I'm sorry if that offended you). I'm ready for any type of discussion and I'm sure we can work on this article without being argumentative.—Khabboos (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I only speak English. Regarding the other stuff, I do not see what it has to do with violence against a minority group? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a sentence that says, 'Others argue......although...... many muslims have been successful......'. I'm sure we can have a sentence like, "the muslims in India do not live in fear, the way minorities in Pakistan live, as the Indian Govt. has many welfare schemes for muslims, like (a), (b), (c), (d) .............and muslims are pampered as a part of vote Bank politics'.—Khabboos (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I added the above sentence in this article (I'm sure you know that they are true statements), but AcidSnow removed it. I therefore need your help and support in restoring that sentence. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You provided no source for the claim so I removed it (I even said this in my edit summary). AcidSnow (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They are true statements; why don't you find references and add them instead of removing the sentence?—Khabboos (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why I have to do this since you are the one who wrote them while claiming they are "true statements". You are also the one who had a problem about how the article contained content that the references already provided did not state even though they did, yet you went on and added unsourced content yourself? Not just those, but since you provided no sources for your claims, it's WP:Original Research; which is not allowed on Wikipedia and must be removed (I have told you this numerous times). Also, could you please stop playing the "novice card" every time something does not go your way? If you have a problem regarding Wikipedia please view the polices about it (also told you this before and so have others) and don't say "I am a novice" nor tell someone else to do it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K., I have cited references I could find online with only the appropriate sentence (I did not have the time to find sources for everything). I don't see anything wrong in asking someone else to do it (cite references one can find with the appropriate sentence). Is there a wikipedia rule that I should not request other editors to find references?—Khabboos (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You can politely request anything, but noone here owes you that favor. The burden of proof for any statement you want to include in the article falls on yourself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The most frequent form of anti-muslim violence

All sources concur that mob violence by hindus during riots is the main source of religiously motivated killings of Muslims in India. Denying this, or requiring specific citations is just silly. Perhaps it is also the case that mob violence by muslims against hindus is a major case of anti-Hindu violence, but there is another page about that. (I think it would make more sense to have a single page on Hindu-Muslim violence in India, but we dont currently). I supplieda citation from Brass, though apparently there is something fishy with the publication years given by google, it seems that it is in fact 2003 though google says 2011 and a previous google search apparently turned up 2005 for the same book.19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

In my opinion your wording "frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus" -- that is a charged statement with a major accusation that needs strong direct backing not inferential. Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Note that I am not undoing your edit without having a consensus here. I disagree with your reasoning of "... requiring specific citations is just silly" in this case. Jyoti (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The incidents themselves are enough to nullify what you think about charged statement thus it is obviously silly to request specific citations. Edmondhills (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have put appropriate tags and opening one section for each specific tag, we can continue the discussion on specific doubts raised in specific section. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

neutrality is disputed for the opening statement "frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus"

WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to this statement. If you look at the last sentence of this first paragraph also Among the largest incidents were Bihar in 1946, Nellie in 1983 and Gujarat in 2002 the first was basically anti-Hindu riots and Muslims were killed in repercussions, second was violence against Illegal immigrants from Bangaladesh (not exactly translatable into Anti-Muslim violence in India), and in third article we see SIT appointed by Supreme Court of India maintained that burning of train was caused by rampaging mobs and was not caused due to any accident and a section Attacks on Hindus also. I am making my stand clear that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and it remains a POV-statement unless backed by strong multiple sources and the reason for such riots are also mentioned (read my previous sentence on the three largest incidents). Jyoti (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The text is directly supported by the cited source, which is an academic specialist published by an academic imprint. From the source:

"The social exclusion of the community is matched by real, symbolic, and potential violence. Violence perpetrated against Muslims is now naturalized: riots are “well-known and accepted transgression of routine political behavior in India.”6 Therefore, a constant threat of persecution looms large. Members of the community have not only experienced incessant vilification and demonization but have also been subjected to pogroms. The demolition of the centuries-old Babri Mosque in Uttar Pradesh by Hindu militants in 1992, followed by violence in Bombay that killed hundreds, and the Gujarat massacre in 2002 that cost thousands of lives, have received some media coverage.7 But few in the international community know that “Hindu-Muslim riots and anti-Muslim pogroms have been endemic in India since independence.” These pogroms, as Paul Brass has correctly pointed out, are “classified in the press, by the authorities, and by the public as riots,” and hence blame is equally portioned between victims and perpetrators, creating an environment of impunity to the instigators.8 This engenders a culture of fear under which the victims have to live."

Wikipedia is based on sources, not the opinions individual editors have on topics. Giving your personal opinion on issues, without backing it up with sources is irrelevant, and you cannot refute statements supported by high quality academic sources with your own personal views. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My comment of the three incidents come from the respective article content and are referenced with WP:RS there. I am saying I am making my stand clear that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and it remains a POV-statement unless backed by strong multiple sources and the reason for such riots are also mentioned. In my opinion it is a strong statement and qualifies for WP:EXCEPTIONAL specially when it is the first statement of the lead. We should provide the context behind each 'largest' incident also succinctly in the same para for WP:NPOV. Jyoti (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will provide the context behind each 'largest' incident succinctly in the same para. Jyoti (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed the tag but I think it should go. The article is about violence against muslims and it doesn't seem controversial to say that this violence takes place in the form of mob attack on Muslims by Hindus. Not sure what's not neutral about that. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you discuss this in the "Tagged the article with 'POV' and 'context' based on the preceding on-going discussions." section below? Regards. --Jyoti (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring only to the neutrality tag attached to the mob attacks sentence, not with the overall neutrality tag (which, I believe, should stay because the article is a non-neutral hodge-podge of statements - but that can wait). --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your opinion. --Jyoti (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

References

I am for the deletion of this page, how someone paints a whole country against a community? Especially, then when we are the second most populous Muslim country. How this article, adheres to Wikipedia's policies? I personally, find it discriminatory, flammable and encouraging hatred. The opening statement as well as whole this page is a one-sided story, how someone can accept it as a neutral content? In the next days and weeks - will try to go through other wiki pages. But this page is an utter non-sense. Rkb76in (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to give to quick facts, here are some references from wiki - where we reference of at least million of Hindu's systematically killed by Mughal rules but the number of those killed are much higher. How many women were raped and enslaved are not known but can be guessed? Even pages related to those Mughal are not even shamed for their acts but only glorified on wiki - how that is a neutral view of the history? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fatawa_%27Alamgiri http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Guru_Tegh_Bahadur I once again, can't stress enough to delete this page, because it creates only hatred without object analysis of the events. Rkb76in (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

undue weight -- The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages...

The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population. This view is given undue weight in the lead and projected as a conclusive analysis -- which is clearly not the case!

Taking the case from the previous paragraph again Among the largest incidents were Bihar in 1946, Nellie in 1983 and Gujarat in 2002 the first was basically anti-Hindu riots and Muslims were killed in repercussions, second was violence against Illegal immigrants from Bangaladesh, and in third article we see a section "Post Godhra violence" as the reason behind the riots (in which both Hindus and Muslims were killed). Jyoti (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim that undue weight is given to this fairly straightforward claim about the history of hindu/muslim relations in India you need to show that there is an opposing view that is more prominent. The same goes for your second claim, you dont demonstrate any thing by just contradicting a source - you need to show that there is disagreement about the claim in the actual literature. You may not personally consider the Nellie massacre an example of an anti-muslim riot but the literature does not agree with you.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·. I am not contesting the claim about the history of hindu/muslim relations in India. I am contesting that the proposed view is not the conclusive roots of the post-independence day violence but one of the viewpoints and not demonstrably most notable. I am not contradicting a source but saying WP:UNDUE. It is sufficient that there are other views, a disagreement is not required. I wished to point out that the Nellie riots were due to illegal immigration -- the roots of the violence in this particular incident. Jyoti (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not how it works. You are simply saying that you disagree with this statement, but that doesnt mean that it is given undue weight. It is undue only if you can reasonably show that this is a minority viewpoint in the literature. The weight given to different views is assigned based on their relative weight in the literature. The personal opinions about how much weight different statements should have is not relevant unless supported by references to the relevant literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not presenting my personal opinion. If we look at the three largest incidents as mentioned, each has its wp article and there is discussion there about the root cause of the respective incidents from reliable sources. And they differ from the viewpoint here The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population. I summarily presented differing views from them without reproducing references in this discussion. Jyoti (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I will attribute this view to the particular author instead of presenting in Wikipedia voice as a conclusive statement. Jyoti (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And I will revert such an edit untill there is a consensus for it on this talkpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We are in disagreement. How do we proceed for a consensus? I think I have demonstrated that there are other views and this has got undue weight. I haven't done such edit at all, I began on the talk page itself and wait for a few days for inputs from other editors after each comment. Insistence on reverting is uncalled for. But lets us not discuss on this line. Can you please look up the three largest incident articles (linked in the article), they are backed by reliable sources, none of the three fall under this proposed explanation as the root cause. It is an academic analysis and should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as a fact. Jyoti (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If academic opinion states that the roots of anti-Muslim violence in India lies in its history, then pointing to specific triggers of specific incidents is not going to help and is probably original research anyway. Regardless, I don't really see a contradiction between the roots statement and the specific causes of particular incidents. The underlying roots could very well be historical in nature. Maunus is right here and attributing generally accepted academic opinions to specific authors is not just unnecessary but would also incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that the root cause of specific incidents can be different and you may completely ignore all differing views and attribute one academic theory to all of them as a final conclusive fact? Specific triggers do matter, the proposed theory encompass them but are contradicted in their context. It is not a generally accepted academic opinion since we find other opinions for the most prominent incidents. Jyoti (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I will WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jyoti (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between root causes and proximal causes. The statement in question is about root causes. Rioters, and this should be obvious, don't go around muttering "that's for the thousand years of muslim rule" when they attack muslims or their homes. The proximal causes will always be something else but will, in essence, be rooted in a dislike for "the other" (in this case the other is muslims) that is based on a much longer history. Do you have sources that discuss other roots for the anti-Muslim sentiment in India? --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said that, WP:FOC. The article starts with post-independence discussion and I limit myself to that. You want to keep the so called three largest incidents and say their root does not have to match with the proposed root cause but it is the definite root cause and need not be attributed either? Jyoti (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You are saying exactly that. If I read your last statement correctly, you're saying that the article should only focus on the actual (proximal) post independence causes for riots in India and should ignore any historical roots. That doesn't make sense to me at all. If scholars believe that the roots of anti-Muslim violence in India lie in its historical past, then we should say that - whether or not actual incidents of riots cite this historical analysis. If there are other scholars who argue that this historical analysis is incorrect, then we should say that as well - but I don't see any such scholarly refutation. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My response was to this from you: "don't go around muttering "that's for the thousand years of muslim rule" when they attack muslims or their homes.". I haven't said that. What I have said is "The article starts with post-independence discussion and I limit myself to that". "Partition of India" can be argued to be a root cause for something post-independence only, No? Please do not use 'scholars', we are discussing view presented in one book. Analysis has to be read in context -- not every report has to use the exact phrase 'historical reasons'; insisting on exact words is pointless. (To make my point clearer this article also presents one view where 'Muslim appeasement' is interpreted as the 'root cause' of the violence.) I am not discussing its fallibility -- if presented this analysis deserves attribution. Jyoti (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let's start again since I can't really figure out what you've written above. You're saying that the statement "The roots of this violence lie in India's history, stemming from lingering resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the Middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, the violent partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan, and a secular India with a large but minority Muslim population" is given undue weight in the article. Why is it undue? Is it because it is a minor factor behind the violence and shouldn't be included in the lead? Is it because there are alternative views on the roots of this violence? Could you, in one sentence, explain why it is undue? --regentspark (comment) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have got my point right. I am saying WP:UNDUE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I am not presenting my personal opinion. If we look at the three largest incidents as mentioned, each has its wp article and there is discussion there about the root cause of the respective incidents from reliable sources. And they differ. It is an academic analysis and should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as a fact. We find other opinions for the most prominent incidents. The article starts with post-independence violence discussion and I limit myself to that. We are discussing view presented in one book. This article also presents one view where 'Muslim appeasement' is interpreted as the 'root cause' of the violence. Jyoti (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see a contradiction between the longer term cause and the shorter term causes mentioned in the riots articles. Looking at the causes of specific incidents and then using those to discount another stated opinion is original research that is better left to scholars. However, if only one scholar has identified historical reasons for the violence then, I suppose, it should be attributed. If it were a more widely held scholarly opinion then it would not need attribution unless there were alternative explanations that specifically discounted this one. --regentspark (comment) 13:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you say there is not really a contradiction, I will revisit and check if my understanding was flawed, I may not be able to do for a few days. You have expressed that if there is only this scholar who has identified historical reasons then it should be attributed; I had tried searching for similar references from other scholars which I could not, I will try once more. Jyoti (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

neutrality is disputed -- The BJP, and its predecessor the Jana Sangh, have used these communal riots and anti-Muslim propaganda as a part of a larger political strategy.

WP:LABEL and WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. The statement gives no indication of counter views to such strong accusation. I consider it POV-statement. Jyoti (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The text is supported by a published academic expert who states that: "[T]he Jana Sangh and then the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - resorted to anti-Muslim violence to polarize the electorate and solidify the Hindu 'vote bank'."

If you have a source of similar quality that would alter an alternative viewpoint please cite it, but unreferenced assertions cannot challenge what has been published by high quality academic sources. Dlv999 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that a party resorted to violence is not a mild charge when the court has not given any such decision. Presenting such a conclusion, even though from a book, is not neutral. There are references of BJP working with Muslims also. My contention is that it should not be projected as a statement of conclusion. We can instead write: academician Jaffrelot says that The BJP, and its predecessor the Jana Sangh, have used these communal riots and anti-Muslim propaganda as a part of a larger political strategy. Jyoti (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well there is a difference in source quality between an opinion piece published in a newspaper and an academic research publsihed under academic imprint. On top of that there is nothing in the opinion piece which calls into doubt the sourced statement that the parties have "resorted to anti-Muslim violence to polarize the electorate and solidify the Hindu 'vote bank'". I agree it is s strong statement that would require excellent sourcing. Fortunately we have an excellent source to support the statement. If you want to present the statement as an attributed viewpoint you will need to find a source of equal quality that specifically contradicts the statement. In that case we can present the opposing views per WP:NPOV. It is not okay to present the statement as a viewpoint unless you can show there are significant opposing views on the point. Dlv999 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

From WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

When a historian states that X happened in the past, then that is not "opinion", but a statement of fact - UNLESS there are other notable historians who contradict that. Can you present some sources of comparable reliability that states that the BJP and Jana Sangh has not used riots and anti-Muslim propaganda in their political strategies? This is not just something Jaffrelot invents, this is something that many other sources state as fact, and which is amply documented (e.g. [1]).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not have such references at hand. I understand your point. Jyoti (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I will remove the tag shortly unless some other editor has a comment or a reliable reference with a differing view is available. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Tag removed. Jyoti (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which Scholars?

WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:LEADPARAGRAPH should be referred for this statement: In particular, organizations associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal are all considered by scholars[who?] to have a central role in the violence. This has been written as a definite statement without mentioning any counter view (can be found in the respective articles). Jyoti (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Added 'who' tag to the immediately preceding statement also: According to political scientists, organizations with roots in Hindu nationalism have played a large part in these incidents of anti-Muslim violence, and in generating anti-Muslim sentiment. Jyoti (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest simply removing the "by scholars" part since this is widely agreed upon. Attributing it to specific people would suggest that it is a minority view which it is not. This should simply be stated in wikipedias voice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been denial from the side of the organizations and there is not any conclusive court proceedings to this effect, should that be completely ignored? Isn't "In particular" in lead WP:EDITORIALIZING? Jyoti (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The absence of court proceedings is not relevant (though he RSS has been outlawed several times over), nor is the denial by the organizations themselves when there is a preponderance of reliable sources that link them to the violence. It is very hard to find a source about RSS or the Bajrang Dal that does not mention their involvement in communal violence. So again you would need to look at the scholarly literature about RSS and the other Sangh Parivar organizations and then demonstrate that it is a common view that the organizations are not linked to communal violence. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think I have to demonstrate that it is a common view that the organizations are not linked to communal violence. It cannot be presented as a fact completely ignoring denials because there exist denial and there is no such judgement. Denial of the organization has its due (lesser) weight -- can it be discarded altogether? RSS has been banned and then honorably acquitted too, do you deny that? I confine myself here to the concerned sentence in the article. Jyoti (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The literature treats it as a fact. So should wikipedia.16:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ, can you please guide me to relevant policy if I am mistaken? I feel you haven't responded to my question It cannot be presented as a fact completely ignoring denials because there exist denial and there is no such judgement. Denial of the organization has its due (lesser) weight -- can it be discarded altogether? Jyoti (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, it the fact that denials exist is only relevant if they are considered relevant in the literature. Wikipedia represents the literature. NPOV does not mean that all views should be represented. It only means that all significant views should be represented and which views are significant is determined by the literature. this is basic wikipedia stuff. You are simply wasting my time and other editors by continuing this discussion without providing ANY sources in support of your views and suggestions. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The statements seems well supported in the main body of the paper. I agree with Maunus that the "with scholars" and "political scientists" should be dropped. Both are unnecessary qualifications. --regentspark (comment) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Providing 5 references here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 falling under WP:RS WP:SECONDARY. These organizations are working honorably without a legal sanction and their is no judgement to the effect so it should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as factual statement ignoring contrary claims. I am not convinced that it is the only significant unopposed view available in reliable sources. Jyoti (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should commend you for finally presenting something that resembles a source. They are however not sources contesting the claim that is being made, namely that the RSS and several other Sangh Parivar organizations have participated in violence. They are all either denials of having participated in specific violent incidents, or statements of not having the intent to use violence in the future. Neither of these sources adress whether these organizations have used violence in the past. Even if they did they are not of comparable realiability to the many academically published works that support the claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. They qualify WP:RS. denial is what I claimed. If I may repeat These organizations are working honorably without a legal sanction and their is no judgement to the effect so it should not be presented in Wikipedia voice as factual statement ignoring contrary claims. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jyoti (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but as I have now told you several times that is not a valid argument. Repeating it does not make it so either. Also you do not seem to understand what source reliability is and how it is weighed. I am not going to spend more time explaining this to you, just note that you have no consensus for your proposed changed here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Also you do not seem to understand what source reliability is and how it is weighed. can you please talk specifically? I think I do. I think the sources I presented are reliable, are they not? You asked for sources for contrary claims and I provided them. You also have apparently conceded that contrary claims exist. Jyoti (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You demonstrate that you dont understand reliability when you argue that statements in academically published sources care of comparable reliability to online news articles and claims from the organizations in charge. I have never denied that the organizations themselves claim that they are peaceful. But their claim is contradicted by their own histories and by reliable sources and therefore has no weight. Further more as I have already told you, but which apparently you did not understand, none of the sources contradict the claim that the article and the reliable sources make. The article and the sources say that they have had a central role in the violence. The news paper articles do not say that they havent. One article says that one organization claims they didnt have a central role in the Babri mosque violence. It says nothing about other organizations or other acts of violence. One of the articles say that one organization states that it is peaceful and has no intent on using violence. That is a statament about the future and does not adress the question of whether they participated in violence in the past. So no, the sources are neither particularly reliable nor are they relevant in relation to the claim that is being made.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG has more weight than when you cite a book. Can I say that our agreement is on three points: 1. The organizations themselves claiming that they are peaceful. 2. The statement being a claim and 3. These organizations are working honorably without a legal sanction. To answer your question of exact contradiction BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal did not even exist for the entire duration for which the claim is made, do you expect to find a statement on behalf of VHP which was constituted in 1964 to denounce their involvement in violence of 1946 or on behalf of BJP which was formed in 1980? Jyoti (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I will WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Jyoti (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jyoti (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

clarification needed -- These incidents of violence against Muslims have marred India’s post independence history with a spill-over effect on India’s cause in the Kashmir conflict

The statement is not clear. Jyoti (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will remove this statement from the lead. Jyoti (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed. WP:WONTWORK. Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious -- Hindu right-wing politicians will often legitimize instances of mass violence against Muslims as a natural reaction to actions perpetrated by Muslims in the past and the present.

It makes a sweeping comment without sufficient backing. Again WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Instead of a sweeping "Hindu right-wing politicians" without defining it -- specific incidents and persons ought to be mentioned. Jyoti (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, this is too sweping a claim, it would be good to attribute specifically - for example with an example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, is there a way I can find which editor added this content? That way I can possibly bring it to their notice and persuade them to add details. Jyoti (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I will remove this statement from the lead. Jyoti (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed. WP:WONTWORK. Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagged the article with 'POV' and 'context' based on the preceding on-going discussions.

Announcement section, not a discussion thread. Jyoti (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the issues listed above, I guess the tags are appropriate (and need to stay until resolved) as per observations here and here. A lot of editors in good standing have expressed doubts about the article's neutrality in its current form. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 08:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable. Thank you for bringing that up. The deletion page also is important. Jyoti (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

This section seems highly biased to me. First time reader might get the impression that after the riots, nothing happened to the people responsible for violence, and only Narendra Modi was investigated and no evidence was found against him. There is no mention of the fact that people like Maya Kodnani, Babu Bajrangi and 30 others were found guilty and sentenced for life.

Also, the upto 2,000 deaths figure is WP:UNDUE, no news source, Indian or international claims it to be "2,000". The final global consensus is "1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslims". see (in no particular order) CNN, BBC, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Tribune, The Washington Post, The Economist, The Economist (2), Hindustan Times, The New York Times reports/editorials of some of the most trusted sources of information in the world, showing global consensus that the figure to cite for the riots is 1,000, not 2,000.

These deficiencies should be rectified ASAP. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, fix it. Give proper citation. The article was nominated for deletion and consensus was delete then user darkness shines created a pov fork and that survived in the present form. Jyoti (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The article gives a range from 700 to 2000, and the 2000 number is well sourced (I checked the source). --regentspark (comment) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Violence between Hindu and Muslim community in India.

The subject of this Wikipedia article is not appropriate meaning if somebody will just read subject and not content, then it sounds like india is a country where violence against muslim is conducted and which is not true. India is one of the big democratic countries in the world and many time the communal riots happen in past between Hindu and Muslim community because of very low level thinking/misunderstanding of some people from both community which created riots in which all time people of both community suffered. This does not mean that violence happen only against muslims in India. Rather it should say "Violence between Hindu and Muslim community in India." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.156 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

'Over 10,000 people have been killed in Hindu-Muslim communal violence'

The above (unattributed) line is ambiguous. On its face it seems to mean that that is the number of Hindus and Muslims killed. But the next line says 'he causes of this violence against Muslims' implying that the number is that of just Muslims killed. Which is it?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nellie Massacre

Prodigy, the "economist" source is a blog, which has no oversight. We're going to have to find a better source if you want to change the figures that drastically. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See JSTOR 4410084, where the same author Hussain puts the death toll at 1,200. Interestingly, he calls all the victims as "Na-Asamiya Muslims" (who are sometimes "wrongly labelled" as immigrants). In another massacre around the same time, the victims are said to be Bengali Hindus. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 this New York Times [2] reports put the Nellie massacre dead at 1,783 Bengali Moslem settlers . Prodigyhk (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am happy with the source as well as the number, which is close enough to that from other sources. I think Hussain's numbers are off for some reason. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok Kautilya please make the changes. I am off to bed. You have a good day or night Prodigyhk (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Have now made an edit and removed the following sentence, as the classification "largest and most severe" does not seem correct. Appreciate other editors inputs to decide on its permanent removal or put back with changes.

• It has been described as one of the largest and most severe pogroms since World War II with the majority of victims being women and children, as a result of the actions of the Assam Movement.

Prodigyhk (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How can you possibly delete a statement attributed to good sources? Have you looked at the sources? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seem that they haven't read them at all, see here: "The infamous Nellie massacre of 1983 witnessed the killing of more than 5,000 people mostly women and children belonging to a religious minority community". "Undoubtedly, the Nellie massacre is one of the single largest and severest pogroms that the post-World War II history has witnessed". AcidSnow (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3AcidSnow 1) the word pogrom is used to define prosecution of minority in particular Jews. 2) the classification "largest" - if we read the article page, we find that there have been other instances where more number have been killed in a similar brutal and senseless manner. 3) Since a source is used, does it mean it is correct. It is required for editors discuss and decide. Look forward to your comments thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

for "It has been described as one of the largest and most severe pogroms" see WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Prodigy, the word orginated in attacks against Jews, but is now used in the context of targeted violence against any group. Read the sources in the article you linked. Also, no, we do not analyze sources, except in the very basic sense of making sure they are not dated and not fringe. We present disagreement where it exists. The verbiage used might be weaselly, were it not for the fact that it comes from the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

the word pogrom is primarily used in the context of attacks on Jews. Just because some source has used, does not mean we need to follow. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL applies none the less. We do not indiscriminately reproduce superlatives when we know better. For example, it is justified in specific cases like "According to the Guinness book of world record the most ... ". --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra might know better. We don't. Perhaps he can tell us which other incident since the second world war has killed 1800 people, mostly women in children, in a single incident on a single day. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sinjar massacre, 1971 Bangladesh genocide and more. I am not going to debate the criteria for ranking severity. 'peacock' and 'weasel' like guidelines are there for a reason. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 a normal reader will see the depth of human evilness, just by reading 1800 people were killed in a single day. We do not need to add labels and ranking. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting argument. But a normal reader also finds the attached condemnation quite appropriate and justified. (By the way, in my opinion, it is not "human evilness" that causes these massacres, but rather the spreading of hatred by irresponsible and "evil" organisations, which are still flourishing and growing by the day.) Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I am with you on your opinion about evil. Now, on this edit, my input is that it require some deletion and a rewrite. Have a think and we can discuss. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sinjar massacre wasn't specifically against women and children but rather Yazdi men. The women and children weren't largely killed either but rather sold into slavery. As for the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, that occurred over a period of months instead of a single day and it wasn't mostly women and children. The same can be said about the Sinjar Massacre which went on for a few days. So you kind of missed by a mile there AmritasyaPutra. But don't worry, neither do I know any off the top of my head. So I did a brief Google search and found this: List of events named massacres. I am well aware that this is a Wikipedia article but let's pretend it's a 1000% accurate. Now guess what? None of them meet our requirements. But if were talking solely numbers (above 2,000 and post WW2), then only the Tel al-Zaatar massacre and the Rabaa massacre make it. Anyways, is this discussion still on the word "pogrom"? If so, several users have already pointed out that the term "pogrom" isn't exclusive to people of the Jewish faith. In fact, plenty of sources describe the Nellie massacre as such: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. The Indian Journal of Political Science even calls it the "Nellie pogrom", see here: [9] More importantly, if the severity of the attacks should be removed, then shouldn't we do the same to ever massacre that has occurred? Obviously not. So why this one specifically? I also don't see how any portion of these could be a WP:WEASEL or a WP:PEACOCK. AcidSnow (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Buddy, this is no Guinness book of world record, there is no commandment saying one day attack or instant murder is the judgmental criteria. Isn't enslaving and gang raping repeatedly over month brutal? It is "most severe violence". The above said recommended Wikipedia guidelines are applicable here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, ladies and gents : Let us not get into a match on definition and grading of evil acts. This is just a edit discussion on how to present the matter to the reader. Let us stick to our task :) Prodigyhk (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"there is no commandment saying one day attack or instant murder is the judgmental criteria"? Actually, it is since this is exactly what we have been discussing! So your comment about "enslaving and gang raping repeatedly over month brutal" was completely pointless. It's odd that you were never able to understand this. Nonetheless, you were already confirmed as a sock of another user, so there's no reason to continue something that has long ended. AcidSnow (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"referred to as communal riots in India"

Communal riots refer to any sort of violence across ethnic or communal lines and is not specific to violence against Muslims. I am deleting this parenthetic remark from the first sentence for this reason. -Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

POV Tag/OR Tags

@Human3015:, if you think that the article has POV issues, you need to discuss them here first, or make an attempt to fix them. Likewise with the Original Research tag. If you tag what looks like cited information, you need to explain why you are doing so, else it looks like a case of WP:IDLI. Please discuss these tags here now, or somebody will have to remove them again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can't see POV pushing in this article then its your view. The edit you mentioned on my talk page "properties given to extremists", is that NPOV?, does properties given to "Hindus" or "extremists" or "to whom"?, have you checked the source? Does they selected those people who killed muslims and were active in riot and gave them properties? Do you think so? I think you should read article once then come for debate. Better you read article with NPOV, not as "HIndu" or "Muslim" POV. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, leave it, I will give you another example. Read economic section. Wrote like a blog. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are dodging the issue. It does not matter what you think of the content, as long as we are accurately representing consensus among reliable sources. This case is contentious enough that only academic sources really qualify. When a citation had been provided, you need to demonstrate that it does not support the information. The general allegations you are making carry no weight; read the documentation of the template, and you'll see that if you do not substantiate your statements, any editor can remove the tag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't remove main POV tag without resolving issue. Its your thinking that article has "total NPOV", I think "Good article" status should be given to this article if no tag is needed for this article. Don't you think that we should nominate it for GA status as according to you no tags is needed to article? Biggest breach of NPOV is in political party section where parties of one alliance are mentioned, where as per common knowledge, every party is involved in such kind of religious riots. The section which removed ("Bihar 1946") was blaming "Congress" for riots, it means mention of congress was elsewhere but it was not mentioned in Political party section. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And you are tagging WP:IDLI, it means you are thinking that "I don't like it", it means you have already declared me "Hindu nationalist" or "Hindu terrorist" and I "suppose to dislike this article". Ok. I can't comment on that. Means if we try to clean up article, suddenly editor becomes "hindu nationalist". Don't try to define me. If you are replying me thinking that I'm supporter of BJP or I'm a Hindu terrorist then you are wrong and there is no use of this discussion. I'm as secular, as liberal as you are. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "Unless we have certificate of 'secularism' we can't add any kind of maintenance tag to this article which is actually a routine procedure for any article. If we add such tag without that certificate then we will be declared as Hindu nationalist and we are suppose to dislike this article". --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in labels or certificates. I linked IDLI, because you did not explain your tags sufficiently. The right thing to do is to give such an explanation. Saying that "We also need a section criticizing the Congress" is meaningless. What you need to do is find reliable sources describing INC involvement in Violence against Muslims. If you find these, we can include them, by all means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So what's the problem?

For two years, no discussion on this talk page has taken place. Out of nowhere, a single-purpose account was created solely to nominate this article for AfD. There was widespread suspicion that at least one IP sock was involved and that votes for deletion were biased and contained an element of bad faith.
That doesn't mean that this article is perfect, though. Since nobody has opened a discussion topic for so long, I'll go ahead and do it now. Is there anything wrong with the article? Does anything need to be changed? Or is it fine as-is? I've not edited it previously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As with most articles in Indian politics, this could use substantial expansion, using the numerous scholarly sources available for this topic. I'm busy at the moment, and cannot be of much help: but perhaps Fowler&fowler could be. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes a major incident?

I was going to merge some content from 2017 Patan riots but want to make sure I'm not putting in a less notable incident compared to what's there now. What is the selection criteria? Number of deaths? Ongoing media coverage? Here's what I wanted to add:

2017 Patan riots

In March 2017, riots broke out between Muslims and Hindus in the Vadavali village in Gujarat’s Patan district. The mobs attacked and looted around 50 Muslim houses and set them on fire including many vehicles. Two people were killed, and ten were injured. The initial police report attributed the violence to the escalation of a minor fight between two students of different communities. Sunsar residents stated that Muslim students had beaten Hindu students and them being attacked by Vadavali residents when they reached there, while Vadavali residents accused Thakores of starting the riots. However, a later report by Vadavali Nagrik Adhikar Samiti, an NGO formed by human rights workers and lawyers, stated that the violence was a well planned and organised attack on the Muslims residents by a team that included a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• Honestly I'd rather not merge the Patan riots page here, because it is very easy for this page to go from being about a phenomenon to being a list. Naturally the most significant incidents should be mentioned, but I'd say the threshold for that is far above the threshold of notability, unless we're using a specific incident as an example of a certain kind of violence against Muslims. It's preferable, in my view, to have a series of stubs about individual notable incidents, than to try and include them all here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps then a list might work - like List of violent religious incidents in India? Then there's no appearance of bias - every event would be covered, regardless of the targeted group. Or might this be better as a category? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see bias right now either. There are already enough categories about that, Category:Religiously motivated violence in India, Category:Religious riots, etc. and having a list will contradict WP:NLIST, having collection of many incidents raises issues with verifiability, importance.. Capitals00 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

The article jumps from partition of India to 1989 elections. Bharatiya Janata Party was formed only in 1980 and its rise is only after Ram Rath Yatra in 1990 or the 1989 elections at the earlist.They are politically motivated and a part of the electoral strategy of mainstream political parties who are associated with Hindu nationalism may true only after the Ram Rath Yatra.To attribute all violence from 1947 to BJP or Shiv Sena is truly wrong. Secondly most of references refer to the Violence as Hindu Muslim riots ,Communal violence is not as Anti Muslim violence almost nothing before the Rath yatra.Brass, Paul R. (2003). The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0295985060.Aloudmoon (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sections like Role of political parties deal entirely only after post 1989 elections Bharatiya Janata Party not before.According to Ram Puniyani, the Shiv Sena were victorious in the elections due to the violence in the 1990s, and the BJP in Gujarat after the 2002 violence ,Again this does not cover between 1947 to 1989 elections.Aloudmoon (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If one is writing after the Ram Rath Yatra or 1989 elections ii is fine but not from 1947 to 1989 is clearly not covered and is Communal violence not anti muslim violence.Aloudmoon (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single serious objection here. You need to show either that the article misrepresents its sources, or that your point of view is supported by reliable sources not mentioned in the article. You have done neither of those things. The article focuses on the things it does because that is what reliable sources focus on, per WP:DUE. I have reverted your removal of content. The tag can remain for the time being, but unless you provide more substantial arguments here, that is likely to be removed, too. Vanamonde (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerning removal of Brass from the section Role of Political Parties

@Vanamonde93: The para is talking about organisations connected to Hindu nationalist RSS, specifically BJP and Shiv Sena. The cited source makes no mention of these organizations. Only a general reference to "Hindu nationalist organisations". If you want to keep the reference, then change the wording. Ankit2 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. I've removed the ref and moved the link to "external links". Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, about that. I don't think it belongs in External Links either. The article is not about violence against Muslims in India but a general commentary on the study of Riots, Pogroms and Genocides. Ankit2 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

He's certainly discussing violence against Muslims, though, and is probably the best known contemporary scholar of such violence besides Jaffrelot (who studies the organisations more than their actions, anyway). I don't think it hurts. Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't the reputation of the author is relevant here. "On the study of Riots, Pogroms and Genocides" is too broad an article to warrant an inclusion in this page. The author is using his work in India on Hindu-Muslim riots as example for his larger discussion on riots and pogroms and the existence of institutionalized riot systems. Violence against Muslims in India is not the main topic here. Ankit2 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"The author is using his work in India on Hindu-Muslim riots as example for his larger discussion on riots and pogroms" That's exactly why it's interesting and relevant; it provides further information and perspective, which is what EL is for! Vanamonde (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Using this logic, I can fill this section with dozens of links on Riots and Pogroms that make a passing reference to anti Muslims riots in India. Ankit2 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. Substantive sources should be used in the body; passing mentions don't belong. This is an unusual case of using such violence as an example of a broader phenomenon. As such, even the Brass source is suitable for the article, I just don't have the time for it right now. Why does it bother you so much? Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The only good use of this article here is to use it for citation for involvement of "Hindu nationalist organisations" in Anti Muslim violence. It doesn't belong in the External Links section because it doesn't stay on topic, devoting hardly a paragrah to Hindu Muslim violence in India, before going back to the general discussion on riots and pogroms. Ankit2 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

islamophobia in india

There should be discussion of this topic and create the page for this heading Spartan locke (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Quote and statistics on crime against Muslim from IndiaSpend website is not credible

Under section Manifestation, it is mentioned "In 2017, IndiaSpend reported that 84% of the victims of cow vigilante violence in India from 2010 to 2017 were Muslims, and almost 97% of these attacks were reported after May 2014."[10]

But the data set used by IndiaSpend was found to be erroneous and limited to only English online media. This raises credibility of the conclusion statement.[swarajyamag.com/ideas/selective-data-on-communal-violence-in-india-indiaspend-english-media-has-a-lot-to-answer-for][swarajyamag.com/ideas/indiaspends-hate-crime-watch-is-hinduphobic-tailor-made-to-show-mainly-muslims-as-victims]

Incomplete data set

• Data set is neither based on official report or verified on ground. [11]

• Data set of hate crime was created using only selective English Online Media.[12]

• This limited selection for data set has resulted in missing out several hate crimes. Many of them were reported only in either other regional languages of India or in Hindi media.

• When several incidences were reported to be missing in their data-set. They gave reason that many of those are not reported in English media.[13][14][15]

Errors in data set

• Errors in victims and perpetrators were found incorrect or missing in several instances. [16][17][18][swarajyamag.com/ideas/indiaspend-pulls-down-its-hate-tracker-swarajya-showed-it-was-strongly-biased-against-hindu-victims]

• After several missing data and erroneous data was pointed out, they accepted it and admitted several times that their data set is still evolving.[19]

India with different regional languages in each region and non-existence or limited reach of English media to every corner makes this data set very limited. Because of unique demographics and culture of each region, this small data set neither can be extrapolated for entire country or over time.

So this statement is baseless as statistics used for it lacks credibility.

Article in IndiaSpend refers to database hosted in their sister domains: lynch.factchecker.in[20] and p.factchecker.in[21]. This data base along with its HateCrime Watch was shutdown in 2019. [22]

XGammaRay (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with media being only in the English language? We use lots of sources that are English only.VR _talk 23:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Should their be a section on corona?

Hi all

I've seen several news articles like this one, I wonder if its helpful to have a section on it

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/19/indian-hospitals-refuse-admit-muslims-coronavirus-causes-islamophobia/

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there can be, although instances of violence as such haven't been that many. Please see also 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi#Related casualties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Separate pages for list of incidents and Islamophobia in the local context?

Although the incidents could be well cited ones, should we have separate dedicated pages for list of incidents and Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim causes in the local context (cultural, media, movie, etc)? Note to good intention critics: This page is not meant to defend any extremism of any kind but a neutral page to document the information related to the topic. The goal is to have beneficial knowledge that hopefully cherishes every fellow human lives and dignity (regardless of homo sapiens made abstract identity labels). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveall.human (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not need a list of every incident.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You mean remove any more new entry of lynching death incidents but significant massacres/riots remain?. And have separate list pages like this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_Jewish_institutions_in_the_United_States, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_antisemitic_incidents_in_the_United_States and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_riots? Loveall.human (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do, as we do not need a list of every incident. This should cover major incidents only, we are not a catalogue we are an encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete page

Hi. I'm requesting for this page to be deleted. It's incredibly misleading and seems politically motivated. It also doesn't take into account Islamic extremism in India and how that fuels communal violence. This also doesn't take into account religious appeasement policies and anti-Hindu rhetoric from elite politicians that exacerbate sectarian tensions between Hindus and Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia policy they have rules with regards to deleting a page but as far as I know you cannot delete a page by discussing about it on talk page. I might be opinionated here but whatever is written on this page is a fact backed by countless pieces of evidence. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BEFORE--RegentsPark (comment) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Krao212 yes i Agree

@Branstarx3: Please clarify what you mean by Article should be reported to higher Indian authorities. Legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. See WP:NLT. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not any legal threat and i am aware of WP:NLT, article not seems to be written with neutrality and are heavily biased violating WP:NPV Branstarx3 (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on content only.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

i revert my edit on this section Branstarx3 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

You're asking in the wrong place, Krao212. This explains exactly what you should do if you want the article deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what the best place for this comment is. A prominent celebrity Shabana Azmi is not given a house because of her (Muslim) name ; but she and her husband Javed Akhtar were made respected members of Rajya Sabha, too . It's an extreme country but any extremist events do not represent even 1% of lives on ground. Writing such articles can only be done in hiding mode (without the context of the long history), and that's where they fail, because the whole purpose seems to create a propaganda rather than awareness. Reeteshr08 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Please include the recent comments by U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom commissioner Anurima Bhargava who said that the present Indian Govt. is bringing Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens to limit the freedom of Indian Muslims and she has also recommended the U.S. State Department designate India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), like Pakistan and Burma for systematic violence of religious freedoms of the minorities mainly Muslim and Christians.

I would wish for a better source, also not sure what this has to do with violence.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Source: [23] 103.151.156.81 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also that source does not appear to be very reliable as it looks to be related to advocacy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Source provided is not a reliable source, a potential WP:SPS —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Add this riots also 2021 Kawardha riots UserABCXYZ (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.[24]

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".[25]

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)

My objection, as I said in every single one of my three posts above, was about restoring content from old revisions instead of just removing the "Other Incidents" section (and the tables). Aman.Kumar.Goel has thrown up walls of text about things I did not even opine about. Even the above explanation, which was elicited only from an admin's comment, is missing justification for changing "2002 Gujarat riots" to "2002 Gujarat violence", removal of {{main}} links to full articles and so on. Hemantha (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That could be because first it was necessary for everyone to recognize this article's standard of accepting only major incidents. As you can see above, it was said that "Lynchings aren't minor incidents", and your own messages here showed that you consider "Scope of the article is nowhere restricted to physical violence". If we couldn't agree on a particular scope then we won't be able to evaluate the cases. Now that the scope was clarified once again for everyone, I posted the explanation of what I changed.

Justification for changing "2002 Gujarat riots" to "2002 Gujarat violence"? It was clearly copied by me from September 2020 version and that could be because the article was named 2002 Gujarat violence before it was moved to 2002 Gujarat riots. I don't mind anyone changing it to either name. I have a similar explanation for the {{main}} templates, as my version was same as the one from September 2020 in this regard as well. Generally, it is fine to provide the link to the main article either through wikilink or the {{main}} template, or both. It's just another minor issue for me and I have no issue with either choice. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You're trying very hard to conflate the issue of scope with the issue of a "sacred stable, last good revision". I may have to work more on wording my posts accurately (though I suspect there is a lot of WP:IDHT here) , but

• My line on scope you are using, from 20 Feb 2022 8:33, was before you'd even opened the section mentioning scope on this talk (20 Feb 2022 8:41)
• I put the where is the discussion about this btw as a parenthetical - click that link which'll tell you that it is aside from the main point. While I did suspect you were referring to the section above, I wished to clarify since it referred to multiple issues and scope was only treated briefly (once again, don't twist this; I agree the brief treatment was significant enough).
• When I said based on a two comments(sic), I was once again referring to restoration of old revisions, not the scope; as my entire comment clearly showed.

After Feb 2022, I have not objected in any manner to what was said about the scope of this article. So please stop misrepresenting my position. Hemantha (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any sense in this explanation because what seems to be obvious is that you made a number of edits in last 2 days together with multiple reverts to restore the minor incidents in question, yet you never even removed those minor incident/s that involved no physical violence, clearly because you never changed your position that you stated in February 2022 and you kept believing that I am obviously wrong about the scope. When you restore a particular edit, it becomes clear that you are taking full responsibility of that edit, regardless of what you say afterward. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

What an entirely stupid argument. But here you go. Hemantha (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about your claim "I've left Haridwar Mahapanchayat in, as it seems major"[26] even though the incident involved no physical violence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Aman.kumar.goel, it is unreasonable to say you will go back to a 3-month old version because many edits might have been done in the interim period. I can see that you have been selective in reverting changes, but still there are some that are problematic. For exmaple, "Muslim-majority Pakistan" has been replaced by "Islamic State of Pakistan". (It wasn't an Islamici State when it was created through partition.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Also 1989 Bhagalpur violence was a major incident as 50,000 people got displaced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

He's said he's picking text from two year-old revision, not just 3 months old. Hemantha (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I didn't restore what was "3 months ago" but about 1 year 8 months ago (September 2020). You seem to have missed my explanation that addresses your concern. I am pasting my explanation from my above message below:

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.

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. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would strongly recommend that Bhagalpur and Gujarat 1969 be given separate sections for now; although temporal subsections are likely preferable overall, the rest of the article isn't structured that way, and "1969-1989" sticks out. I would also strongly recommend that individually non-notable incidents be spun off into a list: weighing this article down with them isn't a good idea. The table of total victims simply does not belong, as it is original research (no single source examines total victims). "Islamic state of Pakistan" is obviously incorrect when discussing partition, as Kautilya points out, and rewording is needed. Are there objections to these suggestions? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No issue with this. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Great topic but biased

The topic is sensitive and anything said will be considered biased. The topic should be "Violence against the name of religion" .

The topic covers the unfortunate Muslims who had to endure violence, without mentioning it out rightly that they were innocent. Every riot in India and elsewhere in modern world has 2 parties, it is unfortunate, we find one party is constant, the members of that party belong Muslim group. Even the most rationale person would think why is that? Someone says something about "their" god (which is unfortunate), the group gathers in a mosque, and when they come out, there is an initiation phase of riot and destruction. Over the last 70 plus years this has been a common phenomenon. I am no favor of violence, by anyone or any group.

When we look at any violence, the initiation phase is important too. Just cause someone said something you don't like, expressing it through violence and if there is a reciprocation to that violence, such topics get written. Why is it so bad when someone quotes something from a book that you believe in (though in a negative manner). In a civilized world, if a person, or any group say something you don't like, or say something that is false, you show your dissatisfaction, through dialogue and stop there. To endanger the life of others and destroying the properties and starting a violence is no response.

The irony is, when no one says anything against the group and when certain group members initiate violence (all over the world), those group members are called terrorists but the word Muslim is not used then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.66.65.39 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 04:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Violence against Muslims in India → Islamophobia and violence against Muslims in India – to expand range of topics covered not just violence, like other similar pages Islamophobia in the United States, Islamophobia in Canada etc, Islamophobia in India redirects to this page, which is nonsensical, so this page needs to be expanded. Panda619 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose To say that this page should be called "Islamophobia and violence against Muslims in India" because we have titles like "Islamophobia in the United States" is indeed "nonsensical"- you should be making such a point only if it was called "Islamophobia and violence against Muslims in the United States". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it will make this page too wide. Unlike Canada or the United States, there is large scale violence here. In 2002 Gujarat riots, over a 1,000 people were killed. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - That would be putting the cart before the horse. Add a section on Islamophobia first and let us see how it turns out. Mind you that only scholarly sources can be used for such a topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genocide?

Is the use of the term "genocide", based on a single off-the-cuff mention in a 50 year old source by someone who is not a genocide scholar tenable? I don't think so. 117.194.204.22 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Nellie massacre

Does Nellie massacre belong in this article? It was not a religious conflict and Kimura 2013 says specifically that it dd not fit the pattern of the "communal riot". It was one of many inter-ethnic violence during a very violent period. I could explain this here is more detail and references here in the talk page. Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The Nellie massacre was an anti-immigration riot, not anti-Muslim. This massacre happened in the context of the Assam Movement, particularly in the context of the 1983 elections. Nellie was one incident among various others that saw

(1) Assamese against Hindu Bengalis:

The Assamese raid on Bengali Hindus of Koirabari is less talked about but equally heinous. Times of India reported it only on 7 March even though it took place on 13 February.

(2) Assamese Muslims against immigrant Muslims:

The 1983 violence also saw clashes between Assamese Muslims and immigrant muslims. A case in point was that of Jamuguri, by river Jia Bharali in Darrang district.

That it was an example of anti-immigrant riot is stated clearly both Picharoty (2019) and Kimura (2013):

On doing so what emerges is another pattern of violence, which Kimura too highlighted in her book. ... What happened in Nellie was consequently an anti-migration riot, the likes of which had not been seen in the country till then.

I shall remove this section from this article if there is no objection.

Chaipau (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (edited) 18:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• We need to establish that the preponderance of sources discuss this as something other than a religious riot, not just one or two sources. I offer no opinion as yet if that's the case, but we need to examine the whole body of scholarly work. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: this is tricky, since it plays into some current political interests: regarding the Koirabari raid (also February 1983) where the Assamese attacked Bengali Hindus, claiming 500 lives

  Regarding that incident Shekhar Gupta wrote, 'A few days after the killings, K Sudershan, the Bauddhik Pramukh (intellectual chief) of the RSS, along with four of the key functionaries in Assam, sat in my hotel room in Gauhati in a mournful mood and bitterly criticised the Assamese for refusing to make a distinction between "Muslim infiltrators and Hindu refugees".

  and

  ...the New Delhi representatives of national political parties and the Muslim right-wing organizations spreading themselves in Assam then treated the Nellie massacre only as a Hindu-Muslim riot. While it gave a hande to the political parties to polarize votes, it enabled the Muslim right wing to penetrate into the immigrant community of the state far more than before...

  Just putting this out so everyone can see. The demand that all "scholars" will have to agree this as being anti-immigration will not happen, and yet Wikipedia will be playing into a political effort that is still current. Pinging TrangaBellam. Chaipau (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  And since we will not get unanimity of scholars in this regard, let us hear what the Nellie survivors have reported as the cause of the massacre.

  From these statements it is obvious that the villagers view he massacre basically as a revenge for their participation in the election. Also, when asked about the confrontation with the local people all of them replied that before the movement started there was no trouble between them and the local people, such as the Tiwas and the Assamese.

  Chaipau (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  We don't need unanimity, but we need broad agreement to present something in Wikipedia's voice. If there isn't consensus, the Nellie massacre should presumably remain, but with the disagreement noted. No idea what political interests we're playing or not playing into here, but it ought not to be a consideration if the sources are reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  I will be happy to look for the 1983 election violence (and Nellie massacre) being called a Hindu-Muslim clash, but I haven't found any so far. Could you help look for it? Please note that we will need an equal amount of critical analysis arguing why the Nellie massacre was a Hindu-Muslim conflict and why it was not an anti-migration conflict (WP:WEIGHT). Just some pass-by mention (the Hindus attacked the Muslims or that it was a "communal" clash) will not work. Chaipau (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (edited) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: there are major gaps in Wikipedia regarding the context of the Nellie massacre. I shall try to fill them up before coming back to this again at a later time. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

References

• Kimura, Makiko (2013). The Nellie Massacre of 1983: Agency of Rioters. Sage Publications India. ISBN 9788132111665.
• Pisharoty, Sangeeta Barooah (2019). Assam: the Accord, the Discord. Gurgaon: Penguin Random House.

Merge request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Merge|Persecution of Muslims | date = July 2023 }}

150.129.164.195 (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.