Talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Seriously

Solomon7968 are you really going to edit war in my userspace? Two things about your edit [1] First, the subject matter of the article is violence against muslims. Second, what a filemaker has said about the banning of his file has no place here, he also did not call the banning of his film state terrorism, he called it cultural terrorism. So how about you stop adding it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am saying you to document everything in here, not trying to edit warring for future discussions. The Legend of Zorro 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Are you suggesting adding content to this article which has nothing to do with the article? And which is also factually wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• First of all you tried to push the phrase "State Terrorism" by a relatively unknown scholar named Gyanendra Pandey without saying the full circumstances behind it. It tells one side of the story but neglects another.
• My edits very much belong to the article because a noted film maker used the term "State Terrorism" and that also because we have to show the variety of reasons the specific word "State Terrorism" can be used and that can be misrepresented by people. The Legend of Zorro 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. Again two things, first, this is not an article on state terrorism, it is an article of violence against muslims. Second, the film guy did not say state terrorism, he said cultural terrorism. I, unlike you actually gave a source for that just above. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay but if you want to continue with the term State terrorism please provide some context. And he did mentioned State terrorism. Please see this. The Legend of Zorro 23:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Solomon, it is not an article but a userspace draft. Please see my reply to your note on my talk page. The rules of engagement here are very different. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Subject confesses violence but insists "Pogrom" why?

Want to know why the subject categorically stated the subject matter of the article is violence against muslims in this and this but is desperate in mentioning Pogroms?

A Pogrom is violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is enough disruptive. You are repeatedly trying to push POV in articles. Pogrom has a historical meaning associated with Jews and you are pushing for associating it to violence. I am afraid that this thread proves you are a repeated POV pusher. The Legend of Zorro 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I was being accused of being a pro Indian POV pusher, now it seems I am pushing the wrong POV again, all this tells me is that I am not a POV pusher as it is not possible to be a POV pusher if you are pushing both POVs, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha Ha no cheers, please answer my question. I do not care what POV push you did a week back. I am concerned about this and I want to know why confessed violence but insist "Pogrom". Thank you. The Legend of Zorro 00:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Solomon, if you have come here to be bellicose and to continue fractured discussions that have taken place on other articles etc then I suggest that you back off, now. This is a draft and DS has got at least three experienced contributors involved: we are not his sycophants and you can already see in the discussions above that we have been raising various issues. There's a way to do it, and your way is wrong. (You might want to change your sig also: red and black always looks threatening, although I've no idea why!) - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)::

What the hell! I am also trying to improve but this is a blatant POV. Is not it? And by the way I am also experienced and 2nd my signature does look a bit threating. The Legend of Zorro 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

POV or not depends on what various sources say about the term and the incidents. It certainly might be considered a loaded word but that does not necessarily make in incorrect in certain circumstances. However, if you look at the opening section to this page then you will see that we have already raised the general point. Really, it is best not to antagonise at such an early draft stage. Well, best not to do so at all but certainly not when it is already recognised that there are issues of scope and terminology. Achieving balance can take some time and throwing accusations of POV pushing around is not going to speed it up any. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please respond to my above concern as does it include wars or it is only violence. Really Hard time. The Legend of Zorro 00:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Framing

DS, the problem is the way it is framed it appears to be a POV fork of Religious_violence_in_India#Anti_Muslim_Violence? Is Anti-Muslim violence in India a legitimate stand alone topic, my gut says probably. But only if it is framed in the context of religious violence and rioting. The way it is framed now it looks like its trying to elevate all anti-Muslim riots to the level of a pogrom. A better idea would be to rephrase everything in terms of violence, and then indicate that the views on what this violence is ranges from religious rioting (spontaneous?) to deliberate pogroms and/or genocide. The subject should be the fact that Muslims have been beaten up and killed in India and how the different lenses through which these killings can be viewed. (In my opinion, of course.) --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had rephrased it to specify violence , are you suggesting sections which discuss certain incidents as pogroms/genocide? How would you break the article up yourself? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we centralise this discussion rather than using our user talk pages?—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead para to reflect what I think would be roughly the right approach. As an example. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. I've just taken a quick read-through and it seems rather disjointed: almost an unbulleted list of events that lacks flow and is likely to become a pov-magnet every time another episode kicks off. I've not looked at the sources but I think it would benefit from some sort of coherence being brought to bear. This might also tighten it up in a way that will prevent it from degenerating into a list in future. And, definitely, the varying nature of the incidents should be emphasised rather than the present tendency that seems to drift towards everything being a pogrom. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, please feel free to jump in if you have some time to spare, perhaps as S Marshall has said we can use the talk page of the draft to discuss and you guys can let me know were I am going wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Butt away Sitush. The goat act suits you :) But seriously, I agree with you. At present, it appears that the point of the article is to show that there are anti-Muslim pogroms in India. The reality, on the other hand, is that calling these acts of violence pogroms is only one view, and a minority one at that too. I guess it's not just a rewrite it needs but a new point of view. (I'll move all this to the talk page.) --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(above copied from User_talk:RegentsPark#Favour--regentspark (comment) 23:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the article goes back only as far as 1946, and even that is a skimpy sort of mention? Antipathy between Muslims and Hindus in India existed for centuries before partition and my bet is that a lot of the present-day issues have very deep-rooted origins, albeit perhaps whipped up by various demagogues etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Will start looking for pre partition stuff tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, in my (yes, very rough) version of the lead, I did try to get at the pre-British and British era roots of this antipathy between Hindus and Muslims. However, I don't think there were any serious incidents of violence toward Muslims prior to the 1940s. So, what we have is violence during the lead up to independence which was likely two sided, then independence, and then the more one-sided violence directed toward the minority muslims in India. So, the article will, by definition, cover mostly post-independence India. (Plus, there is always the definition of 'India' issue.) --regentspark (comment) 23:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be some useful stuff in this for the immediate pre-independence period. Of course, the historic antipathy goes back at least as far as the Moghul invasions etc but, as you say, significant recorded acts anti-Muslim violence will be more recent. I rather think that the 1857 rebellion saw Hindus and Muslims join against the Brits, which might be worth a sentence if only to ameliorate things a little: yes, there has been and is violence against Muslims in India but ... - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there was quite a bit of anti-Muslim violence from the 1880s (?) as a consequence of the cow protection movement/Arya Samaj etc. I think there was a court case and things kinda went a bit loopy because the Brits supported the Muslim's right to slaughter or some such thing. I've got a book on all this stuff somewhere, published by CUP or SUNY or some similar high-class outfit. Will dig it out. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this include armed conflicts or just violence? Battle of Balakot dates back to 1831. The Legend of Zorro 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A war is violence, by definition. The question would be whether or not the war was predicated by anti-Muslim sentiment. I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with the Battle of Balakot. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have heard of Battle of Balakot and know that it was one of the most significant and last major armed conflicts between sikhs and muslims. The Legend of Zorro 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading the history section in Balakot, it looks like the battle was the usual turf control stuff. Not the same as anti-Muslim violence, imo. --regentspark (comment) 01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No historian but pretty sure it was no "usual turf control stuff". Keep in mind wikipedia is no reliable source. In this battle Syed Ahmad Barelvi died fighting so probably it is the "single most important battle in sikh muslim conflict". The Legend of Zorro 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Found a source re the Cow protection movement and the violence in 1893. Capital and Labour Redefined: India and the Third World p301 Anthem Press Darkness Shines (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The book that I have is Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India, Peter van der Veer, University of California Press (1994) 0-520-08256-7. I'm sure it mentions the protection stuff somewhere - will let you know tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hindu-Muslim violence antipathy predates the partition, Nirad Chaudhuri gives some instances of Hindu-Muslim violence in 1910 in Calcutta in his autobiography. -sarvajna (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a little dubious about pre-partition violence being included in the article. For a couple of reasons. First, the 'India' post-1947 is not the 'India' pre-1947. We're trying to keep their histories separate on Wikipedia so I'm not sure it's a good idea merging them here. We wouldn't do that if Nehru and co had decided to call the non-Pakistan part of India 'Bharat' or something else after partition. Second, there is a difference between a Brit run country and a democratic, but Hindu majority, India. My suggestion is that the article focus on post-partition violence and confine any pre-partition stuff to a section. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Procedural stuff

I recommend delaying any action in relation to this draft until the deletion review has been closed.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't realise it was at DRV. How weird: this so obviously has the potential to be much more than a POV fork (I presume from Regents Park's comment that will be the concern?) - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think there are several concerns and we'll need to do a bit of listening. There are editors who're concerned about the sources; personally I don't think they're unreliable sources, but I think we will need to pay close attention to NPOV.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, POV is always an issue where religion and nationalism are concerned and, indeed, practically every article concerning India that I've ever come across! But there are ways of handling it. I'm not going to the DRV - doubtless it will be full of the regulars such as Mrt, Dharma and co and I can do without the drama. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted was because the article was merely trying to be a front for classifying the violence as pogroms which made it an obvious pov fork. Properly written, this has more potential. But, perhaps S Marshall has a good point about waiting. Tweaking noses always gets one into trouble :) --regentspark (comment) 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the DRV, this article is already in far better shape than the previous one. I will be creating it in mainspace pretty soon if I hear no objections. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd personally recommend getting input from editors who recommended the earlier version for deletion. They may view the re-creation as an attempted end-run around the AfD. It isn't---this article seems much improved to me and the re-creation appears justified---but let's not do anything unilateral at this point.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am getting input from a few of the guys who recommended deletion, they have been posting here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

If the article deals with the anti-Muslim violence since partition, then should the Bihar riots of 1946 be included in it? Shovon (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously as it happened in the runup to partition. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You have stated that:

In October 1946 in Bihar up to eight thousand people were killed in an anti muslim riot, the Hindu state governor refused to give the order to allow British troops to fire on the rioters, no enquiry was held and he ignored the complicity of members of Congress who took part in the violence. I strongly dispute it. Can you provide online non partisan reference for it. The Legend of Zorro 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How is Wilkinson, Steven I. (2006). Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 16 "partisan"? But blackwell says "Bihar, where 7,000 Muslims were slaughtered" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok but where you get the info that the Hindu state governor refused to give the order to allow British troops to fire on the rioters, no enquiry was held and he ignored the complicity of members of Congress who took part in the violence. And what was the name of the Hindu state governor. And why have you not mentioned explicitely that it was provoked by the Noakhali Genocide? The Legend of Zorro 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

None of that is mentioned in the sources, will look further into it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re your query about the Hindu state governor refused to give the order to allow British troops to fire on the rioters, no enquiry was held and he ignored the complicity of members of Congress who took part in the violence that came from the source which is present, feel free to double check it. I have now added the reasons given for the cause of the incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not have the book, so cannot check it. But what was the name of the Hindu state governor? The Legend of Zorro 08:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? The name is not given in the source. I think it was Hugh Dow. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the name Hugh Dow suggests he was a Hindu state governor? I doubt your sources. The Legend of Zorro 08:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I went looking and double checked the source myself, it was the premier not governor. Apparently he was out of the state according to another source. And before you ask the name of the premier is not given. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it but by the way I can see a number of scope where the article can be improved. The Legend of Zorro 08:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you doubt I checked the source? Or do you doubt me when I say the guys names is not given? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not take it as I doubt you. Reputable source can always be wrong. For example I can give you at least a blatant wrong info from Russian Embassy if you have patience to hear. I am still unsure how on earth Russian Embassy of India can publish this. The Legend of Zorro 08:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that sources can make mistakes, but you need to show that a mistake has been made before it can be discounted. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you are the author of this entry when you will put it in Namespace the burden falls on you to make sure everything is right and has no inconsistencies. Since you have already done a great deal of research and input for this article I will expect that you should be able to do some more research to make sure there are no inconsistencies. The Legend of Zorro 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(out)Everything is right and consistent according to the sources, I am not sure what research you want me to undertake? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to know the name of the Hindu state governor, some clarification of no enquiry was held and which members of Congress took part in the violence. Rest aside I have some more info which can probably make this article more NPOV and reliable to read. The Legend of Zorro 10:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You want me to go to the national archives and get a list of the members of congress who took part in the attacks? That ain't gonna happen. The premier was Shrikrishna Sinha The source already in the article says no enquirys were held and that source is fine. What information do you have which could make the draft more "reliable"? Given all but one source are from academic publishers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your research is *fine. I have no concerns for the reliabality of your sources. But going through some wikipedia entries I am concerned of the lack of academic sources for info regarding associations of Religious leaders with riots, pogroms etc etc. The Legend of Zorro 10:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are going to have to be a little clearer here, which Wikipedia entries? Which leaders? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Darkness Shines. The Legend of Zorro 11:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy & pasted, why

I have copied and pasted the draft to this new locations so as to lose the history in the original draft, the Anti-Muslim pogroms article was in it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DSP Zia-ul-Haque murder and Mr. Syed Ahmed Bukhari

The son-in-law of Bukhari Umar Ali Khan was a MLC of SP who resigned on the directive of Bukhari after he accused Mulayam Singh Yadav that "the SP government did nothing for Muslims". After that Mulayam turned against his party minister Azam Khan and requested Bukari to to let his son in law Umar Ali Khan to become an MLC.

Bukhari was stopped as a precautionary measure while he was on way to the native village of DSP Zia-ul-Haq for offeing condolences and taking part in namaz-e-janaza after he was killed by a mob allegedly by men of Raghuraj Pratap Singh.

References

Comments

I am not too sure that this belongs here, the article is really covering mass violence and not individual events. Hopefully some others will weigh in with their opinions. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it is an individual element. But this event is notable enough to have a separate wiki article. The Legend of Zorro 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt about that, are you working on one? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I created the article on the two Bukharis but not currently working on any article on DSP Zia-ul-Haque murder. It will be great if you can make this article. The Legend of Zorro 16:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break for ease

More

• Scope: Is the article about violence against Muslims post India's independence or throughout the history of mankind that happened in geographical India?
• "These attacks, known as 'communal riots' in India usually occur in northern and western states of India" What do you mean by occur? Is that a physics law now?
• "The largest of these incidents occurred in Gujarat" Largest in what sense? Covering a wider geographical area?
• "Inside India, these attacks are categorised as riots". They are also mostly categorized as riots outside India.
• "The RSS have carried out acts of violence since their founding in 1925." Source doesn't say that. Also a professor of English is hardly a good choice for such claim. And this has to be established in the court of law. I know you don't get what law is for and you simply love these essayist. But will still put it down once again.
• Whole para on Paul Brass' opinions is WP:UNDUE. Well, actually whole article is almost his opinion.
• "In both of these instances Sena had help from the police and local officials." Reference needed. Not opinion piece but proof of fact.
• "In Gujarat the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act(TADA) was used in incidents pertaining to communal violence, the majority of those arrested under the act were Muslim, conversely TADA was not used after the violence carried out against Muslims during the Bombay riots." Which Gujarat riot and which Bombay riot is being referred here?

Will obviously come back with more. Also, in the previous version while this article was called "pogroms", there were comments somewhere that why urls of books are not give. At that time i was assuming good faith and said that DS might have missed them. Doesnt look like i was right. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

These are nothing more than strawmen. 1 The scope is addressed in the first section, it is from just before partition onwards. 2 occur it means to happen, get a dictionary. 3 Largest- again get a dictionary, largest means "biggest" so you know, a big ass riot. 4 The article is about what happens in india, hence what the violence is termed in India is what matters. 5 The source does say that, "It was set up as an alternative to the politics of the mass anti-colonial struggles since it neither joined nor initiated any anti-british movement up to independence and its only activism was expressed in anti-Muslim violence", and your opinion of the source is contrary to policy. 6 Brass is a highly respected and cited scholar, so no his works are not undue. 7 On Sena, again your opinions are contrary to Wikipedia policy on sourcing. 8 Given that question I am guessing you have not even looked at the sources, the source gives no specific dates for Gujarat, only that TADA was used extensively in the state during riots with Muslims the ones usually pulled by police. Your final point is again contrary to policy, there are no need to give URLs. And it would be pointless as GBooks preview is different for every country. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. So if the scope is such as you say, its not about India. 2. Even if i get a dictionary your scholars and essayists cant say that riots "usually occur in northern and western states". Unless they have come up with a formula of predicting geocodes or something through their theories. 3. Large=big we know. So should i rephrase it as "largest in terms of media attention received"? 4. But in the next line you also are mentioning what other names these incidences are referred with. First line is based on geo location whereas second isn't. 5. That's opinion and not proven fact. 6. They are undue in this frame of article. They wont be undue if the article was renamed to Paul Brass' opinions on anti-Muslim violence in India. 7. That's opinion and not proven fact. 8. So should i rephrase it and say that it refers to 1969 Gujarat riots? 9. If there are no URLs, the sources could be considered dubious. Of course offline sources are acceptable. But given you POVy nature and various failed attempts to push some agenda on various articles, there is no way that good faith can be assumed with you on offline sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything you have just written is pointless. 1 How is it not about India? Did India not exist just before partition? 2 Anyone can look at a map and see where the northern and western states are. 3 You cannot rephrase anything unless you have a source. 4 Again, it is fact per the source. 6 A scholar who specializes in this field is not undue, go read the policy. 7 Again facts according to the source. 8 already dealt with I believe. But again you could not have rephrased it without a source. 9 You are free to go look up the sources on GBooks and see if you can preview them. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So is what you have written. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything I have written is grounded in policy or just plain common sense, you have yet to raise a single valid objection to the content in the article which is backed by policy. So either do so or stop wasting my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You dont understand it. I will now add tags on the article. I wished that could have been prevented had any sensible replies would have come from you. & btw, easiest way to stop wasting your time is to turn off your computer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your disruption is noted. I will remove the pointless tags momentarily. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Its funny how tagging is being called disruptive by you when you dont address the issue raised before hand on talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues were addressed, however it would be handy if there were in fact any actual issues. All the sources used are academics, their notability has nothing to do with anything. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please quote the source verbatim? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Which source? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The one with which you "addressed the issue". Also try and follow some order while commenting back. Don't write below the comments which aren't addressed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also, you need to mention notability of all those random names with no blue-links whose musings you have included in the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not move my comments, it is a violation of TPG. If you will not tell me which source you want a quote from then how am I do provide one? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not move your comment. I moved my comment to the bottom. But its obviously undue to expect such stuff from you. What do you think are we talking about here? JLo's songs or the tags that i placed and you removed by claiming "issues were addressed"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You wanted the years put in, I did it, what is your problem with that? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I want what the source says. Not me, but you seem to be having some problem in quoting it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not your secretary, go read it yourself. [2] Do not expect cooperation when all you show is belligerence. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, don't fight with each other. DD, what is it you would like the source to confirm? I'll be happy to look up the relevant quotes for you so that you can evaluate it. The link Darkness points to is to many pages and I'm not sure what specifically you'd like to confirm/evaluate. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am lucky you are not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RP, i got it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. If you guys get stuck, I'm happy to assist (in a completely non-judgemental way). --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well.... we have addressed only one comment by now that too with so many tantrums. You have lots to assist. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that you know you were wrong over that one, what is next on your list so I can again show you that you are wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

List is in front of you. Take your pick. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, if you do not stop wasting time then I will not bother to respond to your "concerns" I have already fixed a few perceived issues as pointed out in the section above, what to you want done next? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not my secretary that i will order you. You are free to choose the order. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your last chance, either tell me what you want to discuss or I archive this "discussion" as the waste of time it has been. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Relax, do not try to act as if you own this page, what do you mean by last chance? do you think that people here do not know how to start a new section? -sarvajna (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I will be arching it if he does not say what he wants, I do not wish to waste my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No one has any control over what you do. -sarvajna (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How childish! Even if archived, the problems don't get solved. That would only prove how you are ignoring all comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Things that needs to be corrected

• Under the incident section it is said that 7-8 thousand were killed in Bihar and Nellie massacre has been described as one the largest and most severe pogroms since WW2 has an estimated death toll of 5000 and then says that there were deaths of an estimated 2500 in Gujarat 2002 so how come it is mentioned in the lead that The largest of these incidents occurred in Gujarat in 2002 and Bihar in 1946. so in what way Gujarat was the largest.
• The figure of 2500 in Gujarat is whose estimation? The number of death given by the congress government at the center has a different number.
• When it is mentioned that violence led to 'x' number of death, does that include non-muslims as well? I would like to know whether the article wants to convey that 2500 muslims were killed in Gujarat because the title is anti-muslim violence
• The lead says that RSS have carried out acts of violence since their founding in 1925, is it a fact or opinion? if it is a fact, is it proved in the court?
• The lead mentions about Hashimpur and Moradabad, there is nothing in the body about these incidents
• Shiv Sena a fascist party?
• Again under "Causes and effects", it is written In Gujarat the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act(TADA) was used in incidents pertaining to communal violence, the majority of those arrested under the act were Muslim, conversely TADA was not used after the violence carried out against Muslims during the Bombay riots, I do not know whether the author is referring to 2002 Gujarat or some other time because after 2002 there was no TADA but POTA.
• Shiv Sena has been compared to Nazi party by who?
• These rapes were condoned by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP), opinion or fact? -sarvajna (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added two tags per your comments. The Legend of Zorro 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your points in order. 1 The source used says it was. 2 The death toll is also sourced. 3 Total killed means just that, all who were killed. 4 It is a fact as stated by the acaademic source. 5 You can always add Hashimpur and Moradabad, or wait till I do. 6 Shiv Sena a fascist party, yes according to the source. 7 look at the source, maybe you can learn something? 8 Shiv Sena has been compared to Nazi party, again look at the source. 9 Fact, per the academic source used. Did you not even look at the sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW "Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray have publicly admired Hitler and the ideology of Nazism" Strong Religion, Zealous Media: Christian Fundamentalism and Communication in India p134 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So what if Bal Thackeray have publicly admired Hitler? 1)Hitler≠Nazism 2)Nazism≠Fascism 3)Fascism≠Fascist party. The Legend of Zorro 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, yes according to the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the numbers killed in Gujarat 02, The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security p233 "the massacre of perhaps 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat" Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added the official government estimate, I am assuming that is what you were after. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For Sena being fascist Public Accountability and Transparency: The Imperatives of Good Governance p79 "a Fascist party like the Shiv Sena" Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World p95 "Shiv Sena, the most overtly fascist element in the Hindu right-wing formation" And I know prefer newspapers over academic sources so "'Fascist' Shiv Sena will lose relevance after Mumbai poll: Prithviraj Chavan" Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You will have to understand that the Lead is the summary of the body, if the body doesn't explain that the Gujarat violence is the largest than it is wrong to cherry-pick a source which says that Gujarat was largest. If Hashimpur and Moradabad are not present in the body then there is no need for that in the Lead as well or else this article is incomplete. When you say that some organisation has carried out attacks you need a source or else it is just an opinion of one persona and that needs to be clarified. Same about Shiv Sena being a fascist or Nazi party, it is just an opinion of one person. What is more disturbing is that you are using Sena's political rival's statement to justify your stand. ‘Rapes were condoned by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP)’ is again an opinion unless proven. I feel that you are finding it difficult to differentiate between facts and fiction. -sarvajna (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I already added one of the riots missing to the body, your opinion of sources is contrary to policy, academic sources are used for statements of fact. I am using Senas political rivals? I have used western academic publishers, so were that idea has come from I do not know, Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed Gujarat to Nellie, luckily that was also in the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You made reference to prithviraj chavan's opinion. Rapes being condoned is a legal matter so unless they are proven they remain opinions. Same with RSS being party to violence, there are no court cases against the organisation itself. They are just the opinions. -sarvajna (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rapes being condoned is not a legal matter, where on earth do you get that idea from? So no, it is fact. Try the RSN board if you think I am wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not the matter of reliability, it is how the sources are being used. You cannot say that someone committed a crime unless it is proven. Please note, we consider everyone innocent unless proven guilty. Since nothing is proven, they are to be considered just opinions. Hopefully this might be my last comment for few hours and you get my point. -sarvajna (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A group does not have to be tried in a court for someone to point out they have committed acts of violence, Pol Pot was never tried, does this mean we cannot say he carried out acts of exceptional brutality? History decides these things, not a court. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pol Pot might be a history, he is long dead, but RSS is still an active organisation, working without any sanctions. There is a difference.-sarvajna (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, the group has been active since 1925, which is more than enough for historians to judge them a having carried out acts of violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If historians are judging, it would be their opinion. -sarvajna (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, historians look at the evidence and present facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is evidence RSS would be banned by now, forget about banning, there is not even a court case against RSS as an organisation. -sarvajna (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One does not take an organization to court, one tries the members of that organization. You really need to drop this line as you are completely wrong. Ask at WP:30 for advice or the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you never heard about organisations being banned for violent activities? I think you really need to improve your knowledge about that. You can take an organisation to the court or a government can act against the organisation. If individual members indulge in violence, it is not the fault of the organisation, if I kill someone, you cannot blame India because I am a Indian citizen. It is a simple logic. -sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(out)Organizations get banned all the time, but not all do. Do you deny that the RSS have taken part in violent actions against the minorities in India? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My opinion hardly matters, what matters is that this organisation is active without any court cases against it. Which means that the organisation has not committed any crime. -sarvajna (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your right your opinion hardly matters. All that matters are the sources, and they say the RSS have taken part in attacks against minorities since their founding, not unless you have a source which casts doubt upon that this particular conversation is done. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One final thing, wasn't Swami Aseemanand a member of the RSS? "In 2011, the arrested leader of the Rashtriya Swayamseyvak Sangh (RSS), Swami Aseemanand, confessed that he and other Hindu militants were involved in bombings at several Muslim religious sites, including in Malegaon."[3] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes my opinion doesn't matter and just to make it clear your opinion is equally worthless, what matters is the facts. Until and unless the courts say that the organisation has committed crime we should consider that they did not. Good that you mentioned about Aseemanand, this would exemplify your lack of understanding in the subject that you are trying to edit. khabarsouthasia.com seems to be a very good source according to you, so how about these [4], [5] and also I hope you understand the difference between an accused and a convict and Aseemananda = RSS ? -sarvajna (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the news organisations have solved this problem ages ago - unless proven guilty in the court of law, they use language like "alleged perpetrators", "the accused" etc. But when a reliable source says someone is a criminal, but a court verdict is still not out, or there is no court case against that person/organisation - i do not know what are the wiki-policies for such cases. But if there is such a wiki-policy, then it would be beneficial if someone can link them here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No wikipedia policy says what matters is not truth, but verifiability. I have requested a 3O. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok let us see that the source which says that there are proven cases against RSS or else they are just unsubstantiated allegations. -sarvajna (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have source, it is in the article. Your obsession with court cases is troubling, are you a lawyer To say a group has taken part in acts of violence is not an allegation, see EDL JDL UAF, none banned, all have carried out acts of violence. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I am not a lawyer, have few lawyers in my familiy though, I just checked the JDL page, it is written According to the FBI, the JDL has been involved in plotting and executing numerous acts of terrorism within the United States. (emphasis mine). We need to do the same thing in this article as well. Attribute such statements which are not proven to the author. -sarvajna (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of source analysis, are you aware of the difference between a primary source document published on the website of a counter-intelligence agency of a national government (i.e. an involved party: the FBI) and a third party academic expert published under academic imprint, and why we might treat those two kinds of sources differently when deciding whether to attribute statements or put them in the Wikipedia voice (as facts)? Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be useful here to go back to basics. I have checked both sources for the disputed statement:

• Statement in article: "These rapes were condoned by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP)"
• Supporting citation 1 (Raman, Sita Anantha (8). Women in India: a social and cultural history. Praeger. p. 210.): "This is especially ironical given the anti feminist and anti Muslim politics of the BJP, that is manifested as we will see later, in anti Muslim pogroms in Mumbai in 1992, and in Gujarat in 2002 where sexual violence against Muslim women was actively carried out and condoned by the BJP (International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat 2003)."
• Supporting citation 2 (Gangoli, Geetanjali (28). Indian Feminisms: Law, Patriarchies and Violence in India. Ashgate. p. 42.): "This fact has been proven repeatedly after Partition in 1947; in the 1990’s rapes of Tamil Dalit women by higher-caste tevar men who resented government benefits to Dalits;87 in Gujarat where the BJP condoned the gang-rape of hundreds of Muslim women (2002)..."

It appears to me that, firstly these are very good academic sources for material related to violence against women in India. Secondly, that the statement in the article accurately reflects what the sources say. And finally that the sources are directly related to this article (i.e. they are discussing violence towards Muslims, specifically Muslim women, in India). According to Wikipedia policy academic experts published under academic imprint are good for facts in the Wikipedia voice, unless it can be shown that there is a difference of opinion in reliable sources of similar quality, in which case we express them as "significant views". We do not present material sourced to multiple academic sources as opinion on the basis of editorial arguments not grounded in Wikipedia policy and source evidence such as those put forward by sarvajna. Dlv999 (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming that violence against Dalit women is a subset of violence against Muslim women? The Legend of Zorro 09:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I included the start of the sentence in the quote so everyone could see context for themselves. Gangoli is discussing different instances of violence against women in India. For this article, what is important to us is her discussion of violence against Muslim women in Gujarat in 2002. Dlv999 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You should see this]. I am afraid that the backward state of the Muslim women in India is *wholly because the Muslim community themselves. The Legend of Zorro 09:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that comments like this are appropriate, or have any relevance at all to this discussion, you should not be editing anywhere near this kind of topic. Dlv999 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not an comment by the way. It is cited by a source. You are confusing Dalits with Muslim women and above made a uncited personal opinion that they are about specifically Muslim women, in India. The Legend of Zorro 10:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you know the difference between 'being accused of a crime' and 'being a convict' ? Convictions are not secured based on the academic sources but in the court of law, it is funny when you say ....source evidence such as those put forward by sarvajna because I have not provided any editorial arguments here. I would like to know how did Geetanjali Gangoli came to a conclusion that BJP condoned the gang-rape of hundreds of Muslim women, is she into police or judiciary? Were there any evidence that would come close in proving these point of her's ? Same thing about RSS, you cannot possibly write that the organisation has carried out attacks. Those are just the opinions and need to be presented not just because they are extrodinary claims but also because that would not be neutral.-sarvajna (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect I don't think you understand our neutrality policy. It states: "(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." - We are supposed to be dispassionately representing what has been written in RS, not critiquing what has been written in RS based on our own personal opinions and ideas about the topic and the world in l.genera We have two very goood academic sources supporting the statement. If you can show there is a dispute over this point (e.g. by citing sources of similar quality that dispute it) then of course we should represent it as opinion. But you giving me your personal opinion is irrelevant, and it is not a discussion I am willing to engage with. Dlv999 (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know what NPOV states, I am not saying that we should ignore the view presented in those sources I am saying that they should be attributed to the author. There is nothing wrong in analyzing a source, like I said above, how did the author arrived at those conclusions? Was there any investigation carried out by the author ? I am not giving my personal opinion here, nowhere in this discussion I stated any personal opinion, you are making false accusations to discredit my objections.-sarvajna (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The title of the article is Anti Muslim violence in India which is itself a POV tile but the title has good number of academic standing as is evident in the sources. But it is clear that much if not most of the sources are from a select group of secular historians namely Paul Brass, Praveen Swami, Gyanendra Pandey etc. We cannot jump into conclusion with presenting the above scholars as authorities here but these are all opinions of these scholars. No singular scholar is an authority here and hence your opinion of Reliable source is vague and inconsistent. The Legend of Zorro 10:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case cite to me the alternative body of relevant academic literature with author, page references, date of publication, publisher ect. This is the kind of argument that would be relevant to the discussion and the article. As it stands I see an article based on high quality academic sources and editors complaining about it based on their own views and opinions without citing any alternative academic sources to support their position. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and take a look in the above comments. You cannot term an organisation as fascist because a historian said so and also nobody is arguing here based on their own views and opinions. Some people call Bal Thackarey a tiger or freedom fighter some say he is fascist etc etc. It is up to you how you chooses him. You can only say some say he was fascist and some say he was patriot. The Legend of Zorro 11:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make an WP:UNDUE argument as previously requested you must cite the body of academic literature that contradicts the source evidence in the article and discussed in this thread. Simply asserting that these RS are being given undue weight without alternate source evidence indicating alternate viewpoints published in RS is not going to fly. Without source evidence to support your claims it is just your own unsupported opinion against what has been published by academic experts under academic imprint. Dlv999 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I will look for sources but by the way not I but sarvajna started this thread. And I am mostly sure that Template:Sangh Parivar has a good number of authors who will have different POV. The Legend of Zorro 15:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow if someone says that Angelina Jolie is an orange, i don't think other authors in their right senses would publish books saying that she isnt. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about academic experts published under academic imprint. Such sources and related material cannot be dismissed because a group of editors find what they say implausible. We do not edit the encyclopaedia based on editor's opinions on a topic we base it on reliable sources. Dlv999 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The RSS has been banned four times since it was founded, once by the british and thrice by the Indian government, one of these was for their complicity in the murder of Gandhi. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And were the bans removed because Mahatma Gandhi was found alive? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you on about? He was shot dead. "Nathuram Godse joined the Poona branch of the Hindu Mahasabha and a paramilitary unit known as the National Volunteer Association, or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh" The Indian Postcolonial: A Critical Reader Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer as to why the bans were removed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They went to court to get the bans lifted. But funnily enough that has nothing to do with the thread does it? Which is that the RSS have carried out acts of violence since they were founded, and that fact is proved time and time again in this thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

Apart from some minor problems, I believe the the article would be greatly benefited if it gives a balanced view of the subject. IMO, the article in its current state gives the impression that muslims are getting killed every day by the majority hindu population, who are getting support to do that from the state. That is not the case, nor do the sources support that. The sources say stuff about particular incidents, about discrimination but not about every day violence. The language of the article is not giving a bird's eye view of the situation of indian muslims. It only talks of violent incidents and stacks them together. The reality is a bit different, or Shahrukh, Salman and Aamir wouldn't be the top actors of Bollywood, A P J Abdul Kalam would not have been in charge of India's missile and nuclear programs, or appointed the defence research head, or the President. Neither would have the current chief of the Intelligence Bureau, India's internal intelligence agency been a muslim. Just a few examples. I am sure proper sources can also be found. See for example Islam in India.

The description of the individual incidents seems to be fine. Its the overall narrative of this article which isn't balanced, IMO. Of course, the title of the article says it all. And that should be the focus here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Muslims for the most part have been faced with prejudice and systematic violence even if some Muslims have enjoyed phenomenal success" Communalism and Globalization in South Asia and its Diaspora p109. So we do have a source which says exactly that, but balance is always a good thing, do you have any concrete suggestions? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just added this for balance, any good? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Sentences like that make it balanced, hence better. That on one hand the downtrodden muslims are discriminated against, but some still do quite well. And if there is every-day violence, then that should be added too, along with its description and reasons. I would also like to see sections that describe how/if it has hampered the social/economic development of indian muslims. What effect it has had on the present-day cultural integration of india. Something on the line of Trends and changes in societal attitudes towards muslims since independence in 1947 would also be quite informative. I am suggesting these changes so that a proper narrative can be developed. I am not very well-versed in this topic, but I do see a good theme and sources at Islam in India. I hope i have been helpful. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed the lede line and added this which I think conveys that the violence is not as widespread as the media make it out to be. I am looking for sources re social integration and from what I am reading there is next to none in riots prone areas. Is this the kind of thing you are looking for? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that edits seems fine. And regarding social integration - the ghetto-fication of indian muslims - in the cities, and even in villages is IMO am important thing to add here. I believe i read some sources that go into some details on this - how these ghettos become easy targets of mobs, which would not have happened if the cities were more homogeneous. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I had read something along those line a while ago, as you can see from the sections above I am being a little sidetracked. 19:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure sure. Also, it would make the article more balanced if we include the various court cases, prosecutions, convictions and court judgement on those who have carried out attacks on muslims. Some people have escaped punishment due to lack of evidence or improper investigation by the police, but a lot of conspirators and rioters have been convicted as well. Some sources can be found in Freedom of religion in India and here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, how about sub-sections on in the "Incidents" section? Maybe put each incident into a sub-section? Would make it easier to read (for the eyes). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You may like to see my proposal above of DSP zia ul haq murder. I agree with DS that individual incidents may not fit in the article. The Legend of Zorro 20:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No ,i didn't mean each like that. I meant that the different incidents already mentioned in that section can be grouped into sub-sections. Or if you don't like it that way, maybe they can be grouped by time, like 1920-47, 1947-60, 1960-80, 1980-2000, 2000-current. Something like that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They are in chronological order aren't they? Could have sworn I did that. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

yes they are! :) I was just suggesting to group them. But thats fine. Also, how about a map of india with the cities of incidents? That would be really beneficial. That would also disambiguate the statement "attacks mostly happen in north and west india". See for eg. the map at Indian Institutes of Technology. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My main PC died and I am without photoshop, how dire is that Can you knock a map up? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Aaah that sucks! That happens sometimes on my mum's laptop. And I have to bring it back up :) BTW, the map does not need and photoshop. Just coding. And the lat/long for the cities. I will start it below :)

Small problem if the places are too close together, the name overlap. Any thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

nope. the only way i know is to increase the image width. That has its own limitations within the article. there may be some other way - I do not know that much about image/map coding here. May be an admin would know. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Map of incidents

Ahmedabad
(1969)

Bihar
(1946)

Nellie
(1983)

Bhagalpur
(1989)

Ayodhya
(1992)

Moradabad
(1980)

Mumbai
(1992)

Gujarat
(2002)

class=notpageimage|

Location of incidents. City name with year

• The incident in Bihar happened in 1946. That was before the existence of independent India (that happened in 15 August 1947). So should that incident be included? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article mate, the scope was decide just before partition and onwards. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I read that in the article. So brought it up here. Thanks for clarifying! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• How about linking the name of cities in the map to the main articles of those incidents? just a thought... Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No mention of opinions of Muslium religious leaders and political leaders of causes and effects

This article currently does not spends a single line on the opinion of Muslim scholars and religious leaders. All opinions are from either Leftist historians or western scholars. Should not it contain reaction of influential political leaders and Muslim religious leaders on the issue of Anti-Muslim violence? The Legend of Zorro 16:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Not a single line from a Muslim group? Are we reading the same article here? Are Jamaat-e-Islami Hind not a Muslim group? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I overlooked it but by the way it does not contains reaction of personalities like owaisi brothers or Influential Imams and other personalities like Irfan Habib and co. The Legend of Zorro 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Got sources for these peoples opinions on the subject? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The publication The Sunday Indian occasionally publishes these type of sources (for example reaction of Imam Bukhari on Assam riots). Since I have no resource or clue on this area other than Google I cannot say it. The Legend of Zorro 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Peculiar edit

What has this to do with the article? Who cares if a politician went looking for votes? How is that related to violence? And is that source even reliable? Reading it I would say no, it obviously never underwent editorial control or proofreading at the least. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to understand the chronology. Nellie Massacre happened in 1983 and this book tells the important untold story that Indira Gandhi along with the ruling party gave tacit approval to the illegal immigrants to secure the votes and this in turn fuelled communal sentiments. The Legend of Zorro 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

None of that is in the source, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that requires a source for it not to be OR. Either add another source that makes that connection or selfrevert.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please first see what I added. I added Indira Gandhi visited cachar in 1983 which is full of immigrants to securs the votes. This is wholly cited in the book. The book does not contains anything about massacres and I have not added anything about massacres. The Legend of Zorro 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

But if the book doesn't state that Indira Gandhi's visit is related to the massacre then adding it is SYNTH. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Solomon for self reverting, very reasonable of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have self reverted as of now. But the immigration issues needs some expansion and it is clear from the source that the congress party gave tacit approval to illegal immigrants to secure electoral gains. The Legend of Zorro 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that, and will look for sources myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did find several sources on Google scholar mentioning Gandhi's visit and election strategy as part of the issue.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking og GBooks, any chance you could post the links to the articles? Or add what you have found to the article if that would be quicker for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Nellie violence was a foreigners v/s Indians issue, the foreigners happened to be Muslim.[6] Amongst the recommendations of the Tewary commission were "Since the fundamental issue of the agitation was illegal immigration from Bangladesh, the commission recommended that "Assam should be granted special protection as in Kashmir where no real estate can be acquired by or be sold to an outsider". And that the border with Bangladesh should be sealed at the earliest to prevent illegal migration. But even 13 years after the recommendations, only a tenth of the work on border fencing is complete, and every sixth person in Assam's 2.2 crore population is an illegal immigrant"[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Again you are trying to disprove academically published sources with news articles. I don't know how you think anyone would take you seriously.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The news article makes a statement of fact: An excerpt from a commission report. Also "which scholarly report" disproves the above? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody disputes. And the sources added by Yogesh Khandke are high quality sources like India Today. I guess it is enough that people would take him seriously. The Legend of Zorro 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already says the violence was caused by illegal immigration. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So why are we arguing when there is consensus that it was caused by illegal immigration. I think to reference it we should include the name of the fundamentalists leaders (of both sides). Anybody has any clue? The Legend of Zorro 02:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That it was about nationalism obviously doesn't exclude that it was also about religion. After all the countries were partitioned on religious lines. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Maunus Probably you are saying what others are saying or in other words you agree with the consensus. Am I right? It was surely about both cultural, linguistic and religious nationalism. The Legend of Zorro 02:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue wasnt religious, it was local v/s foreign, so there are no religious leaders, on the side of the perpetrators there were organisation like the AASU, whose members were brutalised by the Gandhi's Congress govt, so on the other side, there was the Congress, it was an AASU & co x Congress scene. There was an election forced which was boycotted, there is a very gripping film on the subject, someone from Assam would be able to tell its name. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

The AGP makes no mention of religion, all it speaks is about aliens. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

AGP constitution. No fracturing on religious lines. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what point are you trying to make here? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

They were killed not because they were Muslims but because they were considered illegal immigrants. The motive of the killers and not the religion of the victims should define how the incident is classified. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, the article already says they were attacked because of the immigration issue, why are you still harping on about this? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetically if a certain number of Muslims are killed in for example in a dacoity, would that still be anti-Muslim violence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not getting you. Are you comparing banditry to mass killings? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disregard scale, the Polish pogrom I liked above had six fatalities, I am comparing murder and murder, there were murders in Assam perpetrated against allegedly illegal immigrants, they weren't killed for being Muslim. You can't call every Muslim murder anti-Muslim violence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are saying that the fact they were Muslim was incidental to them being killed then? Remind me, where did all these immigrants come from again? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't say that, that is what Justice Tewary's report recommends, fence borders, don't let foreigners buy land. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, we are not here to debate the political merits of illegal/legal immigration, nor what some judge has recommended to prevent illegal immigration. Please just get to the point. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• This book has interesting information about Nellie and the general situation in Assam. It does stress the political, rather than religious, tensions between immigrants and Assamese, particularly the AASU group as being the most important factor in triggering the massacre. This one (p. 81) however describes the Nellie massacre as religious, and notes that non of the immigrants were in fact "illegal" under the laws of the country, but where defined as such by emotional and political arguments based on the fact of their religious identity. It describes Nellie as one of the worst pogroms faced by Indian Muslims -only surpassed by the 2002 Gujarat events.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Here's another one: Monirul Hussain. 2000. State, Identity Movements and Internal Displacement in the North-East. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 35, No. 51 (Dec. 16-22, 2000), pp. 4519-4523User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these, I shall look them over tomorrow, I am off to the pub shortly, have read enough about children being butchered for one day. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't one judge, it is the leader of a commission appointed by the Congress who created a cause effected linkage, brings out the cause-affect relationship, the cause was illegal immigration and the affect was murder. It was incidental that they were Muslim. A commission report reported in a reliable source carries more weight than other sources regarding such an exceptional claim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is your reliable secondary source of comparable academic quality which refutes the sources presented on this talk page and used in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agent provocateur

The article misses that agent provocateurs for riots have been Muslims, such as Godhra: 2002 , and killing mathadis Mumbai:1992-3. Also since the article harps the words pogrom and genocide, it should also inform that Muslims in India have grown faster than Hindus. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we would again need reliable references for the first. And adding the second fact would definitely make the article balanced. We can also add "see also" type links to pages like Islam in India. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does birth rate have to do with the article? Are you saying that Muslims are attacked because they have more babies? I strongly object to a see also section, I am hoping to get this to FA and a See also counts against it. Any article which fully covers a subject has no need of a see also section. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess the population growth rate is interesting because, if a populations is repressed, it is expected to decline/flee/seek asylum/migrate etc. Right? I am not sure though, as i read somewhere that the Palestinian/arab population in Israel is growing faster than that of the jews. I don't know if there is a relation, but if a reliable source says there is some co-relation b/w the two, then that can be included here as well. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The important thing here is that we have an RS and that the RS supports the statement and is also directly related to the topic of this article. If these are met then it would merit inclusion. If not then it doesn't. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, growth rate is relevant only if reliable sources discuss it as relevant to Anti-Muslim violence which is the topic of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thats what i meant Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

DS, you said that an FA cannot have a section "see also" or other such links? See Atheism or Prosperity theology, which i just chose randomly from WP:FA. So you are wrong about that :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Found a few sources which discuss the baby issue, who would have thought the big strong manly men of the Hindu far right would be afraid of babies? What a bunch of pussies. Anyway, this is what I have found and added, we ought to be able to find further sources on this issue and expand on it. Re Anir1uph about the See Also, I recall reading on the FA criteria page that a see also section was counted agaisnt the article, perhaps that has changed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Pl remember that a talk page is not a blog or a soapbox where you can exhibit your original research, eg. "have thought the big strong manly men of the Hindu far right would be afraid of babies? What a bunch of pussies". The purpose of a talk page is to provide discussion on how to improve the article. Regarding use of the word pogrom, the Kielce pogrom saw the "flight of remaining Polish Jews from Poland", has there been a documented flight of Muslims from India say post Mumbai-1992/3 or post Gujarat-2002 and a resultant massive reduction in population? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being obtuse again Yogesh - using the word pogrom does not require flight - it requires sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipeidia is not a repository for hyperbole howsoever fashionable it may be. Also DS please do not abuse your talk page privileges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Any group of "men" who go out of their way to rape and murder helpless people including children are a bunch of pussies. Regarding use of the word pogrom, the sources use it, so do we. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To remind you that "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

These are not exceptional claims, and we have plenty of sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Pogrom and genocide are exceptional claims, that need exceptional sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Two things here, one we have exceptional sources, hundreds of academic ones. Two it is written as "has been called", so the article is not stating as fact that any of these incidents were pogroms or genocide. Just drop the stick. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

An allegation like this should not be carried as a "has been called", has for example any court: Indian or international; called them "ethnic cleansing" or genocide? Like for example has been done so in the former Yugoslavia? Has anyone been tried as a mass murdered and convicted? Wikipedia isn't a repository of allegations: this article is and it shouldn't exist. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, actually it can be per WP:RS & WP:V & WP:NPOV. If you are of the opinion that this article does not fulfil the GNG criteria WP:AFD is thataway. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a string of discrete incidents that have been synthesized into this article. See wp:SYNTHESIS, having said that there are other editors and consensus is how Wikipedia is developed, so if enough editors agree with what I'm saying the article would be off. As you said via AfD.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass killings are now "discrete incidents", really? And if you are going to link to a policy such as WP:SYNTHESIS I would recommend you read it beforehand. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" If you can point to a single instance in this article were that has been done I will be most surprised. And near as I can see only two editors who have commented on this talk page, do not like the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Yogesh Khandke Do you really mean that the Muslims are agents provocateurs? Can you help us to find high-quality sources reflecting viewpoints that need to be incorporated into the article? The growing population might be relevant if fact is part of this discourse in India—if it is, this might provide evidence for genocidal motivation behind the attacks. groupuscule (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• groupuscule: I meant it to sound like this: "More generally, the term may refer to an undercover person or group of persons that seek to discredit or harm another group by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that's a reasonable use of the term. You really need to provide some high-quality sources if you hope to get anywhere with this line of argument. groupuscule (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are over 150 million Muslims in India growing at a faster rate than Hindus. Would you provide evidence that the riots are motivated by the desire to eliminate 150 million Muslims? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For context: We are coming to this page from the DYK review. Your comment seems a little off point, because this branch of the conversation began with your remark above that the Muslim population is increasing faster than the Hindu population. I guess the question is: why do you think this information is relevant to the article? Also note that violence can be genocidal (according to the formal and informal understandings of the term) even if aims to destroy a group "in part" and has little chance of destroying the group "in whole". groupuscule (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Murder" or "massacre" is different from pogrom and genocide in terms of scale. Genocide our article opens is "Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, Caste, religious, or national group". What would genocide result in: an increase in population? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Groupuscule: I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, diff It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DS you are doing great work on the article, and it's clear you feel really strongly about the issue, but comments like this are over the top and not helpful. Your above use of the word "pussies" is wildly inappropriate and disrespectful. (It's also not very cool to equate pussies with weakness—virtually all of us came out of one and many are trying to get back in.) groupuscule (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point, and thank you for both the advice, and the laugh. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

RSS

DS, it is not the matter of the reliability of the source but how the reliable sources are used. I am taking about this revert of DS where he is writing some unsubstantiated allegations as facts. -sarvajna (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources state it as fact, and they are good for the statement. As was pointed out on the RS board. I also have given plenty of examples of RSS members being arrested in conjunction with acts of violence, and they of course have been banned several times for the same. Just drop it, or get sources to refute the ones used. I have no interest in debating with you over what you "know to be true" Either get some sources for once or let it go. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you show the sources which say that RSS as an organisation has been convicted by the court of law? You forget the fact that the ban was lifted everytime because it was not proven that RSS was involved in any violent acts. Like I said before RSS members being arrested in conjunction with acts of violence is something that should be assosiated with the individual not with the organisation. Please don't think that I love having a debate with you. It is just common sense, the allegations are unproven so either attribute it to the author or remove it. -sarvajna (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• The sources are good for the claim, it is an academic handbook and it cites lots of primary sources. We don't need court documents as sources for these claims or attribution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a typo in the name of Torkel Brekke but I can't seem to find the place where the source is defined so that I can edit it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Which section is the typo in? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In note 21 in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not saying that we need court documents, that would be primary source. There are not court documents which say what the sources claim, they are just opinions. Can you prove that those sources are using the court documents to say what they are saying? -sarvajna (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

They dont to use court documents and I dont need to prove it. Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources say. And the Cambridge Handbook of Religion and Security is a reliable source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If they don't use court documents then how come they reached those conclusions, it is investigation authorities and court's duty. They are just opinions of those authors and should be written like opinions. -sarvajna (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, research by professional reserachers may use any kind of methods that are appropriate to their field to make their argumentds and conclusions, and their research results are not opinions but research results. Claims about how communal violence is organized is not something that requires a court verdict it simply requires good social science to find out. Claims against individuals in specific cases is a different thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Already got it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Both statements seem to be well sourced. I checked the second source (Brekke) and it clearly states that "Politicians and Political organizations associated with the RSS" have been implicated in "the production of riots". Scholarly sources are our best examples of reliable sources and courts of law have nothing to do with scholarly conclusions about the activities of organizations. --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no question about reliability here, I agree that these are scholarly conclusions but these scholarly conclusions sould not be considered as facts and should be written as opinions. It is the job of the courts to declare guilty or not guilty. -sarvajna (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, scholarly conclusions, if uncontradicted by other scholars, is a fact in so far as wikipedia is concerned.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "and its activists have since formed militant groups with the intention of engaging in attacks on minority groups in India" would be more accurate for the second part. Actually, DS, could you quote the exact text from the Sarkur source for the RSS attacks on Muslims in 1925? Sarvajna, guilty or not guilty is not something that makes sense when talking about organizations because, by definition, they are complex in their activities. Scholars parse these activities and draw conclusions about the nature of these organizations and that's what we go with. BTW, for all, the lead is not really compliant with MOS and needs work. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maunus, have you read what is written?Claims about how communal violence is organized is not something that requires a court verdict the argument here is not about how communal violence is organized but argument is over the statement The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925 which is only an opinion, it is not about how it did but what it did. RP, when an organisation is responsible for violence there are legal actions taken. Legal actions are not just limited to individuals but for organisations as well. Heard about SIMI? -sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your point about SIMI is good, this article should include mention of the existence of violent Muslim organizations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarvajna, honestly, you're not going to get anywhere with this legal stuff. Our reliance is on reliable sources, and when scholars say something, we listen. Far better, imo, that you invest your energies in proposing specific wording changes or find other reliable scholarly sources that contest what this bunch of scholars are saying. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How about "according to X the RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925" .-sarvajna (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are people always asking me to type out quotes, I hate typing out quotes :o( "It was set up as an alternative to the politics of mass anti-colonial struggles since it neither joined not initiated any anti British movement up to independence and its only activism was expressed in anti-Muslim violence" As for the lede and MOS, get to work bucko. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if that's an accurate rephrasing. Anyway, my suggestion is that we take the second and third paras out of the lead and restructure the body into : Background, Cause and effects (that's where para 2 and 3 of the lead should go), Hindu nationalism (all the stuff about RSS can go there), Incidents, Depictions. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 14:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I need to write a background section as well? I have no problems with moving some stuff from the lede to the body, but some mention has to stay per LEDE, and given the size the article is going to become with an extra section we will need three paras in the lede I reckon. I will start on the background stuff tomorrow if I have time, but it is uber short at the moment ( Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert but this is the direction the lead should take. More information on what this violence means for India should fill the third para and all the commentary from Pandey, Brass, and others should go into the causes and effects section. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you tend to underestimate the amount of information that needs to go in the lead Regents Park. A good lead is a summary of the article that is able to stand along and give the reader a full overview of the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)[8] Dude, you stole the DYK hook :o(. That stuff is OK to go into another section right? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't realize that there was a hook. Maunus, the lead shouldn't be quoting individual scholars but summarizing broad scholarly views which are then expanded upon in the body. Length is a different issue (though, given the size of the body, I wouldn't expect a long lead in this particular article). --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in this case the lead need not mention specific scholars, as long as they are mentioned and attributed in the body. There are other cases where it is a good idea to quote and attribute points of view to specific scholars in the lead. But the lead has to avoid weasel phrases as well, so "others have argued" is not necessarily a good way to refer to the view point of one specific scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarvajna is right, if there are any allegations regarding RSS as an organisation, then there should be evidence of convictions, "not court documents", but reliable secondary sources that report such court decisions. We cannot have opinions of one scholar or the other as evidence of crime, that is a basic Wikipedia policy, exceptional claims need exceptional sources, and exceptional sources are not those who belong to a chorus of baiters, scholarly or otherwise. No RP and Manus and DS I disagree with your interpretation of policy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Organizations are not put on trial for murder. So no. It is not an exceptional claim that a fascist religious fundamentalist organization would commit violent acts. It would be more exceptional if it didn't. It is very very widely reported in the literature that RSS has used violent means since its foundation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Organisations are proscribed, the RSS was proscribed thrice but the ban was lifted as no evidence was found about its involvement in any criminal acts. Organisations have political opponents, we on Wikipedia are not here to take sides in a dispute, however fashionable a view may be. Many church organisations are religious fundamentalists, there isn even a The Independent Fundamental Churches of America ? We can call ISKON a fundamentalist organisation, as it holds the Gita literally true, and requires adherence to its fundamentals. RSS isn't a religious organisation, it is a secular organisation. Also read Godwin's law before using the cliche: fascist. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

RSS is a fascist organization according to multiple reliable sources. One of its founders was demonstrably inspired by Hitler. Godwin's law does not apply and you apparently don't even know what it means. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not court cases, and having been banned thrice is a very good indication of the contentious nature of the organization. You are among the wikipedia editors I consider to be least interested in neutral coverage of your pet topic and your lecture on "fashionable viewpoints" is laughable. In short your argument is tendentious and invalid. We follow scholarly sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) The bans couldn't stay, they were lifted as they couldn't be sustained. (2)It would do well not to personally attack me, that isn't what talk pages are for. (3)Anyone not for neutrality should read wp:NPOV. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• It isn't for us to abuse our sourcessubjects, we're not a tabloid, see "What Wikipedia is not". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Then stop doing it, read the policies you are so fond of citing and then follow them. As for RSS being Fascist, the World Encyclopedia of Fascism has a chapter on India and RSS is the first organization mentioned.[9].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

{{ec}Also it would be good if strawman wouldn't be created by mentioning "court cases", "court documents" etc., a person is a murderer if he is convicted and the conviction is reported in wp:RS, so with organisations. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, organizations are not persons. You realize that the Mafia or Hells Angels or the Nazi PArty have never been convicted of any crimes? Now either present some reliable sources that contradict the reliable sources we have or stop with this ridiculous time wasting wikilawyering - it is disruptive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

::Is Mafia an organisation? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"La Cosa Nostra", usually called "the Mafia" is an organization yes. It has never been convicted of any crime, because organizations are not persons.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a description, "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a Hindu nationalist organization that uses discipline and daily training to promote unity across castes in order to protect Hindu cultural, economic, and political interests. The all-male membership is organized into regional and local groups, united under a national leader; groups meet daily (an event called shakha), and these units can be mobilized to provide relief during natural disasters, such as the 2001 earthquake in Gujarat. The RSS is closely associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Sangh Parivar network and has been accused of engaging in anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence."[10] The Sangh has been accused of violence, has there been a conviction? If there is come up with it. Conviction in the court of law, as informed by reliable sources. Not by a lynch mob. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You can start listening and stop howling back and that would a way to not waste time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think I'll stop listening instead. But thanks for the advice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pointy tags

File:Arbcomlolcat.jpg

are, by definition, disruptive. DD, I suggest you don't add them. I obviously cannot block you for something on this article but you're going to end up blocked for adding tags to well sourced statements. --regentspark (comment) 16:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So where is a clarification needed tag to be placed? On top of the article? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be clarified? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Weren't the reasons given? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately DD, looking at your last few contributions to this talk page, I don't see you making any constructive comments here whatsoever. A few nice zingers that doubtless gave you satisfaction but nothing that qualifies as a useful comment. I'm not sure what your purpose is with this article but your posts (these ones: [11], [12], [13], [14],[15]) plus the tags gives the impression of a disruptive editor. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as said in one of those edits, you denying the tags or not solving the problems stated or accusing me of not helping when i clearly am helping the article by pointing out problems, doesn’t help the article but only distracts the discussion; which is of course not the first time you are doing it this way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately DD, your various comments here don't give the impression of trying to help the article. Also, please note that I've given specific diffs of your unhelpful comments on this page and would appreciate it if you gave diffs when you make accusations. Unsubstantiated accusations are also disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As said before somewhere, its your fault that you don't see the good in my edits. Can't help that! Also in picking up comments, you have missed a list of comments that i had posted before which is still outstanding. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RP, you selectively picking Dharmadhyaksha's comment for review and just turning a blind eye on comments by others is not very impartial. Let us move beyond that and work for the article. There are genuine concerns raised by editors shooing away the edits will not really help in the improvement of the article.-sarvajna (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not selectively Sarvajna. I went back to June 25th and there is nothing useful posted by DD since then. If he has contributed substantively before that, then good. But, since then, nada. Tags placed by editors who are commenting extensively on the talk page but not commenting substantively do appear to have no other purpose than to disrupt the process. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess he did make one substantive comment on the 25th, the first by him on this page (this one) though even that comes with a personal comment at the end. But, of the remaining 28 comments since then, none appear to be productive and most appear to be combative. Not a good sign. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you gave no reasons at all, for instance why put a who tag on Toral Varia? Her name i right there FFS. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn’t the first time you have added random people's opinions in articles. So you very well know that you need to show why Varia's opinion is so important worthy of inclusion. So who is this Varia? And does Facial feminization surgery have to do anything here? We shouldn’t care of how Varia looks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

FFS, are you not able to do a search for her? She is easy enough to find, what with her being the former Senior Special Correspondent at CNN IBN and currently Senior Special Correspondent at Outlook Magazine & Senior Associate Editor at Rediff.com. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See! How you create fuss over everything. To and fro, reverting edits of other editors and all and at last you have to write who Varia is. Only if this would dawn early on you, you would save a bit of your time. Lets put that for all such random names. We can sit later on and see who the hell are these people and why their opinions are so worthy of mentioning. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now shall we move to other two tags that you reverted? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • RP I don't know why you are censuring Dharmadhayksha for this. So soon after the banning of Mr. T? You must address the cause of such comments, why allow base remarks and then react strongly to those who are provoked? I'm sorry RP this approach betrays imo lack of balance. So also censuring perhaps for the use of the word childish[16] while not taking into cognizance the "ignoring the comments part" or even this[17] isn't it a more civil comment than calling edits "ridiculous" or "waffle". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ever more pointless tags

Explanations for the POV and too few opinions tags please. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose that this article be replaced by a list

This article is an indulgence in wp:SYNTHESIS, we ought not to have discrete incidents stringed into one article, that is synthesis. Well we could have an article such as List of incidents involving anti-Muslim violence in India. I propose renaming. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"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. groupuscule (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please come up with a source that includes all the incidents in one article being mentioned as anti-Muslim violence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here you are again demonstrating your lack of understanding of basic sourcing policy. That is not what WP:SYNTH requires. It requires that literature demonstrates that the topic exists and that each source treats each separate incident as related to the topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh yes! Its just a collection of essays and quotations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Utter nonsense. The topic has a large body of literature and it is not synthesis to use it to write an article. You are showing a lack of understanding of basic policy here. THis article is not a list of incidents but a summary of scholarly analysis. A separate list of incidents might be good support for the article though, but that is a different question. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• YK, you're on the wrong track here. The topic is notable and the article is well sourced, so converting it into a list or arguing about court convictions is not going to get you anywhere. That said, the issue of anti-Muslim violence in India is likely a lot more nuanced than what the article describes and it would be much more productive to introduce that nuance into the article, reliable sourced of course. For example, Sten Widmalm and Sven Oskarsson in "Political Tolerance in India Descriptions and Explanations from the Heartland" Asian Survey , Vol. 53, No. 3 (May/June 2013), pp. 533-558 find (in a survey) that there are factors such as poverty and religious segregation that affect the level of intolerance toward muslims. As written, the article says that there is violence against Muslims and a lot of that violence is orchestrated by the RSS and the BJP, which is a rather simplistic description of the complex relationship between Muslims and Hindus in India. Explaining the underlying socio-economic factors and the drivers for changing the dynamics behind this violence would be a much better strategy. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (1) I disagree with you, RP, there is no doubt about anti-Muslim violence in India, those are discrete incidents. Wikipedia's job is to reflect sources and not to SYNTHESIS them. If we have sources about anti-Muslim violence in India containing all the examples in our article, then we could have such an article. (2) If you want to call someone including an organisation a criminal: he has to be a convicted criminal. That is what Wikipedia policy is as far as I understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I say above to Sarvajna, if academic scholars say that an organization fosters violence, then we say so as well, especially when that is broad view. Court cases have nothing to do with this. If there are many incidents of a particular brand of violence in a country, and if these incidents are collectively discussed in academic sources (as they are in this case), then we can and should have an article on that topic. It's your call but you'd be better off working toward making the article more comprehensive rather than trying to block well sourced material. That's always a losing strategy on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 15:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've said all that is to be said, including the need to look for convictions which you prefer to call "court cases". I leave space for others to have their say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

True, the article on communalism also needs some serious expansion along those lines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Most ridiculous proposal ever, so no fecking chance. And these constant distractions by YK are getting beyond the joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe we could move the article to Hindu-Muslim violence in India in that way the article could include violence by and against both groups and would have less of a POV feeling. It is also the title of the 2003 book by Paul Brass.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, while Hindu-Muslim violence is well established in the literature, so is Anti Muslim violence as a specific phenomenon, the subject matter as it stands is quite simply far to important to be subsumed in a general discussion of the issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree to Maunus's suggestion above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Limited set of viewpoints

The article does not present any counter view point and quotes only the "scholars" who seems to align to a certain POV. Therefore, I have tagged the article for WP:NPOVD. In addition, please add a table of statistics of how many people died (of each community) involved in these riots. Also mention number of convictions done. Let the numbers speak for themselves. - abhi (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, so where are your sources which present this counter view then? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article and it has a strong POV flavor to it. The whole talk page is full of discussions on it but you just keep removing the WP:NPOVD tag without consensus ever reached. This is not talking article anywhere. Please post statistics and balanced counter view points. - abhi (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not how it works, you have added a POV tag to this article, you now need to back your claims that it is not neutral with sources. That is how it works, so show me the sources or per policy the tags can be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Abhi, tagging the article is always reverted on this subject, irrespective of what the tag is and whether the problem the tag points out is solved or not. The article writers hate to see any kinda tags on it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You and he may want to review the usage documentation of these tags before slapping them on an article again. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Abhinay.leo is right, the article by definition is not-balanced, it needs to be Wikipedied. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Violence against Muslims in India has occurred periodically since partition so there were no incidents of violence against Muslims before partition? -sarvajna (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I had questioned the scope of the article as to what the writers mean by "India". But as always there was hardly any proper response. I feel that the scope is from pre-independence, not much but just enough to include the 1946 photograph, and then everything post independence. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The article scope was decided on some time ago, from just before partition and onwards. Do you actually have any concrete suggestions for article improvement this time around? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? and they are in archives. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why what? There is but one archive, go take a look for whatever your asking about. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Who decides the scope?You?. The point is that it is wrong to write that "Violence against Muslims in India has occurred periodically since partition" there were several incidents of Anti-Muslim violence in India before partition.-sarvajna (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Its like this:-

"The article scope was decided on some time ago, from just before partition and onwards." RESPONSE: Why?

"Do you actually have any concrete suggestions for article improvement this time around?" RESPONSE: and they are in archives. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarvajna, the scope was decided by several editors. The point is that it is not wrong to write "Violence against Muslims in India has occurred periodically since partition" for two reasons, the first it is sourced, the second being it is true. Again you are wasting time, discussion over. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Just to clarify is to the readers we should include it in the article, maybe a footnote or something. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DS, we can use some common sense, eveything that is sourced need not be written. It is true that Violence against Muslims has occured after partition, are you saying that there were no incidents of violence against Muslims before partition? -sarvajna (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed your indent, hope you do not mind. Nobody is saying there was no violence before partition, and neither is the article. The scope has to be limited or we will end up going back to the stone age with people hitting each other over the head with rocks. However if you insist on something along those lines I have a source for "Throughout the last century there has been a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in India, which results in sporadic instances of communal violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities" Will that suit you? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the entity that is India today did not exist prior to August 15, 1947. While it is ok to include pre-independence events when discussing the roots of this violence, the India we're talking about is different. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

RP, it is a very complex discussion. Take for example the article of India, there we have few things about Neolithic settlements so should someone argue that those things doesn't belong in that article? DS, I am ok with your proposal. My main point was that Anti-Muslim violence predates partition. Your point about scope going back to stone ages is nonsense one, Islam came to India in 12th century and I don't think there would be much to cover about Anti-Muslim violence in India during that time. The other incidents mostly occured after the British took control over India.-sarvajna (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your point about scope going back to stone ages is nonsense one. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue Sarvajna or did you merely misread pre-independence as stone age? Regardless, the point that the geographical entity that is India today, along with its demographics and political structures, are completely different pre and post Independence and expanding the scope to pre-independence is inappropriate, except when discussing causes and antecedents. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and incompleteness: 2002 Gujarat violence

• There are many depictions of the 1992 Bombay riots, but only 2002 Gujarat riots are covered in the section
• It is shocking to read about a minor incident about Mallika Sarabhai and not having anything about Godhra, Best bakery and Gulbarga.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not focus on specific incidents, Sarabhai is in there due to the harassment received by the state. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is abstract to note Sarabhai accusation (a celebrity accusation of sensual media), but state facts about Godhra, Best bakery and Gulbarga. Sarabhai's claim was never proved in a court of law. Promoting it seems to be POV pushing by Sarabhai. All these are important events of the violence. "The starting point for the incident was the attack on a train, which was blamed on Muslims": The name Godhra should be noted here. Best bakery, Gulbarga and Naroda Patiya are documented events part of the violence and should be noted. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Court of law? You are a sock and I claim my five pounds. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, that's a personal attack. Take a step back and calm down, and apologise when you're ready to do so. In the case that you're referring "sock" to "sockpuppet", I believe Redtiger is an established enough user to understand that policy. Darylgolden (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have had to refute that court of law bollocks to many times now to have to do it again. Sorry about the sock comment, but RT post is very similar to an editor who made the same argument and who is currently blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You could perhaps request for the editor to read the archive if you do not wish to refute your point again. I also don't think that the block was placed because of his argument but rather other disruptive edits, perhaps 3RR violations, or adding information contrary to consensus or before consensus was made. You haven't made an apology directed towards Redtiger; I believe that the previous apology was directed to me, so please do so, and let bygones be bygones. Thank you and have a nice day! Darylgolden (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You having had to refute same thing again and again shows how how you don't like it, not that all editors are socks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Not proven in a court of law" is not an acceptable argument. If reliable sources highlight something, we do too. (That said, accusing Redtigerxyz, an editor in good standing with a long history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, of being a sock is way out of line.) --regentspark (comment) 12:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Since the section is written in WP:SUMMARY style, my point is the "facts" of Godhra, Best bakery and Gulbarga (major incidents of the violence, latter two has many Muslim fatalities) be noted. We are focussing on minor incidents/accusations of a political candidate (Sarabhai), who is not even Muslim, which is UNDUE and POV IMO. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a different question that's best addressed here on the talk page. I just wanted to point out that arguments based on whether courts have or have not established the veracity of events is not an acceptable one. We go only with what reliable sources say. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

POV and OR problem in lead

Removing: "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. In particular, organizations associated with theRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal are all considered by scholars to have a central role in the violence. 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. 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."

Problem:

• The article generalizes and exaggerates referenced claims in the article. e.g.
  • "According to political scientists": only Paul Brass's view is notated. Not multiple
  • "considered by scholars": only Paul Brass's view is notated. Not multiple scholars'
• WP:OR: "The BJP, and its predecessor the Jana Sangh..."
  • In the lead as well as the main article, no reference supports this. Jana Sangh was only mentioned in lead
• Kashmir conflict
  • View of Praveen Swami is presented as mainstream view in the lead.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There are more than Brass cited in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Please point out sentences and references currently in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are 83 references in the article, are all written by Brass? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, not of them support the statements. Ref 21 (Swami) is the only reference that supports the sentence about Kashmir conflict. It is presented as a mainstream opinion of multiple scholars (in lead), rather than view of one scholar (as in the correct fashion in the article). Similarly about Brass. There are zero references to support Jana Sangh statement. Pure WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Pandey, Engineer and Jaffrelot? Do they not count? Is Swami known for espousing fringe theories? Do you have a source which says he is not mainstream? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Engineer: ref 7 and 61 are not used to endorse the ref. Pandey: ref 19 is linked to support a statement about state terrorism, not statements above. If these scholars also endorse the view, add them as references. About Jaffrelot, Jaffrelot talks anti-Muslim propaganda is part of BJP's strategy, does he say riots are? He says riots are a result of such propaganda. Checked Jaffrelot p.382: Neither Jana Sangh is mentioned nor is "The BJP, ... have used these communal riots and anti-Muslim propaganda as a part of a larger political strategy" is supported. Jeffrelot says that "there is great suspicion" that it may be true, but does not state it as a fact on that page, but supports it in latter pages. Correct the page numbers. WP:OR exists in Jana Sangh part though (section: Election related violence). Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are just posting all over the shop and just general handwaving, complain about one thing at a time. Jaffrelot 2011, p. 376 (ref) 15 most certainly supports Jana Sangh. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions

So which sources call the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots an instance of Anti-Muslim violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The last revert gave two URLs, one does not say these riots are an instance of Anti-Muslim violence, it is a general search of a newspapert, the second source is not RS. @Rasulnrasul: either provide some RS which state this is an instance of Anti-Muslim violence or I am removing it again as OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

anti-caste mentions it as anti-muslim riot.Also its under anti-muslim tag in Economictimes. This site thenews also but we can't take it as proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasulnrasul (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you not read my post? anti-caste.org is not RS, it is a blog run by some communists. A search of a newspaper does not meet RS, you need to provide RS which state this was an instance of Anti-Muslim violence, otherwise it is OR. You have till tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)