Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim violence in India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Anti-Muslim violence in India

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: Mughalsarai–Kanpur section

Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC).

  • First address the concerns raised in talk page by an editor. The Legend of Zorro 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I have addressed them, his concerns are invalid. You already self reverted your addition of the tags? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Self reverted for discussion first. What do you mean by concerns are invalid? Seems perfectly valid to me. The Legend of Zorro 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
His concerns are entirely invalid, I already explained why on the talk page. I can add more sources to show how wrong he is if you wish? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
You calling them invalid and he calling them valid only means that a third non-involved person should gauge them. Also more concerns are raised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Three uninvolved editors looked over the article before I moved it to mainspace. I have addressed your "concerns". I do not appreciate this kind of disruption because you guys do not appreciate the subject matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you counting RP-Sitush-Boing lot as uninvolved? And i don't care about your appreciation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You just cannot move a half baked article and be upset when we show the faults.-sarvajna (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate some DYK regulars to look this over, the two editors commenting here have been in a few disputes with me on other articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some independent assessment. I did look over it the other day and thought it looked okay, with one or two possible exceptions, but I haven't read through the talk page yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What were the exceptions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone willing to review this? Or shall it sit in limbo for eternity Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Let's hoist the "reviewer needed" icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule reviews

  • First of all, the article is long-enough, well sourced, and reasonably well written. (A copy-edit would be welcome; presumably Indian English would be the standard.) The hook is marginally appropriate because it attributes a quotation (rather than making a direct statement)—however, a less subjective statement would be preferable. Alt1 is already better along these lines, and Darkness Shines might consider composing others. That doesn't mean that the hook must be whitewashed, rosy, or falsely evenhanded.
  • To us, this seems like a well-written article about a difficult topic. There are some complaints about bias on the talk page, but none of the complainers have produced a single source to challenge the claims being made here. The article is focused on victimization of Muslims, and not acts by Muslims, because it's about anti-Muslim violence: a well-established and discrete topic in the literature.
  • The article sympathizes with the interpretation that this violence is systemic, political, and primarily directed at Muslims. There is strong evidence for this interpretation. However, there undeniably exist scholarly sources who discuss this conflict as a more bilateral "Hindu–Muslim conflict", and this interpretation must be given more weight. (Indeed, although it should not supplant "Anti-Muslim violence", it might be reasonable for an article on "Hindu–Muslim conflict" to exist.)
  • This book seems to use a more evenhanded tone. Even this author, who argues that there is an "institutionalized system of riot production" and agrees that Muslims feel the brunt of it, frequently uses the term Hindu–Muslim violence. Even if the violence is driven by right-wing Hindu authorities, it is necessary to acknowledge that on the ground the violence is at least somewhat back-and-forth.
  • Conclusion for now: the article is not heavily biased, but needs to present a wider spectrum of scholarly viewed, rather than just listing one-line opinions of scholars in support of an apparent single conclusion. Presenting some issues that provoke serious debate in the scholarly literature would go a long way towards increasing neutrality in the article's tone. The article doesn't have to be a complete literature review before it runs as a DYK—but for a topic of this seriousness it is necessary to at least identify a range of scholarly opinions. Darkness Shines, can you add some discussion into the article? You have done a really great job so far, and we appreciate your work. groupuscule (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
@Groupuscule: First, thank you for the review. I have posted to the guild of copy-editors to give it a once over already. Two of the sources you suggested have no preview on GBooks, so I will either have to purchase them or order them through the library, however my time is limited over the next few weeks. The paper you linked to is pretty good, thank you for that. I will review Brass's books again to look for some balancing content, I assume you wish for me to add incidents by Muslims which were a spark to begin an instance of mass violence? Such as Godhra was used as an excuse for the 2002 violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Even better than adding the incidents themselves would be adding a statement or two about how these incidents are discussed in popular and/vs scholarly literature. We're talking about the type of analysis presented in the first paragraph of the lead, in the sentences starting with "Inside India,...". It seems like you are describing a situation where the pogroms appear to represent spontaneous reactions to the actions of Muslims, but in fact are organized (and/or encouraged, sanctioned, otherwise aided & abetted) by the state and by right-wing Hindu powers that be. This seems like the consensus view of academics (though we haven't researched in enough depth to guarantee this claim). Even so it would be a great benefit if the article could explain better (a) that the appearance of a more bilateral (and thus presumably 'uncontrollable') 'cycle of violence' exists, and (b) how exactly this appearance is created. Does that make sense? Feel free to say 'no'. groupuscule (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you jump into the conversion here please, RP and Maunus seem to be thinking along the same lines as yourself and they may be better suited to the task as I do not know if I will have the time to do what you are requesting, although I shall of course try. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook: (1) We cannot have comment from one person as a hook for a subject as voluminous and exceptional. (2) Has India faced international sanctions/ censure regarding the treatment of Muslims? Like for example the "Former Yugoslavia? One scholar's opinion can't be used for a statement like this. (3) "Scarred" is a weasel word. (4) Has a security council resolution been passed, any other resolution in UN fora of similar stature. (5) Wikipedia isn't a repository for the sensational. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Just pointing out that Yogesh Khandke is one of the people mentioned by Groupuscule in his review above, lotsa waffle, no sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been expanding the article with demographics and economic disparity as being another cause for the violence, the article has also been tweaked by RegentsPark and Maunus. It really is time this got promoted, how often does such a well sourced article get to DYK? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the issues with the hook, the name of the article has been proposed to be changed, Maunus mentioned by DS has suggested an alternative to the name I've proposed, the DYK shouldn't be done pending such an important matter as the title of the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have not proposed a move request so that is not a relevant issue for the DYK process + nor has anyone else.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There are no issues with the hook, and the article is not getting moved. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Maunus said: "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." We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion, disputed in the lead itself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no relation between that statement of mine and your argument about the hook. I have not made a move proposal, I aired an idea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
@Yogesh Khandke: What is disputed about the hook exactly? Or is this going to be another time wasting exercise were you provide no sources and just "know" that what Pandey has said is disputed? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
@DS: (1) On Wikipedia, consensus decides the state of its articles, editors have to learn handle disagreements and not personally attack those who disagree. If my arguments are bad, whoever closes this would judge them, it isn't for you to accuse me of "time wasting... again", you've called me disruptive earlier. I request you to apologise. (2) The hook statement implies that some how India is a "terrorist state" that is an exceptional claim to make, there have to be exceptional sources. One scholar's views shouldn't supply such a wide sweeping comment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
@Maunus I didn't claim that the move argument and the hook argument are related, they are different, my view is that the title of the article or even its structure is disputed, I presented your statement verbatim as evidence of suggested alternative title. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As I thought, no sources. There are more than one source which says these instances of mass violence are akin to state terrorism, and you need to look up the difference between a "terrorist state" and state terrorism. And I did not accuse you of time wasting, I asked if this was to be another time wasting exercise, which it now appears to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, you wrote "We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion" I asked you who is it disputed by, you failed to respond. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) How can I supply sources for absence of something? Please supply evidence that India has been sanctioned for being a terrorist state, just like Iran or N Korea or Afghanistan or others were? We cannot have controversial opinions however scholarly as hooks. (2)"A terrorist state is a state that indulges in terrorism." The perpetrator of terrorist acts is a terrorist. (3) Please don't accuse me of wasting time, this is a collaborative project, in such a project participants have to learn to live with those who do not agree with them and not berate their efforts as worthless time wasting. Please don't attack me personally. It isn't for you to judge me, it is for the DYK referee to do so. (3) We cannot call something "state terror" based on hearsay howsoever scholarly it may be. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You are not making sense at all and yes tyou are wasting the projects time by your nonsense. You are being asked to please supply a source that this view is disputed. We are not calling anythinf state terror, we are repeating the verifiable fact that Praveen Swami has said that it is. Your efforts are worthless time wasting because its only objective is clearly to wikilaywer and twist policies in any way possible in order for nothing unpleasant to be said about India and Narenda Modi. By doing so you are harming, not helping the project.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
@Yogesh Khandke: You said it was disputed, given that as usual you have no sources and this is obviously another waste of my time I am quite simply done with you. If this article is not promoted within 24hrs I will withdraw it myself and DYK can lose a well written and well sourced article on an important subject, personally I am fed up of this messing around. I have had three DYKs promoted since I wrote this, the fact that it is being held hostage is terribly, terribly wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • From where groupuscule is sitting (in the library) the article is reasonably well-sourced and reasonably well-written. ALT2 is accurate and central to the topic as its presented here. This topic seems to be attracting a lot of controversy—at least within Wikipedia. Let's quickly run it by DYK talk just to get a few more eyeballs on it. groupuscule (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What is this library thing that you speak of? Do you mean Google? SL93 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have compared this article to Religious violence in India and given the length and scope of the latter, have concluded that there is at least a case to be made for the existence of a separate article on this particular aspect of the wider topic. There also looks to be enough new material here to meet DYK requirements. I have also read through the article talk page (though not yet the archive) and the discussion above, and haven't seen much in the way of substantive criticism from the article's critics.
On the other hand, I share groupuscule's concerns above that the article may be presenting a somewhat one-dimensional view of the conflict. I also have a concern that the tone and presentation may be giving a misleading impression of the scale and prevalence of the violence. I think therefore that the next step will be to spend some time reading the source material to see how it compares. I probably won't have time to do that today but will endeavour to do so tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
@DS: You've to provide evidence for India being a terrorist state, evidence more solid than Pandey's opinion. Do you want me to provide Evidence of absence?
@All: Can we have a statement like "xx argues..." as a DYK. I may be wrong but I assumed that DYK is about facts and not about opinions or arguments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a source, you say it is disputed, I ask who is this disputed by? You as usual have no source, so take a hike until such a time as you do in fact get some sources to support your pointless arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"take a hike", "pointless arguments" I'd read before I commented. I wrote on 14:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)' "We cannot have a hook that is a disputed opinion, disputed in the lead itself." Do you want me to link to the article whose DYK discussion is in progress here? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You keep writing that it is disputed, who is it disputed by? Until you have a source which disputes what is in the article take a hike, you are just wasting not only my time, but anyone else who is reviewing the DYK. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Why are you speaking on behalf of others? Do you want me to copy the lead of the article here, as it stood when I wrote the comment? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Jesus christ, it does not matter what the article says, nor the lede, nor anything. You, and only you are saying that the hook is disputed, I have asked you three of four times now who is disputing it, you have yet to provide a source, so all you are being is is disruptive and tendentious. Either come with sources or do not post, how difficult is that for you to understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) The DYK represents the article, why does it not matter what the lead mentions? The lead stated that "Many scholars have described incidents of anti-Muslim violence as politically motivated and organized, preferring to call them pogroms or acts of genocide rather than mere riots." Isn't there a dispute regarding nomenclature? Whether the incidents be called "pogroms" "genocide or "riots"?[1] Why should the DYK endorse one of the many disputed nomenclatures? (2) Secondly why should the DYK succumb to hyperbolic opinions of some scholars? Genocide or program is an exceptional claim, have there been any convictions or international sanctions against the Indian state alleged to be perpetuating "state terrorism", like Iran, N Korea, Afghanistan? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong Yogesh. It is a very widely held claim that the 2002 riots were a pogrom, I would say that outside of India it is in fact the consensus - and it is also a very commonly held view outside of hindutva circles in India. It is by no means an exceptional claim. Your idea of what DYK should and shouldn't be seems to have no basis in any familiarity with DYK or other editorial processes on wikipedia, but as usual you are attempting to make it seem as if your POV pushing has a basis in policy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"View" you're right, commonly held is your opinion. If my objections are not DYK compliant, they would be overruled. "Program" or "genocide" is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources, do you have a UN security council resolution, an international tribunal or the like describing it so? The article rightly carries opinions of scholars, as "opinions of scholars", is DYK about opinions? I need to be informed by an uninvolved editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
O look, we are back to the legal crap again. As for "exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources" we have them, they are in the article, they have been explained on you on that article talk page ad nauseum, you refuse to get the point however and just keep blowing smoke. For the last fucking time, either get sources which dispute that which is in the article or let it go. I am this >< close to filing an AE against you for this constant disruption. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no control over what you do or the abuse you shower. All I can suggest is to let other editors judge the arguments presented. There are uninvolved editors here, it is for them to take the call. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked policy regarding Wikipedia:DYK#The_hook, the hook is required to be (a) a fact, (b) an established fact (c) neutral, non of the three alternatives suggested above confirm any of these criteria. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What a pile of rubbish, unless Pandey has written something which says he has changed his mind over what he wrote then the hook is (a) a fact, (b) an established fact (c) neutral. It is a fact that Pandey said it, it is established as we the academic source which states it, it is neutral per our policies. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
You are insulting all the editors who have made these rule by calling it pile of rubbish. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Erm, no. I am saying YK arguments are rubbish, which is not surprising given his previous. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the relevance of Pandey's descriptions or Swami's beliefs, the hook should be neutral; one person's beliefs or descriptions are not examples of neutrality esp regarding a controversial subject. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you never tire of violating your topic ban? The hook is neutral per our policies, until such a time as you actually have a source which actually disputes anything in the article all you are doing is being a tendentious and disruptive pain in the rectum. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that Anti-Muslim violence might have scarred modern Indian history, but not as surely as both anti-Hindu- and anti-Muslim violence had scarred it in the years immediately preceding India's independence. What this has to do with Parveen Whosoever (never heard of him) or Gyanendra Pandey (partition scholar) is a little obscure. I don't see that all anti-Muslim violence in India is the result of provocation by Hindu nationalist groups. DYK is a waste of time and reeks a little of POV-pushing. End speedily. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not suggest another hook? I have worked damned hard on this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Added some alts Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
:) OK, here is one I believe is better: DYK ... Anti-Muslim violence in India has rarely occurred in South India? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm good with that, BTW welcome back from your travels. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment In a case like this, where the article is about an issue that is by nature divisive, I would suggest it is best to avoid using an opinion in the hook—and if an opinion has to be used, make sure that it is a moderate opinion that the largest possible number of people on both sides of the conflict could agree with. Andreas JN466 23:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Jayen. We can't really put in opinions as facts in a DYK hook. Not without qualifiers like "some historians think" or "some scholars believe" and those would defeat the purpose of a DYK. I suggest this DYK nom be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not withdrawing it, I have put up with crap for the last six weeks from POV pushers who just want the article gone, I am not having all that time and energy wasted. There are no valid reasons at all for pulling this DYK Darkness Shines (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And if a hook titled "giant blue cock" is good enough for DYK then this article sure as hell is. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT3. Jayen is right; there should be no opinions from "scholars," named or not, in a DYK on such a contentious and emotional issue. (Selfish disruptions help show how contentious it is.) ALT3 is a plain statement of facts where ALT4 might be construed as an oblique effort to influence opinion. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India&oldid=1022078044"