Talk:2013 Muzaffarnagar riots

Please be careful while editing this article
Dear editors, it is my utmost request to all of you to be careful while writing in this article. I know that many of you are more mature than me and you need not be told so. Kindly ignore me if it is not related to you. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with Mr. Abhijeet Safai. Even you may consider to suspend the page for coming few days, peoples are looking desperately what is actually happening, media showing a mature role by not exposing explicit details. At this moment this page contain some details of the sequence of events, which may turn out to be harmful. Raktim Abir, Kolkata, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.193.68 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the names mentioned in the article. But, I doubt whether rioters would read Wikipedia before going on a rampage. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with my pals. I found that the edit done at "12:50, 9 September 2013‎" has added the religious identities and the names of the people related to the spark of the riot. I wish this addition be removed by the authorised people, if any. ( I tried it myself, but was in vain as the article was semi-protected ). Or else, let this article be removed for some days, till the things reach normality as the death toll is increasing day after day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.245.196.20 (talk)
 * Religious identities need not be removed, as this is an article that should boost NPOV and not media's POV. Have removed the names though. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think article should be withheld for some days or else a link may be displayed that the article has been hidden in the wake of sensitive environment. Also, the conflict in ongoing and information available as of now may possibly turn out to be not true in the future. In any case, the background information given is not correct/complete. It suffers from media POV rather than neutral POV. Fact of the matter is the tensions were simmering for over a month after rape incident. Then another incident of molestation took place. Following that three people died in a scuffle which led to the violence. There was a good time lag between the rape incident and the subsequent molestation incident. For now, I think it is best if the article shows no details, just show the number of casualties. isoham (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally, you cannot blank/withhold an article in Wikipedia. It is a form of vandalism and admins would rollback the blanking action. Next, only Office_actions can blank a page and keep it as blank. That decision is taken by Wikimedia office, after legal suit or judgment from court. Do you know of any other alternative? As far as I could say, this article might serve as a debunker of "hoaxes and propaganda" that opportunists might use during this period of communal tensions. My take is "Let this article stay, but with NPOV". - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. But, as μηδείς has posted, this is already in bad shape, and is promoting hoaxes rather than debunking them. I'll add other point of views to the article too. I think wikipedia is not media. The aim is to be correct, as far as possible, not politically correct isoham (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to provide two links. One of them shows the video link of the inflammatory speeches delivered by Muslim MPs and MLAs belonging to BSP, SP and Congress at a rally on August 30. It also has excerpts from the maha-panchayat organized on Sep 07. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/videos-inciting-violence-muzaffarnagar-uttar-pradesh/1/309350.html This link shows BSP MP Qadir Rana threatening to kill all children in Muzaffar Nagar if the maha-panchayat is held.

This other link, details how the riots started when Hindus returning from the maha-panchayat were ambushed by muslims and killed in a general massacre. The riots started there after. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1888043/report-dna-special-jolly-canal-killings-triggered-the-muzaffarnagar-riots

The above massacre, is referred to as Jolly canal killings and the riots started after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babloono1 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Jolly Canal incident is covered only by single source(DNA). I doubt that the content might go away due to lack of multiple sources. But, since DNA is a reputed national newspaper I have included it into the article.- Vatsan34 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013
Sumitranandank (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please suggest what needs to referred from that article. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Content similar to that of the Firstpost article you had referred, is already added to this article. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How a Fake Video on Facebook fuelled the Riots at Muzaffarnagar ?

This would be suppresio veri suggestio falsi. This is simply the negationist media POV. Fact of the matter is the video might be fake/outdated but the what it showed had actually happened. isoham (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Almost Ready
The article is almost ready for the front page. Editors may be able to help provide a few citations and clarify some abbreviations and Hindi terms for non-Indians unfamiliar with the subject. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think those things are done now in the article. Why not include Reactions in the form of Quotes in the article? When will Timeline be brought back into the article? - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Per MOS, we are supposed to avoid timelines and put them in paragraph form. At this point I most of the timeline info has been put into paragraphs.  Eventually the bulleted timeline should be removed. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have not read MOS till now. My mistake! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Background and role of SP govt in riots
The fact that more than 40 riots have taken place during Akhilesh's govt. The govt. callousness and communal politics are responsible for the riots.. This is not mentioned in the article. Also the govt is criticised for suspending Durga Nagpal for alleged removing of a disputed structure, but in the case where riots have taken place, not a single suspension has been done. The SP govt is considered a total failure, accused for induldging in blatant communalism and its removal is sought by various political parties. . Please include this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B20 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A claim like that within this article would seem like undue weight. This is about the clashes, not Akhilesh.  Perhaps you can provide a quote or the exact claim you'd like added? μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis, the quotes that were already there under Political responses cover about the various minister's response to the govt's failure in controlling the riot. Maybe, we can uncomment quote section. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Are the Jats Hindu?
The Jat boys who were lynched seem to have been Sikhs by their names. Should the Jats be described as Hindus? μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis, I think you got confused with Singh surname. Read the article lead, the surname is not specific to Sikhs. Jat people again are not solely Hindu's but in most cases they are. In this case too, they are Hindu Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 20:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhartiya Kisan Union & Bhartiya Kisan Sangh are different groups
Bharatiya Kisan Union & Bharatiya Kisan Sangh are different so please do not attach these two different groups in the article.Bharatiya Kisan Union supremo is Naresh and Rakesh Tikait and it is basically support Rashtriya Lok Dal. Where Bharatiya Kisan Sangh is farmer wing of Bhartiya Janta Party.--Prateek Malviya (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit article "2013 Muzaffarnagar riots"
Kindly go through this article from a popular Indian news channel which can be relied upon.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/the-mystery-of-kawwal-were-muzaffarnagar-riots-based-on-distortion-of-facts-418666?pfrom=home-topstories

Your article comes with lots of discrepancies and directly blames one community for the riot. I expect you to be impartial. Rakib Akhtar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakibakhtar (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added to the article, as NDTV is a credible source. Waiting for more sources to report the incidents in the same direction. If on any differences, those contents might be removed or changed as per the outcome of dispute. - Vatsan34 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Riot came to an end now situation is under control so we can remove ongoing from infobox. Total death toll 47. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.175.152 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> India's riot-displaced decry 'evictions'(Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)).

Jauli Canal Incident
This sentence doesn't seem to be reliable enough as it is just based on the interview of one person in the DNA news website. "Although six bodies have been recovered, hundreds are still missing.[22] District Magistrate agreed that many bodies were still missing"

Also this section only presents one side of the view as there are other reports which elaborate that more Muslims than Hindus were killed in this incident.

Tehelka states the following:

″The FIRs registered so far mention the death of only seven persons. Four of them were Muslims. And the only person recorded as missing is also a Muslim. The bodies of the four Muslims were found at the site of violence and that of the three Hindus were fished out from the Jauli canal that runs through the village.″

and also that there was a two sided confrontation at this spot rather than mass killing of Panchayat participants. So this section should be properly corrected in light of the FIRs which are more reliable than what was initially reported.

90.205.61.226 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130909095145/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/UttarPradesh/Fresh-clashes-in-UP-s-Muzaffarnagar-leave-26-dead-Army-deployed-in-affected-areas/Article1-1118891.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/UttarPradesh/Fresh-clashes-in-UP-s-Muzaffarnagar-leave-26-dead-Army-deployed-in-affected-areas/Article1-1118891.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920012719/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/UttarPradesh/Muzaffarnagar-riots-normalcy-returns-army-leaves/Article1-1123633.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/UttarPradesh/Muzaffarnagar-riots-normalcy-returns-army-leaves/Article1-1123633.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Violence against Muslims in India template
A new account in his/her first/only edit deleted the Violence against Muslims in India template, with the edit summary: I have removed the "violence against Muslims in India series" from this page. The riots are violence against both parties by both parties. Showing this riot as a part in the series "violence against Muslims in India" will mean that you are leaning towards one side and not remaining unbiased.07:39, 5 February 2022

The Violence against Muslims in India template lists this article, so it is seems inappropriate to remove that template from this page. I am not convinced by the editor's argument of bias. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Jauli Canal Incident
Within "The Beti Bachao Mahapanchayat, attended by lacs of people,....." is lacs a reference to number as in 100,000s? 94.126.214.13 (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

== This was not a Hindu-Muslim riots, it was a fight between the Hindu Jat community and the Muslim Jat community for mutual honor, it started in mutual enmity and not in the name of religion ! 70% of Jats themselves have been anti-Hindu ! ==

This riot was not a targeted religious riot, it was a riot of mutual enmity, Muslim Jats first killed two Hindu Jats over a Hindu Jat girl, then Jat panchayats marched into Muslim areas, many Hindu Jats were injured, then both of them fought & were equally killed Haryanajoin (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

== Many Jats do not believe in Hinduism, most Jats themselves have been against Hinduism, they just have an imaginary god, their Jat Devta they worships him ! And these riots were not Hindu-Muslim, this is just a mutual enmity between two same community(which have different religion). ==

this is not a religious fight. Haryanajoin (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Superstitious and self-obsessed Jats worship an imaginary deity of their own, whom they call Jat Devta. Haryanajoin (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)