Talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India/Archive 1

Note: This is the original talkpage Talk:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. Its article, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, was deleted in June 2013. A partially identical successor article Anti-Muslim violence in India was created on 24 June 2013. The old edit history of the pre-June 2013 article has been hist-merged into the newer page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

POV tag added
The whole article is against the WP:NPOV. The article has used sources which do not confirm that these incidences are "pogroms". Refer points raised at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_4. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And you have checked every source then? Which strikes me as strange as every source says the incidents in the article are pograms. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No one disagrees that Muslims were killed. No one disagrees that people have called it pogrom. Our objection is just on that fact that they werent really "pogroms". By definition, a massacre or persecution would be pogrom if government authorities are proven to have been involved in it. Even after that, Persecution of Muslims is a right article to include this all. Wait a minute, its already all there. And in case you want to use this current title, you would need to prove that this term pogrom is so common when it comes to persecution of Muslims in India, that the article has to absolutely be present her itself. Until that is done, the article remains a POV, for its very title. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take the sources used to the RSN board, the title is neutral as we have so many academic sources which use it, it is a perfectly common name. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has blatant NPOV issues. It was not a drive-by tagging. Dharma has given a rationale here. You're only cherry-picking sources. It is nowhere even in the vicinity of a common name. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend you stop your disruptive editing, you guys are only doing this to prevent the article going through DYK. MrT, you said earlier that tagging an article should be a Tagging should be the last resort. Unjustified tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tags should be added as a last resort., when I tagged Godra train burning the tags were removed almost immediately, you guys do not get to decide when tags are OK and when they are not. Further disruption will leave me little choice but to take things further. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * DS, you removed "who?" tags without addressing the issue. That is disruptive editing. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has numerous issues and i see no point in cleaning them. Hence taking to AFD now. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagging an author of an academic paper because you do not know who they are is disruptive, it would take you all of a few minutes to google their names to find out. The only issues with the article are that some would deny that these pograms occur. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it takes only few minutes to google and find out, why aren't you doing it instead of removing maintenance tags? If you find his essay notable, you should establish that notability through writing. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly some horrible POV writing and generally low-quality writing here. It starts with the first sentence: "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India refer to pogroms carried out with the state's tacit approval[1] against the minority Muslim population." First, we have the usual use-mention mismatch of the wrongly used "refer" here. Anti-Muslim pogroms don't "refer" to things, they are things (see WP:REFER). This kind of use of "refer" is a clumsy and logically wrong attempt at introducing a (circular and redundant) pseudo-definition for a term that, per WP:REDUNDANCY, doesn't actually need a definition at all. But then comes the POV howler: somebody has integrated the phrase "with the state's tacit approval" as if it were part of the definition – i.e. a defining criterion of what makes an event an "anti-Muslim pogrom" (rather than an accidental property of anti-Muslim pogroms). That's both logically wrong in principle, and a misrepresentation of the source, because the source only speaks of government toleration of one specific anti-Muslim campaign in 1992.

If this had been written by a newbie, one might consider it a one-off mistake. But it's been written by an active, long-term contributor with a months-long involvement in POV fights. From such a contributor, this is inexcusable. It deserves a ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the statements sourced? Are they accurate to the sources? Yes they are. So you think a ban should be enacted because you do not like my grammar? The opening sentences are not a definition, they are what the article is about. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And the source mentions more than one pogram, so you are wrong on that also. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking about 'accuracy of sources', I might as well reproduce my comment at the AfD. *:As an example of the WP:OR nature of the article, it is worthwhile looking at the very first sentence in the article. Reference 1, for example, cited in support of "states tacit approval" is a book by Barbara Metcalf. The book makes no mention of pogroms whatsoever. The cited page makes no mention of state approval for violence against muslims, let alone pogroms against them. What it does say is that the Babri Masjid controversy was fueled in part by the "connivance of government officials". That is a far cry from violence, let alone pogroms. Accurate. I think not. --regentspark (comment) 20:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to respond to you there but here is good enough, the source does say pograms, "followed by anti muslim pograms in bombay and elsewhere in 2002 a second pogram was unleashed in Gujarat" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. You're right. I didn't read far enough. But note that the source doesn't say that these 'pogroms' were with state approval tacit or not. All she says is that the Babri Masjid controversy was fueled - in part - by the connivance of government officials. Still, I suppose you're right about the use of the word 'pogrom'. --regentspark (comment) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya, cos of course government officials do not work for the state do they. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, sarcasm aside, there is a difference between individual government officials doing something and 'tacit state approval'. For example, when low level police officers take bribes for running a red light, it does not follow that the police department tacitly approves of its citizens running red lights. --regentspark (comment) 22:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you still don't see what's wrong with taking a source that states that one anti-Muslim pogrom was (indirectly) connected with government involvement, and use that to support a sentence that claims that government involvement is an essential feature of all anti-Muslim pogroms, do you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re RP The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" Will that do you? Re FPaS, I have nothing to say to you at all, I already told you the source mention more than one pogram, if you choose to ignore that then that is your lookout. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is when you take things out of context. Do the 2002 gujarat riots fall under the label of a pogrom? Perhaps but there is no certainty about it and there are plenty of differing views. To list it under 'pogroms' is, imo, incorrect. If, on the other hand, views that some of these anti-Muslim riots were pogroms were included in 'religious violence in India', that would be properly contextualized and appropriate. That these were pogroms with state approval is one view point amongst many others and therein lies the problem of shoving them into a single article. --regentspark (comment) 22:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need some remedial lessons in logic. Think again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RP, on Bombay, "nine days of anti muslim pograms (sic) sanctioned by the Bombay police" Freedom in the World 1993-94: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1993-1994 p47 On Gujarat, "The 2002 pogrom took place with the full approval of Gujarat's State Government" State Terrorism: Torture, Extra-judicial Killings, and Forced Disappearances p191. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than a bunch of Wikipedia editors and some newspapers which call them riots (though a great many also call them pograms), who says it was not a pogram? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me for a reference that says "the 2002 gujarat riots were not a pogrom"? That's a bit silly. There are plenty of sources that describe the riots without mentioning the word pogrom even once (eg. ). A pogrom is a fairly extreme sort of organized riot and not a word that should be used lightly. --regentspark (comment) 22:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking you for a source which says that those who call Gujarat a pogram are wrong, other than Wikipedia editors I have seen none, but more than enough which say it was a pogram. I cannot access that source BTW, I do not have JSTOR access. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems DS you need to learn how to spell "pogrom" correctly, before flinging atrocious allegations against State governments. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RP, I accessed that source and I see Engineer gives plenty of detail on police complicity in Gujarat. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is a professor of biomedical engineering, Ram Puniyani, a reliable source for these massive claims that "'those who carry out these pograms are portrayed as 'heroes' who have defended the majority from 'anti-nationals'.'"
 * or "'that Thackery and Shiv Sena were victorious in the elections due to the pograms in the 1990's, as was Modi after the 2002 pogram'"
 * is what I can't fathom. How is his views due, why are these getting cherry-picked? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This source (page 2) is used for the claim that "Since Partition there have been several pogroms carried out against Muslims in Gujarat" (emphasis mine) but the book doesn't explicitly claim any such things. Rather based on the informal conversations with the locals the author had, he simplistically deduced, as it seems, that since "many still agreed that the events in 2002 had been ′politics′ " the government must have played a part and it must have been a pogrom. It's just one example out of many such distortions. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

section break
Re Ram Puniyani he has won these awards for his work on these issues, * Maharashtra Foundation (US) award for Social awareness about threat of Communal Politics-2002 Association For Communal Harmony in Asia-ACHA Star Award for Peace and Communal Harmony-2004 Fr. Machio Memorial Foundation Humanitarian Award 2005 Indira Gandhi National Integration Award 2006 National Communal Harmony Award 2007 so his views are worthy of inclusion. Re Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India you are saying that an academic who undertook research is simplistically deducing things? Right. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Awards, do you know that we don't use Robert Spencer as a source for Islamic topics, we don't regard him as even reliable? Do you know why? He has got awarded many times too. His books have become best-sellers. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Puniyani has worked towards human rights for twenty odd years, he is an expert in the field, hence the awards he received. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ram Puniyani is an ideologue, who not only is not an expert in the fields you claim he is, but oftentimes things attributed to him are found in op-eds and questionable sources.Pectoretalk 06:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarify tag
The Nellie massacre has been described as one the largest and most severe pogroms since WW2. I fail to see how this sentence can be any clearer, would the tagger explain his reasons. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Its written there. "After the Zanzibar Revolution of 1964, 8000 to 17000 Arabs and Indians were massacred by John Okello's forces. How does this description of "one of the largest and most severe pogroms since WW2" by this so-called-academic source stand correct?" §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with what is written in this article, read the line "has been described" It does not matter if there have been larger mass killings, the sentence is sourced and accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But the statement is factually wrong. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is accurate. Again has been described as, that is accurate in that the incident is being described as "one the largest and most severe pogroms since WW2" Darkness Shines (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That shows us how notable this source is and also shows how you precisely pick such sentences which are factually wrong. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not factually wrong at all, what part of It has been described as do you not understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The source reads "...All victims were Na-Asamiya Muslims. Undoubtedly, the Nellie massacre is one of the largest and severest pogroms that the post-World War II history has witnessed." The source states it as a fact, which in fact is wrong. Non-notable source! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't shout DS. That's the problem with source misrepresentation, the source is clearly making a subjective claim, (note the use of the word "undoubtedly"). Secondly that incident is not generally described as "the largest and severest pogroms that the post-World War II history has witnessed" it's only one man's opinion. I think the credibility of the claim is dubious like the plurality of the claims in the article. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the source gives an opinion, but it can also be a fact to say is one of because that is also true. A source does not have to be notable, so I have no idea why you are even saying that. You are wrong and I am removing your tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That extreme allegation is not due in absence of other more pertinent facts about the Nellie massacre. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not an allegation, and the murder of 5000 odd mostly woman and children is a large pogrom in anyone's books, so tough luck, as it is sourced, accurate and the tag is just disruption. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "and the murder of 5000 odd mostly woman and children is a large pogrom in anyone's books" - any massacre is dreadful, no doubt. But to frame them as "pogroms" basing on a leap of faith and thereby goading people to believe what is, at best, dubious information is not our job, DS. That book clearly mentions that "Hindu Bengalis" also fell prey to communal violence as a result of the movement in Assam. You don't seem to take that into consideration. FYI, "pogrom" doesn't have much to do with the numbers but the mal-intent, acquiescence and complicity of the ruling party .  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to think I need to discuss this further, I have no need to do so. I am right, you two are wrong. It is that simple and as such the clarify tag will be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, you think your ad nauseam repetition of your appeals to emotion is enough for you to obdurately and dismissively declare that you're right and we two are wrong? That is unhelpful. FYI, I disagree with the clarify tag, I think the unfounded sensationalist claim in its entirety should be excised. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not care what you think, all I care about is WP:RS & WP:V. As stated, I am right, you two are, as usual wrong. That is the end of this discussion so far as I am concerned, your restoration of a pointless tag based on a pointless discussion shows just how disruptive you have become. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "all I care about is WP:RS & WP:V." - true, because you obviously don't care about anything else, like Neutral point of view, WP:CIVILITY, WP:LABEL, etc. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Double standards much? I am happy that you reaffirmed the stipulation that if reliable sources support a claim, good or bad, that claim should be there in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines, you're taking things out of context and applying it to something that is drastically different. At least, 5 editors have disagreed with you on this matter. Don't attack me. I didn't say that I don't care about anything else. Read the full comment, it was in support of the claim that Neutrality is indispensable. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not taking anything out of context, and what 5 editors? There are but two who are wrong in this thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is silly. About this one, Darkness Shines is correct. The source is rendered correctly, and it is not so obviously wrong as to allow its summary dismissal. The expression "one of the largest" is obviously vague. So, how many worse ones would there have to be in order for it to be no longer counted as among "one of" the worst? So far, one event in Zanzibar has been cited above. The existence of one or a small number of events that have been on a par with or exceeded the one in Nellie obviously doesn't contradict the statement that it is somewhere among a group of the worst. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the mention of the Nellie Massacre does not make it clear if it is "one of the worst in India since World War II" or "one of the worst anywhere in the world since World War II".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)