Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India/Archive 1

Rape of Muslim women by Hindu Male?
Why is this article talking only about the Rape of Muslim women by Hindu Males? It is a heavily biased and redundantly communal claim. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source supports the claim, stop removing it. If you want the article to speak of rapes of Hindus by Muslims then add it to the article. I have not yet had time to expand it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And who added a factual accuracy tag? What in the article is not factual or sourced? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says a lot of things and you are only picking and choosing the rape of muslim women. That's tendentious editing dear. I know your intention is good. But please be considerate and balance the line. Women from both Muslim and Hindu communities got raped. You cannot say only muslims' rape is well-documented. Search the net if you want to go down that path. However, I would humbly suggest you to either not name any community or be even-handed. And who added a factual accuracy tag? - I didn't, check history. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can say whatever the source says, like I said add to the article. When I have the time it will be expanded to cover everything, at the moment time will not allow it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope so and I am counting on your future-edits . Cheers, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent sources again, your change was totally unacceptable. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do explain where did I misrepresent sources. I am not aiming to misrepresent anything, you're the one who is attributing wrong claims to wrong sources and cherry-picking content. I suggest you report me and I will accept the consensus. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not remove legitimate content, DS. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fresh start
It is a tentative suggestion and the language is subject to future improvements or expansions of course. And I formally accept that my removal of the source was un-called for but I honestly didn't know that I removed it, I must have missed it in the rush and with all that was going on as it was pretty hard to keep track of what I removed or restored. I thought that I simply added the source (which, now as it seems, I unwittingly removed) after correcting the line or after making it neutral. My contention is this much, that the current claim is only a subset of the verifiable truth and the rape of women belonging to other communities is also equally minutely documented and we gotta represent the ideas fairly in proportion to their prominence. I believe I have provided the sources needed to establish the claim that it was not only Hindus who were raping women and I can provide more source if needed. Besides, if you read at least a considerable portion of the book  you will hopefully see that it's an attempt to restore balance by saying that - and I am paraphrasing the gist - Yeah, Hindus also raped Muslim women during partition and they were not pacifists either, Hindus were equally involved. But to frame that as the reference to the claim that Hindu men raped Muslim women while ignoring the well-recorded plight of non-muslim women altogether would be unfair, seems reasonable? But again I consider that book a reliable source and, unlike the biased claim, it adds a much needed dimension to the whole article. I hope I am concise enough. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Read, , Women victims of partition -- Brutalised and humiliated by Andrew Whitehead and also Women and Partition for more insight. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Again I cannot help but notice you have remove an academic sources along with the content as you do not like it, that is not on. I also began a rewrite Let me know what you think. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved comment: MrT apologized above for removing sources, claims it was inadvertently done, so assume good faith that this was so and move on. If an academic source is again missing from the proposal above, explain which one that is and how it might fit in. Your proposed revision also appears to address MrT's concerns about specifying who was raped by whom; hopefully MrT can comment on that. It seems the only significant difference between your two proposals is the last sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the re-write, right?
 * Why does it say, "Rape_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir"?
 * Would you mind adding ″Bhasin, Ritu Menon & Kamla (1998). Borders & boundaries : women in India's partition (1. publ. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. p. 41. ISBN 0813525527.″ also as the source and add a statement that explains the sentiments behind the rape, I think, neutrally? The reason might sound something like this: The women belonging to Hindu and Muslim community were raped and tortured by the men of the other "in an overt assertion of their identity and a simultaneous humiliation of the other by 'dishonouring' their women."
 * These are my opinions and apart from that I don't any issues with your re-write. You have my consent. Thank you and let's move on. I would like Amatulic's intellectual opinion on the last line also, if he doesn't mind of course. Could it be any better, Mr. Amatulic? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is on the talkpage of another rewrite, go add what you want and I will tidy it up. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My only "intellectual" opinion is that the wording seems awkward. Maybe make it more concise, like "Both Hindu and Muslim women were raped and tortured by men from their opposing community." I'm not sure the appending quotation is necessary either. Nor am I sure my suggestion has any merit. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then leave out the appending quotation from that line. And DS, I agree with Amatulic that the language does seem awkward please do something about it. But should we not say anything about the reason? That I think most of the readers would be curious about. Because we have at least one source (I believe there are other sources too) describing the reason, I think we should mention the reason in order to enhance the image of animosity or something like that. Nor am I sure my suggestion has any merit. - come on, Amatulic. Cheers, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed up what you added, does Amatulic speak of your proposal above or mine in userspace? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about that but I was alluding to your re-write. The wording "The rape of Muslim women by Hindu males during this period is well documented, with women also being complicit in these attacks. As was the rape of Hindu women by Muslim males." seems awkward. If you could rephrase it concisely, like "Both Hindu and Muslim women were raped and tortured by men from their opposing community.", it would be better. That's all. And do we really need the word well-documented? Another thing is that in your userspace, you have modified my addition to make it sound like it's only Ritu Menon's personal claim, I could not help but wonder "why?''"
 * {| class="wikitable"

!colspan=2|Your edits ! Before!! After
 * Women were raped by the men belonging to other communities "in an overt assertion of their identity and a simultaneous humiliation of the other by 'dishonouring' their women." || According to Ritu Menon one of the reasons for these rapes was "an overt assertion of their identity and a simultaneous humiliation of the other by 'dishonouring' their women."
 * }
 * If you read  you'll find an explicit allusion to the contents of the organizer magazine, RSS mouthpiece at that time, where they wrote, abducting and raping women was an "age-old practice of Muslims", which "made the Nation writhe in pain and anguish". Of course it's untrue but owing to its verifiability, is it in the article to demonstrate what the situation was and what type of mindset was there? It doesn't necessarily have to be, nope. But the claim of Muslim women being raped by Hindu men was a response to that aforementioned claim in order to restore balance. Also the book mentions Krishna Sharma of the VHP's women's wing saying ″if they rape[muslims] 10-15 of our women we must also rape a few[of theirs] to show them that we are no less″ — are these in the article to show what the people of Hindu-community thought? Nope. But same is valid for this one too. Also don't forget the mass suicide of Sikh and Hindu women in Rawalpindi's villages that were under attack by Muslilms (March, 1947) Mention the forced deaths and conversions, amputation of breasts, self-immolation to save honor, and other heinous tortures.[source: Bhasin, Ritu Menon & Kamla (1998). Borders & boundaries : women in India's partition (1. publ. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. p. 42-43. ISBN 0813525527.] Also read the following:
 * If you read  you'll find an explicit allusion to the contents of the organizer magazine, RSS mouthpiece at that time, where they wrote, abducting and raping women was an "age-old practice of Muslims", which "made the Nation writhe in pain and anguish". Of course it's untrue but owing to its verifiability, is it in the article to demonstrate what the situation was and what type of mindset was there? It doesn't necessarily have to be, nope. But the claim of Muslim women being raped by Hindu men was a response to that aforementioned claim in order to restore balance. Also the book mentions Krishna Sharma of the VHP's women's wing saying ″if they rape[muslims] 10-15 of our women we must also rape a few[of theirs] to show them that we are no less″ — are these in the article to show what the people of Hindu-community thought? Nope. But same is valid for this one too. Also don't forget the mass suicide of Sikh and Hindu women in Rawalpindi's villages that were under attack by Muslilms (March, 1947) Mention the forced deaths and conversions, amputation of breasts, self-immolation to save honor, and other heinous tortures.[source: Bhasin, Ritu Menon & Kamla (1998). Borders & boundaries : women in India's partition (1. publ. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. p. 42-43. ISBN 0813525527.] Also read the following:


 * I hope these help lend some perspective into the matter. Now in light of this, why not merge the two sentences (in your user-space) and make it more neutral from our perspective by saying that ″The women belonging to Hindu, Sikh and Muslim community were raped and tortured by the men driven by communal vengeance″ or something of that sort. Also don't forget about Sikh women. Or, you can include those lines above as fairly as possible simply to establish the outlook of the common people. This will help a reader understand the complex dynamics of the link between Partition and rape. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Any chance you can make your posts more concise mate? It is dificult to read wit hthose big breaks for quotes and such. I am happy with how my version reads, I had to edit what you added as the author was giving her opinion, not stating it as fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I could make it more concise, I would. I had to edit what you added as the author was giving her opinion, not stating it as fact - Then everything can be reduced to simply an opinion. It's just a way of looking at it. But if you think that is not true and unreasonable you are free to say that it's her opinion. But I, for one, don't think it's needed. There is a cornucopia of sources to support that these rapes were connected with "communal vengeance" now you may have modified the language and we could have called it a day. Read these books:Thank you. And in case you haven't, kindly read what I wrote. I am happy with how my version reads - well, that's what the issue is all about isn't it? I am, to some extent, not exactly happy with your rewrite. But I must admit, it has improved. Thanks to you. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape during the partition of India → Violence against women during the partition of India – - this is the broader issue here (Communal Violence). Rape is an imprecise description (since it was much more than just sexual) and this narrow focus on rape while ignoring all the corollary/supplementary violence is to some extent unrealistic. It had little to do with rape and more to do with communal violence. In the talk there is consensus. This is just a procedural thing that I was told to do. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the violence was a result of rape or attempted rape. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? It's still violence and it will cover rape. It is not a vote for heaven's sake. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what notavote has do do with it, I am objecting to your proposal as the majority of violence towards women such as, mutilations, killings & suicides were all a direct result of rape or attempted rape. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the forced conversions, self-immolation after being raped, non-sexual torture, honor killings? Currently this narrow focus on "rape" as opposed to violence against women in general, is uncalled-for. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if anything the proposed name is a better or more precise description. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Read what you wrote. honour killings = a result of rape. Self-immolation = a result of or to prevent rape. Non-sexual torture = Sadistic rape. For more see Criminology By Larry J. Siegel. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit requests are only for actions that already have consensus, and judging from the discussion above, consensus on this issue is far from guaranteed. The proper thing to do in this situation is to set up a requested move discussion per the instructions at Requested moves. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I think there's a point here: not all women affected by the partition were neccessarily rape victims. Others would have also been affected in other (non-sexual) ways which this article should cover, such as mental/physical torture and harrassment etc.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 23:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I have been thinking it over and you guys are probably right, Rape during the partition of India can remain as a redirect. Protection expires in three days so may as well move it then rather than waste admin time on an edit protect. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mar4d. I am guessing that we don't need to go for a Requested moves discussion? Thanks DS and Mar4d. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it seems you're all now in agreement, I can perform the move. However, if you feel this move might be contentious (I personally don't think it would be), by all means propose it at WP:RM first. Pretty much all you need to do is create an entry and remove the editrequest banner from this section. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you hesitant. Please go ahead with the move, thanks. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you in a hurry? An RM is visible to a much wider audience than those who normally patrol this talk page. An RM should be open seven days to give others a chance to comment. If nobody objects in the next few of days, I'll move it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, I am not in a hurry. I wrote the penultimate comment on  asking you to just go ahead since you said you don't think it would be contentious and you could perform the move after that I re-read your comments and thought that you were perhaps more comfortable with an RM. So I turned it into an RM. It's not like I asked you to move it after I made it an RM.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quotation not relevant to this article.
(Apologies for the anonymous edit, I'm new.)

Not an unimportant person, but not important enough either. There are at least a dozen right wing political groups in India and Pakistan each. To cite their worst opinions may not be the best means to explore this topic.

My best Google efforts suggest that the lady in question is one of many leaders of a city branch of the VHP. And the term 'leader' is rather nebulous. What is she? A spokesperson, an office-holder, an organizer? There's no real biographical information on the individual anywhere, except for a treasure trove of similar comments.

Also, we're talking about violence against women during the partition of India. This lady is a contemporary activist and not a historical one, and the relevant comment is made, presumably, in the context of the 'post demolition of Babri Masjid' riots in Bombay, 1992.

Was she a 'leader' twenty years ago? Can't really say. See here.

I see in the edit history that there's been some wrangling about according equal coverage to Hindu and Muslim atrocities, but that's not what I have in mind when I talk about neutrality. Maybe I mean objectivity? By quoting one self-promoting hack on Wikipedia, we're only doing her a service, and taking away from our ability to really understand Hindu-Muslim violence. It is akin to quoting one inarticulate/outspoken Klansman in an attempt to examine racism. It trivializes the subject, and doesn't do anyone any good.

I'm just trying to figure out what constitutes a good Wikipedia article. Menon.joy (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. We are not here determine the notability of the source. What we need to determine is the reliability of the source and that book is reliable and this quote is in at least two books, so it's verifiable. This quote is relevant and explains the inter communal hatred. You may ask it to be paraphrase. But deleting would be censorship. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we are here to decide on both notability and due weight. WP:V has nothing to do with it. The new guy made some good solid points which I agree with. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With regards to his claims about this not being related to partition in-itself rather than Babri Masjid demolition, I accept. But then in that case I would like to know where in book does it say and how women were complicit in raping other women during partition? The same book which says women were complicit in raping other women, quotes Krisha Sharma(I mean → ). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You added both the quote and used the ref to support it. The ref was added by myself to support what I had added, it was written by Chowdhry, Geeta. What you have quoted has nothing to do with partition at all. Chowdhry is in fact stating that Sharma is inciting Hindu men to rape Muslim women, this belongs in the rape culture article, not here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't add both the quotes you added the part (and the source  by Chowdhary) where it says " " here. I am asking which exact page says this? Quote it if you can. Or I am going to revert it.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you dense? I said you added the quote and used a ref I had added to support it. We had this conversation above did we not? Which leads me to think you never looked at the source, just removed what you did not like. It is on pp107-108. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Our topic was different. We didn't take into account whether or not these are during partition. Now, the new editor has raised a good point. Whatever I added it was with your imprimatur too. So, don't fucking blame me for this "horrible" misrepresentation. That's why I engage in discussions first. It's not my fault that you think too little. Don't presume things out of hand. Focus on the discussion. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I think to little, which is why I am always correct in these matters. You added it, you are at fault, it was a horrible misrepresentation. Get over it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Shut up. Are you sure that Chowdhury is saying women were complicit in attack during partition. Page no. 106 talks about Babri Masjid demolition then comes the quote of Krishna Sharma (which you deleted from the article) and I am yet to locate which sentence exactly says that women were complicit in raping other women. You're behaving obtusely and you usually become pissy whenever someone asks you about authentications. Why don't you just quote that sentence here and we can go on our separate ways? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "The rape of Muslim women by Hindu males during the partition of India and over the course of the Masjid-Ran episode is well documented. The complicity of Hindu women in gang rapes of Muslim women and the tearing open of pregnant wombs has also been well documented." Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also found it, but yours is a little off (deliberately assuming you didn't do it purposefully). "The rape of Muslim women by Hindu males during the partition of India and over the course of the Babri Masjid-Ram janmabhoomi episode is well documented (Butalia 1995; Kakkar 1996; Menon and Bhasin 1993) The complicity of Hindu women in gang rapes of Muslim women and the tearing open of pregnant wombs has also been well documented." Now the second line is not talking about Indian Partition rather talking about "Muslim women and the tearing open of pregnant wombs" we are not so sure if it's during partition or Babri Masjid. I will investigate more and then take action. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The closest source I could find which talks about tearing pregnant womb of Muslims women is this "..brutalities against Muslim women which involved gangrapes, slicing of their breasts and the tearing open of pregnant wombs".. It isn't during partition. But I will check more. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Borders & boundaries : women in India's partition
This quote is not about partition either, it is just a generalization. What the author actually says is that the rape before and during partition followed a familiar pattern of sexual violence. Another quote which has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "it is not about partition". Are you seeing something I am not? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * She does not mention partition until after that quote, like I just said, it is a generalization not at all about partition. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well don't make it sound ridiculous. "not at all about partition"?? Are you kidding me? Read the source. The book is about "Borders and Boundaries" talks repeatedly about partition of India. Page no. 40 refers to Partition of India-Pakistan. Don't obfuscate it. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you not do another run around the admins you favour and ask them what they think? The source is quite explicit in what it says, and again, you are wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to demean me this way, then I am not going to further part-take in this discussion. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines
Just want to bring to your attention, Darkness Shines, despite being topic banned from all India-Pakistan topics, restored vandalism  on Violence against women during the partition of India. who topic banned this user.
 * Reverting vandalism is exempt undrr tbans, and the edit I reverted was obviously vandalism as it introduced deliberate factuzl errors. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * DS, again, as several times before, you reveted to the vandalized version, as you failed to check that the IP you reverted was in fact correcting vandalism inserted previously by a different IP user. If you're going to invoke the TBan exception for reverting obvious vandalism, you'd better make sure you know what you're doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead
I am not seeing how MOS:LEAD has been violated. The lead gives WP:DUE weight. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * the lead is meant to summarise the main points from the body, details belong in the body, should i add details abt ethnic cleansing in Gurgaon into the lead too? Dilpa kaur (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Article should state where the violence started from. Given that you had removed the entire information first then you started to point contradiction with the lead policy, doesn't make a lot of sense. Capitals00 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Specific incidents are not encyclopedoc content, especially in a summary introduction.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This whole incident is a "specific" incident". Unless you agree to remove "It has been estimated that twice as many Muslim women were abducted compared to Hindu and Sikh women, due to the actions of organised Sikh jathas" then only neutrality will be achieved, because we have to mention that who started it if you are mentioning the atrocities, otherwise it is incomplete. Capitals00 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Capitals00, you need to read WP:BALANCE. Achieving neutrality does not mean balance Hindus and Muslims. This is not a contest. That Muslims outnumbered Hindus among the abducted is not a specific incident but a general detail. KA$HMIR (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can refer to the pre-sock lead when it was the whole article. It didn't included any such details, also there is no prohibition in providing details about who started the violence on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the lead sentence comparing Muslim vs Hindu/Sikh women makes it look precisely like a contest. I suggest removing it. I also don't think the Rawalpindi detail belongs in the lead, despite it being the "beginning" of partition violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Previous revisions of a Wikipedia page are not a proof for anything. Verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Show a tertiary source which says Muslims started the violence, for it to be worthy of being in the lead. Note Fowler&fowler's [|guidance] on the importance of tertiary sources for the lead. Also source does not say Muslims started the violence. It just says violence started in Rawalpindi district. Nothing more. WP:OR prohibits us from deducing anything further unless explicitly stated in the source like "Muslims started the violence in Rawalpindi". Even if true, it does not call for copying two whole paragraphs of the body into the lead which is meant to summarise the entire article. KA$HMIR (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you said it is not a contest, which is a noble thought. But a contest is precisely what you are making it. So, either keep both or keep neither. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Being in the business of the academic world myself and recognising the value of each source for what its worth I will comment that this sentence "It has been estimated that twice as many Muslim women were abducted compared to Hindu and Sikh women, due to the actions of organised Sikh jathas." is sourced to a highly excellent tertiary source. Since the tertiary sources are in the business of "balancing statements", to question its leadworthiness is uncalled for and is not a valid comparison to the sentences being copied from the body into the lead. To call for its exclusion is a desperate POV counter to the exclusion of Hindu POV content. The two are sinply incomparable given their presence or absence in the tertiary sources. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for joining this article's discussion, though I note there are no contributions by you on the article itself and the arrival is quite sudden. I wonder what makes you think it becomes a contest by not writing both or neither. You need to abandon this POV attempt of creating false equivalences and cite a policy based reason why Wikipedians should write both or neither. WP:NPOV does not ask for it. The information you want in the lead is too bulky for it and belongs in the body. The older text whose value Hindu POV pushers want to dilute is a general information such as "most victims of the Holocaust were Jews" is general enough to be in the lead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are still creating a false balance, either present both statements or omit both, you can't present just one. Capitals00 (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am seeing policy based arguments to include the fact that we should mention the beginning of the violence on lead or omit the summary of statistics. I found first option as better. My Lord (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

After incorrectly claiming "consensus" you have changed your argumentation. And why would you want to remove the fact that most of the victims were Muslims from the lead? Would you do that on a Holocaust page? As in remove that Jews were the main victims? As for beginning of violence well Danish's edit shows there was rape of Muslim women before Hindu and Sikh women in Rawalpindi. So the "beginning of violence" argument doesn't hold. Its a false balance all in all. Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:OSE type of argument is not a fair justification. Right now you are only presenting one side with the present version and ignoring what reliable sources have stated. My Lord (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhm no. I am not the one ignoring multiple reliable sources. Multiple sources are there such as Metcalf, Major for Muslims being the main victims. There are also reliable sources given (Pandey) for the rape of Muslim women before the Rawalpindi riots. You have not shown any reliable sources so you should not make the argument of "you should not ignore reliable sources". Now for a fact stated firmly in general historie such as Metcalfs, which are used to highlight a consensus, there is no reason not to have the statistics in the lead. If you still wish to contest it I will have to take you to DRN. Are you ready? Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring the reliably sourced sentence that "violence against women started in March 1947". This edit by danish is completely WP:OR, though he can clarify if his source really state that it was the beginning of the violence. Rest of your explanation still fails to address the problem with ignoring WP:RS and presenting only one side. My Lord (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Its not WP:OR You can open the source and read it for yourself. Rape of Muslim women was conducted by Hindu mobs in Garhmukteshwar. The start of violence in March 1947 discussion was in Punjab's context in Major's article. Here we Sikhs became victims in March, though we unleashed twice as much horror on Muslims later. And on this there is consensus (Metcalf, Ian Talbot) Most of the Partition violence happened in Punjab (Talbot) but by no means did Partition violence, as scholars understand it, start in Punjab. There were riots against Muslims in Bihar and Garhmukteshwar and also against Hindus in Noakhali. The initial happened in Calcutta. Again if you are not happy I am more than happy to shift this discussion to DRN. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should provide the quote when necessary snippets have been asked by an editor. I just asked for it. It is WP:OR if there is no relation with the partition, source is obliged to mention otherwise you are doing WP:OR. My Lord (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Here you go. Read it in the ref-list. And here is a quote which verifies that Pandey was talking about Partition violence when he talked of Garhmukteshwar 1946. There are other sources for this too. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 1, source 2 and source 3 (repeating an old account from 1950) are not telling us that violence started from Garhmukteshwar. I had asked you to "state that it was the beginning of the violence", not the details about what happened in Garhmukteshwar. You are attributing those incidents as the actual beginning of the violence when your quotes (that you gave) are not suggesting it. My Lord (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced material
I would like to see a reliable source for the changes at Special:Diff/881448691, especially for the "unofficially 20 lakh" part. The usage of the word "unofficially" seems to imply questionable validity of the information. We should avoid adding original research to the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)