Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 7 June 2013

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously speedy deleted as A10 for duplicating Persecution of Muslims#India. Same issue still present. But can't CSD it now as its not "recently created" anymore. Also, the article is based on a POV of some writers who have called these persecutions as "pogroms". The term "pogrom" by definition is to be used for attacks on Jewish citizens, which have approval of govt authority. The people in this subject are not Jewish and no proof of approval by government authorities is shown. Even if we disregard this and if the title still wants to use "Pogrom", the word has to be so common in use in this context that no other neutral name is possible. But here, the word is not a common word for these incidences. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep looks well sourced no need for deletion. Baboon43 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But precisely those sources are cherry-picked to suit a specific agenda. Read what I wrote below. Mr T 07:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy keep As a bad faith nomination, given the nominator himself has said on his talk page that he has not checked the sources. All the incidents in the article are directly called pograms by the sources, this is a legitimate subject of academic interest. All sources used are from academic publishers. 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) comment added by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

My reading or not reading all sources doesnt solve the problem of duplicate article. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not established by bunch of so-called-academic-publishers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

& DS, please sign your own comments. You should know that this is not a ballot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that the article creator Darkness Shines is calling this nomination as "bad faith" after their attempt to move the article 2002 Gujarat violence to Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 failed. Just noting here to clarify on who has what faiths. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: After the failed attempt to move 2002 Gujarat violence to "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002", User:Darkness Shines went on to create the article Anti-Muslim pogroms in India as well as the category with the same name. The article was deleted and he created it again, some of us believe the sources are cherry-picked as a user (Pectore) mentioned here. There are more issues, we couldn't move a page from Godhra train burning to Godhra train violence even though the name is imprecise and vague, precisely because the majority of the sources didn't call it by that name.

Going by this logic,

1. Common name: If we take the most controversial story of them all, Gujarat Violence in 2002.
   Google returns 478,000 hits for "2002 Gujarat violence"
   Google returns 498 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002"
   Google returns 1 hit for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 Gujarat"
   If we generalize even further and perform a sweeping search of all the articles about anti-muslim pogroms in 2002 irrespective of location, even then google returns only 11,000 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002". It is not at all referred to as "pogrom" by general media.
2. Abuse of the word "pogrom": This term originates from 19th-century Tsarist Russia where it was first used to label attacks against Jewish civilians that were instigated and condoned by the authorities but carried out by civilian mobs who acted with impunity while the police watched idly. Two issues:
   1. The trigger cause of the '02 violence was Godhra Train burning. It was not instigated/approved/condoned by the Gujarat authorities. That accusation has been nullified in the court of law. Far from stoking violence, the authorities, in an attempt to quell the riot, actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in media reports. Thus, the police didn't sit back and watch idly. In fact no charges have been brought against Gujarat administration of 2002.
   2. Don't forget riots of 2002 included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court. In the aftermath of 2002 Gujarat violence a good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, they weren't acting with "impunity".
3. Misrepresentations: it frames personal opinions as assertions of fact on many counts. Many of the sources are unverifiable online, but that's permitted. The issue is Darkness Shines has always been discourteous in past, when faced with a request to provide copies of the sources. He has a habit of claiming a lot, but he is actually willing to verify very, very little.
4. Distortion / omission of sources: The article cherry-picks a handful of sources from a big set where the vast preponderance of entries don't label or frame these incidents as "pogroms". It often omits, and occasionally distorts, the accepted theory about the cause as well as the aftermath of these riots and also the punitive actions against Criminals taken by the government. All this in order to make it seem that the crimes are "pogroms", and not riots.
5. General bias in tone: In addition to the issues I touched above, that article is rabble-rousing to the point of ridiculousness, it has to be non neutral in order to conform with the biased topic. Just because some "author" doesn't know how to use the word pogrom in right context or intentionally abuses it to create confusion, or tremendously lacks basic knowledge of history, does it make every one of these radical claims true? That article is a POV-hellhole, and the language, oooh, it's pure seditiousness.

Apart from that, how on earth could typical acts of inter-communal violence and riots like Bombay Riots or Nellie massacre, or 1989 Bhagalpur violence be labelled as "pogroms"? There's no denying that religious violence has always existed in India as a pestilence since the very inception of that civilization, but to label them as "pogroms" while only focusing on "anti-muslim" violence is grossly biased. If we try and painstakingly search for sources about "Anti-Christian holocaust" we will find plenty to create an article much like this one, but we don't have an article on "Anti-Christian holocaust". Mr T 06:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mr T 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: See what Admin:Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote about the article's bias and misrepresentation of the source. One snippet of the comment provided below,

  "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." (emphasis mine)

I hope it makes it clear how neutral the article and the editor is perceived to be. Mr T 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom and MrT, a redundant article also. None of the incidents covered are considered as pogroms in general .-sarvajna (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or Rename to Persecution of Muslims in India or Anti-Muslim violence in India. None of the incidents referred to in the article, are considered as "pogrom" by majority of the sources. Shovon (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Shovon76! Your opinion is confusing. "Delete" means to delete the article and "Rename" means to Keep the article but under a different name. Your vote is as good as neutral. Do you want to choose one side? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but it is for the closing administrator to interpret !votes, not for you - declaring a !vote as neutral does not make it so. Putting my admin hat on, I read this as "Delete, but if it's kept we should rename it to X..." - a perfectly reasonable position, honestly. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not forcing Shovon to choose either side. I am asking him if he wants to. People do come and put "neutral" as their vote or simply comment on AfDs and thats absolutely fine. I am not trying to act as admin either. I simply found it confusing and hence pointed it so that he may clarify it if he wishes to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is quite a separate debate whether or not we need a separate article dealing with only anti-Muslim violence when there is an article about Religious violence in India. If that is the case then majority of the content in "Religious violence in India" may support another article about anti-Hindu violence, I think these would further complicate matters. Mr T 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be anti-Hindu violence, but it is not as notable as persecution of Muslims in India. Also, unlike Muslims, Hindus are not a minority. Mar4d (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The persecution of Muslims in India is a very notable topic that has extensive coverage. It is a well-documented subject and deserves an article. If there is contention over the naming of this article, a solution would be to propose a rename. Nominating for deletion appears to be an attempt of censorship, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of censorship are not the best way to convince other editors of anything. Please comment on content, not on the motivations of other editors. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The very first line of nomination states that we already have a article that you very lovely care about. There is no censorship here. But keeping two articles is surely forking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

...And there's nothing wrong with FORKing, if done properly. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If the articles, this one or the one already present, are written properly, they should only briefly be talking about various events as these events have their own separate articles. So if there is going to be only brief writing of few lines, why should there be two such briefs; one with a neutral title and another with a opinionated one? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like OR to me. The designation of "pogroms" in the cited references (only a few appear to actually use that word) doesn't appear to be central and all this probably fits better under Religious violence in India. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  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. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are wrong, 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) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to Anti-Muslim violence in India. Ignoring whatever kind of intent may have been behind the article's creation, there are enough reliable sources to establish the subject itself as notable. The alleged POV (I say alleged because I haven't delved into the issue yet) of how the article is phrased is a basis for rewriting parts, but WP:NPOV breaches on a notable topic aren't grounds for deletion. As for inclusion in the main article on religious violence or whatever in India, then it's quite long and detailed, but this article already has a healthy amount of sources and information and as such can stand on its own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Re those saying these incidents are not usually called pograms, please read 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" Which obviously says otherwise. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to religious violence in India (or delete). No need to duplicate the coverage of the existing articles with yet another one picking out just one victim group, and the existing article is so problematic in terms of POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style that it's not really worth trying to turn it into something useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates