Misplaced Pages

Talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:52, 7 June 2013 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,204 edits →POV tag added: horrible writing← Previous edit Revision as of 07:49, 7 June 2013 edit undo82.132.229.206 (talk) →POV tag addedNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
:And you have checked every source then? Which strikes me as strange as every source says the incidents in the article are pograms. ] (]) 18:18, 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. ] (]) 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, ] 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. §§]§§ {]/]} 18:50, 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, ] 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. §§]§§ {]/]} 18:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

: if you want to see POV future go to minorities in pakistan article written by the same pov warrior who is raising his usual hypocritical argumenta here why the bias when it comes to pakistan? Why are indian nationalists allowed to run rampant with there pov on pakistan related articles? Islamophobia i guess
:::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. ] (]) 18:59, 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. ] (]) 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. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 19:10, 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. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:49, 7 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Violence against Muslims in independent India/Archive 1 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconHuman rights NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconIndia NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconIslam NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_4#Category:Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India. §§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)
if you want to see POV future go to minorities in pakistan article written by the same pov warrior who is raising his usual hypocritical argumenta here why the bias when it comes to pakistan? Why are indian nationalists allowed to run rampant with there pov on pakistan related articles? Islamophobia i guess
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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 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)

Categories: