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.
This 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
This 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
This 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
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 T19:10, 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)
