Yogesh Khandke (talk | contribs) →Agent provocateur: cmt |
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) →Agent provocateur: Comment |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:@[[User:Yogesh Khandke]] Do you really mean that the Muslims are ''[[Agent provocateur|agents provocateurs]]''? Can you help us to find high-quality sources reflecting viewpoints that need to be incorporated into the article? The growing population might be relevant if fact is part of this discourse in India—if it is, this might provide evidence for genocidal motivation behind the attacks. [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
:@[[User:Yogesh Khandke]] Do you really mean that the Muslims are ''[[Agent provocateur|agents provocateurs]]''? Can you help us to find high-quality sources reflecting viewpoints that need to be incorporated into the article? The growing population might be relevant if fact is part of this discourse in India—if it is, this might provide evidence for genocidal motivation behind the attacks. [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::There are over 150 million Muslims in India growing at a faster rate than Hindus. Would you provide evidence that the riots are motivated by the desire to eliminate 150 million Muslims? [[User:Yogesh Khandke|Yogesh Khandke]] ([[User talk:Yogesh Khandke|talk]]) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
::There are over 150 million Muslims in India growing at a faster rate than Hindus. Would you provide evidence that the riots are motivated by the desire to eliminate 150 million Muslims? [[User:Yogesh Khandke|Yogesh Khandke]] ([[User talk:Yogesh Khandke|talk]]) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
::{{reply to|groupuscule}} I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=561852654 diff] It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Peculiar edit == |
== Peculiar edit == |
Revision as of 13:41, 10 July 2013
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Agent provocateur
The article misses that agent provocateurs for riots have been Muslims, such as Godhra: 2002 , and killing mathadis Mumbai:1992-3. Also since the article harps the words pogrom and genocide, it should also inform that Muslims in India have grown faster than Hindus. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we would again need reliable references for the first. And adding the second fact would definitely make the article balanced. We can also add "see also" type links to pages like Islam in India. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what does birth rate have to do with the article? Are you saying that Muslims are attacked because they have more babies? I strongly object to a see also section, I am hoping to get this to FA and a See also counts against it. Any article which fully covers a subject has no need of a see also section. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the population growth rate is interesting because, if a populations is repressed, it is expected to decline/flee/seek asylum/migrate etc. Right? I am not sure though, as i read somewhere that the Palestinian/arab population in Israel is growing faster than that of the jews. I don't know if there is a relation, but if a reliable source says there is some co-relation b/w the two, then that can be included here as well. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The important thing here is that we have an RS and that the RS supports the statement and is also directly related to the topic of this article. If these are met then it would merit inclusion. If not then it doesn't. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, growth rate is relevant only if reliable sources discuss it as relevant to Anti-Muslim violence which is the topic of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, thats what i meant Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The important thing here is that we have an RS and that the RS supports the statement and is also directly related to the topic of this article. If these are met then it would merit inclusion. If not then it doesn't. Dlv999 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- DS, you said that an FA cannot have a section "see also" or other such links? See Atheism or Prosperity theology, which i just chose randomly from WP:FA. So you are wrong about that :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Found a few sources which discuss the baby issue, who would have thought the big strong manly men of the Hindu far right would be afraid of babies? What a bunch of pussies. Anyway, this is what I have found and added, we ought to be able to find further sources on this issue and expand on it. Re Anir1uph about the See Also, I recall reading on the FA criteria page that a see also section was counted agaisnt the article, perhaps that has changed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pl remember that a talk page is not a blog or a soapbox where you can exhibit your original research, eg. "have thought the big strong manly men of the Hindu far right would be afraid of babies? What a bunch of pussies". The purpose of a talk page is to provide discussion on how to improve the article. Regarding use of the word pogrom, the Kielce pogrom saw the "flight of remaining Polish Jews from Poland", has there been a documented flight of Muslims from India say post Mumbai-1992/3 or post Gujarat-2002 and a resultant massive reduction in population? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are being obtuse again Yogesh - using the word pogrom does not require flight - it requires sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipeidia is not a repository for hyperbole howsoever fashionable it may be. Also DS please do not abuse your talk page privileges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are being obtuse again Yogesh - using the word pogrom does not require flight - it requires sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any group of "men" who go out of their way to rape and murder helpless people including children are a bunch of pussies. Regarding use of the word pogrom, the sources use it, so do we. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pl remember that a talk page is not a blog or a soapbox where you can exhibit your original research, eg. "have thought the big strong manly men of the Hindu far right would be afraid of babies? What a bunch of pussies". The purpose of a talk page is to provide discussion on how to improve the article. Regarding use of the word pogrom, the Kielce pogrom saw the "flight of remaining Polish Jews from Poland", has there been a documented flight of Muslims from India say post Mumbai-1992/3 or post Gujarat-2002 and a resultant massive reduction in population? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Found a few sources which discuss the baby issue, who would have thought the big strong manly men of the Hindu far right would be afraid of babies? What a bunch of pussies. Anyway, this is what I have found and added, we ought to be able to find further sources on this issue and expand on it. Re Anir1uph about the See Also, I recall reading on the FA criteria page that a see also section was counted agaisnt the article, perhaps that has changed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the population growth rate is interesting because, if a populations is repressed, it is expected to decline/flee/seek asylum/migrate etc. Right? I am not sure though, as i read somewhere that the Palestinian/arab population in Israel is growing faster than that of the jews. I don't know if there is a relation, but if a reliable source says there is some co-relation b/w the two, then that can be included here as well. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
To remind you that "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- These are not exceptional claims, and we have plenty of sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pogrom and genocide are exceptional claims, that need exceptional sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Two things here, one we have exceptional sources, hundreds of academic ones. Two it is written as "has been called", so the article is not stating as fact that any of these incidents were pogroms or genocide. Just drop the stick. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- An allegation like this should not be carried as a "has been called", has for example any court: Indian or international; called them "ethnic cleansing" or genocide? Like for example has been done so in the former Yugoslavia? Has anyone been tried as a mass murdered and convicted? Wikipedia isn't a repository of allegations: this article is and it shouldn't exist. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, actually it can be per WP:RS & WP:V & WP:NPOV. If you are of the opinion that this article does not fulfil the GNG criteria WP:AFD is thataway. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a string of discrete incidents that have been synthesized into this article. See wp:SYNTHESIS, having said that there are other editors and consensus is how Wikipedia is developed, so if enough editors agree with what I'm saying the article would be off. As you said via AfD.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Mass killings are now "discrete incidents", really? And if you are going to link to a policy such as WP:SYNTHESIS I would recommend you read it beforehand. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" If you can point to a single instance in this article were that has been done I will be most surprised. And near as I can see only two editors who have commented on this talk page, do not like the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a string of discrete incidents that have been synthesized into this article. See wp:SYNTHESIS, having said that there are other editors and consensus is how Wikipedia is developed, so if enough editors agree with what I'm saying the article would be off. As you said via AfD.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Erm, actually it can be per WP:RS & WP:V & WP:NPOV. If you are of the opinion that this article does not fulfil the GNG criteria WP:AFD is thataway. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pogrom and genocide are exceptional claims, that need exceptional sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Yogesh Khandke Do you really mean that the Muslims are agents provocateurs? Can you help us to find high-quality sources reflecting viewpoints that need to be incorporated into the article? The growing population might be relevant if fact is part of this discourse in India—if it is, this might provide evidence for genocidal motivation behind the attacks. groupuscule (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are over 150 million Muslims in India growing at a faster rate than Hindus. Would you provide evidence that the riots are motivated by the desire to eliminate 150 million Muslims? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: I have already added a little about how the Hindu right wing extremists are afraid of babies, diff It seems the facists are unable to get it up enough to pop out as many kids as their Muslim counterparts, that has also been cited as a reason for the mass rapes during these incidents, they are actually afraid that Muslims are more virile, and the rapes are done to prove they are not, prety sick heh. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Peculiar edit
What has this to do with the article? Who cares if a politician went looking for votes? How is that related to violence? And is that source even reliable? Reading it I would say no, it obviously never underwent editorial control or proofreading at the least. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Try to understand the chronology. Nellie Massacre happened in 1983 and this book tells the important untold story that Indira Gandhi along with the ruling party gave tacit approval to the illegal immigrants to secure the votes and this in turn fuelled communal sentiments. The Legend of Zorro 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- None of that is in the source, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that requires a source for it not to be OR. Either add another source that makes that connection or selfrevert.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please first see what I added. I added Indira Gandhi visited cachar in 1983 which is full of immigrants to securs the votes. This is wholly cited in the book. The book does not contains anything about massacres and I have not added anything about massacres. The Legend of Zorro 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- But if the book doesn't state that Indira Gandhi's visit is related to the massacre then adding it is SYNTH. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Solomon for self reverting, very reasonable of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have self reverted as of now. But the immigration issues needs some expansion and it is clear from the source that the congress party gave tacit approval to illegal immigrants to secure electoral gains. The Legend of Zorro 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with that, and will look for sources myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did find several sources on Google scholar mentioning Gandhi's visit and election strategy as part of the issue.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have been looking og GBooks, any chance you could post the links to the articles? Or add what you have found to the article if that would be quicker for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did find several sources on Google scholar mentioning Gandhi's visit and election strategy as part of the issue.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with that, and will look for sources myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have self reverted as of now. But the immigration issues needs some expansion and it is clear from the source that the congress party gave tacit approval to illegal immigrants to secure electoral gains. The Legend of Zorro 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please first see what I added. I added Indira Gandhi visited cachar in 1983 which is full of immigrants to securs the votes. This is wholly cited in the book. The book does not contains anything about massacres and I have not added anything about massacres. The Legend of Zorro 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The Nellie violence was a foreigners v/s Indians issue, the foreigners happened to be Muslim.[1] Amongst the recommendations of the Tewary commission were "Since the fundamental issue of the agitation was illegal immigration from Bangladesh, the commission recommended that "Assam should be granted special protection as in Kashmir where no real estate can be acquired by or be sold to an outsider". And that the border with Bangladesh should be sealed at the earliest to prevent illegal migration. But even 13 years after the recommendations, only a tenth of the work on border fencing is complete, and every sixth person in Assam's 2.2 crore population is an illegal immigrant"[2] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Again you are trying to disprove academically published sources with news articles. I don't know how you think anyone would take you seriously.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The news article makes a statement of fact: An excerpt from a commission report. Also "which scholarly report" disproves the above? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody disputes. And the sources added by Yogesh Khandke are high quality sources like India Today. I guess it is enough that people would take him seriously. The Legend of Zorro 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The article already says the violence was caused by illegal immigration. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- So why are we arguing when there is consensus that it was caused by illegal immigration. I think to reference it we should include the name of the fundamentalists leaders (of both sides). Anybody has any clue? The Legend of Zorro 02:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- That it was about nationalism obviously doesn't exclude that it was also about religion. After all the countries were partitioned on religious lines. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Maunus Probably you are saying what others are saying or in other words you agree with the consensus. Am I right? It was surely about both cultural, linguistic and religious nationalism. The Legend of Zorro 02:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The issue wasnt religious, it was local v/s foreign, so there are no religious leaders, on the side of the perpetrators there were organisation like the AASU, whose members were brutalised by the Gandhi's Congress govt, so on the other side, there was the Congress, it was an AASU & co x Congress scene. There was an election forced which was boycotted, there is a very gripping film on the subject, someone from Assam would be able to tell its name. Yogesh Khandke (talk)
- The AGP makes no mention of religion, all it speaks is about aliens. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- AGP constitution. No fracturing on religious lines. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly what point are you trying to make here? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- AGP constitution. No fracturing on religious lines. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The AGP makes no mention of religion, all it speaks is about aliens. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The issue wasnt religious, it was local v/s foreign, so there are no religious leaders, on the side of the perpetrators there were organisation like the AASU, whose members were brutalised by the Gandhi's Congress govt, so on the other side, there was the Congress, it was an AASU & co x Congress scene. There was an election forced which was boycotted, there is a very gripping film on the subject, someone from Assam would be able to tell its name. Yogesh Khandke (talk)
- @User:Maunus Probably you are saying what others are saying or in other words you agree with the consensus. Am I right? It was surely about both cultural, linguistic and religious nationalism. The Legend of Zorro 02:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- That it was about nationalism obviously doesn't exclude that it was also about religion. After all the countries were partitioned on religious lines. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The news article makes a statement of fact: An excerpt from a commission report. Also "which scholarly report" disproves the above? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
They were killed not because they were Muslims but because they were considered illegal immigrants. The motive of the killers and not the religion of the victims should define how the incident is classified. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yogesh, the article already says they were attacked because of the immigration issue, why are you still harping on about this? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hypothetically if a certain number of Muslims are killed in for example in a dacoity, would that still be anti-Muslim violence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, not getting you. Are you comparing banditry to mass killings? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Disregard scale, the Polish pogrom I liked above had six fatalities, I am comparing murder and murder, there were murders in Assam perpetrated against allegedly illegal immigrants, they weren't killed for being Muslim. You can't call every Muslim murder anti-Muslim violence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are saying that the fact they were Muslim was incidental to them being killed then? Remind me, where did all these immigrants come from again? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't say that, that is what Justice Tewary's report recommends, fence borders, don't let foreigners buy land. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yogesh, we are not here to debate the political merits of illegal/legal immigration, nor what some judge has recommended to prevent illegal immigration. Please just get to the point. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't say that, that is what Justice Tewary's report recommends, fence borders, don't let foreigners buy land. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are saying that the fact they were Muslim was incidental to them being killed then? Remind me, where did all these immigrants come from again? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Disregard scale, the Polish pogrom I liked above had six fatalities, I am comparing murder and murder, there were murders in Assam perpetrated against allegedly illegal immigrants, they weren't killed for being Muslim. You can't call every Muslim murder anti-Muslim violence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, not getting you. Are you comparing banditry to mass killings? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hypothetically if a certain number of Muslims are killed in for example in a dacoity, would that still be anti-Muslim violence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- This book has interesting information about Nellie and the general situation in Assam. It does stress the political, rather than religious, tensions between immigrants and Assamese, particularly the AASU group as being the most important factor in triggering the massacre. This one (p. 81) however describes the Nellie massacre as religious, and notes that non of the immigrants were in fact "illegal" under the laws of the country, but where defined as such by emotional and political arguments based on the fact of their religious identity. It describes Nellie as one of the worst pogroms faced by Indian Muslims -only surpassed by the 2002 Gujarat events.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here's another one: Monirul Hussain. 2000. State, Identity Movements and Internal Displacement in the North-East. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 35, No. 51 (Dec. 16-22, 2000), pp. 4519-4523User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for these, I shall look them over tomorrow, I am off to the pub shortly, have read enough about children being butchered for one day. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't one judge, it is the leader of a commission appointed by the Congress who
created a cause effected linkage,brings out the cause-affect relationship, the cause was illegal immigration and the affect was murder. It was incidental that they were Muslim. A commission report reported in a reliable source carries more weight than other sources regarding such an exceptional claim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)- Where is your reliable secondary source of comparable academic quality which refutes the sources presented on this talk page and used in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't one judge, it is the leader of a commission appointed by the Congress who
- Thank you for these, I shall look them over tomorrow, I am off to the pub shortly, have read enough about children being butchered for one day. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
No mention of opinions of Muslium religious leaders and political leaders of causes and effects
This article currently does not spends a single line on the opinion of Muslim scholars and religious leaders. All opinions are from either Leftist historians or western scholars. Should not it contain reaction of influential political leaders and Muslim religious leaders on the issue of Anti-Muslim violence? The Legend of Zorro 16:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Really? Not a single line from a Muslim group? Are we reading the same article here? Are Jamaat-e-Islami Hind not a Muslim group? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I overlooked it but by the way it does not contains reaction of personalities like owaisi brothers or Influential Imams and other personalities like Irfan Habib and co. The Legend of Zorro 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Got sources for these peoples opinions on the subject? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- The publication The Sunday Indian occasionally publishes these type of sources (for example reaction of Imam Bukhari on Assam riots). Since I have no resource or clue on this area other than Google I cannot say it. The Legend of Zorro 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Got sources for these peoples opinions on the subject? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I overlooked it but by the way it does not contains reaction of personalities like owaisi brothers or Influential Imams and other personalities like Irfan Habib and co. The Legend of Zorro 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
RSS
DS, it is not the matter of the reliability of the source but how the reliable sources are used. I am taking about this revert of DS where he is writing some unsubstantiated allegations as facts. -sarvajna (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sources state it as fact, and they are good for the statement. As was pointed out on the RS board. I also have given plenty of examples of RSS members being arrested in conjunction with acts of violence, and they of course have been banned several times for the same. Just drop it, or get sources to refute the ones used. I have no interest in debating with you over what you "know to be true" Either get some sources for once or let it go. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you show the sources which say that RSS as an organisation has been convicted by the court of law? You forget the fact that the ban was lifted everytime because it was not proven that RSS was involved in any violent acts. Like I said before RSS members being arrested in conjunction with acts of violence is something that should be assosiated with the individual not with the organisation. Please don't think that I love having a debate with you. It is just common sense, the allegations are unproven so either attribute it to the author or remove it. -sarvajna (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sources are good for the claim, it is an academic handbook and it cites lots of primary sources. We don't need court documents as sources for these claims or attribution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is a typo in the name of Torkel Brekke but I can't seem to find the place where the source is defined so that I can edit it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which section is the typo in? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- In note 21 in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I am not saying that we need court documents, that would be primary source. There are not court documents which say what the sources claim, they are just opinions. Can you prove that those sources are using the court documents to say what they are saying? -sarvajna (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- They dont to use court documents and I dont need to prove it. Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources say. And the Cambridge Handbook of Religion and Security is a reliable source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- If they don't use court documents then how come they reached those conclusions, it is investigation authorities and court's duty. They are just opinions of those authors and should be written like opinions. -sarvajna (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, research by professional reserachers may use any kind of methods that are appropriate to their field to make their argumentds and conclusions, and their research results are not opinions but research results. Claims about how communal violence is organized is not something that requires a court verdict it simply requires good social science to find out. Claims against individuals in specific cases is a different thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- If they don't use court documents then how come they reached those conclusions, it is investigation authorities and court's duty. They are just opinions of those authors and should be written like opinions. -sarvajna (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- They dont to use court documents and I dont need to prove it. Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources say. And the Cambridge Handbook of Religion and Security is a reliable source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Already got it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which section is the typo in? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Both statements seem to be well sourced. I checked the second source (Brekke) and it clearly states that "Politicians and Political organizations associated with the RSS" have been implicated in "the production of riots". Scholarly sources are our best examples of reliable sources and courts of law have nothing to do with scholarly conclusions about the activities of organizations. --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no question about reliability here, I agree that these are scholarly conclusions but these scholarly conclusions sould not be considered as facts and should be written as opinions. It is the job of the courts to declare guilty or not guilty. -sarvajna (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, scholarly conclusions, if uncontradicted by other scholars, is a fact in so far as wikipedia is concerned.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps "and its activists have since formed militant groups with the intention of engaging in attacks on minority groups in India" would be more accurate for the second part. Actually, DS, could you quote the exact text from the Sarkur source for the RSS attacks on Muslims in 1925? Sarvajna, guilty or not guilty is not something that makes sense when talking about organizations because, by definition, they are complex in their activities. Scholars parse these activities and draw conclusions about the nature of these organizations and that's what we go with. BTW, for all, the lead is not really compliant with MOS and needs work. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Maunus, have you read what is written?Claims about how communal violence is organized is not something that requires a court verdict the argument here is not about how communal violence is organized but argument is over the statement The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925 which is only an opinion, it is not about how it did but what it did. RP, when an organisation is responsible for violence there are legal actions taken. Legal actions are not just limited to individuals but for organisations as well. Heard about SIMI? -sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your point about SIMI is good, this article should include mention of the existence of violent Muslim organizations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sarvajna, honestly, you're not going to get anywhere with this legal stuff. Our reliance is on reliable sources, and when scholars say something, we listen. Far better, imo, that you invest your energies in proposing specific wording changes or find other reliable scholarly sources that contest what this bunch of scholars are saying. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why are people always asking me to type out quotes, I hate typing out quotes :o( "It was set up as an alternative to the politics of mass anti-colonial struggles since it neither joined not initiated any anti British movement up to independence and its only activism was expressed in anti-Muslim violence" As for the lede and MOS, get to work bucko. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if that's an accurate rephrasing. Anyway, my suggestion is that we take the second and third paras out of the lead and restructure the body into : Background, Cause and effects (that's where para 2 and 3 of the lead should go), Hindu nationalism (all the stuff about RSS can go there), Incidents, Depictions. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 14:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now I need to write a background section as well? I have no problems with moving some stuff from the lede to the body, but some mention has to stay per LEDE, and given the size the article is going to become with an extra section we will need three paras in the lede I reckon. I will start on the background stuff tomorrow if I have time, but it is uber short at the moment ( Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert but this is the direction the lead should take. More information on what this violence means for India should fill the third para and all the commentary from Pandey, Brass, and others should go into the causes and effects section. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you tend to underestimate the amount of information that needs to go in the lead Regents Park. A good lead is a summary of the article that is able to stand along and give the reader a full overview of the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)[3] Dude, you stole the DYK hook :o(. That stuff is OK to go into another section right? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. Didn't realize that there was a hook. Maunus, the lead shouldn't be quoting individual scholars but summarizing broad scholarly views which are then expanded upon in the body. Length is a different issue (though, given the size of the body, I wouldn't expect a long lead in this particular article). --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert but this is the direction the lead should take. More information on what this violence means for India should fill the third para and all the commentary from Pandey, Brass, and others should go into the causes and effects section. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Now I need to write a background section as well? I have no problems with moving some stuff from the lede to the body, but some mention has to stay per LEDE, and given the size the article is going to become with an extra section we will need three paras in the lede I reckon. I will start on the background stuff tomorrow if I have time, but it is uber short at the moment ( Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if that's an accurate rephrasing. Anyway, my suggestion is that we take the second and third paras out of the lead and restructure the body into : Background, Cause and effects (that's where para 2 and 3 of the lead should go), Hindu nationalism (all the stuff about RSS can go there), Incidents, Depictions. What do you think?--regentspark (comment) 14:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Maunus, have you read what is written?Claims about how communal violence is organized is not something that requires a court verdict the argument here is not about how communal violence is organized but argument is over the statement The RSS carried out acts of violence against Muslims when founded in 1925 which is only an opinion, it is not about how it did but what it did. RP, when an organisation is responsible for violence there are legal actions taken. Legal actions are not just limited to individuals but for organisations as well. Heard about SIMI? -sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps "and its activists have since formed militant groups with the intention of engaging in attacks on minority groups in India" would be more accurate for the second part. Actually, DS, could you quote the exact text from the Sarkur source for the RSS attacks on Muslims in 1925? Sarvajna, guilty or not guilty is not something that makes sense when talking about organizations because, by definition, they are complex in their activities. Scholars parse these activities and draw conclusions about the nature of these organizations and that's what we go with. BTW, for all, the lead is not really compliant with MOS and needs work. --regentspark (comment) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, scholarly conclusions, if uncontradicted by other scholars, is a fact in so far as wikipedia is concerned.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)