Yogesh Khandke (talk | contribs) comment, first time at a DYK, don't know protocol, kindly excuse any violation |
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs) Cmt |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:::*Can you jump into the conversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India#RSS here] please, RP and Maunus seem to be thinking along the same lines as yourself and they may be better suited to the task as I do not know if I will have the time to do what you are requesting, although I shall of course try. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
:::*Can you jump into the conversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India#RSS here] please, RP and Maunus seem to be thinking along the same lines as yourself and they may be better suited to the task as I do not know if I will have the time to do what you are requesting, although I shall of course try. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
'''Hook''': (1) We cannot have comment from one person as a hook for a subject as voluminous and exceptional. (2) Has India faced international sanctions/ censure regarding the treatment of Muslims? Like for example the "Former Yugoslavia? One scholar's opinion can't be used for a statement like this. (3) "Scarred" is a weasel word. (4) Has a security council resolution been passed, any other resolution in UN fora of similar stature. (5) Wikipedia isn't a repository for the sensational. [[User:Yogesh Khandke|Yogesh Khandke]] ([[User talk:Yogesh Khandke|talk]]) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
'''Hook''': (1) We cannot have comment from one person as a hook for a subject as voluminous and exceptional. (2) Has India faced international sanctions/ censure regarding the treatment of Muslims? Like for example the "Former Yugoslavia? One scholar's opinion can't be used for a statement like this. (3) "Scarred" is a weasel word. (4) Has a security council resolution been passed, any other resolution in UN fora of similar stature. (5) Wikipedia isn't a repository for the sensational. [[User:Yogesh Khandke|Yogesh Khandke]] ([[User talk:Yogesh Khandke|talk]]) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
*Just pointing out that Yogesh Khandke is one of the people mentioned by Groupuscule in his review above, lotsa waffle, no sources. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
||
* |
* |
Revision as of 15:30, 11 July 2013
Anti-Muslim violence in India
- ... that Praveen Swami believes that anti-Muslim violence in India has "scarred India's post independence history"?
- Reviewed: Mughalsarai–Kanpur section
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC).
- ALT1 ... that anti-Muslim violence in India has been described by Gyanendra Pandey as a new form of State Terrorism?
- First address the concerns raised in talk page by an editor. The Legend of Zorro 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have addressed them, his concerns are invalid. You already self reverted your addition of the tags? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Self reverted for discussion first. What do you mean by concerns are invalid? Seems perfectly valid to me. The Legend of Zorro 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- His concerns are entirely invalid, I already explained why on the talk page. I can add more sources to show how wrong he is if you wish? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- You calling them invalid and he calling them valid only means that a third non-involved person should gauge them. Also more concerns are raised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three uninvolved editors looked over the article before I moved it to mainspace. I have addressed your "concerns". I do not appreciate this kind of disruption because you guys do not appreciate the subject matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are you counting RP-Sitush-Boing lot as uninvolved? And i don't care about your appreciation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three uninvolved editors looked over the article before I moved it to mainspace. I have addressed your "concerns". I do not appreciate this kind of disruption because you guys do not appreciate the subject matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- You calling them invalid and he calling them valid only means that a third non-involved person should gauge them. Also more concerns are raised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- His concerns are entirely invalid, I already explained why on the talk page. I can add more sources to show how wrong he is if you wish? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Self reverted for discussion first. What do you mean by concerns are invalid? Seems perfectly valid to me. The Legend of Zorro 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have addressed them, his concerns are invalid. You already self reverted your addition of the tags? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate some DYK regulars to look this over, the two editors commenting here have been in a few disputes with me on other articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the article needs some independent assessment. I did look over it the other day and thought it looked okay, with one or two possible exceptions, but I haven't read through the talk page yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- What were the exceptions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- FYI DS, i am almost regular at DYK. And why not give full story of how you tried to push this article through DYK last time and how it was pulled out of queue and then was deleted and again failed at DRV? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyone willing to review this? Or shall it sit in limbo for eternity Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let's hoist the "reviewer needed" icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
groupuscule reviews
- First of all, the article is long-enough, well sourced, and reasonably well written. (A copy-edit would be welcome; presumably Indian English would be the standard.) The hook is marginally appropriate because it attributes a quotation (rather than making a direct statement)—however, a less subjective statement would be preferable. Alt1 is already better along these lines, and Darkness Shines might consider composing others. That doesn't mean that the hook must be whitewashed, rosy, or falsely evenhanded.
- To us, this seems like a well-written article about a difficult topic. There are some complaints about bias on the talk page, but none of the complainers have produced a single source to challenge the claims being made here. The article is focused on victimization of Muslims, and not acts by Muslims, because it's about anti-Muslim violence: a well-established and discrete topic in the literature.
- The article sympathizes with the interpretation that this violence is systemic, political, and primarily directed at Muslims. There is strong evidence for this interpretation. However, there undeniably exist scholarly sources who discuss this conflict as a more bilateral "Hindu–Muslim conflict", and this interpretation must be given more weight. (Indeed, although it should not supplant "Anti-Muslim violence", it might be reasonable for an article on "Hindu–Muslim conflict" to exist.)
- This book seems to use a more evenhanded tone. Even this author, who argues that there is an "institutionalized system of riot production" and agrees that Muslims feel the brunt of it, frequently uses the term Hindu–Muslim violence. Even if the violence is driven by right-wing Hindu authorities, it is necessary to acknowledge that on the ground the violence is at least somewhat back-and-forth.
- Conclusion for now: the article is not heavily biased, but needs to present a wider spectrum of scholarly viewed, rather than just listing one-line opinions of scholars in support of an apparent single conclusion. Presenting some issues that provoke serious debate in the scholarly literature would go a long way towards increasing neutrality in the article's tone. The article doesn't have to be a complete literature review before it runs as a DYK—but for a topic of this seriousness it is necessary to at least identify a range of scholarly opinions. Darkness Shines, can you add some discussion into the article? You have done a really great job so far, and we appreciate your work. groupuscule (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: First, thank you for the review. I have posted to the guild of copy-editors to give it a once over already. Two of the sources you suggested have no preview on GBooks, so I will either have to purchase them or order them through the library, however my time is limited over the next few weeks. The paper you linked to is pretty good, thank you for that. I will review Brass's books again to look for some balancing content, I assume you wish for me to add incidents by Muslims which were a spark to begin an instance of mass violence? Such as Godhra was used as an excuse for the 2002 violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even better than adding the incidents themselves would be adding a statement or two about how these incidents are discussed in popular and/vs scholarly literature. We're talking about the type of analysis presented in the first paragraph of the lead, in the sentences starting with "Inside India,...". It seems like you are describing a situation where the pogroms appear to represent spontaneous reactions to the actions of Muslims, but in fact are organized (and/or encouraged, sanctioned, otherwise aided & abetted) by the state and by right-wing Hindu powers that be. This seems like the consensus view of academics (though we haven't researched in enough depth to guarantee this claim). Even so it would be a great benefit if the article could explain better (a) that the appearance of a more bilateral (and thus presumably 'uncontrollable') 'cycle of violence' exists, and (b) how exactly this appearance is created. Does that make sense? Feel free to say 'no'. groupuscule (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you jump into the conversion here please, RP and Maunus seem to be thinking along the same lines as yourself and they may be better suited to the task as I do not know if I will have the time to do what you are requesting, although I shall of course try. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: First, thank you for the review. I have posted to the guild of copy-editors to give it a once over already. Two of the sources you suggested have no preview on GBooks, so I will either have to purchase them or order them through the library, however my time is limited over the next few weeks. The paper you linked to is pretty good, thank you for that. I will review Brass's books again to look for some balancing content, I assume you wish for me to add incidents by Muslims which were a spark to begin an instance of mass violence? Such as Godhra was used as an excuse for the 2002 violence? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hook: (1) We cannot have comment from one person as a hook for a subject as voluminous and exceptional. (2) Has India faced international sanctions/ censure regarding the treatment of Muslims? Like for example the "Former Yugoslavia? One scholar's opinion can't be used for a statement like this. (3) "Scarred" is a weasel word. (4) Has a security council resolution been passed, any other resolution in UN fora of similar stature. (5) Wikipedia isn't a repository for the sensational. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just pointing out that Yogesh Khandke is one of the people mentioned by Groupuscule in his review above, lotsa waffle, no sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)