Template talk:Violence against Muslims in independent India

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related

India

This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia

Islam

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. 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

This template was considered for deletion on 2015 April 1. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

New template

I created this template as a way to link the various instances of anti-Muslim violence in India. Please expand on it; it is not currently exhaustive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

The recent deletions have no basis. The included incidents are not an exhaustive list of communal violence (which would be far longer) but a subset characterized by targeted violence against Muslims. In every case, there is at least one excellent source stating that such targeted violence took place (the Hashimpur massacre victims were only Muslim; hardly require there). Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

While I appreciate the intent behind the additions, I think that that is a first step to ending up with a massively inflated template, just like the "violence against Hindus." The NPOV solution here is to prune that one, not massively inflate this one. I'd say that the markup in this case could even be streamlined further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference. Before future additions or removals in this case, it would be advisable to have actual consensus when it comes to displaying incidents on the template. And no, a TfD does not count as a discussion or concensus on links or template format. It is self-explanatory by its platform. Mar4d (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored removal per WP:CCC and per WP:EDITCONSENSUS which reads, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The incidents removed were not contested when they were added over several months by multiple users. Template was stable since 20 Sept until a user unilaterally removed content two months later. No such as policy as "original consensus". --39.48.33.225 (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pruned only with major events.122.164.186.255 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 January 2018

This edit request to Template:Violence against Muslims in India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to include the 1948 Indian annexation of Hyderabad. RahulRamchandani (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. Please provide reliable references which validate this claim. Annexation of Hyderabad was a military operation by India and has no relation with Violence against Muslims. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partiton related violence uis different hence removed Jammu

Partition related violence is different hence removed Jammu.this is about violence after independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloudmoon (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that did happen after August 1947 right, so did happen after independence? I don't understand this logic. Please gain conensus here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80 Jammu was not part of India when the violence started in September Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) was executed only in October end that is 26 October 1947 by the time and it was only on 27 October 1947 The Indian army entered the state to fight the invaders.Hence removed it.It is part of Kashmir conflict only.Aloudmoon (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which event qualifies for violence against a group tag

Unbiasedpov (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) You are invited to define term "violence against a group" Adamgerber80 Isak.lund Rabbabodrool AppuduPappudu Bongan Vivaan65 My Lord. The definition agreed should be applied to all templates like violence against muslims or violence against hindus etc.[reply]

Options A:- A group which suffers 2/3rd of damage qualifies as victim (Pro: Numbers are easy to find & damage decides the victim. Con: A smaller group which takes direct action against a larger group may suffer 2/3rd of damage. For example, Japanese suffered very large damage in WW2 asian front. Does that mean WW2 is a violence against Japan?)

Option B:- Group which launches the 1st attack is aggressor and other group is victim. (Pro: Factual. Con: 1st attack is not easy to find. It might just be a long running saga of reprisal attacks).

Blend option A & B: Only those events which meet both criteria A & B should qualify for "violence against a group" tag. Unbiasedpov (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting for Blend of option A & B. Unbiasedpov (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Kautilya3 DBigXray would you please come and resolve this issue, what actually qualifies violence against a particular group. Because User:Unbiasedpov is adding articles randomly in this template, whereas sources does not confirm that violence actually occurred with that community in the respective articles page.--Isak.lund (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any such formulas that allow us to decide and filter. Coming up with formulas on our own is WP:OR. Rather, we have to go by what the RS say about each event (which is presumably described on the main pages) and include the events here accordingly. I find it difficult to believe that Direct Action Day is described by any RS as violence against Muslims. For the North East Delhi riots, the jury is still out. (Some sources are calling it such, but others regard it as an old-fashioned riot.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isak.lund False allegations and threats should have no place in wikipedia. I did not add articles randomly to this template. I edited articles based on blend-option criteria & clearly mentioned the criteria in edit summary . For example, I removed [Direct Action Day] & [North East Delhi riots] from this template because it did not meet blend option threshold. It seems that we have consensus in removing both events from this template. Isak.lund should immediately remove his comment:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unbiasedpov#Important_Notice Kautilya3 what would you do if so-called RS censors the news. For example, Nadia Riots. How is RS determined? Accepting 1 publication as RS & another publication as nonRS itself is an act of WP:OR. 13:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As per Kautilya3 version I have removed Direct Action Day, kept North East Delhi riots because some sources in the main article states that majority of Muslims got killed.--Isak.lund (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isak.lund needs to do the right thing and remove the notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unbiasedpov#Important_Notice

None of the above. For an incident to be included, reliable sources need to describe it as violence against Muslims (the same holds true for any such "Violence against X" categories/lists/templates). The reasoning behind the options presented above is original research, and isn't acceptable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]