Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

User bonadea removing sourced content

Please do not remove sourced content. Here [[1]]. If you think Dailymail is not a reliable source you can remove it but leave other sources intact. Thanks. Cc DoRD, Sitush

Actually, Bonadea is not removing sourced content, It is you who is pushing the agenda with fake sources... Also, don't you have manners to even sign your posts?? and why are you hiding behind an ip? creating a username is not very difficult...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense that it is a block evader - it really didn't look like a new user... --bonadea contributions talk 14:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading citations

Many citations given in this article are misleading and opinions in this page seem politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumyasomu007 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Jayant Sinha Garlands Lynching Convicts

In July 2018, Jayant Sinha, a union minister of the Narendra Modi government, was criticised by opposition parties for honouring and garlanding 8 men who were convicted for lynching Alimuddin Ansari of Jharkhand, the only cow vigilante violence case in which the accused were convicted by an Indian court yet.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Union minister Jayant Sinha garlands 8 lynching convicts, faces opposition flak". Times of India.

hi, User:MBlaze Lightning I see that you have removed the above content citing irrelevant. I think this content is relevant here. The response section should not only contain the criticism but also the support. Can you elaborate why you feel it is irrelevant or else may be self revert to restore the same. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would agree; the situation got enough press. It's also obviously relevant; the question is one of due weight, and the coverage this got is not significantly lower than any of the other reactions. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. I think it's due weight to have one sentence on this. MPS1992 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I continue to believe that the content is irrelevant to start with. That section is supposed to contain "responses" to the issue of violence in the name of cow vigilantism rather than content such as this, that is, typical political mudslinging. Also, where is it mentioned that this was the "only cow vigilante violence case in which the accused were convicted by an Indian court yet"? That strikes me as a made-up claim for the purpose of exaggerating the incident. Reading up the article, I note that it is not clear if the case was indeed related to "cow vigilantism", it only says "alleged". MBlaze Lightning 12:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Union minister Jayant Sinha on Saturday justified felicitating seven convicted cow vigilantes at his residence... Sinha had on Thursday welcomed the seven cow vigilantes, convicted for lynching a Muslim meat trader in Ramgarh. After their release from jail, the convicts went to Sinha’s residence to meet him. HT

User:MBlaze Lightning, it is not alleged but a convicted case, you can refer to the HT article I quoted above. Yes, A felicitation and garlanding of lynching Convicts is very much a positive response to the lynchings. We are adding criticism in the article, no reason why support and praises should not be added into the article. This felicitation was very much notable positive response to the cow vigilantism to deserve a line. Whether you call it mudslinging or something else is your own personal opinion/Bias, please keep it away from wiki article. I am not sure but this may be the only case so far since other cases are ongoing or closed. But I agree, we should drop the mention of "only" as it is possibly original research and will not last long as a fact, once other convictions happen. Since we did not get a strong enough reason to remove and based on the reason provided by others on this thread we have a consensus here to add this, I am going to re-add this into the article. thanks for the kind comments. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, you're the one advancing personal opinions. For example, nowhere in the TOI article does it describes the incident as a "notable positive response to the cow vigilantism", it only summarizes the typical reactions of the opposition political parties, which are often predictable; and we are not going to lend undue weight to such reactions. MBlaze Lightning 05:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If incident was about cow lynching then it belongs to Incidents section. If it is not confirmed to be about cow lynching then it belongs nowhere. Also this page is not about sharing views of political parties about one other. Sinha had later clarified his remarks.[2] That paragraph is certainly off topic. Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That's quite ridiculous. Some people took part in an incident of vigilantism. We have included criticism of such incidents; we should include support, too. Not because other political parties criticized it, but because the media did, and reported on it quite heavily. You are basically arguing to remove anything that isn't itself a lynching incident, which isn't how our articles work. Vanamonde (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to what VNM said, Capitals00 you have completely missed the point here. I suggest you to read the comments in this thread once again. This isn't about "Cow Lynching" this is about Cow Vigilante violence and the reaction to these incidents. It is not only confirmed but these guys have been convicted in a court of law for violence related to cow vigilantism. It is not a paragraph but a line, and it is completely on topic, if you have a better version of the content to be added I am all ears. Simply saying "off topic" without explaining with a logical reason appears as a IDONTLIKE it kind of an opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I was specifically talking about relevance to "cow vigilante violence". If there is some relevance as per sources then the incident be added to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014#Incidents_of violence. But no need to mention Jayant Sinha or any comments by opposition. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
What are you on about? You do realize we have a "responses" section? And that we have such sections in most articles about incidents of violence against civilians? Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
We haven't entertained comments about particular incidents of until now though in Response section. To cover commentaries about every single incident would derail from the main subject. Again, if you think that incident is notable enough then add it to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014#Incidents_of violence Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That's simply not true; the very first incident is a reaction to the specific case; and each general response has usually come after a particularly violent individual incident. Also, we discuss explicitly the BJP's involvement or lack thereof in the responses section. This incident (the garlanding, not the lynching) has been discussed by RS in that context; as such, it belongs in this section. Vanamonde (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Contrary to the personal opinions expressed here, none of the reliable sources have deemed this incident as support for the violence, which undermines the only argument presented thus far in support of the inclusion of the content. Also, while it's true that the accused were convicted for lynching in March this year, which is what the HT article says, it's also true that a few months down the road, the imposed sentence was suspended by the Jharkhand High Court for lack of substantial evidence against them; and now there will be a complete rehearing of the matter, which is likely why we see the usage of word "alleged" in reliable sources. MBlaze Lightning 05:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:MBlaze Lightning IMHO you are either ignorant/confused or are deliberately misinterpreting the High court to defend your position here. The high court has granted them bail, FYI, HC has not overturned the conviction from the district court, it appears as though you are trying to convey here that they are no longer convicted criminals since they got the bail. That is clearly a misinterpretation. Central point here is that these are convicted and their felicitation gained enough coverage to merit a mention here. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I wasn't making any arguments concerning the convictions, or for that matter, the subsequent suspension of the imposed sentence. I was merely justifying the usage of the "alleged" word by reliable sources. We don't use our own interpretation because that is exactly what Wikipedia's policy on original research prohibits; we simply go by what the reliable sources say.
You have now repeated that argument multiple times, in one form or another; yet you have failed to substantiate your claim, all the while ignoring the central point of my argument, which I have repeated twice heretofore. You're never going to get consensus by disregarding the arguments of those who disagree with you or by belittling others with your ad hominem attacks. Now I'd have discourse about this with you so long as you come up with reliable sources explicitly deeming the incident as support for the cow vigilantism violence, thereby demonstrating the relevance of this incident here. Which is what my original point was: That the content is irrelevant to start with. And, like I said, the political controversy, which is what the media coverage is all about, centering around this incident is already covered at the Sinha article. MBlaze Lightning 10:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Sinha himself says he was supporting those individuals, because he was unsure of their guilt. [3]. Literally every source covering this describes it as controversial because the individuals concerned had been convicted of a lynching. I can only conclude that you are stonewalling. Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Geez, give me a break! I am not stonewalling. What I was looking for was to see if the reliable sources deem the incident as some sort of positive response to the cow vigilantism violence, as was claimed, so that we could add it onto the response section. But all that was advanced was personal opinions and sources ascribing the "controversy" directly to the opposition political parties. There is a big difference between making policy-based arguments with an aim to prevent the risk of the article becoming a soapbox and obstructing the discussion from developing or being evasive with an aim to prevent any sort of positive resolution, which is what would have been stonewalling; and I wasn't doing that at all. Anyway, in view of the NYT source, I will yield: for I have no objection now. MBlaze Lightning 13:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Repetition of incidents in table

@Vanamonde93: You have provided explanation only for NYT source in your edit summary. Why you have restored a table that was added recently and only repeats what has been already summarized in the article? These edits were made in August.[4] Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That was unintentional: I've removed it. That said, that entire list is probably better presented as a table. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2016 Jharkhand mob lynching

On similar lines to 2017 Jharkhand mob lynchings Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, on similar ground to those given in the next section. Klbrain (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2017 Alwar mob lynching

Similar to the lines with 2017 Jharkhand mob lynchings. The incident by itself is just WP:NEWS but can be merged into the larger article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose merge on the grounds that the event is well-referenced and independently notable. I think that the Adamgerber80 meant to quote WP:NOTNEWS, but that policy does not exclude the existence of this separate page. The advantages of not merging the 2017 Alwar mob lynching page into the Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 are that:
Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism - Dates and ruling party changed

Page is being vandalized to show dates prior to 2014 and different ruling party. Can edits be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.132.222 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The copyright violation tool Earwig [5] is indicating a large ammount of violation within the article. I will be attempting to clean this problem up by rewording the suspected passages over the next few days. The tag on the page will be removed once this is completed. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The offending text has now been edited satisfactorily. There is still a block quote from Christophe Jaffrelot which is setting Earwig's detector off, but apart from that it seems that the problem has been rectified. The copyvio tag will be removed from the article page shortly. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

Adding an incident of cow vigilante violence in India that happened in May 2019

A couple and two men were thrashed by a group for allegedly carrying beef in an autorickshaw at a village in Madhya Pradesh. In a video of the incident shot by an eyewitness on a mobile phone, the woman was seen being hit repeatedly with a slipper on her head, covered with a piece of cloth, as she curled up on the gravel and took the blows in silence from the attacker.[1] Analyzer21 (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Analyzer21:. Updated. Thanks for the info.--Nessie (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "On Video, Woman Among 3 Thrashed over Beef Rumour in Madhya Pradesh".

Targeted Harrasment

This page must be deleted as this is a clear cut vendetta against Hindus. Raazankeet (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Raazankeet: can you be specific? --Nessie (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not. Zezen (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Cow vigilante violence in India". There was consensus to move the page and this seemed the most appropriate title, including earlier violence in India but excluding violence in other countries. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 → Cow vigilante violence – WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that a title should be no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support -- Panda619 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like this article was split off from an overly-long subsection of Cow protection movement#Violence. That section has considerable content about cow vigilante violence going back hundreds of years which is not currently covered in Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. If this move were to take place, it should probably also involve migrating that pre-2000's content from Cow protection movement, leaving behind a summary. In addition to adding the additional events under the Incidents of violence section, this would also require some considerable rewriting to this article's intro and other sections such as "Background and history" and "Laws, state support, and legal issues". Colin M (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Cow vigilante violence in India - I agree that the current title is awkward. While the current wave is significant, I do not see a reason to separate it from the earlier history, and support Colin M's suggestion to migrate information from Cow protection movement#Violence. I think having this information together would serve readers better. However, I think including Myanmar and Sri Lanka in the article would make the article unweildy and links to the relevant sections would suffice. --Nessie (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India/Archive_2&oldid=1140795745"