Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A summary of the valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title; info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms; sourcing/NPOV. As an aside, the behaviour of some of the participants has been outrageously inappropriate, and 180 degrees contrary to what is expected on this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously speedy deleted as A10 for duplicating Persecution of Muslims#India. Same issue still present. But can't CSD it now as its not "recently created" anymore. Also, the article is based on a POV of some writers who have called these persecutions as "pogroms". The term "pogrom" by definition is to be used for attacks on Jewish citizens, which have approval of govt authority. The people in this subject are not Jewish and no proof of approval by government authorities is shown. Even if we disregard this and if the title still wants to use "Pogrom", the word has to be so common in use in this context that no other neutral name is possible. But here, the word is not a common word for these incidences. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep looks well sourced no need for deletion. Baboon43 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But precisely those sources are cherry-picked to suit a specific agenda. Read what I wrote below. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As a bad faith nomination, given the nominator himself has said on his talk page that he has not checked the sources. All the incidents in the article are directly called pograms by the sources, this is a legitimate subject of academic interest. All sources used are from academic publishers. 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) comment added by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
My reading or not reading all sources doesnt solve the problem of duplicate article. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not established by bunch of so-called-academic-publishers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
& DS, please sign your own comments. You should know that this is not a ballot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this logic,
  1. Common name: If we take the most controversial story of them all, Gujarat Violence in 2002.
    Google returns 478,000 hits for "2002 Gujarat violence"
    Google returns 498 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002"
    Google returns 1 hit for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 Gujarat"
    If we generalize even further and perform a sweeping search of all the articles about anti-muslim pogroms in 2002 irrespective of location, even then google returns only 11,000 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002". It is not at all referred to as "pogrom" by general media.
  2. Abuse of the word "pogrom": This term originates from 19th-century Tsarist Russia where it was first used to label attacks against Jewish civilians that were instigated and condoned by the authorities but carried out by civilian mobs who acted with impunity while the police watched idly. Two issues:
    1. The trigger cause of the '02 violence was Godhra Train burning. It was not instigated/approved/condoned by the Gujarat authorities. That accusation has been nullified in the court of law. Far from stoking violence, the authorities, in an attempt to quell the riot, actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in media reports. Thus, the police didn't sit back and watch idly. In fact no charges have been brought against Gujarat administration of 2002.
    2. Don't forget riots of 2002 included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court. In the aftermath of 2002 Gujarat violence a good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, they weren't acting with "impunity".
  3. Misrepresentations: along with classic misrepresentation of sources' claims, it frames personal opinions as assertions of fact on many counts. Many of the sources are unverifiable online, but that's permitted. The issue is Darkness Shines has always been discourteous in past, when faced with a request to provide copies of the sources. He has a habit of claiming a lot, but he is actually willing to verify very, very little.
  4. Distortion / omission of sources: The article cherry-picks a handful of sources from a big set where the vast preponderance of entries don't label or frame these incidents as "pogroms". It often omits, and occasionally distorts, the accepted theory about the cause as well as the aftermath of these riots and also the punitive actions against Criminals taken by the government. All this in order to make it seem that the crimes are "pogroms", and not riots.
  5. General bias in tone: In addition to the issues I touched above, that article is rabble-rousing to the point of ridiculousness, it has to be non neutral in order to conform with the biased topic. Just because some "author" doesn't know how to use the word pogrom in right context or intentionally abuses it to create confusion, or tremendously lacks basic knowledge of history, does it make every one of these radical claims true? That article is a POV-hellhole, and the language, oooh, it's pure seditiousness.
Apart from that, how on earth could typical acts of inter-communal violence and riots like Bombay Riots or Nellie massacre, or 1989 Bhagalpur violence be labelled as "pogroms"? There's no denying that religious violence has always existed in India as a pestilence since the very inception of that civilization, but to label them as "pogroms" while only focusing on "anti-muslim" violence is grossly biased. If we try and painstakingly search for sources about "Anti-Christian holocaust" we will find plenty to create an article much like this one, but we don't have an article on "Anti-Christian holocaust". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See what Admin:Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote about the article's bias and misrepresentation of the source. One snippet of the comment provided below,

    "If this had been written by a newbie, one might consider it a one-off mistake. But it's been written by an active, long-term contributor with a months-long involvement in POV fights. From such a contributor, this is inexcusable. It deserves a ban." (emphasis mine)

I hope it makes it clear how neutral the article and the editor is perceived to be. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not required to be neutral; FPaS's opinion as to whether DS deserves a ban isn't relevant to whether this particular article should be deleted or not. NE Ent 16:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors are not required to be neutral" —— what are you saying? Kindly follow that link, you'll see that it is an evaluation of the neutrality of the article essentially. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and MrT, a redundant article also. None of the incidents covered are considered as pogroms in general .-sarvajna (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shovon76! Your opinion is confusing. "Delete" means to delete the article and "Rename" means to Keep the article but under a different name. Your vote is as good as neutral. Do you want to choose one side? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended, but it is for the closing administrator to interpret !votes, not for you - declaring a !vote as neutral does not make it so. Putting my admin hat on, I read this as "Delete, but if it's kept we should rename it to X..." - a perfectly reasonable position, honestly. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not forcing Shovon to choose either side. I am asking him if he wants to. People do come and put "neutral" as their vote or simply comment on AfDs and thats absolutely fine. I am not trying to act as admin either. I simply found it confusing and hence pointed it so that he may clarify it if he wishes to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite a separate debate whether or not we need a separate article dealing with only anti-Muslim violence when there is an article about Religious violence in India. If that is the case then majority of the content in "Religious violence in India" may support another article about anti-Hindu violence, I think these would further complicate matters. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be anti-Hindu violence, but it is not as notable as persecution of Muslims in India. Also, unlike Muslims, Hindus are not a minority. Mar4d (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we then create an article about anti-Hindu violence in Indian Subcontinent? You verbosely talk about "pogroms", "persecution" of minorities in India? Are you from India? Nope. Then why are you inclined on framing riots as "pogroms"? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The persecution of Muslims in India is a very notable topic that has extensive coverage. It is a well-documented subject and deserves an article. If there is contention over the naming of this article, a solution would be to propose a rename. Nominating for deletion appears to be an attempt of censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of censorship are not the best way to convince other editors of anything. Please comment on content, not on the motivations of other editors. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line of nomination states that we already have a article that you very lovely care about. There is no censorship here. But keeping two articles is surely forking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...And there's nothing wrong with FORKing, if done properly. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles, this one or the one already present, are written properly, they should only briefly be talking about various events as these events have their own separate articles. So if there is going to be only brief writing of few lines, why should there be two such briefs; one with a neutral title and another with a opinionated one? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty good question - but note that I never said this was a good fork, just that being a fork or an attempted fork is not in and of itself a reason to delete anything. Especially if the flaws are fixable through normal editing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like OR to me. The designation of "pogroms" in the cited references (only a few appear to actually use that word) doesn't appear to be central and all this probably fits better under Religious violence in India. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of the WP:OR nature of the article, it is worthwhile looking at the very first sentence in the article. Reference 1, for example, cited in support of "states tacit approval" is a book by Barbara Metcalf. The book makes no mention of pogroms whatsoever. The cited page makes no mention of state approval for violence against muslims, let alone pogroms against them. What it does say is that the Babri Masjid controversy was fueled in part by the "connivance of government officials". That is a far cry from violence, let alone pogroms. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you are wrong, the source does say pograms, "followed by anti muslim pograms in bombay and elsewhere in 2002 a second pogram was unleashed in Gujarat" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was wrong and the source does say pogroms. However, the usage is incidental and nowhere in the source does it say that these anti-Muslim riots were with tacit state support. That these were pogroms is a fringe view that best fits elsewhere, perhaps in Religious violence in India. --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Anti-Muslim violence in India. Ignoring whatever kind of intent may have been behind the article's creation, there are enough reliable sources to establish the subject itself as notable. The alleged POV (I say alleged because I haven't delved into the issue yet) of how the article is phrased is a basis for rewriting parts, but WP:NPOV breaches on a notable topic aren't grounds for deletion. As for inclusion in the main article on religious violence or whatever in India, then it's quite long and detailed, but this article already has a healthy amount of sources and information and as such can stand on its own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re those saying these incidents are not usually called pograms, please read The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" Which obviously says otherwise. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to religious violence in India (or delete). No need to duplicate the coverage of the existing articles with yet another one picking out just one victim group, and the existing article is so problematic in terms of POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style that it's not really worth trying to turn it into something useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Quite good article, referenced. It's about the role of BJP. not about a country, and these are facts. Why decreasing Wikipedia's coverage of Minorities? Faizan 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's about the role of BJP. not about a country" — Red XN nope, this is about India the article name is "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India", not "Anti-Muslim pogroms by BJP" and
"these are facts" — Red XN wrong, these are quite far from "facts". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY "BJP" an Indian party right? The pogroms are held in India, therefore the title justs manifests it. Faizan 11:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how the heck is it more about BJP and less about India??? None of what you say makes any sense, and the question of whether it's about BJP or India as a whole is not relevant anyway. The title allows for "anti-Muslim pogroms in India". There is nothing in the article that vindicates the equation of typical riots with "pogroms". These are personal opinions made by only a handful of people, backed by cherry-picked sources from a large number of references which don't, as a whole, refer to the incidents as "pogrom", there is no ambiguity there. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every source in the article, as well as many hundreds of others call these incidents pogroms, as you already know as I already pointed that out to you at the MFD for the template of the same name. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, "pogrom" indicates systematic official action, no evidence in sources for the same. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the sources which say otherwise you mean? on Bombay, "nine days of anti muslim pograms (sic) sanctioned by the Bombay police" Freedom in the World 1993-94: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1993-1994 p47 On Gujarat, "The 2002 pogrom took place with the full approval of Gujarat's State Government" State Terrorism: Torture, Extra-judicial Killings, and Forced Disappearances p191. Along with the sources in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the source doesn't know how to even spell "pogrom", that raises the chances that they are using the word imprecisely. Again, we have had a big debate about the culpability of then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi at Talk:Narendra Modi and as it seems there were no charges filed against him and that was after years of Investigation by Supreme Court Appointed Team, we can't just ignore that and label the riot a "pogrom" anyway.
These allegations against the government are proved baseless.[1][2] Even the UK has changed its stance[3] after his exoneration.
In the aftermath of the Gujarat riot, a good many rioters (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, they weren't acting with "impunity", the government didn't connive at the crimes, but partisan sources with hidden or not so hidden agenda can claim otherwise. Go consult Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington for more. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your best argument is picking up on my typos then why bother to respond to you? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[4]What typo??? "pogram" misspelling was inside quotation marks succeeded by sic. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That typo is mine. Which should be obvious from my previous comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. This is original research.--A (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were in the article is any OR? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The particular cherry-picking of a few specific references that happen to use the word "pogrom" to support the viewpoint that these were "pogroms," when the majority of references do not refer to them as such.--A (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Thousands of sources both academic and from the MSM calling these incidents pogroms, yet I am "cherry picking the few that do". Right. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DS, what is a pogrom? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss definitions, go look it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't your so-called-academic sources defined it before using it? Our Wikipedia article seems to define it in relation with Jews and government's approval. Both seem to be not applicable here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Thousands of sources both academic and from the MSM calling these incidents pogroms, yet I am "cherry picking the few that do". Darkness Shines, where are the so called "thousands of sources"? Shovon (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" What does that tell you? I have posted plenty of sources both here at at the MFD for category of the same name, a quick google will show you how many sources call Gujarat a pogrom. Same wit hother incidents. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources taken together do not add up to "thousands"!!! Shovon (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is more than adequate, "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom”" obviously it is termed as a pogrom. If you expect me to post thousands of sources think again. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you frame India as a sponsor of State terrorism, that too based on opinion of one person? Is it a joke to you? I think it's the most biased article I have ever come across. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems well sourced. The term pogrom seems applicable enough; it has a fairly wide meaning now. The events are facts, no? 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MrT, I have no idea what you are on about, a historian has said these pogroms are a new form of state terrorism, I am not framing India as anything. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A historian doesn’t decide on whether a act is terrorism or not. He might opine on whether it is terrorism or not. A judicial system decides on whether it is terrorism or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These sort of outdated, prejudicial personal commentaries became even more irrelevant after the Supreme Court appointed investigative team's report was put forward. That accusation was a personal perspective of the "author" and what he thought was going on. He thinks India is a sponsor of "state terrorism". The whole book makes mentions of the word "pogrom" in context of '02 Gujarat violence but the point to be noted here is that in 2006, when the book was published, most of the poignant discoveries about the Gujarat riot case were not readily available, much less accessible to common public. Later it was deemed that that crime was not incited by the Government nor was it an act of terrorism. "Terrorist", that is an obnoxiously biased label one could bestow on anybody basing on prejudicial allegations. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is abhorrent that people play word games with such sad incidents.
I don't know much but I think "terrorists" don't provide relief efforts in the aftermath of acts of terrorism, an amount of 150,000 ₹ was paid by the government to the next of kin of each person killed along with other compensations for physical injuries and property losses.[5]
Update:Furthermore, it was announced that the centre would pay ₹700,000 ex gratia to each of the victims.[6] Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The High Court of Gujarat has issued a contempt notice to the Indian state's government for not paying compensation to victims of the deadly 2002 riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so? Almost a 1000 lost their lives. 56 shop owners claimed they didn't receive payments. Their applications for compensation were dismissed in august 2011.[7] That's a shameful bureaucratic discrepancy at best. But what are you trying to imply, it's a premeditated negligence? BTW, there is a BIG difference between "terrorism" and "negligence" which you don't seem to get yet. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of payment or non-payment of compensation, you need to prove that this terrorism was done by government and not just believed to be done by some random people who have money and time to print books. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with the scholars who you denigrate as "random people" and the academic publishers you seem to think are self published over the opinions of Wiki editors. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your so called scholars and academics are opining and not stating with proofs that these are pogroms. They can call it pogrom or apple. But the fact remains that they have no authority to declare that these acts are done by government. They can only opine that these are done by government, but only judicial system can have the last word on government's involvement. Unless that happens, these scholars are simply writing fiction. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, after all their research counts for nothing does it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What research? Do you mean private investigation? What makes you think that their private "research" as you call it, is more credible than the Verdict presented by a Judiciary committee in a Court of Law basing on the findings of a Supreme court appointed investigative body which were supported by years of investigation and literally thousands of testimonies? Where is your mind these-days? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You really do not know what Academic research is? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you dont get that any amount of academic research of any superior quality cannot replace a judicial decision. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure what the fuss is about the article is very well referenced and contain many mentions of pogroms and hence is a reliable article as for the religious violence in India article that article does not contain sufficient coverage of such incidents and so using A10 as an excuse is baseless at best furthermore pogroms are not necessarily defined as events condoned or actively initiated by the state the definition includes destruction of property and an inability of the state to act appropriately hence this article is valid. I understand many nationalist views are being expressed in order for a delete of the article but this is article which is justified and relevant and nationalist sentiments should not come in the way it would be a shame if this article was censored for ridiculous and unclear arguments. RameshJain9 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I have gone through the references they all seem reliable to me and they are reputable sources and they do mention pogroms so I cannot see how this is cherry picked? if that is the case half the articles on wikipedia would need an AFD that argument is flawed at best RameshJain9 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— RameshJain9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not contain any content that is not covered in other articles.--Launchballer 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable well-sourced topic; needs expanding to cover pre-partition atrocities. 188.222.98.201 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)— 188.222.98.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: per discussions above. This article has all the necessary ingredients of a coatrack or a scorn-worthy pov fork. I don't wish to get involved in the discussions, so spare me!  Brendon is here 10:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : as per discussions above especially well explained by User:Mrt3366 in the beginning. Also The word pogrom - means state sponsored or officially encouraged massacre - [8] - so the article title is mischievous and misleading. Without going into much discussions, this as said above by User:Brendon111 is a scorn-worthy pov fork and I also don't wish to get involved in the discussions, so spare me too!! Jethwarp (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pogrom is no longer limited to attacks on Jews but covers attacks of various types. For example the attacks on Armenians in Baku in the early 1990s are generally referred to as pogroms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro to the article on Pogroms we have this statement "Pogroms against non-Jews include the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom against Igbos in southern Nigeria, the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom against Greeks, the 1920 Shusha pogrom, the 1988 Sumgait pogrom and the Kirovabad pogrom, in which ethnic Armenians were targeted." There is also an article on the Pogrom against the Armenians in Baku. The section in the article on Pogroms on Pogroms against other ethnic groups mentions a lot of other things. The claim that pogroms must be against Jews ignores what we say in the article on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've read the arguments presented above incorrectly. I think the issue is not at all whether it is Jews getting killed or Muslims. I know the scope of "pogrom" has widened in terms of religious orientation.
But here it is about the connivance or complicity of the state government which is not well demonstrated. Yes, Muslims have been killed in India, so have Hindus, Christians, Buddhists in various parts of South-Asia. And the dreadful incidents mentioned herein were not state-sanctioned, that's why the vast preponderance of the sources don't call these as "pogroms", whichever sources do still label it as pogroms either are partisan sources or do it just to embellish their posts without providing any ironclad basis to justify the use. How could they justify it esp. when the court of law, after checking hundreds of testimonies and years of investigation, have punished the perpetrators and reached the conclusion that it was not pogrom? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even those arguing for deletion admit that pogrom is used by sources they claim do not support the article. It seems people want to impose a much narrower and more stringent definition on the term "pogrom" than is actually used in the sources. For example with the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom there is no clear evidence of state support, so I see even less reason to insist on such for the Indian article. The idea that pogroms need clear state support is not held to in the actual use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom has only one source, a poorly written article, obviously nobody paid much attention to the name. But google does return a whopping 160,000 hits for "anti-Igbo pogrom".

You're basically trying to dilute the meaning to a level where the word loses all its unique venom. It makes me wonder why? a Pogrom is a "mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities."[9] Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There might be an argument for a name like Anti-Muslim riots in India or Anti-Muslims massacres in India, but the things covered here are clearly more specific than generalized "violence" and not well covered under that heading. Violence includes attacks carried out by one person against another person, the things here are always described as "massacre", "riot" or "pogrom", they are massive actions that involve a lot more than targeted or random kills and assaults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The common usage for all those incidents that are mentioned in this article is not pogrom. The whole article is built with using only those sources which calls these incidents as Pogroms.-sarvajna (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Mrt3366 and others. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV article using cherry picked sources. If we start having articles like this, next thing we know, we would be having articles like Anti Hindu massacres in Indian subcontinent, Anti Hindu violence in Indian subcontinent, Anti Hindu rape in Indian subcontinent, Anti Christian violence in Pakistan, Anti Hindu violence in Pakistan, Anti Hindu violence in Bangladesh, Anti minority violence in Pakistan, etc. If we want articles like that, even when many of these articles would be duplicating large amounts of content from other similar articles, with somewhat broader or narrower scopes, heck, we can keep this article too.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mr. T and because Persecution of Muslims and Religious violence in India can accurately cover subject material.Pectoretalk 05:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see subsequent sufficient improvements, my concerns satisfied. Faizan 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the Admin: This↑ user took his 'keep vote' back on 16:12, June 8, 2013(UTC). Since then there has not been much of a change with regards to the blatant issues mentioned above. This vote is just for the sake of increasing the head-count. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India&oldid=1223528494"