Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Content deleted Content added
Hemantha (talk | contribs)
Tag: Reply
Line 77: Line 77:
::::You are also confused about the secondary ref. "The Sangh Parivar: A Reader" which was already there from before your removals, carried the quote. I don't know why you felt the need to add one more, but it doesn't hurt.
::::You are also confused about the secondary ref. "The Sangh Parivar: A Reader" which was already there from before your removals, carried the quote. I don't know why you felt the need to add one more, but it doesn't hurt.
::::There is a minor point about your edit though. You've changed the meaning a bit - previous text said {{tq|This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's writings. Writing about Hitler's Nazi-Germany, Golwalker observed}} which says that his writings on Germany was ''one instance'' of a number of such evidences. Current text says {{tq|This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's about Hitler's Nazi-Germany where he observed}} which makes it sound as if his writing on Germany was the ''only instance'' of such evidence. The second is, I suspect, not what Jaffrelot is saying IIRC. So I'd like you to change it back to previous text. The paragraph was clunky already, so again your addition to the clunkiness doesn't hurt too much. [[User:Hemantha|Hemantha]] ([[User talk:Hemantha|talk]]) 09:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
::::There is a minor point about your edit though. You've changed the meaning a bit - previous text said {{tq|This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's writings. Writing about Hitler's Nazi-Germany, Golwalker observed}} which says that his writings on Germany was ''one instance'' of a number of such evidences. Current text says {{tq|This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's about Hitler's Nazi-Germany where he observed}} which makes it sound as if his writing on Germany was the ''only instance'' of such evidence. The second is, I suspect, not what Jaffrelot is saying IIRC. So I'd like you to change it back to previous text. The paragraph was clunky already, so again your addition to the clunkiness doesn't hurt too much. [[User:Hemantha|Hemantha]] ([[User talk:Hemantha|talk]]) 09:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
*Not sure what this argument is about anymore, but FWIW; I don't think minor incidents ought to be mentioned in list form at all (on this page, or any similar overarching page about violence). Of course, that tends to be a pointless argument; every page has its POV pushers demanding the inclusion of every last incident. The inclusion of the Golwalkar quote seems quite appropriate; the sourcing issues seems to have been fixed, and that analysis of his writing is entirely mainstream in scholarly work discussing his ideology. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:09, 20 February 2022

Request to delete page

Hi. I'm requesting for this page to be deleted. It's incredibly misleading and seems politically motivated. It also doesn't take into account Islamic extremism in India and how that fuels communal violence. This also doesn't take into account religious appeasement policies and anti-Hindu rhetoric from elite politicians that exacerbate sectarian tensions between Hindus and Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


You should read Wikipedia policy they have rules with regards to deleting a page but as far as I know you cannot delete a page by discussing about it on talk page. I might be opinionated here but whatever is written on this page is a fact backed by countless pieces of evidence. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE--RegentsPark (comment) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krao212 yes i Agree

@Branstarx3: Please clarify what you mean by Article should be reported to higher Indian authorities. Legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. See WP:NLT. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not any legal threat and i am aware of WP:NLT, article not seems to be written with neutrality and are heavily biased violating WP:NPV Branstarx3 (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content only.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i revert my edit on this section Branstarx3 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
You're asking in the wrong place, Krao212. This explains exactly what you should do if you want the article deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure what the best place for this comment is. A prominent celebrity Shabana Azmi is not given a house because of her (Muslim) name [1]; but she and her husband Javed Akhtar were made respected members of Rajya Sabha, too [2]. It's an extreme country but any extremist events do not represent even 1% of lives on ground. Writing such articles can only be done in hiding mode (without the context of the long history), and that's where they fail, because the whole purpose seems to create a propaganda rather than awareness. Reeteshr08 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Please include the recent comments by U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom commissioner Anurima Bhargava who said that the present Indian Govt. is bringing Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens to limit the freedom of Indian Muslims and she has also recommended the U.S. State Department designate India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), like Pakistan and Burma for systematic violence of religious freedoms of the minorities mainly Muslim and Christians.

I would wish for a better source, also not sure what this has to do with violence.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: [1] 103.151.156.81 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also that source does not appear to be very reliable as it looks to be related to advocacy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source provided is not a reliable source, a potential WP:SPSEcho1Charlie (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Add this riots also 2021 Kawardha riots UserABCXYZ (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha's reverts

Hemantha instead of using your half-baked understanding of WP:PRIMARY and the scope of this page, you should use talk page. You can't use a quote to build up your own conclusion as it violates WP:SYNTH because we expect the secondary reliable source to make conclusion.

I have already explained a minor revert by you, so I don't think I need to explain further about it.

It was not even long time ago when this page only included the major incidents of violence as Vanamonde93 and Kautilya3 can confirm too and in the recent times the page has started to provide coverage to non-notable incidents of violence. You should avoid diluting the page further by including instances of Cyberbullying because they don't justify inclusion on a page called "Violence against Muslims in India".

I believe the page should be reverted back to the last stable version before it happened to provide coverage to these non-notable incidents because it provides a misleading notion that these are all the incidents that took place so far in independent India. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that the quote is used by Jaffrelot in the same context. No editors here are building up quotes and conclusion. Jaffrelot is quite clearly a secondary source. The article is correctly referencing both Jaffrelot and Golwalkar. I don't see the synth issue here.
On issues of cyberbullying, I think a discussion is required before removal. Scope of the article is nowhere restricted to physical violence only per my reading. Hemantha (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel, I'm sorry but I had to revert your changes to your earlier comment since I had already replied to it. Please add it back as a new reply. Hemantha (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reply came at the same time and you could have modified your reply. This is the revert about which my original post here talked about that isn't where you said that Jaffrelot used the quote, but on another revert where you were supposed to fix the problem instead of relying on edit summaries and expect others to fix it. Anyway, I have added the actual secondary source here.
The actual scope of the article remained restricted to the major incidents of violence where there were enough deaths. I am fine with hearing what others say about the scope. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear totally confused - two edits can't happen at the same time. Let me repeat - by the time you changed your post, I had already replied. I didn't even get an edit conflict, look at the history.
You are also confused about the secondary ref. "The Sangh Parivar: A Reader" which was already there from before your removals, carried the quote. I don't know why you felt the need to add one more, but it doesn't hurt.
There is a minor point about your edit though. You've changed the meaning a bit - previous text said This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's writings. Writing about Hitler's Nazi-Germany, Golwalker observed which says that his writings on Germany was one instance of a number of such evidences. Current text says This is evident in M. S. Golwalkar's about Hitler's Nazi-Germany where he observed which makes it sound as if his writing on Germany was the only instance of such evidence. The second is, I suspect, not what Jaffrelot is saying IIRC. So I'd like you to change it back to previous text. The paragraph was clunky already, so again your addition to the clunkiness doesn't hurt too much. Hemantha (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what this argument is about anymore, but FWIW; I don't think minor incidents ought to be mentioned in list form at all (on this page, or any similar overarching page about violence). Of course, that tends to be a pointless argument; every page has its POV pushers demanding the inclusion of every last incident. The inclusion of the Golwalkar quote seems quite appropriate; the sourcing issues seems to have been fixed, and that analysis of his writing is entirely mainstream in scholarly work discussing his ideology. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]