Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:15, 18 June 2013

17 June 2013

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing admins reasons for deletion are flawed. He has said that the title was inflammatory and this is a valid reason for deletion, it is not per POVTITLE. All sources in the article, as well as many more given during the AFD all say Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, per POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" He also gave as a valid criteria for deletion "sources" However bar one source all others were to academic publishers. The subject matter obviously passes the GNG and this is a topic of both academic and MSM interest. I believe this needs to be overturned. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - "I don't like it" is not a valid rationale for DRV filing, which despite the protests to the contrary, is what this really is. Nominator also seems to be cherry-picking the closing admin's rationale, which did not rest solely on "inflammatory title", but also noted "info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms" and "sourcing/NPOV". These types of articles come (and usually go) around all the time in this project, hyper-partisans pushing their partisan agendas. The keep votes were crap of the "it looks sourced to me" variety", so between that and the number of calls to delete, consensus of the discussion was read correctly. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, and I am sorry I missed a part of the closing rational, ny connection dropped out. The information in the article is not covered in other articles at all that I can see, and as already mentioned, the sources are from academic publishers so how is that a valid reason for deletion? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol what? "I lost my internet, so I didn't read the whole closing rationale" ranks up there with "my dog ate my homework". The subject matter is covered at Religious violence in India#Anti Muslim Violence and the specific topic articles linked from there. You're trying to fork constant into an unnecessary standalone article. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, the connection dropped out while I was filing this and some got dropped without my noticing, and the content in the article is not present at Religious violence in India#Anti Muslim Violence, and even if it were, a content fork is within policy is it not? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZERULE if I add the content which has been deleted it will put the Religious violence in India over the 100kb limit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could we get a temp undelete please? There have been wildly different claims about the sources so it's hard to evaluate these. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse As per the original nom that "Pogrom" is used to denote Jewish Historiography. This is one of the occasions (along with Indian feudalism) which is total WP:OR in Indian context. Solomon7968 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Which shows that the original nomination was flawed, the term has been used for years to denote other massacres. Merriam Webster gives a definition of "an organized massacre of helpless people" The term is not reserved exclusively for massacres of those of the Jewish faith. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Muslim community is helpless in India although the opposite is true. To create it please first give Non partisan sources that the Muslim community is helpless in India. Solomon7968 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Any minority group is helpless when faced with overwhelming numbers, especially when the state or police refuse to help. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your above comment is WP:OR. I will not respond to it. Please give citations. All top posts in India are occupied from the Muslim community (from finance minister to Ex-President to RAW head) What more you want? Solomon7968 20:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is common sense, not OR. But as you insist, Women and Politics in the Third World "(Kashmir with a predominantly Muslim population) where, in the name of fighting terrorism, state security forces waged a virtual war against helpless civilians" Workers, Unions, and Global Capitalism: Lessons from India "workers saying that the victims deserved what they got: this was evidence of extreme prejudice, given that the victims were helpless innocents who were tortured, raped and killed in unspeakably brutal ways" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So you forget about the Grand Mufti of Kashmir which issued a death fatwa because some teenage girls formed a band (that also wearing hijab). No one from Muslim community stood against this. Why are you not telling other side of story Mr. User talk:Darkness Shines Solomon7968 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could the temperature in this debate be reduced, please? This argumentative back-and-forth is not conducive to thoughtful scrutiny of the issues raised. I would tend to agree with Hobit that there are widely varying claims being made and a temporary undelete would be helpful in evaluating them.

  Certainly religious violence against Muslims takes place in India. No reasonable person would claim otherwise. The question is not whether to cover religious violence against Muslims in India, because clearly we should cover it. The question is whether to cover it in its own, separate article or whether religious violence in India or persecution of Muslims are better places.

  I want to say that "pogroms" is not a word you'd normally expect to find in the title of an encyclopaedia article----it's not our usual language. I think that even if DRV decided to restore the content we would have to find a more distant, more neutral, drier title for it.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles with pogrom in the title . The sources used in the article can be seen in my userspace here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not care if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and every single of the other stuff are related to Jewish History. You cannot erode Indian historiography by imposing the word "Pogrom". Your aticle title seems to be Political views of Paul Brass. Solomon7968 21:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. Up until I looked at Darkness Shines' list of sources, I was pretty clear that "pogrom" is a Yiddish word meaning "mass-murder of Jews by a mob of gentiles". I was intrigued to see that there really are sources (and here) that call the anti-Muslim violence in India "pogroms", and use that actual word in the actual title. Although I still don't think we should use that word, I can see how a reasonable person would disagree.

  For me, I think the key to this is that the experts don't have to be neutral, and indeed they usually aren't----it's accepted that subject-matter experts write books from an angle. We Wikipedians are constrained by WP:NPOV in a way that subject-matter experts aren't. I think our concern about neutrality underlies and underpins the consensus that emerged in the debate we're discussing, that we shouldn't have that article title. And I don't think a user would type "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" into the search box.

  Darkness Shines, I think it's accepted that there are sources and they do use the word "pogroms". But the fact that there are sources doesn't mean that a separate article is the best way to cover the subject. Could you list all your objections to covering this under religious violence in India, please?—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:S Marshall Your summary is fine. I hope Darkness shines agrees. Solomon7968 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The first problem is size, Religious violence in India already stands at 93,686 bytes, to add all the information from the pogroms article will violate WP:SIZERULE as it will put the article over 100kb. Should the pogroms article be restored and expanded it would surpass the size limitations even more. There is also the fact that this is a subject of academic interest, it passes GNG as a stand alone article under those guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Are those all of the reasons that you want us to consider?—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I reckon so, I am sadly, no policy wonk and have no ideas as to which policies I ought to be quoting. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'm looking into this subject at the moment, refreshing my memory on all the violence since the Godhra train incident, and trying to understand the shape of the coverage we already have (across all the various articles). My first impression is there's quite a chaotic mix of articles with varying scope and focus, and I'm starting to wonder whether the whole topic area wouldn't benefit from rethinking its structure a bit.

To be quite frank I don't think the solution will be to overturn BWilkins' close; there really was a rough consensus there to support it. But I do think our coverage of anti-Muslim violence in India needs to be improved, and I agree that there's academic interest in the subject, and I don't see why the sources you list can't be used. It's a question of working out a balanced and fair way to do it. I'm minded to try to help when I've done some more reading and thinking.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:S Marshall The problem is we do not have articles on some core issues. For example check the article Syed Ahmed Bukhari which I created two days back. Solomon7968 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that missing articles are part of the problem. I'm just reading some of our very large number of articles about human rights in India, and I'm going through their histories. What I'm seeing is a whole lot of content written by a relatively small number of users, and it's often the same users in each article, interacting with each other again and again. I can see how pressures and tensions build up...—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing which most frustuates me is lack of reliable sources on politics in India specifically the "Votebank politics". For example no Imam of any Indian mosque has a[REDACTED] entry though it is well known Imams are used for political purposes. The scale of lack of reliable source can be a headache to every editor who has a miniscule knowledge of the subject. Solomon7968 00:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@S Marshall: On why a separate article is not needed for this I had written at the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India that "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 an opinionated one?" §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go with incubate. I agree that the close was within BWilkins' discretion and I think he deserves credit for being willing to make a difficult call. But the whole topic area is very complicated and difficult, and the more I look at it the more neutrality issues I see; our India-related coverage is chaotic and disorganised and an awful lot of it has been written by a fairly small number of people, many of whom have shown up in these debates. Although I see every evidence that those editors are writing in good faith, I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people. I think there may be appropriate content and sourcing that, with a little rewriting, could be incorporated into our existing coverage and I think it will all take longer than our customary seven days to assess in detail, so "incubate" looks correct to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people." — Why pick on India? And why focus on only Anti-muslim violence? Are you telling us we shouldn't let those who are editing India-related pages in good faith, edit those pages because they form what seems like a small group of people to you? Isn't it a tad much to call it dangerous?
"small group of people" - What group? Is there a membership plan on Misplaced Pages that I don't know about? Did those group members sign up for something formally? Is that an euphemism for something? How small is small enough? Are you sure you're being impartial here? That article was not only not reliable it was also offensive and filled with personal inferences, opinions and conjectures.
Yet you're willing to "incubate" these travesty of an article imbued with utterly partial insinuations and prevarications that are fudged together basing on deplorable POV? You've got to be kidding me(!) This is unacceptable. Mr T 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Request temp restore - Clearly this article is quite polarizing. In order to make a proper judgement I will need to actually see the content of the article in question. It's hard to pass judgement on something when there is no context which can be used to make said judgement! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Uhh... having a revision available where there is actually article text would usually help! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) - Here Bwilkins said, "I never claimed at any point that an inflammatory title was reason for deletion." And I concur, apparently the closer summed the arguments for deletion in a line where only one of the cited reasons was "inflammatory title" others were "info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms"; "sourcing"; "NPOV". The DRV-nominator here is the creator of the article and there are many behavioral and attitudinal issues with his editing. Attitudinizing as a impartial, neutral editor, he is far from one. Mr T 05:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse Agreed with Darkness Shines's nomination. I will strongly endorse the review. Please get the article is restored. The result ought to be "no consensus". The consensus for "deletion" was never reached. Faizan 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want the article restored then you need to write overturn, not endorse. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean unanimity nor is it a majority vote and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Only citing just a policy or commenting based on subjective liking towards the subject to increase the head-count, is not a valid ground for nullifying a legitimate consensus. Mr T 07:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. You have already posted your comment there on the AFD. There is no need to recreate that imbroglio all over again. Mr T 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn Title argument not supported by policy. FYI, for use of 'pogroms' in a non-jewish context, see Frank Herbert's 'Dune'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

& other arguments? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion Darkness Shines is quite falsely claiming that I deleted because of an offensive title - in my close, I summarized a number of the arguments - one was that the title was inflammatory, but that was not a reason to delete. Mr Shines has been aware of this false statement for sometime after posting to my talkpage, but choosing not to listen to my responses. Mr Shines is focusing on one single false issue expecting responses like Only In Death's, and succeeding - thankfully only once. Do not allow this DRV to get as ugly as the AFD: that AFD led to blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse there was a consensus in the AfD for deletion. The central argument for deletion - that the article was not neutral and that the topic was covered elsewhere under more appropriate terms - is grounded in policy. The main argument for keeping the article was the existence of sources, which isn't particularly relevant to this argument. Hut 8.5 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg

File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The deletion of this image as being replacable fair use ignited a debate on WT:NFCC that is turning into yet another war between those trying to uphold policy as such (like me; a certain editor only called me a deletionist because of my actions in another, very different NFCC 1 case, best described as being carrots to pineapples in comparison), free content purists, and deletionists. The deleting admin stated that "Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit." However, this seems to be a special case because this particular species has only really been caught on camera in this particular non-free image; we should just use common sense here and put this up for further discussion with third-parties who have better knowledge of our consensus in NFCC 1 cases. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I am an involved party, I would like to point out that User:Nthep deleted the image with no comment, just that it fails criterion 1. User:Eeekster was the one with the comment above, and I don't believe he is an admin. Surfer43 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. I deleted the file for failing to meet NFCC#1 namely that a free use image of the bat could reasonably be created. If the concensus is that a free image could not reasonably be created then I'm more than happy to restore the file but then there is a possible discussion about whether NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) is being met, if the image is that rare. The NFCC are a package so while this discussion maybe about the application of one criteria, just check that chosing a different interpretation of one doesn't potentially mean that others are now not being met. NtheP (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:PantherLeapord was the only one calling names. Surfer43 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn as an improper F7 and send to FfD. Disputed fair use != Invalid fair use, a discussion is certainly called for, and not just an escalating back-and-forth between the uploader and the tagger. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• On the one hand, I agree with Jclemens to the extent that speedy deletion should be reserved for clearer-cut cases. The purpose of the speedy deletion rule is to empower sysops to delete material without a discussion, but the community has set many limits on that. They're wearisome to read in detail but the underlying principle is always: it should be absolutely obvious to a neutral observer why the deletion is right. In cases where a neutral, good-faith observer might think "that's arbitrary" or "that's a matter of opinion", speedy deletion isn't the right tool for the job. In this case there is good faith doubt so a discussion is necessary.

  But on the other hand, I don't think there's any point in sending it back to FFD, because our FFC and NFCC pages are attractive to people who're focused on the "free content" part of Misplaced Pages rather than improving the actual articles. FFD will just delete it again because that's what FFD does. The people who're focused on encyclopaedia-building find FFD and NFCC a bit alien from the rest of the encyclopaedia because those venues are so militant in their focus on free content. To me, it's quite obvious that material that (a) it's lawful for us to use, (b) nobody objects to us using, and (c) enhances our encyclopaedia should be used. Deleting such material is obstructive, destructive, and grossly and blatantly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia.

  FFD and NFCC have become so free-content-focused and so deletionist that there's little point in having them. We might as well go the de.wiki route of not hosting image files locally at all and putting everything on Wikimedia Commons.

  For that reason input from the wider community is to be sought, not the free-content crowd who congregate around FFD and NFCC. I'd recommend that this goes to RFC, but I see that there's already one open on this very subject on WT:NFCC. DRV should wait for the community to decide at that RFC and then enforce the community's will.—S Marshall T/C 07:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • "our FFC and NFCC pages are attractive to people who're focused on the "free content" part of Misplaced Pages rather than improving the actual articles". I'm sure your handful of GAs qualify you to write off the opinions of people like Masem and I as nutjob extremists who aren't really here to improve the encyclopedia. You're the one suggesting we do away with one of our central policies. You're the one with a minority fringe view. You're the one ignoring the "community's will". J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK the greater community's will is that fair use images should be used where the free alternative is not of acceptable quality (Such as the initial free replacement for the Playstation 4 image). I would hardly call that a "Minority fringe view"! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Marshall is of the view that if an image meets three criteria: "(a) it's lawful for us to use, (b) nobody objects to us using, and (c) enhances our encyclopaedia should be used." This amounts to doing away with the non-free content policy, which is deliberately far stricter than his very liberal ideas about non-free content use. That is the fringe view. I am making no comment about this image, I am defending myself and others from his attack against us. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Also, of course that's not the community's will. "I know there's a free image, but I don't like it very much, so we'll continue to use the non-free image." Bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Free image purism is just as detrimental to the encyclopedia! When a fair use image is of much higher quality AND encyclopedic value than the free image then it is obvious that using the free image will only DEGRADE the quality of the article the image is used on. Would you rather use the free version and degrade the article or stick to the higher quality fair use image? PantherLeapord (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Take a look at non-free content criterion 1. We do not use non-free content when a free image could reasonably be created that would serve the same purpose as a non-free image- we certainly don't use non-free content when free content is already available. This is not particularly controversial. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC#1 is the very REASON that this image was falsely deleted in the first place! WP:NFCC#1 is why we are here today! If WP:NFCC#1 was not CONSTANTLY misinterpreted by free image purists and deletionists then this image would NOT have been deleted to begin with! As this bat is EXTREMELY RARE and ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to get a photo of then it SHOULD be kept! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment S Marshall is quite mistaken about FFD. A file was kept as recently as 12 May. One was also kept on 19 May but that was withdrawn by the nominator. On 3 June one was "not deleted" with a supervote because someone gave "a correct reason". The normal procedure is not to close discussions with a consensus to keep and so by no means all images are deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Giving examples of images that were kept does not invalidate what I said.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Respect for Commercial Oppurtunities There is complete respect for commercial opportunities because the owner allows it to be on Google Earth and it is freely accessible online. Having it freely available on Misplaced Pages will not change a thing. Surfer43 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I've left a comment on the photo's page asking if the author would be willing to release it under a free license. As far as I can tell, no one has even attempted this yet (which, frankly, is ridiculous). Hopefully this will be able to solve the entire problem. If anyone speaks it, it may be worth trying to contact the photographer in Spanish, too. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is definitely a good thing to have done. If you get a reply of "no", for me that would make the situation clear cut. Thincat (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I will leave the comment en español. I doubt he won't allow it. Surfer43 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• undelete and list I agree with S Marshall in nearly all respects on this one and would like to see an RfC on the broader issue. But DRV's job isn't to worry about how broken FfD is, it's to overturn bad deletions. And this one is clearly not a speedy case or even close to it. A new picture can't be reasonably gotten by anyone at this time so IMO it should be kept at FfD. Just needs to get there. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The broader issue is already a RFC. Please comment on it at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. Surfer43 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless you mean the entire NFCC policy. Surfer43 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)