Jump to content

Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jionakeli (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 12 August 2017 (→Merger of Not In my name (protest In India)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page title

Boldly closing this, because it has gotten totally scattered and is thus useless for further discussion, and because some sort of consensus has been reached. I am beginning a new section below, where we may continue the discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fowler&fowler complained here about the poor English of the title, which got me thinking about alternatives. Here are some possibilities:

  • Cow protection lynching
  • Cow protection violence
  • Cow protection-related violence
  • Cow protection-related violence in India

Pinging Vanamonde93, Vice regent and Ms Sarah Welch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Cow protection vigilantism in India? I'm also fine with Cow protection-related violence in India.VR talk 21:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cow protection vigantlism or Cow protection lynching would be a fair choice. Capitals00 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some comments: I think using "cow" here is slipping into a colloquialism that is bad english particularly when referring to all Indian cows in the abstract. The correct term would be "cattle". I'd agree that the current title is a poor choice; I have a mental picture of people carrying out lynchings while riding cows..."Cattle protection-related violence" would seem to be okay. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Indeed, the current title is poor English and the topic notable. Vanamonde makes an excellent point... Cattle protection-related violence would be the NPOV and encyclopedic title. It would allow an encyclopedic coverage of violence-related to cattle other than cow, as well as the topic in pre-Partition India, contemporary Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and implemented that move as the current title was inadequate. I want to point out that "Cow protection vigantlism" is still the dominant term used to describe contemporary violence. "Cattle protection-related violence" increases the scope of the article to include, for example, 1966 anti-cow slaughter agitation.VR talk 15:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title is inappropriate. "Cattle" is much broader term for the page considering the violence related cow and its significance among Hindus in India. Cattle protection related violence can be covered in a separate article for "Animal protection-related violence". Suppose a protest in China for cattle by PETA turned violent for any reason has no relation to the religious motivated lynchings by the so called cow vigilante groups. In most of these protection-related violence, victims were often targeted because of alleged beef consumption or cow transportation. When there is a topic like Cow protection movement so the most appropriate title should be Cow protection-related violence. Cow vigilante related violence can be another choice as the term "cow vigilante" is often used for these incidents[1]. Jionakeli (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either "Cow protection-related violence" or "Cow protection-related violence in India" as suggested by Kautilya3 seems perfect to me.Jionakeli (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. "Cow protection" is the established term for the ideology. Vanamonde93, I didn't understand your point why "cattle" is the correct term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cow is female, bull is male, though the term cow is sometimes used generically (for both, and for cattle). Would a redirect of Cow protection-related violence to this article suffice? Cattle protection is found in sources (1, 2, 3, etc). If cow protection is of higher cite frequency, it may be more MOS compliant. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except source #1, other two sources also mention "cow protection" and as a matter of fact cow protection is of higher cite frequency. Jionakeli (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this article already contains alleged lynching by Animal Rights activists, of men carrying buffaloes. "Cow protection" is a bad title. I struck out my previous support for the alternate because it would be silly to have additional articles on "Buffalo protection-related violence" etc. Perhaps, we should consider "Animal protection-related violence" title, given what HRW and other sources are stating. Please see WP:WWIN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though you struck it out but the guidelines remain same. How can you say "Cow protection" is a bad title? Then how there is an article on "Cow protection movement"? Even the term "gau mata" has been widely cited[2]. Please, note Wikipedia is not censored so if it seems bad to you then still you have to accept the policies. I have already mentioned my reason why cattle or animal protection related violence should have a different title[3]. I am requesting you please abide by WP:NOTTRUTH. Numerous lynching cases and violence took place only because of Cow and not because of cattle. For example Dadri lynching, Alwar lynching, Jharkhand lynching, and more such lynchings are religiously motivated and solely because of cow[4] and not any other animals which falls under the term "cattle". "Cow vigilante" attacks happening in India are unrelated to any other violence related to animal or cattle happening elsewhere.

You are confusing the religiously motivated vigilante attacks by "gau rakshkas"[5] with cattle protection violence which is totally a different topic. It is like confusing religiously motivated Islamist attacks with any other terrorist attacks by different groups with different non-religious ideologies. The concept of "Ahimsa" is no way related to these cow related violence. I can bet the attackers do not even know what "Ahimsa" is because it is opposite of violence. If you want to add cattle related violence then better make it "Animal protection-related violence" and add sections for all countries without giving undue weight to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism because people who depend on cattle for livelihood will always defend slaughter irrespective of their religious identity. Jionakeli (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Cow protection-related violence in India based on the religiously motivated violence over cow in India. Jionakeli (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jionakeli: I am afraid it is a WP:POV fork and it will eventually get deleted.
The behaviour of all the editors here leaves a lot to be desired. Changes to page titles and scope should be not carried out without discussion and consensus. This page, as originally envisioned, should primarily focus on violence occurring in India. No need for discussions of ideologies, religions, or to discuss the whole world. Ms Sarah Welch it is unseemly to claim that people are getting killed in the name of Ahimsa. Please let us not go there. The Cattle slaughter in India page discusses all that. No need to duplicate it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jionakeli: I concur with Kautilya3. You have created an unnecessary POV-y WP:CFORK. This article's title needs to be discussed, and we should wait till a consensus emerges. Kautilya3: This talk page is not appropriate for a unseemly discussion of "ahimsa, just war, etc", please see your talk page for a few comments. If we include a background or history section in this article, for context, let us stick to appropriate reliable scholarly sources / HISTRS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected that article to Cattle slaughter in India. Capitals00 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I understood and I agree to this. The religious views were unnecessary brought to the page by Ms Sarah Welch. I'd say directly copied from Cattle slaughter in India. The lynchings over cow (Una, Alwar and Delhi cow vigilantism: A list of 'gau rakshak' attacks since 2015 Dadri lynching from FirstPost, Anatomy of a Lynching from NYTimes, An Angry Mob In India Lynched a Muslim Man Because They Thought He Had Eaten Beef from Time.com etc.) are unrelated to any sort of violence over a cattle. Declare cow national animal, says Rajasthan HC judge, among a few other things, 'Gau Mata' Should be Our National Animal, Says Bengal RSS Unit, Anyone who insults 'Gau mata' is an enemy: VHP leader etc. are enough to distinguish why these cases are closely related over "gau mata" or cows. Not every incident deserves an independent page but they do deserve to be mentioned as a list. This article should serve this purpose. Jionakeli (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jionakeli: Check out WP:CSC. Capitals00 (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Vice regent: please tell why it was moved to a new article[6] without a consensus? Jionakeli (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't move the article. But my proposal for moving it, at the top, was basically aimed at correcting the English. I didn't envisage changing the scope of the article in any way. I still don't support changing the scope of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do we reach a consensus now? Jionakeli (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I moved it, the last two users had both supported "Cattle-protection based violence". If there's now consensus on a different title, then that's fine, we can move it there.VR talk 15:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please move it to Cow protection-related violence in India per WP:TITLE and in context of the vast sources for related incidents. Jionakeli (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do a poll between "Cow protection-related violence", "Cattle protection-related violence", "Cow protection-related violence in India", and "Cattle protection-related violence in India". Users can vote for as many options as they wish. Does that sound good?VR talk 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a way to reach consensus within Wikipedia guidelines then I am fine with it. I will still say there is a clear reason why it should be "Cow protection-related violence in India". Jionakeli (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even before my first edit, the article contained religious views in the lead, background and other sections, sourced from non-HISTRS / non-RS. I updated sections per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in one case, and updated other sections to reflect HISTRS/RS. Kautilya3: what sections would you propose, and what would be the scope of each of those sections, given our content and WWIN guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point now to document only cattle protection related violence. It should cover notable animal protection related violence such violence by Animal Rights groups for protection buffaloes or any other animals[7], [8]. Jionakeli (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be re-written accordingly. I will appreciate if anyone can relieve me of this burden. --Jionakeli (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Animal-protection related violence is inappropriate, as it might include PETA-related stuff, which is very different from the topic of this article. I suggest this article be limited to cows/cattle etc.VR talk 15:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit to only cow related violence by cow vigilantes as cited in all WP:RS. Making it cattle is WP:OR. All these lynchings were due to cows[9] and not cattle or other animals. There are "gau rakshak" groups[10] not "cattle rakshaks" or "pashu rakhshak" groups. They want to stop cow slaughter or punish people[11] for cow slaughter not cattle slaughter[12], [13]. Jionakeli (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either "Cow-protection..." or "Cattle-protection...". Can we all agree that "Animal-protection..." is not a good choice of name?VR talk 16:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! None agreed to "Animal-protection...". It was me who moved it and I do not agree with it now since the other article I created was a POV fork. Jionakeli (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries.VR talk 16:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Here's an informal poll on what should the article title be. There are four choices:

  • Cow-protection related violence
  • Cattle-protection related violence
  • Cow-protection related violence in India
  • Cattle-protection related violence in India

As can be seen there are two variables to vote on: cow vs cattle and global scope (without "in India" in the title) vs Indian scope (with "in India" in the title). Let's discuss/vote on both concepts below.

"Cow-protection" vs "Cattle-protection"

  • "Cow-protection" is clearly the most common name out there. However, I'm open to "cattle-protection" since it allows the inclusion of, say, buffalo-protection violence in the article.VR talk 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Cow protection-related violence in India" is the best title for the topic. Even though some of the violence might have occurred for other cattle, I think the ideology is still known as "cow protection". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Cow-related violence" would open the door to including violence against cows in this article. That should most definitely not be the scope of the article, as we would then have to end up including the worldwide beef industry. The focus of the article is cow-protection related violence, meaning violence inflicted against other humans in the name of protecting cows.VR talk 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We can add an About hat to clarify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MSW, "Cow protection" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the ideology, both in English and Hindi. Whether it is an accurate description or not is immaterial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd much prefer "cattle-protection" because that is correct English. "Cow" refers to females of the species. Is there any evidence of this protection being related only to female members of the species Bos taurus? No, of course not; folks are getting worked up about bulls as well. Cow-protection is still better than animal protection, though. Vanamonde (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Vanamonde, I have read several academic sources that the earliest cow-protection movements emphasized the female nature of the cow, calling it their "mother". May of India's cow protection laws apparently only protect female cows not the male bull.
In any case, scholarly sources use the term "cow protection movement" - I have never seen the term "cattle protection movement" being used. And "cow vigilantism" is used far more commonly than "cattle vigilantism". Nevertheless, I'm fine with either name.VR talk 07:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 Yes, there are evidences of cow protection only, not bulls such as this[14]. Jionakeli (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that source does not actually say anything about this violence; it's documenting an unrelated event, and a Supreme Court judge is not a reliable source in any case. Honestly I'm willing to live with cow-protection related violence/cow-protection related violence even if just to end this bickering. If we do go with that, though, I think it would make more sense to run with Violence related to cow protection in India, which is more straightforward language. Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can live with that. Can you change the title please? This has dragged on for too long. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If cattle makes more sense then I am fine with "Cattle protection related violence in India" with "Cow protection related violence in India" being redirected to it. None disagreed to "Cattle protection related violence in India". Jionakeli (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I like your suggestion. I am fine with either Violence related to cattle protection in India or Violence related to cow protection in India. I will reflect on whether we need to create Violence related to cow protection in Myanmar, Violence related to cow protection in East Africa, etc. There is RS for these. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titles need to be as concise as possible. If we agree upon "Violence related to cow protection in India", why not use "Cow-protection violence"? That is far more concise. Here is an academic source published by the Cambridge University Press that uses that term, which means it should be grammatically correct. Other academic sources commonly use terms like "cow protection riots" and "cow protection agitation". So there is absolutely nothing wrong, at least from a grammatical perspective, to use the "cow protection" as an adjective.VR talk 02:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:, @Kautilya3: This has been dragged way too long. Can we have a solution now? Jionakeli (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global scope vs Indian scope

  • I support the titles with the name in India. From my research, scholars say the violence is tied to the political and socio-economic situation of India. Some might argue that this violence is rooted in religion, not politics, and point to the occurrence in Buddhist/Hindu societies outside of India. But from my research, most reliable sources don't making a connection between cattle-protection related violence in India to that happening outside of India, hence I think we should limit the scope to in India.VR talk 17:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the article should be in India only as cow protection vigilantes or gau rakshaks, lynchings over cows of Muslims, Govt. officials, lower caste Hindus are taking place in India only. There are notable lynching cases which document this very well. Jionakeli (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Vigilantism" or "violence"

It has just occurred to me that there is a significant difference between "vigilantism" and "violence". "Violence" is a very generic term that also includes state-sponsored violence, such as the state executing someone for killing a cow. On the other hand, vigilantism only refers to non-state actors. I think this article should limit its focus on vigilantism like lynching, riots etc.VR talk 03:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the topic is in violence. Mere vigilantism would not have received all this coverage if it was lawful. The fact that it has led to violence is why we are here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current article title is fair. It can be expanded and trimmed further if people contribute. Capitals00 (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-consensus

I can't see much consensus here. But I am going to stick my neck out and change the current "Animal protection-related violence" to "Cow protection-related violence", which involves change of one word only. "Cow" was part of the title of the article as originally conceived, and it is amply justified by contemporary sources as well as historical sources. If anybody wants a further change, please file a WP:Request for move. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya: you seemed to be okay above with "Violence related to cow protection in India", which Sarah Welch was also okay with, but whose ping I just got around to seeing. Would you be okay with that title? I think the "in India" qualifier particularly important: since it has been indicated that such violence does occasionally exist outside India, leaving out the qualifier would make the scope too large. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with it, but somebody raised WP:CONCISE. I tried to make as small change as possible so that this doesn't blow up again. Further, I think language purity is the least of our problems here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: As stated I am okay with what you decide. Both me and Vice_regent have already agreed to keep "in India"[15]. Jionakeli (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: The fact is that since we are not documenting incidents outside India, but since there is at least some evidence that such incidents exist, even WP:CONCISE would require the "in India" in order to clearly and unambiguously identify the subject. So if you folks raise no objections, I'll move the page shortly; I'll shelve my concerns about "cattle" versus "cow" for the moment, though we will probably need to revisit that later. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should indeed limit the scope to India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern on conciseness only applied to "Cow protection violence" vs the longer "Violence related to cow protection". I agree the "in India" part is necessary.VR talk 13:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving material from my user space

I obviously wanted to wait and get feedback before writing on this topic. However, I'm not surprised that someone created an article on this matter. This is a notable issue. In any case, I'm going to move material from my user space into here.VR talk 21:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to suggest the same. However, let us keep the focus on violence. It is more focused topic. You can still cover the vigilantism in the background. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have used your materials in Cow protection-related violence in India. Jionakeli (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Africa and South America

Cows and cattle are not just beloved by some Hindus / Indian / Nepali / Myanmar people, they are sacred in parts of Africa etc. For example, according to Asiema and Situma, "The cow is sacred in the daily life of the Maasai because it determines one's livelihood. Any danger to Maasai cattle is a danger to the Maasai themselves..." Those working on this article should be careful, avoid generalizing too much. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether cows and cattle are beloved by some people or not please include all types of animal related violence to the article and remove the undue weight of Indian religions from the lead. Jionakeli (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

This source removes many reliable sources, including BBC News. The following sentence has been well sourced:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014...Many vigilante groups say they feel "empowered" by the victory of the Hindu nationalist BJP in the 2014 election

If you don't agree that the 8 sources I've provided are reliable, I'd be more than happy to take this to WP:RSN.VR talk 05:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that MSW has put a "unreliable sources|section" template. Please list exactly which sources you think are not reliable.VR talk 05:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: Careful. Actually that part was what "I did not delete", and I deleted the soap per WP:WWIN. Here is what remained after the clean up:
Media groups state that cow vigilantism in India have increased after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[55][56][7] Many cow vigilante groups say they feel "empowered" by the victory of the Hindu nationalist BJP in the 2014 election.[39][54] The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is another Hindu nationalist group active, with a history of cow protection-related vigilantism.[39]
The issue here is that these are primary news sources, and a due investigation has not occurred yet. So we must wait, follow the curve of scholarship, not lead it, not try to WP:RIGHT-GREAT-WRONGS. If you can find a secondary / tertiary scholarly sources, stating these views, I would have no objection to this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You changed a statement of fact to "media groups state..." That is strange wording that I haven't seen anywhere on wikipedia. Would the following be a better compromise:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India. This surge has been widely attributed to election of Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in 2014.

I don't think the recent increase in cow vigilantism is in question. That's a simple fact. What might be more of an analysis is its connection with the 2014 election.VR talk 15:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources are all primary/news sources, non-HISTRS. Cattle protection-related violence has a long history. 100s died in related riots in 1880s and 1890s across India over months and years, for example, per WP:RS. See Walsh etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've posted here.VR talk 14:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of newspapers / fresh media reports

Vice regent: You may or may not have seen this comment I had copy-pasted elsewhere. I re-add it here as a reminder of the useful comments by admin Nyttend, about the need for caution with news sources in wikipedia (cutting-pasting from the wall of text where Nyttend originally posted it).

Be careful with newspapers/etc as sources
Ian.thomson saw my comments elsewhere and asked me to chime in here. Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. Of course, all this applies if there's no significant dispute; a faithful adherence to WP:NPOV will demand that we use the best sources from (or about) each position, and we can trust a journalist to report on the rise of a new popular movement that advocates a different perspective on such-and-such an idea, but journalists being primary sources in such situations, we shouldn't use them to interpret something about the different perspective. – Nyttend

Newspapers, tabloids and certain magazines are useful sources in some cases, but not RS for many cases. We must always attribute primary sources when we quote them (you shouldn't interpret primary sources). The Biswas source, for example, is one such questionable source. If you read the Walsh source carefully, you will note the issues with Biswas' comments. Walsh has not been summarized accurately / per NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NWSRC is worth checking and I think WP:RSN is better to discuss on this. Jionakeli (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution to rise of Hindo Nationalism

MSW removed the following:

The surge is attributed to the recent rise in Hindu nationalism in India.

The two sources given are:

Does MSW believe either of the two sources are unreliable? If so, we'll take this exact dispute to WP:RSN.VR talk 15:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Class tensions between Hindus and Muslims

MSW has twice removed Judith Walsh's explanation that cow-protection related violence in the 1800s was linked to pre-existing class tensions between Hindus and Muslims in north India. I'm wondering if there's a reason for that? Walsh looks like a reliable source to me.VR talk 16:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC) This is the specific text in question:[reply]

For example, in Punjab, the cow protection riots built on long-standing conflicts between Muslim peasants and Hindu traders; in the United Provinces there had been pre-existing tensions between Muslim landlords and Hindu peasants in rural areas and between Hindu bankers and Muslim artisan in urban areas.

Many other historians go into the relationship between cow-protection violence and class tensions in greater detail.VR talk 16:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A much more reliable book is Metcalf and Metcalf, A concise history of modern India, CUP, 2012. I seem to remember that it had everything to do with Hindu panic in wake of the first census of British India in 1871, which gave the size of the fairly large Muslim minority in India. Will tell you more tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent: Walsh does mention class tensions, but as an added factor for communal riots that grew out of cow protection conflicts. This article is not about class tensions and general communal violence/riots. See Kautilya3's comment above about the scope of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh clearly cites class tensions as a factor in the cow-protection related violence. You can see that here. Hence, there is a reliable source that connects cow-protection violence to class tensions. Therefore class tensions are relevant to this article.VR talk 21:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking of references

Ms Sarah Welch's edit broke the NationalPost reference (I fixed it). Please be careful. Thank you.VR talk 05:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the history ...

... of the page going all the way back to the first edit in Cow-based lynching? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this article is not the title

I did not say (see reference to me up top) that the title is the only problem, the main problem or even a significant problem. I off-handedly mentioned it as one of the problems. A bigger problem is that the existence of a generalized article, so soon after a string of incidents involving brutality by bands of young Hindu goons is itself POV, a way of hiding the identifiably religious nature of the graphic brutality in abstraction. Are peer-reviewed reliable sources, published by academic publishers, even referring to these latest events as "Cow protection related violence in India?" It is no surprise that many of the people voting delete or merge at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Alwar_mob_lynching are the ones who are frenetically writing this article. It is abstraction, just as the word "lynching" itself in India—so far in space and time from the postbellum American South—is an abstraction, an obfuscating term for "mob murder;" just as for years, pro-Hinduism POV editors were generalizing Caste into something much more global than a brutal principle of social stratification which began in irredeemably Hindu India. (They even once had a section on "Caste in Pakistan" that preceded the section on "Caste in India.") There is little chance that a POV article as this, in a form that does not refer to India in its title, to Hinduism in its title, especially when top heavy with empty abstractions about Hinduism's long history of nonviolence, without referring concurrently to the mainly ritualistic nature of the nonviolence, or the recorded brutality toward animals, including cattle, by Hindus, will make it through to any future but limping to oblivion. I guarantee that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I partly agree with your views. The series of attacks being done over cows in India looks odd in this overgeneralized article. Jionakeli (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean the latest version created by you in good faith, but an article whose reason for existence is the absorption of notable incidents of violence by Hindus in India against Muslims, forms of violence that have used the cow as a scapegoat (if you will pardon the metaphor). PS By "I guarantee that," I did not imply a threat, but the likely inevitability of the result. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what are your specific proposals for this article. Spell out how you'd like to change this article and we work on implementing them and getting consensus.VR talk 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure at this point there is need for such an article, but let me mull it over. Tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some good quality sources (including scholarly and scholar-written):

  • Gittinger, Juli L. (2017), "The Rhetoric of Violence, Religion, and Purity in India's Cow Protection Movement", Journal of Religion and Violence, doi:10.5840/jrv201751540 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  • Sarkar, Radha; Sarkar, Amar (2016). "Sacred Slaughter: An Analysis of Historical, Communal, and Constitutional Aspects of Beef Bans in India". Politics, Religion & Ideology. 17 (4): 329–351. doi:10.1080/21567689.2016.1259108. ISSN 2156-7689.
  • Desquesnes, Naike (February 2016), "Killing people to save cows", Le Monde Diplomatique, pp. 12–13
  • Jaffrelot, Christophe (13 May 2017), "Over to the vigilante", The Indian Express

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another well-informed source:

Jha is a highly regarded senior journalist, neither a leftist nor a rightist. I quite recommend this article for an accurate perspective on the present violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate moves by Vice regent

Vice regent, why did you not implement a proper move request? How do you account for this unilateral action? El_C 04:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did not expect a dispute. At the time I moved the page, the last two users who commented had both favored the name I moved it to. WP:RM says "The requested move process is not mandatory." My action is totally reversible. If you want a different page name, give your thoughts here: Talk:Animal_protection-related_violence#Poll. We can then change it to a different name.VR talk 13:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For such a contentious issues, it's best to err on the side of caution. Two editors is just not enough of a sample. El_C 14:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in the future, I'll keep that in mind. :-)
Is there a name that you support? Please indicate at this poll.VR talk 17:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against cows should not be a part of this article!

This edit adds violence against cows, such as stealing and slaughtering cows in this article. That is most definitely not the focus of this article. If it is, then it would have to include the worldwide beef industry. It would include McDonald's Big Mac burger etc. The focus of the article is related to cow-protection violence, which is perpetrated against humans. In fact, calling the meat industry "violence against animals" would be very strange. After all, the article Meat industry isn't called "violence against animals", is it? VR talk 02:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I read page 45 of this book, "4.6 India: Holy cows". I did not see anything that would support the following statement that MSW introduced:

The stolen cows are killed and converted into beef meat for sale, robbing the poor dairy farmer of an economic resource.

Could MSW provide the quotation in the book that supports this statement?VR talk 03:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have embedded the quote. The second source in that para is saying the same thing. No, what I added is not talking about violence against cows. It is talking about theft / smuggling... something other sections mention repeatedly. Background and context is important to understand that. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights and violence against animals

The lead currently says:

Many Hindus believe in Animal rights,[dubious – discuss] practice vegetarianism as a part of their Ahimsa ethical doctrine, abhor violence against animals, and particularly regard cows as holy

Muslims and Christians also believe in animal rights and also oppose animal cruelty. Rather, what is meant to be said is that many Hindus oppose killing of cows and consumption of beef. This is where the true distinction lies. I am going to change the sentence to reflect that.VR talk 03:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the background section, per WP:LEAD. This article should not be a pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, pro-Hindu, anti-Hindu soapbox. Let us keep NPOV, WWIN and other content policies in mind. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no need for religious doctrines. I have removed religious views regarding cattle as this is not Cattle slaughter article but violence by vigilante groups. --Jionakeli (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Vice regent: There is obvious Hinduism idealization, if not outright Hindu nationalist nonsense, both in the lead and in the article body. Don't know who has put it in, but it is there. It is very easy to find an academic source here or there to support the craziest idealizations of Hinduism. Anyone who has spent any time in India, however, also knows that whatever the idealizations, there is large-scale, gratuitous, violence toward animals in India, mostly perpetrated by Hindus, as they still constitute nearly 80% of the population. While Hindus have ritually respected the Cow, they have not had any issues casually and unceremoniously disrespecting the bull, steer, bullock, or ox, and even the aging Cow, and they have show passive disrespect to all forms of life by simply expanding their human settlements (the population of India in 1960 was 330 million; it is 1 billion 330 million today.) For example, the large-scale administration of the anti-inflammatory (NSAID) diclofenac by, the chiefly Hindu, farmers in India to their aging oxen in the 1980s and 90s, in order to extract that one last ounce of work, caused the extinction of the magnificent Indian white-backed vulture (See India page, biodiversity section), to whose kidneys the diclofenac was fatal. Millions and millions of these birds perished, and now animal carcasses lie rotting all over India, for the other carrion feeders such as the striped hyenas, themselves, are few and far between. There are dozens of very reliable sources speaking to this, you just have to look for them. (I'm travelling far, far, away from home, so this is the best I can do for now.) I will post here, and point toward sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS See for example: Stern, Robert W. (2003), Changing India: Bourgeois Revolution on the Subcontinent, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-00912-6, "Vegetarianism is Ahimsa's most conspicuous application in practice. Otherwise, there is a disconcerting, inhumane, ritualistic formality about it. Hindus who will not eat animals treat them with cruelty and abandon. Hindus who eat animals, treat the slaughterer as a pariah." (pages 153-54). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair point. What is @Ms Sarah Welch:'s opinion on this?
In my opinion all of this should be covered very briefly, because ultimately this article isn't about animal rights, it about violence inflicted upon other humans.VR talk 14:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confused by the scope of this article. Its title speaks to violence inflicted on humans by people who claim to protect animals, but the only humans mentioned are Indians, and most among them Muslims, and the only animals are cattle. But the violence is only in response to cattle slaughter, not the routine starvation of male and aged females, deaths for which the vigilantes don't need to peer over the fences of their Muslim neighbors, for it is their good old Hindu friends and relatives who are doing it. This needs to be mentioned to point out the hypocrisy in any backgrounder for this article. As you probably know, the starvation of male calves and aged cows is the subject of much literature in anthropology and moral philosophy. See, for example, Fox, Michael W. (2001), Bringing Life to Ethics: Global Bioethics for a Humane Society, SUNY Press, pp. 146–, ISBN 978-0-7914-4801-4 "Compassion transcends all beliefs, because compassion means action. Compassion is a verb, not a noun. Beliefs can mean action or inaction and cause great harm if there is neither humility nor empathy. All beliefs should be transcended, and are, by compassion. For instance, the narrowed doctrine of ahimsa in India must be transcended when it is believed that to kill an animal for compassionate reasons is to make oneself impure. This selfish perversion of ahimsa is the cause of much animal suffering. This is the tragic situation for millions of India's abandoned "sacred" cows and unwanted, sick and starving male cattle. Such a seemingly compassionate belief, like ahimsa, becomes perverted when it is self-centered and focused on one's own spiritual purity. But when ahimsa is linked with compassion, there is real empathy with other souls and less suffering. It becomes possible to put an end to the death camps where India's unproductive cows and abandoned male calves and bullocks are allowed to starve to death. (p 146)" (See the moral philosophers responses to Marvin Harris's famous example of this starvation.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS In other words, the prime "ethnographic" example here is not of "animal protection-related violence," but of "anti-Muslim violence" or "anti non-caste-Hindu-violence" for the latest round of which the cow is once again being used as the excuse. In the next episode, it won't be the cow, it will be some other excuse, but the violence will continue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: I'm not sure what you are driving at here. Yes, this is clearly part of the larger process of anti-Muslim violence in India; for which we have an article, Violence against Muslims in India. The sources describe this as a specific manifestation of that violence; or using a specific pretext, if you will. The phenomenon has received enough coverage for us to need an article on it. The problem is not with the scope of the article, but that the article contains massive amounts of extraneous information; it begins something like "In ancient Hindu India cows were revered animals..." instead of "Incidents of mob violence targeting..." We need to prune this article massively, not throw it out because it's current form is poor. Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: If it is an aspect of Violence against Muslims in India where is the evidence of this page beginning as a section of that page and then becoming so chockful of reliable information as to need a spin off, per WP policy? As far as I can see, on the morning of 23 June 2017, this page was a newly created list of three recent anti-Muslims mob murders by Hindu nationalist goons: see: [16]. As far as I can further see, the expansion of this page was driven by the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Alwar mob lynching (note 23 June date) and what I view as an effort to sweep the notable examples of this violence into an abstract rudderless and unnecessary article, in which there's plenty room to stuff Hindu nationalist rationales for the mob murders, and call them "cow-protection" violence. (Aside: On the other hand, the mass starvation and slow deaths of male and superannuated cattle in milk- and milk-products-crazy Hindu India continues unabated, as does Hindu India's near total disregard for that form of violence to animals, a revenge for which would require the goons to murder their own kith and kin.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Do me a favor, and spare me the lecture. If you won't accept the philosophical argument, perhaps you will accept the practical one. The topic is covered in reliable sources; therefore the topic is notable, and not going to get deleted; therefore the article is here to stay; therefore, we should fix it, rather than arguing over the motives of the people who created it. Oh, and it would help if you stopped insinuating the existence of a Hindu-nationalist cover-up where none exists, because though we have our share of Hindutva POV-pushers, most of the vocal folks on this page do not belong in that category; and have spent a lot of their time resisting such editors. Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not lecturing anyone, just responding to the warrants of your arguments, which I notice, you have now changed, just as the title of this page has changed. What philosophical argument and a justification for what? Please tell me. I do know there is a rich anthropology and moral philosophy literature on etic and emic and cattle starvation and abuse in India (see here and here) but that apparently is not in the scope of this article Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS And reliable sources? Does the appearance of a small blockquote from Gardiner's Harris's "Delhi journal," in the NY Times (titled "For a new breed of rustlers nothing is sacred,") in a book by Rosanna Masiola, former professor of English translation, and Renato Tomei, Assistant Professor of English Translation at the University for Foreigners at Perugia, Italy, titled, Law, Language, and Translation, made with little comment, make the entire "Delhi journal" of Harris a reliable source? Are we to also believe Mr Harris when he concludes in his journal, "The afternoon feeding at the shelter attracted a crowd of happy onlookers. Abhishek, a one-named cowhand, called out among the lowing throng." that Abhishek, a Sanskritized modern Indian name, truly belongs to someone who does not have a last name in the manner of the semi-literate, poor, mostly rural, north Indians, or did Abhishek choose not to tell Mr Harris what it was, for instance to avoid divulging his caste or for privacy? At the same time more recent newspaper articles decrying the violence seem to be unacceptable in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your complaints are getting a bit incoherent, so no, I would not care to enlighten you. I would rather spend what little time I have on improving this article. Vanamonde (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle slaughter in India

I made this edit[17] per WP:UNDUE. It should be covered in Cattle slaughter in India. Why it is added to an article which is violence by vigilantes? --Jionakeli (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we are ever going to get out of the hole we are in, we need to strictly limit the scope of the article to violence that is currently covered in the media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Currently it is being stretched far from its scope. --Jionakeli (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also look for more recent (respectable) newspaper articles which make the point that the people whose livelihoods suffer in these actions against illegal slaughterhouses are Muslims. There has never, for example, been an action taken against Hindu temples, most of which have hordes of undeclared income. You have to go to the Kashi Vishwanath temple once, to watch your 500 rupees vanish from your offering plate and presumably into the pockets of the priest sitting in front, at a speed which tests Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, to get a feeling for the scale of this illegality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted MSW here[18]. Allegedly cattle thefts and illegal slaughterhouses should be covered under Cattle slaughter in India. Jionakeli (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jionakeli: No edit wars please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theft is economic violence

@Kautilya3: Theft is generally considered as violence, more specifically a form of economic violence / psychological violence against the victim(s). See Source-1 (pp. 180-185), Source-2 (p. 6), Source-3 (p. 5) etc. Related secondary RS on cattle theft and its relation to riots exist, FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a theft of a cow, whether real or imagined, provoked a riot, then that information belongs in the article.
But simple cattle theft, and disputes over ownership of cattle is common in many parts of the world: Jamaica New Zealand, USA etc. That goes completely out of the scope of this article. We need to limit it to cattle/cow protection violence.VR talk 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose MSW is asking me if I would accept theft itself as a form of violence. Within limits, yes. Cows are valued in India because they are central to the agrarian economy and cow thefts presumably hurt a great deal. However the focus of the article should still be violence in the normal sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be the article Cattle raiding which appears to fit the description MSW is referring to. And since there is Cattle raiding in Kenya, there can also be a separate article for India. Cattle theft has very different motivations and politics than cow slaughter.VR talk 15:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The stolen cattle in India are nothing in numbers compared to the abandoned cattle because the Hindus have no use for them if they can't produce milk. The unfortunate victims who die by eating plastic bags, paper, cardboard, and other essential bovine nutrients, are all males and aged females. Where are the grasslands in urban and semi-urban India where they are often abandoned? Theft is not violence against the former owners, for they are clueless about it; it is only violence to the unfortunate animals, now numbering about 120 million. Seriously, how many are stolen? How does that number compare to 120 million? Where is the article Violence against cattle in India? If it doesn't exist, despite the age-old literature describing it, why are you embarking on writing such an article? As far as I can see, the only reason why this article is here is because some people couldn't bear to see individual articles on vigilante anti-Muslim violence by Hindu nationalists, and wanted to conveniently sweep it under the rug of this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3: Thanks. Theft is economic violence in the normal sense. If you are proposing that the article be limited to accusations, attacks and riots, then we should discuss whether the appropriate title ought to be "Cattle protection-related accusations, attacks and riots" or whatever. If we narrow the scope further, may be the appropriate title is "List of cattle protection-related attacks, retaliation and riots". FWIW, I don't support either. As we narrow the scope, we need to reflect on WWIN issues. Vice regent: Please see Kautilya3's past comment on POV-fork articles. Once again, allow me ignore your WP:FORUM-y discussions and personal opinions / wisdom / confusions / commentary about the associated motivations / politics / Islam / Hinduism / Buddhism / Christianity / etc. Let us focus on the scope, and how we can improve this article within that scope by identifying and sourcing content from WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banning slaughter or banning beef is also an economic violence then such as[19], [20], [21], [22]. Nevertheless these belongs to Cattle slaughter in India, not here. Jionakeli (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler I agree with you. The article is unnecessarily being stretched from its actual scope for such vendetta. The cow protection thing is yet another tool. Even the country's biggest and richest gau shala is no good for the cows[23], [24], [25]. Jionakeli (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jionakeli: Please see F&f's "are peer-reviewed reliable sources, published by academic publishers, even referring to" comment above. If such RS discuss Indian/subcontinent/SE Asian laws on cattle protection as a form of economic violence, we can add a summary from those RS as well. But please spare the wikipedia community from your OR:Synthesis or the inappropriate use of opinion columns and primary sources for rhetoric / advocacy / Muslim-rights / Hindu-rights / Buddhist-rights etc per WP:WWIN and WP:RS guidelines. You are relatively new editor with less than 100 edits as of June 27 2017, and I urge you hold off and let experienced editors such as Kautilya3 and others help build consensus and improve this contentious article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source[26]. @MSW, please comment on content, not on the contributor. Jionakeli (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sarah Welch, please mind WP:BITE. Your above comment is a violation of that policy. Jionakeli has just as much right to edit this article as you and I. Please address his concerns.VR talk 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMPETENCE is required, particularly in contentious topics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary "cow protection" groups

@Ms Sarah Welch:, can you please explain[27] why Contemporary "cow protection" groups are not within the scope when most of the attacks were done by them[28]? Jionakeli (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion on scope. For now, only violence. Not religious beliefs. Not groups. Not topics directly or indirectly related. The section I removed discussed, among other things, economics! No double standards please. If we reach a consensus on expanding the scope, we can include this and other things. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed[29] other religious beliefs and practices. Jionakeli (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it. We need WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for context. Let us wait till we get a consensus on the scope. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added the section for cow protection groups for the context. Background should cover the alleged attackers as well. Such groups have been named in several attacks and lynchings. Jionakeli (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you deleted in last 24 hours is similarly due and relevant. Lets put it all back, till we reach consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually you changing goalpost. You stated For now, only violence. Not religious beliefs. Not groups. Not topics directly or indirectly related. and then you argued about context. What I removed earlier is irrelevant and already covered on other article. What if we changed back to the primitive stage? Jionakeli (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is your interpretation that is the source of problem. Yes, cow protection groups have been named in cow protection-related violence, but so has cow theft been named. We can't create a Hindu-bashing or Muslim-bashing or Sikh-bashing or whatever-bashing WP:Soap-y article, by carving out or interpreting the scope with double standards. That is against wikipedia content policies such as WWIN. Give the scope discussion a bit of time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is cow/cattle related violence. What is the significance of slaughterhouse when we already have much relevant Cattle slaughter in India article? Jionakeli (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my point as well. The article should not be Hindu-bashing or Muslim-bashing or Sikh-bashing then why you are dragging religion in it when you yourself said "Not religious beliefs. Not groups. Not topics directly or indirectly related." ? Jionakeli (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the background information! Context is important in encyclopedic articles. Summary or selective content may get repeated in various articles. Your selective interpretation of standards and scope, is creating bias and Soap in this article, which is not helpful. Please see WP:COMPETENCE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The attacks, lynchings or any kind of violence is not related to the religion. Similarly beef is religiously not mandatory. There is no point justifying cow vigilantes. Please, check discussion here[30]. Jionakeli (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing selective interpretation. You're unnecessarily expanding out of the scope which seems justifying the violence as a defense measure to stop beef production, slaughterhouses etc. If we cannot reach consensus, lets wait for other involved editors comments. Jionakeli (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old, short tentative guidance from Kautilya3 to you! See Kautilya3's more recent comments above. Indeed, you must stop mass deleting section till a consensus emerges. Consensus does not mean, your version stays if we two disagree, or if we two agree, or User:Vice regent and you agree. You may want to review WP:CONS since you are very new. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please check[31]. Do you think we should avoid cow vigilante groups? I only want to have it because they were arrested and blamed for many attacks. We can brief it though. Jionakeli (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The contemporary cow protection groups part is quite relevant. Not because I say so, but because reliable sources say so. Sources like The Guardian and The Economist. I'm restoring it.VR talk 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Jionakeli has moved it to the background section. I don't think it belongs there. I think it belongs lower, as does some of the other stuff.VR talk 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have self-reverted. As per above discussion on scope, I think cow protection groups are relevant since they were blamed for the attacks. For other theories of "economic violence" due to cattle slaughter ban or cattle theft are WP:Fringe and can be covered under Cattle raiding or Cattle raiding in India. Jionakeli (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. For reasons, why cattle theft is relevant, please read the scholarly sources and the entire thread above. Summary from multiple scholarly sources is not what is in the scope of WP:Fringe. FWIW, it is mainstream! If you need help with understanding where WP:Fringe applies, please contact the WP:Teahouse. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be mainstream but irrelevant here. Not everything related to cattle deserves a place in this article. Jionakeli (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant. Summary from relevant scholarly reliable sources that discuss the context and aspects of "violence related to cow protection in India", deserves a place. An encyclopedia is by definition a resource that summarizes "many aspects of one subject". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

#NotInMyName campaign against lynchings over cow

Thousands of people[32] are protesting across India against the lynchings over cowBBC, Hindustan Times, India Today, News18, The Hindu etc. Should we include this? Jionakeli (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WWIN in general, for why. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get it! The campaign has been widespread across India and received significant coverage. There are other similar articles based on news sources like WhyIStayed/WhyILeft, YesAllWomen, ShoutYourAbortion, Idle No More etc. ? Jionakeli (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Welch, it's gotten enough coverage that leaving it out constitutes an NPOV violation. WWIN says that we are not a news organization; it does not tell us to ignore the news. We just need to be careful about giving it undue weight. Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has now being organised outside India in cities like London, Boston, Toronto, Karachi etc.[33], [34]. Jionakeli (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to "background"

This article is drowning in background material. The title refers to violence related, or supposedly related, to the protection of cows. The article therefore needs to focus on that violence. Background is necessary, but too much background falls afoul of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Moreover, the notability of the topic itself is based on coverage for the recent violence; everything else could easily be covered under Cattle slaughter in India. I therefore intend to prune some of this material. If folks have issues with this, I'm happy to discuss them. Vanamonde (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article at its current form is not bad. Capitals00 (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: If you have access to the very recent journal article, The Rhetoric of Violence, Religion, and Purity in India’s Cow Protection Movement by Juli Gittinger in Journal of Religion and Violence, May 2017, you might want to check if it has something useful and reliable. I would myself, but I am traveling at the other end of the world, with very few sources. Here is another one hot off the press: an article published today in Firstpost. I don't know how reliable it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: Actually, it's pretty bad. Thanks to Ms Sarah Welch the history section is at least coherent; the rest of the article is all over the place. @Fowler; sure, I'll take a look, and use them if I am able. I'd not trust the first post source, though. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Go ahead. Please revise and trim. Indeed, summary style is the right way to go. We should avoid making it one sided, and summarize different POVs in high quality peer reviewed RS to the best of our abilities. That would help make this article a useful encyclopedic resource, avoid this being an advocacy/POV-filled WWIN example. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: I've made some edits, but they have been reverted wholesale [35]. Care to step in? @MorpheusZ: Unless you raise your issues on the talk page, you are just being [[WP:EW|disruptive, and are unlikely to be taken very seriously. Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: Hello, why this user@Vanamonde93: deliberately Vandalising Sourced content and whole section without any reason. He is targetting all indian article (related to Hindu&Muslim issue) and making every article it super-biased and incorrect along with his side-kick Kautilya3. kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 are same person?. This is completely unethical and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorpheusZ (talk • contribs)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks to MikeLynch, the article is now semi-protected. @MorpheusZ: Your edits have been reverted by some IP. Otherwise, I would ask you to self revert, because neither Vanamonde is vandalizing, nor is Kautilya3 a sidekick (please avoid such language, not helpful). They and we are all working towards a more NPOV, wikipedia guideline compliant version of this contentious subject. No edit warring. Please do not revert war this or related wikipedia articles. Have patience, even if you are provoked. Give Vanamonde, Kautilya3 and others some time to evolve this article. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon due reflection, I feel that protection is not the appropriate response to this incident, which has already been raised at the edit warring noticeboard. I feel that is the right place to request administrator attention to this particular edit warring matter. My apologies for the confusion, I welcome any comments if any. MikeLynch (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MikeLynch: Just to be clear, I requested protection after MorpheusZ had been reported to AN3. Apart from the fact that AN3 often is slow to respond, there have been problematic edits by two new accounts and four IPs just in the last 24 hours. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93:, I realise that, and I'll try and keep an eye out (probably some socking going on at some level or the other, as you pointed out in the RFPP request). I revoked the 30/500 protection because I realised that the problematic edits were less blatant vandalism and more POV pushing. And I felt that a semi-protection would probably be a bit of a pre-emptive measure, something that we don't really do. If the problematic situation develops, then I'm sure we can find a way to bring it under control. Might not be too active over the next couple of days, so feel free to relist at RFPP if there are further problems. MikeLynch (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page title: round two

Starting a new section here, because the previous discussion sorted some issues out, but in the process has gotten totally unwieldy. In the "page title" above, there appears to be very rough consensus about the following issues. 1) The page should discuss issues related to cows/cattle, not other animals; 2) There is support for the use of "violence" in the title; 3) We should limit the scope to India. However, there are further questions to be answered, one of which is the use of the term "protection". Notability for this topic appears to be based on recent incidents of lynching and/or other types of violence. "cow-protection" is a dodgy term in this context, because cows being protected has nothing to do with any of those incidents. There are no live cows involved. There are occasionally dead cows, and occasionally cows as a pretext. Now we cannot use "pretext" in the title, for reasons of neutrality; but following this reasoning, I suggest we use "cow slaughter" in place of "cow protection." Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my liking. As I have said earlier, "cow protection" is an established term for the ideology that has been around for a couple of centuries, if not more. The perpetrators go by the name "gau rakshak" or something similar.
Moreover, there is no evidence that cow slaughter has occurred in any of the current incidents. There was only suspicion that it might occur. So, "violence related to cow slaughter" would be quite misleading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first part of Vanamode's post and with Kautilkya3. One possibility would be (along the lines of Juli Gottiner's paper title above): "Violence in India's cow-protection movement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "cow protection" being an established term.
Kautilya and Vanamonde, can I ask you guys something? Why do you not like the shorter "Cow protection violence" and prefer the longer "Violence related to cow protection"? Above I gave examples of scholarly sources that used this shorter term (and other related shorter terms like "Cow protection agitation", "Cow protection riots") to allay concerns that this might me improper grammar. But I didn't get a direct response. So I'm just curious as to your thoughts. VR talk 14:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, it works for me. However, for the uninitiated, "Cow protection violence" suggests that cows were actually being protected in course of which violence occurred. Such is not the case. "Cow protection" is simply the name of the movement (a WP:COMMONNAME), which we use without questioning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no practical difference between the current title and some suggestions above. Vanamonde: How about we combine two of your ideas, for a title such as "Cattle slaughter and cow protection-related violence". Something like that would include Kautilya3's suggestion and the buffalo etc slaughter related/pretext violence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have "cow-protection related violence" in the title as it admits—semantically—violence directed at those who protect cows. This page is about violent acts committed by cow-protection vigilantes. India's prime minister suggested the same in a speech earlier today. See Time: India's Modi Speaks Out Against Cow Vigilantes After 'Beef Lynchings' Spark Nation-Wide Protests, Indian Express: Narendra Modi Warns Cow Vigilantes: Killing in the name of (Cow Worship) is unacceptable, BBC: India's prime minister condemns murder in cow's name, Reuters: After lynchings, India's Modi condemns violence in the name of cow worship, The Hindu: Killing people in the name of cow protection unacceptable: PM, and so forth. We should change the page name to: either Cow vigilante violence in India (see Google search results), or Cow-protection vigilante violence in India (see Google search results). Both have been used in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term "cow vigilante" is very often used for these incidents[36]. Jionakeli (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I too prefer the simple "Cow vigilante violence in India," not only because of wider usage, but also because it lacks the POV of alleged motivations, or rationales. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with this proposal. The shorter the better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: "Cow vigilante violence in India" is not a good title, because there is a difference between vigilante and riots. Both are aspects of violence, both are notable, both covered in WP:RS, Good points, otherwise. Please consider "Cow-related violence in India" or something similar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the point. These current manifestations of anti-Muslim violence in the name of "cow-protection" are all examples of vigilante violence. None are even remotely the tradition Hindu-Muslim riot sparked by an incident involving the cow (sacred to Hindus) or for that matter the pig (offensive to Muslims). This page was created in response to current incidents, not to old ones, about which I had already written in the British Raj page some six years ago. See here, for reference to riots and here, for reference to cow-protection. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article that cover older Cow-related violence in India? If yes, where and why not merge this article into the old one? If not, why not? The old events are notable with many WP:RS, and there is no need to CFORK. An encyclopedic article would provide depth and cover the many aspects of this subject including the 19th-century history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page was never about generalized cow-related violence, or the even more general riots, which are much written about on Wikipedia: Noakhali riot in East Bengal in 1947, 1950 Barisal Riots, 1969 Gujarat riots, 1984 Bhiwandi riot, 1985 Gujarat riots, 1989 Bhagalpur violence, 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. The trigger for much Hindu-Muslim violence in India has been an often inextricable mix of: cow, pig, eve teasing, desecration of a temple, a mosque, etc with most triggers remaining in the realm of rumor and speculation even many years after the incidents. I don't believe we want to go down that path and relabel that violence with the implied certainties evoked by the "cow-protection" title. I believe, that is a content-fork, if not a POV-fork. This page began on 23 June as "Cow-based lynchings" with explicit mention of the first incident within its purview or scope dating to 2015. It has since gone through various ad hoc title changes, which have somewhat arbitrarily expanded its scope. Elsewhere the scope can be seen in the article from The Hindu,: Prominent attacks by cow vigilantes since 2015. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS Finally, the "history" section of this page is POV, as it attempts to link the historical riots and the establishment of various cow-protection societies—already treated not only in brief mention in the British Raj page mentioned above, but in more detail in this 2008 edit in the "Cow-protection movement" page—with the recent spate of mob attacks on Muslims carried out "in the name" or "using the pretext" of the cow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still thinking about the various proposals, but a couple of points: @Ms Sarah Welch: I think it would be a good idea for us to move riots over protection laws, for instance, into the Cow slaughter in India page, and to restrict this page to incidents of vigilantism; otherwise, the scope of this page gets a bit unmanageable, and due weight will be very difficult to comply with. @Kautilya3: I take your point about WP:COMMONNAME, but the fact is that one of the situations in which we are not compelled to use a common name is when there are NPOV issues with that name, which is what Fowler is suggesting, and which is an argument I can definitely see. Vanamonde (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Let us once again look past and set aside F&f personal opinions and unusual lectures. Let us focus instead on what the peer reviewed scholarly RS, published by Oxford University Press etc are stating (you can find some of these sources in this version). The RS are explicitly discussing Cow-related violence in India (in some cases also in Myanmar and elsewhere). The specific riots in India covered in these scholarly RS are predominantly about Cow-related violence in India (there were additional riots for non-Cow related reasons too in that country). Yes, it may be a "bit unmanageable", but it would be more encyclopedic, less RECENTISM, more context, better scholarly RS-filled article. It would be more consistent with the wikipedia project. I am willing to collaboratively help you build the article and make it manageable. Others can help too. Of course, if our efforts get unmanageable few weeks or months down the road, we can always split the article into two or do whatever is appropriate per our content guidelines. Title should reflect what an encyclopedic article ought to be and what is notable about this subject in the RS, not how this article started. Otherwise, we need to reflect on WP:WWIN, and the good point F&f made in one of the sections above somewhere, "Are peer-reviewed reliable sources, published by academic publishers, even referring to these latest events", that justify the existence of this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah Welch: Under ordinary circumstances, I am all for relying on scholarly sources. The problem with them, though, is time lag; they take months, or years, before analyzing contemporary events. Per WWIN we should not focus unduly on contemporary events, but if we were to ignore the news in determining the scope or existence of certain articles, we would be failing as an encyclopedia. We have to consider news sources as well, though we cannot assign them equal weight with scholarly sources. So, what do the reliable sources; all of the reliable sources; show? 1) There is substantial coverage of the history of cattle slaughter in India; for which we have a separate article. 2) There is somewhat less coverage, but still substantial, about the history of cow protection; which we also have an article about. 3) There is some coverage for violence in this movement prior to 2014, including riots, and lynchings; but it isn't very large (I dispute your suggestion above that theft counts as violence; and for the moment, at least, consensus there appears to be with me). 4) Then there is an enormous volume of press coverage (including international press coverage, which is uncommon for issues within India) and non-trivial scholarly coverage for a spate of lynchings, which are supposedly related to cow-protection, all of which are in India, and the majority of which are since 2014.
I do not believe we can treat 3 and 4 properly in the same article. They are distinct phenomena. Calling them both violence does not make them a single topic. If we keep the current structure of the article while trying to cover both 3 and 4, we will have a recentism problem; and if we focus just on the larger picture presented in 3, then we will be giving current events insufficient weight. Both of these issues must of course be summarized at cow protection movements, but that can be a summary, and is therefore practical. Which is why I believe this page must restrict itself to 4. Now the history of this page is messy, so there isn't really a "consensus version"; so if we cannot come to an agreement on this point, I think we will have to begin an RFC. Vanamonde (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2017 I (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I think you might have misunderstood my post, to which you refer above. When I made the post, at 16:45 on 25 June 2017, (see here) the name of this page was Animal protection-related violence (see here); a little earlier it had been Cow protection-related violence, and still earlier, Cow protection related violence in India, and so forth. In other words, its name was changing, its scope becoming more general, more abstract, and its warrants and claims ones that were requiring citations from peer-reviewed, scholarly sources. I said, "A bigger problem is that the existence of a generalized article, so soon after a string of incidents involving brutality ... is itself POV, a way of hiding the identifiably religious nature of the graphic brutality in abstraction. Are peer-reviewed reliable sources, published by academic publishers, even referring to these latest events as 'Cow protection related violence in India?'" In other words, I was saying how are we to include these latest events in an abstract, general, article, when insufficient time has elapsed for these events to make it into scholarly books. The point of the post was that the article should not be the abstract article it had become. It was understood as such by my interlocutor, who said in reply: "Hmm...I partly agree with your views. The series of attacks being done over cows in India looks odd in this overgeneralized article." Nowhere was I implying that the recent anti-Muslim violence is not notable because academic publishers have not published articles or books on it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: You state, "There is some coverage for violence in this movement prior to 2014, including riots, and lynchings; but it isn't very large." There is no round about way to say this, but you are quite mistaken. Numerous were the cow-related riots and lynchings before 2014, even before 1947, state the WP:RS. Numerous were resulting deaths, state the WP:RS (see death and injury statistics in Chapter 2 of this for a zillion riots pre-1947, many of which were cow-related, e.g.; more: Chapter 3 of this, Chapters 3 and 5 of this, etc). In fact, even if we generously grant limited reliability to unverified reports, yet to be properly investigated by due process of "assume innocence unless proven guilty" standards, the Reuters report of 28 deaths between 2010 and June 2017 on all cow-related violence is small compared to 100+ deaths in single cow-related riots of 1880s and 1890s. There were many more cow-related lynchings and riots in 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and so on! This is per multiple high quality, scholarly RS. I now understand your earlier stance and consequently your proposal better, though. But, I urge you to check the RS. They are stating something very different than what you believe. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: How often is the word "lynching" (or "lynch") used in your "zillion" sources (for example in Peter Hardy's Muslims of British India, Cambridge University Press; or Meena Menon's Riots and after in Mumbai, SAGE) to describe a mob attack in British India on individual Muslims by Hindus using the pretext of the cow? How often is the word "vigilantes" used to describe these mobs in your sources? You are conflating 1) late-19th century riots in the wake of the founding of the various "Cow protection societies" in the Punjab and the United Provinces, etc, and later elsewhere, which has been a part of the Cow protection movement page since 2008, 2) Anti-cow slaughter agitations and death in their wake (e.g. in New Delhi in 1966) which belongs to the Cow slaughter in India page, and 3) recent mob violence directed at individual Muslims by Hindu mobs which use the Cow as a pretext. Nothing in 3) is the immediate consequence of establishing of a cow-protection society, nothing the immediate consequence of anti-cow-slaughter agitation. It is 3) that this page is about. That is why I have proposed that the name be changed to Cow vigilante violence in India, and to keep its content strictly limited to recent events. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have read these sources. If you had, you wouldn't be asking these strange questions. So, once again, allow me ignore the rhetorical/forum-y questions. We are discussing the proper scope for this article, given high quality scholarly RS. A blog may be better if someone's goal was to narrowly define the scope and "keep its content strictly limited to recent events". Wikipedia is not Hindupedia nor Muslimpedia nor etc. Wikipedia project goals as you know are different, and we seek to avoid WP:WWIN or WP:RECENTISM. There is plenty of RS on cow-related violence in India between 1860 and 1947, plus post-1947, which Vanamonde93 assumed was missing. The history of cow-related violence in India is a notable subject. The available RS are high quality, scholarly. On rest, lynching just means "kill someone illegally", usually in the context of mob / group believing it is acting justly or according to their beliefs. Vigilante, similarly, simply means "self-appointed group who enforces their version of law/justice without legal authority thinking legal agencies are unwilling/ corrupt/ unresponsive". The three sources I mention in my reply to Vanamonde93 above, and many more WP:RS, repeatedly describe riots, mob attacks and instances where a group "killed someone illegally...". Hindus killed individual Muslims, Muslims killed individual Hindus, and there were injuries / property damage in these tragic cow-related riots. Vanamonde93: please see the sources for details. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: I did read Peter Hardy's classic Muslims of British India which you refer to when I rewrote the history section of the FA India in 2011 (during an FAR), see here, rewrote the History of Pakistan page much earlier in 2007 and 2008 (see here), in addition to rewriting the British Raj page (see here) and the Company rule in India page (see here). the last two together covering British India during the period 1757 to 1947. But perhaps I missed something. Are you saying that Hardy doesn't actually use the words "lynching" or "vigilante" but implies the same the same using different words? Where does he describe a lynching or murder of individual Muslims by vigilante action unrelated to "cow-protection societies" or "anti-cattle-slaughter agitation," but whose trigger was the cow, in Muslims of British India? Please tell me the page number(s). I will check again in four or five hours. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question: "Where does he describe a lynching or murder of individual Muslims by vigilante action unrelated to "cow-protection societies" or "anti-cattle-slaughter agitation," but whose trigger was the cow, in Muslims of British India?" What do you mean? Hardy discusses cow-related violence in several places, e.g. pp. 89-90, pp. 139-141, etc Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: It doesn't matter whether or not you understood my question, but you did provide an answer to what I was looking for. Your answer confirms my suspicion that the authors of this page (which includes you) are engaging in large-scale synthesis and OR, while at the same time citing what you rightly characterize are 'high quality RS." They are doing this by citing these sources out of their original context and thereby linking one source to another to weave a narrative of "cow-related violence," which the original contexts do not allow. My confirmation of suspicion lies in your reply that Hardy "discusses cow-related violence in several places, on pages 89-90, etc."

What Peter Hardy is describing on pages 89 and 90 is how the British sought to pacify what they imagined was resurgent Muslim anger in the decade after the Indian rebellion of 1857. The British did this by brutally punishing the Namdharis, also called the Kukas, a virulently anti-Muslim Sikh sect, which had, among other things, opposed cow-killings, and which had killed a few Muslim butchers in rough revenge, but had then gone on to rise against the British at Maler Kotla, an uprising in punishment for which some 49 Namdharis were strapped to the mouths of cannons and blown up.

More precisely, Hardy says: "British moves to mollify Muslim hostility were encouraged by an outbreak of Sikh religious fanaticism directed against Muslims in the Punjab. The Kukas a sect fiercely opposed to cow-killing, made a number of attacks upon Muslim butchers in the Punjab in 1870 and 1871. In January 1872 they rose at Maler Kotla, but were hunted down by forces under the control of Cowan, ..., who had forty-nine of his Kuka prisoners blown from guns." Hardy then goes on to describe the different conciliatory advantages the British offered to the Muslims in public education etc. In other words, "cow-related violence" is somewhat secondary to the historian's story here. Similarly, other examples of "cow-related violence" in the 19th century occurred in different historical contexts: religious revivals, nationalisms, promotion of different national languages (Hindi, Urdu); protesting the Indian Councils Act 1862; Age of Consent Act 1891, and so forth.

To pick out the example of "cow-related killing" from these narratives and to then write an article on "Violence related to cow protection" is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. That the sources are all first-rate is meaningless. We can all find sources published by academic publisher by using Google Advanced Book Search judiciously. But that doesn't mean we are not violating Wikipedia policy. I will therefore be reverting the additions user:Ms Sarah Welch has made to the article after @Vanamonde93: last edited it. After that, when we have the RfC Vanamonde has hinted at, I will similarly oppose the current version of the article and will be happy to give more examples. I will also be happy to seek an independent expert evaluation. As I have indicated in a previous post above, I have written a few history pages that relate to the Indian subcontinent during the period 1757 to 1947. That, of course, is no advantage on Wikipedia, but if you believe that I have the slightest bit of experience in this area, then allow me to say that this page does not ring true in the way I know Indian history to be. Also pinging @Kautilya3:, @Vice regent:, @Jionakeli:. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think both positions are correct here in their own way. MSW is correct that there was cow protection related violence historically in India. But that violence was very different in character to the violence post 2014. The social tensions that fuel this violence have very drastically changed, as has India's political landscape. The 1800 riots were partially a protest against the British authorities. Whereas modern violence is vigilantism, where vigilantes see themselves as carrying out the work of the government.VR talk 03:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Is this a response to my last post? (It has an earlier time stamp, but appears after. Perhaps I made a mistake in where I placed my post.}} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I just reread your post. I have to say, it shows deep understanding of the contexts. Please accept my admiration and thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler: I think you missed pp. 139-141, and the embedded quotes in the article. I mentioned pp. 89-90 because your question was confusing, but did not use it in this article as I do not find it directly relevant. Please do pay attention to what the article is actually citing. I will restore it to sourced content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't miss any pages, besides I read through a couple of dozen other books. I know what Peter Hardy's book contains. I know you did not use pp 89-90 (was careful to check). I will mention them in the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here is the relevant summary in the article, plus cite with embedded quote from pp. 140-141, in case you are planning an RfC on it:
In Bombay alone, several hundred people were killed or injured in cow-related violence in 1893, according to Hardy.[1]

References

  1. ^ P. Hardy (1972). The Muslims of British India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 140–141. ISBN 978-0-521-09783-3., Quote: "This assertiveness expressed itself in violent defense of the cow. (...) In the early nineties [1890s], rioting spread to the United Provinces and Bihar and in August 1893 there was a major disturbance in Bombay, in which several hundred people were killed or injured."
As I explained above, I had already seen it. In fact, I had seen all 17 references to "cow" in Hardy, seen the contexts in which the word was mentioned. Please don't add material here that I don't need to read. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice regent: If you can find a high quality peer reviewed source that reaches the conclusion, I will welcome that. We can't do OR:Synthesis, and we can't use a blog / opinion column in a newspaper / non-RS for such sweeping significant conclusion(s). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch:, please see Fowler&fowler's comment above and his edit summary[37]. Per WP:VNOTSUFF you need to reach consensus first. I partly agree with F&f's comment on sources. We should be cautious about WP:CHERRY. You have reverted vice regent's changes quite a few times without any consensus. Lets be calm and first decide the scope of this article. @Kautilya3: any thoughts? Jionakeli (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't been able to figure out what is at issue here. If it is regarding VR's post above saying that "both the positions are correct but...", yes, the difference he highlights is discernible. Yet it might also be superficial. The changed context is that there are now laws banning cow-slaughter in various forms. So it appears as vigilante violence. If there were no laws, would the Hindutva brigade have behaved any differently? I doubt it. The apparent difference is one of form rather than substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is a bit all over the place, but I am responding to the ping from Vanamonde93 above. I do not see any NPOV issues with the term "Cow-protection". The nature of the cow-protection ideology is essentially unchanged since the time of Emperor Akbar (or even earlier). I think MSW's understanding of the issues is pretty accurate. The nature of the violence today is different (vigilante violence), but its goal is to enforce cow-protection laws that have been enacted. I don't see any evidence for your position that the violence is essentially anti-Muslim violence under the "pretext of the cow". Vast numbers of ordinary Hindus still carry strong feelings against cow-slaughter, for better or worse, and they are happy to see it banned. The Hindu cow-protection ideology has never been negated. There have never been any reformists arguing against it. Nobody speaking in the name of Hinduism has ever said that cow-slaughter is admissible. So, it is really "Hindu ideology" and remains so till this day, even if the Hndu nationalists take the lead in addressing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Vivekananda, dear @Kautilya3:, was he an Islamic reformer, or did he time travel from Chicago in 1893 to before the time of Emperor Akbar, or was the beef he was advocating people eat really chopped chicken liver? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seem to be strong rumours circulating that Vivekananda advocated eating beef. Yet, the best I can find that is reliably sourced is this. Vivekananda himself understood the issues fine. If he did indeed advocate eating beef, its memory is completely lost. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking for a response, only adding some sources here, if in the future, someone wants to make the claim that all 19th century Hindu reformers were on board with "cow protection." Not only Doniger, Wendy (2014), On Hinduism, Oxford University Press, p. 18, ISBN 978-0-19-936007-9, which I've cited above, but also Aravamudan, Srinivas (2011), Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language, Princeton University Press, p. 56, ISBN 1-4008-2685-3, and Kemper, Steven (2015), Rescued from the Nation: Anagarika Dharmapala and the Buddhist World, University of Chicago Press, p. 289, ISBN 978-0-226-19907-8, Sharma, Jyotirmaya (2011), Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism, Penguin Books, p. 49, ISBN 978-0-14-341818-4, Pandey, Gyanendra (2013), Subalternity and Difference: Investigations from the North and the South, Routledge, p. 136, ISBN 978-1-136-70162-7. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

@Vanamonde93: I was going through the major revisions you made. Did you check the sources and update it to best reflect the sources, or did you not get a chance to check the sources and tried your best to re-organize the content others had added? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I checked a good few of the sources for accuracy, mostly the media sources covering the recent content, and the HRW sources. I didn't check the historical sources so much, mostly because the reorganization was done as a matter of principle in those cases, and less on the basis of specific sources. Vanamonde (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead structure

Here's what I propose for lead structure:

1st Paragraph: describe what Cow protection violence is! 2nd Paragraph: briefly discuss the important of cow in various religions, and the fact that it is banned in many parts of India, and history of cow slaughter 3rd Paragraph: talk about recent events, post 2014. To make it neutral we should mention the surge post-election of Modi and that Modi has denounced this violence.

I've made changes in accordance with this. I've drastically reduced material from various perspective to make the LEAD readable. Thoughts?VR talk 15:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your changes because they slant towards a specific POV rather than giving neutral point of view. Capitals00 (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: Such as? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any specific objections? If not, I'd like to revert back. I actually put some time and thought into what I wrote to make sure it was both concise and balanced.VR talk 01:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead is written from a particular POV such as the recent series of vigilante attacks over rumors are unrelated to pre-independence riots due to cow killings. Jionakeli (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MSW seems to have reverted my changes that I introduced in this section, but didn't leave a comment here to explain why.VR talk 02:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, one thing I find problematic about this edit is that it very prominently blames Sikhs in the second sentence of the lead. While Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, etc have all had the role to play in violence, we must be careful not to unduly blame a group like this.VR talk 02:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent: I left an edit summary. To repeat, the lead must summarize the main points of the article per WP:LEAD. I did not revert you entirely, retained much of your edit. I found your first para weak, repetitive (e.g. lynching, murder) and OR. Doyle, for example, does not state that cow protection groups steal cows. I revised it to what the main article supports, more along the lines of the lead Vanamonde had created, and added sources to each sentence given how contentious this article is. Vandamonde93: please fine tune it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what are these main points? I see your lead[38] is more slanted towards Colonial India when situations were vastly different than today and also unrelated with the recent series of vigilante attacks post 2014. Jionakeli (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute!

F&f: Please explain this revert. You reverted a lot of sourced content. It would be constructive if you explained what your dispute is, and why. And, please spare a generic lecture with your personal POV of the type you have sharing in sections above. Identify which source(s) you have issue with, and specifics. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be re-reverting your revert. We will discuss this and all other issues at the RfC about the title of the page, which Vandamonde had mentioned. I have already proposed Cow vigilante violence in India, which seemed to have garnered the support of user:Kautilya3 and user:Jionakeli in addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the title and agreed scope will make all the difference. I am open to creating two articles: Post-2014 cow vigilante violence in India, and Cow-related violence in India, assuming you see enough WP:RS for the former. We can put a WP:Summarystyle of the former into the latter article. FWIW, I don't favor it though, because the recent "vigilante" violence is quite related to riots / lynchings / killings of the past, and there is plenty of WP:RS for the historic cow-related violence. I am open to compromise and to alternate creative ideas that cover this subject as best as we can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the severity of the content dispute, I have reverted back to Vanamonde's last revision[39] to which none of us have disagreed. I will request MSW to reach consensus on this talk page before reverting another editor's contributions[40], [41], [42]. Regards, Jionakeli (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
F&f's reply[43] summarizes his revert to an earlier undisputed revision[44] (note the timestamps). My earlier message[45] is related to this.Jionakeli (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jionakeli: The dispute is about the proposed title and proposed 'narrowly defined' scope of the "vigilante" title. Please note that almost all the content added so far, with one exception, is to Vanamonde sections, style and scope definition, from peer reviewed WP:RS. So, I don't know what you mean by "severe dispute"? What is in dispute specifically and why? Here is how tags / reverts / dispute resolution process works (be prepared to go through the notice boards and ARB process if necessary): If you sincerely believe that there is a content dispute, please identify what content you are disputing and why in the context of what high quality peer reviewed scholarly WP:RS are stating (not some POV /prejudice /wisdom in your head or gut feelings). Please note that you can't make vague OR:Synthesis allegation based on some cite+pages the article never cites. WP:Synthesis means we can't state new information or conclusions that the source does not itself state; if you allege Synthesis you must identify [a] the content in the article [b] the source [c] what new information or conclusion is the article stating that the source does not. On title and scope, Vanamonde proposed a new title based on his (incorrect) belief that there are cow-related riots/violence before 2014 were not significant. In the spirit of collaboration, I have provided the sources that correct that belief. We are waiting for Vanamonde to review and respond. Vanamonde is busy in real life till July 5. Kautilya3 has been too busy to login lately. Let us wait. Meanwhile, of course, if you dispute something, please provide specifics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ps) So we have no misunderstanding here and absurd allegations of OWN etc... the content I am restoring is not entirely mine. For example, Vice regent added "Cow slaughter has been punishable by death in many instances in Indian history. Under the Scindia (...)", and "Elsewhere, in 1893 there were riots in Azamgarh and Mau, in eastern Uttar Pradesh. The Azamgarh riots (...)", etc. All this too fits Vanamonde's sections, style and scope definition above. The issue here is that you are deleting sources and sourced content, without explaining what is it that you dispute and why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any difference. There is a dispute. You @Ms Sarah Welch: are in a minority. Several people have expressed concern about the introductory historical material, which it is felt is very much out of proportion. An administrator user:Vanamonde93 has chosen to enter the dispute. He last edited the page, edited it to prune the historical material. He is away until July 5, according to his talk page. It is common Wiki courtesy to not keep adding material when such opposition stares you in the face. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: You should know that admins lock articles to freeze a version when there indeed is a real content dispute between two parties. An unprotected article is free for others to edit. This article remains unlocked. Neither you nor I can arbitrarily change the rules. If you really want the old version of this article frozen for 72 hours, you should quit lecturing and go through the due process: file a full-prot request at WP:RPP. @El C: any guidance here? if you see grounds for full protection for 3 days, please lock this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to be finding a point here either, and not with the reverts by Fowler, per WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:OWN. Capitals00 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if I had to revert I would be reverting the recent series of edits that removed over 9,000 bytes. But that may add more fuel to edit war and we can wait for few days per WP:NODEADLINE. Capitals00 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree with your suggested approach. Indeed, there is no deadline. Vanamonde: While we await your return, I will work in my sandbox on a generic cow-related violence in India and elsewhere. Feel free to extract, whatever is appropriate, from that version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MSW: Please read my messages again. I didn't make OR or Synthesis allegations against you. The version you were trying to keep was contentious so I suggested to reach a consensus and reverted to Vanamonde's edit which removed my contributions as well. Jionakeli (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we seem to be thoroughly deadlocked here, I think MSW's proposal of splitting this into two articles, one for the current vigilante violence and the other for the overall violence, is perhaps a good way forward. The current violence is certainly an instance of WP:RECENTISM, but no more so than the various pages for the individual lynching incidents. In fact, splitting the articles in this fashion is what WP:RECENTISM recommends for achieving proper balance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Please note that in the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Alwar mob lynching, you voted/commented: "Merge into Cow-based lynching. The topic itself is notable albeit being minor." You made you comment/vote at 11:36 AM on June 23, 2017. (Note for the uninitiated: Cow-based lynching later stumbled into becoming this article, i.e. Violence related to cow protection in India.) At the time of your vote, the lead sentence of the article said, "Cow-based lynching refers to mob lynchings that have occurred in India. Multiple people have been killed by people when they suspect victims have either consumed beef or assisted in slaughtering a cow." (see here). In other words, you voted for a recent lynching incident to be included in Cow-based lynching, which at that point was nothing but an article about recent lynchings, with no history section. You said nothing about recentism. Indeed, if you had your "Merge" vote would have been self-contradictory.
The dispute is not about recentism; it is about the large-scale Synthesis and OR in the history section. Why would I be agreeable to splitting the article back into its original version and another article which violates, in my view, important principles of Wikipedia? In other words, why would textual material for which I will eventually be requesting an independent expert evaluation, namely the POV history section, would have my blessings for being reborn as the result of a convenient compromise? I would vote for the deletion of both articles, an easy choice for me, before I would contemplate an article about "overall violence." Are you suggesting that 140 years after the beginnings of such violence in British India, ten years after I mentioned it in a draft "A short history of the Indian independence movement" as a result of an RfC on Talk:India, nine years after CarTick, in greater detail, mentioned it in the Cow protection movement page, which he created, and which he stated was about the Cow protection movements of the 1880s and 1890s and the riots set off by their members; six years after the violence was mentioned on the British Raj page, and we really only now have the historiography fire power to write such an over-arching article, spread over 140 years, in which all the examples of violence have the common thread of Hinduism's ages-long ideology of protecting the cow? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
F&F, do what you would, no one is hindering. Others too may, no? You have severe problem of ownership. --Idamnamum (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler: what is your counter-proposal? You said it should be deleted. Ok, but then what should it be replaced with?VR talk 14:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya: in your proposal what scope would the article Cow protection movement have? Because as I see it now, nearly all of the cow protection violence is either 19th century (and hence related to the 19th century Cow protection movement) or 21st century vigilantism. There were minor incidents in the 20th century, like in 1966, but nothing too major.VR talk 14:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:@Kautilya3: My proposal is no different from what we have been considering all along. Change the name of this article to Cow vigilante violence in India with clear statement in the lead that the page is about recent events, throw out the Hindu ideology material, throw out the historical synthesis. The portions of the deleted text pertaining to late 19th-century "Cow protection societies" related violence may be added to Cow protection movement, if shown to be free of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Portions of the text pertaining to cow slaughter (though the distinction is not always clear, but, for example, the anti-cow-slaughter agitation in Delhi in 1966) may be added to Cow slaughter in India. At the same time, we should make sure, that there are no easy spin-offs of these topics, such as the ones recently created Cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses in India , or that no synthesis is being created in pictures (see for example: File:A collage of Buffalo sacrifice images Islamic Halal Dhabihah procedure, Delhi India.jpg, which is an authoritative sounding collage of four unauthoritative Flickr images taken 11 years ago with little or none documentation demonstrating that the slaughter was indeed "halal," with its many regulations. More puzzling is fact that this picture has been added to Hindu- and Sikh slaughter methods page, Jhatka, which at the time of my writing didn't have any illustrations of its own, ie. of the slaughter methods it should be describing, pictures that are widely available, such as ones of the annual blood baths in Nepal and many Kali temples in India. Similarly, it is not clear why the same picture has been added to Kutha meat, where "Kutha" is a little-used Sikh appellation for meat prepared according to the Islamic Halal procedure, but not added Halal or to Dhabihah, the main Wikipedia page for halal meat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I ignore the forum-y side discussions, suggestion that Muslims sacrifice animals without following halal guidelines, and other strange opinions because it is irrelevant to improving this article. Let us avoid WP:TLDR and WP:FORUM, get back resolving the title and scope please. We are indeed deadlocked here about the title and the scope of this article. We need context in this article, and WP:Summarystyle of Background section that Vanamonde helped trim, should suffice. Otherwise we run into WP:WWIN issues. If the article is to primarily focus on "recent events", by which one means post 2010 or post 2014 or whatever events, the title should state so. If the scope is narrowly defined, two articles would be necessary. @Vanamonde93: Welcome back. Ideas and suggestions to move forward? No rush. If you need to meditate on this a bit, please take your time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating "Forum-y," or repeating Wikipedia platitudes, reflexively, or perfunctorily, is no answer. How did open air slaughter take place in Delhi, especially of a buffalo, especially given the existing Indian law: "3. Animals not to be slaughtered except in recognised or licensed houses - (1) No person shall slaughter any animal within a municipal area except in a slaughter house recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so." (see Prevention of cruelty to animals (slaughterhouse) rules 2001. I brought it up here, and the Cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses in India page as well, because both were created shorty after your edits—involving addition of historical material to this page after Vanamonde had pruned it—were reverted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been back for a day, but been chewing on all of this stuff. Here's my take. Consensus seems to be moving towards the idea that generic violence in the cow protection movement (ie 1800s to the present) and the current spate of lynchings (2014 to the present) cannot and should not be treated as a single topic in a single page. This is my view also: Ms Sarah Welch expressed some support for it above, Kautila3 appears to agree, Vice regent has expressed opinions that would imply agreement, and Fowler&fowler seems at least to agree that the historical content should not be on this page. This content should therefore be split off. This leaves a few questions, however. First, what should the page title be? Assuming we are making a split based on time period, the title needs to reflect this. 2014 - 2017 cow protection vigilantism or something along those lines seems logical. Second, what is to be done with the content removed from here? The content about theft and slaughterhouses is already at a separate page, and we can deal with it there. What remains is the historical violence. Despite what F&F has said above, I do believe the sources clearly show that there has been a historical pattern to this violence. We could potentially move that into an article titled Violence in the cow protection movement, which would include a summary of this recent violence. I do not think we should jump to such an article immediately, though, because we might run afoul of POVFORK. So what I would suggest is to merge the historical material into Cow protection movements, and then if necessary make a spinoff from there. Cow protection movement must, of course, include both the historical violence (in summary or in full, depending on whether a spinoff is creacted) and the current lynchings (in summary, because they are covered here). Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:. What I had proposed earlier was Cow vigilante violence in India, I'm happy to change it to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, but I see "protection" as POV. I agree that the other material should go either into Cow protection movement or [Cattle slaughter in India]] until such time as the latter articles' seams are bursting with NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 or Post-2014 cow vigilante violence in India. Vanamonde (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: The second one, Post-2014 cow vigilante violence in India, sounds better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: count me in as well. I am fine with generic violence in a separate article. Jionakeli (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that once Cow protection movement contains the 19th century historical violence, and this article has been rescoped to contemporary lynchings, there will be very little violence remaining. Whatever does remain can simply go into Cattle slaughter in India and probably won't need its own article.VR talk 02:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: There seems to be general consensus for this article to be named Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, and for the other material in the article, history etc., to go either into Cow protection movement or Cow slaughter in India. I will wait for three days more, i.e. until noon July 16, 2017 Universal Time, and then move the article to [[Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014]. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestion. Please call the new article Cow vigilante violence in India (2014-present). For example, there is Yemeni Crisis (2011–present).VR talk 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 title. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|Vice regent]]. Hmm. I think you might be right. There is some MOS guideline that says that. I vaguely remember they did it to two articles of mine. Hold on. Back in a minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Well, not sure, now. It is best to change it first to the name we have consensus for, then we can fine tune it. Why don't you, or someone, change it to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other articles named "ABC since Y"? If so, and they are analogous to this one, then I'm fine with that name. Otherwise, I prefer the "(2014-present)" format.VR talk 04:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be redirected to Vigilante?

Boldly hatting this. With all due respect, the notion is absurd. This page is as long as the entire vigilante page. The only situation in which this might become tenable is if the information in this article is demonstrated to be non-encyclopedic in nature, a demonstration which has yet to be made. Ms Sarah Welch, proposing something you don't really believe in is not terribly helpful: why not focus instead on grounding this page in the best sources available? Fowler&fowler: I hear your concerns about a lack of scholarly sources, truly, I do. If I had my way I'd probably require us to stick entirely to scholarly sources on contentious matters, just as the WP:MED project has done. Unfortunately the larger community doesn't see things the same way. Media sources are considered reliable; and coverage in them is generally enough for a standalone article. The volume of coverage this phenomenon has received is very large. The page is not going anywhere. So, might I respectfully ask you to set aside your distaste for the moment and focus on improving the content in it? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see this discussion. Why not redirect this article to the Vigilante article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: This is a very good idea. Let us redirect it there. And let's see how it develops. First real good idea you've had. Let us create a section there "Cow vigilante violence in India since 204" and first attempt to pithily characterize what is going on. If and when it becomes big enough, reflecting a sad fact of life, we may make it an independent article. I will hold off on my deadline above until I hear from others. Please ping them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the rhetorical question made its point. Big enough and distinct enough are the two articles, that we can skip the 'make section, let it become bigger, then spin it off". Both should be independent articles. A SummaryStyle sections can be added to the other articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A section title is no rhetorical question. You have boxed yourself into a corner. Manifestly fake attempts to take back what you've said are not going to work. You should have thought about this much earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this earlier. I am surprised you didn't. I am not trying to box you with rhetorical questions. Trying to understand. For why both articles should be independent articles, see above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did? What was the point of the rhetorical section then? No one, as far as I know, except possibly me (in passing once), had suggested Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 should not be an independent article? You yourself agreed (and several times) that it should, and with that name. Whose argument and, made where in this talk page, were you countering by creating this section? Or, were you multi-posting, even indirectly cross-posting, since you repeated this message from another talk page, Talk:Cattle theft in India? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS See my Notice in the conclusion of the section above! What is the opening of this so-called rhetorical section—so late in the game, just hours before the long announced creation of the Cow vigilante article—attempting to do? What non-dispute here is it attempting to solve? It's damned if I do, damned if I don't. Let both articles we are discussing in two talk pages be redirected (this one to Vigilante and Cattle theft in India to Cattle raiding, and end this nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What will help is if you ended your WP:FORUM-y lecturing unhelpful strange behavior, and read the weeks of discussion on this. Not just me thinks so, Vanamonde too (see this comment from two weeks ago) when he wrote to you, "Do me a favor, and spare me the lecture. (...) The topic is covered in reliable sources; therefore the topic is notable, and not going to get deleted; therefore the article is here to stay". It is okay for us to vote similarly sometimes, differently sometimes. Your vote is support. My vote is oppose. I also oppose redirect for the other article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You, Sarah Welch, still haven't explained the point of starting this section. I didn't do it. Again, I didn't do it. You did. Again: You, Sarah Welch, did. Is that clear? We had consensus to change the name of the article to Cow vigilante .... You did not come up with that name. I did. Again: I did, against your initial opposition. What is this then? What is the point of creating this section? No amount of formulaic, facile, repetition of an admin's name, as if that somehow gets off the hook of being intellectually misleading at the very least, or violating Wikipedia talk page etiquette at the more reasonable assessment. A complete and bizarre mystery. In nearly 11 years on Wikipedia, I have never come across an editor, who after consensus, and ample warning of a page move, at the last minute changed her vote, proposed something else, then flip-flopping, claimed that it was all a big rhetorical joke meant to affirm the agreed upon consensus. What the heck are you trying to pull? If you think I'm using intemperate language, please take this to ANI or complain to the powers-that-be and let everyone examine your edits here and on the Talk:Cow theft in India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect to Vigilante. I also agree that there is no need to make it unnecessarily bigger. Capitals00 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is basically a proposal to delete this article. If you're serious about such a proposal please open an AfD. There is enough material and notability to have a separate article on Cow-protection vigilantes in India.VR talk 16:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger of Not In my name (protest In India)

I initially started this conversation here[46]. Now it is merged with this article fromhere. I will expand it but I need time as I won't be able to contribute full time until mid-September. Pinging involved users @Vice regent:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Capitals00:, @Fowler&fowler:, @Vanamonde93: and @Kautilya3: if you care to improve it. Jionakeli (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India&oldid=795167806"