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 SineBot (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 28 November 2022 (Signing comment by 69.142.179.131 - "Scare quotes in lede: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Targeted Harrasment

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

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

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

Requested move 16 August 2019

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

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



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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not merged. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The near-entire corpus of coverage about this organisation stems from the locus of vigilante lynching. A merge is sought per WP:NOPAGE. WBGconverse 14:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any objection within the next 48 hours, I will execute the merge. WBGconverse 16:12, 21 October 2019 (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.

Biased lead and missing info about victims

The title of this article is Cow vigilante violence in India and the first sentence justify that cow is sacred and is venerated. Rather it should be on directly on Cow vigilante violence in India not on Cow but on violence. This is looking like justifying the violence.

Secondly, when there is separate heading and detailed info about preparators of the violence then the article must address who are victims and what is their background? Thirdly, I am adding this which throws light on the background.

While India has a fairly wide Cow Protection Act that bars the slaughter of female cows and calves, many areas have permitted slaughter of bulls and bullocks for centuries. Hindu religion has no doctrinal proscriptions against the consumption of beef in particular, although it has borrowed heavily from Jainism in the last century, arguing that the concept of ahimsa (nonviolence) forbids such slaughter and consumption of beef. Violence is exacted upon those who would dare eat beef—notably Muslims and lower castes—further politicizing the issue. [1]. I hope this will satisfy neutral editors.ScholarM (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing first sentence of the article looks fine as it is to me -- it would be odd not to mention from the outset the justification for the violence.
"Violence is exacted upon those who would dare eat beef" seems rather flowery wording to me. What wording does the cited source use for this fact? MPS1992 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gittinger, Juli L. "The Rhetoric of Violence, Religion, and Purity in India’s Cow Protection Movement." Journal of Religion and Violence (2017).

I have tried adding details of newer incidents, but my edits are being reverted.

Since there is no specific law in India which defines "Cow Vigilantism", the cases which are highlighted by the media being labelled as "Cow Lynching" have been discussed here. On the same basis I added 3 more incidents which occured during October and November to the list but these edits were reverted on the basis of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing However the same rulebook mentions that Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. So I don't see the reason for the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guglusharma (talkcontribs)

Again, please sign your comments so that it is visible who said what when. Anyway, it wasn't just close paraphrasing, it was an outright copyvio. Supplanting parts of it with especially poor English, is no better. Please do better. Best thing you can do is not to paraphrase at all and just write your own original prose. El_C 02:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is not a sentence

User:El_C Why did you revert my edits? The first sentence is not a sentence: "Cow vigilante violence involves mob attacks in the name of "cow protection" targeting mostly illegal cow smugglers, but in some cases even licensed cow traders, has swelled since 2014" You also removed links. AnomalousAtom (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the lead sentence —the most important sentence— in such a controversial article, you need to gain consensus to change such longstanding text, especially if you remove mention to "mob attacks." El_C 08:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My edit didn't remove "mob attacks". It defined the term in the first sentence and put the "since 2014" mob attacks in the second sentence. It also added "India", which the article does not mention until the 3rd sentence. AnomalousAtom (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it defined it, so much as relegated it to the following sentence. Anyway, I don't really have an opinion in this matter. I am acting as an uninvolved admin enforcing the IPA discretionary sanction here. I don't wish to come across as someone who is objecting to an edit on the basis of no consensus alone, but when it comes to the lead sentence of such a controversial article, I do expect some (any) discussion to take place. Anyway, if there are no objections to the change in, say, a week, you may restore it on the basis of WP:SILENCE. El_C 16:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AnomalousAtom (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AnomalousAtom (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Not In My Name ( Protest In India)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Not In My Name ( Protest In India). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Not In My Name ( Protest In India) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

Remove residual table entry under 2012 header. MathLeuch (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail[✉️] 18:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes in lede

Quotation marks on "cow protection" in the first sentence of the article should be removed per MOS:SCAREQUOTE. 69.142.179.131 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in the third sentence, "such incidences" should be changed to "such incidents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.179.131 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]