Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. consensus there are Pov concerns and fork so this should be covered at the redirecf. I did not close as merge as there seems more than a bit on TNT required so best start from.scratch. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India

Title changed to: Anti-Muslim reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic in India

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:POVFORK of 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi (already covered here) and is currently serving as clear violation of WP:WWIN and WP:SOAPBOX. I am tempted to cite WP:HOAX as well, because AFAIK no "riots" have occurred, nor they have been mentioned but the article title, category, infobox, and lead claims that "riots" are occurring. Tessaracter (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions.Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason to delete this article as it is cited with foreign news sources. Every time, both Pakistan and India are blaming each other. Keeping this situation in mind, i have not cited the said article with Pakistan news sources. In fact, Indian media has also reported violence-related news. 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus_hotspot in Delhi and Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India are two distinct articles as one covers the "virus carriers" and the nominated one covers "attacks" primarily. I've a lot of respect for India too, but here on Wikipedia, reliable sources are more useful. You may wish to see WP:BEFORE and also [this, this, this, and this TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
India is a democratic country. Obviously you are going to see all types of reports from just every part of the world no matter what happens in India. But the fact that you are simply cherry picking sources or hyping up the extent of the impact of a subject that already exists and is relatively small in size, is violation of WP:POVFORK. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions, but it is "based on real occurrences". See Verifiability and WP:FAPO. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those essays are exactly opposite to the POV pushing you have done here since no "riots" took place. You are only justifying the nominator's reasoning that you have indeed falsified content for creating this article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your personal opinion? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, PoV pushing can be clear by reading article. Your article has indiscriminate collection of informations which is against 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Are we going to create separate page to include information like Muslims attacked Indian Police and health workers? There are multiple reports regarding it. Brihaspati (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The title certainly doesn't seem to match the content, but that can be fixed. The article also needs to be copy-edited for non-neutral language. However, I'm suprised anyone would argue this topic is not notable. The topic has received extensive international coverage (you can see the sources in the article) and the current one-line descriptions in some articles are not sufficient. --MrClog (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would note my disapproval of the new title, "reactions" seems a little bit odd considering we're talking about attacks here. Also, the page name capitalisation is wrong. However, let's not move the page for now. If the page survives this AfD, I'll open a move discussion. --MrClog (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd have opted for something else, but now that's it's not directly wrong and inflammatory, it's not a critical shift Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The repeated allegations that this discrimination is a "hoax" is a fringe view. International coverage is cited in the article, so unless one would argue that Time, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, BBC, etc., are fake news sources (when there is consensus they are reliable), this view can be discarded. --MrClog (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument to merge is understandable, but I would respectfully disagree. The enormous amount of reporting gives enough information to expand this article to a size that it would be undesirable to have it in the main article. Of course, the contents of this article can be summarised in the 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi article. In addition, the argument that the part about social media is "unencyclopedic" doesn't hold true, considering this social media controversy has been covered by RS. For example, Time opened their article with a mention of the social media controversy (which they further discussed later on in the article). Other RS, like India Today, wrote entire articles on it. --MrClog (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC); edited 11:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up comment, I think having multiple news articles from reliable international sources such as The New York Times, BBC, Time, and The Guardian shows that the article clearly passes WP:EVENTCRIT. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The article should be renamed as soon as possible to avoid misinformation. --MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a HOAX. No "ongoing" riots in India. All Covid patients are being treated in government hospitals irrespective of religion. This is a defamation article. — Utkarshkrsh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, I have renamed the article and removed some of the worst NPOV violations. Now that this has been done, I think the article should be kept since this is clearly is a topic that passes GNG, with it having extensive coverage in reliable international sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, shouldn't "Coronavirus Pandemic" be lowercase? All of the other titles containing the phrase have been lowercase. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before you use the word "Hoax", one should spare a moment to familiarize what does it actually used for and where. It might look a "factually incorrect" article to editor(s) this is because of this. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: - why should IAR be applied here? If you're stating IAR is the applicable rule, that suggests you're conceding that it is a POVFORK. In which case, why is it so special that IAR should be used? We don't even split povforks on things like Trump's article. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made by users (in favour of deletion), has alomst neglected the core elements of the Wikipedia, therefore, it may be a good idea for them to avoid making edits while providing edit summary mentioning the Wikipedia rules there. Those edits are not less than "deceptive" ones. And what does "reactions" mean in the title? Is this really a reaction? Please explain. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: Please restore your edit at the 4th occurrence i.e "perps" parameter. You have almost violated the out of scope and WP:BESTSOURCES. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Santoshsatvik: I do not agree with your assessment. If there are more "anti-something" cases based on reliable sources, then why not you create an article for this or update an existed one? I note, local media is portraying the true facts in other ways contradict to WP:PG. Thank you! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Santoshsatvik: - I'd like to query why you mention riots at all? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not less than a "riot". How many times should i provide evidences? Consensus can not be impacted by diverting the editors from the main topic. Please look at this TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current version falsely claims there is existence of "religiously motivated attacks", "mob cases", "severe attacks on the minorities" and that makes it clear that the article is still dedicated to promote misinformation. After cutting up all such disinformation we would be left with nothing but comments about Twitter trolling which are not notable since Wikipedia is not for gossiping. Wareon (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wareon:, I don't think you have visited any of the following sources:

Note: I used the "(missing)" tag here to avoid adding the source text here as it could hurt ones patriotic feelings.

1). "governing party officials spoke of “human bombs” and “corona jihad” — a spree of anti-Muslim attacks has broken out across the country - assaulted with cricket bats, beaten up etc." source nytimes
2). "The pandemic has provided fresh opportunity for (missing) to beat down an already disadvantaged minority group." Source foreign policy.
3). "Outrage over a Muslim congregation that has sparked a new wave of Covid-19 cases in India has taken an Islamophobic turn." Source bbc
4). "anti-Muslim attacks has broken out across India" source nytimes.
5). "The hijacking of coronavirus as an excuse for discrimination comes after a growing state-sponsored campaign to turn minorities into second-class citizens in India, as part of the (missing) agenda of (missing)" Source the guardian.
6). "Panic and chaos have already set in across the country. A man hospitalized in New Delhi with COVID-19 symptoms committed suicide. A mob beat up another man in the western state of Maharashstra for sneezing in public." Source foreign affairs.
7). "The country’s Muslim minority population has since witnessed a string of attacks by (missing), accusing the (missing) of “corona jihad.” source VOA.

In fact, the current version is awaiting restoration to its previous version. One of the editors has removed the cited content and then ran away. They removed content from their talk page too. In case they do not reply to the request for comment, the edits may be reverted without notifying them upon community's approval. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who ran away and where to? Hemant DabralTalk
  • Keep. Islamophobic reactions to the coronavirus pandemic in India have received widespread coverage. I found these with less than a minute of searching; Time magazine, BBC, Foreign Policy magazine, The Telegraph, Washington Post (an Op-Ed, but by a well-known enough journalist that it carries weight), Newsweek, Haaretz, New York Times. I would recommend retitling the article to "Islamophobic responses to the coronavirus pandemic in India", as that is the language most sources use. The closer ought to ignore the vast majority of !votes above, which have no basis in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also be okay with a merge, given that the length of both articles permits it; but it would have to be an actual merger, not a deletion by another name. The sources do seem to explore islamophobia as a reaction to the Tablighi Jamat mess. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Op-ed by Rana Ayyub carries weight? She's well known for her anti-Hindu and pro-Islamist stance and that's the only weight carried by her. Her reportings of 2002 Gujarat Riots (culminated in a book 'The Gujarat Files') were rejected by the Supreme Court of India as a work of fiction. Since when op-eds became reliable, neutral and unbiased news source? Hemant DabralTalk 18:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who Ms. Ayyub is but even if her op-ed carries no weight, there are still 7 pieces of int'l coverage. --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single Indian news media covered the alleged "riots and lynchings"? Not even the media outlets likes of NDTV, Scroll.in, The Hindu, The Print, The Wire etc.? All of them are well known for being staunch critics of current ruling party and their political ideology. Why not cite them too in the references? Hemant DabralTalk 06:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what you are trying to say. --MrClog (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemant Dabral: You may wish to see (this report) report published by an Indian news outlet. For violence-related, please see (this), (this), and (riot-like situation). All these sources are from those sites you wanted to see. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Keep comments don't hold water because hoaxes and conspiracy theories also get coverage in reliable sources. Being covered by reliable sources isn't enough and the subject must abide by WP:GNG. Why there is no article about Anti-Chinese reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic, given Chinese people are the biggest victims of coronavirus-based discrimination? I also wonder why there is no Anti-Muslim reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic in the United Kingdom,[1][2][3][4] Anti-Muslim reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States[5][6][7] despite being widely covered by reliable sources? We can agree that this POVFORK reeks of POV pushing. Sources are only sharing variety of opinions already covered at 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi, and as such this POVFORK lacks notability independent of that subject. Azuredivay (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Azuredivay: I'm baffled by your comment, to put it a little bit blunt. You say being covered by reliable sources is not enough, and that instead it should abide by GNG. But GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:ITSNOTABLE says that assertions that an article is notable must be backed by RS, which the article and keep !votes consist of. And you cited the "Arguments to avoid" essay, yet your comment consists of an argument to aviod listed there. The argument that we do not have pages on other instances of discrimination is an argument to avoid. Also, almost all of the RS are not opinion pieces, so that part of your argument holds no merit. Then you say it's a POVFORK. Despite the fact that this argument brought forth by you and other delete !voters is so far merely an assertion not backed up by evidence, it would, even if true, also be an argument to avoid. And the couple of sentences in the main article are not sufficient considering the size of international and broad coverage of the subject. MrClog (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In your world WP:GNG must be limited to such a small single sentence but reality differs your misleading observation. What matters is that GNG does not endorse POVFORKs. I never said all sources are opinion pieces but that they only share views about something which we have already covered. Your claim that delete !voters haven't cited the evidence of it being POVFORK reflects your poor understanding of the subject and you have to re-read the nomination which adds that "WP:POVFORK of 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi (already covered here)". To say that these arguments should be avoided on AfD simply shows your own ignorance of AfD. Knowing that you registered your account in 2019 you must gain some experience of policies instead of bludgeoning AfD with your misleading observations. Azuredivay (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Azuredivay: The fact that you have to resort to mentioning when I was registered to make your argument is sad. I have not and would never say that my edit count is ten times greater than yours in order to discredit your POV. The quoted text simply asserts it's a POVFORK but it's only example is the mention of "riots", which has since been removed. I also never said that GNG "endorses" POVFORKs; I simply said that independent RS proof that an article, regardless of the quality of its content, is notable under GNG. And don't mention WP:BLUD when I've responded to two arguments and both of these arguments were unique, so I wasn't simply repeating the same opinion. MrClog (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure there are POV issues, and the title was iffy, but deletion is not cleanup. It may need work, but it is notable, as evidenced by coverage in the NYTimes, Quartz, The Gaurdian, oh the NYTimes again, Time magazine, even Buzzfeed. Overwhelmingly notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/General note: Hemant Dabral why your removed the cited content from the article? When i asked for a comment on your talk page, you removed your talk page content too? Why? Be mindful, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If an editor disagrees Verifiability, then how they make edits on Wikipedia and on what basis? Please explain! Please note, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not a forum to "publish one's own thoughts". Since, you've vandalized the article replacing the "perps" parameter content (infobox) with a redundant text based on biased and personal views, you may wish to see the consequences of vandalism. In case you failed to restore the said content, it may be interpreted a direct violation of WP:RS and may be undone per WP:RVAN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got your message, I've read your message and I deleted it which I reserve the right to do on my user talk page.

Now coming to the editing part, I've edited the controversial WP:POV parts of the article that's full of biases and personal views sourced from op-eds, targetting a particular community. Go ahead and make the change you desire as you've been talking for the last couple of days. Have I stopped you from reverting my edits? So go ahead and don't troll me about it on my talk page or in here. Hemant DabralTalk 06:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain in detail who is funding me. Is it minorities or any other people, government or organization? or restrain from using such a blunt accusations. See WP:PA TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Popele distributing food", and "People across country with no connection to the gathering attacked" source CNN. This source covers both missionary members as well as those people who are not linked to the organization. Following the violence, "farmers driven out of villages" (not linked to organization) source BloombergQuint (a news outlet based in India). Therefore, merging it to the 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi sound clueless. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. This is obviously a reaction to the Tablighi Jamaat event, and belongs there. I am not sure why this has been brought to AfD at all. If it is a "POVFORK", as the nom sees it, it should have been handled by WP:RM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyone (delete and keep !voters alike) agrees that the article was rife with POV issues, half truths and distortions of sources. Hell, the original title itself was deceptive and misleading falsehood insofar as the page had to be moved to a new title in the midst of this AfD. Notwithstanding the page move and the drastic changes which followed, the article still contained instances of blatant source falsifications (1, 2, 3, 4) left, right and centre.
    Now, coming to the subject itself, sources that have been provided to claim notability and importance of the topic at issue, discuss the subject in the context of the Tablighi Jamaat incident, making it clear that the supposed Islamphobia was in reaction to the foregoing incident.
    Anti-Muslim reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic in India#Social_media_controversies is hardly encyclopedic content, and once we get rid of it, there is hardly left anything that's not, or cannot be covered in the above-mentioned article on 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi, which is precisely where this stuff needs to be, for, as I mentioned above, reliable sources deem this to be a reaction to the Jamaat incident. Perhaps, a reading of WP:NOPAGE #1 might be in order here. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 11:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors have shown nothing, but a series of comments citing to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. The Jamaat is only about Jamaat and not about attacks against minorities that covers "villagers", "farmers" and the victims who are not linked to the missionary. As a matter of fact, they have undermined the notable sources that covers the subject straightforward. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:GNG as mentioned above. Better to be covered elsewhere. Not only is this article unconstructive but also the information has not been fully sourced as well as distorting and stirring the truth. It is an obvious POV issue with some hidden agenda by certain individuals who do not agree with a neutral discussion. Hari147 (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note, falsified and same comment as widely posted above. Upon observing the whole discussion, i came to know that it is a case of WP:JDLI. The facts is that; citing to WP:POVFORK in discussion doesn't support one's claims as well. Furthermore, if you have find any unsourced content in the article, you can remove this. Thank you and happy editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You simply have your own point of view, hence you cant agree upon most of the users here. Just because people do not agree with you does not necessarily mean WP:JDLI. If that is the case there wouldnt be a space for discussion on any topics. Furthermore, not only is this Wikipedia:Tendentious editing but also misaligned with the actual reports. The articles you added all point to only sentiments, but not actual riots which is Wikipedia:No original research. If needed, this article can instead be referenced in 2-3 lines, which actually has been referenced here: Coronavirus in India. Hence, it is needless to say that this article should be deleted instead. --Hari147 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate that editors who have been registered with Wikipedia since years do not make a balanced contribution to AfD. One should note that personal taste is not applicable to AfD. It is surprising your one of articles exists on non-notable sources, but you never regret for this, while the articles that are supported by notable sources are WP:POVFORK for you. In fact, you should improve your article creation for now before making false claims. Thank you and happy editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article I wrote was on a billion dollar company that is publicly listed on multiple stock exchanges. If you want to dispute the sources then feel free to do so in that article's talk page, not here. The discussion here is regarding the one you wrote. And please don't take this as a personal attack but fallacies should be the last thing hosted on this platform. Don't drag WP:JDL here, that's a poor response to a claim that your whole article was written on imaginary narrative building. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coronavirus_pandemic_anti-Muslim_riots_in_India&oldid=954004532"