Talk:1985 Gujarat riots

Proposed merge with Dabgarwad Massacre

Subject matter is not really notable enough for a standalone article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal based on the fact that there are many other massacres that are standalone article. "Notable" in this case is a subjective judgement based on POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk 02:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OTHERCRAPEXSISTS is never a reason to keep an article. The other article has no substantial coverage and is not notable enough for a standalone article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Merge: Article of not much notability/significance to become standalone one. Can be introduced as section of 1985 Gujarat riots. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Article does not provide facts

This article is one-sided and quotes biased sources. Does not explain how a non-religious affair got communal color. Does not mention role played by Mafia Don Abdul Lateef & his political bosses. Unbiasedpov (talk 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources are all from academic publishers, how are they "one sided and biased"? I have reverted your excessive over tagging. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1985 Gujarat riots/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I'm going to be reviewing this article. Looks like an interesting topic – I'll get into a deep dive now. Thanks. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. My approach to reviewing this article will be to run through it step-by-step, making small edits if I see any that are needed, and then assessing the article against GA criteria. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

• The introduction looks good.

Riots

• Looks good. Do you have any references for the foundation of the All-Gujarat Educational Reform Action Committee

  This is supported by the next citation, Shani p. 80.

• Just curious. Do you know the name of the commission that regarded the 16 and 23 April as the "darkest period"? It may be beneficial in terms of detail. Was it part of the judicial commission spoken about in the next section?

  It's sometimes referred to as the Dave commission, which is a detail I've now added. I don't want to add it at that point in the text, because I think it would be distracting; the text is discussing something else at that point.

Aftermath

• No problems here.

Images

• Would you be able to find any freely available images/assets? This would satisfy 6a and b of the GA criteria.

  I've added one more image, of the old city of Ahmedabad; images are generally very difficult, though, because a) most images from this period haven't been digitized, b) those that have been (in newspaper archives, for instance) are copyright and/or lacking in documentation, and making an argument to use a copyrighted image is always tricky. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. The image there should be fine.

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): } b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): } b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Number of people killed?

Do we have the actual data on number of people killed and injured during riots ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.48.108.42 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1985 Gujarat riots involved violence against both Muslims and people from lower castes?
  • ALT1:... that during the 1985 Gujarat riots, police in Ahmedabad attacked and burned down the offices of a newspaper?

• Reviewed: Portia White

Improved to Good Article status by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

• New enough (GA today), long enough (21,000+ chars.), neutral, cites sources, passes Earwig and eye tests for plagiarism. Hooks are both short enough, though I don't think that the first hook is anywhere near as interesting as the second, so I recommend ALT1. QPQ is present, no image. AGF because I am not paying $25 to get access to the journal article that ALT1 cites. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Need better hook: The first one singles out Muslims and lower castes as victims and likely forgets "Dabgarwad massacre", which resulted in deaths of 8 Hindus (it is yet to be made clear what was their caste), thus it is not broad enough. ALT1 is absolutely not broad enough either. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The hook does not say violence was exclusively against Muslims and lower castes. It was primarily against them, as numerous sources attest. Besides, hooks are not supposed to summarize the entire article, they are supposed to provide a fact that is interesting. Do you have a basis in policy for your objection, or is this is just a case of not liking it? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all you need to WP:AGF. This only talks about caste reservations. This says that the riots "began as caste riots.... Within a month, these caste riots escalated into communal violence between Hindus and Muslims." This says "In Gujarat in 1985, riots erupted and despite having a huge majority in the state assembly the local Congress party and state government were unable to cope with minority agitation." These sources show that the hook 1 is not accurate enough and contradicts the summary provided by majority of sources. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the hooks more carefully, and to read more sources about this incident, before making unfounded assertions. First, ALT0 only says it involved violence against Muslims and lower caste people, not that those were the only forms of violence. DYK hooks do not need to summarize the articles they are drawn from; they need to be accurate, and this one is. Second, the sources that go into this incident in detail (ie not the ones you are quoting) all support the hook. Did you even read those sources? Third, it's fairly obvious that you have not paid much attention to the source material. Asghar Ali Engineer has written several books and articles that discuss these riots, and very explicitly talks about anti-Muslim violence. Even the other source you cite talks about anti-reservation violence, and about how "all the accused booked for acts of violence against Dalits (under-privileged castes, for anyone watching this) and Muslims would go free", on page 25. The other part of that source discussing the 1985 riots is a chapter by Ornit Shani, whose 2007 book is used heavily in the article; and she discusses anti-Muslim violence and anti-Dalit violence very explicitly as well. @The Squirrel Conspiracy: it's your review that's being challenged here. I assert that the hooks are well-sourced and accurate, and that the objections above hold no water because Shashank5988 has not bothered to familiarize themselves with the source material. I'm happy to provide quotes, if you would like. Do you stand by your review? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

pinging The Squirrel Conspiracy again. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:HOOK's point #4. The hook you are proposing isn't neutral. I cited the short descriptions from the sources, and they are very far from matching the hook you have proposed. Thus the hook isn't accurate given it only shows a very single portion of the conflict. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Still I've struck ALT0. ALT1 is cited, neutral, and the more interesting hook (and the one I recommended in my original review). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with the claim that ALT0 isn't neutral, but I agree ALT1 is more interesting, so I can live with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I never said that it wasn't neutral. I struck it because there's no sense arguing about one hook when a better one is available. Please don't take my attempt at de-escalation the wrong way. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Okay, thanks for the clarification. There's a tendency for folks unfamiliar with contentious topics to see "both sides" as being equally right or wrong in a dispute, and as someone who's contributed and/or adminned several such, I have little patience for that approach. If all that you were trying to do was de-escalate, I appreciate that, and I agree the hook itself is not worth arguing over (you may have noticed Shashank5988 initially grumbled about both hooks, and then quietly dropped their objection to the second...). Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook seems rather run of the mill. Would you like to add an additional fact to pep it up?
• ALT2: ... that during the 1985 Gujarat riots, police in Ahmedabad attacked and burned down the offices of a newspaper that had previously criticized the police violence? Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: To be honest, police attacking the offices of a newspaper doesn't sound run of the mill to me at all, but I'm fine with your addition. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• No problem. Readers will have something more to read when they click on the article :) Restoring tick for ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)