Talk:International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque

A fact from International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the offices of Air India were attacked as part of the violent reaction to the Babri mosque demolition in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/April.

Wikipedia

India Low‑importance

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please fix the capitalization in the title of this article. It should be: Babri Mosque with "mosque" capitalized. I don't know how to fix the title. I copy-edited the rest of this page -- capitalization, punctuation, and shortening run-on sentences.I don't believe that I changed the content. As soon as the capitalization of the title is fixed, I think that it can be removed from the list of articles that needs its capitalization fixed.Alexhopkins (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (de facto redirect)

I already merged all the non-redundant content to Demolition of Babri Masjid#International reactions. Nothing was lost in the process and the main article isn't imbalanced by the inclusion of this content. So restoring the redirect will help readers and avoid unnecessary duplication. If that section is further developed to be more substantial, it can be split out again. Fences&Windows 05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I disagree with the proposed merger because the data content is not actually exclusive to the Demolition of Babri Masjid, strange as it may sound. This article has data pertinent to the Persecution of Hindus and state of Hinduism in Pakistan, Hinduism in Bangladesh, because it was a landmark event in that regard. There is still content to develop about reactions from expat communities in the Middle East, Middle Eastern nations and North America/Europe. Shiva, Lord Blackadder 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems then that your aim in having a separate article is to have a coatrack on which to hang Hindu views of the dispute, not to document international reaction at all. Notice the disparity in the language - the Hindus who demolished the mosque were in a "procession", the Muslims who reacted were "mobs". Fences&Windows 09:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the NYT referred to the Muslims as "crowds" and "marchers".[1] Please make more effort to write neutrally. The background to the dispute is also clearly coloured by a Hindu perspective. Fences&Windows 09:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is no WP:COATRACK - this has nothing to do with a Hindu point of view of anything. All I am saying is that the data is saying that these particular international reactions also led to an aggravation of socio-religious conflict in countries outside India, where the Babri mosque demolition took place. In regards to choice of words - (1) "Procession" is used because it was supposed to be an ordinary procession that took everybody by surprise (note I do not enter into the debate of pre-determined actions) when it suddenly descended upon the mosque site.

(2) The use of the word "mob" - dictionary definition is a "disorderly crowd of people". Why do you want me to go "word-for-word" from the sources? Why assume the New York Times's use of "crowds" is any healthier or NPOV than "mob" when the action is being clearly described for what it is? Should I allege the NYT of bias in favour of Muslims, as you seem to insinuate I am incorporating in favour of Hindus? Shiva, Lord Blackadder 10:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]