Talk:Bombay riots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiza

There is another movie on the subject called "Fiza" (my account was Shell but i forgot the password and it has still not been sent to me after requesting it)

Edited

I changed the line "An investigative commission was formed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna..." to "An investigative commission was formed under Justice B.N. Srikrishna..." 114.31.135.29 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Prateek Mishra (prateek . freelance @ gmail . com)

The Most Cars in One Place

A nine-day traffic jam could last for weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.14.67 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Catagory removal

Why is the Category:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India being removed, this atrocity has been called a pogrom. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • This was a riot - started after (initially peaceful then turned violent) Muslim protests. Why is this called a pogrom against Muslims? It should then be called a pogrom against Hindus as well. I vote to add this to anti-Hindu pogroms in India --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • SD, see the section below this one. There are references that say targeted violence took place; therefore, the category is included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Template removal

There are six reliable sources in the linked section . Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Series Addition & Removal

This event includes both violence against Hindus and Muslims. Need consensus on adding this articles to both series "Violence against Muslims in India" & "Violence against Hindus". Please provide reliable source supporting the view. Until then this article should be part of any series. Unbiasedpov (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the talk page, you would have seen the six reliable sources provided in the link above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: -Add series "Violence against Hindus" or Remove series "Violence against Muslims in India"?

This is quite a short RFC. Broadly speaking it looks like there is agreement that there is, somewhere, sourcing referring to this as Violence against Hindus. The emerging consensus appears to be that adding the series template to the article would probably be okay but only after relevant prose text was added to the article (as it stands, it shouldn't be added) covering the Radhabai Chawl incident. One comment I do have though, is that the article is in a severely poor state and adding a series template to it won't improve matters much. The article needs significant TLC and some good sourcing! Not an easy job, but worth doing. --Errant (chat!) 08:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Add the series "Violence against Hindus". Alternatively, remove the series "Violence against Muslims in India". Article carries details of both violence against Hindus as well was violence against Muslims. Article provides details of Radhabai Chawl Massacre of 6 Hindus, including women and physically handicapped girl. This and other events are textbook case of "Violence against Hindus"; Thus, This article should be added to series "Violence against Hindus". Updating RfC & making this Proposal:- Do not add entire article to "Violence against Hindus" series;Instead create a sub-section, "Radha bai Chawl Massacre" and add subsection to "violence against hindus" series. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I vote for Equality. I vote to add both series "Violence against Hindus" and "Violence against Muslims in India" to article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


There is an identical RfC about a related topic. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#RfC:_-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F. Note: This RfC link fully complies with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Placing_an_RfC_in_a_page_other_than_a_talk_page. Do not delete without consensus. Unbiasedpov (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Sources describing this as "violence against Muslims" have been provided, and are currently in the article. Sources describing this as "violence against Hindus" do not exist. Therefore, only the former template is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a list of reliable source which describes entire event as "violence against Muslims". Read the article. Reliable sources describe Radhabai Chawl Massacre as start of hindu backlash. See the numbers in Sri Krishna Commission report:-. In first 2 days( January 6 and 7 1992) of Mumbai rioting, 34 Hindus and 8 Muslims got killed, 138 Hindus and 34 Muslims were injured. On January 8 1992 at 0030 hours, 6 Hindus, including 5 women, residing at Radhabai Chawl were burnt alive. Radhabai Chawl massacre triggered hindu backlash.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to add both the categories to sidebar for this page? I feel after reading more sources, this is deserving of both categories in the sidebar. --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


Updating RfC & making this Proposal:- Do not add entire article to "Violence against Hindus" series;Instead create a sub-section, "Radha bai Chawl Massacre" and add subsection to "violence against hindus" series. Unbiasedpov (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have changed your mind, you should withdraw the RfC. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I see three potential changes. Option 1: add entire article to Violence against Hindus. Option 2: create sub section on "Radha bai Chawl Massacre" and add this to "violence against hindus" . option 3: do nothing. There is enough data to indicate at least #2 if not #1. Maybe Unbiasedpov can rewrite the proposal along the above lines or keep the existing form and seek consensus. I do support the proposal as written nonetheless since Radhabai chowl massacre undoubtedly was a trigger for these riots. --Sdmarathe (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The Proposal is my attempt to seek a middle path. This is what RfC is all about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs)
  • Support. The text should include all precursor events, and provide information regarding the build-up to the event. This is necessary, by way of WP:NPOV, in order to maintain that Wikipedia is not a tool to discern personal beliefs on a situation. However, any support here should not be misconstrued to support either side of the situation in question, and is rather a means of maintaining the encyclopedia's five pillars, and more specifically WP:5P2. ExParte talk | contribs 01:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

RfC Close

@Ex Parte:, as somebody who voted in the RfC, your closure of it was inappropriate; see WP:BADNAC. I recognize that you are new here, so I don't think this is too big a deal, but a self-revert would be encouraged. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, it was me that closed the RFC: my summary is at the top of the discussion (in a box to the right side). Cheers, --Errant (chat!) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Errant It would appear that I cannot read. My apologies to both; this demonstrates why I should not be editing the 'pedia when busy with RL. I disagree with your close, but it's in no way inappropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombay riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombay riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

changing the timeline structure

Perhaps to increase the conciseness of the article we could restructure the 'timeline' format and instead focus on expanding the discussion of the causes (which are listed in bullet points towards the end of the article but no further context is given for them) and including a discussion of the consequences of the riots (including how it affects the social, political, and economic conditions of present day Mumbai. What do people think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maytwister16 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Historian Barbara Metcalf

275 Hindus died, and Sri Krishna Commission report did mention role of Muslim rioters killing Hindus. It's clear she is biased and her statement should be removed from the first part.

Her bibliography and her writings show that she has some pro-Muslim bias. It seems she was selected by some biased editor for this reason. Barbara D. Metcalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by അണ്ണാ ഹസാരെ (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Biased article

275 Hindus died, and Sri Krishna Commission report by govt of india did mention role of Muslim rioters killing Hindus. It's clear she is biased and her statement should be removed from the first part. Her bibliography and her writings show that she has some pro-Muslim bias. It seems she was selected by some biased editor for this reason. An Indian report that too by govt is more reliable than biased historian Barbara. 2405:201:4001:419C:814D:8A71:835B:CFB7 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti hindu violence

275 hindus also died in the riots, and the riots initially started because of Muslims according to Sri Krishna report(reliable) by Govt of India . so these riots were both anti hindu and anti muslim . 2405:201:4001:419C:814D:8A71:835B:CFB7 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Historian Barbara Metcalf

Many important notable people have said many thing about this riot since past 23 years. So why this woman is at lead?


What she says should be removed, unless 10 notable peoples reaction or views should be mentioned here in reaction section. Even if her view is kept then not at lead section. ~2026-50111-4 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges scholarly sources over non-scholarly ones, and well-cited scholars over others. Is there a historian who says something different you would like to cite? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Scholarly means even if clear biased comments will be added. 275 Hindus died and they died for fun? The Sri Krishna Commission report mentions about Muslim rioters killing Hindus also. She is not the only scholar who talks about Bombay riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14501-60 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI