Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests/Archive 3

Dey subrata can you self revert and restore this. Viral videos are generally covered on wikipedia. This was widely covered in RS media, see^{[1][2][3][4][5]} --DBigXrayᗙ 13:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There is hardly any newspaper/website (one OR two english website) reported on it. Secondly, there are many such videos being circulated, if you open alt news, you will find many. So I think we can just add under "Fake campaign", just one line- "Fake videos are also circulated or made viral to show support infavour of CAA-NRC." Dey subrata (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, Navbharat times, Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar are major national newspapers. They are enough to establish that this is worth adding. If there are more notable videos widely published, feel free to add. The version you proposed is highly simplistic and does not give enough understanding to the reader. The 2 line version I wrote is better hence. Fake campaign is again misleading and wP:OR. DBigXrayᗙ 13:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It says fact fiding or debunk fake videos. There is no where its written. "got viral". Why should we include such a thing which is not affecting as its being debunked before its got viral. So better we should write one line only on this that several videos and photos are being circulated to show support infavour of CAA. Here you can see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there are many more. Dey subrata (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, Please see Bhaskar that says it is viral. You are adding minor protests that even had "hundred protesters" but here you are trying to keep out viral videos that have thousands and lakhs of views and are covered by Major national newspapers in India. I have completed the WP:BURDEN and explained why it is merited. Unless I hear a stronger policy based argument, this has to be restored back. Let me clarify again. I am not bothered about how many other videos are being spread, or how many debunked by Altnews. I am only concerned about the Notable viral videos that national newspapers consider worth publishing in their newspapers. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I will like to add, but when the mention of viral video is in hindi papers only that's what I am concerned, its better to add English citation if its mentioned. You asked me to see the hindi newspaper, I can read, but someone else can't. So there should be an additional citation to support the hindi newspaper, can be directly the twitter link or social media link whereever it got viral. Dey subrata (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, Hindi newspapers are not in any way inferior to the English newpapers. Please get rid of this Language WP:BIAS. No, contrary to what you say, editors do not have to worry about the language of the refs. You are free to add ref in whatever language you want as long as the criteria of WP:RS is met. there is no criteris of adding an additional citation in English, I am not sure, from where you are getting these imaginary rules. FYI Twitter or social media links are not WP:RS. I think we have had sufficient discussion and I would appreciate if you self revert this yourself. DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done Dey subrata thanks for the self revert.DBigXrayᗙ 20:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that fake videos existed, but what's the significance of adding them in the support section? How do they in any way qualify as "Pro-CAA demonstrations" if the were fake? They should hold no significance and by putting them as a sub-heading along with other support-demonstrations, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a viral video over a demonstration that involved thousands of people and to other relevant and REAL incidents. To be clear, we have given equal importance to a fake video which supposedly qualifies as support of CAA and to demonstrations which involve thousands of people. Also, leaving aside that it is fake. Does it matter that a circulating video supports or protests against something? It is my understanding that it is incidents that the video is of is to be put in the article. There was no actual incident that took place, just the sharing of a video. This has no place in "demonstrations" or "support."

Please WP:SIGN your posts. It shows the tactics used by the ruling party in their attempts to drum up supports. Not every fake video deserves a mention here. But those covered by major national newpapers deserves a mention. If you have a proposal to copy edit and summarize the content, then post it here on the talk page and we can discuss about it. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So "It shows the tactics used by the ruling party in their attempts to drum up supports." is what gives it relevance. Sources to back that it is a tactic by the ruling party?Pheeniks (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That is my opinion and I have not added it into the article. What gives it relevance is that it was published by major national newspapers. DBigXrayᗙ 15:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My argument was on hindi newpaper, which I later found out, it ok to be added. "....what's the significance of adding them in the support section? Yes its significant, such videos are tweeted, shared, supported and made viral so far so, leaders are supporting, sharing and tweeting in favour of CAA. So its very significant. Dey subrata (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I get it. I just don't feel they deserve a place in the Supports section. Can we shift this to "Methods" since it contains methods from both the protestors and police? That would make for a suitable subheading to put the relevant fake stuff from both sides.Pheeniks (Talk) 17:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I think what Pheeniks said is logical, as these are the methods to support the pro campaign "fake video", "fake campaign" and "fake news". Though I don't support that CAA protest have any fake campagn, its bizzare to think that the protest need any fake campaign. Its not a political party's protest but general people's protest. What do you say? Dey subrata (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dey. Actually there have been incidents from the protests' side where fake images of policemen protesting against CAA/NRC were circulated. It was covered by a lot of major outlets too. There were fake videos of Policemen supposedly firing on CAA protestors too. That too was covered by major outlets. I'll be happy to add the relevant content and the references once this gets resolved. As of now, it's not clear where all that should go. Pheeniks (Talk) 12:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pheeniks, And Dey, Please provide the refs here on this thread, for your claims above. If it is indeed widely covered then we may add. Widely covered by major newspapers is a necessary criteria to add anything on this page. Social media stuffs cannot be added directly. DBigXrayᗙ 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The policemen story.^[1][2][3]. The fake police brutality footages.^[4][5][6]. The policemen protesting case was a single incident which was widely covered while the fake images/videos of brutalities are of multiple incidents. There are lots of other sources covering each of these too. Pheeniks (Talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pheeniks, The last link InToday Kashmir, is not related to CAA. looks like it mistakenly got added. please remove. What is the proposed line you want to add to the article along with these sources ? DBigXrayᗙ 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It was a mistake. My proposal is to create a subheading "Fake news" in 'Methods', shift the already existing stuff about the fake support there and add something like this (roughly) too: "Morphed Images of policemen were shared and made viral on social media, falsely claiming that they were protesting against CAA and NRC." and "A number of Old/fake videos were passed off as police brutality against the protestors on social media."Pheeniks (Talk) 19:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I don't have enough time to contribute to this page. But I would like to recommend some high-level commentaries that are describing the broad patterns behing the protests. Please read them and think about how you can make use of them in the article:

• Bhavna Vij-Aurora, Preta Nair, Streets Say No: Anti-CAA Protests Shake India, Outlook, 30 December 2019.
• Hilal Ahmed, Who represents India’s Muslims? Thanks to CAA protests, we now know the answer, The Print, 17 January 2020.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3, Dont you think that these articles should be used to update the CAA article "protests section" it cannot be a good overview, if it does not mention the major incidents. DBigXrayᗙ 16:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Frontline Countrywide CAA & NRC protests: Secular unity add more--DBigXrayᗙ 21:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Ongoing_removal_Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests. DBigXrayᗙ 23:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Maharashtra Navnirman Sena is a nationalist far-right Indian political party based in the state of Maharashtra Support CAA Mjpune (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray and Dey subrata, I would like to discuss some more changes, this time relating to fake news:

• Make a fake news section since both sides are making fake news
• Note that the BJP is probably the biggest group that is creating fake news as per the firstpost link on the actual page
• Add some more specific incidents from both sides (Created by Anti-CAA: https://www.altnews.in/old-video-from-rajasthan-viral-as-eviction-in-assam-after-nrc-implementation/, https://www.altnews.in/no-pm-modis-wife-jashodaben-did-not-attend-anti-caa-rally-at-shaheen-bagh/, https://www.altnews.in/old-video-from-bengal-viral-as-bjp-leaders-thrashed-in-ne-during-caa-nrc-campaigning/, https://www.altnews.in/caa-protests-old-video-from-mp-shared-as-up-police-thrashing-stone-pelters/, https://www.altnews.in/bjp-mla-anil-upadhyaya-talking-about-caa-no-videos-yet-again-viral-with-fictitious-name/ are some examples; Created by Pro-CAA: https://www.altnews.in/morphed-poster-falsely-claims-burqa-hijab-dress-code-for-caa-protest-in-mumbai/, https://www.altnews.in/nazi-symbol-shared-as-hindu-symbol-swastika-disrespected-on-anti-caa-poster/)
• If possible, note that some of these lies were based on the claim that anti-caa protestors oppose Hinduism and support Islam (both pro-caa references I’ve used are based on that claim)

With Regards, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers. The point here is there has been no investigation on who is doing this yet. The Sadhu Kumbh video was clearly reported as being shared by Pro govt people, so it was added as such. In anycase, feel free to propose a draft. If we have a WP:CONSENSUS we can add it. As For me, I don't think at this stage we should add claims like "both sides are making fake news" without clarity. So I am not convinced we should be adding such a section. DBigXrayᗙ 15:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, it as been discussed before also. The pro-CAA fake videos and fake call are genuine as being shared by the prominent BJP leaders and even by Ministers like Amit Shah. Second, you said "both side". Both side means what?? Are you saying "fake videos shared by BJP about fake anti-CAA" ? Will be added if being shared by any Ministers and leader of BJP and is a viral one. Dey subrata (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray and Dey subrata, I mean that some people supporting BJP are making fake news to support their cause (keeping CAA) while some people opposing BJP are making fake news to support their cause (removing CAA). Anyways this (https://www.altnews.in/image-of-symbolic-one-eye-bandaged-protest-shared-as-caa-protesters-faking-injury/) was shared by the general secretary of BJP’s youth wing and a Delhi-level leader, so I think it can be added. Besides, this link might be a clue to who’s doing the fake news against CAA (https://asianlite.com/news/asia-diaspora-news/fake-news-factories-fuel-caa-protests/) (I looked up the agency that made this claim and it seems legit) though I don’t know if the page is neutral enough... Besides, should we make a fake news section since the BJP and its supporters are not the only culprit? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, These are some very strong claims and unless we have solid sources like major national/international newspapers publishing it, we should not include this. The IT cell publishes fake news day and night, Altnews publishes the rebuttals. But that alone does not make it notable. So this will have to wait until we have good quality sources. DBigXrayᗙ 11:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Alt news one is BJP fake narrative of photos again, bandage protest were demonstrated in solidarity with Jamia students, one of the Jamia student was made blind by police. Second one is highly propaganda website. Don't confuse that with Asian Age. These site adapted names close to some prominent news paper/sites so that every may thing otherwise. No hastag made viral with #NaziIndiaRejected #IndiaDiscriminatesMuslims #IndiaToEndia Not by any of the protests. This is BJP's propaganda to shwo that protest is against India not BJP. this formula has been always used by BJP, anything against Govt. becomes against India and taking name of Pakistan. No one in this protest speaks againts India and hashtags are made popular through bot. So we have to keep aside twitter hastags, it does not reflect anthing in true sense, when Big Boss got trending everyday in India, you can understand from that. These very strong claim and tahts why you will not find such proaganda's in reponsible and relaible news channel/papers/site. Dey subrata (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray and Dey subrata, okay, maybe we shouldn’t add fake news for now since the whole of it is a big mess. But since there are some anti-CAA people making fake news (though most opposition politicians haven’t spread fake news), (eg. https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/policemen-protest-anti-caa-citizenship-amendment-act-viral-photo-1630425-2019-12-21 and the claim that Modi’s wife was in the anti-CAA protests which was covered by at least 3 newspapers) maybe we could make a separate section saying that different groups including the bjp and some individuals/groups opposing it are making fake news (putting that section under pro-caa makes it look like the CAA supporters’ fake news is the only fake news around)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I want to bring your attention here here. Suggestion coming for merge, so where to add lines on her, Renna and Yadav that become a news on the Jamia protest and her & Renna saving a male student ??

And also this one about Democracy index to be added i think in the main CAA page under a new subheading of "affect" or "result on India's image" or similar type of heading. 1 2. 21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey subrata (talk • contribs)

Dey subrata, We cannot add any of that to this article. If in future there is enough material and update to start a separate article on Jamia attack, then may be this can be added there. For now, deletion is the only way.

Democracy index should be added to the impact section, where economy etc is mentioned. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

#Sources_to_Update_the_article

User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 and User:Dey subrata I have added a section above, with direct links to search results. Please use the same for looking for updates to add to the article. As you know the Ongoing event need to be regularly updated or else it will be voted out of WP:ITN --DBigXrayᗙ 19:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, sorry could not reply, and also could not contribute enough for last 2-3 days, as I update on Indian football leagues and and related articles. I will take time today will surely add as discussed a lot above and many things are pending. Dey subrata (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Think of the devil, I was about to ask what we should do about this news article I found, DBigXray: https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/in-targeting-protestors-modi-government-spreads-new-lies-2169860 (it’s more of an opinion page, but it sums up most of the strong arguments against the CAA and all the wrong the BJP did when handling protests without being over-biased (though I can see some pro-left bias)). By the way, I don’t know if I can maintain the article continuously (personal obligations and other stuff)... Anyways I will try to. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, obviously no obligation. These links just make it easier to quickly browse through the latest updates. regarding the Opinion, we could only use them in a limited manner alogn with attributions whenever needed. It would be a good idea if you can propose the draft content from these sources, at the talk page first. DBigXrayᗙ 15:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Mind you that Brida Karat's party played a completely different tune seven years ago.^[1] This news story^[2] names her specifically. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata and DBigXray, I am listing down the things that need to be fixed in the timeline (in reverse chronological order):RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I am responding inline. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I’ve responded to your responses. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 18 Jan (UP police cracked down...) - remove the “the” before “CAA protestors” as there are many groups of protestors and “the” is used only if there is a single group. Add “demonstrating” before “near the clock tower”. And state that this was an unusual way of handling the protests or someone will think you guys had put “snatch” to exaggerate what the govt did.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  I object to removing "The" they may be from different groups, but they are all protesting CAA, so the is acceptable here. Yes, I am ok to add "demonstrating". I understand your point. Please propose your version of the line that makes it less exaggerated. This was unusual indeed. as one of the sources says. you can see the sources in the UP section of protest where this incident is elaborated. DBigXrayᗙ 14:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know, I can’t find a good replacement...RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray RedBulbBlueBlood9911, This is not exaggeration, we no need to think what some readers will think, we have to write what has happened. Exaggeration is the report that say, UP Police is accused of "stealing", we use far more better word "snatch", even we can write twitter trend, got viral in the same moment, "# Kambal Chor U.P. Police (Blanket thief, U.P. police)" along with photgraphs of police running away with blankets. We did not include any of this. 1 2 Dey subrata (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 17 Jan (Punjab Legislative...) - why mention that this was supported by INC? The legislature is under INC already and the resolution was created by a Congress member.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  RedBulbBlueBlood9911, I propose that we move the INC line to the beginning and state it like this "The Punjab legislative assembly that has a majority of Indian National Congress , passed the ......." thoughts ? DBigXrayᗙ 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Here, "The Punjab Legislative Assembly, that has the Indian National Congress in majority, passed a resolution against the Act and urged the Modi Government to avoid discrimination on the basis of religion through the new Act. The resolution was moved by Punjab minister for parliamentary affairs Brahm Mohindra of Indian National Congress and was supported by the Aam Aadmi Party and the Lok Insaaf Party".RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove "Indian National" after Mohindra, as it already clear in the beginning. Rest is acceptable to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, this would be better. Dey subrata (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Y Okey dokey RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 14 Jan (In Mumbai, a group...) - add “and” right after “Wankhede stadium” else this won’t make sense.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  RedBulbBlueBlood9911, This is obvious, please change it as per your proposal. Please go ahead and edit them per WP:BOLD if you think no one will object to them. DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done (though the version I put uses “wearing” instead of “displaying”) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 12 Jan (Thousands of people...) - if possible replace the citation. The current one is a live news update page so it is hard to find the news about the protest.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• 12 Jan (The congress party...) - use the term “Indian National Congress” because “congress party” is more of an informal term almost never used by the INC itself.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  ok. I agree. DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done (though the version I put uses “claimed that” instead of “called” as the former is more formal) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 11 Jan (Pradyot Manikya Debbarma...) - royal scion of what dynasty?RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  RedBulbBlueBlood9911, of the Kings of Tripura, I think his bio should have the name of the dynasty. IMHO the dynasty is not very relevant here. What is your proposal. I feel the current version is acceptable. DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding 4 words (of the Manikya Dynasty) would resolve this as it gives relevant information while not being too long.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, former Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee chief and royal scion of the Manikya Dynasty. Dey subrata (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, IMHO no need to add former party details. Readers can click his name if they want to know more. I am ok with the version stating "royal scion of the Manikya Dynasty" and may be wikilink Manikya Dynasty if a page exists. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes ofcorse exists, one of the oldest and longest susrving dynasty in India. here Manikya dynasty. My argument was as former PCC chief shows he political platform and a royal scion or Bubagra which we people call him, is more of apolitical platform. Dey subrata (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Added “of the Manikya dynasty” for now. If you choose to add the fact that he’s in the INC, feel free to do so. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 11 Jan (Several parties and...) - use the full form of SFI and add a link to its wiki for clarity. Besides, “until PM Modi (who had been visiting the city) was in Kolkata” should be “until PM Modi, who had been visiting the city, left Kolkata”.RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No concerns, please feel free to update this Kolkata example. I believe there were several parties and not just SFI are you saying it was only SFI ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I myself don’t know, but maybe “Several parties and student unions launched a protest at the Dorina Crossing at Esplanade in Kolkata, which would continue till Sunday, when PM Modi who had been visiting the city would leave Kolkata” would be a good replacement?RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The last 2 words doesn't make sense, please copy edit your proposal --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am fine with this copy editing. Please add. DBigXrayᗙ 20:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 9 Jan (The Chief Justice...) - replace with “The Chief Justice of India (CJI) during a petition hearing, explained to a lawyer who had filed a petition, "Country is going through difficult times. Endeavour should be for peace. Such petitions don’t help". The petitioner wanted the court to declare the CAA constitutionally valid and sought legal action against whoever was protesting against the Act. He also explained to the petitioner, "[...]There is anyway a presumption of constitutionality. You have been a student of law, you would know[...]” [User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|RedBulbBlueBlood9911]] (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, this is too much detail. Please summarize it and propose another version. You can add the details in its own seprate section. We may need to create one. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe “The Chief Justice of India dismisses a petition by a lawyer demanding that the CAA be declared constitutionally valid, stating that “There is anyway a presumption of constitutionality” would be right?

Remark of CJI is very important, should be in true form, exactly whtever he said. I would ask to put the comment, as it gives weightage on the matter. May be one line here in timeline and a separate section where the details can be put. Dey subrata (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Lets create a Section titled "Petitions in Supreme Court" DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Better. Dey subrata (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• 8 Jan (PM Modi cancels...) - put “The” before “AASU had planned” as AASU is a single group. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. Please do it. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Besides these, there is the question of what tense to use but let’s discuss before editing the tense... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The tense is being discussed at TeaHouse, please continue there. DBigXrayᗙ 14:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed the discussion, is it the timeline retouch going on???? Dey subrata (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia:Teahouse#What_tense_should_be_used_in_a_timeline?DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, shall I revert the entire timeline back to past tense? (Though I think we should use passive voice if we choose past tense) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, Yes to both. Please proceed. DBigXrayᗙ 11:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done, DBigXray. Besides, about that editor who asked to "remove police brut" on this talk page whom you reverted - I think he wanted you to remove all information that would defame the BJP (police brutality etc.) (saying this because you said the edit was undecipherable and another edit by him claims the existence of "student terrorism") RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, yes, I had guessed similar things. Thanks for the c/e they look good now. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Auto5656Does anyone feel the need to organize the the events according to state. And then mention events in chronology under the states? Now that we have reactions from across the world, It is better defined Geo politically.Otinflewer (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an information page, so information from both sides should be present. There were a lot of instances where violence and riots happened in the name of peaceful protests due to which Police has to intervene. Public property, public transport were destroyed, a lot of police personnel were injured and videos of police being lynched has surfaced on the internet Supreme court has also said that the violence must end when it was asked to listen to pleas alleging police atrocities on students holding protests against the Act "The top court said it, prima facie, does not think court can do much in the matter as it is a law and order problem and police forces have to control it." Rishang123 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rishang123, vandalism and stone pelting are mentioned among the methods of protest in the infobox at the top of the article. Specific examples, if important enough in themselves, can be added to the section about the relevant state. Also, please sign your edits on this page, by typing four tildes (~) after your comment. Thank you. Jose Mathew (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The alleged attacks on police in Ahmedabad and Banaskanthi have been included in the section on Gujarat. Not a Gujarati speaker, so cannot confirm audio in recordings. Not sure whether police injuries and stone-throwing incidents can be included. Jose Mathew (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

How about Manguluru, where stones had been trucked in in advance in order to attack the police? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that a section covering violence and damage to public property should be added. M4DU7 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, with the proposal to add such a section. it will violate WP:NPOV--Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how hundreds of crores worth damage in arson violate NPOV? M4DU7 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

what makes you think that protesters and not police did that. There are many videos of Police damaging property.Police Damaged Public Property During Citizenship Law Protests In UP: Akhilesh YadavWho will compensate damage to private property by cops during Muzaffarnagar violence?: S Saiduzzaman --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter what I think? There are literally hundreds of news reports that detail the violence and arson carried out by the protesters across the country. Now different state governments are trying to track down the culprits and make them pay for the damages. It's everywhere in the news. I'm surprised that there is no mention of any of that here. In my view, not covering that aspect violates NPOV. M4DU7 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We should definitely add the counter-claims (of police violence) too if they are widely reported. M4DU7 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

•   Not done a), such a section would typically be an NPOV violation; such violence needs to be discussed in the context of the protests during which it occurred, and b) edit-requests are for changing specific items of information; such a section could take many forms, and for it to be added via an edit-request, you would have to post a version of the text that you want added first. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, you would have to post a version of the text that you want added first with references, then we could add it as NPOV. rationalwikiuser 09:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

1.Please remove mass shooting the first Government response mentioned as multiple incidents of shooting does not add up to mean "mass shooting" which connotes mass injuries in a single incident of shooting. There are no sources of mass shooting orders by any State Government. While there are incidents of shooting by police that needs to be written in the context of the protests during which it occurred.

2.Please remove curfew from The Government responses as no source of curfew orders is given.

Point 2. taken back as I found evidence that curfew was imposed in Assam ^[1] 106.198.173.160 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

3.Please add violence and firing by protesters in methods. For which these are some sources

a.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODOFsQdiRC4 b.https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/up-police-releases-video-of-meerut-violence-showing-protesters-shooting-at-cops-during-anti-caa-protests/story-5xOg9bK52sY3eAKeb6pxoJ.html c.https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/india-first/video/caa-protests-muslim-cleric-apologises-for-violence-in-muzaffarnagar-1631800-2019-12-26 d.https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/beldanga-a-bengal-town-on-the-boil-amid-caa-protests/article30435537.ece e.https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/anti-caa-protests-at-least-11-killed-in-uttar-pradesh-violence-say-officials/article30366522.ece f.https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ed-finds-financial-links-between-pfi-and-anti-caa-protests-in-up-sources/articleshow/73662688.cms g.https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/cannot-be-bullied-violence-must-stop-supreme-court-on-caa-nrc-protests-119121700038_1.html h.https://www.businesstoday.in/top-story/caa-protests-more-violence-in-up-death-toll-climbs-to-16/story/392420.html i.https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/police-enter-jamia-millia-islamia-campus-in-delhi-as-anti-citizenship-act-protest-turns-violent/article30312133.ece j.https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/caa-protest-3-buses-torched-delhi-jamia-nagar-police-resort-tear-gas-lathicharge-1628469-2019-12-15 k.https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-anti-citizenship-amendment-act-protests-live-updates-rallies-planned-in-several-cities-police-braces-for-renewed-protes/344741 l.https://www.rediff.com/news/report/pix-fresh-violence-in-delhis-seelampur-area-over-citizenship-law/20191217.htm 106.210.32.239 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, " I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers." No one should write, edit with this mindset.

Because when someone writes "Many pro-BJP accounts on social media pretending to be of lonely and bored women, were seen sharing the same number and asking people to call, intending to inflate the number of supporters of CAA.[693] The number was also shared on bogus posts offering free six-month subscriptions to the streaming site Netflix for free. Netflix called the offer as fake". This may also be done by those against CAA to discredit CAA supporters as fakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.32.239 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Because its true and reliable sources says that and when BJP leaders including Amit Shah sharing the same, it shows who is behind it and what is intention, nothing in this article is written by anyone, everything added with source. Dey subrata (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear that was not the point I tried to make.If BJP ran the missed call campaign BJP leaders including Amit Shah would share the number so that people show their support by making missed calls , "the act of pretending to be of lonely and bored women, sharing the number and asking people to call,and bogus posts offering free six-month subscriptions to the streaming site Netflix for free" may be done by those against CAA to discredit CAA supporters as fakers.

I wrote that no one should write, edit with the mindset." I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.32.239 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you blowing, why should not one be knowledgeable and aware of anything happnening, and the user is very correct in saying that, BJP indeed spread fake news several times during the protests. What are you trying to prove here? I don't see any mind set in this line. But when you say "may be" done by CAA supporters surely shows the mindset. As I said wikipedia is not social media site, we don;t write our opinions here, written if something is widely covered and reported by media with facts and evidence produced. And the section is written very clearly, it did not say BJP leaders are behind lonely woman thing, it clearly says, pro-BJP accounts which is evident from the facts, it also not saying BJP involved in the Netflix, totally written clearly under pro-CAA, we are not writing with assumption that only BJP is in pro-CAA, pro-CAA means anyone and everyone who is supporting CAA. period. Dey subrata (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You write "What are you blowing" This is not needed.

You write" why should not one be knowledgeable and aware of anything happnening, and the user is very correct in saying that, BJP indeed spread fake news several times during the protests."

Dear your knowledge, awareness and beliefs may be written in your personal blogs, social media sites not at the wikipedia, as you yourself suggest that "add "relaible" source"s" describing evidences, talk with citation and sources not void claims."

You write "But when you say "may be" done by CAA supporters surely shows the mindset. "

When a person writes " I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers."

You do not see a mindset but if someone writes" This may also be done by those against CAA to discredit CAA supporters as fakers."

You see a mindset in "may be" which connotes a possibility

You write "As I said wikipedia is not social media site, we don;t write our opinions here, written if something is widely covered and reported by media with facts and evidence produced. "

But then these " I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers." and "BJP indeed spread fake news several times during the protests." are opinions.

You write "the section is written very clearly, it did not say BJP leaders are behind lonely woman thing, it clearly says, pro-BJP accounts which is evident from the facts, "

One should know that n numbers of pro-BJP, pro-Cong or for that sake pro-XYZ accounts of lonely woman can be easily created and the missed call number shared through them to discredit the missed call campaign.

You write "we are not writing with assumption that only BJP is in pro-CAA, pro-CAA means anyone and everyone who is supporting CAA."

This is not needed as nowhere I wrote or meant that you are writing with assumption that only BJP is in pro-CAA.

With the heading of "need of good faith". I wrote that no one should write, edit with the mindset. " I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers."

As wikipedia is not social media site, we don;t write our opinions here, written if something is widely covered and reported by media with facts and evidence produced.106.198.173.160 (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Involvement of Pakistan with social media manipulation needs to be added ^[2] Amitized (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Amitized

No mention of violence and damage to public property by Anti CAA protesters while "mass shooting" by riot police mentioned first among Government responses. Allegations of damage to public property by police are made by opposition politicians and should be given same importance as allegations by ruling party politicians. Because half-truth paints a picture which can never be fully true often is totally false, No mention of violence and damage to public property by Anti CAA protesters violates WP:NPOV. If such violence needs to be discussed in the context of the protests during which it occurred, I wished the police action also needs to be discussed in the context of the protests during which it occurred and not first among Government responses. By the way, multiple incidents of shooting does not add up to mean "mass shooting" which connotes mass injuries in a single incident of shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.32.239 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass violence and damage of public property by protesters, add "relaible" source"s" describing evidences. On the other hand there are relaible sources of the mass violence and damage of public property by UP Police and are available and covered widely, not allegation when the world has videos and evidences of police's damaging public property, hooliganism and even entering into houses and breaking cctvs. Talk with citation and sources not void claims. Dey subrata (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Some sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.32.239 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not ask you to added tonnes of links, thousand link will not prove a narrative if they don't give you proof and evidence. Police have no idea till today who did it actually. Police clearly said, the buses that were burnt during Jamia student protest were not by the Jamia students. Police just arrested people who have criminal background from that area, as police believe these are deeds of local thugs not protesters who have done crimes in past. 1, 2, 3, 4 Secondly, evidently, police brutality proofs are everywhere and so its added and will be added eerything if there is evidence. I can understand from your tone what you are trying to prove, this is not Whatsapp or twitter. Lastly, please sign whenever you comment by adding this sign (~) four times. Thank you.

, Police disclosed no Jamia student were involved in violence during the Jamia student protest, rather local thugs. Dey subrata (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

First you ask to " add "relaible" source"s" describing evidences ,talk with citation and sources not void claims." and when I give 12 links then you say "I did not ask you to added tonnes of links, thousand link will not prove a narrative if they don't give you proof and evidence".

What narrative I wrote "No mention of violence and damage to public property by Anti CAA protesters.." and then.

You write "Police have no idea till today who did it actually. Police clearly said, the buses that were burnt during Jamia student protest were not by the Jamia students."

Nowhere I said that "the buses that were burnt during Jamia student protest were by the Jamia students".

The links give evidences of that there was violence by the protesters during the protests at various places, firing in Meerut by the protesters, a cleric apologising for violence during protests in Muzaffarnagar, financial links between PFI and the protests, the Supreme Court saying that it can't be bullied the violence must stop...

Please go through them once and do not bring Jamia students protests, not discussing only that particular protest here but the protests as a whole and violence and damage to public property by Anti CAA protesters.

You write "I can understand from your tone what you are trying to prove, this is not Whatsapp or twitter."

This is not needed.

You write "Lastly, please sign whenever you comment by adding this sign (~) four times." Next time I will.

Please.Do not label the discussion as resolved and pass the judgement of fasle narrative.

Be polite, welcoming to new users, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, thank you.106.198.173.160 (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I accept violence done by protesters so its mentioned also. But the public property narrative that you are mentioning again and again of torching buses is of Jamia only. And protesters were not involved in it, were local thugs as mentioned by police. One cleric does not speak the "protesters", ED "suspects" does not make "link". In last few days various claims produced by police are rubbished, the firing thing that you are saying, Court trashed police's claim 1, Police first said, we use force on Jamia student protesters because they were using violence and damaging public properties, turned out police have no proof of students and arrested some local thugs in frustration who have criminal records and still not proved that they are involved. Supreme Court saying that it can't be bullied the violence must stop, did Supreme court said, violence done by protester, answer is no. So yes all you have said are false narrative, nothing proved rather court proved police cliam of firing by protester false, police claim of protester torching bus found out to be false. So it shows you are trying to establish a false narrative. Anything related to this if proved in Supreme court or any lower court will be added accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You write "But the public property narrative that you are mentioning again and again of torching buses is of Jamia only."

"Jamia only" really? For damage to public property by protersters please see these ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]}

You write"And protesters were not involved in it, were local thugs as mentioned by police."

Again, not here for disscussing details of the Jamia Incident. Nowhere I wrote that Jamia Students were involved in violence or damage to the public property,

Earlier you wrote Jamia students not involved now you say protesters were not involved,Protests turned violent, whosoever it was they were protesting and torching of buses happened during the protests. Please see ^{[12] [13] [14] [15]}

Mind you again, I am not claiming that buses were burnt by Jamia students.If the Police arrests bad elements, that does not mean, bad elements cannot be the protesters.

You writing "police arrested bad elements in frustation", is your own opinion.

Moreover the investigation into that is still on going, please see ^[16]

You write "One cleric does not speak the "protesters""

Nice, but please apply same standard to the Police and BJP, one Policeman conduct not the conduct of the "Police ", one BJP member does not speak the "BJP".

Yet, it was protests after friday prayers so the cleric apologised. Please see^[17]

You write "ED "suspects" does not make "link"." ED did find PFI funded protests. Please see ^[18]

You write "In last few days various claims produced by police are rubbished,the firing thing that you are saying, Court trashed police's claim 1," and "rather court proved police cliam of firing by protester false, police claim of protester torching bus found out to be false."

Two things 1. & 2. here

1. The example and evidence I gave of firing by protesters was of Meerut not of Bijnor. Meerut and Bijnor two different districts of U.P. around 80km apart.I was not talking about what the Police claimed in Bijnor.Moreover the Court did not proved police claim of firing by protester false as you write, rather the police could not give evidence in support of their claim so the court granted bail to those accused, please mind these are two different things.If you can, please counter the evidences showig Meerut protester firing incident.

2. please give evidence of police claim of protester torching bus found out to be false.May be not by Jamia students but buses were torched by protesters during protests (assuming you are talking about Jamia incident).

You write "Police first said, we use force on Jamia student protesters because they were using violence and damaging public properties, turned out police have no proof of students and arrested some local thugs in frustration who have criminal records and still not proved that they are involved."

Your own story.

The Hindu writes and I quote "Some protesters, escaping police action, ran towards the university, where students were sitting on a separate demonstration and entered the campus. Police also entered the university campus allegedly chasing these protesters. Lathi charge took place inside the university campus as well, students said. Videos shared by students also show damage to various buildings inside the campus, including the university’s reading room and mosque where police are said to have entered." "Chinmoy Biswal, DCP (South East) said that around 3 p.m. a mob vandalised vehicles and committed arson on Mathura Road. Police chased the mob and some of them fled towards JMI campus and resorted to stone pelting. Police followed them to remove them from the campus. The university is not a closed campus as it is located on both sides of the road.""The Jamia Teachers' Association condemned the violence and appealed to students to keep away from “direction-less protest lead by local political leaders”. Chief Minister Arvind Kerjiwal appealed for calm and said “No one should indulge in violence. Any kind of violence is unacceptable. Protests should remain peaceful.”" See it here^[19]

You write "Supreme Court saying that it can't be bullied the violence must stop, did Supreme court said, violence done by protester, answer is no."

Your own question and your own answer

SC did not, but you yourself wrote "I accept violence done by protesters so its mentioned also."I quoted SC to show you that large scale violence and damage to public property in the protests. And again quote"So much violence, country going through difficult times": CJI SA Bobde. See ^[20]

Violence and damage to public property in done by protesters in various protests. Please see references given if beginning in this reply.

You write "So yes all you have said are false narrative, nothing proved" and "So it shows you are trying to establish a false narrative. "

Your own judgements.

You write "Anything related to this if proved in Supreme court or any lower court will be added accordingly."

If so, then fairness and equality demands same standard should apply to claims against the Police also, if anything is proved in the Supreme Court of any lower court, then that should be added, not anything and everything proved or not proved in the courts.Thanks

Please remove "resolved and false narrative." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.0.174 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Section titled Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is included yet there is no separate highlight on the topic of NRC. The National Register of Citizens is as much an issue of contention as the CAA. So shouldn't a section for that be included as well? Tayi Arajakate (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, Yes a summarised section NRC and its consequence combining with CAA would be ok to add, add the draft here, then we can decide. Dey subrata (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Assam rifles should be a sub section under Indian army, not both Indian army and Assam rifles as listed as two separate entities. rationalwikiuser 09:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rationalrogu (talk • contribs)

Rationalrogu Is one of the Paramilitary forces of India. This is not any Indian Army Regiments. And please sign you comments always. Dey subrata (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done Dey subrata (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the "chronology" section be shifted to a separate article of it's own? (As per WP:LENGTH)--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Chronology would not be a good idea to shift, let it be here, let see with time how much it rolls. Dey subrata (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think, it should be shifted to a chronology page. It is already too long. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not a Seahorse, No. WP:LENGTH is about the readable prose size, and not the full source code length. see the tools/script at WP:DYK to calculate it. IMHO this is not ripe for a split yet. DBigXrayᗙ 18:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, you mentioned, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:REDUNDANCY but you fail to mention MOS:BOLDLEAD. Then you made the claim, "...untrue that the protests are known as "Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and National Register of Citizens protests". Nobody calls them..", is a POV. This CAA protest, i,e. Citizenship Amendment Act protests or NRC protest i.e, National Register of Citizens protests. Dey subrata (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:AVOIDBOLD deals with exceptions to MOS:BOLDLEAD. They are both part of the same guideline. This has nothing to do with the WP:POV policy, which is about views published by sources. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

We write what sources says, sources say what people call it, some call CAA protest, some call CAA-NRC, some calls Citizenship Amendment Act protests or National Register of Citizens protests. So what are you trying to say??Dey subrata (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:REDUNDANCY apply here. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to follow a middle ground. I hope it is acceptable to all. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone totally changed the article. Removed various materials, and some highly experienced editors are removing materails from the lead section. Please check into the matter. Dey subrata (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dey subrata Thanks for the note. I was out on a vacation. I have reverted some of it. we would need to discuss the major edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's by an IP who says they've discussed it here. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is related to the section titled "Need of good faith" between me(IPs, 106.210.0.174) and the user Dey subrata. thanks 223.225.77.35 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I fail to understand, why this is at WP:DRN, it fails all points of dispute request, the topic is under discussion here in talk page, the ip user simple fail to understand WP:CONS policies rather trying WP:FORUMSHOP. I am not only sole contributor to the page, everything added in the page are added with discussion and consensus as its an ongoing event, and rather trying to be WP:POINTy while I have point out clearly, when I've addressed everything will be added with discussion and consensus. Addressing other editors with WP:AOBF who pulled their sleeves to contribute day and night to establish the article does not help here. This protests have lot of controversies and we work with consensus. Lastly, I want to tell the user everything will be added if there is significant weightage, don't worry for that. Dey subrata (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I expect it will be declined. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I wish you take a look at the discussion, listen to the both sides and then write or expect whatever you feel.106.223.20.154 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Since through you the discussion was initiated once again and the issue showing as General close at WP:DRN with comments "Procedural close due to lack of participation from the other party to this dispute despite having received a notification over 48 hours ago"

I request you to engage the user to either show how I tried to build the false narrative i.e. , Jamia students were involved in violence during the Jamia student protest, or remove the "resolved with false narrative" tag.223.225.34.191 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You write "I fail to understand, why this is at WP:DRN. It fails all points of dispute request,".

The WP:TPG starts with "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

I created a new section titled " Need of good faith" and made two points which I consider would improve the article, to start a discussion on that. First, the user argued against me, then stopped responding to my arguments. I repeatedly requested the user to remove "resolved and false narrative" tag, neither the user removed it nor argued further.

WP:TPG at point 1.9 says If you have a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. And the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide page says "For simple content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard, here, the volunteers may refer you elsewhere. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be."

You write " the topic is under discussion here in talk page, the ip user simple fail to understand WP:CONS policies rather trying WP:FORUMSHOP."

I quote WP:CONS "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. "

"When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration)."

I gave evidences of large scale violence and damage to the public property done by protesters in the protests and requested that violence also needs to be mentioned as one of methods used by protesters. Though the user wrote "I accept violence done by protesters so its mentioned also." The user choose not to agree.The user may choose to agree or not. But the user should not label my submissions as "resolved with false narrative" and just stop responding to my reply.It has been nearly 4 days now the user neither responded to my last reply nor removed the "resolved with false narrative" tag.

"Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question."

Would seeking WP:DR amout to Forum Shopping?

You write "I am not only sole contributor to the page, everything added in the page are added with discussion and consensus as its an ongoing event, and rather trying to be WP:POINTy while I have point out clearly, when I've addressed everything will be added with discussion and consensus."

The user just stopped responding.

Quoting WP:POINTy "If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution." and

"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". "

I tried to apply same logic to other things when found that it is being selectively applied, in a discussion on talk page. Does this amount to enaging in "POINTy" behaviour?

You write "Addressing other editors with WP:AOBF who pulled their sleeves to contribute day and night to establish the article does not help here."

I quote " I know and I am aware. I also believe that the ruling party is involved in both pro and anti CAA fake news. Spreading Anti CAA fake news to discredit the Anti CAA protesters as fakers." and "BJP indeed spread fake news several times during the protests." :::Writing such sweeping personal beliefs and opinions without any evidence whatsover, does in my view reflects lack of good faith toward the ruling party i.e. BJP and is unfair. Mind you I am not attributing any harmful motives, just wrote no one should write like this. This does not help in writing good articles.

You write "This protests have lot of controversies and we work with consensus."

Accepted, but still it is no reason to label someone's submission as "resolved with false narrative" and just stop responding to replies.

You write "I want to tell the user everything will be added if there is significant weightage, don't worry for that."

Wikipedia is built by all, is open to all and belongs to all, to all of us and each of us.106.223.20.154 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

First, I'm not taking part in any discussions or editing of this article, but I will enforce the discretionary sanctions if needed. Secondly, get an account. I've got no idea if this is one person with varying IP addresses (not dynamic ones) or several people. And I h ad nothing to do with the DRN closure. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Since through you the discussion was initiated once again ... so requested you to engage the user ... " , not necessarily to take part in the discussion.. Second,I have still not decided whether I need an account or not, please don't ask for that, a personal choice, I am the same person, For IP changes I have two connections used with which I had data, Onwards would stick to one, but IP do changes even when using one connection only, can't do anything for that. I did not say or mean that you have anything to do with DRN closure, DRN was closed due to lack of participation from the other user.110.225.87.44 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The speech of Sharjeel Imam was widely and constantly covered in media, even mentioned by Home Minister. It wouldn't be appropriate not to mention it briefly.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:05, 3 February 2020 (UT

There are thousands of speech given, and widely covered, hate speeches by BJP Ministers and politicians are widely covered, did we mention ?? Shall we now have to amke separate section for hate speeches by Parvesh verma, yogi, Anurag thakur. ???Dey subrata (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I will say that his statement was "covered". It was also found out that his family got BJP ticket, and he appears to have been planted to distract, as part of the dirty tricks. As you know lot of notable people stated lot of notable things, and the section does not mention them. Why will be add a non notable person's comment ? just because BJP govt, wants it to be highlighted. I am not convinced. DBigXrayᗙ 19:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

For "It was also found out that his family got BJP ticket."

The Hindu writes "Sharjeel’s father Akbar Imam, who is no more, contested the November 2005 Assembly elections on a JD(U) ticket from Jehanabad but lost the poll narrowly by 447 votes against RJD candidate S.N. Yadav. " Please see^[21]

2005 JD(U) in NDA, 2014 JD(U) out of NDA, 2017 JD(U) in NDA

For "He appears to have been planted to distract, as part of the dirty tricks, ... Why will be add a non notable person's comment ? just because BJP govt, wants it to be highlighted."

If not based on verifiable evidence, shows unfounded bias. WP:BIAS writes "Avoid topics or discussions where you expect that you are biased or where you don't wish to make the effort to overcome those biases."223.225.34.191 (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• • OK, let's not add it. Hate speech is very common, accepted.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to be disputing the neutrality of this article until DBigXray restores the content I added which he deleted in this edit.

Swarajya (magazine), despite being right-wing, is as reliable as (and equivalent to) left-wing sources such as The Wire (India) in terms of fact-checking. I had also used AltNews as one of the sources: why was that deleted?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, [1] the concern here is Poor Sources, Please do not used Right wing propaganda sites like Swarajya mag or opinion pieces. If you have better sources propose the content along with the sources on the talk page, and get WP:CONSENSUS this is not a POV related concern and it is inappropriate to tag as such. DBigXrayᗙ 12:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: This is a WP:DUE issue. Despite that I disagree with you on the reliability of Swarajya, I will let-go. Will you allow me to use Firstpost, Scroll.in, The Print, AltNews and The Caravan? I will add content from these when I get the time to do so.— Vaibhavafro ^��� 14:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro, yes, these 4 can be acceptable. Please present the draft on the talk first and do not restore the tag. This is sourcing issue and not POV. The article is currently on the main page and unless there are egregious problems the tag must not be added. I gather that you are very busy in real life and are currently on a wikibreak, you can take your time to prepare your draft to present here on the talk, but the tag is unnecessary till then. DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro Please be very careful with your use of sources here. The Swarajya source is the only one that actually claims that "Anti-Hindu" methods were used by the protestors. Most of the other sources are saying that allegations were made, and that they were false. There's one source which talks about the desecration of a temple, but it makes no generalizations. If you're going to draw from those sources to write this paragraph, you need to accurately summarize your sources, and you cannot title the section "allegations of ant-Hindu methods" because the sources are saying there's no substance to those allegations. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray and Vanamonde93: Thank you for the suggestions. I will incorporate those if and when I get the time to add content. As DBigXray noted, I am indeed a bit busy in real life. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Swarajya is a fake news site, a highly propaganda website. Manufacting news for the ruling party and most impotantly RSS. 1, 2, 3, 4. Swarajya content content cannot be backed by any other relaible sources. Dey subrata (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, the non-partisan website Media Bias/Fact Check says ([2]) that Swarajya is generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. Unfortunately, for our ‘liberal’ intelligentsia, anyone who has a slight pro-BJP viewpoint is a ‘bigoted Hindu nationalist’ who can only spread fake news and propaganda.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Someone add this "Some of the methods used in the protests have been alleged to be Islamic extremism." See^{[22] [23] [24]} Without going into appropriateness of using such methods.223.225.34.191 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Which method???? I don't see someone murdering or killing or shooting or beating up. Thats a slogan and that too mean there is no god But God, we call extremist if they do extreme things, like the firing cases, not sloganeering. If that is extremism then I fear, I have to add, several BJP politician in the same category here, will it be helpful?? Dey subrata (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

For "Which method???? "

Use of Shahada. One "?" is enough to ask an question.

For"I don't see someone murdering or killing or shooting or beating up."

I don't know why you wrote that. I wrote allegation of Islamic extremism, not Islamic terrorism. Please note that as per Wikipedia "Islamic extremism is any form of Islam that opposes "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs."

For "Thats a slogan and that too mean there is no god But God."

Although should not discuss its meaning because not discussing whether such use is Islamic extremism or not, clearly wrote "alleged". Yet the meaning (English translation) as per Wikipedia is "There is no deity but God".

For "We call extremist if they do extreme things, like the firing cases, not sloganeering"

Not here for discussing what you call extremist. A person may have your own view just like anyone else.

Moreover the WP:TPG starts with "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

I wrote "Some of the methods used in the protests have been alleged to be Islamic extremism." Mind you not saying that use of the slogan is Islamic extremism, clearly wrote "alleged". The allegation is by Shashi Tharoor etc. , you may debate it with them about whether it is or it is not Islamic extremism. Clearly wrote that not going into appropriateness of using such methods. Various opinions have been published in media arguing for and against use of such methods, not here discussing that.

For " If that is extremism then I fear, I have to add, several BJP politician in the same category here, will it be helpful??"

Do not fear, please present a text if you find anything which claims that, quote a verifiable source, it should not be your personal opinion. Yes, that will be helpful, for people must know.

Please assume good faith towards everyone, do not think that I am here for BJP.

I again invite you to come to #Need of good faith and conclude the discussion by either showing how I tried to build the false narrative i.e. , Jamia students were involved in violence during the Jamia student protest, or remove the "resolved with false narrative" tag.110.225.92.88 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray:Not only was the Temple gate damaged, the idol of Hanuman was destroyed. This event was rare and needs to be added. Please self revert this edit.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 18:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vaibhavafro, please see the quote from altnews source that you had added "“The Hanuman idol inside the temple was vandalised wherein the idol’s right arm was broken and the face was disfigured. After things settled, the Hanuman idol was covered with a piece of cloth to protect Hindu sentiments,” said Anand. “There was no damage to the structure of the temple but the right side of the door was damaged. ” Clearly I am not impressed and I would need some convincing before I can self revert myself. DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @DBigXray:Well, why would people attack an idol located inside a temple, if they didn't intend to? This was clearly not collateral damage; it was intended. Such things don't happen all the day. This needs to be mentioned.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vaibhavafro are you trying to use the article to paint communal things, the temple a man made structure was between clashes gt damages, does not need a mention here, tomorrow may be a damage happen to a house and the owner may be a hindu, so it will be written a hindu house got damage, stop this irrational concepts here. Attack was on Jamia, shall we call now a Muslim University attacked. Talk rational please, try to avoid POV. Dey subrata (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• The fact remains that no source has been presented for your claim "destroyed"--DBigXrayᗙ 19:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @DBigXray:What I wrote in the article was "vandalised", not "destroyed".— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dey subrata:What you just said is a classic case of false equivalence. By an extrapolation of your logic, the destruction of Babri Masjid wasn't communally inspired, but was JUST a case of people destroying a structure for fun. Please refrain from such personal attacks and talk sense.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Again you fail to understand, Babri was not between a clash, it was pre-planned and orchestrated accordingly by one group of people. Here this is different, it by chance was between a clash, ther was no intention involved. Dey subrata (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vaibhavafro No one moved your comment, my comment was moved so placed at the previous place, just see the times. Dey subrata (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• You did move it and slightly messed-up the order by rearranging them. Anyway, I have tidied things up using bullet-points, because, I don’t want to be blocked for edit warring on such a small issue. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I have added this incident in the main “Protests” section. This section is dedicated to covering such incidents. Though some editors might consider this incident to not be notable enough for the “Chronology” section, any well-intentioned editor is not expected to dispute this edit of mine.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 00:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: It was our fault that we were not going through the consequences of the incidents. Just see this 1. Hindutva groups were involved in this event. Vaibhavafro I thought you will add a neutral narrative, instead you put all facts into gutter and added a hindu temple was vandalised. Unbelievable !!!! DBX, I think we need to be more careful as such biased attempts will be made in comming days too. Dey subrata (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, whatever I added was 100% fully supported by the source. The warning notice you served me on my talk page was promptly rebutted by another editor. Secondly, I was not aware of that aspect of the incident; thanks for adding that. Thirdly, please stop using logical fallacies. Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I hope you have now understood that you were expecting too much from User:Vaibhavafro. Based on my own experience of his editings, you can expect twisted narratives that are pro BJP-RSS from him. For now I am collecting these diffs, I will post an arbitration case for a topic ban when I get sufficient examples. DBigXrayᗙ 11:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: What aspect of my edits were “twisted narratives that are pro BJP-RSS”? I have welcomed the additional details added by Dey subrata; I have not disputed it even slightly.

What I see, however, is that there is a slight-to-moderate lack of WP:DUE weightage of narratives from right-wing groups in some Wikipedia articles. That’s why I try to fix that (per WP:NPOV). But some editors misconstrue my edits anyway.

Nevertheless, I think that you will never find ANY “evidence” against me to get a WP:TBAN on me. Honestly, I didn’t expect such a statement from you.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 11:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro, The title of this thread itself is a wonderful example of the "twisted narrative" without factual basis. "I try to fix that " is one excuse to defend blatant right wing POV edits, but you should know that we value NPOV. NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and something that is non negotiable. It is quite easy to spot for anyone if you are editing with NPOV or RSS POV. Making edits that deliberately shift the POV towards right wing with an excuse of "trying to balance" is a classic case of WP:TE. You have already been given a DS alert on Indian topics. Regarding finding of "any diffs", FYI, I already have a list of diffs collected on this case from the articles on my watchlists, and it is up to you to provide me more of it by continuing the RSS POV pushing on Indian topics. I am glad that we got a chance to discuss this, so now I hope that my bringing out an Arbitration case will not be a complete surprise. You should expect it. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: and @DBigXray: Please do not make this a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Both of you are very good wiki contributors and I personally would hate to lose out anyone of you. Let's assume good faith on each other's part and tone down the accusations a bit.

@DBigXray: I would suggest you to reduce the labelling of "RSS-POV" and "right-wing". No one likes to be labelled as something which they may not be actually.

@Vaibhavafro: I suggest to you hold out for a while. This article is still a current event and DBX is editing it from the beginning. In fact, he is the biggest contributor to this article. So once it is no longer a current event, you can start making it more NPOV or Balance it properly.

Just two bits of mine. Cheers. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Quoting the altnew.in "“The Hanuman idol inside the temple was vandalised wherein the idol’s right arm was broken and the face was disfigured. After things settled, the Hanuman idol was covered with a piece of cloth to protect Hindu sentiments,” said Anand. “There was no damage to the structure of the temple but the right side of the door was damaged”, he added. According to the journalist, a majority of the people involved in the conflict were residents of Phulwari Sharif.

Therefore, the claim that a temple was vandalised is true, however, it wasn’t a Shiva temple but dedicated to Hindu deity Hanuman."

Even if there was a report in the Wire that gives context by saying "According to a fact-finding report by several civil society organisations, on December 21, multiple incidents of violence had occurred in various parts of Phulwari Sharif. The report by civil society organisations had alleged, “The police were not able to de-escalate the tension. The right-wing forces were involved in this pre- meditated and organised violence.” Allegedly, a Hanuman idol was also damaged. As per the report, nearly a dozen protesters sustained injuries during the clash."

The fact remains a temple was vandalised and a Hanuman idol damaged.223.225.34.191 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've not delved into the details of this incident but I don't think damage to a single statue whether it has happened or not (which I think is the dispute here?) is of much importance to be included at all. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A temple was vandalised and a Hanuman idol damaged. Please see^[25]110.225.87.44 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a cemetary too damaged, and such small temples are in every nook and corner of India, clashes can lead to damages of such temples and secondly, its a dispute as according to police a door was damaged and a cemetary. We no need to go to extreme details of things, we have to cover a lot of things. Wikipedia is not news site WP:NOTNEWS. We add summarised things. Lastly, this thing does not matter when firing took place and a teenager is murdered in the incident. Dey subrata (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"There is a cemetary too damaged"

The altnew.in source does not verify that.

For "such small temples are in every nook and corner of India, clashes can lead to damages of such temples"

This statement is highly insensitive. It does not matter whether a religious structure is big or small, please don't see temples as big and small, the deity which resides in a temple is same whether the temple is big or small, it's not that it becomes deity of small temple and deity of big temple. Religious sentiments can be attached to a temple and the deity in it, even if the temple is not very big.

Moreover it was not that the temple came between the clash and unintended damage happened rather delibrately the temple was being vandalised please the video given in the altnews.in source

For " and secondly, its a dispute as according to police a door was damaged and a cemetary."

The altnews.in wrote "Therefore, the claim that a temple was vandalised is true, however, it wasn’t a Shiva temple but dedicated to Hindu deity Hanuman." The altnews.in source does not verify the cemetary claim.Now you write according to police. Nice, but then the "according to police" should be given same importance everywhere, not only when it suits.

For "We no need to go to extreme details of things, we have to cover a lot of things. Wikipedia is not news site WP:NOTNEWS. We add summarised things."

Nice, but selective inclusion would paint a picture which is false. Need to show both sides. WP:NPOV needs to be maintained in summary also. Moreover the wikipedia says "In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split that results in either the original article or the spinoff violating NPOV policy)"

For "Lastly, this thing does not matter when firing took place and a teenager is murdered in the incident."

That a temple was vandalised and deity idol damaged matter very much.

Quoting the Wire source "According to a fact-finding report by several civil society organisations, on December 21, multiple incidents of violence had occurred in various parts of Phulwari Sharif. " Please note multiple incidents, not the incident.

No death is reported in the temple incident, please see the altnews.in , it writes " Shots were fired at CAA protesters after they started vandalising the temple. The mob opposing the protesters did the shooting,” and "There were no casualties in the conflict but several people were injured, among whom were nine Muslims who suffered gunshot wounds."

The sad death of the teenager does not happen in the temple incident. please see the Wire source.

Mind you this does not mean that I am disputing or justifying that firing took place and a teenger was murdered.110.225.92.88 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)