Jump to content

Talk:Afzal Guru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pure Bull

[edit]

This article is heavily biased with no criticism of his hanging by reputable human right organizations. There is blatant white washing by calling people "left wing sympathizers" or in the name of "neutral point of view" by users like Robofish.

There is no mention of:

  1. the torture he endured
  2. the evidence used against him was his own confession which even the court admitted was extracted under duress.
  3. the solitary confinement he endured for so many years.

At least put a god damn "Neutrality of this article is disputed" tag. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.101.133 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong when you say that his confession was used against him as an evidence. Please get your facts right. Its highly recommended that you read the judgment given by Supreme Court of India. Also, please refrain from using a language such as "God Damn". This shall do no good. --MohitSingh (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

[edit]

The links provided by the IP (exactly why he hates Jimbo Wales is funny) do not correlate to the text. An op-ed made by a noted left-wing sympathizer is hardly any proof of Afzal's "innocence". There is a considerable amount of WP:OR in the text, and the persistent use of Praful Bidwai to base a whole article violates WP:Undue weight.Bakaman 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have saved today's version and will be reverting back to a more stable verion to work on this article. Today's version is saved at Talk:Mohammad Afzal/January.Bakaman 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Propaniac (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Afzal → Afzal Guru — Common name. Arjuncodename024 13:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does it fit?

[edit]

"Ram Jethmalani holds that it is completely within the President's power to commute the Death sentence and is not a mercy plea. He says, "It’s a misnomer to call it a mercy petition. It leads to total misunderstanding of the constitutional power. The constitutional power is that the President has the power to disagree with the Supreme Court both with its findings of fact and law."[5]

But other are of the view that such a sweeping Constitutional power cannot be given to the President inasmuch as it would subvert the concept of justice enshrined in the Constitution"

does this fit in a biographical article. shouldnt it be removed. after all a discussion on the powers of the president are not the point of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.81.152 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"including a female constable"

[edit]

Why is this note relevant? Anyone who joins the security forces knows they are putting their life at risk, be they man or woman. I feel this aside creates a bias against Guru, as it perpetuates the stereotype that Muslim men oppress women, and it also somehow plays to the patriarchal concept that a woman killed is noteworthy, whereas a man killed is just business as usual. This needs to be removed immediately. 105.236.249.212 (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. — Wyliepedia 00:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

[edit]

Tariq of Anantnag , who motivated him to join Jihad

should say

Tariq of Anantnag, who motivated him to join the jihad

Also, the material at the beginning of that paragraph is repeated later in different words:

It was his business that led to a meeting with one Tariq, who claimed to be a doctor. This resident of Anantnag convinced Afzal to aid some Pakistan-trained terrorists in their deadly mission.

Rybec (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed

[edit]

I removed the last section of this article, titled 'Criticism About the Glaring Denial of Last Available Legal Relief to Afzal Guru'. This was not written in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view. Criticism of the decision to execute him does belong in the article, but only if it is written in a neutral way and reporting criticisms made in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The sources cited is that of Times of India and Zee News. While the former is directly summarised/ paraphrased for the section you removed, the latter is used only get more elaborate inputs about Saibanna, a convicted murder, who was sentenced to death by the judiciary and whose clemency was refused by Pranab Mukherjee. Post-refusal, the convict moved to court and secured and secured stay from the execution. Had the central government not acted hastily for Guru, there was a chance that he could also secure stay. Are these inputs not under policies on neutral point of view?

I suggest you reinclude the section with any "reasonable change of words" or point the words / phrases, which you feel, needs moderation. But the section is needed as you've yourself admitted "Criticism of the decision to execute him does belong in the article". Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I think that the section should be included however be reworded as there has been a lot of criticism about the hanging process and facts shouldn't be removed.Naveed (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, I've changed the heading, tone, etc. I've removed all personal inference sentences and except "Although the Press in India has been supportive of Afzal Guru's hanging, a section of the press raised apprehension on the manner in which the execution was carried out." this sentence all other are from the sources -- So no such thing like "Glaring Denial of Last Available Legal Relief to Afzal Guru" but only press reaction and some background information. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request on 13 February 2013

[edit]

It is important to incorporate his lawyer's comments in the article viz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6-ohUBjIK0

Drtahir76 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This needs a citation from a reliable secondary source. You may yourself post a quote from an English source or a translated input from a non-English verifiable source (with full citation) for inclusion into the article. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Removal of unnecessary reference to other clemency pleas

[edit]

I have removed the references made to Zee News and other articles which was quite elaborate. The references made are good from legal point of view but ought not to be a part of this discussion. I belong to legal field posses specific details on this issue.

I have also changed the language: A major point highlighted by Times of India to Times of India highlighted.--MohitSingh (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saibanna Case V/S Guru Case

[edit]

Good to know that your an advocate. But you're still missing out one major edit based on ToI article and Zee News input - Saibanna, even after presidential clemency rejection had time for judicial review appeal and is still alive on the basis of it. In the Guru's case things moved speedily and the guy, good or bad, had to face the noose almost instantly (in less than a week). I'll see for a while if your articulation can highlight this aspect as well along with other things for which you've worked with great zeal and dedication. Hindustanilanguage (talk).

True. But that does not have any direct implication on this case. No two mercy petitions are ever compared. These articles are good for general reading but probably do not meet the wiki requirements.--MohitSingh (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 February 2013

[edit]

This article does not quote amnesty international's stand on unfair trial received by Afzal Guru. Article is very one sided, representing only the view of Indian government. 173.65.210.48 (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the views of amnesty international Naveed (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 February 2013

[edit]

This article does not quote amnesty international's stand on unfair trial received by Afzal Guru(http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/india-new-execution-points-worrying-and-regressive-trend-2013-02-09). Article is very one sided, representing only the view of Indian government. 173.65.210.48 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Vacation9 02:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 February 2013

[edit]

This article does not quote amnesty international's stand on unfair trial received by Afzal Guru(http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/india-new-execution-points-worrying-and-regressive-trend-2013-02-09). Article is very one sided, representing only the view of Indian government. 173.65.210.48 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. and duplicate of above request Vacation9 02:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 February 2013

[edit]

This document is biased, and should be marked as such

.

-> Document only details selective material that indict Afzal Guru as a terrorist. This article is authored who supports BJP, a political party that actively campaigned for Afzal Guru's hanging. -> This article does not cite Afzal's letter to his lawyer of obtaining confession under duress.(http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/afzal/afzal2.htm)

-> This article makes the issue of no legal aide provided to Afzal guru as no issue.

-> This article does not cite the evidence that got Afzal Guru indicted. The only evidence recorded was his confession, and Supreme court of India agreed that the confession was obtained in duress.

173.65.210.48 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that such a mark is necessary.
  • There is no official version of the letter written and everything cited is from the websites which portray his as a revolutionary.
  • This is absolutely wrong to say that he did not receive a legal aid. He had a lawyer in all the courts. Only thing disputed is whether he is capable enough, at the most.
  • The judgments cited have a long list of evidences most of which electronic evidence admissible under Indian Evidence Act. Also there were admissible circumstantial evidence. It can be included but that shall make this article very bulky.--MohitSingh (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vacation9 02:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in May 2013

[edit]

I have made certain changes which had been removed wrongly:

  • The Hindu article uses the term "no small doubt" which was changed by someone to "no doubt".
  • I have removed some data from the lead which are erroneous. Supreme Court did not rely on confession as Court. His conviction was not based on his confession but due to other circumstantial evidences available. The judgment is very particular about this. I have reverted this to the previous position. The Guardian's article cited there does not even contain the text or so which has been used in the lead. In fact it contains this which negates the given proposition: 'The supreme court set aside that "confession" extracted in police custody as inadmissible in law. Does a document that is inadmissible in law, become admissible in war?"--Mohit Singh (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the confession section, some of the earlier edits were removed which were duly recognised by the Supreme Court in its judgment.
  • "But later it was revealed that these confessions were made under duress" - This has been referenced with a Dainik Bhaskar article. However the reference contains no relation to this text whatsoever. This information was wrongly put.--Mohit Singh (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guru's Interview

[edit]

User:Shafaq123 has been using this line "Afzal later claimed that he had been subjected to extreme torture which included electric shocks in private parts and being beaten up for hours alongwith threats regarding his family after his arrest" which a website titled Kashmir News has used from an interview by Vindo K Jose. Also the language used by the user was wrong. I have used the reference of the original interview posted by him on the Caravan Magazine but the User has been indulged in the activity or reverting it. I have been making several attempts asking him to first discuss the issue here on the talk page but he has not been paying any heed.--Mohit Singh (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MohitSingh plz check your talk page, I have sent you a message regarding this page. And secondly your reference of Carvan magazine and my reference of Kashmirnews are exactly same, down to every word. Now plz be specific in what language i am using wrong because you too have written "Guru had said that he had been subjected to extreme torture which included electric shocks in private parts and being beaten up for hours alongwith threats regarding his family after his arrest".Kindly stop reverting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaq123 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that be the case, why should not we rely on the primary information rather than using a secondary information. Also, there has not been any official proof for the interview as there are data available which suggest otherwise. [1] article on IBN7's website claims that the only interview he gave after his conviction by the Court was the one reported on that article. However I did not raise any objection to the issue. The language used by you was "Afzal claimed" but since this was an interview which has been questioned in the past and is doubtful, I used the language that "Journalist Vinod K Jose claimed that Guru had told him in an interview in 2006".--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have used this language in the lead of the article: "The Supreme court of India held that Afzal did not belong to any terrorist organisation, the prosecution did not plead that Afzal was directly involved in the attacks, so he was hanged purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, his confession being taken under duress." The language so he was hanged purely [sic] is suggestive which is wrong and is also not in a very good grammar. I am reverting your edit. Please let the issue be resolved here or be sent to dispute resolution before you make any further changes. Your edits are in violation of 3 revert rules which may lead to blocking you.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

[edit]

This article is biased against Afzal Guru. It should be marked so.

  1. This article does explicitly state the torture he endured after he surrendered, before and after his arrest which led to his confession.
  2. The doubts caste upon the legality of the hanging that came from many legal experts have not been mentioned fully. The Supreme Courts judgement has been quoted, so must other legal experts be quoted fully.
  3. The article goes to great length about " It was recorded in the preamble of the confession that DCP had asked the policemen present there to leave the room. After that he had warned and explained to Guru that he was not bound to make the confessional statement and that if he did so, it could be used against him as evidence. Thereupon, it was recorded that Guru was not under any duress and he was ready to give the confessional statement. The signature of Guru was found beneath that endorsement", it is necessary to mention before this that before "he was warned and explained to that he was not bound to make the confessional statement" he was brutally tortured for years this confession.

This article is made by BJP workers who don't want the truth out. Wikipedia would do better without political parties molding it's articles in their favor. [1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaq123 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There has not been any official document or record which may state that he was tortured before or after the arrest which led to the arrest. The only evidences are his interview even on which doubts have been casted. This has already been given sufficient coverage in the article.
  2. Supreme Court has been quoted but there is no express need to do so. That may be changed into a normal language without the quote template. Other opinions have also been given space. Any legal opinion otherwise has always been refuted by others. If those opinions are included then there would be a need to include the counter opinions as well, which have always been given.
  3. In the absence of any contrary evidence, I take strong objection to the remark that this article has been made by members of BJP. I would refrain from making counter allegations because these remarks are bad in taste. In fact, his conviction, refusal of clemency plea and hanging did not take place during was not made during BJP's regime but during that of its main rival. This is not an issue of religion but that of terrorism.--Mohit Singh (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I request the concerned user not to make such remarks as they do not comply to Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable.--Mohit Singh (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Afzal Guru's wife's letter which clearly states that he was tortured before and after his arrest, no official of his torture is available for obvious reasons. Serious aspersions have been cast on the legality of Afzal Guru's hanging by legal experts all over India but this issue has been mentioned just in passing and not dealt with properly. Also, firstly I did not know being associated with BJP is an 'allegation bad in taste' and secondly I never said anything about religion.This article should be marked biased because it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaq123 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Since you don't get it I'll explain: Making false allegations is what I said was in bad taste. You do not have any proof that this article was written by BJP Workers or do you? So you were basically lying. Please do not discuss this issue. This violates the talk page policy.--Mohit Singh (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-disturbing-truth-about-an-execution/article4501567.ece
  2. ^ http://www.indiaresists.com/afzal-guru-wifes-letter-an-appeal-that-remained-unheard/
  3. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-perfect-day-for-democracy/article4397705.ece

It is not Pakistan occupied Kashmir but Pakistan administered Kashmir. Mir Aizaz (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016

[edit]

If Afzal Guru was born in 1969 than how he can complete his graduation in 1934. Please make the required changes. 203.143.188.11 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: There's no mention of the year 1934 in the article. If you see a typo, please specify its location. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor English

[edit]

Ahem, the first line:

"Mohammad Afzal Guru (30 June 1969 – 9 February 2013) was a convicted terrorist who was born in Kashmir, India and was convicted for his role in the December 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. "

What a tautologies in the very first line!! And to rub insult to injury the WP:OWN morons slam a lock down on this article so people with a modicum of writing ability can't get in here and fix such piss-poor poor English.

No wonder this site is an internet joke and the people who write this stuff are mocked on message boards.

"Mohammad Afzal Guru (30 June 1969 – 9 February 2013) was a terrorist from Kashmir, India who was convicted for his role in the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001."

You see the difference! Wikipedia is written by young white 16 year old aspies who live in their parents' basement. 81.129.123.83 (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to register as a user, gain experience to get auto-confirmed and perform edits of semi-protected pages. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Edit Wars please

[edit]

Would request User:Msec109 to not indulge in edit wars, and resolve conflicts here on talk page.ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChunnuBhai Sorry, didn't mean it. Msec109 (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Afzal Guru/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article's neutrality is questionable. The article looks biased towards the subject which makes a reader wonder if the author of the article has vested interests in release of the convicted subject.

Last edited at 01:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

[edit]


2.99.204.125 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No request made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Afzal Guru. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afzal Guru. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

[edit]

there is no authentic citaton regarding Guru's discussion with Gilani on Jehad Abbasirashid (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 19:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

[edit]

Afzal Guru was a islamic terrorist who was later executed by legal trial by supreme court of India and hang till death. So kindly ad that he was a terrorist Sankalpavirjaan (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See also: WP:LIBEL, we cannot add that kind of language without reliable sourcing Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afzal_Guru&oldid=1260222139"