Jump to content

Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Uber driver incident

[1] "Krishnan further said in a tweet that this incident was a “glimpse of scary India under NPR NRC CAA, where every person will be incentivised to suspect and turn in others and police can harass everyone”."

Should this incident be added ? DBigXrayᗙ 14:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Facts from the original the indianexpress.com source [2] in the Wire story
A cab driver brought a person riding his cab to a police station.
The driver said “Yeh desh jalane ki baat kar raha hai, bol raha hai main communist hoon, hum desh ko Shaheen Bagh banadenge, mere paas poori recording hai (He was talking about burning the country, saying he is a Communist, he will make the entire country a Shaheen Bagh, I have the entire recording).”
The rider's reply “I told the policemen to listen to the recording and arrest me if they find me saying ‘Hum desh jala denge (We will set the country on fire)’ or anything that is inciting or can be perceived as anti-national,”
The Mumbai Police statement “Both the driver and passenger had come to Santacruz police station. They were asked basic questions about where they were going. After verifying the driver’s claims, no cognizable offence was made out and both men were asked to go,”
Leave aside what the Wire staff and Kavita Krishnan find in it. Does it merit inclusion?117.97.224.93 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It is precisely the 1984 scenario, where everybody around you is spying for the government. Pretty soon, you become anti-national and get dumped in a concentration camp. It is not happening yet. But that is the direction in which it is headed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, add it and the fact that the BJP awarded the driver for “catching an anti-national” (https://www.ndtv.com/mumbai-news/bjps-alert-citizen-award-for-uber-driver-who-took-poet-bappadittya-sarkar-to-mumbai-police-over-caa-2177081 and https://www.ndtv.com/mumbai-news/mumbai-uber-driver-takes-passenger-to-cops-overhearing-caa-protest-chat-2176304 are the relevant URLs from more reputed sources). It is an unusual incident. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The your more reputed source i.e. NDTV writes "A driver of the ride-hailing app Uber, who made a detour to take a poet to the Mumbai Police after he eavesdropped into the man's conversation on the amended citizenship law, has been 'awarded' by the BJP for being an "alert citizen"."
Ms Krishnan tweeted that the incident was a "glimpse of scary India under NPR NRC CAA, where every person will be incentivised to suspect and turn in others and police can harass everyone".
BJP, Ms Krishnan and for that sake anyone may do or say whatever they like, unless it is illegal, nobody should judge them at the Wikipedia.
For "It is an unusual incident."
A person may bring another to police station, if she/he feels the other is about to do a crime or something forbidden by law, police would verify the claim, and if no cognizabe offence was made, they would be asked to go.
What is unusual? that the police left the other person, and that police did not make the other person anti-national and dumped him in a concentration camp?
For "It is precisely 1984 scenario, ...It is not happening yet and you seeing the direction in which it is headed" is all inside you and is being made up by your own unfounded biases and fears.
Please read a file on Maharashtra Police website at http://mahapolice.gov.in/files/Headline/1.pdf to know about the law and Police. And share it with others also, do not spread unfounded fears.
Mind you your the more reputed NDTV writes "The police were polite with him and asked both him and the driver to record their statements." The cab driver may be wrong but police did the right thing.223.225.3.20 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
And the driver speaks better English than most Wikipedians! [3] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


Background Improvement Discussion

DBigXray There's been no "massive removal of content". In the current version, there is a two separate successive paragraphs repeating the same information with different wording. My edit removed one of them and retained the more detailed one. It is the only content that was removed (other than an image which was by mistake). It appears as a large byte-term removal due to the reduction in the number of references. The first sentence in the proposed version is to contextualize the introduction of the CAA. The proposed version also expands the "excluded criteria", otherwise it is only repeating the lead instead of expanding on it.

I have copied the two versions to demonstrate what is changed, below:

Current Version

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) is an act, passed by the Parliament of India, which amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant a swifter path to Indian citizenship under the assumption of religious persecution to any individual belonging to the specific minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.[1] However, the Act does not mention Muslims and does not offer the same eligibility benefits to Muslim immigrants or immigrants belonging to other religions. The Act also does not mention any benefits for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who are living in India, having fled persecution during the Sri Lankan Civil War.[2][3]

The Amendment only benefits Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who sought refuge in India before 2015,[4] but leaves out Muslims and others from these countries, and refugees from other countries, who will remain illegal foreigners.[5][6] Among the excluded refugees are Tamil Hindu refugees from Sri Lanka, Rohingya Muslim and Hindu refugees from Myanmar, and Buddhist refugees from Tibet.[7]

The Act also seeks to relax the requirement of residence in India for citizenship by naturalization from 11 years to 5 years for migrants covered under the Act.[8][9][10] According to the Intelligence Bureau, the immediate beneficiaries of the new law will be 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis.[11]

Proposed Version

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (CAB) was introduced by the Home Minister, Amit Shah on the floor of the Parliament of India in 9 December 2019, in response to the exclusion of 1.9 million people, predominantly Hindus[12] in the National Register of Citizens for Assam.[13]

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) was passed by the Parliament of India within 2 days, on 11 December. It amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant a swifter path to Indian citizenship under the assumption of religious persecution to any individual belonging to the specific minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.[14] The Act also seeks to relax the requirement of residence in India for citizenship by naturalization from 11 years to 5 years for migrants covered under the Act.[15]

However, the Act does not mention Muslims and does not offer the same eligibility benefits to Muslim immigrants or immigrants belonging to other religions.[16] The Act also does not mention any benefits for various other refugees which form the bulk of the refugees living in India, such as Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who faced persecution during the Sri Lankan Civil War,[17] Rohingya refugees who were victims of the Rohingya genocide, Nepali refugees who faced ethnic cleansing in Bhutan and Tibetan Buddhist refugees who faced persecution in China.[18]

According to the Intelligence Bureau, the immediate beneficiaries of the new law will be 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis.[19]

Besides that, the edit adds some content and reorganized sections to improve readability while moving around a few sentences to their appropriate sections. If you so want, in case it is hard to determine what I changed. I could make them over a number of edits instead of a single one for each specific issue. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray and Tayi Arajakate, I think the first para in the current version should be used with the last two in the proposed version after removing repetition in these parts. In any case, we need the following points:
  • CAA is an act passed by the Parliament
  • Home Minister Amit Shah introduced it
  • It grants a swifter path to citizenship for people from so-and-so religions and so-and-so nations
  • It doesn’t cover Muslims and people from other religions
  • It ignores Sri Lankan Tamils, Tibetans and Rohingyas
  • According to the IB, the beneficiaries will be n people

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, I agree. i dont thnk the proposed version shd be added. Dey what are your thoughts ? I will reply in detail later DBigXrayᗙ 16:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The proposed version mentions all the listed points. I have added the name of the Home Minister in the proposed version to reflect that. The proposed version does make use of the first para of the current version. I'd also suggesting adding a section for NRC before the CAA to further contextualize it. What's the merit in keeping the current version? Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Parliament passes the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019". pib.gov.in. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  2. ^ Shaji, K.A (23 December 2019). "CAA: Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees Say The New Law Has Killed Their Hopes Of Citizenship". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  3. ^ "Missing from India's citizenship law: 100,000 Sri Lankan refugees". Malay Mail. 28 December 2019. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  4. ^ The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The Gazette of India. (2019)
  5. ^ "Citizenship law, proposed nation-wide NRC will revise conception of group rights in India". The Indian Express. 12 December 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2019., Quote: "Indeed, the CAB would only apply to undocumented Hindus, Sikhs, [...] would become “refugees” whereas Muslims [...] would remain illegal."
  6. ^ "Rajya Sabha passes Citizenship Amendment Bill: What is a Hindu and why are Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka left out of CAB?". MSN. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  7. ^ Chaudhry, Suparna (13 December 2019). "India's new law may leave millions of Muslims without citizenship". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  8. ^ Sam Gringlas, "India Passes Controversial Citizenship Bill That Would Exclude Muslims", NPR
  9. ^ Sigal Samuel, "India just redefined its citizenship criteria to exclude Muslims, "Vox.
  10. ^ Helen Regan, Swati Gupta and Omar Khan, "India passes controversial citizenship bill that excludes Muslims," CNN News.
  11. ^ Saha, Abhishek (20 January 2019). "Explained: Why Assam, Northeast are angry". The Indian Express. From its records, the IB gave a count of 31,313 (25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis) who have been given Long Term Visas on their claim of religious persecution in the three countries.
  12. ^ Samrat (27 December 2019). "FOCUS: Assam's complicated tryst with CAA". Livemint.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  13. ^ "Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain refugees won't have to leave India: Amit Shah". Business Standard India. 1 October 2019.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ^ "Parliament passes the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019". pib.gov.in. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  15. ^ Helen Regan, Swati Gupta and Omar Khan, "India passes controversial citizenship bill that excludes Muslims," CNN News.
  16. ^ Sigal Samuel, "India just redefined its citizenship criteria to exclude Muslims, "Vox.
  17. ^ Shaji, K.A (23 December 2019). "CAA: Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees Say The New Law Has Killed Their Hopes Of Citizenship". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  18. ^ Chaudhry, Suparna (13 December 2019). "India's new law may leave millions of Muslims without citizenship". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  19. ^ Saha, Abhishek (20 January 2019). "Explained: Why Assam, Northeast are angry". The Indian Express. From its records, the IB gave a count of 31,313 (25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis) who have been given Long Term Visas on their claim of religious persecution in the three countries.

Chronology Update

DBigXray and Dey subrata, I am adding some headlines from 01 Feb to now for the chronology. Which ones should we add?

Also to be added: https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/seattle-city-council-passes-resolution-against-caa-nrc/article30732118.ece (Seattle city council passes resolution against CAA) - 04 Feb Green tickY

I couldn’t find any news between 1 and 4 Feb however... By the way, why was this section left unupdated? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

i have marked eligible one as Green tickY DBigXrayᗙ 16:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Although I find it highly selective, yet to correct you in your selection, please note that the https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-said-caa-protests-anti-national-just-like-indira-gandhi-did-before-declaring-emergency/361501/ (Modi himself calls anti-CAA protests anti-national, compares it to the Emergency) - 07 Feb is a OPINION by Yogendra Yadav and
While it is titled as "Modi himself calls anti-CAA protests anti-national ..." but the link given for the speech https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/parliament-news-live-updates-modi-motion-thanks-congress-caa-lok-sabha-1643682-2020-02-06 says "Anarchy in name of anti-CAA protests, says PM" nowhere as anti-national by PM. Please see.106.202.10.57 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Except first two, nothing so important, PM can move anywhere and anytime, we need not to update every move of PM, many actors said many things, only to be included if actively particpated in protest or pro-demo, and also no need to include the "Modi calls ani-national" he did not call and chronology should include events only, comparison of Emergency and calling the situation as Anarchy can be added in a new section, rest you can add, but the Seattle thing should also be included in the Foreign Section. Dey subrata (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

"Singapore police on 24 December investigated a 32-year-old Indian national for participating in the anti-CAA protest, which authorities termed an unauthorised protest over foreign politics in the seaside financial and tourist district of Marina Bay."

Evidently this article needs a copyedit for spelling, grammar, tense and tone, preferably by a native speaker. DBigXray has removed the copyedit tag twice in the past 24 hours without fixing the issues. This is disruptive and stunts the efforts of other editors who might be willing to fix them.

DBigXray, please revert your tag removal, else I will have no other option left but to seek admin action for your edit warring. M4DU7 (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed, There are no egregious problems needing a tag. Tags should not be used for minor things such as the one above. If you can point out that there are egregious problems then I will self revert. The one above isn't one. Although I went ahead and c/e'ed it. DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The above one was just an example of the dozens (maybe hundreds) of poorly framed and grammatically incorrect sentences. Here are some more of them:
  • "Devendra Fadnavis, former chief minister of Maharashtra, targeted Shiv Sena at the event organised by BJP's Samvidhan Sanman Manch also organised pro-CAA rally in Mumbai."
  • " the protests started with fewer people participating but the crowd grew steadily and reached around 500-600 protesters as reported on 19 January."
  • " On 21 January more than 300,000 people join an anti-CAA protest rally at Kalaburagi in Karnataka."
  • "On 26 January 2020, the 71st Republic Day of India, protest held in 30 cities of the United States including cities which have Indian consulates like, New York, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta and San Francisco and in front of the Indian Embassy in Washington DC."
In view of these undeniably egregious issues, I have reinserted the copyedit tag. M4DU7 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyediting tag does not help much in such long articles, i can say that through my experience, as huge number of copyediting backlogs are already there in WP:GOCE. Once the SC give its decision, I mean there will less addition to the article, we can request it there. Otherwise the tag will bring many and seeing the size and continuous change people just copyedit in parts and sometime overlap too. So better wait for a while. Dey subrata (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyediting will be unhelpful because the article needs to be curtailed by 2x or 3x of its present size. I will make a list of sections which require removal in the near future. Otinflewer (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to not move (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


Citizenship Amendment Act protests → Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens protests – All protests are against both CAA and NRC. Right from the start of the protests, all placards have mentioned NRC which in combination with CAA causes harm. So it would be appropriate to change the title, so that the NRC is included in the title. Crashed greek (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Used by all of the national and international media to refer to this protest. I have never seen anyone refer to the protest by the proposed name. FYI, we already have a redirect from the proposed title so we are covered. DBigXrayᗙ 08:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
No one should write like "support user xyz" and "per argument or same reason as user xyz", for it should not be between users but between arguments, and once a user has given some arguments, not need to show your support, as strength of an argument should not be decided by just how many user support it. Moreover, the Wikipedia's talk page is not a place to show support for or oppose other users, but to meaningfully contribute through your arguments and submissions.
Please see WP:CONS which says at point 1.3.1 "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." 110.225.73.173 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


CAA Protests and NRC Protests are not two separate things.Those who are protesting againts CAA, are protesting against NRC also. As the NRC is not being implemented as of now, it is not appropriate to protest against NRC, so more focus on CAA. If the NRC starts, it would become evident that these are CAA and NRC protests and not "CAA protests" and "NRC protests". Some media houses do refer to these as CAA-NRC protests, please see[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and some foreign also [6] [7]223.225.34.191 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/caa-nrc-protest-live-updates/liveblog/73865616.cms
  2. ^ https://thewire.in/rights/caa-nrc-protests-live-updates
  3. ^ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/caa-nrc-protests-live-updates-npr-congress-bjp-kamal-nath-6184002/
  4. ^ https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article30431601.ece
  5. ^ https://www.siasat.com/every-place-shaheen-bagh-nandita-das-joins-caa-nrc-protest-1803853/
  6. ^ https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/caa-nrc-protests-why-is-narendra-modi-so-obsessed-with-pakistan-1.1578211505665
  7. ^ https://qz.com/india/1778891/delhis-shaheen-bagh-women-keep-indias-caa-nrc-protest-alive/
@223.225.34.191: But you don't know that Economic issue are taking part for protest as well because many protesters are protest against Indian economic policy under Modi. This protest are not only against NRC and CAA but also broader issues like economy, unemployment, poverty, labour policy, etc. The Spanish title and original French title of this article (Protestas en India de 2019-2020 and Manifestations de 2019 en Inde) doesn't including word like Citizenship Amendment Act or National Register of Citizens in their languages (although french change title to become more aligned with English name) despite primary concern is CAA and NRC. But think again there are many protest that occured in India in 2019 such as rape in Mumbai so don't use more generic name like "2019-20 Indian protests" in English Wikipedia although these names applied in French and Spanish Wikipedia due to nature there are only protest in India in that year.
Not claiming that these protests are against CAA and NRC only. A protester may have many other grievances against the government moreover as opposition politicians do take part in these protests, they often attack governtment on many issues other than CAA and NRC, but these are protests against CAA and NRC first and foremost, it is not that econmic issues arised after the CAA was enacted and it was claimed in the Parliament that all India NRC would be implemented.
Agreed that "2019-2020 Indian Protest" is a general term. The protests were iniated by CAA enactment and NRC declarations in the Parliament, that remain the primay concern and primay demand, so these should be known as CAA and NRC protests.110.225.92.88 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I could see a alert is populating with this article to merge the article with Kerala Human chain. Please dont do that Kerala Human chain is one of the part and protest of this protest. This CAA protest page should be to cover the protest and incident related to all over the India and world. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

However, every non-notable event (See WP:NOTNEWS) selectively has been pushed to the article, number of deceased and wounded haven't been updated to the article. I'd like to have fellow editors here with me to list up sources by date to sum the info up. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 13:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, the Wire article In that section lists most of them. IIRC, The deaths did not happen in January. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

religious slogans

@Dey subrata: Will you please provide a logical explanation for this edit? Religious slogans have no doubt been used at large scale protests at prominent universities [4][5]. Thousands of Muslims have simultaneously held up the Indian national flag and chanted “Allahu akbar” while demonstrating for a secular India, says Foreign Policy[6].

I think you must self-revert that edit.— Vaibhavafro 💬 01:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro used at large scale protests I don't see such in large scale protest, this are opnion articles not factual articles, it will be considered as POV, and this thing came to social media with Tharoor's and ladeeda's tweet and comments, nothing else than that. Secondly, I can add 100s of such sloganeering in the section just because someone somewhere raised a slogan. The section is well written in a summarised way. I have been out this article for last 10-15 days because of other related articles of recent incidents and sport related articles, but seeing this case and this one, I think more such POV and twisted materials must have been added without discussion, I will surely go through in the evening. DBigXray can you also go through the recent edits, I already see there a lot of things need to be updated and modified in the chronology and delhi and Up section specially. Dey subrata (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Foreign Policy articles are usually high-quality and sometimes appear to be op-eds. Nevertheless, what about the other sources I mentioned. Moreover, please explain what “twisted narrative” are you talking about. You guys are lucky; I am not fully aware of the contents of this article because I am too busy in real life. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have a monopoly over the WP:STONEWALLING that’s going on here.— Vaibhavafro 💬 07:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Vaibhavafro, Please suggest another version of the proposed text more in line with the source. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Since you insist, I am proposing an alternative text although the text that I had added in the article was fine:

Certain religious slogans were utilised by both pro-CAA as well as anti-CAA protestors. While anti-CAA protestors had on several occasions raised slogans such as La ilaha illallah and Allahu Akbar,[7][8][9] pro-CAA protestors chanted Jai Shri Ram.[10]

The above text is the proposed alternative to be added in the “Slogans and poems” section. Also note that protestors are not just protesting for the constitution, but also for their respective religious identities. It is therefore important to highlight the use of such slogans.— Vaibhavafro 💬 08:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro, Sorry for the late reply, I was busy in starting the riot article. Please drop this confrontational attitiude as this page is under WP:ACDS, hot heads have already been topic banned from CAA. Thanks for the new proposal. There are several issues that needs to be resolved. First, scores of slogans were used in the protests, we cannot possibly mention all of them. The slogan section only mentions those that are heavily used and are widespread in most of the protests. In contrasts, these muslims slogans are only used at few places. The concern is of WP:DUE weight. Your version gives an impression that it is an equally frequently used slogan like others, which is not the case. Based on this reason, I would suggest not adding these as they are not frequent. If you strongly insist then we will have to work towards an acceptable for all version. It should clarify the spirit that "... they chanted “Allahu akbar” while demonstrating for a secular India", should mention that they were criticized and then talk about Hindu slogans. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Vaibhavafro I am not fully aware of the contents of this article, don't play innocent here, no one forbade you to know and no one encouraging you to edit without full information. Your edit behaviour was well observed during Bihar temple case. Similarly you have done here, by adding WP:DUE- "The protesters indulged in stone pelting and vandalised houses", direct violation of WP:YESPOV, while the riot was started by Kapil Mishra and his supporters, first direct threats to police and brought trucks of stones in the site where protesters started the sit-in protest. Then cop are helping allowing them to throw stones. 1, 2, 3, 4 thus also violates WP:IMPARTIAL. If you don't have full information why do you add materials and they play innocent. Don't you feel your single line will be read by lakhs of people here, and narratives and perception will be created FROM it. You are near to topic ban for sure. DBigXray was correct, I should not have expected more frOm you. You have just violated a lot of policies of WP:POV with that single edit. Dey subrata (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I am getting a feeling that there is a large amount of opposition to my proposal due to silence of other editors. I, therefore, consider it better to drop my proposal. Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Vaibhavafro 💬 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delhi riot article

Started at North East Delhi riots, Please join there to add the content. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolutions

I suggest moving resolution related content to a separate section.Italawar (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Italawar That can be done. Seeing the number of resolutions passed, its worthy to make a section. Dey subrata (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Change (add more content after 25th february) 25 February A shoot-at-sight order was issued in the evening by Delhi Police after the Anti-CAA and Pro-CAA protest become violent.[347] CBSE postponed the 10th and 12th Board examinations in northeast Delhi, scheduled for 26 Feb. Schools will remain closed. However, exams will run as usual for the rest Delhi and India.[348][349]

to

26 February [Doval], The National Security Advisor of India Visited the [areas of North East Delhi] with team in the evening. He said that he was there between people as per the instructions of Narendra Modi (Prime Minister) and Amit Shah (Home Minister). Later reports of arson, violence and mob lynching too place in Bhajanpura, Maujpur and Karawal Nagar later that night. Ankit Sharma, a young Intelligence Bureau staffer's body was found in a drain in Chand Bagh area of North East Delhi.

27 February At least 22 people have been killed and approx. 200 people are injured in the communal violence which broke out in certain areas of North East Delhi including Maujpur, Jaffrabad, Yamuna Vihar, Chand Bagh, Bhajanpura, Babarpur, Shiv Vihar. These are places mainly affected by this communal riot. In Shiv Vihar, around 7 to 9 in the morning clashes were reported. Few shops, godowns, and vehicles were torched. Megha Parmarr (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverts by DBigXray

Is “edit like this is correct?
Is “edit like this” is spam? Italawar (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Italawar, I asked you to explain what really are you trying to do. Please explain. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
What's going on?? Get familiar with WP:CFORK and understand the policies please. Dey subrata (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Change

27 February

One day after the Delhi High Court judge S. Muralidhar asks the cops to file an FIR, President of India orders his transfer with the recommendation of Supreme Court of India [354] AAP councilor Tahir Hussain and his associates are accused of the Ankit Sharma. However, Tahir Hussain denies his involvement in the crime. An FIR is issued against him. AAP also suspends him from the party. [355] [

To

27 February

One day after the Delhi High Court judge S. Muralidhar asks the cops to file an FIR, President of India orders his transfer with the recommendation of Supreme Court of India [354] AAP councilor Tahir Hussain and his associates are accused of the Ankit Sharma. However, Tahir Hussain denies his involvement in the crime. An FIR is issued against him. AAP also suspends him from the party. [355] [


28th February

• Lieutenant-Governor Anil Baijal of Delhi visited riot-hit areas of Northeast Delhi on Friday to take stock of the situation.

• Home Ministry said, “no major riot incident was reported in the last 36 hours in the riot-hit areas of Northeast Delhi.”

• As North East Delhi hobbles back to normalcy, Home Ministry proposed partial withdrawal of prohibitory orders on 28th February (Friday).

• To ensure proper security of board exams centers in Northeast Delhi, Delhi High Court seeks the response of the police and directs. At present, there are no changes in the schedule of the exams.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for edit and the CE tag

There is a fullstop below the section Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests#Art. Please remove the fullstop and extra line (whitespace).

There is also a CE tag, once the full protection reduces, I will take up the minor copyediting of the whole article. And maybe it can be placed in Wikipedia:GOCE too, but that would be a real task if any one person takes it up.

Just like this article was split into CAA protests in Uttar Pradesh some more forks are required, which has already been discussed in an archived thread Talk:Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests/Archive_4#Content_Fork. That thread is archived, can it be unarchived so that when protection is removed things can proceed and discussed as a continuation of that? Thanks. DTM (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Redundant full stop removed. El_C 15:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Content Fork

Unarchived by request. El_C 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is only getting bigger and bigger and the issue doesn't seem anywhere near its end. No one seems up for a heavy copyedit which could reduce size quite nicely. Maybe "Chronology" can be shifted to a new page, and linked using a "Main article" template. DTM (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Many of the important events are not mentioned in the chronology as it is getting difficult to edit such a large section.

Secondly, Can't we decrease number of section in chronology to either weekly or monthly sections as in most of the days only 1-2 major events are pointed out or may be club days with less events together. WT 19:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DTM, WT I am glad that you guys brought this up. I agree this page size is a big headache. It slows editing. I guess the only way out is to WP:CFORK contents. Please suggest your proposals to Fork out contents. I am not too sure if forking out chronology will be a good idea. As it is the most imp part of the article (like a skeleton). Lets keep it for the end, that is avoid Forking that out as long as it can be avoided. Please comment on the below proposals and add your own proposals to Fork out. also ping User:Dey subrata User:SerTanmay and User:Kautilya3 if they have other suggestions. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
⋙–DBigXrayᗙ May be we can also clean up Jamia Milia Islamia section and move some of the content to 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia attack and make it brief like JNU Attack. Second proposal can be to move all of crackdown on university to independent page. 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Jamia attack is an altogether notable article on its own. We may need to discuss this proposal on its talk page. I dont suggest compressing the Jamia CAA protest. IMHO having a seperate University CAA protests seems like a better idea. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: For Delhi and UP for now seems logical and must, Assam has nothing new to add, expecting tobe in that size. AMU thing I don't know much. Crack down on University need not to be there, considering the university incidents are already with separate pages, rather the exiting sections should be summarised well. Dey subrata (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
+1 on the content fork. Have been looking as to how the article could be cleaned up for a while now, glad we are taking some initiative. SerTanmay (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all for the comments. I have started 1 CFork, The CAA protest article will still need a summary of the CFORK. so some help to summarize will be appreciated. The same summary can be used as a WP:LEAD for the CFORKed article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

List of proposed Forks

Supported by ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ, SerTanmay (talk), Dey subrata
Supported by ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ, SerTanmay (talk)
Supported by ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ, SerTanmay (talk), Dey subrata
Supported by ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ
  • Crack Down on university during CAA
Supported by WT, ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ, SerTanmay (talk)
Aman Kumar Goel, g'day.
  • WP:LASTING says that “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.” Also, there are so many content forks of this article already such as Human chain in Kerala, 2020 (M), 2020 JNU Attack, Shaheen Bagh protests , 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia attack and North East Delhi riots. All these forks are not eternally continuing events. That JNU attack is over. The Human chain is done with. The JMI attack coverage has decreased to a huge extent. WP:LASTING applies very weakly here in the way you are using it. Also, how can WP:LASTING apply to the chronology fork that has been suggested - Chronology of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests OR Timeline of the Citizenship Amendment Act protests? There are already so many forked timeline and chronology articles that can be taken as example - Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in February 2020, Chronology of adult videos in Japan, Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election, Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War before military intervention. Yes, a lot of the chronology articles are placed within the parent article and are not separate, but here I have suggested it as the chronology here can be forked as per policy. A section summarizing the chronology can remain within this article. WP:NOTNEWS also is a weak policy to use as far as the timeline suggestion goes.
  • You have written - "See India Against Corruption for a name. How big it was and now how succinict it looks now." India Against Corruption isn’t a good example to take reference to in this case. A lot of the content in that edit you have linked was not sourced or paraphrased properly and images not licensed adequately. Compare that to content in this article which has more than enough sources (700+) and the sources are still growing. Nearly all the images are licensed properly and discussion going on for the rest. Currently there may only be news to fill this article, but we have to wait for the journals and books to come out but that is another discussion for the future when it actually happens. So yes, while I understand the example you have given and how the article was shortened, just that fact of the difference in number of sources makes it a bad comparison, unless you are suggesting we reduce the number of sources from 700+ to less than 100 somehow which seems akin to censorship?
  • And while we are here randomly choosing policies and guidelines to apply, we should do it properly, by discussing ALL of the applicable policies and guidelines of Wikipedia with respect to this article. Starting off the most important the WP:FIVEPILLARS. So I request rather than blanket statement everything away lets do this discussion properly and sort out this article. DTM (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Italawar: Also see WP:NOTAVOTE. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 06:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Aman Kumar Goel please note too... WP:NOTAVOTE DTM (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't see any reason in keeping names in the "Parties to the civil conflict" or " Lead figures" which looks nothing more than lending false impression of "Government VS many citizens" or "Sangh Parivar VS all". I would support removal. Tessaracter (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree for one reason that these lists are too long, they include not only the main political parties but also the sub-entities. Some of them don't even have Wikipedia page. Otinflewer (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Full protection and removal of important materials

Doug Weller, El C, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93 I am addressing to you all, because now the page is full protected. The removed materials were important for the article. I can understand the original removal per sock puppet polciy. But the following developments were telling something else. I clearly mentioned the reason of restoration, here. But the removal here and here by new users is giving similar vibes like that of North East Delhi riots, I think a new POV pushing is supposed to start here too. Doug addressed the thing at my talk page which I appreciate as I was wondering if its a case of sockpuppet itself. Anyway I have replied Doug with my reasons which I assume he understood. But after that, AKG commented and asked me for explanation which I don't know why when I have clearly mentioned the reasons, and replied him to go through WP:BRD & asked him to bring false information for discussion. Now the interesting thing happened and pov narratives comes into picture. He did not find any false information but he replied with POV narratives. Yogi Adityanath arrested 100s of protesters in UP, highest in this state and people are demanding their release and his reply of "couple of people demanding resignation of Adityanath" shows what he is trying to do here. Second, referring Yashwant sinha, as "a defected BJP member", but did not want to address as former Finance Minsiter which was clearly mentioned in the background. Now you can clealry establish, the first removal though per policy of sock puppet but the intentions behind it, to remove materials which does not suits one's purpose. Its not easy to establish POV here like that of the riot page, as here we need to add what people are protesting for and demanding, one cannot hide it, so removal per suck puppet and consensus was option for those user when they never brought any issue for discussion. With that all these matetials are provided with reliable sources and are important for the page. Also with the background there were several chronological materials were removed and the parties involved in protest without which the article lacks information and a true picture. I would ask the admins to restore the materials and if anybody think something is false or wrong he/she can bring for discussion which was done before, irrespective of sock puppet or not. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to add more, along with the restoration of the edit, I have also added some materials in the "Uttar Pradesh" section about the amount of money the UP govt. asked the protesters to pay. Interestingly, this was also removed along with the sock puppet's edits in the name of not consensus, which also confirms the intentions. As if somebody thinks there is something wrong they should bring the materials for discussion in the first place not just remove it. Now you all experienced people decide what to do with the article, to me rather than full protection, which is not at all healthy for the article as I think no admin will update the article, since its a protest article and everyday something happening, better extended confirmed protection and along with topic ban is more justified. Dey subrata (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, we are all volunteers here. That is a lot of text. Can you condense? El_C 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I know it was little big, tried to cutail some, but need to explain the whole thing. Please suggest what to do now, as the article seriously lacking those vital information. Dey subrata (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you make specific edit requests to address the items you feel need attention. El_C 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
El_C Ok fine, I will try my best to take one item at a time and make a request. Dey subrata (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, Tessaracter, Otinflewer, As per banning policy, any editor is free to revert edits made by a ban-evading sock, and any editor is free to reinstate them, there by taking full responsibility for that content. Since Dey subrata has done so, the content is now counted as his edit. You can only delete it if you have policy-based objections. If you have such objections, please state them here. Otherwise, please stay your hand. El_C, hope this was a tldr summary for you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'd suggest that anyone who thinks any of the material shouldn't be in the article start a new section on it. Note that I won't be taking part, I am maintaining my uninvolved status here. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Other than the edits being made by the sock, the edits do violate WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAPBOX and more policies. I was having a discussion with Dey Subrata on his own talk page[11] before the page was protected today. I am of the opinion that this 28k bytes removal is just a drop in the ocean. There is much more poorly written undue content that is yet to be removed. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, El C, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93 I want to brought o your notice again that AKG is again reverting without proper explanatuon of the reverts, there is not soapbox or or here. as in his summary. This is going beyond the linit of patience. Everthing added were with proper justification. These materials are essentials for the background and provided with relaible sources. Dey subrata (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You are already told per a note on your talk page not to revert disputed content then why you are still doing it? If you don't understand the very problems with your restorations then it is a pity. For a name this edit of yours makes huge mention of Yashwant Sinha in violation of WP:SOAPBOX since he is just an opposition politician like he is some academic. Rest of your paragraphs are largely irrelevant to CAA protests, with almost none of them mentioning these protests. Do you still don't understand what is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here? Then your other restoration of sock here was not "ce", as you provided a misleading edit summary to remove one opinion and replacing it with your own narrative. Canvassing or hoping other editors to argue for you, is not the way to go here. Where did you explained these problematic edits of yours before moving ahead to restore them? Tessaracter (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Tessaracter Better pointing out what I did or not, explain this the edit summary does not quite reflect what you did. The onus was onto you to explain the removal of materials before removing materials, not me. Dey subrata (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
No, WP:STONEWALLING won't help you. I have already explained why reversions of your edits have been correct so far. Do you have any evidence that how statement of an obviously non-neutral politician isn't WP:SOAP? There are more issues with your edits here. Tessaracter (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Tessaracter this edit is a crap[12] and doesn't make any sense. Would you please explain which part of Dey subrata's edits are WP:SYNTH? I see a lot of comments yet no answer to the edits he made to reach a concensus. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hasn't he explained above? Content is mainly irrelevant to CAA protests. Statistics about economy have nothing to do with the subject. Otinflewer (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not referring to the economic statistics. Have you checked the diff? --KartikeyaS (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree nor do 2 other editors. Enough problems have been already defined about the edits made by the sock and no one has so far justified the problems other than stonewalling. Status quo is the current version now which is rid of those problematic edits. Otinflewer (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Now that the page is protected and like noted above that the content in dispute isn't even the whole problem but a little spectrum of the wider problem, I will be proposing better version by tomorrow or in a few days. Otinflewer (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2020

Citation no. 69 seems to have an error, please fix it. Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please place

Main article: Casualties in the Citizenship Amendment Act protests

under the section #Casualties

Thank you (ps full protection should stay for ever on this article[sarcasm] work together here people) DTM (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Change "gaurdian" to "guardian". Xadai (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Change "more than 150 members of the European Union" to "more than 150 members of the European Parliament", since a "member of EU" is a state not a person... And there currently aren't that many european states. -- 188.27.181.157 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thank you – Thjarkur (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources to Update the article

Dates?

The lead says "occurred after the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was enacted by the Government of India on 12 December 2019. [...] The protests first began in Assam and spread swiftly in other states such as Delhi, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tripura on 4 December 2019." Clearly contradictory. Also, where's that 4th from, checking that source i could only see a mention for Dec 9th... :-B -- 188.27.181.157 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PS "widespread national and overseas ongoing protests " -- ongoing as of when? Is it still active now in June, despite CoViD? -- 188.27.181.157 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests/Archive_4&oldid=1234313131"