Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests/Archive 2

The Reactions section on this article does not make any sense. When you say "Reactions", one would expect to see "reactions to the protests" and not "reactions to the CAA bill". Please move it to the CAA article where it belongs. M4DU7 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC) I removed some bullet points from the section that had absolutely nothing to do with the protests. M4DU7 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

M4DU7 please move and add them to Citizenship Amendment Act page.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the following bullet points from the section as they were not "reactions to the protests":

• Pakistan: Prime minister of Pakistan Imran Khan said "Modi government's policies can cause a big refugee crisis".^[1]

• United States: US Congress think tank Congressional Research Service concerned that the CAA along with NRC may affect the status of the Indian muslim community.^[2]

• Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: OIC expressed their concern about present situation of CAA-NRC and urged the Government of India to ensure the safety of the Muslim minority and to follow obligation of Charter of the United Nations.^[3]

There is absolutely no mention of the protests in the source. But User:Dey subrata keeps adding them back. Request an experienced user to look at this. M4DU7 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The reaction is not for protest, no one react to protest by saying (oh the protest is going good or bad) but the topic of the protests, the reactions are on CAA-NRC, you failed to understand this, also to anything happened significantly in the protest that is the "brutal" action of police, its not my word (brutal), its in every citations added in the articles regarding police action.Dey subrata (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL. The topic of the protests is Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. Reactions to the CAA should be added to the "International reactions" section of that article. Hope this is clear. M4DU7 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello stop using lol or rofl, you are making fun of yourself: You failed to understand that, all the reaction that you kept are not on protest: United Nations- reaction on police action, not on protest, China- reaction on internet shutdown, not on protest, Malaysia- on the law that is CAA, Kuwait- reaction on CAA, so there is no reaction on protest. No one react on protest, but react on the cause of protest that is CAA, and actions against protest that is police action and internat shutdown. Dey subrata (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The other bullet points are reactions to the protests and the government's action against the protesters. How hard is it to understand this? M4DU7 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No one reacting to protest, and exactly reaction to Govt. actions and also the cause of protest that is CAA, its not hard for me but for you sure, this article is about protest against CAA, so obvious that the reaction will be against CAA not on protest. You are definitely going as POINTY and aligned with WP:INCOMPETENT. Dey subrata (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your amazing English shows who is the incompetent party here. M4DU7 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My english on talk page does not influence articles, and my english can be fixed by other users, thats why there are copyeditors here for doing that. But your incompetence in understanding the subject matter of the article is surely influencing the article a lot. So better you stay on it rather pointing my english which I don't care about as long as it stays here in talk page. Dey subrata (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it creates extra work for other users to fix every edit of yours. By the way, "muslim" should be capitalized as "Muslim". And, yes, I was talking about your English in the article. M4DU7 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

First read wikipedia policies, WP:EDIT, WP:WORKINPROGRESS. And stop pointing this and that, keep on this topic rather. And no one has asked you to do "extra work", you can stay out if you feel improving an article is extra work. No one is perfect here, everyone is contributing, but no one has ever pointed this they are doing extra work. But it seems otherwise to you. Thats why read wikipedia policies first before starting edits. Dey subrata (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray can we have your opinion on this dispute? You had responded to this thread on 29th December. M4DU7 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

M4DU7 and Dey subrata Please see WP:CIVIL and avoid commenting on each others editing skills. Focus on the content and only on the content while you are discussing on article talk page. Both of you have to understand that this is a WP:Controversial article. Name Calling will not help, it will only act against your case. Meanwhile, please do not remove or add into the reaction section till we reach a consensus here.

On the topic, I do not have strong opinions either way, I would like to discuss more before coming to a conclusion. At the face of it, I feel that M4 has a reasonable point that we keep the response that are strictly on the Act be moved to Act. while those talking about the killings, violence, internet shutdown, aspects of protests, should be mentioned here. Dey subrata I have already read what you said above. I dont disagree with you strongly but if we follow your suggestion, we will have same stuff on both articles. does that look justified to you ? --DBigXrayᗙ 18:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I was trying to remain on the topic only but the user is forcing to divert things. Anyway, my point is clear, International reactions always meant to be on Govt. actions never on citizens. Call it CAA - a Govt. action, Internet shut down or Police brutality- Govt actions. Not a single reaction is solely on protest but on Govt. actions. International reaction are not on what people are protesting but the cause of the protest, why?, they are concerned about police power use, freedom of expression, human rights, or corncerned on particular communities. Now coming to your point, does that look justified or not- if thats the case, then both article describes what is CAA and why the protest is there, so can we now remove these two topics, absolutely not. Both the things are in both the articles. Similarly I don't see any reason why it can't be here, after all there are many readers who will just come to this article only, and would like to know about the Internationa reactions on CAA and Govt actions. Dey subrata (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I am not convinced if we should keep the reactions on the law here. I think Imran Khan had been speaking on daily basis on the protests. Please update here on the talk page what Khan said about the protest. The current version of IKs comment does not deserve to be here. Congressional Research Service's comment is also not deserved. Both of them are talking about the law. User:M4DU7 Please elaborate why you want OIC comment to be removed. It is clear that they are talking about the safety of the Muslims who are being attacked. DBigXrayᗙ 18:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Correct. He makes void statement often, but why I am with it to be kept is because, here 1, he mentioned following his comment on CAA, "minorities have come out against this racist government in India" and " the protests against the (citizenship) law, will definitely conduct some sort of action" May be the citation was not sufficient enough but with thsi I think it can be kept. Dey subrata (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please share the exact version of IKs comment that you would prefer to see. Since there is a lot to choose from, I would suggest avoiding the name calling and summarizing the meat of the comment and writing in own words. Quotes can still be added if you want to use the same words. I think Pakistan Foreign Office also said something, that will probably be of more formal tone. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this line would be better, "The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan had criticised the CAA by citing that the present Govt. of India has been exposed of its fascist agenda as minorities have come out to protest against the CAA. He also expressed his concern that, such policies by the Govt. may create refugee crisis in the sub-continent".^[1][2] I don't have any link of foreign ministry. You can add here, so that a line can be added. Dey subrata (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks better. Please include the refs to verify. User:M4DU7 is this version acceptable to you ? --DBigXrayᗙ 18:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What version would that be? The same out of place quotes are still there (written in horrible English, I must add). Why are there no reactions from Indian leaders and scholars, many of whom supported the protests and criticised the government's response? Frankly, I don't care anymore. There's way too many things to fix in this article for my liking and evidently not worth the effort. M4DU7 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone change description from "Tourist Janne-Mette Johansson was asked to leave India by the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer (FRRC) at Kochi International Airport because of visa violations after participating in an anti-CAA protest." to "Norwegian tourist Janne-Mette Johansson was asked to leave India by the Foreigners' Regional Registration Officer (FRRC) at Kochi International Airport because of visa violations after participating in an anti-CAA protest." Because only termed as tourist would be confusing, as the tourist didn't know her nationality despite she was Norwegian in source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.43.3 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Thank for noticing and pointing out. Dey subrata (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I have noticed that you have added the section. I think, we need to make a separate article on it, its already become huge, student from all over country and abroad showing solidarity and different leaders of society are criticising the act, I think we cannot include all in the section, just a summarised section here and all developments in another article. Dey subrata (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, Dey subrata, agree please update 2020 JNU Attack DBigXrayᗙ 04:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think JNU attack should not be mentioned in this article because it was not related to CAA protest. Samewal (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Samewal, but there are reliable sources that are saying it is related. DBigXrayᗙ 08:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes its related, students were organising protest for several days against various issues mainly, CAA, NRC, fee hike, unemployement. Dey subrata (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, The later suggestion is not accepted. Dey subrata (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Citizenship Amendment Act protests has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Student Organisations Jamia Coordination Committee also protest against CAA and NRC. Belal nadeem (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Belal nadeem, please provide reliable source for the content you want to add. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

CAA protests seems to have much more Google News hits than Citizenship Amendment Act protests. So CAA protests seems like the WP:COMMON NAME of this page. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk, Yes, one is the abbreviated version. I am fine with both the titles and dont have strong opinions for any of the 2. FYI. we do have a redirect at CAA protests, so we are covered. As per WP:NDESC it seems the longer title is preferred. DBigXrayᗙ 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I found the sentence here:

• The participants also carried a 500-meter-long Indian national flag.

Because this article written in Indian English, any term that solely American English must be replaced by term equivalent to that word. Meter is solely American English spelling, so this word might be changed to:

• The participants also carried a 500-metre-long Indian national flag.

Replacing meter with Indian English variant metre, which other variants of English except Americans also used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.29 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Citizens of Ahmedabad supporting CAA at Pro-CAA event.jpg
• Gujarat CM Vijay Rupani at pro-CAA rally.jpg
• Placards at Pro-CAA rally, Ahmedabad.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi All, we know that protests and demonstrations are happening in almost every village, neighbourhood and gully. per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY We cannot mention all of them. I propose adding incidents that only have participants in thousands Or if some notable incident such as violence/arrest/death happened in that protest. thoughts ? --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If you ought to add the incidents with only participants in thousands (and) with those associated with violence/arrest/death etc then the size of the section 'Protests' (with state-wide details) will have to be reduced to almost 40 % when compared to the current size/details - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Vaikunda Raja Please follow WP:INDENT, Indeed it holds true for both sides. I am not taking a pro or anti CAA stance here. I have been careful in adding only the major events in the article, but if someone has added minor events then that needs to be removed. I have also found and removed bloat from the anti CAA protest in Uttarakhand. I will do more if I find. --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it will not be a good idea to just include protest with 1000s or more. This protest is of the people. Even a single man protesting for hours for his democratic right is significant enough. And this protest is country wide, so it obvious people will gather in every squares to protest as it will affect the people country wide. Its significance is in the very fact that people in all square is protesting. Dey subrata (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Secondly when such a protest which is held in country wide, then if mentions are in reliable news papers and article then I think its significant enough as it mentioned in those newspaper n articles out of thousands of protest going on the country. Dey subrata (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, since it a article of protest against CAA, then we must give more significance on protest taking place, which here I am seeing the pro CAA is becoming large which can be cut short, such rallies will be organised by BJP for sure to show that people are with CAA but in real picture you will hardly find rallies without any BJP leadership in pro CAA demonstration. So we must curtail the section. Dey subrata (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata I understand your thoughts, but if we start adding every person's protest then this page will become infinitely long. Not everything that gets printed in WP:NEWSPAPER can be added to Wikipedia. we have to choose the more prominent ones. I proposed one selection criteria. If you have a better criteria, feel free to propose and we can discuss. --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, yes, the article is titled Protest so it should cover the protest, Pro CAA rallies are indeed being done by BJP-RSS are in a much lesser scale. per WP:NPOV we should mention this in a section and not more than that. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I Agree, but All editors need to see example how French wiki tells about the protest Manifestations de 2019 en Inde contre l'amendement de la loi sur la citoyenneté. in their article, only few place are mentioned such as Delhi, Kolkata, etc. Meanwhile it also has less content about anti-CAA protest than English does. I hope editors in english wiki can contributed in French wiki as well. -- 180.245.214.214

please sign your post with four ~ at the end.--Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Editors on English wiki generally dont know French, so one can understand why they are not contributing there.--Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was adding my last point, before that you made your comment, my criteria will be, like as I have mentioned before in the last point if rallies are organised by BJP and Congress then we must put in one/two lines like: rallies organised by BJP/Congress/CPM/TMC at this and that places. But protest and rallies by people must be in places and mentioned as its people protest, we must give significance to people protest mainly rather than political parties. In evEry platform people have urged news channel and papers and urged Congress specially to stay out of the protest and not to hijack the protest for political gain. Dey subrata (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, but how are you filtering in your criteria ? Not every protest by BJP and congress can be adedd. Similarly not every protest by citizens can be added. we must have a criteria to filter what can be added and what not. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No I am not saying every. I am saying to make lines shorter and simpler, if multiples ralles took place and is mentioned we can put in one line. For example in the pro CAA section, this line, "A massive rally was organised by BJP to support the Citizenship Amendment Act in Assam's Morigaon[456] on 27 December in which over 50,000 civilians, including BJP workers took part.[457] Numerous legislators of the state also participated in the rally.[458] It was led by Assam Chief Minister of Assam Sarbananda Sonowal and state Finance Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The 4-km long rally which started from Jagiroad college playground ended at Kahikuchi Lower Primary School playground. Asom Gana Parishad and Bodoland People's Front leaders too took part in the rally."--Unnecessarily long. "massive rally", "in which over 50,000 civilians", "numerous legislator", "which started from Jagiroad college playground ended at Kahikuchi Lower Primary School playground." These are excessive materials. We should cut short all these. Dey subrata (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This article actually don't suffer from no. of incidents included, its suffers simple from "bad prose". Excessive big lines and describing one incident in number of lines makes this article clunky. Dey subrata (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, Indeed they are one of problems that need to be fixed here. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - As pointed out above, we cannot include every single incident. However, a cut-off of 1000 may be problematic, due to the following three reasons:-
  • Attendance figures are not always available, and are often disputed.
  • A protest may be notable for some reason other than attendance.
  • Smaller / less populated regions would not get any coverage.

So I suggest that a more flexible system be used. I think we can include a protest / support demonstration if any of these conditions are met:-

• Attendance > 1000
• Injuries or deaths
• First and biggest protests / support marches in each state / UT / country outside India.
• Novel demonstrations (e.g. the kolam incident in TN)
• Presence of a notable person (Prime, Chief or Union Minister, senior political leader, highly respected civil society member)
• If there is a clear consensus that a protest is important.

What do you think? Jose Mathew (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jose Mathew C, Thanks for fresh opinion and a well drafted proposal. Yes. I agree that we can possibly use this proposal, instead of mine. I know my criteria was very strict. User:Dey subrata what do you think of this ? Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Above all agreed but I think student protests i.e, different universities should be there, which is very important being the protest is centered around student and universities.Dey subrata (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, and User:Jose Mathew C thanks for the prompt replies. I am glad that we have an agreement on the criteria to filter out the incidents. Dey, regarding your point on inluding university, I am not sure including each and every university will be wise here. I don't have a strong opinion either way but I would like to avoid them if the student protest did not include more than hundreds of students. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

--DBigXrayᗙ 19:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a line can be added in the Timeline. Along with it, can be extended in the Karnataka section. 1 2 3, 4 Dey subrata (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, yes, please feel free to add DBigXrayᗙ 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've saw this subheading earlier but it seems to have dissipated. I am a Nepali but I don't see any mention of us anymore in the article.

• India Needs a Proper Refugee Law, Not a CAA Suffused With Discriminatory Intent

• Protest Against CAA Spreads To US, UK, Nepal Universities As Students Condemn New Law

The first one states the status of Bhutanese and Tibetan refugees excluded in the act (both of whom come to Nepal as well but aren't treated well here and are stateless). The second one states that Nepalis are protesting due to various groups from Nepal excluded in the act.

Why have they been excluded? In addition, there are the Non-Muslim refugees from Bhutan called Lhotshampas who are totally stateless and living in camps in Nepal waiting for resettlement. Only Sri Lanka has been mentioned.

Also, very few of these protesters care about Muslims (only themselves). They tend to be also Islamophobic themselves and they would protest against Muslim immigration themselves.

Centennial1010 (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Centennial1010, What exactly is missing ? please look in WP:PAGEHISTORY and see if you can find it. I am not sure how someone can answer without seeing the exact content that you claim is missing. DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This page should not become a general criticism of the Act. All such content needs to be discussed and included in the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 page.

This Act is meant for "Indian origin" people. That term is defined in the s:Constitution of India as people whose parents or grandparents lived in "India, as defined in the Government of India Act 1935". Those people have been given special privileges because of the Partition of India.

Of course, India can have and should have a general asylum law. But this Act is not such a law. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, people from Nepal and Bhutan are allowed to live and work in India as long as they please. Standard naturalisation process is also available for them, just as for everybody else. They haven't been "excluded" in any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The Act is part of the Islamophobic rhetoric of the BJP - hence it only targets Muslim countries and assumes that their minorities aren't given rights. The BJP has spoken about other countries separately from the Act. If it included Nepal and Bhutan then it wouldn't be Islamophobic - remember that it's about religious minorities technically, not Non-Muslims. Zunitroys (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering whether it would be possible to add Paris to the list of places in Europe where anti-CAA protests have been held. Some details for the protest follow:

There have been 2 major protests in Paris till date: on 19th December and on 4th January. Both these protests were held at the Trocadero, overlooking the Eiffel Tower. The protesters then walked to the Indian Embassy in the 16th Arrondissement (district) of Paris.

On 19th December, the protesters read the preamble to the Indian constitution and then read out a statement expressing their solidarity with the protesters in India.

On 4th January, there was a larger gathering of over 50 people which included not only students but working professionals and their kids. At the first venue, Trocadero, the protesters sang songs including the Indian National Anthem, Hum honge kamyaab and other songs in Marathi, Telugu and Bengali. They then walked to the indian embassy where they continued with the protest by reciting poems like Kagaz nahi dikhayenge and Main nahi Jaanta, main nahi maanta and singing songs.

Would it be possible for the admins of the page to include this information on the page? I can provide more information if required.

Thanks

Bfgdhrubo (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Bfgdhrubo, Yes please include the draft version complete with inline refs here on this talk page and then make an WP:EDITREQUEST. Me or someone else will then add it to the article, if it is well sourced. Source can be in English or French. DBigXrayᗙ 10:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The location number of protest outside India was mentioned in French wikipedia [Manifestations de 2019-2020 en Inde contre l'amendement de la loi sur la citoyenneté] and Paris was mentioned in infobox in "Diaspora" part. But there was no sourced about protest in Paris. I think it is very good to include source that be used in French or in English about protest in Paris. Ping Bfgdhrubo You can also contributed in French Wikipedia version as well given French article was third most viewed after English and Hindi version of the article despite majority of editors was made by numerous IP users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.19 (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "In the run-up to the Lok Sabha polls, the BJP had promised that the government would rework the CAB to make it favourable to the region" src

User:Kautilya3 and Dey, has this been covered in the article/s ? --DBigXrayᗙ 22:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they extended the Inner Line zone to cover some parts of Assam and Manipur. But the Assamese didn't think much of it. So I think it is not a big point any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, If you read the article, they are quite pissed off with this betrayal. DBigXrayᗙ 23:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that, promise or no promise, the opposition would have been the same. But, I will check. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the fact, that protest agaist CAA is also because its being used as a diversion of real issues by BJP like economic condition, unemployment and agriculture and health care. [a, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 I think a section about it can be added. Dey subrata (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, good point. Under what subheading ? DBigXrayᗙ 14:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I am thinking of the heading but before that I will look for more other sources and citation, so that a summarised section can be made. And along with that one or two lines must be there in the lead and Response sub-heading under Background heading. I think that willl be my suggestion. Dey subrata (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, It will depend on what the sources say. Idea is good. DBigXrayᗙ 08:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see a source proving this to be a fact. Just much insinuation from mostly political adversaries. Lets not make this article more politically charged than it already is by allowing speculations by third parties to be presented as facts. Wkr, Fontes (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read above mentioned comments. I've clearly mentioned will look for more citation and sources, to see what studnets and people are saying in protest and the other user's comment "depend on what the sources say". I don't care about the politicians bite, if it were that, I should have added with information along with the citations added here. And FYI its an absolute fact, why Govt. is doing this, economy is in gutter along with Govt. much hyped GDP which has hardly any influence in development where as HDI sinks head, industrial sector crumbling, highest unemployment, education budget reduced, farmers in trouble, FDI reduced, oil price and prices of basic needs increasing. I have citation and I am preparing the section, it will not be a politically charged but factually charged for sure. I don't add anything without citation or source and facts. Dey subrata (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I have added three organizations' names, who were extremely active during the protests, to the infobox, and 2 of them which are students and youth organizations to the "Protesting" section. The names are.

• Disha Students Organization
• Naujawan Bharat Sabha
• Revolutionary Workers' Party Of India

These organizations are very active in New Delhi area. There members were also arrested during CAA protests. ^[1]

Facebook is not a realiable source. Please post a WP:reliable source if there exist one. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead figures need to be updated to include names like Kannan Gopinathan, JMI students who become media icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamidkvr (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank for suggestion, included IAS Gopinathan, not media made student icons, there are many student who were in media, we can't point one or two.Dey subrata (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata The lists are really long so added collapsible list and lead figures need to be updated, I provided citations for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsubodai Khaldun (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: Why did you remove my edits? What's the point of saying "taking centralized lead" and that too twice and dividing activists and politicians in two parts? Tsubodai Khaldun (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Tsubodai Khaldun, I did undo your edit because you have added collapsible on one side, and it remains long on the other side and that too partial collapsible on one side. Coming to adding names, there are many artist participating in the protest. But names to be included only if-

• He/she participated in a protest on ground along with delivering a speech
• He/she participated in a protest on ground along with an interview with media.
• He/she participated in multiple protest, march and rallies did sloganeering or speech.
• He/she organised any CAA protest program/or participated in any protest program and delivered a speech or present any art (poem/song/paintings/graphiti any form of art)
• He/she organised a special campaing on any media platform.
• He/she delivred any form of art in media or media organised program.

If any of the above criterion satisfies, I think it will be worthy to be added. As because more than 30 artists from film industry and many other from several other organisations participated. Dey subrata (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Tsubodai Khaldun, You first add here the names who satisfy with any of the criterion. We will be happy to go. Dey subrata (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, Anurag Kashyap, Deepika Padukone, Farhan Akhtar, Richa Chadda, Taapsee Pannu and Vishal Dadlani have gone to protests and given interviews and/or speeches. Nivedita Menon who is a scholar has also done the same. I added the list on only one side because that side is much longer. Tsubodai Khaldun (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Some politicians are also separated from others for no reason and the "taking centralized lead" does not make much sense there, they lead their own parties but not any other protests. Tsubodai Khaldun (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will add after checking what interviews and what kind of speeches they have delivered. Don't worry everything will be included. Dey subrata (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A key piece of information that's missing in this Wikipedia is that the Act is aimed at accepted refugees from Muslim majority countries, one of the reasons why Muslims consider the Act to be Islamophobic since it presumes that Non-Muslims living in these countries aren't given any rights. Refugees from other parts of South Asia are usually given asylum as the event is happening (e.g. Tibetans and Sri Lankan Tamils who have both been given various support networks and residencies in India). This legislation does not affect the status of those two refugee groups, nor does it affect the status of any other refugee group in the region (also why Rongyia were not included in Act). Zunitroys (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No need of such a thing. When the countries are disambiguously written. Secondly, Pakistan though is a Islamic country, Ahmadiyya muslims are minority too in Pakistan and are refugee in some countries, so by saying muslim majority in ambiguous way does not make these points clear, so better to keep country names rather than muslim majority as this term does not give any weightage on the line. Dey subrata (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Not a good idea, also discussed below in another section. Dey subrata (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

This edit request to Citizenship Amendment Act protests has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "The Amendment benefits Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who sought refuge in India before 2015" To "The Amendment benefits Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi refugees from three Muslim-majority countries bordering India, namely Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, who sought refuge in India before 2015" Zunitroys (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Nemoschool (talk to me) 15:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

disagree, with this proposal as unnecessary. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No need of such a thing. When the countries are disambiguously written. Secondly, Pakistan though is a Islamic country, Ahmadiyya muslims are minority too in Pakistan and are refugee in some countries, so by saying muslim majority in ambiguous way does not make these points clear, so better to keep country names rather than muslim majority as this term does not give any weightage on the line. Dey subrata (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unnecessary. Dey subrata (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Citizens of Ahmedabad supporting CAA at Pro-CAA event.jpg
• Gujarat CM Vijay Rupani at pro-CAA rally.jpg
• Placards at Pro-CAA rally, Ahmedabad.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Millineum March at Dharna Chowk near Indira Park.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Aman.kumar.goel if the sock edits are the only concern for removing the content, then I would like to keep the edits since they are constructive article improvements. If you have other specific concerns, then please discuss here so that we can decide how to handle them. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this one, the material however nothing to do with sockpuppetry, constructive materials and the section that the user added "Underlying causes" was important which I was going to add, and was discussed here in the talk page also, but could not add because I was busy with personal work but the user eased my work. I don't think this could in any way be a reason for removing such valuable materials from the article just because its a sock puppet case. Dey subrata (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The infobox states that the police retaliated with "Mass shootings". Which definition of Mass shooting are we considering and what's the exact source for the same? I am of the opinion that "Mass shootings" imply an entirely different thing. See the general trend in instances mentioned in Mass shooting and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you go through those incidents you can immediately see why they qualify as mass shooting. I am not cherry picking here while giving examples here. These are the some of the first few examples in Mass shooting: Meet al-Attar shooting, Kampala wedding massacre, Lod Airport massacre, Erfurt school massacre, 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheeniks (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass shooting says in the first line "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. " This is what happened and this is supported by these refs.^[1][2]

Pheeniks Please read WP:TE and remember that [[WP:POV] and biased editings may lead to page restrictions. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

1. I didn't find these sources attached with the mass shooting phrase. It was my understanding that if there if there is no source mentioned, it qualifies as unsourced.

2. The sources that you mentioned don't mention mass shooting. The first reference doesn't contain any evidence or claim of "an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence.". It just talks of supposed proof of shooting by police, but not of any victims as a result. The second reference is an interview with an activist with no proof or sources. Again, I don't see how it contains sources of a mass shooting.

3. Please see the examples that I mentioned and the additional criteria required for Mass shooting and what it implies.

4. Other than how these sources don't qualify as mass shooting in any way, in my opinion (feel free to respond to point 2), please see WP:NOR. Please read WP:NOR and remember that WP:POV and biased editings may lead to page restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheeniks (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what you have to say about these sources. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] [9][10][11][12]}--DBigXrayᗙ 14:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please respond point to point as it makes it easy for us and others to see and understand the arguments and counter arguments.

1. Please respond to point 1 and 3.

2. You seem to be justifying police firing and not mass shooting. Please go through the article Mass shooting and see how mass shooting is different from police firing.

3. Literally half the articles you mentioned are about the fact that "police fired" and half are about people dying (mostly 1 or 2) in a city and not in a specific region as mass shootings imply. Again, please read Mass shooting and realise how every shooting incident where people die is not mass shooting.

4. More than one references are completely invalid here and you haven't added them in the original article too. Please refrain from statements like "I wonder what you have to say about these sources." and realize that WP:BURDEN is on you to justify the inclusion of the phrase as you're adding it. Please justify how "mass shooting" is justified through references while taking care of WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheeniks (talk • contribs) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The definition is met and well sourced. Reliable sources for the same have been added. you are free to have your own wild opinions and fancy criterias. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, can you explain how reference 7 (Delhi Cops Did Fire During Jamia Protests, Records Show: Sources) qualifies as a reference of Mass shooting?Pheeniks (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't notice that you added the subheading "methods used by government"". I see that you've put the two sources that you mentioned in your first reply. You never did clarify once how they qualify as mass shooting. At least refute my arguments instead of pasting 11 more references, saying "let's see what you say now" and then putting the original two citations in the first place.Pheeniks (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

To further clarify why I think the first link (gulfnews) doesn't qualify as Mass shooting is because it doesn't even fit your partial-definition of "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence.". The reference doesn't talk about deaths in that shooting AT ALL. About the second reference, I don't see how that is a source at all. It's an interview with an activist. I genuinely appealing to you to see what Mass shooting implies and how these two references do not contain anything remotely similar to a Mass shooting.Pheeniks (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at this Shooting video Published by a news site. And then review the refs above. I added the 2 refs that I found at first. I am ok to replace them with any other ref from those above, that you think are better than them. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if the YouTube video by "OneIndia Kannada" qualifies as WP:Mainstream and whether YouTube videos are permissible or not (like Facebook). The issue, however, is not that. When you say that I should look at this video and then see the above two references, you are asking me to draw conclusions (which you might believe are implied). This is exactly what WP:NOR asks you to not do. If you have to read a news piece, then on not finding anything related to "mass shooting", you have to go to a YouTube video (of a different place altogether - UP and Mangalore), then draw some conclusion that police must be engaging in Mass shooting, then it is certainly your own research (which I find wrong too, but that's irrelevant). Also, I still think you're interpreting the term "mass shooting" in a very different way from what it actually means (Using the Wikipedia article for the same for reference). Multiple people dying in various locations over the course of weeks or months don't qualify as mass shooting too. Still, this case of (mis)interpretation might not matter much here, since the main problem is WP:NOR. I don't see a source calling this "Mass shooting" at all and paraphrasing "Shooting" to "Mass shooting" is plain wrong too, as I'm sure you understand at this point.Pheeniks (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Change it to "Use of firearms" or "Shooting" which more accurately describes the situation and is perfectly validated by all your sources too. I just don't agree with the term Mass shooting, as it has widely different implications. Pheeniks (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Pheeniks, Please explain why it is not mass shooting. In the video I linked above while the mass shooting was happening, a cop, says in Kannada language "Why is no one dying ?" DBigXrayᗙ 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Definitions section of Mass shooting, there are seven definitions listed. The first, second and fourth define "mass killings", so they don't hold much weight. The remaining four definitions that actually define "Mass shooting" define it as more than four/five (depending on the definition) people getting injured or dying in a shooting incident. Now, the last definition is the most important as it says that it's the definition used by most American outlets too, which says "FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event". The term "single event" is very important as well, which is mentioned in the lead as well. If there is an incident (like this Mangaluru one) for which there is a reliable source and where four or more people were injured/killed due to shooting, I feel that will justify the term "mass shooting". If you feel I'm wrong, please argue why.Pheeniks (Talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray, it's been a week since this discussion has been pending. It would be great if you could reply here and we reach a consensus.Pheeniks (Talk) 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pheeniks, I have already said all I had to say. Your proposal to use shooting is not acceptable as it amounts to whitewashing. The def, of mass shooting on wikipedia is satisfied with our case. As the firing occurred on a crowd and there were multiple casualties . Reliable sources have been give abve. you seem to have a different definition of the word. unfortunately we have to go with the common usage of the word and not as per a specific usage by someone. DBigXrayᗙ 12:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Literally from the first paragraph of Mass shooting - "Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever four or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooter(s)." Thank you for mentioning that we should go with the common usage. Do you agree now?Pheeniks (Talk) 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, reminding again, it should be one incident.Pheeniks (Talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence.

the definition in the lead is satisfied. The definition you are quoting is from FBI and not the international English meaning of the word. multiple people had died in Assam, Up and Mangalore. The content is sourced. DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dey subrata User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 you two are other major contributors to this page, What are your thoughts on this thread. IMHO we should keep the word in Infobox while Pheeniks believes we should remove it. What are your thoughts on this. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray, I believe that the mass shooting term should be either be removed or kept at the last in the methods list. There have been few instances where the police shot at protestors, so I'd say the term can be kept, but it is hardly the most prominent response of the police to the protests. Besides, there is no widely accepted definition for mass shootings... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911, Thank you for sharing your kind opinion on the dispute. Since this has happened in the protest, it has to be kept, remove it amounts to whitewashing. The ordering is a separate discussion. Taking the risk of going offtopic, let me address that. Generally the ordering is done by most severe on the top followed by less severe at the end. So if 1 died and 10 injured, Wikipedia will say 1 dead and mention 10 injured later, even though the injured are more in number. This same order is also used by WP:MAINSTREAM media on which Wikipedia is based. User:Dey subrata your thoughts ? DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Besides, there is no widely accepted definition for mass shootings" Agreed. That's part of my reasoning. However, I still argue that it should be completely removed. There is no consensus on the definition of mass shootings but had at least one definition mentioned on Mass shooting matched any of the references, I would have voted to keep it. Just taking the first line of the article seems a bit dishonest to me when there is an entire section dedicated to "Definitions" on the page. Leaving aside this fact, had any of the references used the word "mass shooting", a case could have been made for the inclusion of the term in questionPheeniks (Talk) 15:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

Pheeniks, IMHO indian media will always say "10 killed in Firing" instead "10 killed in Mass Shooting". Call it local lingo if you want. Mass Shooting is the internationally accepted word for this, So Wikipedia must use the common word. Anyway We both have talked a lot, let others speak now. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been lots of coverage from foreign media too. And yes, leaving the discussion to others now.Pheeniks (Talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pheeniks and DBigXray, the term is not defined properly by adminstration and govt. anywhere in world. Its a fact that when multiple people dies from open firing or shooting (one person/multiple person) its been called as mass murder but when open firing with multiple rounds at a gathering or a crowded mass, often termed by the receiving side as mass shooting, like in US, people and media often call the shooting incidents happened in recent past as mass shooting but the system/police don't want to call it as mass shooting (by instruction of authority who use it as political tool or saving the image of system). There is no other definition exist for- a group (police) shooting multiple rounds of fire (as happened in UP 1 120 rounds of fire ) at a gathering or crowd while two person died and some injured, its mass shooting. Such incidents are different from one situation to other, so mass shooting is preferred term. Dey subrata (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/citizenship-amendment-act-up-minister-shrikant-sharma-32-000-identified-across-uttar-pradesh-for-caa-2163224

User:Kautilya3, Dey, where should this be added ? CAA or here. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

looks like preliminary form. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Should be added in both the article of the protest and CAA main article. There are a lot of controversy regarding this, a separate setion should be made in CAA main article. Here in this article in UP section and timeline. Dey subrata (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia editors! I have notice for all readers in English Wikipedia that this article was split into 3 articles, namely CAA protest itself, JNU attack, and Shaheen Bagh protest. There are now have separate articles despite there are related causes about passage of Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. This is only info for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.43.47 (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Must go through WP:LENGTH, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLITTING and WP:SPINOFF to understand wikipedia policy. Dey subrata (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/this-is-the-congress-game-bjp-it-cell-chief-amit-malviya-calls-shaheen-bagh-protest-sponsored-shares-video
• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/shaheen-bagh-women-send-defamation-notice-to-bjp-it-cell-chief-amit-malviya-over-paid-protest-charge-1638598-2020-01-20
• https://www.news18.com/news/india/anti-caa-protesters-hold-massive-candlelight-march-from-jamia-university-to-shaheen-bagh-2464365.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-students-protest-at-mandi-house-against-caa-nrc/articleshow/73435226.cms
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/shaheen-bagh-anti-caa-stir-protest-on-their-lips-solidarity-on-their-plate/articleshow/73432011.cms
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/amu-students-boycott-classes/article30608372.ece
• https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/lucknow/politics/lucknow-women-protesting-against-caa-in-lucknow-fourth-consecutive-day/articleshow/73457792.cms

--DBigXrayᗙ 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Some in timeline, some in sections like of the videos to the fake video section. And I think the Delhi section needs a retouch, its not updated properly. What do you say? Dey subrata (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, yes, please feel free to work with these articles. Mark the link here with a Y if you have done covering it. I didn't get time to add today so I posted here. DBigXrayᗙ 23:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)