Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy/Archive 1

Artilcle blanking
please don't blank the article. If you think its a POVFORK, please take it to AfD. I don't think this is a POV fork. What POV is this forking? This article is about the event and there is currently no other article on this event. Nupur Sharma (politician) article is about the person.VR talk 05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring to restore this content fork and discuss at Talk:Nupur_Sharma_(politician). LearnIndology (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DP, "If the change (that is, blank and redirect) is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again." If you wish to actually discuss the issue, then please submit it for AfD. Mupper-san (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The article should be restored and should not be blanked. THEY ARE NOT SAME SUBJECT. One is a BIOGRAPHY, other is a NOTABLE INTERNATIONAL EVENT. @CapnJackSp and @LearnIndology Please stop edit warring. Naveen Jindal cannot be discussed at Nupur Sharma's bio. International doplomatic situation cannot be discussed in detail at Nupur's Bio.  Kanpur violence and its aftermath cannot be discussed here on Nupur's BIO (Nupur Sharma (politician)). The scope of the 2 articles are clearly different. 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is the right place to elaborate the entire event. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * CapnJackSp and @LearnIndology Once you have been reverted you cannot edit war, Take it to AfD if you dont like this article. Venkat TL (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I reduced content on Nupur Sharma (politician) and merged content from there here to avoid article duplication, as agreed by CapnJackSp and Venkat TL here. LearnIndology (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I created the 2022 Kanpur violence after some of us agreed on talk page of Nupur article that it deserves its own article, just like 2016 Kaliachak riots did. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The ruling party
"spokesperson of India's ruling ..." might be misconstrued to suggest that she represents India as part of the ruling party.

I will update the wording to below which should provide the context: Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mar4d had added it. We leave that for the reader to decide. Yes she is the official spokesperson of the ruling party. I am fine with your proposed copy edit. Venkat TL (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs quotations
The article needs the cited quotations that are ostensibly the basis for the article. Without them, these are vague, hearsay aspersions. 172.58.102.208 (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * after reading your summary ".. She was neither quoting nor citing anything in the debate. ..", I can't agree more with above IP that The article needs the cited quotations that are ostensibly the basis for the article. Do you have word to word original language plus English  translation? If yes then please do quote, that will also help confirm your claims in the summary. Thanks


 * PS: Can we also ping the users who claimed she is citing from scriptures, to join in the discussion . IDK which user introduced the claims.


 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We should only use WP:SECONDARY sources, assessed for WP:DUE weight, and avoid WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * , Though due to fear many people are not talking but my informal academic sources informed me off the record is
 * a) The lady is correct or not is different matter but the lady had raised three critical points and quoted specific scripture for one of them during the debate. So edit summary of  is most likely to be at least partially inaccurate.
 * b) The rest of the two points are also most likely can be backed by scriptures though she did not quote.
 * c) Logically speaking she was talking tit for tat, ready to open lines of criticism/ mocking if criticism/ mocking  of Hindu icons continues, but what she quoted from scriptures as is without her own opinion so technically that constitutes criticism but does not constitute as hate speech not even as blasphemy as per my sources.
 * Wikipedia needs to be neutral if any RS points out what she said matches to the scriptures then need to be taken note of in the article. You being a senior editor I hope you can understand the point.
 * Thanks and warm regards &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bookku as far as I remember She did not say that she was citing from Hadith, so it would be wrong for Wikipedia to say she was citing. If Godi media added things after it blew over and tried to explain/whitewash her statement, they should not be attributed to Nupur. We should be careful about this. Venkat TL (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bookku as far as I remember She did not say that she was citing from Hadith, so it would be wrong for Wikipedia to say she was citing. If Godi media added things after it blew over and tried to explain/whitewash her statement, they should not be attributed to Nupur. We should be careful about this. Venkat TL (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * With due respect to you, tell me, Whether Mohammed Zubair and his Pratik Sinha are working for Godi/Modi media or what? Won't you at least do a primary check what is available in English and from Mohammed Zubair and Pratik Sinha? This is Pratik Sinha  twitter thread. Don't use primary sources if you don't wish but at least cross check from sources which match your point of views or that of the opposition you support for or you do not want to do that too.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are trying to discuss. Twitter is not a source. This page is not for off topic commentary. Venkat TL (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not for on-topic commentary either. We can cite commentary, if it exists, but we can't engage in it ourselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. @Bookku please note. Venkat TL (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @ Venkat TL, I did not ask to use the twitter as source but just to confirm with the source persons you trust. That would render your edit summary ".. She was neither quoting nor citing anything in the debate. ..", at least partially inaccurate. Understanding that shall help you to give appropriate selection and weight to secondary sources if you have faith in encyclopedic value of neutrality, and I believe so in good faith. Cheers &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Title articulation
First thought came to mind after reading article title was, what is 'BJP Muhammad'? Whether a – sign is needed in between 'BJP–Muhammad' Though I am not good enough in English grammar, IMHO,  article title seem to need improvement with better articulation.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * this title is somewhat similar to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Although in that case "Jyllands-Posten" is italicized. I don't think we can italicize "BJP" in this case.VR talk 05:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bookku Why add BJP in the title? Can you explain it? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because some Wikipedians may not have good faith in BJP, hence such inclusion may not have been called (End of humor note). Rationally speaking Wikipedians need to have consistency. Whether they are open to add criticism expressed by duo in this controversy to be added to this criticism article and this criticism article  as criticism by BJP ? Most probably they won't, but Wikipedia policies do not expect consistent approach across the articles. Hence some times such contradictions are okay, Idk, whether that is how some Wikipedians may have been thinking. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because some Wikipedians may not have good faith in BJP, hence such inclusion may not have been called (End of humor note). Rationally speaking Wikipedians need to have consistency. Whether they are open to add criticism expressed by duo in this controversy to be added to this criticism article and this criticism article  as criticism by BJP ? Most probably they won't, but Wikipedia policies do not expect consistent approach across the articles. Hence some times such contradictions are okay, Idk, whether that is how some Wikipedians may have been thinking. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Page Title
Do not add BJP in the title as Entire party is not involved in the whole controversy; few members were involved and made controversial remark on Prophet Muhammad; expelled and got suspended from the ruling party in India. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time of remarks, Nupur Sharma was a national spokesperson of the BJP. Additionally, BJP's expulsion itself shows that they have a role to play in this controversy.VR talk 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems an unclear opinion, not a fact!

Can you prove that the entire BJP is involved in this whole controversy? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a Straw man. Venkat TL (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

They were not suspended for more than a week and it was only done to calm to international reaction. So, basically party didn’t distanced itself from that remark until the controversy blew international. O osheikh (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

end of the discussion. O osheikh (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Al-Monitor write up - RS?
This write up seems to better explain what happened:

Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I had added it, unfortunately it was removed. I'll restore some of it. Please be WP:BOLD too.VR talk 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Should not remove this I guess. Let the people get the right information about what happened on that media debate. O osheikh (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

10th June Violence
please explain this revert? The material was sourced by India Today, India.com, Jansatta and other local news reporting bodies. If at the citations should be improved because now there are more established media houses writing about it than only the local ones which were the only ones when the story was developing.

All the claims in the wiki text was based line-to-line from the citations used. Xoocit (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh aren't you bold? If you think some tweets embedded in a no by-line ref -   - give you a pass to add the text  the peaceful protests lasted for 10-15 minutes after which the crowd started to stone-pelt on the police force guarding the area., you need to read all the Wikipedia policies once again. Do read the ones I linked in the edit summary first. I also note that you've added their sentence with no paraphrasing. Hemantha (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As another fellow editor on Wikipedia, your responsibility is to add correct information, not wipe the entire story from the surface of the article.
 * If I misquoted or wrongly interpreted lines of the text from an article then shouldn't it be fixed and rephrased instead of removing it, like it never happened in the first place? Xoocit (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy vs International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
why do you believe that only International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be in the See Also section? This page covers the controversy and the reaction to that controversy, so shouldn't Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy both be included? -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that link shouldn't be included at all. We should stop pretending that we are creating this unnecessary fork of Nupur Sharma (politician) article to be a bigger story than it actually is by comparing it with Jyllands-Posten controversy. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Webberbrad007 I have no objections about the see also section. I went to add it back and I see that the controversy link is already restored. I believe the link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is a better fit then adding both links. Venkat TL (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What isn't the controversy?
removed a sentence from the lead, claiming: This isn't the controversy or even the response to the controversy. This is tertiary to the topic and thus not Lede material per MOS:LEAD. The sentence in question was

How exactly do you decide what is and what isn't part of the "controversy"? Muslims protesting the remarks are part of the controversy, and the Hindu nationalists supporting the remarks are outside the controversy?

The Guardian wrote:

BBC wrote:

The Washington Post wrote:

The Siasat Daily documented:

IANS:

The Telegraph:

Barkha Dutt:

If this is supposedly outside the controversy, why are they all writing about it in their articles on the controversy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The central point of the controversy is the remarks. The reaction to these comments is the firing of those responsible and the national and international condemnation that followed the remarks.
 * The reaction of some unspecified party members to the party's reaction (suspending of NS / expelling of NKJ) to the controversy is tertiary and should be part of the details within the body and not in the Lede. Per MOS:LEAD
 * Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide what is central and what is not. The reliable sources do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it your claim that the reaction of some unspecified BJP members to the action taken by BJP on NS and NKJ is central to the topic 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy? Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not "claiming" anything. I am summarising WP:RS, as a Wikipedian should. You are only engaging in WP:OR.
 * One reasonable grouse you can state is that it is not covered in the body, which should be done first. I intend to do that now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't Lede material. The same way that the violence that followed isn't covered in the Lede. It is for the body to contain it. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's curious to see you arguing this, but reverting me when I moved the tweet away from lead. Do tell how primary content is suitable for lead. Hemantha (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with you here. It should be moved to the body. Will do that. Thanks for pointing out. Webberbrad007 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Qatari Minister
"HE the Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Sheikh Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz al-Thani chaired the Cabinet's regular meeting at the Amiri Diwan yesterday, Qatar News Agency (QNA) reported. Following the meeting, HE the Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs Mohamed bin Abdullah al-Sulaiti issued a statement giving the details of the proceedings."

As quoted from the news article above, This is as official as it gets, yet @CapnJackSp is needlessly arguing to remove this official condemnation. Its removal by @REDISCOVERBHARAT is basically whitewashing and censorship using a frivolous excuse. Please explain your position below why you think this is a personal opinion and not Qatari official position. Venkat TL (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cabinet underscores Qatar's condemnation of remarks against Prophet


 * If this is the case, the material should stand, but attributed it to the Qatari cabinet, not a single minister. This is of the order of: "The Qatari cabinet issued a statement saying ... " Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ok. I have added and summarized the content from the article to make it clear. Venkat TL (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your link does not talk about any "minister" who made the comment about "systematic hate speech against Islam in India". Starting a new section to disparage editors after you were already rebuked at Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy shows your own lack of accountability to what you are adding. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The link does seem a bit dysfunctional. Might be something that only works on ipads ... ? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323 Link is opening fine for me. Try to open the link on archive.org. @REDISCOVERBHARAT Instead of writing unnecessary ad hominems you could have googled the phrase. I have googled it for you and also added the ref into the article. Please check the link https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/arab-world-outraged-by-bjp-leaders-prophet-remarks-5-point-explainer-3040812 Venkat TL (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You are actually engaging in strawman argument by avoiding any answer to the argument about the lack of relevance of the unknown Qatari "minister" with irrelevant statement similar to "but cabinet has condemned so you are wrong!"
 * You have now made 2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks controversy] so big that a person would think that Qatar is the actual superpower of the world, not the United States. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He is the foreign minister, not unknown. CBS. That is not a policy based argument to censor content. Feel free to expand other sections and countries. Venkat TL (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The "foreign ministry" is not same as a "foreign minister". Now that you have found a source, you must fix it accordingly. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @REDISCOVERBHARAT it is not clear what change you are asking. Please reply in a change X to Y format with quote. Venkat TL (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Done myself. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hindutva addition
Your addition in the background section appears to be tangential and forced. Some ill thought and rude comments about the Prophet's marriage (and flying horses) in a debate on the Gyanvapi controversy had the background of the Gyanvapi controversy. The Gyanvapi controversy has the history of Gyanvapi mosque as the background. This specific linkage of Hindutva to the background seems WP:SYNTH. We need RS to mention it as the background of the controversy. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You want me to cite sources that note Sharma's comments to be a part of (1) BJP's anti-Muslim politics or (2) BJP's propagation of hate against a minority community or ... ?
 * I do not want to insult your intelligence because such sources can be found dime a dozen. A BBC report already cited in our article writes,Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes,And, literally every single English daily of eminence has documented the episode vis-a-vis BJP's active patronage of Islamophobic hate speeches since long.TrangaBellam (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then let us state what BBC has said. It is well-sourced. This article isn't a critique of Hindutva. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Webberbrad007 can someone add a diff? I have no clue what is being disputed here. Venkat TL (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Venkat TL This removal. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this when I started this section. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks and Wow, already 2 different lines. That is why it is important to add a diff while adding comments. Venkat TL (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you object to the part. line removed by JackSp? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On that specific edit, I believe the reference to forbes is better suited because it makes the direct linkage to this controversy. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it is WP:SYNTH. The source must be the one describing the relevance of such claims with the controversy and this book, which was written well before the controversy is likely not related. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not read SYNTH. The synthesis (link between Sharma's speech and aspects of BJP/Hindutva politics) has already been drawn by reliable sources (BBC, WaPo, DerSpiegel etc.); I am merely using a far-reputed academic source. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why not state what such linkages have stated? Why is it necessary to extend the article to a critique of Hindutva. It belongs to the Hindutva page, surely. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My proposed line goes, If you wish to remove the former line, please go ahead. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, using a book that is "a far-reputed academic source" but never talked about this controversy, is WP:SYNTH.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If we take the example of The Kashmir Files, we use sources that predate the movie. It is not the aim of SYNTH to preclude usage of sources that do not discuss the article directly. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to, when plenty of RS exist making that linkage as you have rightly pointed out? Using them is surely more apt given their direct linkage drawn to the controversy. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because academic sources are much preferrable to news-articles etc. These aren't accusations of anti-Muslim bias but as a cursory reading of scholarship shows, such is the undisputed reality. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to claim undisputed reality... consensus, may be. Scholars themselves would be loath to make absolute truth claims.
 * There is nothing in wiki policies that prefers one RS over another. In this case, I believe the RSs which make the direct linkage to the controversy should be preferable. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support addition of both the proposed contents discussed here and here. This is a background section and the purpose of the section is to let the readers come to speed about ongoing events in India. The sources used are solid. Many domestic and international authors/commenters/journalists have already explained on why this has happened and this is not a new phenomenon, see this for example. Foreign Anger Works on Modi – And Ensures BJP’s Two-Face Act FlopsVenkat TL (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a background section and the purpose of the section is to let the readers come to speed about [relevant] ongoing events in India. - Precisely; thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We have ample RS material on these lines which make the explicit linkage. As I mentioned before, we don't need to extend it to a critique of Hindutva. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Webberbrad007 what is your proposal? In the absence of a better proposal, I dont thing this should be removed. Venkat TL (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Many have accused India's ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of instigating violence through divisive rhetoric against the country's Muslim minority" still exists at 2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy, so I don't think anything important was missed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The linkage of BJP with divisive and anti-Muslim sentiment has already been made. Adding sources critiquing Hindutva doesn't seem necessary in this article. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to list sources that explicitly link the Hindutva ideology with Nupur Sharma's speech etc.? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not what I said TB. The RS which links NS to Hindutva is better referenced in Nupur Sharma's page. The background section already covers links as below: NS -> BJP -> anti-Muslim sentiment / divisive rhetoric. To then go further than that ... i.e., NS -> BJP -> anti-Muslim sentiment / divisive rhetoric -> Hindutva ... etc, is a stretch for this specific article.
 * However, if you must critique Hindutva here, wouldn't it be better to use sources that link it to this specific controversy and restrict to stating what those sources say? Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it won't be. That a dozen sources have documented connections with Event A (our subject) and Event B (Hindutva) is sufficient ground in itself to use academic sources that summarizes exactly similar aspects of Event B. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That content is useful for the page on B. The focus here is the controversy, and it should remain so to avoid WP:TOOMUCH Webberbrad007 (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is called "background" for a reason. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The background is amply provided by RSs providing information on this controversy, as you have already mentioned before. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition of unreliable sources
@REDISCOVERBHARAT Zee News and TimesNow are not considered reliable sources. Do not edit war to add them into the article. Find better sources. See WP:TOI Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't add them. I am just reverting your disruptive content removal. I am also removing the disparaging section headline you created for this section when same issue is already being discussed above where you were already rebuked. Zee News is not unreliable though. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @REDISCOVERBHARAT Please read WP:REVERT and WP:EDITWAR You cannot shake of responsibility from the changes you make in your edits by saying I am simply reverting. Once you are reverted, you cannot restore it back without consensus. Read WP:BRD. Also this thread is unrelated to Dutch politician, stop merging it back. Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * How brutally ironic of you to cite those policies that you violate the most out here. If you want to write a section heading then make it neutral per WP:TALKHEADER which say "Keep headings neutral" otherwise I will keep removing your efforts to disparage me. It belongs to the same section as above since your disruptive content removal is still involving same content and is only getting more disruptive. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @REDISCOVERBHARAT Then dont add unreliable sources into the article. No These unreliable sources have nothing to do with Dutch politician. If you continue disrupting the talk page discussion threads you will be reported for edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * When you are going to stop making up false accusations and misrepresenting policies to distract from your disruptive content removal? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @REDISCOVERBHARAT Unreliable source will be removed immediately. If you want to include unreliable source into the article, you need to create consensus for those edits. Venkat TL (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You are keeping the information that you like from your list of "unreliable sources", while removing the information that you don't like, sourced to your list of "unreliable sources". Do you really believe I can't see this disruptive editing coming from you? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not "my" list. The list of unreliable source can be found on WP:RSN and WP:TOI. Please dont add an unreliable source after it has been removed once. Make effort to only add reliable sources. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

While it was not really wise to add TimesNow.com for sourcing a statement on Saudi Arabia section, it can be replaced with another source since the information itself isn't controversial. But to remove additional content, unrelated to the sourcing issue, by providing the reason "unreliable source" is definitely disruptive editing. LearnIndology (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There are other sources available which should be acceptable - like | The Hindu Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Dutch guys comment is being discussed above, There is no consensus to add it. @LearnIndology please explain in the thread above, not here (why you are adding it without getting consensus first.) As for unreliable source, Repeated edit warring to add an unreliable source after revert is undesired behavior. Please read WP:RS and post on WP:RSN. For Saudi section I have already added reliable source BBC and one more source added by another user, there is no need to add TimesNow and edit war over it. Venkat TL (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Replaced unreliable sources with reliable sources 😉. Grabup (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Grabup Thank you for your edits. Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Opinion of Dutch politician
The Opinion of Dutch politician is WP:UNDUE. @REDISCOVERBHARAT in the past 10 days, hundreds of politicians have opined on this controversy. The page mentions official diplomatic opinions, as they are relevant. Individual opinions are not being added here. Please make consensus to add it. Dont edit war. Venkat TL (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If thats the point remove all this:-
 * The government’s spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, wrote on his Twitter handle: “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan strongly condemns the use of derogatory words against the Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) by an official of the ruling party in India.”
 * A member of the Maldives' parliament, Adam Shareef filed for a motion that called on the country's president to condemn the remarks about Muhammad.
 * Egypt's Al-Azhar mosque, one of the leading institutions of learning in the Islamic world, condemned the remarks.
 * The Grand Mufti of Oman called the remarks "insolent and obscene rudeness" by the official spokesperson of the BJP and characterized it as war against every Muslim. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @REDISCOVERBHARAT Why do you want to remove "government’s spokesperson" 's comment? Please read my comment once again specially the word official. Venkat TL (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't replied to the original point; why you are keeping so many random names with no political relevance when you absurdly find Geert Wilders to be "non notable" and "undue"? 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no random names. The topic of this thread is Dutch politician. Off topic comments will be ignored. Start thread below and get consensus to remove them, if you find any "Dont edit war". Venkat TL (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @LearnIndology The dutch guys comment is being discussed on the talk page in this thread here. Please join this thread. As you can see, There is no consensus to add it, yet you have restored this content into the article. Please dont edit war like REDISCOVERBHARAT . Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think that every statement coming from anything else apart from foreign ministry and main administration of the countries should be removed or the current version about the reaction should suffice. LearnIndology (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The onus of inclusion is on you; please revert yourself. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @LearnIndology thanks for the comment. If you dont support this content then why are you edit warring to add it back, not once but twice Special:Diff/1092595996/1092598494, Special:Diff/1092599779/1092599802. This is strange behavior from you. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wilders is a far-right polemicist who thrives off of controversy, but his actual role in government is so minor that his actual opinion on most matters is fairly undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Geert Wilders is well-known for his controversial stances on Islam so I would say that his opinion is somewhat notable, not in the sense of reliability (he isn't) but more as in he is related to the subject. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As the name of the section is "International reactions" His remarks should be there, other remarks are from Islamic countries or organisations and the section does not say only deplomatic oficial statement should be added. Bharat0078 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bharat0078 Why his remark should be there, There are thousands of comments, opinions from everyone. Venkat TL (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am removing the statements that do not represent the main administration or the foreign ministry and I don't think REDISCOVERBHARAT, 99.165 would oppose it. Are you fine with that as well? LearnIndology (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, first Remove Dutch politician's comment, consensus is clear to remove it. If you want to remove an official spokesperson as raised above, please start another thread first. Venkat TL (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. Since Bharat0078 wants to retain as well, 3 have agreed that either the current structure should be retained or we should really remove the statements that do not represent the main administration or the foreign ministry. I don't expect,  and  to oppose this emerging consensus because the section really has too many insignificant reactions. There should be only the statement from foreign ministry or the main administration.  LearnIndology (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support what @Venkat TL want's. Grabup (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, all statements from government members who are not cabinet ministers or other individuals without major position/standing should probably be ignored Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the inclusion must be limited to involving only cabinet ministers or the office of the head of state. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ here per consensus above. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your partial revert here, how a "A Qatari minister said", "Pakistan Armed Forces", "A member of the Maldives' parliament, Adam Shareef" do not fall under "members who are not cabinet ministers"? You are not following the consensus. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp A Minister, Pakistani governemnt body and Parliament are official. Please create separate thread and explain why you think they are private individuals.? Venkat TL (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Being official just like Geert Wilders? You are supposed to follow the consensus above. "Pakistan Armed Forces", "A qatari minister" and "parliament, Adam Shareef" do not represent the cabinet. Given you have failed to prove otherwise you must self-revert yourself. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A Qatari minister would be fine, but if there's no name and designation, it's a bit of a spurious attribution; the others are clearly below the level of a cabinet minister. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, nameless spokespeople and bland public relations statements are really not the sort of thing of any real relevance, due weight or importance. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also tried to look for the name of that "Qatari minister" but couldn't find it anywhere. Shouldnt be discussed  until we know who he or she actually is. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you cant find you should ask on the talk page, not go and remove relevant content. See below. Venkat TL (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you still can't tell the name of that "minister" and have to falsify another source to get around the information then you must stop restoring the removed content. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Dutch politician's comment has been removed with consensus. was discussed below. Marking this as resolved. Venkat TL (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge 2022 Ranchi violence
Unnecessary content fork. The newly created article adds 0 information, and it is virtually entirely extracted from 2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy, not even worded differently. -- Mooonswimmer 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge. There is no justification for a separate article. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merge Both Ranchi and 2022 Kanpur violence should be merged. There is not enough content to create forks for now. These incidents are happening in at least 10-15 cities across India. Clearly unnecessary. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ranchi, but Kanpur has more information and many casualties so no there.  --StellarNerd (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The 2022 Ranchi violence page is in bad condition and likely won't have enough of a notable lasting impact. Would be much better placed into this context. Same with Kanpur violence. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ranchi merge/deletion - this was an unduly pre-emptive content split unjustified by the low level of volume in the parent article pertaining specifically to the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Mainly because it is just yet another instance of violence, unlike Kanpur which was the first. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Not much more significant that other such instances on that day. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Should Naveen Jindal's remarks be mentioned?
It has been very widely reported in news media that the remarks of Naveen Jindal are a major part of this controversy. Yet, most media have self-censored those remarks as they were deeply offensive. (For example, BBC refused to describe Nupur Sharma's remarks saying they were too offensive to print). This is similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - most newspapers described the controversy but refused to print the cartoons, yet our wikipedia article includes the cartoons anyway. Should we include Jindal's remarks in this article? VR talk 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should include them - a major reason why this article was created out of Nupur Sharma (politician) was because it could not include statements and controversy about Naveen Jindal. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should. I shall reinstate it., please generate consensus here before removing it. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tweets have been used in multiple Wikipedia pages where they have been relevant. See Social media use by Donald Trump page for example. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

please could explain your revert here and here despite counter-examples from established articles and consensus on usage here? Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As per policy, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Prominent display of a primary source highlighted in a box, while the secondary sources do not describe it in even vaguest terms, and the source itself has been deleted and you had to fetch it from archive.org, shows a high degree of WP:OR. Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable secondary sources. You are trying to turn it into a tabloid. Take it to WP:RSN or do an WP:RFC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I take your point in general. However, the topic is based on two things - the comments of Nupur Sharma on TV and the tweet of Jindal. This is required to describe the topic. Because you started the revert cycle, shouldn't you take it to WP:RSN or do an WP:RFC? Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any encyclopedia anywhere on earth that published a tweet, that too from archive.org? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per my response above
 * Tweets have been used in multiple Wikipedia pages where they have been relevant. See Social media use by Donald Trump page for example. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make that argument on WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you created one? Webberbrad007 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Jindal's tweet/statement is cited by most RS when they refer to this controversy. Just a few RS: Clearly his comments are WP:DUE in this article.VR talk 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any evidence that Naveen Jindal's tweet was a "major part" of the contrversy. Where did you get that impression? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO. If Naveen Kumar Jindal's tweet is insignificant then logically this article gets reduced to PoV fork of the article Nupur Sharma.   &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Naveen Kumar Jindal was a non-entity. Until the BJP suspended him, nobody even knew of his existence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "" Washington Post
 * " New York Times
 * "" Reuters
 * "" Al-Jazeera
 * "" Deutche Welle
 * "" Syndey Morning Herald and Haaretz had same line
 * "" NBC News
 * "" Guardian


 * It is clear from the examples above that Jindal's tweet was part of the conspiracy. I oppose the proposal to remove it. Venkat TL (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nupur Sharma temporarily suspended vs Naveen Jindal expelled
Is there any reliable source discussing the difference in the action on 2 leaders? Expulsion appears to be more stern than temporary suspension. Venkat TL (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sharma did withdraw her remarks. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * StellarNerd, so did Jindal by deleting the tweet. For some unknown reasons the punishment is not the same. In his sacking letter, the State BJP chief said Jindal's "remarks vitiated communal harmony". --Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ping StellarNerd --Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Jindal said. What Sharma said, relating to the age of Aisha, was very controversial in tone but within factual bounds. Maybe Jindal said something worse? Also according to NDTV Jindal had a history with controversial social media posts. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @StellarNerd What he said is copied from the tweet screenshot at Comment section. Similar in nature. I wanted to elaborate on the response of BJP, but anyone reading it (including me) would wonder why the difference in response for what would normally be considered similar offence. We would need reliable source discussing the punishment and the basis of it. Do you think we should include his prior case due to his posts? I believe we should. Venkat TL (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @StellarNerd likely to have some point (though in matters of criticism describing  with word 'worse' can be subjective 'more critical' or 'intensely critical' would be better choice), in any case, imho,  no point in including OR or synth.  &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bookku @StellarNerd as the first line of original post says, this is a call requesting for specific information and reference. Not a proposal to add synthesis. Venkat TL (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Raucous
The #Background section says that Tensions surrounding this site [the Gyanvapi Mosque] have resulted in raucous debates on Indian TV channels. I added a POV-inline tag as the word "raucous" seems to be a violation of MOS:LABEL as it holds a negative connotation. Is there a better wording to use? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "heated" ? Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 'heated' seems better one, other options may be 'intense', 'passionate' &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds good Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 11:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dunutubble You need to read NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, You are repeatedly whitewashing content with your inaccruate understanding of NPOV. No, Heated will be a massive understatement of what happens in Indian Godi media debates, Raucous is the accurate word for it. Don't water down facts from reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)