Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019/Archive 3

Congress U-turn
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019
Please change "The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.[2]" to "The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan." Garima516 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Agree, with the changes  Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  19:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a consensus not required for making changes to the article ? I disagree with the proposal. The law is what the article said before the edit. All minorities from these countries are NOT straightway given citizenship. There is a condition for giving citizenship to these minorities - Quoting it "who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder"
 * @Kautilya3 Please give your opinion regarding this.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The law if you read it, does not state it anywhere. So it was removed.-- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  20:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, is right. They should have been previously "exempted" under the 2015 order, which requires demonstration of religious persecution.
 * A correct edit would be to change "fleeing persecution" to "had fled persecution" because they should have fled by December 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok I am fine with adding your version "had fled persecution before December 2014.
 * So the line will say "It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution before December 2014, from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. hope this is acceptable to all.  Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks DBig. I changed it so. I didn't put "before December 2014" in the lead sentence because it has too much stuff already. The dates and conditions are covered in more detail in the second paragrah. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 I would like to keep the date condition. IMHo it is important to note that new immigrants are not welcome. I understand the arguemnt about length but that is weak argument. Law related articles have them and trimming them is generally not done. let me know if you still have stronger objections. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ by, Thanks for agreeing and making the changes as requested.  Happy New Year! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ by, Thanks for agreeing and making the changes as requested.  Happy New Year! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive settings of this page
User:Kautilya3 you have speeded up the archives, but MSW has changed the settings to 30 days, without explanation. Now this page has crossed 210 KB. I propose going back to 7 days. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  19:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed it back to 7 days., if you would like any thread to stay, you can use , like I did for the Bibliography section above.

Edit requested
Why mention "The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government, ", why can't we just mention it as The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government, " A wikipedia article should not be communally biased. - User:Xpeedus
 * I think this is right. BJP has lot of muslim members and politicians also in it. And it does not call itself as Hindu nationalist, What other editors think about this ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I disagree. This is needed for the context and background   Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  23:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, for seeing Consensus, the edits should also be considered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing). There is clearly no Consensus on this issue as lot of editors are against the words "Hindu Nationalist". See the recent edit by one editor - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019&diff=prev&oldid=933643276 How can a party having muslims be Hindu nationalist ? And the background is anyway disputed, so no need of these manufactured terminology. All these political parties are opportunistic, taking U-turns according to different situations. That does not mean the Wikipedia article should be biased and use manufactured terminology. Only if a party calls itself "Hindu Nationalist", these words should be used. Are there any sources which point towards that direction ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Kmoksha, If you seriously dispute that BJP is not a Hindu Nationalist party, you are looking at a TBan. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Winged Blades of Godric I am saying that there is no Consensus for this term nor there is any reliable source supporting this term for BJP. There are lot of muslims in BJP and neither has BJP called itself "Hindu Nationalist". Kindly mention the full forms when commenting so that the other person understands. Is this the "TBan" you are referring to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban ? Why you bring this up in discussion about Consensus on the term "Hindu Nationalist" ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kmoksha please familiarize yourself well with WP:TE. This is a controversial article and such efforts will certainly lead to block/bans. As for the refs I have added these  Happy New Year! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  10:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @u|DBigXray Here. I did not edit for this issue separately at all nor have I recently edited the article. So, why you bring up the topic of edit bans for this issue ? I am telling that there is no Consensus for BJP as a "Hindu Nationalist" nor there is any reliable source supporting that claim. BJP has lot of muslims in it, so how is it called "Hindu Nationalist" when BJP does not call itself "Hindu Nationalist"?


 * The references you gave have original research, meaning it is their opinion. They do not give any basis for their usage of this term. All political parties are opportunistic, playing on vote bank politics. They appease Hindus, they appease Muslims etc. But why should the Wikipedia article be biased because of that ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First reference of this article
@ @DBig, I would like to bring notice to the first reference of this article. That does not have Statement of Objects and Reasons. It should be replaced by this link which is also in the article - http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/370_2019_LS_Eng.pdf which has the statement of Objects and Reasons. Also, please note that the statements of Objects and Reasons has been the mentioned in the analysis of the PRS link also referenced in the article. So, Statements of Objects and Reasons is important. So, please consider changing the first reference. Kmoksha (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kmoksha, I have split the thread as it is separate topic. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @u|DBigXray Yes, I was also half-minded where to put this. Appreciate your action.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Added EU reactions
Please add reactions from the European Union which has deleted from CAA protest article, this is 2 links from India Today and The Times of India And please move reactions from OIC that are more related to CAA to this article than the anti-CAA protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.21 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * EU envoy on CAB: Trust the discussions will be in line with high standards of Indian Constitution
 * Hope principle of equality enshrined in Indian Constitution will be upheld: EU on CAB

Five Pillars Reminder
Hi everyone. On reviewing the comments on this talk page, I think a reminder of WP:PILLARS is in order. In particular, I suggest that everyone makes sure that their comments are expressed neutrally, that personal comments should be avoided, that you need to have fealty to reliable secondary sources, and that you avoid something I see a lot of in the discussion above, the trap of original research. --regentspark (comment) 17:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sectarian, not religious"
This source claims that attacks on Ahmadiyya Muslims are "sectarian, not religious". What does that mean?Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had the same Question. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It means, Ahmaddiya are viewed to be a sect of Islam (the position of India/UK/many countries), and they are not non-Muslims or a different religion (the position of Pakistan). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They are a different religious sect of Islam. The differences between them and other sects of Muslims are religious in nature, not racial or linguistic. Is the BJP Parliamentarian denying this? Does she have a more detailed explanation for her views elsewhere?Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the Indian legal framework, Shia, Sunni, Ismaili, Nurbakhshia, Bohra, as well as Ahmadiya would be regarded as sects of Islam. They are not separate religions. The Muslim Personal Law applies to all of them, not others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There seems to be confusion of the term "sectarian" in the English language. "Sectarianism" refers to more than just division on the basis of religious sect; it can also refer to divisions along other lines (e.g. Hindu-Muslim violence can be considered "sectarian"). Similarly there is confusion over the English term "religious". "Religious" can mean relating to a religion or relating to religion in general. "Religious persecution" includes, for example, persecution of Muslims, but also persecution of Muslim sects. There are plenty of scholarly sources in the English language that use "religious persecution" to describe the persecution of minority sects by majority sects in the same religious group.Bless sins (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained the meanings of the terms as used in the Indian legal framework. I am confident that this was the meaning in which Meenakshi Lekhi used them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have explained the meanings of the term "religion" and "sect", not "religious" and "sectarian". Lekhi used the terms "religious" and "sectarian". As explained above there's a large difference in how these are used in English.Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020
This amendment act does not violate equal opportunities act, if that was the case, then UK, and USA, and so called developed nations have violated this act. Example - If you want to be a citizen in UK, then you will have to seek Visa. Once in UK, work/or invest, pay UK taxes then after certain number of years, you will be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in UK. Until such time, you will not get access to public funds like Pension, housing allowance, medical treatments (with limitations - check NHS website for more details). Those in Europe, does not need work permit to work in UK. Non-EU citizens will need to seek work permits. Is this not discrimination? Hello wake up people.

Similarly if you want to come to India and seek Citizenship then you will need to go through the standard process. Except from these nations (for instance Non-EU example stated above in UK), Asian countries like Pak, AFG, Bangaldesh if you have faced religious persecution then you can come to India while meeting certain conditions set forth by the act. In fact, India is becoming highly populated country and is no longer able to accept migrants from various countries as this will put huge stress on the economy, food, and infrastructure. -- 88.106.17.183 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. It is unclear what change you want made. Please state your request in the form "change X to Y". And, be sure to include reliable sources that support the change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Government FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act
on 19 December 2019 and later - why not accepted even though widely covered by Indian media

Kmoksha (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. So you need to be able to argue for the necessity and correctness of each edit you make. Until you become experienced, it is best to make small edits, one paragraph at a time so that they can be considered individually. Do not delete sourced content unless you are able to justify it here. Do not touch the lead until you have a complete understanding of MOS:LEAD.
 * Governments do not have any special place on Wikipedia. We are neither obliged to report what they state, nor to support it or oppose it. We report what reliable sources say.
 * Here is the revert of your first edit. Please pick the most important issue you think there was and discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. My first query was regarding Consensus versus Neutrality. What if there is consensus and no neutrality for the source links.


 * I have listed 6 links here which are most important. I would like to know why these links are reliable or not-reliable. They are all from Indian media. I quoted entirely from them. If 6 links are too much, you can pick the first one or two in order of descending. Since the allegations are on the Government, are the responses by the Government not required for sake of neutrality ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kmoksha please read and understand more about WP:PRIMARY sources. I agree that this must not be included into the article. The government is blatantly contradicting itself. The lies of this Government seems to have no bounds.  Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read that. All these links are from media sources, so are secondary. Are written and published statements not more reliable than oral ones. Politicians often give one kind of speech on one day and another on another day. And the article has covered the contradictions of speech of Government. But my question, are these links secondary or primary and why, please give detailed reason for at least first one or two.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, In this case they will actually be considered WP:MIRROR source of the government site. Govt. is the real source-- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The link given by you in previous comment regarding Mirror is talking about Wikipedia Mirrors- "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia. " I would request you to talk about the links themselves which are not Wikipedia links like this one for example, why this is non-reliable in your opinion - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279
 * Kmoksha (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, The link is about WP mirrors. but I said "Mirror source of the Government" in this case. Sorry if the link caused confusion. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  15:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not find any Wikipedia policy like you mentioned "Mirror source of the government site" I do not see any Wiki policy restricting a source which is just quoting the website which is what this link is doing - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279 Would request again to speak about existing things and not on non-existing things and policies.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said before, we are not obliged to report what the government says. I am sure all the journalists in India have seen it and they will take it into account in writing their write-ups. If some of it gets reflected in the news stories, then it might make it into Wikipedia. Coming directly from the government, it is of no value to Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 As I said before, point here is not to oblige government or not to oblige but point here to ensure that the wiki article is neutral, having viewpoints, at least from major parties involved. When allegations are made on Government, why not put properly the Government response to those allegations ? Also, please tell what is your opinion regarding the reliability of links mentioned by me here. For example, for this one - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279 Kmoksha (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Govt said that NRC will come after CAA in parliament. After few days, Govt Also said that there is no talk of NRC. Govt never said that they have made a U turn and they will no longer bring NRC. Government is misleading the public. This is not GovernmentPedia. Wikipedia is not obliged to mislead the public. We will add what reliable WP:MAINSTREAM media sources are covering. Some of the content is specifically not being added so as to avoid confusion that the Government intends to create by bringing in this leaflet at the same time approving NPR. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer your direct question, this source is reliable for making an attributed statement of the form "Government says XYZ". But it is not a reliable source to decide whether such a statement should be made or not. For that you need WP:SECONDARY sources (i.e., independent analysts/commentators who have demonstrated expertise in the subject). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray I have already mentioned in my previous comment that let the article have the contradictions in speeches by the Government. But why not have the written, released statement by the Government, which was covered and analyzed widely by the media ? Written statement cannot be changed as frequently as oral statements, so is it not more reliable ? Why not to make article neutral to avoid a OnesideoPedia article. In your opinion, is this link from a mainstream media or not - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279
 * @Kautilya3 In order to have a better understanding of what is secondary source link, can you please tell that in your opinion, is this link secondary source or not - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf
 * Kmoksha (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I said independent analysts/commentators who have demonstrated expertise in the subject. What part of that is not clear?
 * Wikipedia is a WP:TERTIARY source, written by summarising WP:SECONDARY sources. If you want to write a SECONDARY source commentary, please submit it to a newspaper or magazine. You can't do it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Examples make things clear. So, in your opinion, is this link secondary source - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf
 * Kmoksha (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer is no. In future, please take all such basic questions to WP:Teahouse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Teahouse is not for opinions as far as I understand and I asked your opinion. So, as per your opinion, this is NOT a secondary source link - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf but surprisingly this link is referenced six times in the article. Can you please tell the reason for doing so.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly done by newbie editors who don't know better. They will be eventually replaced by other citations, when we get time.
 * The citations where the text is directly quoted will remain, as per the policy on WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, for direct quoting, you are using Primary sources in the article. This makes sense because policy has to be quoted correctly, otherwise the meaning will change and that will ruin the article. Even one word changes the meaning completely. Your given link of previous comment for 'Primary link' says that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * Coming to the links mentioned in my opening comment like this link - https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279, you will find that they fit your definition of secondary sources. Your given definition of secondary source - "independent analysts/commentators who have demonstrated expertise in the subject." These links have analysis in their titles and text by independent persons or media - some have more and some have less analysis but all those links have analysis in them. So, they are secondary source links.
 * Now, please tell that in your opinion, are written statements more reliable or oral statements more reliable and why ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what "oral statements" you are talking about. You started this section asking why not tell the government view? Are you still asking for the government view, or somebody else's view? If it is somebody else, then who? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

There is also the problem that you are mostly talking about the NRC, whereas this is the page on CAA. On this page, nothing about the NRC has yet been said. So what are you on about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have also advised you to pick the most important issue in the edit that was reverted and discuss it. Till now, you have not raised any. Are you satisfied with the revert, or do you have a problem with it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Context is same - "Government FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act" Let me rephrase my question asked - "please tell that in your opinion, are written Government statements more reliable or oral Government statements more reliable and why ?"
 * Your accusation that "you are mostly talking about the NRC" is untrue. I am talking about CAA, not about NRC. National NRC procedures have not yet been released, so makes no sense to talk about that.
 * You have asked me about the most important issue which was reverted. I have already told about that. The title says the most important issue - "Government FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act". Edits on this were reverted saying that this is "Original research" and "poor sources" without giving even few examples of "poor sources", so I listed some links used and we are discussing here opinions about those sources.
 * So, if the question is clear, I would request to give your opinion regarding the written Government statements being more reliable or oral Government statements are more reliable along with your reasoning.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone else would like to answer this question - "please tell that in your opinion, are written Government statements more reliable or oral Government statements more reliable and why ?"
 * Kmoksha (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * depends on the situation. A statement made in the parliament which always gets published in the records of the parliament are considered more reliable than PM doing a rally on Ramlila ground and claiming that No NRC exist. You can approach court using the parliament records but you probably cant do the same with rally statements. Also note, All government sources are primary. Secondary sources should be used whenever possible. But it also depends on the content. If you want to reference the statement in the parliament it is acceptable to link the parliament records, even though they are government sources. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  14:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , : I was recently asked at the Teahouse this question by Kmoksha "Should the section 'Indian Government Response' of this article have content regarding official Government response on CAA like 'FAQs on CAA' ". I did not wish to give an opinion there, but will do so here. My opinion is: no. The source presented is a wordpress blog run by the governement. Unless you have news sources that discuss those FAQ, we should not include them. We are not a mouthpiece for world governments, and government statements are not usually reliable sources. The article should only cover the government's position as written about in reliable sources, especially given the highly contentious nature of this article. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is a complicated case, but I am glad that you reached the right conclusion by following the tried and trusted principles the editors follow here. The Government side of the story and whatever is worth adding has already been added. This document is a part of misinformation campaign by the government and neutral third party international media houses have largely ignored the doc. If Kmoksha intends to give a disproportionately large coverage in the article to the Govt side then this cannot be allowed to maintain WP:NPOV balance of the article and to avoid confusing the readers.  D Big X ray ᗙ  21:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek You said "Unless you have news sources that discuss those FAQ, we should not include them."
 * The FAQs released by Government on this issue was widely covered and analysed by the Indian media. I have at multiple places including at the opening comment of this thread given examples of news source links covering those FAQs. I am giving those again -
 * a) https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html


 * b) https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/


 * c) https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279


 * Please let me know whether they are acceptable particularly for the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response) along with your detailed reasons . Thanks
 * Kmoksha (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles are press statements from the govt.  D Big X ray ᗙ  21:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * u|DBigXray These articles are NOT press statements. These newsmedia are not connected with the Government in any way. In their articles, they have analysed the FAQs released by the Government.And these were only some examples of the media coverage. See another example of a media coverage - https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/ministry-of-home-affairs-releases-frequently-asked-questions-about-caa-to-clear-confusion-about-the-act/articleshow/72851835.cms
 * Kmoksha (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , to make any progress, you need to make concrete proposals for the content you would like to see added or modified in the light of these sources. They better not be bland, pointless statements like "CAA is not a part of NRC" or vice versa. If there is any substantive information in the government-issued statements that is of relevance and importance to this page, please feel free to bring it up. Just talking about sources for ages doesn't get you anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section.  203.192.204.129 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section.  Abhishekaryavart (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed content
@Kautilya3 Although it is not clear what exactly you are looking for, still I will try to put it here. I have given links. And those links have done proper analysis of the FAQs on CAA by Government.

As some examples, the content what could be put in the section "Indian Government Response". Please tell whether these are acceptable along with detailed reasons (source links are mentioned below, which will go as reference) -
 * 1. In a series of tweets posted through the Press Bureau of India (PIB) Twitter handle, the government has tried to bust the myths about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. "Mythbusters focusing on North-Eastern India, especially Assam, surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act. The 11-points address the most common misconceptions and fears in the region," PIB tweeted. livemint
 * 2. In the FAQs released by Home Ministry, it also mentioned that CAA has nothing to do with deportation of illegal Muslim immigrants. However, the deportation of any foreigner irrespective of their religion is implemented as per the Foreigners Act, 1946 and/or The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. Mumbai Mirror
 * 3. The Government has said that "Baluchis, Ahmediyas & Rohingayas can always apply to become Indian citizens as and when they fulfill the qualifications provided in the relevant sections of The Citizenship Act, 1955." Sentinel

-- Kmoksha (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Re. 1, we can't use language like "tried to bust myths". It is WP:POV to presume that the impressions people have are "myths" and secondly that the PIB statement has "busted" them. An NPOV statement would be something like the "government tried to correct the misconceptions that it believes people carry". But this needs to be immediately followed by stating at least one such "misconception", which the government was able to successfully "correct".
 * Re. 2, the PIB claims that CAA has nothing to do with deportation of illegal migrants. That is clearly false, because the CAA explicitly says that certain classes of people shall not be treated as illegal immigrants. That means that other classes of people will continue to be treated as illegal immigrants, liable to be deported. The fact that the FAQ blurts out a series of laws by which they can be deported does not change the fact that they can be deported. I don't see any "myth" having been "busted". (Neither livemint nor Mumbai Mirror are great sources by the way.)
 * Re. 3, the PIB says that Ahmadis etc. can be naturalised. May be so, but the special privileges that have been given to the chosen classes of people don't apply to them. Those people are deemed to have been legal migrants from the day they have entered India. That is not so for Ahmadiyyas. The Ahmadiyyas will have to report themselves to the government first, thereby risking deportation or prison sentence, then get a long-term visa, and then live legally in India for seven years before they qualify for citizenship by registration. That is clearly an unequal treatment. What has the PIB "busted"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Wikipedia is supposed to be source of information having balanced, significant viewpoints as per the article title and article section title. That is what the neutrality is about. I will quote from the Wiki policy "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"


 * The article section says "Indian Government Response" but that section does not have any Indian Government Response in reality. Saying the PM response to be Indian Government Response is incorrect. It is like saying that view of a Wikipedia editor is view of Wikipedia community. Indian Government gives response based on consensus amongst the various ministers and officials of the Government. Hence, the Indian Government Response should be put in that section and not what the PM said on this issue.


 * One may say that what PM is saying is false. It is written in that section "Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealed for calm in a series of tweets saying "No Indian has anything to worry regarding this act. This act is only for those who have faced years of persecution outside and have no other place to go except India"" Since it is in that section, does it mean you agree with this statement of PM ? I do not think so.


 * If you compare the section "Indian Government Response" with the other sections of the article, the other sections have more balanced view points. In the other sections, view point of a politician is given and then a counter by a critic is given. That is what I am aiming for in this section. Why such neutrality cannot be done for this section ?


 * The more appropriate thing to do in my opinion will be to give counter arguments to the Indian Government Response along with the Indian Government Response. This kind of analyses also was done by scholars and media articles.


 * Now, one may argue that all this may require time. Yes, it may be so. So, I propose to mark that section needing improvement to include all the viewpoints and counter-viewpoint according to the section title. And then we can build up the section having viewpoints and counters by means of discussion here.


 * Kmoksha (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please limit this section to content. You have already argued enough about your understanding of policy, and didn't get any supporters. I don't want to get into that all over again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I talked about content only. The Content should be neutral as per your own link which you gave, You disagree with a viewpoint but still it should be represented along with the counter viewpoint. The section title says "Indian Government Response" Where is the Indian Government Response ? And there has been support that the official Indian Government Response should be added. Why cannot that be added along with the counter, please respond to that.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

1st para of "Indian government response" references Modi instead of Indian Government
Kmoksha (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tweets do not constitute an official response, but may (very rarely) merit mention if independent sources have commented on them in depth. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde It is not just tweets, which is the issue, it is tweets of personal handle of Modi. So, it is personal response of Modi and not an official Indian Government response. The official Indian Government response was the release of FAQs on CAA. I have given references for that. If we are talking about "Indian Government response", there should be proper references for that and not references mentioning personal twitter handle of Modi. Modi gets to keep this twitter handle even after he is no more PM.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoever it may be, tweets can be deleted any time. They are not used in the articles, unless Independent Secondary are discussing them. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  09:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray The issue which I raised is that in the section "Indian Government Response", the references given are not of Indian Government but they are references of personal response of Modi. Whether tweets should be allowed or not in the article is another matter. But the references given in the first paragraph of this section "Indian government response" are not reliable since they are not responses of the Indian Government.
 * I have given some reliable references for the response of Indian Government which was on 19 December 2019 and later released in the form of FAQs on CAA. These (or similar reliable references) should be put in the article as response of Indian Government so as to make the section sources reliable and the article neutral.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see that the PMs tweet is referenced to BBC which is a reliable secondary source. hope that helps. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray These source links violate WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as they do not portray the official response of Indian Government, they are telling about personal response of Modi and so are not in accordance with the title of the Section "Indian Government Response" and so are not reliable sources.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , The publication is BBC and the article is on "Citizenship Amendment Act". That is as much context as one may find.  Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  14:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray We are talking here about the particular section of the article named "Indian Government Response". These source links are out of context for the section. The section title says "Indian Government Response" and the BBC article is not about Indian Government Response, it is about personal response of Modi. So, these links are clearly inappropriate for this section of the article.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you linked WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which discusses about the Context of the source. Hence I replied above. It seems you have misunderstood what CONTEXT MATTERS mean here. Please check the link you added once again. As for Modi vs Govt. Modi  is the PM and he appoints the cabinet. Did Modi state anywhere that this tweet was his personal response ? If not then how can you call it his personal response ? Anyway, these questions should not arise since BBC a secondary source was used. There are more WaPo VoA, If you want this section to be "Modi's Response" then it would be overkill. The headings are based on the content of the section. regards.  Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray I am talking about Context of the Source and have checked the Wiki policy link and then only posted the link of that link here.
 * Modi is PM but Modi is giving his response on his personal platform and so this is not an Indian Government response, it is his personal response. The FAQs to CAA were posted via official platform and so are official Indian Government response.
 * BBC source link is secondary but is not a context source for this section, which is what I am pointing out. And since the BBC link and Modi twitter link are not in context with the section title, they are inappropriate for this section.
 * The first paragraph of this section needs to be rectified for the sources, but how we want to improve the section is different matter. I suggest putting links for media coverage of FAQs on CAA released by the Indian Government along with appropriate text.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see, it seems we have a difference of opinion. I dont see Modi's statement as a problem. Also I do not consider the FAQ as a reliable source since it directly contradicts government's own statements. you seem to think FAQ is reliable. Again this is a difference of opinion. Regardless, you can present your version of the draft here and seek feedback so as to get WP:CONSENSUS, That way you can proceed and get it done or abandon it if you fail to get CONSENSUS.  Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray This thread is for discussing the context of the BBC link and Modi twitter link for the section "Indian Government Response". Other editors have asked me not to raise many issues in one thread, so I am complying with that and not discussing the rectification of the section in detail in this thread.

If there are contradictory statements of Indian Government, article can point out that there are contradictory statements. It is possible that two contradictory statements are supported by two reliable sources.

I have posted here this issue of links of first para of this section being out of context (with respect to this section) for opinions of other wiki editors after proper reasoning. So, I would request other editors to also give their opinions so that we can make this article better. Let others give their opinions regarding the context of BBC link and Modi twitter link for this section. After that, we can decide what to do further regarding this section.

Kmoksha (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Please respond and give your opinion. How is this section having title as "Indian Government Response" and having references for response of Modi on his personal platform ? Is it not violating WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and making the BBC source link and Modi twitter link inappropriate and unreliable for this section ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the government has issued a FAQ document to dispel myths can certainly be mentioned under the "Indian Government response". But its content cannot be covered unless it has been used by SECONDARY sources in the course of their analysis. (That is, an article that just covers the FAQ is not a SECONDARY source for the FAQ.)
 * If the FAQ directly contradicts anything that we say in our article and SECONDARY sources have backed the FAQ then we can state it, not otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Using FAQ on CAA released by Government or not is not the main issue raised in this thread. The main issue raised is that the title of the section says "Indian Government Response" and the source links used are of personal response of Modi. So, do you agree that these links are out of context and violate WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, everything said by the prime minister or other ministers gets counted as government. And, BBC News is perfectly qualified to comment on it. There is no issue of "CONTEXTMATTERS" here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 If things said by prime ministers or ministers or party members are to be considered as statements by Government, what if two ministers give seemingly different statements on an issue ? Then, which statement should we rely on and take as "Indian Government Response" ? Is it not obvious that reason each minister has own personal platform and also there is a common platform for the Indian Government so that such situations do not arise ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on hypothetical situations. The policies of Wikipedia ask us to depend on reliable sources. When there are contradictions WP:NPOV considerations come into play. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 It is not hypthetical but such situations are very frequent. Government is not one person, it is a team. Team members can have individual views and a team has collective views. Just like in wikipedia, there is individual opinion and collective opinion. Response of Indian Government is a collective response. But here there is a mismatch. Why cannot we conform the title and content specifically ? Also, I would like to discuss FAQs on CAA release for Government for this section. Should a new thread for that be created ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have already received enough answers regarding the Government FAQ but you are not accepting them. You might take it to reliable sources noticeboard and NPOV noticeboard to get outside opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for section "Indian Government Response" to be marked as needing improvement and inserting Indian Government response with counter-points
{{Box |

Although this was raised elsewhere, here I would like to give the full proposal regarding the section - "Indian Government Response" Reasons: The article section says "Indian Government Response" but that section does not have any Indian Government Response in reality. Saying the PM response to be Indian Government Response is incorrect. It is like saying that view of a Wikipedia editor is view of Wikipedia community. Indian Government gives response based on consensus amongst the various ministers and officials of the Government. Hence, the Indian Government Response should be put in that section and not what the PM said on this issue. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the section "Indian Government Response" ?

If you compare the section "Indian Government Response" with the other sections of the article, the other sections have more balanced view points. In the other sections, view point of a politician is given and then a counter by a critic is given. That is what I am aiming for in this section. Why such neutrality cannot be done for this section ?

''If Government is lying or is contradicting itself, still the Indian Government Response should be given since that is what the section says. To keep the section neutral, counter-points should also be put.''

''So, I propose to mark that section needing improvement to include all the viewpoints and counter-viewpoint according to the section title. And then we can build up the section having viewpoints and counter-points by means of discussion here.''

Proposed Content for section "Indian Government Response":

I will give few examples of the content along with their counter-points below -

1. In a series of tweets posted through the Press Bureau of India (PIB) Twitter handle, the government has tried to bust the myths about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. "Mythbusters focusing on North-Eastern India, especially Assam, surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act. The 11-points address the most common misconceptions and fears in the region," PIB tweeted. livemint

Critics claim that "The ‘myths’ that the PIB attempts to bust in these posts, amount to little more than the government’s propaganda, an attempt to stifle criticism and generate public support for this anti-secular agenda."sabrangindia

2. In the FAQs released by Home Ministry, it also mentioned that CAA has nothing to do with deportation of illegal Muslim immigrants. However, the deportation of any foreigner irrespective of their religion is implemented as per the Foreigners Act, 1946 and/or The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. Mumbai Mirror

3. The Government has said that "Baluchis, Ahmediyas & Rohingayas can always apply to become Indian citizens as and when they fulfill the qualifications provided in the relevant sections of The Citizenship Act, 1955." Sentinel

But critics have said that "The answers released by the Central Government to FAQs on CAA/NRC are highly misleading and at times totally false, hiding more than they reveal."radicalsocialist

End of Proposal
Please give your opinion along with your detailed reasons @Kautilya3 Vanamonde Ms Sarah Welch and others }} Kmoksha (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * border color=#D1D1C7|padding=10px|wide=yes|inline=yes|CSS=background-color:#FFFFF0
 * @Kautilya3 You had asked to give a full proposal along with the content. I have given this proposal which is having neutral point of view also. From your past comments, I get that you consider the Government response as false. But a statement even if false should be put, if it is according to the subject. The section title says "Indian government response" and so real Indian Government Response should be put. To balance the view point, I have put the critic view-point. That will take care of your concern that the Government response is misleading because we have included that also as critic response to response of Indian Government. So, kindly respond to this comprehensive proposal.
 * @Vanamonde, Ms Sarah Welch and others, request you all to also respond so that we can work towards improving this section.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Blog posts are ok to discuss among ourselves, but they cannot be cited on Wikipedia (unless they are written by well-known experts). But I agree with the blogger's assessment. I suggest that you drop the subject. We are not going to reproduce content that is misleading and at times totally false. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 There are no blog posts which I see in this proposal. Please point them out if I missed anything. I have added critic assessment of Government Response.So, is it not balanced point of view now ? What is the purpose of this section "Indian Government Response" when it does not have any real Indian Government Response ?
 * Kmoksha (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistook Radical Socialist to be a blog site. Perhaps not. But it is not a mainstream news source anyway and it would not be proper to cite it.
 * But the bigger point is that Wikipedia is meant to provide information. Your insistence that we should provide misinformation or disinformation, via the claim that the government viewpoint needs to be represented, is not going to find any takers on Wikipedia. So I still maintain that your should drop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 You have not answered my question, request you to answer it - "What is the purpose of this section "Indian Government Response" when it does not have any real Indian Government Response ?"


 * You say that you are against "misinformation" or "disinformation". But the section title is very misleading since the section does not have any real Indian Government Response. If you do want to put the Indian Government Response in the article, then why create such a section "Indian Government Response" at all ?


 * That is why my proposal was to mark the section "Indian Government Response" as needing improvement. In this way, more people will contribute to improving the article section. You have not given any comment on that as well.


 * Also, in my proposal, I have given another critic link - sabrangindia. Please give your opinion regarding that also.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That section explains what the government has been doing in the face of the crisis. I am satisfied with what it says, and don't see any problems of "neutrality" that you seem to believe.
 * As for sabrangindia, it is also not a mainstream source, and we normally don't cite it even if we agree with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That section contains response of Modi on his personal platform and police action, Projecting PM statements as Indian Government Response is like saying that Wikipedia editor opinion is the opinion of Wikipedia community. That is more than just non-neutral, it is highly misleading.
 * Also, I think considering only a few newsmedia as mainstream is not correct. See what the Wiki policy says about Mainstream media -


 * We seem to be disagreeing on this section. However, thanks for your opinion. Let others comment and give their opinions as well.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with Kautilya3 above.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
" I tadded the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act,"

has to be edited as " It added the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act," Anverps (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done good catch.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
" I tadded the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act,"

has to be edited as " It added the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act," Anverps (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done good catch.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Second line of lead of this article incomplete and misleading
The second line of the lead is incomplete. It does not tell that the law is subject to exemption under Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder. Due to this, there is impression that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christians who came from the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan before 2014 are exempt while this is not the case. It is subject to those who already got exemptions under said laws.

I propose modifying the second line of the lead of the article to -

It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014  and who have been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section(2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder 

The italics part is the proposed addition.

Please give your opinion along with your detailed reasons.

Edit - As per the response by some editors, giving alternate proposed addition as  and who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 

Kmoksha (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Can you propose again by using English rather than Legalese  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording is in commonly used English only. There is no legal terminology used in the proposal.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The first line states "that had fled persecution", which is the English meaning of all those laws/rules cited by . I thought somebody had removed it. But it is still there. The second paragraph expands on it more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok. If that is the case then I oppose this proposal by Kmoksha, her badly drafted proposed addition will  make this lead difficult to comprehend.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Some newspapers explained it saying "persecuted minorities" have been given special citizenship privileges. You will find even BJP politicians using such wording. But it is wrong. The law gives privileges to individuals who faced persecution. Everybody that claims exemption under the said clauses needs to individually demonstrate that they faced persecution. The international conventions that India is a signatory to do not allow entire communities to be branded as "persecuted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, "that had fled persecution" does not convey meaning of being exempted under the said laws. There is absolutely no technical word in my proposed addition, it is plain English.


 * Anyone can claim that "they had fled persecution", are from minority religion of these countries and came to India from these countries. But that is not what the law is saying. Law involves giving exemption under the said laws and then only they will get Indian Citizenship.


 * Even the second paragraph of the lead talks nothing about the exemption under these laws, which is a crucial part of CAA 2019. And as you have given reference of an article, just saying "persecuted minorities" or "religious minorities that had fled persecution" fails to convey the true meaning of crucial part of the act and is therefore misleading.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Then you should read the body of the article. You can also read the laws cited and explain what the difference is. Without that you are simply being disruptive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 I have read the law and also the body of the article and then only started a thread on this.
 * Your accusation on me regarding "Distruptive Editing" is untrue as I have not made any article edit recently. And I put up this here after I was asked to discuss issues with this wiki article on the Article talk page. And that is exactly what I am doing.
 * I have already explained that just saying "they fled persecution" does not convey meaning that the people have to first get exemption under Foreigners Act or Paassport (Entry into India ) Act and then only they can get Indian Citizenship. Such incomplete wording is misleading since it gives impression that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christians who came from the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan before 2014 are exempt while this is not the case.
 * Kmoksha (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gave alternate wording in my proposal, which is clearly English. Hope that is satisfactory -- Kmoksha (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Placards at Pro-CAA rally, Ahmedabad.jpg

Vote banks
changed this text:

to this:

Two problems:
 * 1. The immigrants forming vote banks for the three parties is clearly in the source:
 * You might not like this source, but there are plenty of others who will corroborate, including scholarly sources.
 * You might not like this source, but there are plenty of others who will corroborate, including scholarly sources.


 * 2. BJP voter base being the reason for its rejection of the NRC is certainly a BBC claim. But the NRC page describes it with a lot more nuance:
 * This is quite believable because the UPA government itself estimated 5 million illegal migrants in Assam, whereas at most 1.2 million were identified via the NRC. (The remainder are North Indians apparently. How they got excluded from the NRC is anybody's guess.)
 * The BBC's theory is also flawed because the BJP brought in the CAA explicitly to help the Hindu migrants (its voter base, no contest about that). So, there is no reason why it should reject the NRC for the sake of its voter base.
 * The BBC's theory is also flawed because the BJP brought in the CAA explicitly to help the Hindu migrants (its voter base, no contest about that). So, there is no reason why it should reject the NRC for the sake of its voter base.

So, I am reinstating the original content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And I have reverted you, because the "vote bank" claim does not pass muster at all. 1) If there's a problem with the BBC claim, then add what conflicting sources say. 2) The BJP's vote bank is only relevant because the BJP switched positions on the NRC, and the link is made by the source. The Congress's vote bank doesn't enter the picture. 3) Whether other sources say that the INC benefits from the votes of illegal immigrants is irrelevant. They have to discuss it as relevant in the context of the CAA. The sources currently in the article make the connection to the BJP's support base, which is why it's in the article. 4) Most critically, the source says illegal immigrants constituted a vote bank for three parties. The text you've added says Muslim immigrants. Kautilya, that conflation is not something I would expect from you of all people., input from a cooler head would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that I made a mistaken conflation. But the Muslim immigrants do constitute part of the vote bank for Congress etc., if not the whole of it. And other sources do observe that, after the BJP started eating into the Hindu parts of their vote banks, they are increasingly dependent on the Muslims among them. But in either case (wheter all illegal immigrants or just Muslim immigrants) their interest in opposing the NRC are clear.
 * Mind you that BBC's reliability does not extend beyond WP:NEWSORG. I would be happy to get rid of all discussion of vote banks as it is extraneous to the topic. The BJP's interest in the issue is a lot deeper than vote bank politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to step in here, it's wrong to assume that the BJP voter base is comprised of "Hindu migrants". I'm one of those muddled in with the right-wing, but I know for a fact that most Indians on the right-wing are opposed to immigration beyond the communal politics of Hindus vs Muslims. Afghanistan/Bangladesh/Pakistan are three large populous countries that Indians mostly dislike. The BJP voter base is basically Hindus from all sorts of backgrounds including students/professionals/gays/women/buddhists/etc, and to an extent a lot of Islamophobes from other communities such as Christians. It has core voter base in Hindi speaking areas where ethnolingustic politics isn't popular - in places with strong ethnolingustic parties, the right-wing (some would say far right) parties oppose all immigrants.

This is why the content of this article and the other article is questionable. The Assamese are opposed to all immigration and especially Muslim immigration - the same is true of Shiv Sena supporters and AIADMK supporters. This effects counries like Pakistan and Bangladesh more because immigration in these massive countries are mono-directional towards India, whereas Nepal/Bhutan/Lanka are small countries that are more developed and whose asylum seekers tend to prefer going to developed western countries (as what happens with Nepali and Sri Lankan refugees).

The Act is basically forwarding the BJP's Islamophobia - assuming three Muslim-majority countries can't protect the rights of religious minorities. However, many Indians are opposed to all immigration from these Muslim majority countries. Zunitroys (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Poll analyses show that BJP was able to win votes in both Assam and West Bengal through its twin promises of deporting illegal immigrants and taking care of Hindu refugees. So in that light, the Hindu refugees do form the voter base in those two states. It may not be so in the rest of the country. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The BJP can also win the same votes, if not more, by objecting to all immigration. There have been several articles alluding to the BJP forwarding the Act to benefit its core voter base - which isn't Assam but rather the Hindi belt (UP etc...). Nearly all right-wing ethnolingustic parties operate on an anti-immigration agenda, hence why Shiv Sena has voiced concern at the Act. Both Shiv Sena and the AIADMK are likely to accept immigrants of their own ethnicity, but would object to immigrants of other lingustic groups. The BJP's core voter base is therefore the Hindus of the Hindi-belt, then the Hindus of all of India, and finally other religious minorities like Buddhists.


 * West Bengal is a different story. I don't know whether the people of West Bengal and Pubjab are similar to Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu, in that they will accept immigrants of their own ethnicity, but I also consider that Pakistan/Bangladesh are very large countries that would produce far more immigrants that what Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra would have to deal with.


 * The Islamophobic element of the Act was targeting three Muslim-majority countries. I don't think anyone can envisage a scenario where India allows for liberal immigration from the three mentioned countries as the inflows would be too extreme. Zunitroys (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged! I can't really comment on the content because there is a lot to read and most of it is confusing, but, once again, I suggest that close adherence to sources and avoiding OR is probably a good idea in a contentious topic such as this one. Much of the discussion in this section reads like OR. For example, almost the entire discussion immediately above appears to be wikipedia editors trying to understand the motivations behind the act. Just to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with the discussion itself, rather, that you should be careful that the stuff you finally add to the article is not the result of your synthesizing information from multiple sources. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 to "close adherence to sources" remark of RegentsPark. Please see Kamal Sadiq's discussion of "illegal migrants" voter base and their importance to Assam and West Bengal politics in Paper Citizens. He discusses Hindus / Muslims / Congress / BJP / Left / vote banks / electoral base / phantom voters / etc. See pages 140–153, etc. The issues related to their illegal migrants, the politics, and the attempted amendments to the Citizenship Act are clearly far more complex than the simplistic summary based on the BBC News source. Your efforts to improve NPOV deserve praise, but yes, we should avoid conflating and closely adhere to the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is well and good to say close adherence to sources. But when the sources are half-baked and POV-ridden, it is not going to do us any good. Until this amendment happened, citizenship was a sleepy, boring subject that everybody took for granted. So very few journalists or commentators ever thought about it or researched it. Their ability to distinguish fact from fiction is very limited. For example, the BBC attribution that inserted was originally attributed to another journalist called Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty. And her own article attributed it to a Congress MP. So, partisan POV is getting polished up and presented as high-quality reliable information, which it is not. Those of us who know something about the subject know it to be crappy information. So, trust me when I say it is crappy. I don't do it lightly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * K3: Good points. Here are Kamal Sadiq comments, as he discusses Citizenship laws of India, vote bank politics in Assam, and the illegal migrants from Bangladesh:
 * There is a lot more in Sadiq source and other RS. Per Sadiq and other scholars, although the Bangladeshi migrants/refugees are not citizens of India, they have ration cards and voter cards of India. The political strategy of all sides including BJP and Congress have targeted this vote block of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, in different ways, because it affects the election outcome. For some views on illegal migrants and politics in West Bengal, please see papers by Michael Gillan, by Anand Kumar and by James Mayers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot more in Sadiq source and other RS. Per Sadiq and other scholars, although the Bangladeshi migrants/refugees are not citizens of India, they have ration cards and voter cards of India. The political strategy of all sides including BJP and Congress have targeted this vote block of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, in different ways, because it affects the election outcome. For some views on illegal migrants and politics in West Bengal, please see papers by Michael Gillan, by Anand Kumar and by James Mayers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Many political parties have been concerned about the impact of illegal migrants on vote banks and elections. Rizwana Shamshad (2018) book, published by Oxford Univ Press, is another scholarly source. She writes,


 * Here is a clip from India Today on illegal migrants:
 * Two or three sentences to acknowledge these sources would be fair, improve NPOV and hopefully address the concerns Kautilya3 mentions above. K3: Shamshad summarizes a lot more on vote bank politics, includes views of leaders from AGP, BJP, CPI, Congress, TMC, academics, diplomats, etc. She does so in the context of Citizenship Act and amendments prior to 2014, as well as the IMDT Act and other laws. She has a chapter on Parliamentary Debates on Bangladeshi Migrants (1971-2009) as well. I have provided a few sample clipped quotes above for review and discussion. The sources Shamshad cites are also worth looking into. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a clip from India Today on illegal migrants:
 * Two or three sentences to acknowledge these sources would be fair, improve NPOV and hopefully address the concerns Kautilya3 mentions above. K3: Shamshad summarizes a lot more on vote bank politics, includes views of leaders from AGP, BJP, CPI, Congress, TMC, academics, diplomats, etc. She does so in the context of Citizenship Act and amendments prior to 2014, as well as the IMDT Act and other laws. She has a chapter on Parliamentary Debates on Bangladeshi Migrants (1971-2009) as well. I have provided a few sample clipped quotes above for review and discussion. The sources Shamshad cites are also worth looking into. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a clip from India Today on illegal migrants:
 * Two or three sentences to acknowledge these sources would be fair, improve NPOV and hopefully address the concerns Kautilya3 mentions above. K3: Shamshad summarizes a lot more on vote bank politics, includes views of leaders from AGP, BJP, CPI, Congress, TMC, academics, diplomats, etc. She does so in the context of Citizenship Act and amendments prior to 2014, as well as the IMDT Act and other laws. She has a chapter on Parliamentary Debates on Bangladeshi Migrants (1971-2009) as well. I have provided a few sample clipped quotes above for review and discussion. The sources Shamshad cites are also worth looking into. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Two or three sentences to acknowledge these sources would be fair, improve NPOV and hopefully address the concerns Kautilya3 mentions above. K3: Shamshad summarizes a lot more on vote bank politics, includes views of leaders from AGP, BJP, CPI, Congress, TMC, academics, diplomats, etc. She does so in the context of Citizenship Act and amendments prior to 2014, as well as the IMDT Act and other laws. She has a chapter on Parliamentary Debates on Bangladeshi Migrants (1971-2009) as well. I have provided a few sample clipped quotes above for review and discussion. The sources Shamshad cites are also worth looking into. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Two or three sentences to acknowledge these sources would be fair, improve NPOV and hopefully address the concerns Kautilya3 mentions above. K3: Shamshad summarizes a lot more on vote bank politics, includes views of leaders from AGP, BJP, CPI, Congress, TMC, academics, diplomats, etc. She does so in the context of Citizenship Act and amendments prior to 2014, as well as the IMDT Act and other laws. She has a chapter on Parliamentary Debates on Bangladeshi Migrants (1971-2009) as well. I have provided a few sample clipped quotes above for review and discussion. The sources Shamshad cites are also worth looking into. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this material needs to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia; I disagree that most of it needs to be covered here. We probably need an entire article discussing the history and politics of immigration from Bangladesh into India; but this article cannot serve as a coatrack for that material. I emphasize that the BJP's vote bank is only mentioned because it has been interpreted as relevant to the BJP's reversal of its position on the NRC by reliable sources; and the NRC itself is interpreted as relevant to the CAA, again by reliable sources. It's fairly obvious that very many political parties have taken cynical advantage of immigrant populations and generally derived political mileage from an emotive issue. But that stuff doesn't belong here unless and until reliable sources make the connection. The material that does belong here is the magazine pieces looking at other parties' positions on this act, but that belongs in the reactions section, as it's not relevant to understanding the genesis of this act, which is what background is for. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: The subject of this article is "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". The subject is not "other parties' positions on this act", or disputes, or reception of this act. To tailor this article's background to the latter is inadvertent coatrack-ing. I agree with you that these disputes/reception aspects need to be covered somewhere in wikipedia in greater detail, but here we need to remember what the subject of the article. Kautilya3's concerns are valid and relevant to "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is that different from anything I said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject isn't a particular party's views/statements on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. See the last three paragraphs of the background section. It is mostly focused on their Hindu nationalist party's views/statements on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. The scholarly sources such as the above present a more complex background and context for this Amendment Act over the 1975–2019 period, with the views/statements of the ABP, Congress, Left, TMC and others on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're unhappy with the BJP's views being included in the background? They're linked to the topic by multiple RS, including both scholarly sources on the CAA. We cannot dump those in favor of sources from before this act was passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93: You are over-interpreting/over-projecting what I wrote, and that too incorrectly. I think all views should be briefly included. Somewhere together. For NPOV. That does include BJP's. And all notable ones from scholarly sources in the scholar's voice, closely following the sources. The current article does not. I welcome everyone here including you to join me in what our ARBCOM has repeatedly affirmed, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited." [emphasis added] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOV is determined by accurately summarizing what reliable sources about this topic say. Other sources can only be supplementary. If such RS highlight the ideology of one party over another, or the views of one party over another, then so do we. There's no basis in policy for including one party's views just because another party's have been, and there's no basis in policy from moving a party's views out of the background when those views have been described in RS as relevant to the genesis of the bill. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. The above scholarly sources should have convinced you of that by now. Have you read them? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Even though I started this section saying "Vote banks", I realized that my concern was really about accurately representing the BJP's rejection of the Assam NRC. As I mentioned a Congress MP's view is masquerading as a reliably sourced view. I will work on it this weekend. But there are a lot many more important things to be done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya, where are you getting the idea that the Congress MP's view is masquerading as anything? A Congress MP may have made the same claim, sure; that does not imply that the BBC reporter did not independently come to the same conclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC reporter is presenting the views of one side. We need a more balanced view from mainstream RS by multiple scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What the BBC reporter thinks is of no consequence. Quoting WP:NEWSORG, News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). If it is a widely held view, that is a different matter. But I have given you an analysis by The Diplomat, which gives BJP's actual view. BJP is not the only one concerned about the accuracy of the Assam NRC. Practically everbody in India is concerned about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MSW: unless the BBC is explicitly quoting, it is publishing its own views, and as a weighty source (in the absence of scholarly sources) it is a view that requires inclusion. I don't know what opposing views you are referring to; please present any sources you have that say different things. K, the Diplomat goes deeper into what the BJP's motivations are, but it does not contradict the BBC source; indeed, it says quite explicitly "The BJP is no less concerned over the exclusion of a large number of Bangladeshi Hindus from the NRC, a group it considers as a vote bank." which is emphasizing that the BBC's conclusion is not unjustified. Also, the Diplomat source is, so far as I can see, from the section called the "Pulse", which the magazine itself categorizes as a blog. If the author is a heavyweight, it may still be a usable source; but it's not weighty enough to just replace all news sources with. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That the Hindu immigrants form BJP voter base is public knowledge. But to state that as the cause of BJP's rejection of NRC is moronic, as I explained right at the top. BJP had a strategy for taking care of its "voter base", which is the very subject of this article. So, why are we detracting from that and chasing red herrings? The author of the Diplomat piece is stated as a senior journalist of Assam, which is not very different from Pisharoty's own status. And, Pisharoty's own column is going into all the complexities just as Rajiv Bhatacharyya's. This oversimplification is BBC's own contribution, which I am not buying as a "reliable source", even when attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93: You state BBC to be a weighty source, but clarify "in the absence of scholarly sources". But, that is what Kautilya3 and I have been saying. There ARE scholarly sources. Multiple. And these present a multi-sided, more balanced view. They include the electoral/vote bank politics of the AGP, BJP, Congress, Left, TMC and others on Bangladeshi illegal migrants and non-citizens of India who were given voter cards by non-AGP/non-BJP governments and they do vote. The BBC source does not mention all that. I have already listed and quoted a bit from a few RS above. I sense you have not found time to read these books published by Oxford University Press etc in the last 5 to 15 years, on the subject of the Citizenship laws of India and illegal migrants. Please join me and encourage Kautilya3 to add a 2 to 3 sentence summary of this balanced view given the availability of scholarly sources / RS on this subject. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MSW, I think you need to be a little careful here. Since the CAA is recent, there are unlikely to be scholarly sources that discuss it. The sources you talk about cannot, by definition, link anything to the CAA and should therefore be used with care. My suggestion is that the article be centered around sources that explicitly talk about the CAA and that you should use older sources only to add support to statements or connections already made in these "explicit about CAA" sources. Otherwise I don't see how you can avoid getting into WP:OR territory. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all in the context of the background section. If you check the cites therein, most are sources published before this particular CAA was enacted, some published in 2003 etc. The scholarly sources we are discussing/quoting above are "sources that add support to statements or connections already made in these "explicit about CAA" sources". In other words, we agree. We should and are already following that guideline. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source is creating the context, then that's not a problem. If, however, we create our own version of the context, then we have a big problem of OR. As an example, consider the exchange below (under "Vote banks without citizenship). If reliable sources link the vote cards etc. to CAA, then it is ok to include it here sourced to those reliable sources. But, if the "most democracies" and "weak institutions" material are from your own research, then it isn't ok to include that in the article. Backgrounds are tricky because one is linking historical material to a current event and what may appear obvious or relevant to me or you may not stand up to peer review (and that's why we have policies like OR and SYNTH). --regentspark (comment) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, "if reliable sources link the vote cards etc. to CAA, then it is ok to include it here sourced to those reliable sources". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Contradicting the narrative in post-CAA sources with material from pre-CAA sources is original research. I don't have to read the entire volume of scholarship about citizenship law, because those scholars were not psychics, and could not discuss anything about a 2019 bill in an early 2000s publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem if you haven't or don't want to read these scholarly sources, some of which were published after 2016. FWIW, the narrative in post-CAA publications already make the statements or connections to all this background context. It is why they are relevant and not OR:Synthesis. Now consider this: your edits to this article in the last 5 weeks used source(s) that make absolutely no mention of 2019 CAA or 2016 CAA or any prior related amendment-connection! Show me on which page, if you disagree. Please explain how the usage of such sources by you in this article was okay in light of what you are now insisting about what Kautilya3 or other editors should not do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the second (third?) time I have been asked, and have answered, that question, which suggests you are not listening. The secular nature of the Indian constitution, and the fact that the citizenship laws were religions-neutral when implemented in 1955, are facts whose relevance has been established by sources covering the CAA (sources from December 2019). It is therefore necessary to include them; the Jaffrelot source merely provides additional verification, and the date of 1950. Any use of older sources needs to meet the same criterion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember that next time before objecting to Jaffrelot-type scholarly sources that make absolutely no mention of CAA 2019 or earlier versions of CAA. For similar notable "facts whose relevance has been established by sources covering the CAA (sources from December 2019)", it is okay to include such RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment is not in the spirit of collaboration, given that I've been repeating the same thing I said above for weeks (and scant attention was paid to what I said, until RegentsPark and others highlighted the same policy issue). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Vote banks without citizenship
, others: The above scholarly sources state that the "illegal migrants" in Assam, West Bengal etc carry vote cards and ration cards, that they have been "voters without being citizens" in Indian elections. That is odd and notable, particularly for readers outside South Asia. In most democracies, it is unlawful and a crime for any alien (non-citizen) to vote in any election. Should we mention this "vote banks/voting without citizenship", the role it played in this Amendment, in the background section or somewhere? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what Kamal Sadiq means by "weak institutions" of the developing countries. India can't regard itself as a developed country until it is able to give valid birth certificates to all its citizens, and only its citizens. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak institutions since 1950 have definitely been a big part of the problem. I am not in a position to assess if the weak institutions were deliberately maintained or just an accident of history. That millions of migrants/non-citizens were given voter ID cards by local officials and have been voting in India for decades, like citizens, in the border states is inconceivable in modern major democracies of the West. Kamal Sadiq has a chapter on "Voters across Borders". For a source that meets the latest comments by RP and V93, see this. The article mentions the Left parties there too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected needs to review
Hello folks, on 15th January 2020, the semi-protected in this article was expired. But, on 22th of January the Indian Supreme Court held a hearing about CAA. There was potential and opportunity for non-logged users to vandalize this article with many false information regarding this law such as including the Hong Kongers or Uyghurs in the Citizenship Amendment Act. Does someone have opinion about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.20 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've extended the protection by another 3 weeks in anticipation of the Supreme Court hearing. El_C 07:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Indian Law is consistent with UN, US and EU laws
The Lautenburg Amendment of 1990 in the US grants asylum based on religion to Christians, Jews and Bahais from Iran but there is no such article against USA based on this amendment, the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization and the UN Convention of 1951 and the European Union use the country of origin and ethnicities in the definition of refugee, and the UN granted asylum to Christians from Syria based on their religion, but they have not been criticized on Wikipedia like in the case of India and Hindus.

The above points are well documented in an article that appeared in Sunday Guardian and can be easily verified by going to the primary documents mentioned in the newspaper. See https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/un-dont-follow-hypocritic-oath-caa

The same newspaper also did an analysis of USCIRF and pointed out that 31 of the 54 commissioners have been activist Christians affiliated with proselytizing groups and the entity's roster of commissioners and former commissioners consists of convicted criminals and those who molested children. See https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/anti-hindu-uscirf-sex-crime-bigotry-name-religious-freedom

Sorry to say this, but for the above reasons, this article is biased against Hindus. Why is it that Hindus cannot do what white people have been doing all these years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.101.164 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NEWSORG, opinion columns in newspapers are not considered reliable sources unless they are written by established scholars or analysts. You are welcome to bring up such commentaries for us to consider, but please do not go around advocating those viewpoints yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the links to the actual documents in that case.

Constitution of the International Refugee Organization which identifies refugees by ethnicity and nationality - https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1948/08/19480820 07-01 AM/Ch_V_1p.pdf 1951 Convention of UN which uses nationality as the criterion - https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.23_convention refugees.pdf

Press release from United Nations headlined "UN assisting Iraqi Christians seeking refuge in Syria" - https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/10/279112-un-assisting-iraqi-christians-seeking-refuge-syria It also has the quote, “Many Christians from Mosul have been systematically targeted recently and are no longer safe there. We are ready to provide support for those Iraqis that seek refuge in neighboring countries.”

UNHCR's criterion for Refugee Status Determination based on country of origin - https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/refugee-status-determination.html This actually states, "Country of Origin Information (COI) is information which is used in RSD procedures. COI reports collate relevant information on conditions in countries of origin pertinent to the assessment of claims for international protection.”

UNHCR's document on Pakistan excludes Sunni Muslims (refworld.org is an official website of the UN used as a repository of their documents) - https://www.refworld.org/publisher,UNHCR,COUNTRYPOS,PAK,5857ed0e4,0.html

UNHCR's document on Afghanistan blames Islamic Sharia law for creating refugees - https://www.refworld.org/publisher,UNHCR,COUNTRYPOS,AFG,4a6477ef2,0.html

EU uses criteria based on national origin - https://www.refworld.org/publisher/ACCORD.html#bbcountry

USCIRF's hypocrisy as it supported refugee status on religious basis for Christians, Jews and Bahais arriving from Iran - https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/uscirf-concerned-denial-lautenberg-refugees-iran

Lautenburg Amendment in USA uses religion test - https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-announces-extension-of-lautenberg-amendment-for-iranian-religious-minorities-fleeing-persecution-included-in-omnibus

All these are OFFICIAL links. I only provided the article link to save everyone time and effort in terms of going through multiple links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.101.164 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This an act that has been criticized in the real world. Wikipedia just reflects that. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we need the Template:About?
I doubt anyone would be specifically looking for protests on Wikipedia without the relevant background that this article provides. We have a subheading about "Protests" too which has the Main article link in it. I'm not sure what rules work here though. Pheeniks (Talk) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Placards at Pro-CAA rally, Ahmedabad.jpg

Can someone please make a diagram for the article?
Can someone please make a diagram? Even a simple pen and paper one will do (can be converted later). A diagram of the history-tree of the CAA 2019. How it is linked to previous amendments and acts. No need for extra detailing in the diagram. Just the main stuff, simplified? --DTM (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this be for inclusion in the article as an image or just for editors on the Talk page to understand it better? --Bless sins (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is intendedInsertion by JerzyA (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) for the article.
 * , check out wP:GRAPH on ways to make it.
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have presumed to reformat the preceding talk contrib, on grounds of reckless disregard for clarity, as regards both dialog-structure and intent of backward references. --JerzyA (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bless sins, yes, the article, as DBX answered. & Will see wP:GRAPH . I guess I may end up making something if no one else does. --DTM (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk is cheap, always, and WikiTalk can be cheaper than silence ... tho 5 days isn't that long on WP (except when compared to the speed of proof by blatant assertion). --JerzyA (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * JerzyA, who are you talking to? Me? (If you are talking to me then I was talking in WikiSpeed terms above; and WikiSpeed can be fast or very slow. There isn't any rush as far as this is concerned) The Act was passed only a few days ago anyway.
 * Getting a poster or flowchart is easy. There are enough online and I saw this one at a protest (image on the right). But this/they are not really what I was looking for. A manual one is needed. DTM (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose this kind of speculative photo because this is violation of WP:SPECULATION Please put things only which are factual. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"India's anti-Muslim law" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect India&. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 01:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)