Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019/Archive 5

Government sources
Several of the sections above were essentially started to argue that the narrative in the article be changed based on government statements. Sources quoting the government are essentially primary sources, and therefore get very little weight on Wikipedia in comparison to independent secondary sources, and particularly with respect to scholarly sources. both of you need to reframe your arguments; attempting to force a government narrative into the article by posting lengthy walls of text here is not going to work, and reflects poorly on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Vanamonde I had suggested that since there are secondary source links in the article, which are mentioning about the "Indian Government Response", additional matter from those links can be added for that topic in the relevant sections. Please see this link which already exists in the article and give your opinion regarding it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IE_Explained_NRC+CAA-18 


 * Kautilya3 had agreed with my suggestion and even thanked me for pointing out that link, you can see here. So I am not suggesting any "change in narrative" or "attempting to force a government narrative into the article" as you have put it or any "original Research" content or for favoring the Government. Our aim is to improve the Wikipedia article and make it more compliant with Neutral point of view The Wikipedia article should reflect matter in the source links.


 * There is an archiving bot in the Talk page which archives all the previous threads on the comment. I had made ONE long thread and on insistence of Kautilya3 had made one more thread to put my proposed content regarding that issue. Since Wikipedia editors rarely go to the archives or read other threads in the Talk page, duplicate threads are created by other editors. This is a common problem, not unique to this Talk page. Yndesai has suggested a solution for that "Create a pinned list of issues we want to address achieve consensus and proceed with small edits at a time." I agree in concept with him on this, I can comment more when full proposal is there on this issue. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is your intention, you're doing a poor job of communicating it. Your comments above, when they are comprehensible, are arguing for what I describe above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 seemed to understand the suggestion, that is why he even thanked me for pointing out the link. If the suggestion is clear to you now, I would request your opinion regarding the secondary source link which I pointed out - whether it can be used to improve the article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned that you could expand the Government response section using the source. It is a secondary source that takes the Government FAQ into account. But it has been more than 24 hours and you have not followed up. Moreover, you reverted my content which was based on the same source. So I am not sure how you can hide behind me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3, Your edit was reverted due to violation of Wikipedia policies. This is completely different matter. I have given my suggestion for addition to the NRC section of the article in this thread. I would again request to talk only about the article content rather than about the editors. This Talk page is meant for that only.
 * @Vanamonde Would you like to give your opinion regarding the secondary source link which I pointed out - whether matter from it can be used to improve the article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article itself is a reliable source, but you need to be very careful not to misrepresent it. Very large parts of that source are just quotes from the government, and those are not reliable; most of the rest more or less comes down to some broad history (which is already covered in our article) and some statements to the effect that there's some gaps in what the government is saying. In other words, the source may be reliable, but there's no substantive content which can be usefully added from it that I can see. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kmoksha regarding your comment above " No this may be a problem for you but not for others. by repeatedly creating threads on the same topic you are enlarging the problem. The bot only archives thread after the discussion has died down and had not received comments for several days. It is archived so that editors can focus on the ongoing discussions. An archive thread does not mean it is lost into oblivion. You can always go to the archives and add an WP:Internal link of that archived thread whenever you need to refer to that thread (like I did below). (see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page) This way you don't need to reinvent the wheel and can continue from where the discussion last ended. If a new editor comes up they are expected to search the archive to see if the topic was already discussed before. If they dont do the searching and knowingly or unknowingly start a discussion that has already been discussed and concensus reached then the others should respond with a link to the archive thread consensus, instead of starting again from the scratch. You could have asked these questions on the WP:TEAHOUSE if you were not aware. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since this has been brought up on the talk page, I would agree with the observation made by Vanamonde93. As an example, for the claims, I would note for the record that there have been massive walls of text being created for adding the FAQ released by government. Whether being intentional or not, this behavior is testing the patience of the page contributors, and I can speak for myself that my patience is growing thin as this continues.
 * Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3
 * Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3
 * Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019
 * Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally had created only ONE long thread. When it was pointed out to me that I should make a proper proposal, I started another thread. And i have stuck to those 2 threads. I cannot be responsible for other users behavior. I was talking about behavior in general, which is not to read other people`s thread and start own thread. That goes for both the new and old editors. It is a common problem. I have already replied to all these allegations with admins - here The admins seem to have accepted my refutations to the allegations, so I would request to discuss here on the article rather than on editors. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is not true. Among the 4 threads on the topic of FAQ that I listed above, I note that 3 were started by Kmoksha and the most recent one by YN Desai. if folks are not reading an existing thread, you can give links of the existing thread and/or merge the new thread with an existing one on the same topic.  D Big X ray ᗙ  20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @u|DBigXray Article Talk page is not for bringing up editor behavior claims. You have started a thread on talk page regarding this issue. I had responded there. If you still have something to say on that issue, kindly continue it there. Here, discussion should focus on the article otherwise it is disruptive for all the editors who might read the sections of this talk page. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @u|Vanamonde93 This article is about Citizenship (Amendment) Act and NOT about protest/controversies around it. This article very regularly drift towards becoming article about protest (Purely my opinion). I tried to act as devil's advocate to bring focus on making this article about Amendment. Refer my effort in this direction [Reduce protest section length], which is agreed by Kautilya3. Since the Author of Amendment is Government, sources are likely to be secondary sources which are again referring to government publications and come under scrutiny. Upon re-framing of arguments (and making change in opinion/proposals) I have already made changes in my recommendations in Proposing new wording and Number of paragraphs in protest section discussions. I have already mentioned that I got confused with Archive for being not active (Apologies for that) and created one more link on Release of FAQ. Intention is purely to improve the article by bringing focus that this article is NOT about protest but the Amendment itself. -- YN Desai Discuss 05:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, what's your point? I explained why government statements cannot be used to frame the article. Your post neither agrees nor disagrees, but rambles on about entirely unrelated complaints. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that Government statements cannot be used to frame the article. Your elaboration on pitfalls are also well noted. Let me see how much I succeed in walking the tight rope. I have quoted a source to just make a statement that an event occurred. here  @Vanamonde Can you evaluate legalserviceindia.com as reliable source. As I find them to be more as expert on legal domain.-- YN Desai  Discuss 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence that their articles have any form of reliable editorial oversight, and in the absense of that I don't see how the source is reliable. In fact the whole website is generally unclear as to the provenance of the content it hosts. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. -- YN Desai Discuss 13:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest "Relationship to NRC" edit
List of Topics in the thread opener post
 * Changes made to the section by the edit
 * multiple violations of Wikipedia policies by content of this edit
 * 1. Newly inserted content violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view since "Opinions" presented as "Facts"
 * 2. Newly inserted Content does not match the content of the given sources and violative of Wikipedia:No original research specifically Wikipedia:Synthesis of published material
 * 3. Content matter removed is different from what is newly inserted - No explanation whatsoever given for its removal

changed this text in section "Relationship to NRC" :

to this:

There are multiple violations of Wikipedia policies by content of this edit:
 * 1. Newly inserted content violates Neutral point of view since "Opinions" presented as "Facts"


 * (1a) Let us first see the relevant part from that Wikipedia policy -




 * (1b) The newly inserted content has several sentences which are opinions stated as facts like this sentence -
 * "In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit."


 * (1c) So, this sentence is trying to build up on the procedure of NRC of Assam but the third link of the newly inserted content (this was present before also in the article) says "Minister of State (Home) Kishan Reddy said the government has not decided when the exercise would begin or what its modalities would be. “The draft is also not yet prepared. Neither the cabinet nor the legal department has approved it. NRC is not going to happen immediately. Some people in the name of NRC are trying to spread fear,” he said."


 * (1d) And then same article goes on to explain "Why is Assam different?" Also, it quotes from the PIB FAQs of Indian Government which reinforce the same statements.


 * (1e) When the National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not a fact. That is why it is violating Neutral point of view by presenting Opinions as Facts.


 * 2. Newly inserted Content does not match the content of the given sources and violative of No original research specifically Wikipedia:Synthesis of published material


 * (2a) Please see what this Wikipedia policy says -




 * (2b) Please see link number 4 of the newly inserted content which is from India Today, it says "How is the CAA connected to the NRC? The two have no connection..." Further, that source says "Will the proposed NRC be like the one prepared in Assam? No. The Assam NRC has a different historical context... "


 * (2c) Even the other links like link no. 6 from scroll say "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." Scroll source says "Myth #2: The bill will help a large number of refugees" This is corroborated by another link from the article of Deccan Herald - "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs" This is also corroborated by the Report of Committee on CAB.


 * (2d) When as per the sources, the `Intelligence Bureau of India` is saying that only a limited number of people are beneficiaries of CAA, not lakhs, statements of the newly inserted content like "the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit" are violating No original research specifically Synthesis of published material


 * 3. Content matter removed is different from what is newly inserted - No explanation whatsoever given for its removal


 * (3a) The previous content matter, which was removed without any proper discussion, is talking about "concerns" that people have about not able to produce documents to prove their citizenship. It is true that there are "concerns". We were discussing that what the Indian Government Response to these "concerns" should be included. But Kautilya3 hastily replaced content without letting the ongoing discussion finish.


 * (3b) I would request Kautilya3 and all other editors to not hastily try to "fix" these sections by inserting new sources and content. But I would request editors to make proper proposals for the section contents, discuss that thoroughly in the Article Talk page and insert it only when there is Consensus on that content after proper discussion. The proposers should give few days for other editors to respond to their proposals and questions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we should work together to maintain the standards of Wikipedia.


 * (3c) Kautilya3 asked me to explain my revert. But he did not give me time to me to reply properly. So, I am reinstating the original content since it was agreed upon by previous editors. I would again request that this not be changed in any way without proper discussion and consensus that newly inserted content will not violate Wikipedia policies.


 * -- Kmoksha (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Summarising By Kautilya3

 * , that was too long a post. I am summarising it here so that we can agree what we are discussing:


 * 1. You believe that the statement "In this context [of the NRC], the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit." is an opinion not a fact because the government has not issued the "modalities" for the NRC.


 * 2. You believe that the same statement constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYN because the Intelligence Bureau has said that only 30,000+ people will benefit from the CAA.


 * 3. You believe that the original content of the section was removed without explanation and you would prefer it to stay.


 * Is that an accurate summary? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @u|Yndesai and other editors, Please see -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already stated that content is being added in haphazard manner. Also for every edit it comes down to take consensus. I am in favor of small but crisp and neutral article (I come to wikipedia for Neutral articles). Lot of issues are now in archive. It is becoming waste of time to contribute to this article. Current team must propose to lock this article temporarily. Active members are replying to few comments on convenience basis. Create a pinned list of issues we want to address achieve consensus and proceed with small edits at a time. In nutshell I agree to hold addition of proposed content. -- YN Desai Discuss 09:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 The lines before and after that sentence also are very closely linked to that sentence and so have similar problem. The post is long since it has all the details like what was there originally and what are the inconsistencies between the article and the source. I have added subtitles (not sections) so as to make it more readable. I would request you to shift your summary and make it a comment on the main thread since all the content of the main thread is needed for proper discussion. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have more issues, you can bring them up later. But at least the three issues that you have raised, which I am able to understand reasonably, we should clear up first.

Taking up your point 3 first, the original content was not written as analysis of the relationship to NRC. and I took no cognisance of it. It appeared magically when did some restructuring. But it was originally part of a Commentaries section, which is now gone. I have no particular objection to it, except that it is not analysis. It is sourced to opinion columns, which I normally don't use as per WP:NEWSORG. If you want some of it retained, we can do so. But the comments would need to be attributed to the people who stated them.

The points 1 and 2 are not valid. The source I used is the one you yourself recommended. "IE Explained NRC+CAA" This is not an "opinion" piece, but rather a regular news feature, an "explainer". So, what is written there can be stated as fact on Wikipedia, unless it is contradicted by other sources. So, your complaint of "opinion, not fact" is not valid.

I believe the content summarises the source as needed for this context. Here is the breakdown.
 * Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims: The source says, Shah said in Parliament that no documents will be asked of those who apply for citizenship under the new law, giving a possible exit route to some of the Hindus potentially excluded from the NRC. The term "shield" is also used in the source later on for this "exit route".
 * who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh: The source says: This is crucial at least for a section of Hindus, who can trace their ancestry to Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I added the bit about fleeing persecution, which is mentioned elsewhere in the source.
 * while the Muslims do not have such a benefit: The source says:

So your objection of OR and SYN are not valid either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * @Kautilya3 Let us start discussion point by point. Let us first start with the title of the subsection. It is not clear whether the "Relationship to NRC" is regarding "Assam NRC" or "Nationwide NRC" ? Please answer this. Then, I shall address your other points. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is both. I have no idea what that has got to do with anything.
 * You reverted content and you are yet to give a policy-based justification for it. There are no points to discuss. Your objections are invalid and full of WP:OR. Please don't expect me to sit here and spend days and days discussing things with you. You need to state now, precisely and succinctly, what policy violations you claim for the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is both, then the title needs to be edited accordingly in my opinion.
 * Regarding point no. 1, you said "The source I used is the one you yourself recommended. "IE Explained NRC+CAA" This is not an "opinion" piece, but rather a regular news feature, an "explainer"."
 * Please see the definition of "Opinions" and "Facts" given by the Wikipedia policy link. It is not saying that Opinion has to be Opinion piece and rest all are facts. Opinion is defined as "An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive." The source at multiple points says that the National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not factual, not concrete.
 * This is confirmed by the content of this source and other sources referenced by you as I have explained in the thread opener -
 * "(1c) So, this sentence is trying to build up on the procedure of NRC of Assam but the third link of the newly inserted content (this was present before also in the article) says "Minister of State (Home) Kishan Reddy said the government has not decided when the exercise would begin or what its modalities would be. “The draft is also not yet prepared. Neither the cabinet nor the legal department has approved it. NRC is not going to happen immediately. Some people in the name of NRC are trying to spread fear,” he said."
 * (1d) And then same article goes on to explain "Why is Assam different?" Also, it quotes from the PIB FAQs of Indian Government which reinforce the same statements."
 * The second paragraph onwards are purely opinions which are presented as facts. That is not acceptable. It should be told as an opinion if you want to put it.
 * Regarding the point no. 2, I have clearly shown that your own given links are saying that there is no link between CAA and NRC. Clearly, this is not what your edit content is saying. Also, those links are saying that only a small number of refugees will benefit from CAA which is not lakhs. This is also not what the edit content is saying. See source no. 4 of India Today and source no. 6 of scroll 9see para 2c and 2d) That is why there is a mismatch between the linked sources and the edit content.
 * Regarding point no. 3, whoever put it is not the question. It was there for a long time, more than a month and was accepted by all the editors. Now, if we should remove it, since this is a controversial topic, it should be discussed in details at this Talk page why it is being removed. Have we all not agreed for this ? I agree that the previous content was an opinion. Anything said in this regard can only be an opinion, nothing concrete. And it is presented as such "Commentators said..." It is attributed to "Commentators". The word "concerns" also points that it an opinion. -- Kmoksha (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding point 1, the article was labelled as "Explained by Indian Express" with the Indian Express logo stamped on it. Clearly, the newspaper stands behind this article as an institution. So a lot more than your WP:OR is needed to brand it as an "opinion". And, your OR is quite poor too, given that you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page).
 * (1c) You are trying to argue with a reliable source using your own interpretation of government statements. Multiple admins have told you to desist from pushing the government viewpoints.
 * (1d) No, the sentence is not building up from anything other than the fact that the NRC has happened in Assam and it has been promised for the rest of India. Also, the source doesn't say anything different for Assam regarding the relationship of CAA to NRC. So this is a completely pointless point.
 * All said and done your point 1 continues to be invalid, based on you own WP:OR.


 * Regarding point 2, You have clearly shown one journalist, who didn't see a link between the CAA and the NRC. But plenty of others did. For example, BBC News said way back on 11 December, "The two are closely linked, because the Citizenship Amendment Bill will help protect non-Muslims who are excluded from the register and face the threat of deportation or internment". It couldn't be any other way since the Home Minister himself apparently said it in the Parliament and in a multitude of campaign speeches. Even this journalist, Kaushik Deka, admits towards the end that it is "partly true", whatever that means. You are cherry-picking what you want from all the available sources. WP:NPOV asks you to describe the consensus among all the reliable sources. So, one source disagreeing makes no difference.


 * "Small numbers will benefit" is WP:CRYSTAL, which Wikipedia doesn't engage in. By the way the IB never said that X number of people will benefit. It only talked about how many people have applied for exemptions and have been granted. It said those people will be the "immediate beneficiaries", a term that many sources faithfully reproduced. If one source makes speculative extrapolations that doesn't make any difference to the consensus.


 * Regarding point 3, the old content was there for half a month, and it got there accidentally, not by design. And, I did not "delete" it, I expanded it. That is what happens when you expand a section. In any case, if you are particularly attached to the old content, I have said that I am happy to retain whatever can be salvaged from it. So, you need to stop trying to milk this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Kautilya3 response on Regarding Point 3. Original few lines are much crisp and to the point with very much neutral tone. I don't think this can happen by accident. By my proposal of elaborating this section was to add Opposing view (if any). Comparing language of

Original language is what suits Wikipedia article.-- YN Desai Discuss 06:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I would say it underplays the gravity of the situation, which is being protested by thousands and thousands of protesters in India and decried by practically every newspaper in the world. It is in no way reflective of the reality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I again want to bring focus, this section is Relationship with NRC and not protest. This relationship is not getting stronger day by day with more protesters joining protest everyday. However, In case we want to highlight gravity of situation there are many words in English dictionary. To quote few humongous, astronomical, colossal,gigantic, huge, immense, monstrous and many more to choose from. -- YN Desai  Discuss 10:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Regarding point 1, you said "you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page)." This is the download link of Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 - here
 * Please see this link and tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India.
 * If we have this definite information of procedure of Nationwide NRC, we can say what is a fact and what is not, otherwise not.
 * I have quoted definition of Opinion from Wiki policy source. Please give supporting wiki links for your claim that "Everything written in Indian Express can be stated as fact on Wikipedia"
 * Regarding point 2, If even journalists are not agreeing with each other, how is it a fact ? I would be fine it content says that "According to bbC, ...." According to India Today,...." and so on. Even if contradictory views are given, then it would be in accordance with Neutral point of view
 * Quoting from What_Wikipedia_is_not -
 * So, if only the IB attributed statement quoted by a reliable source in the article is put that "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs", it is not violating WP:CRYSTAL
 * You can download the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on CAB and see what the IB said to the Committee. Then, please go to page no. 39 and see 2.17 to 2.20 - prsindia
 * Quoting from the same -
 * Your link no. 6 and other links are confirming this "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit."
 * Regarding point 3, You yourself tell all to FIRST discuss and give proper proposal regarding change from X to Y, so kindly first discuss in details here and write in the wiki edit statement that "As per Talk page discussion and consensus" You can discuss with Yndesai and others what to retain from that and what not to along with reasons.
 * @u|Yndesai, Kautilya3 says that Nationwide NRC full procedure has been declared. If so, I would request you and other editors to tell what documents a person coming to India in January 2020 and claiming to be persecuted minority from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh has to submit and prove his/her claims and get Indian Citizenship. Please give authentic sources for it. -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this article talk page for quite some time. The quality of this article is quite poor and content violates several Wikipedia policies like Neutral point of view and WP:SYNTHESIS. I agree with reasons given here that the content of this section should be kept reverted to original content. Nationwide NRC procedure has not been declared yet fully, so it is useless to put it as factual in this section. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @u|Yndesai, Kautilya3 says that Nationwide NRC full procedure has been declared. If so, I would request you and other editors to tell what documents a person coming to India in January 2020 and claiming to be persecuted minority from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh has to submit and prove his/her claims and get Indian Citizenship. Please give authentic sources for it. -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this article talk page for quite some time. The quality of this article is quite poor and content violates several Wikipedia policies like Neutral point of view and WP:SYNTHESIS. I agree with reasons given here that the content of this section should be kept reverted to original content. Nationwide NRC procedure has not been declared yet fully, so it is useless to put it as factual in this section. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Ok, we continue the discussion as you requested. But for that to happen in a productive way, you need to agree to let me organise this huge section in a sensible way, and you need to agree to write shorter posts. See WP:Wall of text.
 * Regarding point 1, you need to state first what is the relevance of your question to the topic at hand. Certain amount of information is available in the Law and the Rules, and those who are able, can draw conclusions from them. Certain others may not. We are not concerned with them. Secondly, every Law enables certain things and disables certain things. Those aspects are again clear to the people trained in doing such analysis. That is what an Analysis section reports. Such analysis is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is analysing the implications. (getting to your point 2).
 * Regarding point 2, you ask if "even journalists don't agree how is it a fact?". Well, you only produced one journalist who doesn't agree. This journalist, Kaushik Deka, even denied that there was any mention of "persecution" in the Act . But we report it as a fact. How come we are able to do that? And, how can we accept this journalist as an authority that trumps every other major news source in the world?
 * Then you get into the IB testimony, which is another tangent. Since we are discussing that issue separately below, I won't get into that. One thing to keep in mind is that the entire JPC deliberation happened during the previous Lok Sabha, when there was no talk of a nationwide NRC. The JPC report exhibits no knowledge of any nationwide NRC. At the time IB was testifying, it would have been fine to assume that the rest of the people (who number in millions, not thousands) are already practically citizens, and they won't bother applying. But the IB wouldn't have known that pretty soon all of them are going to be put on the anvil. We are talking about the CAA's relationship to the NRC in the present day context, which the JPC report doesn't contain. (Note that all this discussion pertains to your WP:OR. None of this is in the source or in the content.)
 * You say the LInk 6 states, "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." Since you have the JPC report, can you show me where the IB said anything like that?
 * Regarding point 3, I would invite to show where I have told any one that they should "discuss FIRST". I would only do so when I revert an edit, and only if I have policy-based objections or other subtleties that need discussion. There is no requirement on Wikipedia for any one to "discuss FIRST". Of course, when issues are contentious, it would be wise to discuss first. But I don't regard anything contentious in what I wrote. All that has been written in a great number of reliable sources in various ways. I just showed you what the BBC News said way back in early December.
 * By the way, when a content is reverted, the "talk page discussion and consensus" is based on policy-based objections. Whoever wants to raise objections can raise them. Vague opinions like "it is not neutral" or whatever don't make any difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me ask around., do you find anything contentious in the content I wrote for this section "Relationship to the NRC", displayed at the top of this section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I might quibble with some aspects of it (the second sentence of the second paragraph I find confusing, in particular), but it is broadly representative of the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3
 * Shorter Posts 
 * Let me quote from your given link Wall_of_text -


 * So, it should be seen whether a post or comment has relevant content or not. As for the opening post of this thread, I do not find anything which is non-relevant. And you do not want "Vague opinions", so you should be fine with relevant content. Still, I have tried to improve the navigability of the thread opener post.


 * I had suggested to have "point by point discusssion" on each point given in the opening post. But you did not agree, so the comments are on all the points of the opening post of the thread and so comments are bound to be longer.


 * Regarding point 1, you asked "what is the relevance of your question to the topic at hand"
 * I have explained it already previously. But let me try to explain it more thoroughly. Your sentence "In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit."tries to build upon the procedure of Assam NRC."


 * But all the sources you give reference for that sentence are saying something else -


 * "it is not clear whether the same shield will be available to Hindus left out of NRC in other states. Even in Assam, it brings up a contradiction. This was raised by Congress MP Kapil Sibal who, in Rajya Sabha, brought up how a Hindu in Assam who is left out of NRC can use the citizenship law as a shield...." indianexpress


 * "Why is Assam different?" indianexpress


 * "It is not yet clear what sort of documentary proof would be required to prove citizenship because the exercise would be conducted by state governments, and perhaps each state government could have its own specifications...." openthemagazine


 * "How is the CAA connected to the NRC? The two have no connection." indiatoday


 * But you claimed in an earlier comment that "you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page)." That is why I asked you the question "Please tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India."


 * You have not given any answer for the question because it does not seem there have been any documents declared for the nationwide NRC yet.When the full National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not a fact.


 * I have quoted definition of Opinion from Wiki policy source. Please give supporting wiki links for your claims regarding "Explainer articles" and "Analysis section reports" that everything written in them can be presented as factual and in Wikipedia`s vioice.


 * Regarding point 2, you asked "This journalist, Kaushik Deka, even denied that there was any mention of "persecution" in the Act [5]. But we report it as a fact. How come we are able to do that?"


 * Reason for mentioning "persecution" as a fact is because it is documented in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has given statement regarding this question to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on CAB (see this prsindia link or page 37, section 2.11 and 2.12 of the JPC report - link given in that link or this secondary link)


 * While your proposed edit has DEFINITIVE statements for relationship of CAA and Nationwide NRC, I have shown that at least links 3-6 referenced by you for that proposed edit use words as "not clear" showing no certainty or even saying that "there is no connection of CAA and NRC".


 * I had suggested in an earlier comment that "I would be fine it content which says that "According to bbC, ...." According to India Today,...." and so on. Even if contradictory views are given, then it would be in accordance with Neutral point of view". But it is not clear why you did not respond to that suggestion.


 * IB deposition to Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report on CAB - I referred to the IB deposition to the JPC because according to the IB Director, the beneficiaries of CAB will be "a small number" (see 2.19 and 2.20 of the JPC report)


 * You asked "Link 6 states, "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." Since you have the JPC report, can you show me where the IB said anything like that?"


 * That scroll link from your own proposed edit answers that question in a section and all that can be easily corroborated with the JPC report. I would like to quote from that link -








 * Regarding point 3, you said "I would invite to show where I have told any one that they should "discuss FIRST""


 * Please see your statement here where you said "...Do not delete sourced content unless you are able to justify it here. .."


 * You removed the whole old content and added new content while that content was under discussion at the Article Talk page. An issue on which discussion is going on is contentious. -- Kmoksha (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still basing your arguments on primary government sources, despite having been told several times that such sources are not reliable. Most of your walls of text therefore do not merit a response. Since I've told you about this several times now, I will be more blunt; continuing to post lengthy arguments for content modification that are based on unreliable sources will result in someone seeking sanctions against you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde Your statement "You are still basing your arguments on primary government sources, despite having been told several times that such sources are not reliable." is incorrect.
 * I am strictly following the Wikipedia Policy regarding WP:PRIMARY. Quoting from that policy - That is what I am doing. Very rarely, I use primary sources for arguments and that too for the primary sources which are mentioned in the secondary sources and in the Wiki article itself like JPC report and the amendment law itself.
 * You can see all my quotes in my previous comment are from secondary sources. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your complaints about NPOV are heavily based on contradictions between government statements and secondary sources; this was the case in your first post, and as far as I can tell you're pushing the same arguments here (although it isn't very clear; as I've said before, you're making it really difficult for others to understand what you're looking to change). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde No. I have said that NPOV is violated because Opinions given in the secondary sources references in the proposed edit are presented as facts in the proposed edit. There are contradictions between the proposed edit and the referenced secondary sources. I have quoted text from those secondary sources as well in my previous comment which show those contradictions. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are contradictions, I am happy to look at them. But you need to list them succinctly so that we can understand what they are. Secondly, when there are contradictions we lean towards the predominant views expressed in the reliable sources. We do not give isolated views UNDUE weight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3, I have quoted from all the references for the first line of the second paragraph (links no. 3,4,5) and they all contradict the sentence in your proposed edit. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from sources
The sources 3, 4 and 5 support the content. Here are quotes from them: Clearly the sources don't see the supposed contradiction you see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. Indian Express:
 * Question: Why is it being said that it plays out differently for Hindus? Answer: In the run-up to the passage of the legislation, Shah repeatedly focused on the chronology of passing it first and then implementing NRC.... Now there are many Hindus, predominantly in the Northeast, West Bengal and to an extent in Gujarat, Delhi, Rajasthan and Punjab, who can trace their ancestry to the three countries included in the citizenship law. Shah said in Parliament that no documents will be asked of those who apply for citizenship under the new law, giving a possible exit route to some of the Hindus potentially excluded from the NRC.
 * Question: Is all this the reason why Muslims are particularly worried about CAA combined with nationwide NRC? Answer: Yes, the worries arise out of the fact that the CAA shield is not available to them. If a Muslim cannot meet the eligibility criteria for NRC, once those are finalised, she will lose citizenship when the NRC is published without her name....
 * 4. Kaushik Deka, India Today:
 * Question: However, since the CAA will provide citizenship to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from three countries, only Muslim immigrants will be left out when the NRC is rolled out. Is it not a clever way for the RSS-BJP to realise their dream of a Hindu Rashtra? Answer: Partly true. The CAA will provide citizenship to illegal non-Muslim migrants from three countries and who have entered India before December 31, 2014. An honest NRC should exclude illegal migrants of all religions.... (This, despite him having said earlier that there was no relationship between CAA and NRC).
 * 5. Shylashri Shankar, Open Magazine:
 * For a non-Muslim who may have lived in India for centuries but who doesn’t have a birth certificate, all is not lost. He or she can argue that they have no place to go or that they have fled these neighbouring countries to escape persecution (and have left their documents behind). But a document-less Muslim cannot make such an argument because the CAA does not include Muslim minorities.
 * @Kautilya3 I do not approve of your moving my comments and attempts at sectioning of this thread. That is not allowed without the permission of other editor unless there is a serious format error. Kindly let the discussion continue in a single thread.
 * While your proposed edit has DEFINITIVE statements for relationship of CAA and Nationwide NRC, all your referenced sources and your quotes from that are only talking about uncertainties or possibilities using words such as "not clear" etc. or even saying that "there is no connection of CAA and NRC."
 * So, rather than quoting parts of the referenced sources for your proposed content, you need to show that your referenced sources are not mentioning anything as a possibility and are fully definitive.
 * Your sentence in your proposed content "In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit." tries to build upon the procedure of Assam NRC."


 * Link 3 of your proposed content - Indian Express
 * To justify that this source confirms with your proposed content, you have quoted "...Yes, the worries arise out of the fact that the CAA shield is not available to them.... "
 * Please note that your sentence is definitive while here the article is talking about "worries" and "concerns" and using the words "not clear" in spite of quoting "Amit Shah`s speech" etc. Same is confirmed by my earlier comment where I quoted that
 * "it is not clear whether the same shield will be available to Hindus left out of NRC in other states. Even in Assam, it brings up a contradiction. This was raised by Congress MP Kapil Sibal who, in Rajya Sabha, brought up how a Hindu in Assam who is left out of NRC can use the citizenship law as a shield...."


 * Link 4 of your proposed content - India Today
 * To justify that this source confirms with your proposed content, you have quoted "Partly true. The CAA will provide citizenship to illegal non-Muslim migrants from three countries and who have entered India before December 31, 2014. An honest NRC should exclude illegal migrants of all religions...."
 * Here again, your own quote is not definitive using words like "partly true" and pertains to immigrants who have entered before 2014 and is talking about an "honest NRC". That is clearly not what your proposed content is talking about.
 * Same is confirmed by my earlier comment where I quoted that
 * "How is the CAA connected to the NRC? The two have no connection."


 * Link 5 of your proposed content - Open Magazine
 * To justify that this source confirms with your proposed content, you have quoted
 * "For a non-Muslim who may have lived in India for centuries but who doesn’t have a birth certificate, all is not lost. He or she can argue that they have no place to go or that they have fled these neighbouring countries to escape persecution (and have left their documents behind). But a document-less Muslim cannot make such an argument because the CAA does not include Muslim minorities."
 * While in my previous comment I quoted from a previous paragraph of the same article -
 * "It is not yet clear what sort of documentary proof would be required to prove citizenship because the exercise would be conducted by state governments, and perhaps each state government could have its own specifications...."
 * Again, the article is talking about "possible impact of the NRC-CAA combine " which is nothing definitive while the words of your proposed content are definitive.
 * Further, you claimed in an earlier comment that "you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page)." That is why I asked you the question "Please tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India."


 * You have not given any answer for the question because it does not seem there have been any documents declared for the nationwide NRC yet. When the full National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not a fact.


 * I had requested you to give wiki links for your claims regarding "Explainer articles" and "Analysis section reports" that everything written in them can be presented as factual and in Wikipedia`s voice. But you have not given those also.


 * @Yndesai and other editors, Are you aware of any documents which have been declared by Indian Government for the purpose of Nationwide NRC, which can be used by person claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and coming to India in January 2020 to give proof for his/her claim and get Indian Citizenship ? If yes, kindly give any link referencing the same. -- Kmoksha (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very loaded question. Nationwide NRC (there are some interviews, but No I am not aware any documents issued by Gov ) coming to India in Jan 2020 (No I am not aware).-- YN Desai Discuss 04:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There are three parts in the sentence:
 * In this context, (1) the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, (2) who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while (3) the Muslims do not have such a benefit.

Of these, (1) and (3) are factual because they follow from the text of the Act, just as in the sources, whereas (2) is a possibility, which is phrased as a possibility. I don't see what the issue is.

Would you like to propose an alternative wording which satisfies your concerns? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 The wording of (2) is showing definitiveness and not a possibility. So, I would like to propose this alternative wording for that sentence -
 * In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act  a "shield" to the non-Muslims  claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims  such a benefit.
 * @YN Desai and other editors what you think of this alternative wording with the added words in green. The main word is "concern" which was present in the previous content also. In this way, we have expanded on the concern. -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The first green bit: "" is significant watering down of the reality. But I am willing to live with that in the interest of collaboration., can you give your view?
 * The third green bit: " such a benefit" doesn't make sense. The "benefit" we are talking about is the option of claiming the CAA shield. The Muslims don't have the benefit. They don't have shield available to them. So "cannot claim" doesn't fit here.
 * The second green bit " a shield" is a little more tricky. My text did not make any distinction between the illegal immigrants and the regular residents of India. For the illegal immigrants, the shield is available. That is the whole point of the CAA. For the 0.5 million Bengali Hindus in Assam, who were excluded from the NRC, it is available right away. For the Matuas in West Bengal, who are said to be 17% of its population, it is available right away. The CAA has been designed for them. For the regular residents, on the other hand, it is an option of (falsely) claiming that they had been migrants all along. But if they are facing the threat of being put into detention centres for the rest of their lives, who can blame them? So, if you want this watered down in this fashion, then I will need to talk about the illegal immigrants and the regular residents separately. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 The present text of this section is
 * "Commentators have expressed concerns that people who are unable to produce required documents to prove their citizenship and inclusion in the NRC will be accepted as migrants and given Indian citizenship under the Bill provided they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains but not Muslims; and the latter would risk becoming stateless because they are not included under the Bill."
 * This clearly has the word "concerns". Now if you want the text to change from "concerns" to something definitive, you need to support that with reliable links which are not having any words like "not clear" and are corroborated by primary sources. Your present referenced links have a preponderance of "worries" and "concerns". That is why I would like the text to continue having the word "concerns". The other parts are just grammatical adjustments with this word. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are talking about. I gave three bullet points above. Which bullet point are you responding to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am addressing "all of your three bullet points" with my response. The present text of the section has the word "concerns". You have removed it in your proposed text and made it more definitive but for that you need to support that with reliable links which are not having any words like "not clear" etc. which are not definitive and are corroborated by primary sources. You have not done that yet and your present referenced links have a preponderance of "worries" and "concerns". So, I would like the text to continue having the word "concerns" The rest of added words are only grammatical adjustments with the word "concerns". -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove third sentence of first paragraph of lead as it violates WP:WEIGHT and is non-factual
The first paragraph, third sentence of lead says "Muslims were not given such eligibility"

But this is misleading since this is not what the law says. The law does not say which religions are excluded. Law says only those religions which were included. There are other religions also which are not included like Judaism etc. It does not even include atheism. So, just saying "Muslims were not given such eligibility" is giving undue weight to one religion.

So, I propose that this sentence should be removed from the lead at least and at other places in the article like analysis, word "Exclusion" should be changed to "non-inclusion"

Kmoksha (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What the text of the law says is irrelevant; the text is obviously not going to make reference to things that it omitted. We base our articles on secondary sources discussing the text, most of which pointedly mention the exclusion of Muslims. We therefore must do the same. Please read WP:DUE carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde That line violates WP:WEIGHT . The law has been criticized for non-inclusion of other communities as well including criticizing non-inclusion of Hindus from countries. So, why only mention in the lead to "exclusion of muslims" ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the policy you are citing? It says "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." (Emphasis mine). The exclusion of Muslims has received far more attention than that of any other community. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde I have read the policy and am saying what the policy is saying. This line "Muslims were not given such eligibility" does not represent other viewpoints at all. Even the viewpoint of people protesting in North East India is not represented in this single line. And that also received lot of attention. That is why this line is violating WP:WEIGHT and that is why should be removed from the lead. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Protesters are not reliable sources either. Will you STOP chasing these red herrings and wasting everybody's time? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The protests in Assam are covered in the lead, along with the other protests. The first paragraph is a description of the bill itself, not of reactions to it. There is a clear distinction between the POV of those protesting this in Assam, and those analysts describing this as pointedly excluding Muslims. Please familiarize yourself with how our articles on contentious topics are structured, and please read the policy once again, because your comment suggests you have not understood the details of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 I am talking about the Wikipedia policies here. This single line does not represent other viewpoints at all, so it should not be in the lead. When there are multiple viewpoints regarding the law with loads of reliable articles expressing views on non-inclusion of other communities like Tamils, etc. (those have been referenced in the article itself). Then, having these words for viewpoint regarding a single community violate the Wiki policy of WP:WEIGHT
 * I was asked to put my views on the article on the talk page and that is what I am doing. I would request to put your views on the topic rather than on me.
 * @Vanamonde You said "The first paragraph is a description of the bill itself, not of reactions to it" The third line of the first paragraph is referenced to articles which are telling about reactions to the bill.
 * For comparison, please see this sentence in the third paragraph in the lead which is much more according to Wikipedia policies -
 * "The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, in particular for excluding Muslims" 
 * The third sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is not only violating WP:WEIGHT but it is also repetitive. -- Kmoksha (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That the bill excludes Muslims is a fact.
 * That it has been criticised for it is a POV.
 * The two are different and they are treated as needed per Wikipedia policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The act does NOT mention anything about excluding anyone. "Excluding muslims" is a criticism, a POV. The first sentence of the third sentence of the lead itself says this - "The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, in particular for excluding Muslims" So, the third sentence of first paragraph of the lead is trying to say the same thing what the first line of the third paragraph of the lead is saying. It is repetitive. Besides that, the former is violating WP:WEIGHT while the latter is not. That is why the third sentence of the first paragraph of the lead needs to be removed. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * YN Desai and other editors, What is your opinion - Should the third sentence of the first paragraph of the lead be removed. Do you agree with the reasons I have stated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoksha (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * YN Desai and other editors, would you like to give your opinion regarding this sentence. Should it be kept or not ? I proposed that it should be removed since it is a criticism. The first paragraph of the lead should only talk what the law is. The rest of the paragraphs are talking about the various criticisms. -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that first paragraph of lead stays with what Amendment says. Considering first line of third paragraph clearly conveys same message (exclusion of muslim) in better manner repetition in lead can be avoided.-- YN Desai Discuss 03:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020
Change: "Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are not offered citizenship under the new Act" To: "Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who are in India illegally before 2014 are not exempted from the provisions of the Foreigners Act under the new Act."

Justification: The current text implies that others are offered citizenship under the Act. That is not correct. The act does NOT confer or offer citizenship to anyone, including non-muslims. The language of the amendment makes no reference to *granting* of citizenship. It merely exempts a subsection of people who entered India illegally before 2014 from proceedings under the foreigners act - which includes deportation proceedings. (see section 3A of the act, quoted in the Wiki article). These people still have to go through the process to gain citizenship. Netkabuki (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. You need to provide reliable sources for requesting changes to content. I also don't buy your argument. How do you know they are in India "illegally"? Refugees are generally allowed legally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The rules for exemptions under the Foreigners Act has also been challenged in the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court hasn't taken up that case yet. But it will probably do so now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lautenberg-Specter Amendments
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom has a blatant double standard with respect to CAA. It has championed the Lautenberg-Specter Amendments but criticises Modi for CAA.

The Lautenberg-Specter Amendments are an exact parallel of the CAA in the United States. I think this should be appropriately covered here on Wikipedia. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 12:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it looks similar even though it is an "immigration" programme, not citizenship.
 * So, apparently, Jews and Christians only, from countries that are America's chosen enemies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This commentary seems pretty well-informed about the Lautenberg Amendment, but it is not well-informed about the CAA. The CAA does not "obviate the need for them to meet the individual demonstration requirement". Under the CAA as well as the 2015 exemptions to the Foreigners Act, all the refugees need to demonstrate religious persecution individually. In this sense, the Lautenberg Amendment is more free-wheeling than the CAA. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the CAA, not the USCIRF. If we were to start discussing the hypocrisies of those supporting and opposing the bill, we'd end up writing a full-length book. Any commentary about the USCIRF belongs on that page (assuming, of course, that it's compatible with WP:DUE). Not here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The commentaries have been phrased as criticism of USCIRF. We won't do that of course. But the fact that other similar legislations exist elsewhere in the world is certainly useful information. It can be briefly mentioned somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This commentary seems pretty well-informed about the Lautenberg Amendment, but it is not well-informed about the CAA. The CAA does not "obviate the need for them to meet the individual demonstration requirement". Under the CAA as well as the 2015 exemptions to the Foreigners Act, all the refugees need to demonstrate religious persecution individually. In this sense, the Lautenberg Amendment is more free-wheeling than the CAA. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the CAA, not the USCIRF. If we were to start discussing the hypocrisies of those supporting and opposing the bill, we'd end up writing a full-length book. Any commentary about the USCIRF belongs on that page (assuming, of course, that it's compatible with WP:DUE). Not here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The commentaries have been phrased as criticism of USCIRF. We won't do that of course. But the fact that other similar legislations exist elsewhere in the world is certainly useful information. It can be briefly mentioned somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. A brief mention is OK. I have added a small footnote for that purpose. Thanks for writing that long explanation up there. Regards, &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 17:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Although I have placed the footnote near the USCIRF reaction, I have neutrally worded it so that it doesn't obviously appear as criticism. You are free to revert my edit to add the Lautenberg-Specter Amendments in a better place. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 17:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The other difference between Lautenberg Amendment and CAA, immigration vs. citizenship, is also interesting. I wrote early on asking, What is this law really about?. In theory, the amendments to the immigration rules published in 2015 should have been enough. All the migrants claiming persecution were allowed to get long-term visas and become legal. The rules also said that they would be deemed to have been legal from the date of their entry to India. The vast majority of them would have already completed 7 years residence required for registration and so they would immediately qualify for citizenship. So, theoretically this law is not necessary at all.

Other than the two reasons I originally I wrote about, a third reason now occurs to me, viz., that the East Bengali refugees didn't take up the government's offer. Whereas 34,817 long-term visas were issued to the Pakistani migrants, only 187 visas had been issued to the Bangladeshi migrants. It is not as if they are not interested in citizenship. They have been consistently agitating for citizenship ever since the 2003 amendment was passed. But it seems that they don't trust that the Indian government will stand by them. They have been so badly let down by the Indian government since 1947 onwards, that they just want citizenship here and now, with no conditions attached. Even the CAA doesn't satisfy them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Reduce protest section length
Considering there is dedicated article on protest which is linked and being updated on regular basis. I recommend to reduce protest section to 2 paragraphs. Need not update this section on every news and event published. -- YN Desai Discuss 05:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to impose any limit in advance, but I would agree that the coverage of protests has to be at a more high-level, focusing on the views of protesters rather than the acts of protest themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 Paragraphs are views of Protester and opposing view. When we create such framework neutrality can be enforced. -- YN Desai Discuss 15:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid you are not at liberty to impose any such framework. Content always depends on what needs to be said and what information is available. Only after it is written can we discuss whether the material is WP:DUE or UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please understand that Due importance is already given by having a dedicated article. Here we are planning to put high-level view and opposing view. Focus needs to be brought on articulating the topic which is CAA. It takes (not so deep) understanding of English that word Protest always have 2 views. If first view is not significant enough why there is protest against it anyway. Kautilya3 you keep quoting WP policies at your convenience  -- YN Desai  Discuss 16:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Number of paragraphs can be decided later. Reduction in section length being agreeable issue to 2 of the editors let us take it forward. Any proposal is welcome. -- YN Desai Discuss 11:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @YN Desai Please suggest what should be removed. If the editors here agree, we can go ahead and do that -- Kmoksha (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to remove too much, but reword it to make it concise. I will do it over weekend. -- YN Desai Discuss 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit in your sandbox and propose your sandbox version with a link here at first, before updating the article. regards.  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Increase protest section length
This section needs a lot of major updates that has been lacking. The major events and a summary of the protest article has to be added.  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * User:DBigXray Please add list and links of updates you want to consider from CAA protest article so that they also can be considered while proposing new draft. I don't think you are interested in reducing and increasing this section at the same time. -- YN Desai Discuss 16:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yo Abhishekaryavart (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced & discreminating point
It's inappropriate present BJP as Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. And other there is not sufficient portion of Speech of Home Minister Amit Shah. Souniel Yadav (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DUE and WP:YESPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Elaborating Relationship with NRC
Considering subsection of Relationship with NCR is in Analysis section, I think views and supporting evidences need to be mentioned. I propose to add following line at the end of paragraph.

Any real group of such persons is yet to surface.

This line can be removed once citation to actual affected (by relationship with NCR) group/individual is available. -- YN Desai Discuss  —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is "NRC" not "NCR". I am also unable to make sense of this sentence. What is meant by "such persons"? "Surface" where? What source are you using for this comment? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting. NCR is too much part of my real life vocab hence the TYPO. Coming to the point, it is clear you are evaluating the proposed statement in isolation and not in context with the complete paragraph. Or may be I tried to put a very short statement. I propose following revised statement which will help everyone understand alternate view point properly. Also it refers to a reliable source. My personal opinion was not to quote such articles, but to keep the alternate point of view alive I would use it anyway.


 * The concern stated is for hypothetical group of people who may be affected by combined effect of CAA and NRC. No such group/individual have come forward. In absence of any group/individual coming forward, some commentators posed themselves as scarred victims. -- YN Desai Discuss 06:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * YN Desai There is a source referenced in the article which talks about CAA and NRC at length but for unclear reasons, none of its content is mentioned anywhere in the article - https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-citizenship-amendment-act-nrc-caa-means-6180033/
 * I propose to put this paragraph from that source into the wiki article -
 * "After protests spread, the government has sought to downplay its narrative on NRC. Minister of State (Home) Kishan Reddy said the government has not decided when the exercise would begin or what its modalities would be. “The draft is also not yet prepared. Neither the cabinet nor the legal department has approved it. NRC is not going to happen immediately. Some people in the name of NRC are trying to spread fear,” he said." -- Kmoksha (talk)


 * I think this downplay aspect is mentioned in Indian Government Response. Now, this again is opinion of the source (ie Indianexpress) and not government. As Government is going ahead with NPR. This is issue with just quoting sources and placing statements in various sections. Hope to see some improvement here.-- YN Desai Discuss 13:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't put multiple proposals in the same section because it causes confusion.
 * 's proposal is WP:OR, not supported by the source.
 * 's proposal is off-topic. This page is on the law, not on the implementation or lack of implementation of the NRC. The law states that the Indian government is mandated to do an NRC for the whole of India, and the BJP has promised to do it. What they might say for political expediency doesn't impact these facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 This section on article talk page is discussing about relationship of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 with NRC and there is a similar section in the article also. So, my comment and proposal is NOT off-topic. You said "The law states that the Indian government is mandated to do an NRC for the whole of India, and the BJP has promised to do it." No procedure for National level NRC has yet been declared, that is what my proposed addition for this section is saying. So, that should be added to this section.
 * @YN Desai Only one line is mentioned under the section Relationship with NRC in the Wiki article -
 * "Commentators have expressed concerns that people who are unable to produce required documents to prove their citizenship and inclusion in the NRC will be accepted as migrants and given Indian citizenship under the Bill provided they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains but not Muslims; and the latter would risk becoming stateless because they are not included under the Bill"
 * That section Relationship with NRC does not give any counter-view to that view, that is why that section is violating Neutral point of view because Wikipedia is supposed to have both view and counter-view as far as possible. I suggested an already accepted source to be used because it is telling what is the Indian Government Response on this matter. Elsewhere in this talk page, I have mentioned how the section Indian Government Response does not really have any Indian Government Response. Please discuss that issue there.
 * -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is only one issue I am trying to put forward that section Relationship with NRC does not give any counter-view hence needs elaboration. @Kmoksha agrees on this. I don't have idea of @Kautilya3, but his insistence on reliable source is appreciated.-- YN Desai Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * YN Desai The source link which I gave here has already been accepted by the wiki article makers. So, I would request you to go through it in detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IECitizenshipExplained-18. Because in it lot of counter-viewpoints are mentioned regarding this subject. I gave the proposed content from that source only. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks for the link. That is an excellent article, and I have made use of it in expanding the "Relationship to NRC" section. You can also use it to expand the "Government response" section since it is a secondary source that talks about the PIB comments. The downplaying of the NRC can't have too much weight because the government issued orders for NPR even in the midst of its "downplaying". We know that the BJP promised the Bengali voters that it would get rid of the illegal immigrants and it needs to go back to them within a year for the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have thanked Kautilya3 for the elaboration done, but for neutrality one line of counter-view point is always needed. It is still missing. Adding one more paragraph does not bring counter-view point.-- YN Desai Discuss 04:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy does not require anything called "counter-views". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This tutoring is going too far. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV talks about considering opposing-views (counter-view) and performing good research to bring about all view points (common sense tells 2 are minimum), even be aware of bias in content of reliable sources and represent them in impartial tone. Hope you will re-read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV in light of this interpretation and be able to use reliable sources with more maturity.  -- YN Desai  Discuss 14:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. The first line of the policy is: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If such "significant views" include opposing views, then we cover them. Nowhere does it say "counter-viewpoint is always needed". You made that up on your own.
 * , can you advise? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with YN Desai . Indian Government Response is a "significant view". "Indian Government Response" is formed as a consensus of all ministers and the sources in the article cover those, but the article lacks those, so that should be put in the article. We do not favor any Government and Governments can take U-turns. But that does not mean we do not put those POVs. We should put all major POVs of Indian Government even if they are contradictory and exposing the Government. -I have created a new section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Some_Examples_of_Wikipedia_Policies_followed_in_this_article Editors and discuss there and come to a consensus regarding some examples of policies being followed in this article. - Kmoksha (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Kautilya3 You seem to be good at copy/paste which is doing more damage than good. I have not made up anything. It is common sense that unless you research well you will not come across all "significant views". So before we (as wikipedia editors) start writing we need to research and before we research we need to be aware that there are going to be atleast 2 opposing view points. Your google search does not bring about one of the opposing view point does not mean it does not exist. It is already written (in text pasted by you) that we (as wikipedia editors) have to represent all significant views. Hence it becomes our duty to unearth all of them and atleast provide space for them. @Kmoksha Good initiative, I suggest you also link few wikipedia articles which can become benchmark/reference to how this article should become. -- YN Desai Discuss 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note on including points of view WP:NPOV is very clear. You need to include all significant points of view, and they must be included proportionately. It doesn't follow that there be at least two points of view (if only one is significant, only one needs be included) and it doesn't follow that all points of view get equal space. In regard to the current discussion, I guess this means that you (Yndesai) will need to show that the response of the government is significant (i.e., you need to provide reliable secondary sources that assert that the response is significant) and, if there is consensus that it is, to what degree it needs be included. There is a lot of discussion above and I'm not sure I understand what everyone is saying, but you also need to be aware that an official government response is WP:PRIMARY and should not be used. Instead, you should use secondary sources that discuss that response. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted and thanks for your input.-- YN Desai Discuss 13:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * regentspark, There is no disagreement that "Indian Government Response" is not significant and there are sources in the reference of the article also give the "Indian Government Response". Content from those sources can be used appropriately. Please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IE_Explained_NRC+CAA-18
 * The disagreement is on the content for the sections, this section in particular. This section is not giving the different POVs properly even though the article referenced sources are giving that. And while we were discussing all these policy issues, Kautilya3 has removed his own previous content, which was quite different and inserted new content - all this without giving any reasons or discussing this here. Kautilya3`s recent edit has multiple Wikipedia violations. All this discourages other editors who are discussing here. At least, the discussion should be allowed to finish before removing old content and inserting new content and sources. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kmoksha, I was just clarifying what NPOV means. Since I'm not familiar with the content, could you specify which parts of Kautilya's edits violate policies? I'll ask to take a look as well since they've been commenting here and are likely to be more familiar with the topic. --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping. I have read the proposal and I don't agree in adding it. The government's side is well covered in the article. The proposed quote is a part of the Government's misinformation campaign and it is very unfortunate to see that it is being attempted to be accommodated in Wikipedia in the name of WP:NPOV. These quotes from the Govt. are attempts to discredit the CAA protests. As the time passes even the government sympathisers are starting to admit the obvious problems   D Big X ray ᗙ  20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @, Kautilya3`s edit had Opinions presented as Facts and so violated Neutral point of view. The National level NRC policy procedure is yet to be announced. Indian Government has clarified that it is yet undecided. So, there can only be opinions on it, either for or against. But the Opinions were presented as facts. Secondly, there was a mismatch between the content and the sources violating WP:SYNTHESIS. I have explained it in detail in simple words - here -- Kmoksha (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please read the Citizenship rules 2003. Specifically do a search for National Register to read the relevant points.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Please see the link of Citizenship rules 2003 given by you and tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India. -- Kmoksha (talk)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IE_Explained_NRC+CAA-18 Link is renumbered can you provide direct link. -- YN Desai Discuss 04:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * YN Desai, This is the direct link of that Indian Express source. You can also search that link in the Wiki article with the title of the source - "Explained: What NRC+CAA means to you" -- Kmoksha (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal on what Intelligence Bureau deposed to Joint Parliamentary Committee
Proposal

Change

Immediate beneficiaries of the Bill, according to the Intelligence Bureau of India, will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis. telegraphindia

to:

According to the Intelligence Bureau of India, immediate beneficiaries of the Bill will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis

Reason

One can download the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on CAB and see what the Bureau of India said to the Committee. Then, please go to page no. 39 and see 2.17 to 2.20 - prsindia Quoting from the same -

The accompanying source links are confirming this "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." While the present sentence of the lead talks only partially what the Intelligence Bureau (IB) said to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and is incomplete and misleading. Existing sentence is misleading because it does not tell about the IB opinion that "only a small number will benefit due to CAB"

Kmoksha (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * YN Desai and other editors, please give your opinion. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We can't add that because there is no consensus among the ruling establishment as to how many people will benefit. Home minister Amit Shah said (apparently on the floor of the Parliament) that "lakhs and crores" will benefit. Assam minister Hemanta Biswas has said that five lakh people (virtually all of the Bengli Hindus excluded from the Assam NRC) will benefit. And, this, without even going into the campaign speeches of the BJP. There are no "processes" in the Bill, and there is no public information about the "strict processes" that the IB is talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead statement says what the Intelligence Bureau (IB) said to the JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee). It has only the first Q and A but the latter part is missing from there. This is not in any way related with what political parties said. -- Kmoksha (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The so-called "political parties" are the ones that run the government. So you can't ignore them. Most of all, you can't ignore the Home minister, whose Minstry is the one responsible for giving citizenship. The IB doesn't give citizenship. In that connection, you should also read the paragraphs 2.12 through 2.15 of the JPC report.
 * As for your "incomplete" claim, a source has been cited which omitted the speculative information of the IB. For good reason. Another source did not even bother to mention the IB figures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My point here is that the IB deposed to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and Parliamentary Committee is from all the parties. And the deposition was put in the report which was put in front of the Parliament. Since the Parliament is supreme body of the land, it is a very important document and the matter which is mentioned regarding it must be told properly. IB answered several questions before the JPC but the lead sentence only tells about what was said in the answer to the first question and so is incomplete and misleading.


 * I do not mind if you put anything regarding what any minister or politician says and the article has those - if needed more can be added. But the present IB statement in the lead is incomplete and misleading. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Kmoksha There are 2 parts to proposed statement. Fact which is covered in existing statement, Prediction/Opinion of future that is proposed in green. So why not opinion be quoted as opinion and as next statement. Here I want to understand your POV about existing statement: Incomplete (May be) but misleading (Provide your reason in reason section). This being in lead section reason be really important. -- YN Desai Discuss 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that I think the IB did not give a prediction/opinion of the future. They were asked a pointed question and they dodged it. Surely the Intelligence Bureau has enough intelligence to know that there are something like 15 million Hindus missing from Bangladesh, who could have gone nowhere else but India? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, you have the minor problem that the IB never said anything of that sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * IB answered several questions before the JPC but the lead sentence only tells about what was said in the answer to first question and so is incomplete and misleading. -- Kmoksha (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I repeat my point: The IB never said anything of that sort. It is fake news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @YN Desai Both the existing sentence in the Wiki article and the proposed addition are opinions of the IB deposed to the JPC. The IB clearly was of the opinion that "only a small number" of people will be benefited. The present sentence is misleading because it does not tell about the latter opinion of the IB.
 * Kautilya3 We are talking about what the IB deposed to the JPC. We are not analysing what IB said is true or false. What the IB really said is told by the scroll article which I referenced in the proposal and corroborated by the JPC report also. So, that is true. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The original text of the sentence in the lead, added by said:

The citation is from January 2019, a year ago. By 23 December, a detailed footnote had been added, probably by me.

On that day, replaced the original wording with detailed statistics and a citation to the Economic Times.

I think the original wording was the right one, appropriate for the LEAD. The statistics are pointless. This is out-of-date information. By January 2019, the number of immigrants granted long-term visas had gone up to 34,817, which all our wise men don't know about. The same source (Times of India) also reported Amit Shah's exact statement in the Parliament:

Shah is absolutely right. The Congress party never distinguished the refugees from illegal migrants. So, the vast majority of the refugees never came forward to identify themselves. So, the statistics are pointless. I will reinstate the original wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3, This thread and proposal is regarding what Intelligence Bureau deposed to Joint Parliamentary Committee. What you have written is not fully what the IB deposed to JPC, so it is violating WP:SYNTHESIS . What is given in the scroll and deccanherald source links really tells what the IB deposed to JPC. So, I agree with the proposal given in the thread opener. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here, you reverted all my edits, but I have merely cited from the references that were already used, so please re-insert the matter in that article as well as this article in a way that is, "acceptable". Thanks!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Politician views
I am not sure if we can use this here, can we: https://in.news.yahoo.com/give-separate-nation-to-25-crore-indian-muslims-congress-spokesperson-095110795.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb ? Spasiba5 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have not read and digested 's edit summary (indicated in this diff) before you decided to reinstate your edits. This constitutes WP:Edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I request you then to re-insert it in a way that is acceptable. Thanks!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All the politician views that were worth adding are already present. If there is something new that is worthwhile, please mention it here and obtain feedback. WP:NPOV in this kind of topics is quite tricky. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think I can do any better than what I have done, so please re-insert the matter in a way that is acceptable. I request you to do the same about the reversion here Thanks again!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are trying to do cannot be done as per WP:NPOV. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. For any content you want to add, you need to demonstrate that it is neutral. Politician statements generally do not fit the bill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I observed that you have used the, "no need to worry" statement by Amit Shah here, can it be added to the National_Register_of_Citizens article also?&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Now can we add that the Centre is ready to talk to Shaheen Bagh protesters but in a structured form: Ravi Shankar Prasad, citing this as a reference at least?&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This can also be added - proof that the SDPI attacked protestors.&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Spasiba5, it should be supporters, not protesters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:F1C8:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about the legislation. There are other pages for the protests. When the government reaches an understanding with the protesters, it will go here. Not until then. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I will not be adding anything now as says, "When the government reaches an understanding with the protesters, it will go here. Not until then."&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the second line of the lead of the article be modified from:

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 pib.gov.in

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

Please choose from the Options listed below in the `Survey` section and also give your reasons and comments in the `Threaded discussion` below.

11:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Second_line_of_lead_of_this_article_incomplete_and_misleading

Survey

 * Option 1: Agree that the proposed content should be added to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article


 * Option 2: Diagree with the proposed content but suggest other modification to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article.


 * Option 3: Disagree with the proposed content and no other addition is needed to be added to the second sentence of the lead of this article.


 * Option 1: Agree that the proposed content should be added to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article Abhishekaryavart (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3. There is no limit to the number of definitions that can be added to this sentence. The proposed addition is utterly opaque even to people with some knowledge of the topic, and would require more detail to be added to be comprehensible. The current version summarizes the effects of the act, as discussed by reliable sources, adequately. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3. The lead sentence has to be understandable, and not refer to obscure sets of rules that nobody knows about. I would firmly oppose putting in these obscurities into the lead sentence. "Have been exempted" is also wrong tense. I haven't seen anybody say that people can't apply for such exemptions now and apply for citizenship after receiving them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Lead is supposed to tell the main elements of law. otherwise it is misleading and gives impression that Citizenship is granted automatically to all Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc., from PAB which is not the case. A crucial element of this act is that it gives citizenship to only those persons who already have got the benefit of waiver of Foreigners Act and Passport (Entry of India) Act. That should be in the lead. -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I will simply refer to comments by VNM and KT3 and not repeat what already has been said. per WP:MOSLEAD the lead lead is supposed to be an easily understandable summary of the entire article. This is not supposed to be added to the lead. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 What I could understand is that for eligible candidate to become citizen he/she need to avail waiver of Foreigners Act (ie declare him/herself as refugee and government accept this declaration). I consider proposal is too technical and not easily understandable for lead section. I would lean to drop it in case not elaborated well -- YN Desai Discuss 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)  After taking feedback on two attempts at providing improved wording my final proposed wording is "It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for illegal migrants of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014." Improvement achieved by adding illegal migrants(Which is appearing in first line of analysis section) is that it accommodates interpretation of proposed second line in first line itself in simple wording.-- YN Desai  Discuss 04:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adding "illegal migrants". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Abhishekaryavart, User:Vanamonde93, User:Kmoksha and User:DBigXray please share your opinion on proposed change.-- YN Desai Discuss 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @YN Desai I support your proposal for the second line of the article -- Kmoksha (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No objections to this specific addition. It seems a little click-baity, but I'm unable to come up with a concise alternative wording, so okay. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am open for better alternative. Since we are restricted by vocabulary used by reliable sources. We will stay with this till something better appears at the horizon.-- YN Desai Discuss 16:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @YN Desai I support your proposed changes for this line of the Wiki article -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
The second line of the lead of the article 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. It is subject to those who already got exemptions under said laws. This addition will make the second line more clear. Abhishekaryavart (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you @Abhishekaryavart
 * @u|Kautilya3 You said "The lead sentence has to be understandable, and not refer to obscure sets of rules that nobody knows about" These rules are essential elements of the law. The lead is supposed to tell what the law is because the article is on the law. Instead, the lead is full of other things which should not be in the lead, it should be covered in the main body of the article.
 * What do you have to say about these statements in the first and second paragraph of the lead, are they not duplicate in your opinion -
 * From the first paragraph -
 * "It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. pib.gov.in"
 * From the second paragraph -
 * "Under the 2019 amendment, migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014, and had suffered "religious persecution or fear of religious persecution" in their country of origin were made eligible for citizenship. pib.gov.in"
 * You say that "I haven't seen anybody say that people can't apply for such exemptions now and apply for citizenship after receiving them" The law explicitly mentions cutoff date of 2014 for getting Citizenship. Which sentence in this law, in your opinion, is telling that future persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Christians from PAB will get Citizenship ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It says they should have entered India by December 2014. It doesn't say they should have received exemption by December 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @u|Kautilya3 Please see in the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 clause 3, sub-clause 3 proviso, where it gives exemption to making application now for only those who meet the other criteria and against whom case is pending. Those people are limited. But one of the sentences in the lead states otherwise -
 * "Immediate beneficiaries of the Bill, according to the Intelligence Bureau of India, will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis.economic times". The reference given for this sentence nowhere says the word "immediate", this is own addition. This is violation of No original research Infact, the Deccan Herald link given in the article body, also says - "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs" -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, you are getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND. Just look at a sample google search, pick a citation and add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another accusation on me without giving any specific details, which is obviously untrue. I just showed the inconsistencies in the links of the article itself. The article body link is saying one thing and the lead is saying another. Your own added link is saying that Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs. Why add our own wording when the link does not say that and neither does the report of joint Committee on CAB ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the policy you cite says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". You have not explained what efforts you have made to convince yourself that "no reliable, published sources exist". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Go one line further in the wiki policy No original research which is "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." This is what happened and I have already explained it. The article content is inconsistent with the content of the sources used in the article. There is no word "initial" in the sources you use. That is own wording used. The source link which you give clearly says that "Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs." That is supported by the `Report of joint Committe on CAB`, so it is true. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * YN Desai, Please give your vote in the Survey section along with your reasons in short. -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * YN Desai You have said that the line can be improved with alternate wording. Can you give any suggestion for alternate wording ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The more I read this article, more I become sure that it has become a clown dress as compared to well tailored tuxedo. There is no maturity shown by users acting as moderator on how to use references. It is never mandatory to copy/paste words and sentences from the source. (I intend to create a discussion thread to demonstrate this by quoting few articles from wikipedia) Article is suppose to have a Context, intent, flow, (Template for) view and counter-view. Anything cited have to be re-worded in reference to context and intent of article. I hope my proposed alternate wording is taken with enough maturity. So context here is CAA and intent is to describe CAA in simple language. My proposed wording is: It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for refugees of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. I have changed word members to refugees as by addition of second line it clarifies that CAA is not for all members but only refugees. I know this is not understandable to self appointed moderators so be it. -- YN Desai Discuss 04:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , please specify which reliable sources have used the term "refugees" for the target community. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering deadlock on this I propose following statement (Which is first line of Analysis Section) to be used: The Bill amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to give eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. Hope this will bring some consensus. -- YN Desai Discuss 11:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see what improvement this is supposed to have made. Neither do I see why the condition of persecution is being omitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Kautilya3 Your point is valid, we cannot exclude condition of persecution, but that is what is the first line of analysis section.! So we add condition of persecution in analysis section. What do you say? -- YN Desai  Discuss 17:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The condition of persecution warrants its own subsection in the Analysis section. The problem is finding sources. But coming back to your proposal, I don't see how omitting persecution from the lead sentence is any improvement. I would consider it wrong, because omitting it suggests that all illegal migrants of this kind have been given eligibility. Also, "path to citizenship", which is a phrase BBC employed, is more correct because there are also conditions of residence etc. that need to be satisfied before they become eligible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of immigration laws with religious basis
As pointed out by User:Vaibhavafroin Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_5 there are cases such laws where citizens/migrants are accepted on religious basis. One more such case I came across is of Poland

Can we add list of such cases be cited at the end of article. -- YN Desai Discuss 11:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. see WP:SYNTH  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Condition of persecution
As suggested by user:Kautilya3 during earlier discussion I also feel that adding a sub-section on condition of persecution would be add relevant context and content to this article. We can populate ideas/links here. In case content evolves enough call can be taken to add to original article. My broad list of probable ideas that can be covered are:


 * Reason provided by Government for adding such condition (tough to get secondary sources).
 * Challenge in verification of fulfillment of such condition by applicant. (not much written on this)

Any further ideas/links can be populated here. -- YN Desai Discuss 10:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , This article is about a law. Please add these sections in the persecution articles.  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggestion is because law now has the condition of persecution. -- YN Desai Discuss 11:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Nehru to Bordoloi
The letter of Nehru cited by Modi can be found in I find the fourth paragraph quite intriguing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly debates
A nice article on the Constituent Assembly debate on citizenship: The main dissent apparently came from Punjabrao Deshmukh:
 * Aditya Mukherjee, How the Constituent Assembly Debated (and Rejected) Citizenship by Religion, The Wire, 10 February 2020.

Both the amendments were defeated in the Constituent Assembly. But the first amendment is now the Citizenship Law, as amended in 1986 and reinforced in 2003. Part way to the second amendment is the present CAA.

At the other end of the spectrum was Brajeshwar Prasad:

He didn't move an amendment. Or, if he did, it wasn't voted on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Protest section length
As suggested in earlier discussion to make this section a high-level jist. I have created a sandbox subpage user:yndesai/sandbox/caaprotest to work on a draft. Users are welcome to contribute. -- YN Desai Discuss 01:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Your version is highly simplistic. and gives an impression that only Muslims of Shaheen bagh are against CAA. it needs lot of work.  D Big X ray ᗙ  05:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your feedback is true. Also it is just Work In Progress. I have put this note so that any other editor can also collaborate.-- YN Desai Discuss 09:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you should try to faithfully summarize the CAA Protests article in your sandbox.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I have summarized and tried to bring in significant angles in the proposed draft. Further feedback welcome onproposed draft. -- YN Desai Discuss 12:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * and I think proposed draft is better then existing section of protest. Please give your opinion so that it can be added in final article. Thanks in advance.-- YN Desai  Discuss 16:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Add Critics Section
The 3th and 4th paragraphs which are part of the main description should be added under the critics section. Both these paragraphs talk about the critics and not the actual Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sek2016 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate/Biased description
The introductory description seeks to spread misinformation. Kindly add that The citizenship amendment act applies to those immigrants who entered India before 31st December 2014. This special condition is just to ensure that those minorities who were subjected to Religious persecution after the Partition of India in 1947. Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan will also be eligible to get citizenship subject to fulfilment of conditions of Citizenship Act 1955. For source read this very informative article citing a minister of Government of India
 * Immigrants of all the other countries in the world are equally eligible to apply for citizenship irrespective of caste, creed, Religion, sect, political affiliation or sex. Shubham2019 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Situation of Jews & People of Other Religions
Why does the article ignores the position of Jews under the amendment even though it specifically states, "Muslims from those countries were not given such eligibility"? This is unfairly biased. Either, the article should read, "Followers of other religions from those countries..." or the status of Jews and followers of other minority religions should be stated somewhere in the article. Currently, it could be argued that this article is anti-Semitic because it ignores the plight of the Jews.

1.127.104.102 (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Other persecuted communities
The CAA does not have provisions from giving citizenship to any refugee from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Tibet. Refugees from both of these countries belong to particular ethnicities and are not limited to a single religion. For example, Sri Lankan Tamils also include a large number of Christians and Muslims. Similarly, Rohingya refugees also include Hindus (who in fact face persecution also from the Muslim members of their own community, but that is not relevant to this article). I have made certain changes in the article to reflect this. Bharatiya 29  13:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted many of them. Sources describing the act discuss these communities as examples of groups experiencing religious discrimination that aren't mentioned by the CAA. Removing mention of their religious identity is misrepresenting these sources, and any arguments about their religious beliefs based on personal knowledge is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are wrong in stating that the sources regarding this act mention the religion of these communities (which would have anyway been factually incorrect as none of them, except the Tibetans, belong to a single religion). Almost all sources and even the critics specify the Sri Lankan refugees as "Sri Lankan Tamils". Senior MP from the DMK (largest Tamil party in the Lok Sabha), T. R. Baalu said this during the LS debate: Sir, there are deficiencies in the Bill. For the past more than 10 years, Sri Lankan Tamils are there, Christians are there, Muslims are there and other people are there. They have been there for more than 10 years. So, that deficiency should be corrected by the Home Minister. That is my point. We are opposing the introduction of the Bill. BJD MP Sarmistha Sethi said: Firstly, Sri Lanka should be included in the Bill as many people belonging to both Hindu and Muslim communities are being harassed and tortured there for decades. Another DNK MP Dayanidhi Maran said: There are Muslims in Sri Lanka who are also part of Tamil Nadu or Tamil Sri Lankans who have been living there. In India for 30 years, they are in our refugee camps. What are you going to do for them? YSRCP MP Midhun Reddy said: We should be accommodating Muslims --be they are from Sri Lanka or Maldives or our other neighbouring countries. and We also have other neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka. We have a lot of Tamilians who have shifted from Sri Lanka to India. Many other critics follow the same pattern: The Hindu, Rediff News, Kamal Hassan, spiritual leader Ravi Shankar. Even the existing article on Wikipedia uses the term "Sri Lankan Tamils" (Sri Lankan Tamils in India). Madurai MP Venkatesan said, “India can be considered as the Home for all those oppressed due to religion, who may be Jews, Parsis, Yemeni, Afghans, Tibetans or Bangladeshis.” Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said, We lived up to Swami Vivekananda by giving refuge to Tibetan refugees. In the Rajya Sabha, Kerala MP Abdul Wahab said: However, this Bill has discriminated Tamil Muslims and Hindus in Sri Lanka, and is silent about the world's largest persecuted minorities of contemporary times, Rohingyan refugees in India, and does not speak a word about non-believers who are being persecuted around the world. Andhra MP Keshava Rao said: Rohingyas are there in Myanmar and Sri Lankan Tamils are there who are already there in Tamil Nadu. The Washington Post also doesn't link these communities to ay particular religion: "Besides Afghanistan, asylum seekers in India typically are Tibetans from China, Tamils from Sri Lanka and Rohingya from Myanmar, so if the government intended to aid victims of religious persecution, these countries also would be included in the law." I have made my point sufficiently clear now. Questions and concerns have been raised about the exclusion of Sri Lankan Tamils, Rohingyas, and Tibetans, but they a majority of critics don't limit their argument to any particular religion.
 * I am also surprised at the way you disregarded the video of the Indian Home Minister speaking during an official Parliamentary debate as "not a source carrying any weight". I used it to describe the government's stand on the Rohingya exclusion and also attributed the comment. Disappointing to see that a senior editor like you is clearly trying to limit the article to only one viewpoint. I have reinstated my edit as I have provided all the necessary explanations. If you still have an issue, kindly sort it out by achieving a consensus on the talk page. Bharatiya  29  14:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the religious descriptor of the Tamil people, as the only one that is not firmly attested to by a number of reliable sources. You've not provided any substantive arguments against the others. As the person who introduced those changes recently, you're the one obligated to obtain consensus for them. WP:NPOV requires balancing viewpoints in reliable sources. Amit Shah's statements (or those of Rahul Gandhi, or any other politician) are not reliable sources, and furthermore are primary sources, which we are not permitted to interpret, per WP:NOR. And yet that's what you're doing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)