Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019/Archive 6

RfC on the "Exclusion of other persecuted communities" section
I propose that this edit to the "Exclusion of other persecuted communities" section be reinstated. I have presented the reasons for the same at, but it is being continuously reverted by for reasons that I find to be invalid. Hence I invite other editors to tell their opinion on this so that a broad consensus can be achieved. Bharatiya 29  16:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, obviously. There's two issues with that edit; first, Tibetan and Rohingya refugees are predominantly Buddhist and Muslim, respectively, and are described as such by both the general scholarly literature and by scholarly sources discussing the CAA; for instance, this source, as reliable as one can find, states "It excludes multiple communities that are similarly subjected to religious persecution in neighbouring states, such as Muslim Rohingyas in Buddhist-majority Myanmar, Buddhist Tibetans, Muslim Uighurs in China, among others." Not much room for doubt there. Second, a video of Amit Shah speaking is both unreliable and a primary source. We cannot interpret it, and we cannot give it much weight. If reliable sources have reported on his comments about Rohingyas, that would be usable, but Bharatiya29 insists on using the video, it would seem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have cherry-picked a source to prove your point. I have presented numerous sources and quotes by the critics of this act. Majority of them don't mention the religion of the religions of these communities. Just because they mostly belong to a particular religion, it doesn't mean that their religion needs to be mentioned when it is not considered relevant by most sources/critics. As far as Amit Shah's statement is considered, how is the government's official clarification on an act that is presented, not relevant here? I have not tried to pass his statement as some sort of hard fact. I attributed it to its speaker. There is no ban on using primary sources on Wikipedia. You are right about the interpretation part; WP:PRIMARY does prohibit the analysis of a statement on the basis of a primary source. If you had a problem with the portion regarding the absence of a land border between India and Rakhine, you should have pointed that out. Anyway, it cannot justify the constant removal of the entire part regarding Shah's statement on the Rohingyas. As far as your point about not giving Shah's statement much weight, I simply see that as an attempt to present only a single viewpoint and that is why I decided to start an RfC. Bharatiya  29  16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have cherry-picked nothing. There are, to the best of my knowledge, five scholarly sources directly discussing this act. These are the highest quality sources we have. One of these mentioned Tibetan refugees, and describes them as Buddhist. Two of them mention Rohingya people (Jayal 2019, "Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India" is the other) and both describe them as Muslim. There are also literally thousands of other scholarly sources describing the Rohingya as Muslim. With respect to Amit Shah, I asked you to provide a better source. You opened an RfC instead, and accused me of violating a policy which you hadn't read carefully enough, which, incidentally, is a form of casting aspersions. Find a reliable source reporting Shah's views on this subject, and we can include them. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is the video not a reliable source? Anyone with a working knowledge of Hindi can verify that Shah said exactly what was written in the article. I can find other sources to which would say the same, but why should I when there is nothing wrong with the source I provided? As far as sources are concerned, there are numerous sources which explicitly talk about the exclusion of Rohingya Hindus from the CAA: Asia Times, Firstpost, Times of India. Instead of mentioning Rohingya Muslims and Rohingya Hindus separately, they should simply be referred to as Rohingyas. As far as Tibetans are considered, it is a known fact that they are predominantly Buddhists but that is completely irrelevant here. A survey of the few sources which talk about their exclusion should make that amply clear. The links I provided will be a good starting point. Bharatiya  29  17:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are sources discussing that Rohingya Hindus, too, have been excluded, that's a reason to add that, not to obscure the fact that most Rohingyas are Muslim and are collectively perceived as such by scholars and the news media (as demonstrated by any number of reliable sources). Your inability to understand the problem with the video is quite concerning. A video of any individual speaking is only reliable for verbatim quotes. It cannot be interpreted by a Wikipedia editor, because that is original research, which is what you have engaged in when you added it; it's nature as a primary source makes it unreliable for the commentary you have added. Incidentally, choosing which parts of that speech are significant is also interpretation, and also original research. That's why you need a secondary source. Please go find one. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Without a secondary source dealing with Amit Shah's arguments, this RfC should not even have been filed! The other issues are equally tendentious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead of the article is biased and misleading - Support statements are missing
In the current version, the lead of the article is majorly talking about the critics of the CAA Act and fails to mention the support that the Act received.

As many as 1,100 academicians and research scholars from various universities across India and abroad as well as prominent persons have released a statement in support of the amended Citizenship Act. In the statement, the signatories appealed to every section of the society "to exercise restraint and refuse to fall into the trap of propaganda, communalism and anarchism". It also mentions that the current act does not change the criteria of citizenship in any way; it is merely providing a special expedited redress, under special circumstances, for minorities fleeing religious persecution from three specific countries i.e Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Sek2016 (Talk) 12:23, 5 March 2020 (PST)
 * Please read WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:DUE cannot be used to present only one-sided facts in the article lead, but edits like this one do exactly that. WP:MOSLEAD requires leads to be written with a neutral point of view. Bharatiya  29  14:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the policy you are citing? NPOV requires balancing the viewpoints of reliable sources. Not pro- and anti-CAA opinions. If reliable sources are supportive of some aspect of the CAA, then our article needs to be too. If reliable sources are critical thereof, then our article is, too. Statements by ministers in parliament are not reliable sources, and get no weight. Please find reliable sources making the claim you wish to add. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified reversals / undos
I would like to draw the attention to these two undo edits: 1 & 2.

With regard to 1, the edit was undone with the subject "that is an opinion, not info; See the section on "The Amendments" to see why it is wrong". A cursory glance of "The Amendments" section reveals quotes from the "Foreigners Act, 1946" NOT this Act itself. For further 100% clarity one can read the full Act itself here.

Further regard to 2, documenting the reactions of notable minority leaders (who are possibly part of the 'persecuted sections' as often asserted) of the neighbouring countries and their cultural organization is a fact - revealed in the sources - not personal opinions. Therefore, original text also needs to be restored here. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first edit "persecution", search for that word in the archives of this page. Please note that your source was an opinion column. As per WP:NEWSORG it is only good for attributed statements, and, in a contentious page, you need WP:CONSENSUS to use it at all.
 * The second edit inserted Pakistani Hindu Council's statements, in the section meant for the "Analysis" of the Act. That is not the place for it. Please feel free to put it under Pakistan's reactions or something. The Hindu Council hasn't bothered to explain why Pakistani Hindus are still streaming into India saying that they don't want to go back. It is a political statement as far as I am concerned, and it should be treated as such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For 1, I suggest you read the full Act itself here - there is no mention of "persecution". --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The law is a WP:PRIMARY source. You have to use reliable sources to interpret it. You haven't said whether you have read the archives of the talk page. We are not going to sit here and debate all over again issues that have been settled a long time ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reaction of Pakistan Hindu Council can probably be put in this section Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019, with the title being changed to "Religious minorities and refugees". As Kautilya mentioned some Hindus have fled Pakistan for India and this fact is mentioned in the same section. Refugees are basically "religious minorities" until they cross the border.Bless sins (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020
There are certain facts which are ignored. It needs a thorough check. Anshumansolan (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Source Requirements
Hi! My edit including a reference to a Pakistani politician in exile was reverted by User:SerChevalerie for not having a reliable source about his opinion. I cited a news article (not the most professional outlet, admittedly), that cited a tweet where he made his opinion clear. I know this is a contentious topic; can someone explain what the issue is a little more so I can figure out if it's fixable? Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see WP:RS. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconding SerChevalerie, much has been written on this topic by good sources. To include content in the article we require top-notch sourcing.--Hippeus (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion to include a section in the article
Hi friends,

The following input was subject to two or three reverts by some of our fellow Wikipedians. The information contained here pertains to people/ media reactions to the Act who are per se notable. I request friends to please review the input and, if needed modify/ edit the content here before it can possibly be reposted in the article. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC):

According to Neeti Nair, author of Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition and associate professor of South Asian history at the University of Virginia in the USA, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens represent steps towards a “Hindu Rashtra” that should be “summarily dismissed both by the people and by the courts”. Similar views were expressed by social activists such as Harsh Mander and Indira Jaising. Several non-BJP leaders such as Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and AIADMK leader Kanimozhi also expressed the same apprehension. Indian newspaper National Herald termed the Act as a proximity to the nightmare of a Hindu Rashtra. The Caravan magazine described it as just a step towards a Hindu Rashtra. On the other hand, foreign media such as The Japan Times termed the Act as "Modi's project to make a Hindu India". These fears gained further momentum when Mahant Paramhans Das, a prominent activist of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement embarked on the first stir in October 2020 in the form of a fast unto death with his followers in the holy Hindu city of Ayodhya to declare India a Hindu Rashtra and called for the mass exodus of Indian Muslims to Pakistan. Das had lead similar fasts when the movement for Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya was active a few years back. He was forcibly evacuated by the Uttar Pradesh Police within days after this move. However, his followers protested the police intervention as the government gave no assurance to heed to the core demands.
 * Demand for Hindu Rashtra and alienation of Muslims from India
 * Support Hasan (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for your input. However the words like Holy and prominent need to be removed. These aren't inline with our WP:NPOV policy. Else, I don't see any problem in getting this section included in the article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph requires some copyediting, but is substantively okay. The second is not, and the section title is not. The sources for the second paragraph are nowhere near as weighty, and also do not make the connection to the CAA, meaning its inclusion here is WP:OR. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Faismeen (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Refs


&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding short-form (CAA) in lead
The Citizenship Amendment Act is better known as 'CAA'. Infact its the only name most people know it by, so imo a shortform within closed parenthesis should be added right after the official name in lead. BomaiyukBatt (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Expanding the "International reactions" section of the article
While the "International reactions" section of this article was interesting, I think it can be improved by a discussion of the implications of the international response to the CAA. Seeing all of the different country's responses is useful, but synthesizing overall responses and adding discussion and analysis would be useful.

Haakad1 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Haakad1 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)