Talk:Death of Sohrabuddin Sheikh

POV
This page is clearly not balanced or level-headed. Therefore the POV is there. He had a 2 crore supari on his head from the innocent Marble merchants of Rajasthan. Tri400 16:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are referring to the first sentence of the article. Please read it carefully. It says that the Gujarat police admitted killing an innocent man, and not that Sohrabuddin was an innocent man. There is a difference between citing a fact, and repeating what the police says. Plus the fact that Sohrabuddin was allegedly an extortionist is clearly mentioned twice in the article. (Allegedly believed he wasn't convicted in any law court.) Everything is sourced from reliable sources. The fact that the police admitted killing an innocent man has BBC as its source. Are you contesting that? Where is the lack of balance? What amuses me that you refer to marble merchants as innocent while saying they gave a supari. --Shahab 10:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 110-word "article" on the Bias Broadcasting Co. with not a single quote from the "authorities" dates back to 23rd March. Its like saying that Iftikhar Chaudhry has been suspended for helping his son get a high-level position in the Pakistani Police. Was he really suspended for that reason? Why didnt the Paki Dictators prove it or take him to court? Why dont you revert the Bob Woolmer article and say that "authoroties" have admitted that he died from suicide after the Pakis match-fixed their last game against Ireland? First reports are hardly ever accurate, when September 11 happened, some reports undoubtedly would have said that it was an accident. Tri400 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have still not got the point. The BBC does not say that Sohrabuddin was innocent. It says that the police have admitted of killing an innocent man on March 23. The article says that the controversy started on that date with this statement of the police. If you are contesting the fact that the police never said such a thing, then you should provide a reliable source. Anyway the aricle is much more then just Sohrabuddin. --Shahab 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Why dont you provide another source that says that the police have admitted killing an innocent man? The only quote on the BBC article is supposedly from the police's lawyer "we are prepared to take immediate action." Furthermore it says "authorities" have admitted that police killed an innocent Muslim without any quote whatsoever. Which "authorities"? Have they only admitted to the un-named BBC journalist in private? That's not an admission. Tri400 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding that the issue is not Sohrabuddin's innocent but what the police said on 23 March. It's what I was telling you from the first post. Anyway, why don't you give a reliable source claiming that the authorities never said on 23 March that they have killed an innocent man since this is your point of view. I am not concerned with the innocence or guilt of Sohrabuddin anyway. All I want that you post a source for what you are saying. My source is the BBC newslink already provided. I wrote the first line on that basis.--Shahab 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, is the BBC 110-word article the only source that you have, to claim that the Police had said such a thing? Was such a thing said to the BBC only? Why isnt it "exclusive to the BBC" then? I have been saying all along that the police have never said such a thing (that he's innocent) because the BBC article is the only one out of thousands and thousands of news sources to claim that the police have said such a thing. Tri400 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still the BBC, and a reliable source. Also see India Abroad News Service as well as   and  for further confirmation. Hornplease 18:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All your links above say that the Government admitted to the Apex Court, not the corrupted and unprofessional police. Tri400 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move
not sure why this article has such an unclear title.

it should be Sohrabuddin Sheikh Fake Encounter

Pls discuss.

--vvarkey (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just realized the encounter happened in 2005, and the title says 2007??? Am going to move the article if there are no objections.

--vvarkey (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with --vvarkey (talk)'s point about the vague title - it appears misleading. This case IS normally referred to in India as the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case (See the press release issued by the CBI, (Hindu)here) and TOI here. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

profile from blog
Kgupta24, please do not put material from blogs. if you can find a good source, your material would be more than welcome. also, please keep the tone of the text neutral. --vvarkey (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, he does not seem to understand our BLP policy. I've given him a link on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Major overhaul Aug 10
as noted above, the article was rather poorly written, band-aid upon band-aid of writing. I started by trying to add recent details, but ended up thoroughly overhauling the whole article. In the lead I tried to bring out the political significance of the case. Added references for most of the points that may be controversial. Also, deleted the claim of a huge arms cache being found in SS's well; the only ref to that seemed to have sprouted after the wikipedia article mentioned it. Instead, I found a reference to only two AK-56's being in the well (he was, however, caught transporting a large haul of arms for Latif). I have also deleted a parag abt Modi's speeches being requested by the SIT investigation into the 2002 riots, this clearly doesn't belong here.

Most of the other citations/references I have kept but tried to incoporate a more coherent story and flow. Trust it reads better, but if you feel it can be improved, by all means, edit it further!!

One point I wanted to mention was how the case shows how far Indian police officers are "bend-able" - but ran out of time. mukerjee (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing
I am in the process of copy-editing this article for the November 2010 Backlog elimination drive for the Guild of Copy Editors. I expect this process to take a day or two; the work in progress can (currently) be found on my sandbox. Please leave comments under this heading and I will get back to you on it. OldManInACoffeeCan (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Move proposed

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Death of Soharbuddin Shiekh Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the title be moved to the neutral "The death of Soharbuddin Shiekh", as is Wikipedia policy and practice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter → Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter – the word "fake" is creates a biased statement of the article, as the issue is under legal proceedings and nothing concrete is coming out. its politically coined word does not fit to the WP:NPOV. Unless and until it is proved, no offensive word supposed to be used, which may tile the public opinion. sensitive issues of specific geography supposed to be taken care. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  23:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Bheemsinh (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support: mentioned under description.Bheemsinh (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion: The title should be "Death of Soharbuddin Shiekh". No one outside of India understands that "encounter" or "fake encounter" might refer to killing someone. The readership of Wikipedia is world-wide. The title should use more ordinary meanings of words. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * agree with suggestion. title should meet WP:NDESC policy. Bheemsinh (talk)


 * I disagree. The title should be the common name. 'No one' outside of any country usually knows lots of things about another country. However they are not all renamed in the interests of understanding. e.g. who knows that Plaza Côte-des-Neiges is a shopping mall in a Canadian city? That information belongs in the article. Imc (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The title should be the commonly used name according to policy. A quick search will show that it is overwhelmingly referred to as the "Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter" including in reputable sources. see Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express, India Today in the top ten. Imc (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * at the same time it should be with WP:NDESC policy. here before closing probe and court verdict, based on newspaper headlines, wikipedia convict them of crime. does this meet WP:NPOV policy. Bheemsinh (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I had no idea what a "fake encounter" was, and I suspect not many English-language speakers do. I don't see a neater way of titling this article, but I do see an article called Fake encounter. It should be linked in the lede, and we should defer to Indian English per WP:ENGVAR for now. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:POVNAME exactly describes the situation we have here. A common name used in the press which fails POV. I don't think the title is that well established that "the prevalence of the name, ..., generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." So policy indicates we need a new name. Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter also suffers from POV but without the backing of a common name. The only alternative here is Death of Soharbuddin Shiekh so move to that.--Salix (talk): 23:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. It appears there's consensus for it. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move to Death of Soharbuddin Shiekh. Red Slash 07:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Talk of injustice
The article as written now favors the police perspective.

Other sources favor the perspective of people killed.

I do not know anything about this case or issue or the people writing about it, but I found this source telling a different story.



 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Split Sohrabuddin biography from everything else
This is a complicated article and I propose to split it for simplification. The split that I want is to separate the biography of Sohrabuddin from the "death of Sohrabuddin". The main article should be the death, and should include the main court case with the 36 accused and brief descriptions of the many side issues.

Currently this article is mostly a biography of Sohrabuddin, which does not match with the available media coverage. The controversy and media coverage is about what happened after Sohrabuddin died or what other people did with him when he was alive, and less about whatever Sohrabuddin ever did. Splitting the biography would simplify a lot.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  01:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Early narratives


 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Amit Shah unknown before this case?


This source makes the claim that Amit Shah was unknown before this case. Currently he is one of the most famous people in India, and perhaps many people now know nothing about this case.

I am marking this here because if it is correct, then this could be part of the explanation of why the case and person matter to each other. I have not investigated early sources to see when the news first mentioned Shah, or to what extent Shah was in public attention before this case.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)