Talk:Jagdish Tytler

Jagdish Tytler Christian? ?
I followed the link that supposedly indentified Jagdish Tytler as a Christian but could not even find the word Christian in the article. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110330/jsp/orissa/story_13783862.jsp This article shows that Jagdish Tytler indentifies himself as a Hindu. If someone could correct this it would be great. (174.1.73.129 (talk))


 * Maybe? It's dubious as it was supposed he declared himself Hindu in order to win more votes after going to a only hindu temple. I will change.
 * anyway its not vandalism how youve stated it just a minor error jheez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniadakota (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag   TALK2ME  03:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jagdish Tytler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071220172927/http://www.tribuneindia.com:80/2007/20071219/main1.htm to http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20071219/main1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jagdish Tytler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207115707/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20071219/main1.htm to http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20071219/main1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jagdish Tytler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421030016/http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=758d6dce-1e0b-4899-8fb4-3d68e706aa63&Headline=Tytler%20granted%20bail%20in%20defamation%20case to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=758d6dce-1e0b-4899-8fb4-3d68e706aa63&Headline=Tytler+granted+bail+in+defamation+case
 * Added tag to http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/E37D672C5393770E652575870057060B?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912114404/http://www.witness84.com/action/ to http://www.witness84.com/action/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusations from Akali Dal politician
Hi IP, I have removed these unsubstantiated accusations from rival politicians. Be careful as this is a WP:BLP. If anything about this is said in the court or in the CBI report please provide source and we can discuss that. Hundreds of politicians have made millions of accusations. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Read this. They are not just "accusations" but recorded videos that were verified by WP:INDEPENDENT sources before they published the news on it. And no.. we are not going to mention accusations only if they are convicted of a crime. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but please note that you are using accusations of wrong doing from this Akali politician as "evidence of fact" which is fallacious. you are saying "", which independent source claimed that it verified the video ? There is no such claim in the news article you posted, that the video was verified. This newspaper article is simply reporting the accusation of the Akali poltician. Did Police or CBI or any court authenticated this video ? I am unable to find any such authentication by any agency. This article from Times of India  link that you posted said the following, see the quote.
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It has verified the existence of the video and provided what both sides say. Also read the report by Hindustan Times.
 * You need to give more weight to the fact that he was involved in 1984 riots. That is what quality sources do : "Due to the controversy sorrounding their involvment in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Congress party dropped both Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar".
 * In your edits you appeared to have omitted the events highlighted here. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please desist from repeatedly adding this negative content based on wild allegations. Please let this discussion reach a consensus before adding this.
 * FYI, please note that the "Policy" Biographies of living persons states the following.
 * You have said above "" what are you referring to by " It " ? who has verified the video, I have checked the articles again and i did not find any such line in the articles that you posted above, that states "the video was independently verified or authenticated by the ' Times of India ' or  'Hindustan times'  ". The Hindustan Times article that you have presented above claims that "the video was given by an unknown person". So basically this is an "unsubstantiated allegations" from a political rival about an "unverified video" that was produced by an "unknown person", and no reliable source has vetted this allegation. The subject has already responded that this is a fake video. Repeatedly adding this into this biography, simply because a political rival made these allegations is completely wrong.
 * I understand that there are accusations against this person, but we must not forget that he has so far not been convicted by any court of law. The article should contain the accusations of wrongdoing, but it must not go overboard in trying to claim that he is a criminal despite no court conviction.
 * Regarding the source,, I agree. I have copy edited the text to state that "The Congress party dropped his name as the candidate for the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, due to the controversy about the riots." remember WP:CLOP prevents us from copying the content from books as it is or with minor changes. it has to be written in own words.
 * It is not clear to me what you are referring to when you say, I have omitted the events. Please post here on talk page, what you want to add into the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:WELLKNOWN and stop removing scholarly sources by falsely describing them as unreliable. I have furthermore removed the paragraph you dedicated to the recent denial of the allegations by the subject because Wikiepdia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and your original research on lead that "No charges against Tytler have been proved" also appeared problematic. Qualitist (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray: I am not going to argue about the policies since they are clearer than which part you are present but you are misrepresenting sources here. Source said "involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots", and you omitted his role by misrepresenting it as "due to the controversy about the riots". It made no sense. You removed links speaking in favor of allegations while preserved link to a removed video.103.204.87.39 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, Please read WP:CLOP again. If you are asking me to copy the content as it is from the book then it will still be considered a WP:COPYVIO. The statement from the book said ""Due to the controversy surrounding their involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, The congress party dropped both Tytler and Sajjan Kumar as Congress candidates for the election", if you are claiming that the book is being misrepresented by me when I wrote  it as "", in order to avoid WP:CLOP. Either you don't really understand what CLOP means or you are here trying to make deceptive accusations.
 * Since this last topic you raised about is not related to Akali accusation,(that is the subject of this thread as this title says), I have responded, after creating seperate sections, see below  and -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has seen issues, I am sure that what you were doing is misrepresentation of source. Controversy was not about the existence of riots but involvement of Tytler in riots. 16:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.204.87.39 (talk)
 * " what kind of logic is that ? you should at once strike off your unfounded accusations instead of doubling it down with lame excuses such as this one. Also the statement that I had written was "..party dropped his name as the candidate ... due to the controversy about the riots." and this does not mean "Controversy about the existence of riots". -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has seen issues, I am sure that what you were doing is misrepresentation of source. Controversy was not about the existence of riots but involvement of Tytler in riots. 16:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.204.87.39 (talk)
 * " what kind of logic is that ? you should at once strike off your unfounded accusations instead of doubling it down with lame excuses such as this one. Also the statement that I had written was "..party dropped his name as the candidate ... due to the controversy about the riots." and this does not mean "Controversy about the existence of riots". -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Y'all want to keep warring over the rest of the content, go right ahead; but until a reliable source verifies the contents of the video, that paragraph is just another nonsensical allegation, of the sort which can be found against every single Indian politician. It is a BLP violation, because it presents some of those allegations in Wikipedia's voice, and I have removed it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Qualitist, you appeared here less than four hours after DBigXRay edited this article, despite never having edited the article or this talk page before. What brought you here? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here by on my own talk page. I agree with Vanamonde that the removed paragraph is unsuitable for inclusion in at this time. The amount of vicious, half-cocked and underhand mud-slinging that goes on in Indian politics never ceases to amaze me, nor does the manner in which the media latch onto it, but Wikipedia's policies are clear on this type of issue. While new contributors to articles are always welcome, they have to abide by all of our policies, not just those that they sometimes perhaps feel best suit them. And, unfortunately, the nature of political articles generally, worldwide, is such that we do tend to get a lot of less well-informed new contributors to them, some of whom are not necessarily contributing for the right reasons.
 * Qualitist, whatever else Indian media sources may be, "scholarly" is definitely not a term that most people would use to describe them. Were you referring to something else? - Sitush (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have issue with removing the leaked content and this is why I had moved it from the lead to section. We can set precedent if we are supposed to remove about leaked content which is yet to be proven credible though I have read elsewhere like Aamir Liaquat Hussain and here or here. But like I said I am fine. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are millions of articles on Wikipedia and only about 3500 regular editors. It is impossible to keep track of everything, everywhere but, as the saying goes, "two wrongs do not make a right". - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, good to see that you are now fine with the removal, it took a lot of users though. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sometimes my Southron gentility prevents me from asking such question. Glad someone did.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All six recent contributors edited the article or talk page for the first time. Noting that, I add that Jagdish Tytler is currently in news. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dlohcierekim got involved after the issue was taken to their talk page. I got involved because Dlohcierekim asked whether I could assist (I'm known for doing a lot of work on India-related articles, so it isn't a surprise that an admin might ask for my input in tricky situations etc). Vanamonde got involved because they watch my talk page and so saw Dlohcierekim's note to me. Like Dlohcierekim, Vanamonde is an administrator but they're not going to be able to act in an administrative capacity on this article now because they've edited it. So, neither myself, Dlohcierekim nor Vanamonde have any particularl axe to grind here - we were just trying to untangle a mess of edit warring etc resulting from the efforts of a couple of relatively new contributors. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This article looks fine right now. Have you seen the sentence "In an interview to CNN-IBN, Nanavati said that the evidence against Tytler is not strong"? It has cited a YouTube video uploaded in 2009. It contradicts these sources: The reliability of video and the dating are very unclear. The YouTube video is copyright infringing material that should not be linked anyway. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I cannot hear the video, so cannot really comment on the statement. But, yes, it is a link to a copyright infringement. We could resolve that by providing a better citation relating to the same interview and by removing the link itself, but I simply do not have the capacity to do that. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thanks for the removal. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not involved and don't want to be. I protected the page to stop the edit warring and said the matter and the material must be consensused before the material can be added back. My action was questioned (quite strongly) and as an example of dispute resolution, I requested a 3rd opinion from someone more knowledgeable than I.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the problem with Wikipedia terminology. As I tried to explain to the IP above, Vanamonde is involved in the Wikipedia policy sense but I intended the word involved for you to be read in the more general sense, ie: you got involved with (participated in) discussions on this talk page, which is what they were referring to. It can all be very confusing for newcomers, as I vaguely remember being my own experience many years ago! - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sitush, it is exactly the above reasons, due to which I feel using "join the discussion/article" is a safer alternative than using "got 'involved' " which is quite a loaded word here on Wikipedia.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I was rushing something and just assumed people would understand. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No charges against Tytler have been proved till now
The ToI article posted by IP in the thread above, states

Accordingly I had added a line in the lead that said " No charges against Tytler have been proved till now.". This line has been removed by Qualitist accusing me of adding original research, I would like this line to be restored back into the lead. It is important to note because all we have against this living person are allegations with nothing proven. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Isn't that why the lead says he denies it? - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article lead currently only states "He denies the charge.", while it is important but it is not sufficient, I am asking to add the line that says " No charges against Tytler have been proved till now." I think it is important to note this fact, since it is not just the subject denying but the current legal status of the subject. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Has he ever actually been charged? I'm getting the impression that there have been loads of investigations but he has never been indicted and thus found guilty/not guilty. Thus, it seems less ambiguous to say he denies the allegations rather than that the "charges" (which aren't actually legal charges) haven't been proven. If you can understand what I am getting at! - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No he has never actually been charged, as the quote from TOI I presented above notes, none of the Charges (meaning accusations, and not "charge-sheet") have been proved so far. The enquiries have interviewed witnesses some of whom have even changed their earlier statements. But the fact remains that Tytler has never been indicted so far. We can think of any other alternate word to convey this message, for "charge" that Times of India quotes, but it should be clarified in the lead in some way, which is missing currently.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And words like "till now" are not encyclopedic. You could add "as of February 2018" but I think this is all undue. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that mentioning the exact date is better than saying "till now", may I know what makes you think that correctly pointing out the legal status of the subject who has tons of accusations but no indictment is WP:UNDUE ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some subtlety that I am missing. There have been allegations and he has denied them. If the allegations were proven then he would have to have been legally charged and found guilty. I could sort of understand wanting to make the point as you do if he had been found guilty but still insisted that he was not but, as things stand, no criminal charges have been proffered and thus nothing has been proven. If you want to say (paraphrase) "the allegations against him, which he denies, have been the subject of multiple investigations. As of MMYY, he has never been indicted in relation to them." then I think it is rather specious but, hey, fill your boots if other people are in favour of it. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Specious indeed. Lead does not claim conviction. "He denies the charge", was enough which has included in lead. Any further explanation would seem as if we are trying to give more weight to a particular side. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not specious. "He denies the charge" is not the same as "No charge has been proven against him". A criminal generally continues to deny the charge even after he is convicted and charges are proved against him. In this particular case the subject has not even been indicted and this deserves a mention in the Lead.
 * Sitush, The lead as it stands right now already uses the word "charge" when the LEAD says "He denies the 'charge' " even though no chargesheet or FIR has been filed against him. I think your suggestion of paraphrasing, is actually very good and covers it well. The statement in the lead "He denies the charge." should be replaced with "He denies the allegations of involvement in riots. Multiple enquiry committees have investigated the cases. As of Feb 2018, he has not been indicted in any of them." Please let me know if you would like any further copy edit of this line. Regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if you can get consensus then anything along those lines is fine. I don't think you thinking one thing, the IP thinking another, and me not being terribly fussed either way counts as consensus. I sort of lean towards your perspective but not to the point of wanting to fight the corner. Perhaps leave it a few days and if no further input appears then consider an RfC?, what say you? - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I've been busy in RL. The accusations are covered in reliable sources (indeed, they form the dominant narrative about Tytler in reliable sources) and so of course they must be covered in the lead. I'm undecided about his personal denial, because really everyone ever accused of anything tends to deny it. I'd say it's quite obvious we need to cover the fact that he hasn't been charged or convicted; that's an important detail no matter what perspective you take on this (ie it's important if he's innocent, and it's important if he isn't and there's a conspiracy to protect him). We need to be careful about the wording here; saying "nothing has been proved" is inappropriate because "proof" is an abstract concept that isn't particularly applicable here, no matter what the popular media says. We should confine ourselves to plain statement of fact; "Tytler hasn't been charged with any crimes related to the 1984 riots" would do it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many people deny accusations even if they have been convicted. I can also support replacing "He denies the charge" with "He hasn't been charged with crimes related to the 1984 riots." 103.204.87.39 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde thanks for your comment and suggestion. I am fine with the changed wording that you have proposed i.e. "Tytler hasn't been charged with any crimes related to the 1984 riots" and accordingly I have replaced what IP wrote above. I understand that it is quite common for an accused to deny the charges, but I cannot think of this as a reason enough to omit this personal denial about the accusation. My suggestion was to include the line "He denies the allegations of involvement in riots." Now I think it is better to just summarize Tytler's statement from the section below. Something along the lines of "He denies the allegations of involvement in riots stating he was present at the funeral ceremony of Indira Gandhi." This will serve the purpose of subjects position as well as help in summarizing Tytler's defence statement. Since nothing has been proving we should give equal weightage to both accusations as well as subjects position. WP:WELLKNOWN also requires us to include this mention. when it says "" also pinging Sitush for thoughts -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Undue weightage to the accusations and removal of the subjects statement
Hi Sitush, thanks a lot for improving the article which was maintained as an WP:Attack page by some motivated users. This biography of a living person, had been giving too much weightage to the accusations and controversy with the riots, in spite of the fact that the no conviction has taken place against the subject, and the subject also claims that there is no FIR report against his name. The section titled "1984 anti-Sikh riots" directly starts with the news of Congress giving tickets to Tytler without first mentioning about the riots itself.

Accordingly I had added below content into revision dated 17 January 2019 to serve as an intro as well as statement of the subject. This subsection intro, that I had added has been removed in a blanket revert to continue, keeping the WP:BLP as an Attack page. IMHO the below information and the statement is highly relevant and should be added back into the article to maintain a balance and WP:NPOV Tytler has been accused of involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India, a charge that he denies. The riots had occurred after Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Tytler stated that he was present at the funeral ceremony with Indira Gandhi's body and was in mourning at the time where these events occurred. No charges against Tytler have been proved till now.
 * 1984 anti-Sikh riots

In 2019, during an event Tytler made a statement about the controversy in the anti-Sikh riot cases and said "I do not understand why is this controversy. There were 5,000 people at the function, I was one of them. There is no FIR against me. CBI cleared me three times in its inquiry. You should ask the BJP if there is any FIR against me,".


 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that. I'd notice pretty much the same thing in my quick scan through sources. However, there seem to be big variations in the number of inquiries that are stated. Tytler himself is variously quoted in sources as saying 8 or 9, another source I saw said 10 and I've no idea how the CBI cleared him 3 times in one inquiry, even though I do know it was re-opened. I think we're missing some information somewhere but I just don't have the desire to dig around on this topic. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sitush, I have restored the subsection. This article from BBC states that he was cleared by CBI in 2007 and the wiki article as it stands right now already has a subsection talking about the clearance received in 2009 by CBI. So we already know for sure that he was cleared twice by CBI. I am yet to find out a source for the third clearance by CBI, but this sentence is a direct quote from Tytler and presented in the wikipedia article as a direct quote, Tytler would certainly know the number of CBI clean chits he has received. This BBC article, also notes that Nanavati commission was ninth enquiry commission that looked into the cases of the riots. These commissions have made investigations on the riot and deaths and circumstances around the events, but as Tytler himself states, there isn't any charge sheet or FIR that names Tytler as an accused. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why you added without waiting for consensus to establish? How this talk page section is different than the above one, since we are discussing the "charges" in both sections? It is already noted that he denies the allegations but why you are writing two paragraphs about his statements? 2nd paragraph you added is a quotation from 2019, right above the paragraph which talks about events from 2004. Addition of such two paragraphs by repeating his own denial for establishing that the charges must be false is undue POV pushing. We shouldn't be giving undue weight to any particular side here like you are doing right now. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The section above is to discuss the mention in the LEAD of the article about "No charges proved so far". This section was created to discuss the intro of the riot subsection. The intro as you can see above includes other lines as well. And repetition is allowed since LEAD is a summary of the entire article.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are giving more weight to a particular side to prove his innocence by believing that without these two undue paragraphs the article would be "attack page". Your two paragraphs since only repeats the innocence claimed by Tytler which needs no mention since "a charge that he denies," substantiates it. Why you are adding a quote from 2019 above events about 2004 after already mentioning that he denied the charges without providing the details of other side's argument? Adding two paragraphs to prove his innocence is undue and appears as if we are pushing a POV. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands currently totally consists of 7480 characters of readable text (excluding refs as checked in this tool) out of which 5270 characters (i.e. 70% of the entire article) are devoted to discussing the 1984 Sikh riots and his involvement + enquiries. And only 570 characters (i.e. just 8% of the entire article) are devoted to Tytlers statement and defense. So your claim that adding Tytler's 2 line statement gives undue weight to Tytler's side appears very hollow to me. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weight is a tricky issue and I don't think it can necessarily be gauged by word count. One thing I did note somewhere (probably an edit summary) is that the article contains little about his activities as a member of the Lok Sabha or even his elections to it. For example, my guess would be that he has contested every election up to the point where he resigned; however, we only mention the electoral successes and we do so in a very short single paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Measuring neutrality by counting the words to justify repetition of same thing is improper. I agree that there are more things to write about him but expanding his denial by repeating same things and quoting him is improper for the reasons I added above. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires us to mention both sides of the allegations. By removing these lines, you are making it obvious that you intend to maintain this article as a one sided WP:ATTACKPAGE against this living person. please stop this.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't we already done that? You don't have consensus so don't edit war. It is not Wikipedia's aim to prove that he must be innocent. Firstly you tried to justify your additions by claiming that you are giving weight per word count and now you claim "PUBLICFIGURE". Stop changing goalposts. You are repeating his denial by adding an undue quotation and you dedicated a section to CBI's statement from 2010. To reply to your claim that "By removing these lines, you are making it obvious that you intend to maintain this article as a one sided WP:ATTACKPAGE against this living person", you should read WP:UNDUE and stop editing this article with your feelings. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP it will serve you well if instead of attacking everyone you explain your removal of reliably sourced content. It is amusing how you are edit warring to remove the court statement on the witness but are ok to keep their statements-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They went New York and that is a notable event about investigation. It is not Wikipedia's mission to prove him innocent even if that is your mission. Don't repeat subject's words and don't dedicate section to something which can be described in a small sentence. Read WP:UNDUE. 103.204.87.39 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If CBI going to "New York" to interview the witness is a notable event about investigation, then "what came out of that interview" is equally notable to mention in the article. You cannot remove one and claim that the other is relevant.
 * It is not Wikipedia's mission to prove him innocent, neither is Wikipedia's mission to prove him a culprit.
 * The subjects own statement where he explicitly denies the accusations is needed to be included in the article according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There is no charge or convictions against him. The weightage to accusations should be equal to his denial of accusations. just look at how many sections and how much content is being added for accusions vs the subjects own statement.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." So I am not sure why are WP:edit warring over this. Your reverts, claiming "no consensus", "you are tag teaming", "no BLP vio" are quite random, and are not policy-based. If you persist with this, you are liable to be blocked. You have been alerted about the ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Murderous mobs
The article until Wednesday contained this line in the LEAD that said

I had updated this line and copy edited it to state

My edits were reverted and "Murderous mobs" was again restored into the article. As I have noted in threads above the article was maintained as an WP:Attack page by certain users with vested interests. User:Sitush not sure if you noticed the murderous mob in the lead already, but may I know why such WP:SENSATIONAL word such as "murderous mobs" are still in the lead. IMHO this is violating neutral tone, and should be removed or copy edited appropriately. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I wondered about murderous, too. It seems to be emotive, which is not what we should be doing. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even Nanavati's report doesn't mention the word. I have copy edited the phrase to remove this reference. I have changed it to "The Commission had noted that he was probably involved in attacks on the Sikh..." which is closest in meaning to what Nanavati actually reported.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made changes in the line to conform to what was said in the report. The line now says, The Commission had noted that he was probably had a hand in organizing attacks on the Sikh community in Delhi -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC) [struk at 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)]
 * And I've changed it again, partly to fix the grammar issues but also because the Commission specifically said "very probably". It is significant wording and we should not ignore it. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No concerns with the change. Although I feel "probably" and "very probably" are both vague terms, but if you consider it significant, I will not object to it.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction
We now have a 2019 source that apparently shows him saying he was in the area but one of thousands present and another source, cited further down the article, where he says he was not in the area. We can't leave the article in this state, and I think in the desire to bring some balance we may at present be creating confusion. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sitush, no they are different areas. He is accused of organising violence near Azad market, while the funeral was in Teen murti Bhavan some 10 km away. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Can that be made more clear? - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ here, based on this source and Nanavati report. The IE article also notes that he got 3 clean chits from CBI. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated quote attributed to Tytler
The wiki article had stated that "Tytler, then a member of the Indian Parliament, was complaining to his supporters about relatively "small" number of Sikhs killed in his parliamentary constituency Delhi Sadar, which in his opinion had undermined his position in the ruling Indian National Congress party of India."

This is a blatant WP:BLP violation. There is no evidence or reliable source that Tytler said these things. these are unsubstantiated and unproven accusations from lawyers and not Tytlers own statement. as is being stated in the wiki article. accordingly I have removed this from the article. This is a biography article so we have to be careful about such content being added carelessly to maintain an WP:ATTACKPAGE against this living person.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)