Talk:Kanhaiya Kumar

Changes to Kanhaiya Kumar
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Can you please advice why my changes were not constructive.

Change #1: Afzal Guru is a terrorist. By All means. You trying to potray it as Kashmiri 'Separatist' is only playing in the hands of Separatist. He was given death sentence by Supreme court of India by following all legal methods.

Changes #2: Some students only Support JNUSU and Kanhaiya. Most of the students do not. And so, only some students protested particularly to that

Change #3: There is no term as 'Hindutva Politics'. Do not play politics. And Support such things. Helping to create a martyr after a terrorist supporter is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. It is to state facts that are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasrc (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

End of copied part

Wikipedia is indeed meant "to state facts that are relevant." Calling Kanhaiya Kumar a "terrorist supporter" is factual incorrect, and a violation of WP:BLP. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Terrorist" is clearly a polemical qualification. "kashmiri separatist" is more neutral, and more informative.
 * "Some students" - you also removed "which effectively paralysed the Jawaharlal Nehru University." Besides, the source does not say "some," but "Massive protests" and "Thousands of students joined protests, effectively paralysing the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi".
 * "Hindutva politics" - you removed "Kanhaiya Kumar's parents alleged that their son is a victim of Hindutva politics". You may be of the opinion that there is no "Hindutva politics," but apparently his parents do think that "Hindutva politics" do exist.


 * In addition to JJ's excellent response, I would advise you read through the Wikipedia policies I posted on your talk page. All content must be reliably sourced. When multiple sources give different opinions, we must mention all of them as per WP:WEIGHT. You are not allowed to use your own original research. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The article states no prrof has been found so he is released but the reference do not state that and the information is false. He was released on bail. Should not this be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail2nith (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Change #4: Article states he was released because no proof has been found. This is false as he was released on bail and was not released because there was no proof. Even references do not state that.

(Mail2nith (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)).


 * Please put new comments at the bottom so that they can be seen clearly. You say Article states he was released because no proof has been found. Where does it say that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've moved hi latest comments downward.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, since the exchange, I have found that the lead was loosely phrased, and fixed it . - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Change #5 : "The youth wing of BJP offered Rs 5 lakh as a reward to anyone who cut off Kumar’s tongue." to be changed to "Kuldeep Varshnay, district chief of BJYM's Badaun district, offered Rs 5 lakh as a reward to anyone who cut off Kumar’s tongue, embarrassing BJP, which expelled him from primary membership of the party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramashray (talk • contribs) 12:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Afzal Guru is a convicted terrorist according to Indian law. 2001 Parliament attack was a terrorist attack, not a separatist rally or political meeting. Guru was not a prominent separatist leader, who was known for his separatist activities. His claim to fame is the 2001 attack, not him being a separatist or an atheist in personal life. In India, the term terrorism is used to define this attack. Since, this article is about India, it is incorrect to use BBC's opinion about what is terrorism here. Msec109 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Msec109, in order to add such a contentious label to the article, you need to show that that label is used in the majority of reliable sources. The only source you have provided is one which describes the view of the Indian National Congress, which is not good enough. Wikipedia places no importance on the nationality of the source; in fact, sources from a different country are quite often more neutral, because they are more removed from the situation. Please provide such sources, else your change is likely to be reverted by other editors. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016
In the introduction section it claims that the evidences against Afzal Guru was tampered by the police. The citation link it provides, only talks about the situation created by his arrest, not anything about Afzal Guru. Afzal guru was convicted and sentenced by Delhi High COurt, and that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of India.
 * http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/afzal-guru-parliament-attack-convict-hanged-in-delhis-tihar-jail-512816
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/world/la-fg-wn-india-hanging-20130209
 * http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/full-text-supreme-court-judgement-on-afzal-guru-589761.html

In the introduction part, please change the sentence :
 * " n February 2016, he was arrested and charged with sedition along with Umar Khalid[1] on the charges of raising anti India slogans in a student rally against the 2013 hanging of Mohammed Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri separatist convicted over the 2001 Indian Parliament attack,which were later found to be false as the video evidence submitted by Delhi Police turned out to be tampered.[2]"

to write:
 * "In February 2016, he was arrested and charged with sedition along with Umar Khalid[1] on the charges of raising anti India slogans in a student rally against the 2013 hanging of Mohammed Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri separatist convicted over the 2001 Indian Parliament attack."

Debajyotihotobhaga (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The sentence "which were later found to be false as the video evidence submitted by Delhi Police turned out to be tampered" was a clumsy insertion. I've improved it. Thank ypou for your kind request.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * NB: with this edit I added info from 2016 JNU sedition controversy‎. Forgot to mention...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
Shouldn't the introduction say that Kumar was cleared of any wrong-doing, which was the finding of the New Delhi magistrate ? This was reported on the page for the 2016 JNU controversy. Does anybody object to that being made clear in the introduction, supported by the relevant cite ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The Delhi Government's enquiry is unofficial, and doesn't have any bearing on the case, though of course the evidence produced in it can be used by Defense. (That is because the Delhi Government isn't responsible for Delhi's law and order, or some such constitutional nicety.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But Kumar was released on bail based on the finding that he was cleared of wrong-doing. How can the government's enquiry be unofficial, if it was what led to his release ? Let me go back and re-read the articles that described Kumar's release. Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. If he was cleared, the charges against him would have been dropped. That is not what happened. In the event, the Delhi Police didn't have enough evidence to convince the judge that he should be held without bail. (Apparently, in case of sedition charges, bail is normally denied. So the fact that he was given bail is a big deal.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it is unofficial because court did not ask AAP to conduct any probe. This is similar kind of probe as done by railay ministry against 2002 gujrat train burning incidence by Lalu Prasad. (Court later called the probe irrelevant as it never asked for it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning#Banerjee_investigation

Mail2nith (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016
122.176.95.137 (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the request? --Greek Legend (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Section titles under Other controversies
Since it's been mentioned by another editor, do we need the section titles under Other controversies ? Is there agreement to remove these section titles ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@ comments form Kautilya3 (→‎Other controversies: NPOV section titles; do we need them at all?)
Hi Kautilya3,

“Other controversies” have multiple points. Section title helps in improving the readability of those points. Bonybaby1979 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't use Wikipedia for mud-slinging, which is what these section titles do. Most of this content will disappear in a month or so because it is an instance of WP:NOTNEWS. So, for me, it is not worth fighting over the section titles. But make sure that they adhere to WP:NPOV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kautilya3, still have some doubt. Please help.As we know Wikipedia is meant "to state facts that are relevant." In the biography of a person both the sides of coin are bound to appear. Hence If any reference which contradicts the subjects ideology is included, would you consider it as WP:NPOV or WP:NOTNEWS. ? Kanhaiya Kumar came in limelight only because of his fight for the freedom of free speech. He aims to raise voice about against human rights violations. However, same time he has black dot on his canvas that he was found guilty and fined for Abusing and threatening a Female student. How can this be removed as per WP:NOTNEWS ? Other instance in this section is regarding double standard of Free speech. While he is crying for free speech his supporter are trying to kill the free speech by abusing a teenager. Hence, failed to understand what is from above mentioned text is not relevant.
 * Bonybaby1979 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair point. Remember John Lennon!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: the N-word, of course, is not being used in a degeneratory way by John Lennon here, but to state a point on the way women are treated.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem with positive and negative information both appearing in the article. WP:NOTNEWS refers to the phenomenon that people rush to Wikipedia to insert the day's news as constituting the most important facts. After the passage of time, most of these turn out to be unimportant and get deleted.
 * As for the teenager's issue, we only have her allegations so far. No evidence has been presented, and no response from the alleged has become available. Only when everything becomes available will we know whether this is worth staying in Wikipedia or not.
 * On the free speech issue again, it has been commented that Kumar's supporters didn't let Makarand Paranjpe speak. But in a Newslaundry interview, Kumar stated that Paranjpe was given time to speak for 1 hour, and he actually spoke for 1.30 hours, and he completed everything he wanted to say. When things are this inflamed, all kinds of allegations fly around. We can't take them at face value.
 * We have to take it slow, and take it easy, and make sure that our own in-built biases don't make their way into the articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016
1. The suspension of Kanhaiya and seven other students from JNU has been revoked post internal committee report submission by JNU.Suspension revoked.

2. The videos shown to have objectionable slogan chanting is found to be doctored by forensic laboratories. Doctored videos.

Highfly scorpion (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2016 (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.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the doctored videos are already mentioned. As for the suspension, we need to wait for the dust to settle. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged threatening of female student
Sorry, I had to revert your last edit. The "alleged" was actually added by me since I wasn't able to determine whether the subject really had threatened a fellow student. I would be glad if you could show me sources which state that he was indeed fined/reprimanded. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to talk page. I am quoting the office order issued on October 16, 2015, by the then Chief Proctor, Krishna Kumar of JNU:- "The university... has found Kanhaiya Kumar guilty of misbehaving with an ex-student (female) and threatening her. This act is serious in nature and unbecoming of a student of JNU and calls for a strict disciplinary action against him (Kanhaiya)... keeping his career prospects in mind, the vice-chancellor has taken a lenient view in the matter,".

Clearly, it's not for us to personally be satisifed about Mr. Kumar's guilt but it's for the competent authority, i.e. the honorable Procter of the esteemed JNU, who inquired into the incident via a committee, and held him guilty.

I find it reasonable to use the word "stated", as it means that the girl stated it publicly, and not "alleged", as now the matter is already settled and in my knowledge neither party took it to a higher forum/court.

On a related note, I would like to invite your attention to the use of word "stated" at other places in this article, which betrays a fanfare/hype/bias and should be corrected, for example:- -- zixtor 11:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Kanhaiya Kumar's parents have stated that their son was being victimized for his opposition to Hindutva politics"
 * "He appealed to his fellow students to free the nation from the clutches of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which he, stated, was trying to divide the nation"


 * Thank you for the source. Sorry for my last edit. I had inserted "alleged" since the sources referenced did not make it clear that he was "indeed" fined. However, I looked at another source and it seems the subject denied that he had misbehaved, but accepted that he had urinated. I'm not sure what to believe here and neither am I well versed with the whole incident. I'm just concerned about BLP violations and this article being used to malign the article subject. Instead of writing the section title as "threatening/misbehaving with female student", how about just sticking to facts and saying "public urination incident" (something we are sure about). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, I agree that it's better to modify the heading to reflect what we are sure of based on acceptance by the subject. And further mention in the content what more is alleged, and about the fine and findings/comments by JNU Procter.

-- zixtor 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is ridiculous. Most villagers in India don't have toilets and they always urinate "publicly." Many urbanites do it too because it is not easy to find public toilets. This is not the road we want to go. The man apparently misbehaved and he was fined for it. There is no problem stating that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry, I re-read the first reference again and found something I had overlooked: the university administration confirmed in a statement that the letter was authentic and action was taken against the student leader. Looks like it is true. I guess the "alleged" can be removed then. Please add the new references which confirm the incident and make any changes necessary, but also do state that the subject has denied that he "misbehaved". I guess that should be OK for NPOV., I guess you can do the necessary changes. Sorry for the trouble. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The diff is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanhaiya_Kumar&type=revision&diff=716346289&oldid=716173945 please have a look if it looks fine. Also, I agree as said, that mentioning public urination as heading would indeed be terrible; sorry for not noticing that myself. -- zixtor 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Contesting a revert: seeking explanation for retaining one-sided content
This is regarding the following revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanhaiya_Kumar&type=revision&diff=716403110&oldid=716382992

It retained the following content: "The speech won accolades from the leaders of all non-BJP parties as well as independent commentators"

My concerns are:-


 * This content is sourced from news articles reporting on routine political statements made by politicians on an overly subjective matter like a favorable political speech, so it is quite predictable of them to support it, to gain political mileage. so does this content really form a Reliable WP:Secondary source?


 * I guess we can't use subjective one-sided content in the guise of reliable secondary source. I guess we need it only when we are building a hype. We don't really need to mention how "good" a controversial speech was, that too from a one-sided point of view, in a biography. I guess mentioning about the speech and some content is enough.


 * The content says "all non-BJP parties as well as independent commentators". Though I wonder how to determine who is independent? but on such a controversial matter, rather than succumbing to fan-like tendencies; should we not stay modest and either remove such content or accommodate opposing viewpoint as well? So I see a violation of NPOV in this content. My contention is to not accommodate such content.

-- zixtor 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you read WP:NPOV thoroughly before you start citing it. You will notice that there is nothing about "subjective" or "one-sided" or any other such evils that you are dreaming up. All that matters is reliability and weight. What you are doing is called WP:OR and it is prohibited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am totally awake, my fellow contributor. To refresh your memory of it, I would like to quote some sections from WP:NPOV and I will note how the said content violates NPOV-


 * Quote from NPOV-
 * "Attributing and specifying biased statements- ..Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words"


 * Related violation-
 * The content says "ALL non-BJP" but none of the cited sources use the word "ALL" at all.
 * The content says "Independent commentators", but none of the sources mention the words "independent" nor "commentators".
 * You can look at the sources yourself.


 * Another quote from NPOV-
 * "Impartial tone- Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION of all positions included in the article"
 * "Balance- Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance"


 * Related violation-
 * You said the source/content was selected based on "reliability and weight", but it is still subject to selection bias as said in NPOV. Your discretionary choice to remove all "analysis" of the speech, citing irrelevance; but retaining the "reliable" praise with loaded words like "won accolades from ALL non-BJP and INDEPENDENT", introduces a selection bias despite some reliability.


 * So in short, the content introduces uncited rephrased opinion making words, violates proportionate representation and lacks balance.
 * That all said, I don't wish to engage anymore in this discussion, thank you for your time. -- zixtor 10:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, it looks like you will be happier if I called it a "massive hit" like the Rediff News did? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it violates NPOV. And nothing wrong with calling it a "massive hit" if it has been called so. Both supportive views and opposing views are already stated in the article, although I do agree that there is a bit of undue weight on the content of the speech and reactions from those supporting it. This can simply be trimmed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, there is no violation of NPOV in calling it "massive hit," but it is devoid of substance and unencyclopaedic. I am trying to provide meaningful information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017
Change the word 'Terroirst' to 'Kanhaiya Kumar' on the top of the picture. Animeshsinha11 (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for catching this vandalism.  City O f  Silver  16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Links to Academic Publications of Kanhaiya Kumar on African studies
Can someone update the wiki article with links to any academic publications (or thesis) of Kanhaiya Kumar on African studies? Scholars in reputed universities are required to publish their works- papers in conferences/journals, essays, book chapters etc on the topics they are researching. Without this the actual 'scholarship' of the student cannot be discerned. Thank you!

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018
"Kumar published his research work Titled ‘The Process of Decolonisation and Social Transformation in South Africa’, the article was published in June 2018 in IJHEPS[1], which was listed among predatory journals in 2014 by Beall’s List[2], the report of which was regularly updated by Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado until January 2017."

122.15.232.210 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC) ❌ Please provide a reliable source supporting this information; mynation.com does not appear to meet the threshold for sources that can be used for negative information about a living person. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Kanhaiya is a Bumihar Bramhin Landlord
He is a Bramhin Landlord from Bihar and it needs to find mention in the article. Also he has proudly spoken about his religious beliefs which is not present in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.135.181 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source for any content you'd like to see in the article. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct charges
There are sexual misconduct and misbehaving charges against shri kanhaiya Kumar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanhaiya535 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to edit
Please add information on Kanhaiya Kumar's candidature for the Lok Sabha 2019 elections, as a candidate of the CPI(M) from the Begusarai constituency.

Crayarikar (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After a quick search I am getting no definite answer for this -
 * CPI to field Kanhaiya Kumar from Begusarai? (The Hindu 11 March 2019)
 * Kanhaiya Kumar may enter poll fray from Begusarai (TOI 11 March 2019)
 * None of these sources provide definite answers.... which sources confirm what you want to include? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * These articles suggest that Kanhaiya Kumar will contest on a CPI ticket whether the grand alliance agrees or not:
 * No Compromise on Kanhaiya Kumar to Contest From Begusarai (Newsclick 14 March 2019)
 * Kanhaiya is CPI nominee from Begusarai (The Tribune 05 March 2019)
 * Crayarikar (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * According to these links and the links I have shared:
 * The Newsclick sources says the same thing. It just quotes the state secretary. Hasn't the central CPI secretary said anything? On March 12 TOI wrote :- "Indications from the RJD-led mahagathbandhan camp are that are that former JNU Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar could contest from the the Begusarai parliamentary seat which goes to polls on April... " All of these sources are saying different things.
 * What has Kanhaiya said about this? Doesn't he use the social media or something, hasn't he announced himself which party he is in?
 * I request another editor to handle this otherwise. The page needs cleaning up anyway. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: closing request. There is a section in the article regarding the election: Kanhaiya Kumar. NiciVampireHeart 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: closing request. There is a section in the article regarding the election: Kanhaiya Kumar. NiciVampireHeart 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019
Dr. Kanhaiya Kumar 122.167.13.130 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (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. MrClog (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ and anyone else watching: We do not add honorific titles like "Dr." in articles. See WP:HONORIFICS, which reads: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not). So "Dr. Dre" would be correct, but "Dr. Kanhaiya Kumar" would not. For real-world examples, see Sigmund Freud, Sanjay Gupta, Victor A. McKusick. Please spread the word, because this has been added multiple times by ignorant users and if it continues I'll have to protect the article, because it's getting disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019
The sub-sentence "ranking first in the JNU entrance exam in 2011," is in Italics. It can be changed to "non-Italic" font, since this part does not seem to require emphasis. Cassandra0912 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019
Either add resources which show that Kanhaiya Kumar has claimed the benefit of caste based reservation or remove the line from his page. So far none of the references provided give any information on that. 223.180.200.178 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2019 (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. Nici<b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 20:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019
Change "Kanhaiya was born into an upper caste Bhumihar community in Bihar but still he claims the benefits of a caste-based reservation." to "Kanhaiya was born into an upper caste Bhumihar community in Bihar." The sources [4][5][6] do not contain the relevant information. 2401:4900:2EE5:7D49:64F8:D593:B1E8:E3AC (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed the latter part of the statement as not supported by the sources and per WP:BLP. Anyone re-adding the material should also cite a reliable source. Thank you for pointing this out. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2019
Kanhaiya Kumar has written only one book "Bihar to Tihar: My Political Journey". There are five other books mentioned on his Wikipedia page. He has written none of those five books. Please edit the page. A4akanxa (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  M L 911 09:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019
The date of birth of Kanhaiya Kumar is 2 January 1987 as mentioned on his verified twitter page ( www.twitter.com/kanhaiyakumar) and also as mentioned in his election nomination affidavit available on election commission of India website. In the column in the right side of the wikipedia page, it is written 13 January 1987. Please edit. A4akanxa (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, but can you please provide a direct link to his nomination affidavit. Thanks  M L 911 11:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020
Change/revert an edit made by Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil on 16 October 2020. Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil removes the column "Other incidents and controversies" which had reliable sources. He doesn't give any Edit summary for removing it with an aim to vandalize it. Shockingly the vandalism was never reverted or reported. For reference. Imaniward (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Imaniward (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done - as it was sourced and no reason was given for its removal. But you may also want to discuss this here with the editor who removed it . <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 19:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Red bastion
Please change the date of birth of Dr. Kanhaiya Kumar his birth date is 27th March Red bastion (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * New comments belong at the bottom of the page in their own section, not appended to discussions from years ago. I have moved this for you. Any change to a birth date would need to be accompanied by a reliable source, which you have not provided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2021
Change current political party from Communist Party of India (CPI) to Indian National Congress (INC)

Ref: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/posters-welcoming-kanhaiya-kumar-to-join-congress-sept-28-1858062-2021-09-28 Ryzokuken (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently already done. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023
Mdataullah2002 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request Mdataullah2002 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2023 (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. small jars 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023
Please change position held from NSUI president to NSUI AICC incharge 82.16.216.172 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/congress-appoints-kanhaiya-kumar-as-aicc-in-charge-of-nsui-523349 82.16.216.172 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

charge sheet against Kanhaiya Kumar, others.
JNU sedition case: Delhi court takes cognisance of charge sheet against Kanhaiya Kumar, others.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jnu-sedition-case-delhi-court-takes-cognisance-of-charge-sheet-against-kanhaiya-kumar-others/article33848512.ece

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/court-orders-chargesheet-copy-to-be-provided-to-kanhaiya-7-granted-bail-121031500415_1.html

Is there any mention of this?

Currently the article reads as if he was acquitted of all charges, although there has been no judgements issued, why? Please change the tone so that it matches reality. I don't know how editing works. 2409:40E1:CC:88D8:D09F:80FF:FE70:C50F (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2024 (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. -Lemonaka  03:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)