Talk:Mohsin Sheikh murder

Murder and communal tension
None of the sources say that murder was carried out during protests. So, please, justify here before reverting me. Edmondhills (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which one? Please provide diff. And what the heck is this section title? Jyoti (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This one. Edmondhills (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have completed your investigation, Eh? Aside, kindly keep "communal hate", "communal goon", "radical right-wing" to a minimum, even if a certain specific source has it(which I doubt in this case) you may not indiscriminately reproduce it in Wikipedia. Jyoti (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is about a current crime which is under investigation
There are breaking news coming in every hour and we should not add them to this article in a rush, nor forward opinions based on such news in a rush. The article severely lacks WP:TONE. Jyoti (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I differ with WP:TONE since everything was sourced and the article was edited by other two experienced editors but I agree about the breaking news but you added it yourself based on a news video here. Edmondhills (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was three day old news, accessed today. You have added today's article also, check this diff. Tone overrides the argument of sourced. Some sources may have called Michael Jackson a child molester but that is not how Wikipedia may present it. The tone matters. By the argument of sourced even this article can be used but I think not because it will not be so important to have so many small information after some time. The incident is already super hyped. It is one event. Investigation is on, arrest have been made, reports are being made. And you are constructing your version from cherry picked sources that it is hate crime and so on, for which two editors (including me) reverted you. Jyoti (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The diff is from a mainstream media not less known niticentral whose notability is questionable. And hate crime have been cited several more sources other than the Hindu like this CNN-IBN link. Edmondhills (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded on your last bold claim of unreliable source so stop that nonsense. You talked about 'recent' I showed you that you added today's article and mine was from three day old. Jyoti (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why?
User:Edmondhills you have reverted twice(1, 2) with different objections. First you said in your edit comment this political issue shouldn't be in lead, pls add in later part. to which I said do it instead of revert. Next your objection is This is not even clear, not published in multiple sources and doesn't belong to the lead. I don't think I need to provide multiple source but I provide one more here for your personal satisfaction, the article need not be cluttered and why is it not deserving in its place, can you please move it to where you would want it to be and then perhaps we can have more meaningful discussion? Or best is we wait for few days and then you add the summary? I am okay with that. Jyoti (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you miss WP:BURDEN? Also, the link you gave is just another mirror to the video by one news channel. Also, don't do blind revert link instead edit for yourself. Edmondhills (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My revert that you point... I explained in detail. You want to revert? No? Then why making noise? Jyoti (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't I be able to give my explanation? lol! You're making silly noise creating unnecessary section after sections. Edmondhills (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My revert that you point... I explained in detail. Do you want to discuss/revert? --Jyoti (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already posted my comment can't you see? Edmondhills (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Circumstantial, undue weight.
User:Edmondhills you have undone an earlier edit. I am redo`ing it. Kindly discuss per WP:BRD. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.Jyoti (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You have reverted yet again without discussion? wrong diff. --Jyoti (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I made discussion on this talk page regarding that edit but you created too many sections confusing yourself. Edmondhills (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have discussed the concerned diff only in this section. --Jyoti (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit is not wp:undue since its made headlines itself. What about a RFC for this? Edmondhills (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For recent events it is wiser not to incorporate everything that keeps coming by the hour. The incident could be purely circumstantial. It only got a spike of coverage. --Jyoti (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you follow your own advises? You have making edits based on recent newses since I left editing yesterday so stop this unless full investigation is over. Edmondhills (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here two editors removed content. You keep adding them back. --Jyoti (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your are confusing sections with edits. Please, discuss in relative section. I added with valid reasons and which two editors you're referring and which edits? Edmondhills (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion closed here. Waiting on rough consensus in the RFC by Edmondhills. --Jyoti (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide information instead of removing tags.
User:Edmondhills, you have removed a tag saying it is not necessary. For the time being, ignoring that the 'quote' itself is undue; you are attributing it to "According to a senior police officer" which itself is a WP:WEASEL! --Jyoti (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because of WP:WEASEL. This is done because the attribution is clear and supported by reliable source. Edmondhills (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have reverted again. --Jyoti (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Attribution is clear? "According to a senior police officer" is clear? That too about an ongoing investigation? To be presented as a quote is itself undue in the first place here! --Jyoti (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean you should have name, address of the police officer who holds a senior post? Or our newspapers become so irresponsible? Edmondhills (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Name. 'senior police officer' in the context is weasel. --Jyoti (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not weasel as backed by reliable source. Its by a senior police officer, name is not necessary specially for living person. Edmondhills (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Edmondhills Your argument Its by a senior police officer, name is not necessary specially for living person. is not convincing. --Jyoti (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SAY which emphasizes on living person. Edmondhills (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SAY has no relevance here and in fact goes in favor of putting the tag! --Jyoti (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You have failed to show how is the tag not needed, kindly put back the tag or still better remove the entire 'quote' -- it is not a 'quote' in the first place! --Jyoti (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the quote. It reeks of sensational news bite than encyclopedia info. --Jyoti (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

TwoCircles.Net should be used only to cite opinions or attributed view points.
Per this discussion. --Jyoti (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Original research
User:Jyoti.mickey please refrain from making WP:OR like you did here which also falls under undue weight. The text you inserted is not proved but claim made by the alleged accused himself so stop putting original researches. Also, stop bullying with Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Edmondhills (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it is WP:OR? Two WP:RS are provided. Jyoti (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is indeed WP:OR and I already posted why! Can't you see? You made the claims by the alleged person as encyclopedic text. Where does the source says his claim has been verified? Edmondhills (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It reflects content from the sources. WP:VNT. --Jyoti (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now again bullying with another essay but this is neither a guideline nor a policy. Did you forget WP:TNV? Edmondhills (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TNV is for unsupported claims. --Jyoti (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is but that doesn't mean you can insert claims by an alleged person himself. I think a RFC can solve this as well. Edmondhills (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I provided two reliable source. Why not simply attribute it -- "According to the victim"? --Jyoti (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because Pune Mirror reports that the "victim" was allegedly involved in the controversy so this will be a POV to show him as a victim. Why can't you wait for further investigation or I see RFC a good reason. Edmondhills (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And why you're giving me edit warning notice with which you're involved too? Also, you first need to give a general notice as per rules but what you did is a wikibullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmondhills (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My involvement does not interfere with putting edit warning notice to you. You have reverted me 4 times in last 24h. Each time you have done so before taking part in the discussion I opened in the article talk page. --Jyoti (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This content is backed by two WP:SECONDARY and is also necessary for WP:NPOV. Unless there is a compelling reason to discard this it deserves mention. The wording can be discussed though but outright deletion is biased. --Jyoti (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Category Hindutva removed why?
Why Category:Hindutva is being removed repeatedly from the article? Please, explain. Edmondhills (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is "Repeatedly" equal to 1? Have you seen other pages in that category? You also added Category:Crimes against humanity which was reverted by me at the same time for the same reason. --Jyoti (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I will remove this category. Look at other pages in that category. Merely a group with Hindu in its name accused of involvement does not invite Hindutva tag. Similarly Islamophobia doesn't stand a chance. There is not a single reference that called it so and again, check other pages in that category. Jyoti (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I just looked at this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India and this page does not belong there either. --Jyoti (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up category. --Jyoti (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Full protection
The article has been fully protected five days per WP:AN3. Protection may be lifted if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There is no rush. I welcome discussion. --Jyoti (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, what should be the course of action of the warring editor does not participate in talk page discussion? --Jyoti (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The 3RR report has now been archived at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248. If you think admins should be investigating something, please name the people involved. I see that User:Edmondhills has been discussing on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean any investigation or obligatory work on part of admin. This page was protected so that edit warring is prevented and editors engage in dispute resolution. Edmondhills has not participated in any discussion after the article was protected. Can I make major edits (I have removed two category and one template)? --Jyoti (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is the hate SMS relevant for inclusion?
There is an incident of hate SMS circulated among the alleged perpetrators reported by several mainstream media like OneIndia, Hindustan Times, Caravan magazine, CNN-IBN, ABP ,,,,,,,, ,,, etc. I added it here but removed here as undue weight but I believe not as it made headlines itself so seeking for a resolution via RFC. Edmondhills (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This SMS expresses joy over the murder but it isn't clear if it was sent and resent by the perpetrators or just others who heard about the killing (reports are mixed and unclear). It was reported in the early reports when there was little else to report. It was news and this is not a newspaper. We should wait until the authorities gather their evidence and explain how they know who was responsible. It might be that SMS led to the perpetrators but let's wait for the explanation. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same arguments as Jason from nyc. --Jyoti (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the news sources if it wasn't clear how can it make headlines over several media? Edmondhills (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Let us also include hate SMS sent to North-East Indian during their 2012 exodus article. And also, let's include every other SMS between celebrities in their articles too. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same as above for now, with the caveat that if this incident grows a life of its own and becomes a pivotal point of media discussion or an active investigation that we can document, then it can be added, but in a section about issues that arise from this case. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk)

Rename article to "2014 Pune clashes"?
We can expand this article and rename it as 2014 Pune clashes. Because, there is something extra other than this Pune techie murder case. here: &  - Vatsan34 (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Particularly the indianexpress article that you mention, this is more than about a particular murder. --Jyoti (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are we moving the article to new title? - Vatsan34 (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait for another week at least. Besides, after the news has died, this article seems to be dead too, I don't think we will be able to expand much and if cleanup is done thinking how it should be read after 5 years, there will be two three para at max. --Jyoti (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We can move the article to the new title and include the Indian Express articles as background and we can make this as section in that. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Desai's comment for npov
Meanwhile Desai has denied that his outfit had anything to do with the murder and said, "We understand that circulating derogatory pictures is a cyber crime but the problem cannot be solved by killing innocent persons." --Jyoti (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)