Talk:Safoora Zargar/Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and is definitely notable for having a stand-alone article, even per WP:1E..

Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

All the photos shared claiming to be Safoora was tampered
There was a sentence "All the photos shared claiming to be Safoora was tampered." The citation given for this was: I cannot find any statements in English in that source that supports that sentence, so I have removed the sentence. The citation did support previous sentences in the paragraph. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal life - expand
- you placed an "expand" template on the personal life section. It has now been expanded in so far as reliable sources in English support. Can we now remove the template? If, no, please tell us what else should be there. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

COI
I actually meant to say that "I am creator of the article and I have more research on it, that's why I know more about it. Not personal interest. My Editing is based on neutral point of view and reliable sources. TheChunky (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Competence
Somebody put the following into the article. Unfortunately the cited source did not mention any of this.
 * Another sex video was widely shared with her name, claiming that Zargar is in the video. The video was taken from Pornhub and the woman in the video was PornHub model Selena Banks. Salena wears the same goggles, that's why she looks like Safoora in the video but after fact finding, all the allegations on Safoora termed as baseless.

There is a different article on the same site that supported an earlier version of the text, so I have put that in. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
 Kuldeepgadroo (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ - it doesn't follow our Guidelines. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
Safoora zargar is arrested for inflammatory speaches which ignited North East Delhi riots and not only for protesting against CAA. Protesting is her right in Indian Constitution but making people cause the road blockades and other inconvenience is punishable please clearify her role. 27.7.215.163 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some things you need to know before we can do this, and some things you need to tell us:
 * Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable published sources say. So if they do not say it, we cannot write it.
 * Wikipedia articles need to cover all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable published sources.
 * She has not had her trial yet. So we do not know whether she is guilty or innocent.


 * If you think the article needs changing. We need you to tell us exactly what changes you want, and for you to show us the reliable sources that support these changes. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made an addition to the lede (based on sources already cited) that I think does what you wanted done. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of fake video on YouTube as a source
The following is not a reliable source: A big problem with YouTube is that you can easily upload doctored videos. You can also misrepresent videos. Though the video was available on YouTube on the morning of 6 June 2020, by the night of 6 June it was no longer available. One might deduce that it had been exposed as a fake. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That deduction is a stretch. There are many reasons why a YouTube video may be taken down other than because it has been doctored. That said, it is not necessary to make that deduction at all. WP:RSPYT and its attendant discussions expressly hold that YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable sources because they are anonymous, self-published and unverifiable. There is some discussion about fringe instances, such as videos with a large number of views, or videos which are posted on the verified accounts of reputable sources. But this video falls nowhere near those exceptions. It should not be allowed back on this page unless it is reproduced by a reputable news organisation. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would like to suggest to experienced and knowledgeable editors that they remove the citations going by the name of print medium, 'The Quint' since it is not very reliable. --My2centsonit (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence please -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RSN has considered Quint in a little detail. It has a very rough consensus that it is reliable, which shifts to a fuller consensus that it is at least reasonable reliable. I wouldn't say that that is a clear established position, but it would need fairly strong evidence to overturn, even within a limited sphere. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Role in Delhi riots
As of now, I've removed the words from lead which stated that the subject is known for role in Delhi riots, it is definitely an attack. From The Hindu report, which is added in the body, it is said she was arrested in connection with Delhi riots, and none of the sources explicitly prove she had a role in there. However, for the anti CAA protests, her role is explicitly confirmed. The latter role is alleged, and I do not think it is okay for lead, because for that we need to expand the body, and then put up a summary in lead. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiforwiki (talk • contribs) 09:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory
I wonder whether either this article or the article on the North East Delhi riots should have a section describing the conspiracy theory put forward by the police in their 21 June status report. Maybe the section should be developed in a sandbox. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * well I think North East Delhi riots should have the conspiracy theory. But we need to find the Sources. Should be work on same sandbox? —  The Chunky urf  Al Kashmiri    (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)  20:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All the newspaper articles used as sources in the article on Zargar for what happened on 22-23 June talk about what the police status report said about the alleged conspiracy. I will draft something in a private sandbox over the next day or two. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work . Please let me know if I can help anywhere in between. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Safoora Zargar.jpg

Requested move 8 September 2020

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Safoora Zargar → Arrest of Safoora Zargar – subject is notable only for her arrest WP:1E hence the title should be moved During the afd discussion at least 2 editors wanted it renamed shown it below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girdlast888 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rename to Arrest of Safoora Zargar to satisfy BLP1E. The event is notable, since it has received significant coverage over quite a long period of time, but the person at the centre of it is probably not. I am noting a lot of, shall we say politicised arguments brought up by Keep voters. Also User:Sturdyankit, you may only vote once, I have stricken your second Delete vote for you. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - an alternative option could be renaming something like the Arrest of Kafeel Khan article. Also, I disagree with Numan765's view of the subject's attention-seeking approach. She was thrown behind the bars when the CAA issue as well as the protests took a backseat. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Girdlast888 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose activists are usually arrested by the police, and hence renaming this to the Arrest of Safoora Zargar is redundant. Safoora Zargar and Safoora Zargar sections indicates that the subject is notable and relevant to the current title. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: She is an activist and despite arrests there are more information as activist is available. Like personal life section about her marriage is from a interview when she was not in the controversy and is from independent source. Remaining the thing the said, Kafeel Khan was a doctor. Safoora is activist and there is lot of info available out of her arrest. —   The Chunky urf  Al Kashmiri    (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)
 * Comment Safoora Zargar was pregnant when she was arrested and she is solely notable for this and coverage was due to this.She fails WP:GNG as an activist and during the AFD the two editors who keep Devonian Wombat and Hindustanilanguage also wanted the name to be changed to Arrest of Safoora Zargar and this is a clear case of WP:1E. Girdlast888 (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Reference number 12 is not from the after arrest. It is an independent source and is of 2018, when she was simply an activist. Thank You. There maybe more sources of her activism available in media coverages. —  The Chunky urf  Al Kashmiri    (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)  11:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: She is notable as an activist, which got her arrested. Not vise versa. (Ashique2020 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
 * Comment Went through the references except Reference number 12 All others are after her arrest.She had no coverage before her arrest and this a case of WP:1E.Girdlast888 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There has been a lot of coverage of Zargar, and she is clearly notable. Examples of coverage before her arrest include:
 * Alternative url, story on page 3
 * An interview Zargar gave months before her arrest was also turned into two articles after her arrest - I do not know whether it formed the basis of an article in Hindi or some other Indian language before her arrest:
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative url, story on page 3
 * An interview Zargar gave months before her arrest was also turned into two articles after her arrest - I do not know whether it formed the basis of an article in Hindi or some other Indian language before her arrest:
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative url, story on page 3
 * An interview Zargar gave months before her arrest was also turned into two articles after her arrest - I do not know whether it formed the basis of an article in Hindi or some other Indian language before her arrest:
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 's argument and coverage provided by . ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lead section
Hi ! A lead section should be short and convey the simplest aspects which is what I have done. I moved the remaining content to to next paragraph. Can you please explain a bit more your revert. Thanks Vikram Vincent  13:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article lead as too long. Vikram Vincent 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * got a call while I was fixing it. Sorry for the trouble. Fixed it. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  13:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

UN rights panel slams detention of Safoora Zargar - should the article mention it?
An article was published in The Hindu, on Saturday 13 March 2021, about how the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group against Arbitrary Detentions has criticised the Indian government concerning the Zargar case. Should we include this in the article? Last year we had stuff in the article about the international reaction to the case and editors deleted it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A properly sourced reactions section is definitely usable. Vikram Vincent 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

http://livelaw.in/news-updates/safoora-zargars-arrest-detention-was-to-curb-her-dissent-un-human-rights-council-171170 Vikram Vincent 05:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Political activism section is already so much long, and I guess further additions would be "undue". If you've ideas otherwise please let me know. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  09:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
There seems to be a dispute over what should be mentioned in the section on online vilification. Please can we discuss any changes that people want to make. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL that is nice! :-) Vikram Vincent 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The stable version was, as far as possible, apolitical. This is consistent with the policy of having a neutral point of view (NPOV). Indianite's version is very firmly political, and anti-BJP. It fails to achieve NPOV.
 * I am not convinced that jargon such as "slut-shaming" or "online-shaming" is helpful. Such jargon implies that Zargar has done something shameful. Surely it better to say what the facts are, which is what the stable version did.
 * Indianite's version explicitly mentions the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) who sent a notice to the Delhi police cyber cell, who appear to have ignored it. If there were sources saying that the actions of the Delhi Commission for Women had led to some arrests, then there would be a good reason to mention them. But there are not. So why delete good factual stuff to mention them?
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Old stable looks good. I hadnt seen that prior to my modification. Vikram Vincent 19:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I want to admit that I should have discussed the issue here before making the edit.
 * Second, regarding the edit I made, all the changes were based on the information from the sources already mentioned. I made the changes in order to condense the article (as I felt there were certain lines implying the same thing), to remove editor's original research, and to include more information about the leanings of those who conducted the online campaigns - something which the sources mention very explicitly. It should be noted that the earlier version mentioned the name of the website and pornstar featuring in the fake posts but not the details of those who were behind them. This AltNews Source mentions details about who was behind the incident. This report is also cited in the BBC source. Similarly, the Quint source also links one of the claims to a BJP member. Another Quint Source doesn't mention BJP but uses the term 'right-wing' to describe the trolls and thus my usage of the term in the edit. All these (4 of 7) sources mention details about those who targeted Safoora, so I felt it is a detail worth mentioning. Alt News and Quint are IFCN signatories and BBC is considered to be a reliable source. Thus, the edit did not reflect original research or editorial bias.
 * Third, I agree with Toddy1 that it is better not to use the terms 'slut-shaming' and 'online-shaming'.
 * Fourth, the earlier edit said "she was pregnant by Hindus at Shaheen Bagh" - something I could not verify in the sources mentioned in the article.
 * Fifth, I may not have done a good job at reducing the length of the paragraph and I am sure other editors can make it much more up to the point, with all necessary facts.
 * Thank you making Wikipedia a better place and have a good day. --Indianite (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Delhi Commission for Women, this 5 May 2020 news story criticises the Delhi Commission for Women for staying silent on the issue of online abuse of Zargar.


 * Regarding party politics, it is true that there are sources mentioning people linked with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who made abusive social media comments about Zargar. Early versions (9 May 2020 and 22 May 20) kept party politics out of this to preserve a neutral point of view. I think editors did this, to ensure that the focus was on Zargar (the article subject).


 * I have deleted "she was pregnant by Hindus at Shaheen Bagh". I suspect that the source of this was in Hindi; no citation was given for it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)