User talk:श्रीमान २००२/Archives/2020/June

Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates
Read this in another language • Subscription list



This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.


 * Reply tool : This is available as a Beta Feature at the four partner wikis (Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian Wikipedias). The Beta Feature will get new features soon.  The new features include writing comments in a new visual editing mode and pinging other users by typing  . You can test the new features on the Beta Cluster.  Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.
 * New requirements for user signatures : Soon, users will not be able to save invalid custom signatures in Special:Preferences. This will reduce signature spoofing, prevent page corruption, and make new talk page tools more reliable.  Most editors will not be affected.
 * New discussion tool : The Editing team is beginning work on a simpler process for starting new discussions.   You can see the initial design on the project page.
 * Research on the use of talk pages : The Editing team worked with the Wikimedia research team to study how talk pages help editors improve articles.  We learned that new editors who use talk pages make more edits to the main namespace than new editors who don't use talk pages.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 12:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giraffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Giraffe check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Giraffe?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Harsh Mander, you may be blocked from editing. Nothing in that article says that he played a critical role, in fact he's only mentioned once (we don't pay a lot of attention to headlines) Doug Weller  talk 12:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the police said the activist's speech in question not only incited violence but was seriously contemptuous, as it made derogatory remarks against the top court before a huge gathering of people.", " Harsh Mander visited the site on December 16 and told protesters to not have faith in the Supreme Court and to fight their battle on the roads to get justice." and " ... सॉलीसीटर जनरल तुषार मेहता ने कोर्ट को बताया कि मंदर ने जामिया में हुए धरना प्रदर्शन में न सिर्फ भाग लिया बल्कि वहां पर विवादित बयान भी दिया था।" ( Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that Mander not only participated in the Jamia Protest but also gave controversial statements. . All the 3 news article mention his role in inciting violence. This must be mentioned at his page. -- Aryan  ( है?) 05:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to ping you. -- Aryan  ( है?) 06:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem, as you've been told already by Tayi Arajakate, is that you are presenting statements made by the Delhi police as statements of fact. Please carefully read WP:DUE and WP:WIKIVOICE carefully before further editing such contentious topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So the problem is that I am stating the fact without mentioning the source of information. But, not including this statement would be a delibrate attempt to whitewash his image. I think a statement such as " Delhi Police have accused him of ... " would be fine ?

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Shaheen Bagh Protests, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tayi_Arajakate None of my edits were personal analysis.

If there are any other problems with edits, please let me know. -- Aryan  ( है?) 06:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) "Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday said there has been no discussion on implementing a National Register of Citizens (NRC) in India, even as he clarified that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, would not affect Muslims who have been living in the country for generations."
 * 2) "The document then mentions incidents of violence around New Friends Colony on December 15 when some current and former JMI students, and people having allegiance to political parties as well as their supports, assembled at JMI to protest the newly enacted Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens. They planned to march to Parliament and President House. The mob kept switching roads when prevented from moving and indulged in stone pelting, states the chargesheet."
 * 3) "The police then mentions that later in the night, on December 16, the mob retreated strategically inside JMI campus and used the premises as a cover and started pelting stones. The mob positioned itself to ambush the riot control unit. The police were able to control the situation by temporarily apprehending 52 people under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act. A total of 97 public persons, 35 police officials were injured; three police booths were also damaged, stated the document."
 * 4) "The illegal occupation of the areas for protest and continued presence on streets drew large gatherings, especially during the evening, and caused incalculable inconvenience to commuters and residents, and created extremely tense and polarised atmosphere in the area,” the police stated in the chargesheet."
 * 5) . Hindu Sena stated that they would remove all "Shaheen Bagh Jihadis" at 11 am on 2 February. This does not mention Yogi Ji indulging in hate speech.
 * 6) "Delhi Police's crime branch on Tuesday revealed that Kapil Gujjar, the youth who opened fire at anti-CAA protest site in Shaheen Bagh on February 1, is a member of Aaam Aadmi Party "
 * 7) This article doesn;t evn use the word " fundamentalist".
 * Sorry, I forgot to ping you. -- Aryan  ( है?) 06:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The primary issue here seems to be that you're taking statements made by the Delhi Police as statements of fact which is a belligerent party in the civil conflict and disregarding already cited independent sources. The representation of Prime Minister's statement made during an election rally as equivalent to government denial is also original research without any official correspondence on the matter considering the context in which contradictory statements were coming from the Home Ministry with procedures of implementation already taking places in Uttar Pradesh. I'd also suggest taking it up to the talk page of the article if you have issues with specific words used to summarise sources instead of making large scale edits which alter the semantic in contradiction to the one in the sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The current state of article is ignoring all instances of violence by the Jamia mob. No source mention Yogi Ji giving hate speech.

official written statement by Nityanand Rai is equal to government denial. -- Aryan  ( है?) 04:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this "Jamia mob"? Dogwhistling is completely inappropriate on wikipedia if that was the intention. If you are referring to the incidents at Jamia Militia Islamia then no, the article on the Shaheen Bagh protests do not cover it. A quick search would also show that multiple RS do mention Yogi's hate speech. Nityananda Rai made a verbal statement on the floor of the parliament after being questioned on the election speech, not through any documentation. The statements also contradict that of repeated assertions from other officials on the same floor, which is likely an example of Obfuscation than anything else. One can potentially write the whole episode as a section or even a whole article but not in the form you added without it being OR or without violating WP:NPOV.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * By "Jamia mob" I refer to the stone pelting protesters who have illegally blocked roads and are referred as " sit-in peaceful protest, led by women" in the concerned article. Nityanand Rai issued a witten statement, not a verbal one as you have claimed.   . Both your sources say that Yogi ji called then terrorist, but neither explicitly calls it hate speech. Now saying that calling them terrorists would be classified hate speech, would be adding your personal analysis or synthesis ( assuming that the classification is correct ).Speaking of Delhi Police, if their statement is not a RS, then many of the sources on the article are based on the protesters/mob members' statement would have to to removed. Further, the article does not mention Islamist extremism ( as claimed by Tharoor Ji) , mishandling of journalists by mob or accusation on Kejriwal for supporting the protest. . The article does not adhere to WP:NPOV in its current state. -- Aryan   ( है?) 11:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"I refer to the stone pelting protesters who have illegally blocked roads", now who is this being attributed to? Yogi Adityanath? Because "sit-in peaceful protest, led by women" is attributed to three articles from The Hindu, Livemint and BBC that are verifiable. On the matter of Yogi himself, extract from the The Guardian article states: Extract from the Frontline (magazine) states:

Per the RS, calling them "terrorists" is being classified as hate speech and that is not the only thing. Both the citations can be used individually to attribute hate speech in the election campaign to Yogi Adityanath, so no it is neither synthesis nor is it any personal analysis. It is as unambiguous and specific as it gets, original research refers to material whose conclusion can not be attributed to any single RS.

On the matter of Nityananda Rai, it seems he did provide written answers to the question in parliament but even that still does not address the entire sequence of events and can not be left only as a vague "government denial" without contextualisation. Note that WP:OR also states "It is important that references be cited in context and on topic." On the other hand statements from partisan individuals (in this case politicians; who are not RS) involved in the protests do not have anywhere near the same weight as reports of mainstream news publications (please read WP:FALSEBALANCE) and need not be included. WP:NPOV refers to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If you have examples of material where publications are attributing something to protesters but is unattributed and given wiki-voice in the article, you are free to bring them forward and please take any and all of your "concerns" to the talk page of the article where they can be addressed with greater input because I'm sorry but I'd rather not waste my time here anymore. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)