Talk:2019 Jamia Millia Islamia attack

A suggestion

I am not a Seahorse, DiplomatTesterMan..I am not sure but is there any possibilities of adding the two firing incidents on the Jamia protesters or Jamia protest took place. If agreed before adding please discuss what should be the section so that it should not look mis-match between the main incident and the firing. Dey subrata (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, within the "Aftermath" heading, a sub-heading can be placed - "Further violence" as the "Protests" sub-heading. DTM (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan That would be better, but I oppose your suggestion of moving the page, Police brutality has been condemned by UN and other Human rights organisation and all reliable website calls it a attck. I think you withdraw the move following the procedure. I am not sure check it. Dey subrata (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This line of reporting needs to be added, to the lead as well

TOI - Delhi Police release photos of 70 people involved in anti-CAA protests near Jamia (29 Jan 2020) DTM (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2020

2019 Jamia Milia Islamia attack → 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia violence – The prior usage of the word "attack" in the title is too heavy and misleading. The police entered the campus during a confrontation with protesters that started outside the campus. Violence followed. That the violence was committed by the police is clearly mentioned in the article and not disputed. Violence would be a better word. DTM (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The definition of "attack" is "take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force"; the definition of "violence" is "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". The former definition is much more apt for this instance. The fact that police attacked a library (where no protesters were present) and washrooms shows that this was not a "confrontation", as you say, but instead an attack on the university.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  thats your opinion. I think the protestors thought (past participle of think) that libraries and washrooms would be a good place to hide, and police will not think to look into there. But their thinking was not useful. I think our wikipedia editing should not be driven by our thinking only. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose : Not a violence but a brutal attack, all reliable sources calls it an attack and also has been condemned by various countries in the world and also by UN and Human Rights Organisations. Dey subrata (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata. Violence can signify much more force and brutality than attack. I don't think that should be the means of comparison. What about an attack being pre-planned as compared to violence being pre-planned... doesn't help. DTM (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• support per nomination. It is already explained in the lead of article. The police did not "attack" the students, police took action against the protestors; which took a violent turn. Lots of things get condemned by various countries in the world and also by UN and Human Rights Organisations, not all of them are attacks. Regarding what reliable sources are saying, see wp:sensational. Indian media spice-up anything, and everything. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The reliable sources cited in the article are noting it was a violence and not really an attack as the name of the article seems to say, as seen in here and here. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a violence rather an intended attack The wire Could be called violence if using physical clashes from both side be observed, but here its an attack when police were aggressively beaten up people so much so, vandalised and beaten up students inside library and toilet who are defendless and unarmed, firing bullets and tear gas. It was a brutal attack when excessive force being used by an group on defendless people. Here The Times of India, NDTV, The National Herald, The Business Standard. Court has also asked ATR on "attack". The India Today International media The Gaurdian, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post.

• Support: There was no "attack" or "military action". In the evening, without any police action, a mob from inside University did stone pelting at the police. It was recorded by many TV channels, here is one report India TV(from time 24:13). From outside campus, at first police did asked politely over loud speaker to stop stone pelting New Indian Express, Hindustan Times. When it did not stop, police went inside campus, the mob which was pelting stones went further into buildings in University. VC of the University said to the press that fake ID cards were confiscated. Inside campus, police has fired only tear gas and not bullets. Stone pelting in the past has taken lives in other parts of country The Hindu. Reports of bullet injuries are not from campus but from other places. On the same afternoon, protest march from Jamia which turned violent lead to stone pelting and buses were burnt. Doctors mentioned foreign objects(not bullets) in report while discharging those injured and sent those objects to forensic lab NDTV. This incident is not from campus.XGammaRay (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Only military action is not defined as "attack". Secondly you are talking about initial report, which was faulty and POV commentary. Jamia University submitted a fresh report to the HRD Ministry after varsity authority investigated into the matter, requesting high level judicial inquiry into the entry of police on the university 1. The report said "lobbed tear gas inside the university reading room and then forcefully entered inside and beat all the students studying inside the library brutally". It also said, "cops continued beating the students while they were taking them out." Described Delhi Police's action as "unprovoked targeting of innocent students." "Use of force and infliction of brutal and grievous physical injuries on the students who were peacefully studying inside the reading room of the library." "Vandalising and damaging the properties of the library/university and also damaging two-wheelers parked in the vicinity of the library." 2 Videos 3, 4 also suggest the same. Violence always occur in several parts of country, but not such thing, attacking universities like this by the authority itself. Brutal force on innocent and unarmed students inside a library who were reading without taking permission to enter into campus along with damaging property is not called violence, is called "attack", period. Dey subrata (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• oppose this was an attack by the police on the students. Reliable media also uses "Jamia crackdown" as the title. SInce a foral move thread has been started for now, I would suggest to retain the word attack and then move it to "Jamia attack" similar to the discussion at "talk:JNU attackDBigXrayᗙ 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, there are enough sources which also use the word violence; India Today for one uses it in multiple reports.ex 1 , ex 2. Also this was very different from what happened in JNU and shouldn't be a comparison. DTM (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sure there are sources, but you are sharing 2 articles by a media house that is known to generally tow the government line. Dey and others have shared multiple links from international media houses all of which use attack, considering the prevalence I would suggest followign what the majority of the RS are using, and that is "attack". DBigXrayᗙ 12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, ok, take The Hindu then.... 1, 2, The Indian Express 3.... is quantity of source really the best way to figure this out? I don't think so, not for this case. DTM (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Speaking as an objective viewer, violence seems to be a better title that attack, as "attack" implies that the Delhi police/government from the beginning wanted to harm the school. --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Attack need not to be pre-planned, can be instantaneous. Secondly, it does not imply that from attack and that too be a point of view, we don't know what Govt. was thinking. Dey subrata (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Maryam.Rosie, That is exactly the government tried to do in their efforts to crush the anti CAA protests, by attacking the muslim universities and to polarize. DBigXrayᗙ 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I have noticed that newly registered users adding comments, the latest case of user Maryam.Rosie is very interesting, the user's first contribution in wiki is the support comment here. Well no problem, but let me make something clear, if anyone thinks that you will bring newly registered users after making accounts and put your comment here to vote, then it does not work like that, consensus does not work like that, per WP:CONS consensus does not mean unanimity, neither result of a vote rather by incorporate legitimate concerns, respecting Wiki's policies and guidelines. Dey subrata (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support The peaceful anti-CAA protests by Jamia Milia Islamia students took a violent turn which involved stone pelting, damaging pubic properties, arson, etc. It has also been confirmed by the college authorities that fake ID cards were confiscated, who were may be outsiders pretending to be college students but we don't know and what they were up to. Due to such activities police had to take action against these people which had run inside the campus to take shelter. So things were more like a fallout of aforementioned events rather than a purported attack on students by the police. "Violence" and "Attack" are two different words with related meanings but for the purpose of this page "violence" word sounds more appropriate according to the events. SamanyaGyan (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Separate page about Jamia Millia protests

Since, 15 December incident is a specific event that occured in the premises of Jamia Millia Islamia, I suggest that it should be limited to the incident only, and investigations thereof. A separate page should be made about the ongoing protests outside Jamia Millia Islamia, Gate No. 7. Otherwise, this page be made a sub-part of the new page, suggested to be Jamia Millia protests. It suits better as the 15 December incident is a part and parcel of Jamia protests. Awaiting further discussion. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, your proposal looks good. But remember this article must have a background section that talks about the protests by students. Once that is added. Do you think we have enough content with major events that a separate page is merited. FYI, I have extensively contributed on CAA Protests. DBigXrayᗙ 10:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I think that we have enough content to make a separate page named Jamia Millia protests, I've created one on Urdu Wikipedia. And as far as 15 December incident is concerned, though it can't be regarded as the background of Jamia Millia protests, but it is a part and parcel of Jamia Millia protests. The Jamia Millia protests started on 11 December 2019 in my presence. We have enough on 15 December incident as well as the Jamia Millia protests. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I am not saying that 15 December is regarded as the background of Jamia protest. I am saying that we already have this existing article on "Jamia attack". This article needs to give a complete picture of the events that led to the attacks. So It needs to have sections that talk about the protests that had happened before the attack and after the attack. Whether we create a seperate article on Jamia protest does not affect this point that this attack article needs to have a complete summary of the protest article. If you say you have enough content on 15 December, then I would suggest you to start adding them in this article first. (in Background and Aftermath sections) Once it has expanded a lot, it can be WP:CFORKed to a new article by you. I am just trying to suggest the best and the safest path to do that. Please understand that creating too many seperate articles on essentially the same main topic (CAA Protest) may lead to someone starting a merge discussion and deleting them. I am saying this from my experience. DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I get it. Cheers Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Protesters or rioters with stones entering library

In this edit, "protesters with stones" was edited to just "protesters" while CCTV footage in the referred link clearly shows rioters with stones in the hand entering library. "Stones" in the sentence is very much relevant as stone pelting happened in the area and they are pretty big enough to cause significant damage. Also the same person is seen in another CCTV footage from corridor of first floor where they pelt stones towards police on ground below. Here is a report which highlights that person IndiaToday. This is neither an isolated person nor an isolated event. Multiple such stone pelting instances from different locations of the University has been captured in several videos from different angles.

1. Stone pelting from Jamia Islamia gate [1] and another report just before Police entered campus IndiaTV (from time 24:13)
2. Stone pelters moving inside campus at 5:10PM, from CCTV inside campus TimesNow
3. Mob with stones in corridor and pelting at Police from first floor and then entering library or reading room, blocking doors at 6:05PM.India Today, AajTak
4. Mob with masked people entering library. TimesNow

XGammaRay (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

XGammaRay What is your point ??? 1 & 2-Stone pelting already added. 3-4 from corridor throwing at whom and where, not on footage, masked only few-possibilities- tear gas, even police were masked and entering into library, so what is your point, and blocking door becasue of the consequences-police breaking doors, beating, and even vandalised and destroyed CCTV. I did not get your point, what is the issue as everything is added. Dey subrata (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is added. "Protesting mob or rioters with stones entering library from outside" before blocking its doors is missing and few more points which I will list later. First, why the word "stones" in the sentence "protesters with stones" was removed through this edit from the India Today video link when multiple CCTV footage in #3 shows same person carrying stone inside library from different angles. Regarding #3-corridor CCTV footage, at whom stone pelters attempted or did pelt stones by hanging from the gallery of first floor?, IndiaToday reporter mentions clearly in this report(time 1:55) that Police were standing below that gallery at that time and mob with stones attempted to pelt at Police. The same stone pelting mob moving into library with stones in hand clearly identified in 3. For whatsover reason this mob with stones entering reading rooms is clipped-off from the video link shared by you, giving just half of the information. Mentioning "Students studying inside reading rooms" is totally different than "protesters and stone pelters from outside taking refuge inside library and blocking its doors". Without 3-4 it appears Police lathi charged students studying inside library but 3-4 clearly shows stone pelting mob and other protesters taking refugee inside library and reading rooms before lathi charge. 4th video shows big mob of protesters entering library from outside. Thats why 3-4 needs to be considered to arrive at WP:NPOV.XGammaRay (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

XGammaRay Protesters with stones removed because its POV, only one person can be seen carrying a stone. I rather see frightened students with bags entering to save themselves and than blocking door. Secondly, even if any protesters entered inside the library after stone pelting, police absolute have no authority to execute such brutality. So be clear on that. And from the balcony video, I don't see anyone throwing, they surely keeping stones but that does not make any sense of pelter until and unless any video evidence of those people throwing stones. Now coming again to police role, they were surely not any protesters, here another video by Quint shows that the student are gathering gossiping and police and para millitary entered, beaten brutaly and again destroyed CCTV. There is video to justify your view that "stone pelting mob taking refuge". Everything is considered, we cannot write on perception, what can be seen in vidoe we can write that only, not what I think or you think. Dey subrata (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The narrative of the India Today video is found out to be wrong and fake, Alt news fact check, the object the student holding was a wallet not stone.Dey subrata (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done will be NPOV violation and fake narratives by main stream media.