Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Some Examples of Wikipedia Policies followed in this article

This section is being created so that editors - both new and old have examples before us to serve as a guideline for properly following the Wikipedia policies. For the same purpose, pinning it. Intention has to be Improving article.

It is frequently seen that there are fights over what exactly are the Wikipedia policies. Just quoting the Wikipedia policies does not resolve those fights. Giving examples from the article, can serve to properly clarify the Wikipedia policies. Incase we land-up with difference of opinion please question yourself Will it improve this article? And this section is pinned so that it can be easily seen by all.

Please see this link which is a Wikipedia guide - Wikipedia:Tutorial/Keep in mind. It has the basic concepts in simple words and links to the Wikipedia policies proper.

Examples of 'Neutral point of view' from this article

• "The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, in particular for excluding Muslims"

Threaded Discussion for 'Reliable Sources'

Kmoksha (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinned section in Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Hello there, The section "Some Examples of Wikipedia Policies followed in this article" has been pinned with aim of helping other editors and for reducing infighting regarding Wikipedia policies. Only this section has been pinned with a purpose.

Just giving link of Wikipedia policy does not help change behavior of editors. We should try to give explanation why the policy is being violated and give examples of policy being followed. That increases possibility that the editor understands and changes his / her faulty behavior.

So, kindly do not remove the pinned tag from that section. Thanks.

Kmoksha (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have moved this from my talk to here, as it is better suited here. I disagree that the above is sufficient reason to pin this thread on the talk page for eternity. You may do this on your User talk but not on article talk. Not unless you have consensus. And I strongly disagree. You can educate new users on their user talk page. Article talk page is not the place for editor training. Since we 2 disagree you will need consensus to put the pin back. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with discussing this here also. But please note that YN Desai called it a "good initiative" - here.

So, will you revert the pinsection removal until there is consensus against it ?

You said "You can educate new users on their user talk page. Article talk page is not the place for editor training" Editors give their proposals on the Article Talk page. There is lot of infighting regarding what is Wikipedia policy specifically for an article ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE. This thread is specifically regarding this article, meant to reduce the infighting on this Article Talk page, that is why it is put here. And most of editors do not explain details of why something is in compliance with Wikipedia policies and why it is not. That is why it is helpful here as pinned section to be seen by all editors easily. -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, Yndesai is not the final authority for deciding disputes. Consensus is not a vote, where 2 people trump 1. On the Article talk, you may discuss on the threads about the article topic and only the article topic. It is acceptable to link to policy pages using shortcuts, if you feel it is necessary. If you feel the need to teach an editor on policy matters, by creating exclusive threads, you will have to do this at his/her user talk page. Please read WP:TPG guidelines for more clarity. DBigXrayᗙ 11:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray I am open with not having user education in article talk section. To bring some method in madness I have also suggested that we create pinned list of issues active users want to address. Hope this request can be accommodated. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 11:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not copy my signature, you are not allowed to do that, Read WP:PING to understand how to alert a user. We have a WP:TOC which is a list of threads. we dont need any other lists here. I oppose this proposal as frivolous. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray It is not just voting. Proper reasons also have been given while putting the section and pinning it. Yndesai agreed with those reasons given. Please note this thread is meant to help all editors - not just new ones. This is not just tutoring for new editors as you make out, it is as a reference to what has been agreed upon and what is good example content following Wikipedia policies. It is meant to reduce infighting on thie article page.

Just giving shortcuts to Wikipedia policies and not giving reasons why they violated those policies and not giving examples, which the editor can easily relate to and understand, is not going to help reduce the infighting on this article talk page.

Since the infighting goes on the article talk page, that is the reason why this is put here and was pinned. Again, please be specific which part of WP:TPG you are referring to here. The link WP:PING given by you says that the information in that page is not upto date. Please be specific what exactly you are referring to. And all the editors are equal. -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, as mentioned on the top of the talk page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 article.". Tutoring new and old editors is not a part of this charter. On WP:TPG I was referring to the lead of WP:TPG and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Central_points, though it is useful if you read the full page. On the ping, I was referring to Help:Notifications#Alerts DBigXrayᗙ 12:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray , I have already given my reasons for creating this thread - to serve as a reference for all editors to reduce infighting in the Article Talk page. I wanted other editors to see and respond whether they agree with those reasons or not. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so if other editors do not support this or oppose this, I am OK with dropping this idea. Regarding the rules for mentioning other editors, I have seen that I am doing it properly. There is a template also for the same. Please see - Template:User link -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray List of WP:TOC does not include Topics which goes into Archive. Which has made me believe that Do we or do we not mention FAQ is not currently active. I created additional section only after reading all earlier discussion in archive and also quoted open issues where consensus is not there. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 04:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Bhavnani, Nandita (2016). "Unwanted Refugees: Sindhi Hindus in India and Muhajirs in Sindh". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 39 (4): 790–804. doi:10.1080/00856401.2016.1230691.
• Kudaisya, Gyanesh (2006). "Divided Landscapes, Fragmented Identities: East Bengal Refugees and Their Rehabilitation in India, 1947–79". Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 17 (1): 24–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.1996.tb00082.x. ISSN 0129-7619.
• Nakatani, Tetsuya (2000), "Away from Home : The Movement and Settlement of Refugees from East Pakistan in West Bengal, India", Journal Of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 12: 73–, doi:10.11384/jjasas1989.2000.7
• Roy, Haimanti (2013), Partitioned Lives: Migrants, Refugees, Citizens in India and Pakistan, 1947-65, OUP India, ISBN 978-0-19-808177-7
• Roy, Rituparna (Summer 2009), "The Hungry Tide – Bengali Hindu refugees in the Subcontinent (Review)" (PDF), The Study (51)
• Bhattacharjee, Saurabh (1 March 2008), "India Needs a Refugee Law", Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (9): 71–75, JSTOR 40277209
• Scheel, Stephan; Squire, Vicki (2014), "Forced Migrants as 'Illegal' Migrants", in Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh; Gil Loescher; Katy Long; Nando Sigona (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, OUP Oxford, pp. 188–, ISBN 978-0-19-164587-7
• Poddar, Mihika (2018), "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: international law on religion-based discrimination and naturalisation law", Indian Law Review, 2 (1): 108–118, doi:10.1080/24730580.2018.1512290
• Sadiq, Kamal (2008), Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-970780-5
• Saikia, N.; Joe, W.; Saha, A.; Chutia, U. (2016), Cross Border Migration in Assam during 1951-2011: Process, Magnitude, and Socio-Economic Consequences (PDF), Delhi: Indian Council of Social Science Research
• Sarker, Shuvro Prosun (2017), Refugee Law in India: The Road from Ambiguity to Protection, Springer, ISBN 978-981-10-4807-4
• Shamshad, Rizwana (2017), Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators?, OUP India, ISBN 978-0-19-909159-1

Proposal for section "Indian Government Response" to be marked as needing improvement and inserting Indian Government response with counter-points

Although this was raised elsewhere, here I would like to give the full proposal regarding the section - "Indian Government Response"

Reasons:
The article section says "Indian Government Response" but that section does not have any Indian Government Response in reality. Saying the PM response to be Indian Government Response is incorrect. It is like saying that view of a Wikipedia editor is view of Wikipedia community. Indian Government gives response based on consensus amongst the various ministers and officials of the Government. Hence, the Indian Government Response should be put in that section and not what the PM said on this issue. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the section "Indian Government Response" ?

If you compare the section "Indian Government Response" with the other sections of the article, the other sections have more balanced view points. In the other sections, view point of a politician is given and then a counter by a critic is given. That is what I am aiming for in this section. Why such neutrality cannot be done for this section ?

If Government is lying or is contradicting itself, still the Indian Government Response should be given since that is what the section says. To keep the section neutral, counter-points should also be put.

So, I propose to mark that section needing improvement to include all the viewpoints and counter-viewpoint according to the section title. And then we can build up the section having viewpoints and counter-points by means of discussion here.

Proposed Content for section "Indian Government Response":

I will give few examples of the content along with their counter-points below -

1. In a series of tweets posted through the Press Bureau of India (PIB) Twitter handle, the government has tried to bust the myths about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. "Mythbusters focusing on North-Eastern India, especially Assam, surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act. The 11-points address the most common misconceptions and fears in the region," PIB tweeted. livemint

Critics claim that "The ‘myths’ that the PIB attempts to bust in these posts, amount to little more than the government’s propaganda, an attempt to stifle criticism and generate public support for this anti-secular agenda."sabrangindia

2. In the FAQs released by Home Ministry, it also mentioned that CAA has nothing to do with deportation of illegal Muslim immigrants. However, the deportation of any foreigner irrespective of their religion is implemented as per the Foreigners Act, 1946 and/or The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. Mumbai Mirror

3. The Government has said that "Baluchis, Ahmediyas & Rohingayas can always apply to become Indian citizens as and when they fulfill the qualifications provided in the relevant sections of The Citizenship Act, 1955." Sentinel

But critics have said that "The answers released by the Central Government to FAQs on CAA/NRC are highly misleading and at times totally false, hiding more than they reveal."radicalsocialist
=== End of Proposal ===

Please give your opinion along with your detailed reasons @Kautilya3 Vanamonde Ms Sarah Welch and others

Kmoksha (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 You had asked to give a full proposal along with the content. I have given this proposal which is having neutral point of view also. From your past comments, I get that you consider the Government response as false. But a statement even if false should be put, if it is according to the subject. The section title says "Indian government response" and so real Indian Government Response should be put. To balance the view point, I have put the critic view-point. That will take care of your concern that the Government response is misleading because we have included that also as critic response to response of Indian Government. So, kindly respond to this comprehensive proposal.

@Vanamonde , Ms Sarah Welch and others, request you all to also respond so that we can work towards improving this section.

Kmoksha (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Blog posts are ok to discuss among ourselves, but they cannot be cited on Wikipedia (unless they are written by well-known experts). But I agree with the blogger's assessment. I suggest that you drop the subject. We are not going to reproduce content that is misleading and at times totally false. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 There are no blog posts which I see in this proposal. Please point them out if I missed anything. I have added critic assessment of Government Response.So, is it not balanced point of view now ? What is the purpose of this section "Indian Government Response" when it does not have any real Indian Government Response ?

Kmoksha (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook Radical Socialist to be a blog site. Perhaps not. But it is not a mainstream news source anyway and it would not be proper to cite it.

But the bigger point is that Wikipedia is meant to provide information. Your insistence that we should provide misinformation or disinformation, via the claim that the government viewpoint needs to be represented, is not going to find any takers on Wikipedia. So I still maintain that your should drop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 You have not answered my question, request you to answer it - "What is the purpose of this section "Indian Government Response" when it does not have any real Indian Government Response ?"

You say that you are against "misinformation" or "disinformation". But the section title is very misleading since the section does not have any real Indian Government Response. If you do want to put the Indian Government Response in the article, then why create such a section "Indian Government Response" at all ?

That is why my proposal was to mark the section "Indian Government Response" as needing improvement. In this way, more people will contribute to improving the article section. You have not given any comment on that as well.

Also, in my proposal, I have given another critic link - sabrangindia. Please give your opinion regarding that also.

Kmoksha (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That section explains what the government has been doing in the face of the crisis. I am satisfied with what it says, and don't see any problems of "neutrality" that you seem to believe.

As for sabrangindia, it is also not a mainstream source, and we normally don't cite it even if we agree with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That section contains response of Modi on his personal platform and police action, Projecting PM statements as Indian Government Response is like saying that Wikipedia editor opinion is the opinion of Wikipedia community. That is more than just non-neutral, it is highly misleading.

Also, I think considering only a few newsmedia as mainstream is not correct. See what the Wiki policy says about Mainstream media -

"Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship.Crucially, this means that Wikipedia content is not based on a popularity contest. In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is. While what is considered "mainstream" may sometimes be a minority view in society, the mainstream understanding will conform to explanations provided by the highest-quality sources." Wikipedia:MAINSTREAM

We seem to be disagreeing on this section. However, thanks for your opinion. Let others comment and give their opinions as well.

Kmoksha (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I agree with Kautilya3 above. DBigXrayᗙ 12:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, The section and article is misleading. Response of Modi is not response of Indian Government. And by omitting the Indian Government response along with the critique, the article is highly pro-government. We need to put the proper responses of the Indian Government and counter-responses. Even if the media is not notable, the content of sabrangindia and radicalsocialist is true, so it must be put. Otherwise, the article is favoring the Government side. -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This section is about response of Government to Protest. Such responses can be a) Agree/accommodate/Negotiate with Protesting party. b) Try to convince/educate/communicate with people to gather support from non protesting mass and convert opinion of protesting mass. c) Use of force to maintain law and order. Incase any other type of response someone can think of please add. Government has defiantly not chosen response a) till date. On response b) some attempt is made. Response c) is also used. As per my understanding wikipedia article should contain one line each on all of above possible responses. However we are currently restricted to only quote sources. I propose to mention one line about response b) used by government. Wording are as under.

To clarify doubts and spread awareness about amendment Government issued FAQ in third week of December 2019. [1] -- YN Desai ^Discuss 06:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@YN Desai, To clarify, you are proposing this sentence to be added to the section - "Indian Government Response" is that correct ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha OK. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 09:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?

Should the second line of the lead of the article be modified from:

It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014 pib.gov.in

to:

It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014 and who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 scconline.com

Please choose from the Options listed below in the `Survey` section and also give your reasons and comments in the `Threaded discussion` below.

11:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Second_line_of_lead_of_this_article_incomplete_and_misleading

Survey

• Option 1: Agree that the proposed content should be added to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article

• Option 2: Diagree with the proposed content but suggest other modification to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article.

• Option 3: Disagree with the proposed content and no other addition is needed to be added to the second sentence of the lead of this article.

• Option 1: Agree that the proposed content should be added to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article Abhishekaryavart (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. There is no limit to the number of definitions that can be added to this sentence. The proposed addition is utterly opaque even to people with some knowledge of the topic, and would require more detail to be added to be comprehensible. The current version summarizes the effects of the act, as discussed by reliable sources, adequately. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The lead sentence has to be understandable, and not refer to obscure sets of rules that nobody knows about. I would firmly oppose putting in these obscurities into the lead sentence. "Have been exempted" is also wrong tense. I haven't seen anybody say that people can't apply for such exemptions now and apply for citizenship after receiving them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Lead is supposed to tell the main elements of law. otherwise it is misleading and gives impression that Citizenship is granted automatically to all Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc., from PAB which is not the case. A crucial element of this act is that it gives citizenship to only those persons who already have got the benefit of waiver of Foreigners Act and Passport (Entry of India) Act. That should be in the lead. -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 I will simply refer to comments by VNM and KT3 and not repeat what already has been said. per WP:MOSLEAD the lead lead is supposed to be an easily understandable summary of the entire article. This is not supposed to be added to the lead. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 What I could understand is that for eligible candidate to become citizen he/she need to avail waiver of Foreigners Act (ie declare him/herself as refugee and government accept this declaration). I consider proposal is too technical and not easily understandable for lead section. I would lean to drop it in case not elaborated well -- YN Desai ^Discuss 14:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The second line of the lead of the article gives impression that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christians who came from the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan before 2014 are exempt while this is not the case. It is subject to those who already got exemptions under said laws. This addition will make the second line more clear. Abhishekaryavart (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with you @Abhishekaryavart

@Kautilya3 You said "The lead sentence has to be understandable, and not refer to obscure sets of rules that nobody knows about" These rules are essential elements of the law. The lead is supposed to tell what the law is because the article is on the law. Instead, the lead is full of other things which should not be in the lead, it should be covered in the main body of the article.

What do you have to say about these statements in the first and second paragraph of the lead, are they not duplicate in your opinion -

From the first paragraph -

"It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. pib.gov.in"

From the second paragraph -

"Under the 2019 amendment, migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014, and had suffered "religious persecution or fear of religious persecution" in their country of origin were made eligible for citizenship. pib.gov.in"

You say that "I haven't seen anybody say that people can't apply for such exemptions now and apply for citizenship after receiving them" The law explicitly mentions cutoff date of 2014 for getting Citizenship. Which sentence in this law, in your opinion, is telling that future persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Christians from PAB will get Citizenship ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It says they should have entered India by December 2014. It doesn't say they should have received exemption by December 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Please see in the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 clause 3, sub-clause 3 proviso, where it gives exemption to making application now for only those who meet the other criteria and against whom case is pending. Those people are limited. But one of the sentences in the lead states otherwise -

"Immediate beneficiaries of the Bill, according to the Intelligence Bureau of India, will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis.economic times". The reference given for this sentence nowhere says the word "immediate", this is own addition. This is violation of Wikipedia:No original research Infact, the Deccan Herald link given in the article body, also says - "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs" -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND. Just look at a sample google search, pick a citation and add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Another accusation on me without giving any specific details, which is obviously untrue. I just showed the inconsistencies in the links of the article itself. The article body link is saying one thing and the lead is saying another. Your own added link is saying that Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs. Why add our own wording when the link does not say that and neither does the report of joint Committee on CAB ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of the policy you cite says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". You have not explained what efforts you have made to convince yourself that "no reliable, published sources exist". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Go one line further in the wiki policy Wikipedia:No original research which is "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." This is what happened and I have already explained it. The article content is inconsistent with the content of the sources used in the article. There is no word "initial" in the sources you use. That is own wording used. The source link which you give clearly says that "Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs." That is supported by the `Report of joint Committe on CAB`, so it is true. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai , Please give your vote in the Survey section along with your reasons in short. -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai You have said that the line can be improved with alternate wording. Can you give any suggestion for alternate wording ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The more I read this article, more I become sure that it has become a clown dress as compared to well tailored tuxedo. There is no maturity shown by users acting as moderator on how to use references. It is never mandatory to copy/paste words and sentences from the source. (I intend to create a discussion thread to demonstrate this by quoting few articles from wikipedia) Article is suppose to have a Context, intent, flow, (Template for) view and counter-view. Anything cited have to be re-worded in reference to context and intent of article. I hope my proposed alternate wording is taken with enough maturity. So context here is CAA and intent is to describe CAA in simple language. My proposed wording is: It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for refugees of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. I have changed word members to refugees as by addition of second line it clarifies that CAA is not for all members but only refugees. I know this is not understandable to self appointed moderators so be it. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 04:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yndesai, please specify which reliable sources have used the term "refugees" for the target community. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering deadlock on this I propose following statement (Which is first line of Analysis Section) to be used:

The Bill amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to give eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. Hope this will bring some consensus. -- YN Desai  Discuss 11:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what improvement this is supposed to have made. Neither do I see why the condition of persecution is being omitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

change first paragraph, third sentence "Muslims were not given such eligibility." to "Muslims and Jews were not considered in this act" Sivendre (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sivendre , Eggishorn In the context of this talk, would like to bring to your notice this link which tells that "India has not included Jews in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan within the purview of the CAA. " It is not exactly the same wording though, but it might be useful.-- Kmoksha (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Everybody can see that Jews are not included. But stating it explicitly requires information that the omission is significant. The blog post cited here is entirely speculative. There is no information there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 This is all criticism of the law. What is "significant" for one criticizer may not be significant of the other criticizer. So, it is subjective. The cited article has information regarding "Speculation" about the law and its counterpoints. I gave one example that there are references which can be considered. See another one - https://www.news18.com/news/india/what-happened-in-hitlers-germany-is-happening-in-india-now-punjab-cm-amarinder-singh-on-caa-2462437.html -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Political statements are not regarded as reliable sources. Should we add, for example, that the "events unfolding now were similar to the ones witnessed in Germany in 1930s when Adolf Hitler was at the helm"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are putting that under section like having name "Criticism" and that is coming from a notable person or group, it can be done by quoting that group/person. -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change sub title

Under Analysis section there is subsection with title Exclusion of Muslims. I propose to change title to either Exclusion of Muslim Migrants or Exclusion of Muslim Refugees. Reason for my proposal is that Citizenship Amendment only addresses Migrants from three countries (excluding Muslim migrants from those countries).. Considering my edit was rolled back stating that it is not how the original source says. While my argument is that when we refer to exclusion we clearly mean it is not in the source. Also this refers to analysis section where various point of views will appear... -- YN Desai ^Discuss —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai, In my opinion, the subsection title should be Non-inclusion of Muslim Refugees since law does not exclude anyone. It only talks about certain categories. So, it is misleading to say that law excludes -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The text follows the reliable sources that have been cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation from kmoksha is agreeable to me. Regard to comment by kautilya3, titles/subtitles are for organisation of article and this being analysis section objective view is to be considered. One can't write and organise analysis section just by using words published in press. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Neutral View Point is considered priority, text with citation needed can be kept as part of articles to keep view point alive. Proposed subtitle brings more clarity and neutrality in my opinion. Also how do you quote a reliable source for article's subtitle, please elaborate. I even wonder which reliable source suggest that there needs to be an analysis section in wikipedia article on current event. Check article Impeachment trial of Donald Trump on current event it does not contain analysis section. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@YN Desai The section title says "Analysis" but most of the section is really about Criticism. If that is what is intended, the criticism parts should be shifted to a new section title labelled as "Criticism". "Analysis" should only tell what the law is saying, its words. -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticism is part of analysis I am more than happy with it. I have raised concern in next discussion that analysis on a current issue is not good as facts are evolving by hour. If everyone keeps quoting press article while protest is going on, it will reflect as a bias. Some amount of original content would be needed, as representation of counter view. However, under such section every view should have two parts where views and counter views can easily be placed. @Kautilya3 I would suggest you put your view in this section rather than on my user talk section.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 12:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Elaborating Relationship with NRC

Considering subsection of Relationship with NCR is in Analysis section, I think views and supporting evidences need to be mentioned. I propose to add following line at the end of paragraph.

Any real group of such persons is yet to surface.

This line can be removed once citation to actual affected (by relationship with NCR) group/individual is available. -- YN Desai ^Discuss —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, it is "NRC" not "NCR". I am also unable to make sense of this sentence. What is meant by "such persons"? "Surface" where? What source are you using for this comment? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. NCR is too much part of my real life vocab hence the TYPO. Coming to the point, it is clear you are evaluating the proposed statement in isolation and not in context with the complete paragraph. Or may be I tried to put a very short statement. I propose following revised statement which will help everyone understand alternate view point properly. Also it refers to a reliable source. My personal opinion was not to quote such articles, but to keep the alternate point of view alive I would use it anyway.

The concern stated is for hypothetical group of people who may be affected by combined effect of CAA and NRC. No such group/individual have come forward. In absence of any group/individual coming forward, some commentators posed themselves as scarred victims. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 06:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

YN Desai There is a source referenced in the article which talks about CAA and NRC at length but for unclear reasons, none of its content is mentioned anywhere in the article - https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-citizenship-amendment-act-nrc-caa-means-6180033/

I propose to put this paragraph from that source into the wiki article -

"After protests spread, the government has sought to downplay its narrative on NRC. Minister of State (Home) Kishan Reddy said the government has not decided when the exercise would begin or what its modalities would be. “The draft is also not yet prepared. Neither the cabinet nor the legal department has approved it. NRC is not going to happen immediately. Some people in the name of NRC are trying to spread fear,” he said." -- Kmoksha (talk)

I think this downplay aspect is mentioned in Indian Government Response. Now, this again is opinion of the source (ie Indianexpress) and not government. As Government is going ahead with NPR. This is issue with just quoting sources and placing statements in various sections. Hope to see some improvement here.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 13:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't put multiple proposals in the same section because it causes confusion.

• Yndesai's proposal is WP:OR, not supported by the source.
• Kmoksha's proposal is off-topic. This page is on the law, not on the implementation or lack of implementation of the NRC. The law states that the Indian government is mandated to do an NRC for the whole of India, and the BJP has promised to do it. What they might say for political expediency doesn't impact these facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 This section on article talk page is discussing about relationship of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 with NRC and there is a similar section in the article also. So, my comment and proposal is NOT off-topic. You said "The law states that the Indian government is mandated to do an NRC for the whole of India, and the BJP has promised to do it." No procedure for National level NRC has yet been declared, that is what my proposed addition for this section is saying. So, that should be added to this section.

@YN Desai Only one line is mentioned under the section Relationship with NRC in the Wiki article -

"Commentators have expressed concerns that people who are unable to produce required documents to prove their citizenship and inclusion in the NRC will be accepted as migrants and given Indian citizenship under the Bill provided they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains but not Muslims; and the latter would risk becoming stateless because they are not included under the Bill"

That section Relationship with NRC does not give any counter-view to that view, that is why that section is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because Wikipedia is supposed to have both view and counter-view as far as possible. I suggested an already accepted source to be used because it is telling what is the Indian Government Response on this matter. Elsewhere in this talk page, I have mentioned how the section Indian Government Response does not really have any Indian Government Response. Please discuss that issue there.

-- Kmoksha (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There is only one issue I am trying to put forward that section Relationship with NRC does not give any counter-view hence needs elaboration. @Kmoksha agrees on this. I don't have idea of @Kautilya3, but his insistence on reliable source is appreciated.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai The source link which I gave here has already been accepted by the wiki article makers. So, I would request you to go through it in detail - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IECitizenshipExplained-18. Because in it lot of counter-viewpoints are mentioned regarding this subject. I gave the proposed content from that source only. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the link. That is an excellent article, and I have made use of it in expanding the "Relationship to NRC" section. You can also use it to expand the "Government response" section since it is a secondary source that talks about the PIB comments. The downplaying of the NRC can't have too much weight because the government issued orders for NPR even in the midst of its "downplaying". We know that the BJP promised the Bengali voters that it would get rid of the illegal immigrants and it needs to go back to them within a year for the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I have thanked Kautilya3 for the elaboration done, but for neutrality one line of counter-view point is always needed. It is still missing. Adding one more paragraph does not bring counter-view point.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 04:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy does not require anything called "counter-views". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This tutoring is going too far. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV talks about considering opposing-views (counter-view) and performing good research to bring about all view points (common sense tells 2 are minimum), even be aware of bias in content of reliable sources and represent them in impartial tone. Hope you will re-read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV in light of this interpretation and be able to use reliable sources with more maturity. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 14:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The first line of the policy is: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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 such "significant views" include opposing views, then we cover them. Nowhere does it say "counter-viewpoint is always needed". You made that up on your own.

RegentsPark, can you advise? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with YN Desai . Indian Government Response is a "significant view". "Indian Government Response" is formed as a consensus of all ministers and the sources in the article cover those, but the article lacks those, so that should be put in the article. We do not favor any Government and Governments can take U-turns. But that does not mean we do not put those POVs. We should put all major POVs of Indian Government even if they are contradictory and exposing the Government. -I have created a new section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Some_Examples_of_Wikipedia_Policies_followed_in_this_article Editors and discuss there and come to a consensus regarding some examples of policies being followed in this article. - Kmoksha (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Kautilya3 You seem to be good at copy/paste which is doing more damage than good. I have not made up anything. It is common sense that unless you research well you will not come across all "significant views". So before we (as wikipedia editors) start writing we need to research and before we research we need to be aware that there are going to be atleast 2 opposing view points. Your google search does not bring about one of the opposing view point does not mean it does not exist. It is already written (in text pasted by you) that we (as wikipedia editors) have to represent all significant views. Hence it becomes our duty to unearth all of them and atleast provide space for them. @Kmoksha Good initiative, I suggest you also link few wikipedia articles which can become benchmark/reference to how this article should become. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note on including points of view WP:NPOV is very clear. You need to include all significant points of view, and they must be included proportionately. It doesn't follow that there be at least two points of view (if only one is significant, only one needs be included) and it doesn't follow that all points of view get equal space. In regard to the current discussion, I guess this means that you (Yndesai) will need to show that the response of the government is significant (i.e., you need to provide reliable secondary sources that assert that the response is significant) and, if there is consensus that it is, to what degree it needs be included. There is a lot of discussion above and I'm not sure I understand what everyone is saying, but you also need to be aware that an official government response is WP:PRIMARY and should not be used. Instead, you should use secondary sources that discuss that response. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark Noted and thanks for your input.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 13:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

regentspark , There is no disagreement that "Indian Government Response" is not significant and there are sources in the reference of the article also give the "Indian Government Response". Content from those sources can be used appropriately. Please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IE_Explained_NRC+CAA-18

The disagreement is on the content for the sections, this section in particular. This section is not giving the different POVs properly even though the article referenced sources are giving that. And while we were discussing all these policy issues, Kautilya3 has removed his own previous content, which was quite different and inserted new content - all this without giving any reasons or discussing this here. Kautilya3`s recent edit has multiple Wikipedia violations. All this discourages other editors who are discussing here. At least, the discussion should be allowed to finish before removing old content and inserting new content and sources. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I was just clarifying what NPOV means. Since I'm not familiar with the content, could you specify which parts of Kautilya's edits violate policies? I'll ask @Vanamonde93 and DBigXray: to take a look as well since they've been commenting here and are likely to be more familiar with the topic. --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark, Thanks for the ping. I have read the proposal and I don't agree in adding it. The government's side is well covered in the article. The proposed quote is a part of the Government's misinformation campaign and it is very unfortunate to see that it is being attempted to be accommodated in Wikipedia in the name of WP:NPOV. These quotes from the Govt. are attempts to discredit the CAA protests. As the time passes even the government sympathisers are starting to admit the obvious problems [2] [3] DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Kautilya3`s edit had Opinions presented as Facts and so violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The National level NRC policy procedure is yet to be announced. Indian Government has clarified that it is yet undecided. So, there can only be opinions on it, either for or against. But the Opinions were presented as facts. Secondly, there was a mismatch between the content and the sources violating WP:SYNTHESIS. I have explained it in detail in simple words - here -- Kmoksha (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, Please read the Citizenship rules 2003. Specifically do a search for National Register to read the relevant points. DBigXrayᗙ 14:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Please see the link of Citizenship rules 2003 given by you and tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India.

Remove third sentence of first paragraph of lead as it violates WP:WEIGHT and is non-factual

The first paragraph, third sentence of lead says "Muslims were not given such eligibility"

But this is misleading since this is not what the law says. The law does not say which religions are excluded. Law says only those religions which were included. There are other religions also which are not included like Judaism etc. It does not even include atheism. So, just saying "Muslims were not given such eligibility" is giving undue weight to one religion.

So, I propose that this sentence should be removed from the lead at least and at other places in the article like analysis, word "Exclusion" should be changed to "non-inclusion"

Kmoksha (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What the text of the law says is irrelevant; the text is obviously not going to make reference to things that it omitted. We base our articles on secondary sources discussing the text, most of which pointedly mention the exclusion of Muslims. We therefore must do the same. Please read WP:DUE carefully. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde That line violates WP:WEIGHT . The law has been criticized for non-inclusion of other communities as well including criticizing non-inclusion of Hindus from countries. So, why only mention in the lead to "exclusion of muslims" ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the policy you are citing? It says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (Emphasis mine). The exclusion of Muslims has received far more attention than that of any other community. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde I have read the policy and am saying what the policy is saying. This line "Muslims were not given such eligibility" does not represent other viewpoints at all. Even the viewpoint of people protesting in North East India is not represented in this single line. And that also received lot of attention. That is why this line is violating WP:WEIGHT and that is why should be removed from the lead. -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Protesters are not reliable sources either. Will you STOP chasing these red herrings and wasting everybody's time? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The protests in Assam are covered in the lead, along with the other protests. The first paragraph is a description of the bill itself, not of reactions to it. There is a clear distinction between the POV of those protesting this in Assam, and those analysts describing this as pointedly excluding Muslims. Please familiarize yourself with how our articles on contentious topics are structured, and please read the policy once again, because your comment suggests you have not understood the details of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I am talking about the Wikipedia policies here. This single line does not represent other viewpoints at all, so it should not be in the lead. When there are multiple viewpoints regarding the law with loads of reliable articles expressing views on non-inclusion of other communities like Tamils, etc. (those have been referenced in the article itself). Then, having these words for viewpoint regarding a single community violate the Wiki policy of WP:WEIGHT

I was asked to put my views on the article on the talk page and that is what I am doing. I would request to put your views on the topic rather than on me.

@Vanamonde You said "The first paragraph is a description of the bill itself, not of reactions to it" The third line of the first paragraph is referenced to articles which are telling about reactions to the bill.

For comparison, please see this sentence in the third paragraph in the lead which is much more according to Wikipedia policies -

"The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, in particular for excluding Muslims"

The third sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is not only violating WP:WEIGHT but it is also repetitive. -- Kmoksha (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• That the bill excludes Muslims is a fact.
• That it has been criticised for it is a POV.

The two are different and they are treated as needed per Wikipedia policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The act does NOT mention anything about excluding anyone. "Excluding muslims" is a criticism, a POV.
The first sentence of the third sentence of the lead itself says this -
"The amendment has been widely criticised as discriminating on the basis of religion, in particular for excluding Muslims"
So, the third sentence of first paragraph of the lead is trying to say the same thing what the first line of the third paragraph of the lead is saying. It is repetitive. Besides that, the former is violating WP:WEIGHT while the latter is not. That is why the third sentence of the first paragraph of the lead needs to be removed. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai and other editors, What is your opinion - Should the third sentence of the first paragraph of the lead be removed. Do you agree with the reasons I have stated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoksha (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The myth of Bangladeshi migrants

I will call the East Bengalis that migrated to India before 1971 as East Pakistani migrants and those after 1971 as Bangladeshi migrants. India has promised Bangladesh, when it was formed, that those people that migrated before 1971 would not be considered "Bangladeshis". In the Assam NRC, all those people have been included as Indian citizens. (But no such clarification has yet been made for the rest of India.) The whole CAA+NRC exercises are being conducted to detect and deport the Bangladeshi illegal migrants. But the question of how many such illegal migrants might be there has eluded most people. In his book, Kamal Sadiq wrote:

Notice how the population growth rate [for Assam] shoots up sharply from the 1950s in these districts and continues to grow after the independence of Bangladesh.

But I haven't been able to verify this from the data he presents. Comparing the 1971 and 1991 census for Assam (there was no census there in 1981), we see a population growth of 53% over two decades, which amounts to 2.149% annual growth rate. In what appears to be an authoritative report:

• Saikia, N.; Joe, W.; Saha, A.; Chutia, U. (2016), Cross Border Migration in Assam during 1951-2011: Process, Magnitude, and Socio-Economic Consequences (PDF), Delhi: Indian Council of Social Science Research

the authors confirm this. In Table 2.1 (p. 24), they give the figure of 2.135% for the period 1971-1991. The comparative figure for the whole of India is 2.172%. So, Assam's population growth was lower than the rest of India. See also the Figure 2.5 on p.25, which shows the picture visually.

Unfortunately, this does not fully settle the question. Assam's natural population growth has been lower than the rest of India till about 1991 (due to lower fertility rate and higher mortality rate. See the rest of Chapter 2.) After 1991 it caught up with the rest of India. So, some migrants did arrive during 1971-1991. But they cannot be anything like the exorbitant figures of 10 million or 20 million that are bandied around. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

No News is good News

There are more states and cities which have not staged any protest and hence not in news. How would this be addressed in the article? Not everyone will come on streets to show support/protest. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 13:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The page on Citizenship Amendment Act protests deals with protests. But, generally, you can't write what the reliable sources don't say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Protest section length

Reduce protest section length

Considering there is dedicated article on protest which is linked and being updated on regular basis. I recommend to reduce protest section to 2 paragraphs. Need not update this section on every news and event published. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 05:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to impose any limit in advance, but I would agree that the coverage of protests has to be at a more high-level, focusing on the views of protesters rather than the acts of protest themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2 Paragraphs are views of Protester and opposing view. When we create such framework neutrality can be enforced. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 15:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you are not at liberty to impose any such framework. Content always depends on what needs to be said and what information is available. Only after it is written can we discuss whether the material is WP:DUE or UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that Due importance is already given by having a dedicated article. Here we are planning to put high-level view and opposing view. Focus needs to be brought on articulating the topic which is CAA. It takes (not so deep) understanding of English that word Protest always have 2 views. If first view is not significant enough why there is protest against it anyway. Kautilya3 you keep quoting WP policies at your convenience -- YN Desai ^Discuss 16:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of paragraphs can be decided later. Reduction in section length being agreeable issue to 2 of the editors let us take it forward. Any proposal is welcome. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 11:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@YN Desai Please suggest what should be removed. If the editors here agree, we can go ahead and do that -- Kmoksha (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to remove too much, but reword it to make it concise. I will do it over weekend. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit in your sandbox and propose your sandbox version with a link here at first, before updating the article. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 11:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Increase protest section length

This section needs a lot of major updates that has been lacking. The major events and a summary of the protest article has to be added. DBigXrayᗙ 11:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray Please add list and links of updates you want to consider from CAA protest article so that they also can be considered while proposing new draft. I don't think you are interested in reducing and increasing this section at the same time. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 16:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained revert - Relationship to NRC

Kmoksha, please explain this revert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha has quoted that discussion is not concluded. I also felt that Kautilya3 is rushing in adding content from reliable sources. Mostly in haphazard manner.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 As told in the revert, the subject is PRESENTLY under discussion and so have reverted to the original content, which was originally agreed upon by other editors. Have not added any new content.

A huge chunk of paragraph from that section was removed and new content was inserted. Why was the removal of the previous paragraph necessary ? Why was the new content added, should be discussed and is still being discussed - here . Since this article is highly debatable, it needs to be discussed before previous content is removed. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There was only a single sentence summary to act as a place holder. Since the section has been expanded, there is no more need for that sentence. Is there anything there that isn't in the expanded content?

Please keep in mind that you can only revert content if you have policy-based objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Here you ask me to explain and before I can answer, you revert the edit Your edits have policy violations like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view This has already been told by me and YN Desai that the section is violating that Wiki policy.

Even your previous paragraph content which was removed inexplicably by you is quite different from the new content. Do you really want other editors to discuss things at Talk page ? Why you seem to be in a hurry in editing ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying that it "violates" NPOV is not good enough. NPOV is a huge policy. You need to describe what exactly is wrong with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edit presents Opinions as Facts which is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, the sources and the content did not match, violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Have explained all that in details - here -- Kmoksha (talk)

Is it mandatory to put Hindu nationalist in second paragraph

Consider following start of second paragraph. Practice of copy/paste from Reliable Sources brought this word here.

The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government, had promised in previous election manifestos to offer Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from neighboring countries.

It is not a norm at wikipedia that Bhartiya Janta Party be refereed to as Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janta Party. Please refer these wikipedia articles on Amit_Shah, Atal_Bihari_Vajpayee, L._K._Advani, Narendra_Modi and National_Democratic_Alliance. Let us look at WP:IMPARTIAL and edit this. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

YN Desai This point was previously also raised in this article Talk Page and this has now been archived - here

Bhartiya Janta Party does not call itself "Hindu Nationalist", so any source calling it as such is non-factual. Besides this, I also told that BJP has lot of muslim members , have made lot of pro-muslim policies like "Triple Talaq Act". Not that I care about any political party, but putting non-factual things in Wikipedia articles lowers the standards of those Wikipedia articles. We should check the sources for the facts even if those sources are notable. Stating Opinions as facts is clearly violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

More important question is: Is it normal at wikipedia to refer Bhartiya Janta Party as Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janta Party? The answer is "No". -- YN Desai ^Discuss 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai Wikipedia can be edited by anyone using internet. So, the Non-neutrality policy of Wikipedia says that "Opinions should be stated as Opinions and not as Facts" . If BJP does not call itself "Hindu Nationalist" or does not have the characteristics of "Hindu Nationalist", then it should be not stated as a fact. It may be the opinion of people that BJP that it is "Hindu Nationalist". But since it is stated as a fact, we should firstly see that is it factual ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

No mention of Release Of FAQ.

DBig Resent reversal on FAQ is taking away my right to edit articles at wikipedia.

The statement added is To clarify doubts and spread awareness about amendment Government issued FAQ in third week of December 2019.

On WP policies following checks are made.

1. The statement is representing fact. - yes Government did issue FAQ

2. Does it provide reference to reliable source - yes 2 of prominent news agencies.

3. Does the statement says government was able to convince all protesters - No. (this is where participants have difference of opinion but it is not part of the statement)

4. Does this statement says that everything written in FAQ is true - No (this is where participants have difference of opinion but it is not part of the statement)

5. Does this statement improve the article? Yes (my answer)

Reason for inclusion : When there is protest government has few options one is connect with people and convince them, second is use force to discipline them. Release of FAQ falls in first category and it needs mention as attempt to connect was done. Success of attempt is another issue. To publish FAQ was a significant step taken by government, Covered by many prominent news agencies.

References

-- YN Desai ^Discuss 04:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yndesai, you have not explained why we need to add this in the article. DBigXrayᗙ 05:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

reason updated. BTW apologies for reverting your action. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 05:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@ YN Desai I had already raised this issue -here But other editors have not accepted the sources which I gave. There is already a source which is accepted in the article and which is talking about the FAQs to CAA response by Government amongst other things. I would suggest to you to go through it in detail and use it. The wordings which we use in the Wikipedia article does not have to be the same but there should be no mismatch between the Wikipedia content and the Source link content. That way, there will be at least no debate regarding the sources. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Moneycontrol & TimesOfIndia are not be accepted as reliable sources? I can additionally quote source proposed by you also to it. I was asked to provide reason for inclusion by User:DBigXray which I have provided. Put your comment on proposed statement and reason to include. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 10:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai, Right now, I am not saying that the MoneyControl and TimesofIndia link given by you are acceptable or not. My point is that we should FIRST see the already accepted source links of the article. In my opinion, they have sufficient matter in them to improve the article. Adding new sources should be done only if present sources are insufficient. Besides this, our aim is to try to reduce the infighting and collectively improve the article. Using already agreed upon source links is helpful for that. Otherwise, we will be just reverting each other`s edits and the article will not get improved. -- Kmoksha (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed...! In case you agree that statement proposed by me can be added. I have no issue with which reliable source it is referring to. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 11:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times here and you can read these threads to understand the reason for the same.

• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Government_FAQs_on_Citizenship_Amendment_Act
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Proposal_for_section_"Indian_Government_Response"_to_be_marked_as_needing_improvement_and_inserting_Indian_Government_response_with_counter-points
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Proposal_for_section_"Indian_Government_Response"_to_be_marked_as_needing_improvement_and_inserting_Indian_Government_response_with_counter-points--DBigXrayᗙ 11:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai DBigXray is objecting to creation of multiple threads on same issue. I agree on that point with him and in my previous comment, I had given a link where I had raised the same issue. I would suggest that we abandon this thread and continue discussion in that thread.

That is more convenient for all rather than having discussions on same topic in 2 threads. I had already raised this issue - here You can copy the gist of your comments from here and put it there. Please go through this link thoroughly - source which is accepted in the article and which is talking about the FAQs to CAA response by Government amongst other things and give your suggested addition which is according to that source link mentioning where exactly in the article it should be added. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Moved to [4] -- YN Desai ^Discuss 10:45, 21 January 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.

Latest "Relationship to NRC" edit violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:SYNTHESIS

List of Topics in the thread opener post -

• Changes made to the section by the edit
• multiple violations of Wikipedia policies by content of this edit
  • 1. Newly inserted content violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view since "Opinions" presented as "Facts"
  • 2. Newly inserted Content does not match the content of the given sources and violative of Wikipedia:No original research specifically Wikipedia:Synthesis of published material
  • 3. Content matter removed is different from what is newly inserted - No explanation whatsoever given for its removal

Changes made to the section by the edit

Kautilya3 changed this text in section "Relationship to NRC" :

Commentators have expressed concerns that people who are unable to produce required documents to prove their citizenship and inclusion in the NRC will be accepted as migrants and given Indian citizenship under the Bill provided they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains but not Muslims; and the latter would risk becoming stateless because they are not included under the Bill.

References

to this:

The National Register of Citizens is a registry of all legal citizens, whose construction and maintenance was manded by the 2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act. As of January 2020, it has only been implemented for the state of Assam, but the BJP has promised its implementation for the whole of India in its 2019 election manifesto. The NRC documents all the legal citizens so that the people who are left out can be recognized as illegal immigrants (often called "foreigners"). The experience with Assam NRC shows that many people were decalred "foreigners" because their documents were deemed insufficient.
In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit. However, it is unclear how people in the interior states of India who have no ethnic resemblance to the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh can claim such a shield, Muslim leaders have interpreted the CAA–NRC package in precisely these terms, viz., that the Muslims in the country would be targeted (by considering documents as insufficient) as potential foreigners, leaving out all non-Muslims.

In an interview to India Today, Home Minister Amit Shah offered reassurance that no Indian citizen needs to worry. "We will make special provisions to ensure that no Indian citizen from minority communities is victimised in the NRC process." But the Indian Express pointed out that the purpose of the NRC is precisely to identify the Indian citizens. So these references to "Indian citizens" remain unexplained.

References

There are multiple violations of Wikipedia policies by content of this edit:

• 1. Newly inserted content violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view since "Opinions" presented as "Facts"

(1a) Let us first see the relevant part from that Wikipedia policy -

* Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

(1b) The newly inserted content has several sentences which are opinions stated as facts like this sentence -

"In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit."

(1c) So, this sentence is trying to build up on the procedure of NRC of Assam but the third link of the newly inserted content (this was present before also in the article) says "Minister of State (Home) Kishan Reddy said the government has not decided when the exercise would begin or what its modalities would be. “The draft is also not yet prepared. Neither the cabinet nor the legal department has approved it. NRC is not going to happen immediately. Some people in the name of NRC are trying to spread fear,” he said."

(1d) And then same article goes on to explain "Why is Assam different?" Also, it quotes from the PIB FAQs of Indian Government which reinforce the same statements.

(1e) When the National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not a fact. That is why it is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by presenting Opinions as Facts.

• 2. Newly inserted Content does not match the content of the given sources and violative of Wikipedia:No original research specifically Wikipedia:Synthesis of published material

(2a) Please see what this Wikipedia policy says -

* Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

(2b) Please see link number 4 of the newly inserted content which is from India Today, it says "How is the CAA connected to the NRC? The two have no connection..." Further, that source says "Will the proposed NRC be like the one prepared in Assam? No. The Assam NRC has a different historical context... "

(2c) Even the other links like link no. 6 from scroll say "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." Scroll source says "Myth #2: The bill will help a large number of refugees" This is corroborated by another link from the article of Deccan Herald - "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs" This is also corroborated by the Report of Committee on CAB.

(2d) When as per the sources, the `Intelligence Bureau of India` is saying that only a limited number of people are beneficiaries of CAA, not lakhs, statements of the newly inserted content like "the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit" are violating Wikipedia:No original research specifically Synthesis of published material

• 3. Content matter removed is different from what is newly inserted - No explanation whatsoever given for its removal

(3a) The previous content matter, which was removed without any proper discussion, is talking about "concerns" that people have about not able to produce documents to prove their citizenship. It is true that there are "concerns". We were discussing that what the Indian Government Response to these "concerns" should be included. But Kautilya3 hastily replaced content without letting the ongoing discussion finish.

(3b) I would request Kautilya3 and all other editors to not hastily try to "fix" these sections by inserting new sources and content. But I would request editors to make proper proposals for the section contents, discuss that thoroughly in the Article Talk page and insert it only when there is Consensus on that content after proper discussion. The proposers should give few days for other editors to respond to their proposals and questions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we should work together to maintain the standards of Wikipedia.

(3c) Kautilya3 asked me to explain my revert. But he did not give me time to me to reply properly. So, I am reinstating the original content since it was agreed upon by previous editors. I would again request that this not be changed in any way without proper discussion and consensus that newly inserted content will not violate Wikipedia policies.

-- Kmoksha (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Summarising By Kautilya3 (others may not fully agree)

Kmoksha, that was too long a post. I am summarising it here so that we can agree what we are discussing:

1. You believe that the statement "In this context [of the NRC], the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit." is an opinion not a fact because the government has not issued the "modalities" for the NRC.

2. You believe that the same statement constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYN because the Intelligence Bureau has said that only 30,000+ people will benefit from the CAA.

3. You believe that the original content of the section was removed without explanation and you would prefer it to stay.

Is that an accurate summary? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yndesai and other editors, Please see -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have already stated that content is being added in haphazard manner. Also for every edit it comes down to take consensus. I am in favor of small but crisp and neutral article (I come to wikipedia for Neutral articles). Lot of issues are now in archive. It is becoming waste of time to contribute to this article. Current team must propose to lock this article temporarily. Active members are replying to few comments on convenience basis. Create a pinned list of issues we want to address achieve consensus and proceed with small edits at a time. In nutshell I agree to hold addition of proposed content. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 09:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 The lines before and after that sentence also are very closely linked to that sentence and so have similar problem. The post is long since it has all the details like what was there originally and what are the inconsistencies between the article and the source. I have added subtitles (not sections) so as to make it more readable. I would request you to shift your summary and make it a comment on the main thread since all the content of the main thread is needed for proper discussion. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have more issues, you can bring them up later. But at least the three issues that you have raised, which I am able to understand reasonably, we should clear up first.

Taking up your point 3 first, the original content was not written as analysis of the relationship to NRC. and I took no cognisance of it. It appeared magically when Vanamonde93 did some restructuring. But it was originally part of a Commentaries section, which is now gone. I have no particular objection to it, except that it is not analysis. It is sourced to opinion columns, which I normally don't use as per WP:NEWSORG. If you want some of it retained, we can do so. But the comments would need to be attributed to the people who stated them.

The points 1 and 2 are not valid. The source I used is the one you yourself recommended. "IE Explained NRC+CAA" This is not an "opinion" piece, but rather a regular news feature, an "explainer". So, what is written there can be stated as fact on Wikipedia, unless it is contradicted by other sources. So, your complaint of "opinion, not fact" is not valid.

I believe the content summarises the source as needed for this context. Here is the breakdown.

• Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims: The source says, Shah said in Parliament that no documents will be asked of those who apply for citizenship under the new law, giving a possible exit route to some of the Hindus potentially excluded from the NRC. The term "shield" is also used in the source later on for this "exit route".
• who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh: The source says: This is crucial at least for a section of Hindus, who can trace their ancestry to Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I added the bit about fleeing persecution, which is mentioned elsewhere in the source.
• while the Muslims do not have such a benefit: The source says:

Is all this the reason why Muslims are particularly worried about CAA combined with nationwide NRC?

Yes, the worries arise out of the fact that the CAA shield is not available to them. If a Muslim cannot meet the eligibility criteria for NRC, once those are finalised, she will lose citizenship when the NRC is published without her name.

So your objection of OR and SYN are not valid either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Let us start discussion point by point. Let us first start with the title of the subsection. It is not clear whether the "Relationship to NRC" is regarding "Assam NRC" or "Nationwide NRC" ? Please answer this. Then, I shall address your other points. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It is both. I have no idea what that has got to do with anything.

You reverted content and you are yet to give a policy-based justification for it. There are no points to discuss. Your objections are invalid and full of WP:OR. Please don't expect me to sit here and spend days and days discussing things with you. You need to state now, precisely and succinctly, what policy violations you claim for the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If it is both, then the title needs to be edited accordingly in my opinion.

Regarding point no. 1, you said "The source I used is the one you yourself recommended. "IE Explained NRC+CAA" This is not an "opinion" piece, but rather a regular news feature, an "explainer"."

Please see the definition of "Opinions" and "Facts" given by the Wikipedia policy link. It is not saying that Opinion has to be Opinion piece and rest all are facts. Opinion is defined as "An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive." The source at multiple points says that the National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not factual, not concrete.

This is confirmed by the content of this source and other sources referenced by you as I have explained in the thread opener -

"(1c) So, this sentence is trying to build up on the procedure of NRC of Assam but the third link of the newly inserted content (this was present before also in the article) says "Minister of State (Home) Kishan Reddy said the government has not decided when the exercise would begin or what its modalities would be. “The draft is also not yet prepared. Neither the cabinet nor the legal department has approved it. NRC is not going to happen immediately. Some people in the name of NRC are trying to spread fear,” he said."

(1d) And then same article goes on to explain "Why is Assam different?" Also, it quotes from the PIB FAQs of Indian Government which reinforce the same statements."

The second paragraph onwards are purely opinions which are presented as facts. That is not acceptable. It should be told as an opinion if you want to put it.

Regarding the point no. 2, I have clearly shown that your own given links are saying that there is no link between CAA and NRC. Clearly, this is not what your edit content is saying. Also, those links are saying that only a small number of refugees will benefit from CAA which is not lakhs. This is also not what the edit content is saying. See source no. 4 of India Today and source no. 6 of scroll 9see para 2c and 2d) That is why there is a mismatch between the linked sources and the edit content.

Regarding point no. 3, whoever put it is not the question. It was there for a long time, more than a month and was accepted by all the editors. Now, if we should remove it, since this is a controversial topic, it should be discussed in details at this Talk page why it is being removed. Have we all not agreed for this ? I agree that the previous content was an opinion. Anything said in this regard can only be an opinion, nothing concrete. And it is presented as such "Commentators said..." It is attributed to "Commentators". The word "concerns" also points that it an opinion. -- Kmoksha (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, the article was labelled as "Explained by Indian Express" with the Indian Express logo stamped on it. Clearly, the newspaper stands behind this article as an institution. So a lot more than your WP:OR is needed to brand it as an "opinion". And, your OR is quite poor too, given that you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page).

(1c) You are trying to argue with a reliable source using your own interpretation of government statements. Multiple admins have told you to desist from pushing the government viewpoints.

(1d) No, the sentence is not building up from anything other than the fact that the NRC has happened in Assam and it has been promised for the rest of India. Also, the source doesn't say anything different for Assam regarding the relationship of CAA to NRC. So this is a completely pointless point.

All said and done your point 1 continues to be invalid, based on you own WP:OR.

Regarding point 2, You have clearly shown one journalist, who didn't see a link between the CAA and the NRC. But plenty of others did. For example, BBC News said way back on 11 December, "The two are closely linked, because the Citizenship Amendment Bill will help protect non-Muslims who are excluded from the register and face the threat of deportation or internment". It couldn't be any other way since the Home Minister himself apparently said it in the Parliament and in a multitude of campaign speeches. Even this journalist, Kaushik Deka, admits towards the end that it is "partly true", whatever that means. You are cherry-picking what you want from all the available sources. WP:NPOV asks you to describe the consensus among all the reliable sources. So, one source disagreeing makes no difference.

"Small numbers will benefit" is WP:CRYSTAL, which Wikipedia doesn't engage in. By the way the IB never said that X number of people will benefit. It only talked about how many people have applied for exemptions and have been granted. It said those people will be the "immediate beneficiaries", a term that many sources faithfully reproduced. If one source makes speculative extrapolations that doesn't make any difference to the consensus.

Regarding point 3, the old content was there for half a month, and it got there accidentally, not by design. And, I did not "delete" it, I expanded it. That is what happens when you expand a section. In any case, if you are particularly attached to the old content, I have said that I am happy to retain whatever can be salvaged from it. So, you need to stop trying to milk this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:Kautilya3 response on Regarding Point 3. Original few lines are much crisp and to the point with very much neutral tone. I don't think this can happen by accident. By my proposal of elaborating this section was to add Opposing view (if any). Comparing language of

Proposed	Original
leaders have interpreted the CAA–NRC package in precisely these terms	Commentators have expressed concerns

Original language is what suits Wikipedia article.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 06:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I would say it underplays the gravity of the situation, which is being protested by thousands and thousands of protesters in India and decried by practically every newspaper in the world. It is in no way reflective of the reality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I again want to bring focus, this section is Relationship with NRC and not protest. This relationship is not getting stronger day by day with more protesters joining protest everyday. However, In case we want to highlight gravity of situation there are many words in English dictionary. To quote few humongous, astronomical, colossal,gigantic, huge, immense, monstrous and many more to choose from. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 10:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Regarding point 1, you said "you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page)." This is the download link of Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 - here

Please see this link and tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India.

If we have this definite information of procedure of Nationwide NRC, we can say what is a fact and what is not, otherwise not.

I have quoted definition of Opinion from Wiki policy source. Please give supporting wiki links for your claim that "Everything written in Indian Express can be stated as fact on Wikipedia"

Regarding point 2, If even journalists are not agreeing with each other, how is it a fact ? I would be fine it content says that "According to bbC, ...." According to India Today,...." and so on. Even if contradictory views are given, then it would be in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Quoting from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball -

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included,..."

So, if only the IB attributed statement quoted by a reliable source in the article is put that "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs" , it is not violating WP:CRYSTAL

You can download the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on CAB and see what the IB said to the Committee. Then, please go to page no. 39 and see 2.17 to 2.20 - prsindia

Quoting from the same -

2.19 In evidence, the Committee asked whether only 31,313 persons would be benefitted. In reply, the Director, IB deposed: "Yes, because they have claimed; they have applied. There will be many others who might have come and they might have already taken citizenship by various means. They might have obtained passport, ration card. All other documents they might have obtained and they might have already registered themselves in the voters list. So, for all practical purposes, they are already citizens of this country. Tribunals are already there to identify if any of them has obtained it by fraudulent means. That is a different issue altogether. The Bill is for those who have applied and who have claimed that they have been persecuted in their respective country."

Your link no. 6 and other links are confirming this "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit."

Regarding point 3, You yourself tell all to FIRST discuss and give proper proposal regarding change from X to Y, so kindly first discuss in details here and write in the wiki edit statement that "As per Talk page discussion and consensus" You can discuss with Yndesai and others what to retain from that and what not to along with reasons.

@Yndesai, Kautilya3 says that Nationwide NRC full procedure has been declared. If so, I would request you and other editors to tell what documents a person coming to India in January 2020 and claiming to be persecuted minority from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh has to submit and prove his/her claims and get Indian Citizenship. Please give authentic sources for it. -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been watching this article talk page for quite some time. The quality of this article is quite poor and content violates several Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:SYNTHESIS. I agree with reasons given here that the content of this section should be kept reverted to original content. Nationwide NRC procedure has not been declared yet fully, so it is useless to put it as factual in this section. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, we continue the discussion as you requested. But for that to happen in a productive way, you need to agree to let me organise this huge section in a sensible way, and you need to agree to write shorter posts. See WP:Wall of text.

• Regarding point 1, you need to state first what is the relevance of your question to the topic at hand. Certain amount of information is available in the Law and the Rules, and those who are able, can draw conclusions from them. Certain others may not. We are not concerned with them. Secondly, every Law enables certain things and disables certain things. Those aspects are again clear to the people trained in doing such analysis. That is what an Analysis section reports. Such analysis is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is analysing the implications. (getting to your point 2).
• Regarding point 2, you ask if "even journalists don't agree how is it a fact?". Well, you only produced one journalist who doesn't agree. This journalist, Kaushik Deka, even denied that there was any mention of "persecution" in the Act [5]. But we report it as a fact. How come we are able to do that? And, how can we accept this journalist as an authority that trumps every other major news source in the world?
• Then you get into the IB testimony, which is another tangent. Since we are discussing that issue separately below, I won't get into that. One thing to keep in mind is that the entire JPC deliberation happened during the previous Lok Sabha, when there was no talk of a nationwide NRC. The JPC report exhibits no knowledge of any nationwide NRC. At the time IB was testifying, it would have been fine to assume that the rest of the people (who number in millions, not thousands) are already practically citizens, and they won't bother applying. But the IB wouldn't have known that pretty soon all of them are going to be put on the anvil. We are talking about the CAA's relationship to the NRC in the present day context, which the JPC report doesn't contain. (Note that all this discussion pertains to your WP:OR. None of this is in the source or in the content.)
• You say the LInk 6 states, "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." Since you have the JPC report, can you show me where the IB said anything like that?
• Regarding point 3, I would invite to show where I have told any one that they should "discuss FIRST". I would only do so when I revert an edit, and only if I have policy-based objections or other subtleties that need discussion. There is no requirement on Wikipedia for any one to "discuss FIRST". Of course, when issues are contentious, it would be wise to discuss first. But I don't regard anything contentious in what I wrote. All that has been written in a great number of reliable sources in various ways. I just showed you what the BBC News said way back in early December.

By the way, when a content is reverted, the "talk page discussion and consensus" is based on policy-based objections. Whoever wants to raise objections can raise them. Vague opinions like "it is not neutral" or whatever don't make any difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Let me ask around. @DBigXray, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark:, do you find anything contentious in the content I wrote for this section "Relationship to the NRC", displayed at the top of this section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  I might quibble with some aspects of it (the second sentence of the second paragraph I find confusing, in particular), but it is broadly representative of the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3

Shorter Posts

Let me quote from your given link Wikipedia:Wall_of_text#Types - "Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful. ..."

So, it should be seen whether a post or comment has relevant content or not. As for the opening post of this thread, I do not find anything which is non-relevant. And you do not want "Vague opinions", so you should be fine with relevant content. Still, I have tried to improve the navigability of the thread opener post.

I had suggested to have "point by point discusssion" on each point given in the opening post. But you did not agree, so the comments are on all the points of the opening post of the thread and so comments are bound to be longer.

Regarding point 1, you asked "what is the relevance of your question to the topic at hand"

I have explained it already previously. But let me try to explain it more thoroughly. Your sentence "In this context, the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit."tries to build upon the procedure of Assam NRC."

But all the sources you give reference for that sentence are saying something else -

• "it is not clear whether the same shield will be available to Hindus left out of NRC in other states. Even in Assam, it brings up a contradiction. This was raised by Congress MP Kapil Sibal who, in Rajya Sabha, brought up how a Hindu in Assam who is left out of NRC can use the citizenship law as a shield...." indianexpress

• "Why is Assam different?" indianexpress

• "It is not yet clear what sort of documentary proof would be required to prove citizenship because the exercise would be conducted by state governments, and perhaps each state government could have its own specifications...." openthemagazine

• "How is the CAA connected to the NRC? The two have no connection." indiatoday

But you claimed in an earlier comment that "you don't even know that the rules for the nationwide NRC were published way back in 2003 (see the National Register of Citizens page)." That is why I asked you the question "Please tell that for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India."

You have not given any answer for the question because it does not seem there have been any documents declared for the nationwide NRC yet.When the full National level NRC procedure is not declared yet, clearly anything said about it is an opinion and not a fact.

I have quoted definition of Opinion from Wiki policy source. Please give supporting wiki links for your claims regarding "Explainer articles" and "Analysis section reports" that everything written in them can be presented as factual and in Wikipedia`s vioice.

Regarding point 2, you asked "This journalist, Kaushik Deka, even denied that there was any mention of "persecution" in the Act [5]. But we report it as a fact. How come we are able to do that?"

Reason for mentioning "persecution" as a fact is because it is documented in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has given statement regarding this question to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on CAB (see page 37, section 2.11 and 2.12 of the JPC report - link given in earlier comment)

While your proposed edit has DEFINITIVE statements for relationship of CAA and Nationwide NRC, I have shown that at least links 3-6 referenced by you for that proposed edit use words as "not clear" showing no certainty or even saying that "there is no connection of CAA and NRC".

I had suggested in an earlier comment that "I would be fine it content which says that "According to bbC, ...." According to India Today,...." and so on. Even if contradictory views are given, then it would be in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". But it is not clear why you did not respond to that suggestion.

IB deposition to Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report on CAB - I referred to the IB deposition to the JPC because according to the IB Director, the beneficiaries of CAB will be "a small number" (see 2.19 and 2.20 of the JPC report)

You asked "Link 6 states, "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." Since you have the JPC report, can you show me where the IB said anything like that?"

That scroll link from your own proposed edit answers that question in a section and all that can be easily corroborated with the JPC report. I would like to quote from that link -

Myth #2: The bill will help a large number of refugees

As part of its deposition to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the bill, the Home Ministry’s Intelligence Bureau made it clear that anyone applying for Indian Citizenship under the amended law will have to “prove that they came to India due to religious persecution” – a very difficult proposition. The Intelligence Bureau also argued that such a claim would have had to be made at the time the person entered India. As per the bureau, a “strict antecedent verification process” would be put in place involving the foreigner tribunals, notorious for human rights abuse.

Since a similar process as the Citizenship Amendment Bill has already been under operation since 2015 under the Long Term Visa scheme – which allows non-Muslim illegal migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to stay on in India legally – we already have a window into how the Citizenship Amendment Bill will operate. Only a limited number of people – 31,313 – have availed the Long Term Visa on the grounds of religious persecution, the bureau said in its deposition.

This will be replicated for the Citizenship Amendment Bill and only a “small number” will be able to avail Indian citizenship, the bureau added. The rest, it claimed, would “have already taken citizenship by various means,” referring to the various informal ways by which Bangladeshi migrants gain Indian citizenship."

Regarding point 3, you said "I would invite to show where I have told any one that they should "discuss FIRST""

Please see your statement here where you said "...Do not delete sourced content unless you are able to justify it here. .."

You removed the whole old content and added new content while that content was under discussion at the Article Talk page. An issue on which discussion is going on is contentious. -- Kmoksha (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kmoksha: You are still basing your arguments on primary government sources, despite having been told several times that such sources are not reliable. Most of your walls of text therefore do not merit a response. Since I've told you about this several times now, I will be more blunt; continuing to post lengthy arguments for content modification that are based on unreliable sources will result in someone seeking sanctions against you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde Your statement "You are still basing your arguments on primary government sources, despite having been told several times that such sources are not reliable." is incorrect.

I am strictly following the Wikipedia Policy regarding WP:PRIMARY. Quoting from that policy - "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" That is what I am doing and that too for the primary sources which are mentioned in the secondary sources and in the Wiki article itself like JPC report and the amendment law itself.

You can see all my quotes in my previous comment are from secondary sources. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Government sources

Several of the sections above were essentially started to argue that the narrative in the article be changed based on government statements. Sources quoting the government are essentially primary sources, and therefore get very little weight on Wikipedia in comparison to independent secondary sources, and particularly with respect to scholarly sources. @Kmoksha and Yndesai: both of you need to reframe your arguments; attempting to force a government narrative into the article by posting lengthy walls of text here is not going to work, and reflects poorly on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde I had suggested that since there are secondary source links in the article, which are mentioning about the "Indian Government Response", additional matter from those links can be added for that topic in the relevant sections. Please see this link which already exists in the article and give your opinion regarding it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#cite_note-IE_Explained_NRC+CAA-18

Kautilya3 had agreed with my suggestion and even thanked me for pointing out that link, you can see here. So I am not suggesting any "change in narrative" or "attempting to force a government narrative into the article" as you have put it or any "original Research" content or for favoring the Government. Our aim is to improve the Wikipedia article and make it more compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view The Wikipedia article should reflect matter in the source links.

There is an archiving bot in the Talk page which archives all the previous threads on the comment. I had made ONE long thread and on insistence of Kautilya3 had made one more thread to put my proposed content regarding that issue. Since Wikipedia editors rarely go to the archives or read other threads in the Talk page, duplicate threads are created by other editors. This is a common problem, not unique to this Talk page. Yndesai has suggested a solution for that "Create a pinned list of issues we want to address achieve consensus and proceed with small edits at a time." I agree in concept with him on this, I can comment more when full proposal is there on this issue. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If that is your intention, you're doing a poor job of communicating it. Your comments above, when they are comprehensible, are arguing for what I describe above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 seemed to understand the suggestion, that is why he even thanked me for pointing out the link. If the suggestion is clear to you now, I would request your opinion regarding the secondary source link which I pointed out - whether it can be used to improve the article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that you could expand the Government response section using the source. It is a secondary source that takes the Government FAQ into account. But it has been more than 24 hours and you have not followed up. Moreover, you reverted my content which was based on the same source. So I am not sure how you can hide behind me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3, Your edit was reverted due to violation of Wikipedia policies. This is completely different matter. I have given my suggestion for addition to the NRC section of the article in this thread. I would again request to talk only about the article content rather than about the editors. This Talk page is meant for that only.

@Vanamonde Would you like to give your opinion regarding the secondary source link which I pointed out - whether matter from it can be used to improve the article ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The article itself is a reliable source, but you need to be very careful not to misrepresent it. Very large parts of that source are just quotes from the government, and those are not reliable; most of the rest more or less comes down to some broad history (which is already covered in our article) and some statements to the effect that there's some gaps in what the government is saying. In other words, the source may be reliable, but there's no substantive content which can be usefully added from it that I can see. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha regarding your comment above "There is an archiving bot in the Talk page which archives all the previous threads on the comment... Since Wikipedia editors rarely go to the archives or read other threads in the Talk page, duplicate threads are created by other editors. This is a common problem, not unique to this Talk page. No this may be a problem for you but not for others. by repeatedly creating threads on the same topic you are enlarging the problem. The bot only archives thread after the discussion has died down and had not received comments for several days. It is archived so that editors can focus on the ongoing discussions. An archive thread does not mean it is lost into oblivion. You can always go to the archives and add an WP:Internal link of that archived thread whenever you need to refer to that thread (like I did below). (see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Continuing_discussions) This way you don't need to reinvent the wheel and can continue from where the discussion last ended. If a new editor comes up they are expected to search the archive to see if the topic was already discussed before. If they dont do the searching and knowingly or unknowingly start a discussion that has already been discussed and concensus reached then the others should respond with a link to the archive thread consensus, instead of starting again from the scratch. You could have asked these questions on the WP:TEAHOUSE if you were not aware. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Since this has been brought up on the talk page, I would agree with the observation made by Vanamonde93. As an example, for the claims, I would note for the record that there have been massive walls of text being created for adding the FAQ released by government. Whether being intentional or not, this behavior is testing the patience of the page contributors, and I can speak for myself that my patience is growing thin as this continues.
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Government_FAQs_on_Citizenship_Amendment_Act
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Proposal_for_section_"Indian_Government_Response"_to_be_marked_as_needing_improvement_and_inserting_Indian_Government_response_with_counter-points
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Proposal_for_section_"Indian_Government_Response"_to_be_marked_as_needing_improvement_and_inserting_Indian_Government_response_with_counter-points
• Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#No_mention_of_Release_Of_FAQ.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally had created only ONE long thread. When it was pointed out to me that I should make a proper proposal, I started another thread. And i have stuck to those 2 threads. I cannot be responsible for other users behavior. I was talking about behavior in general, which is not to read other people`s thread and start own thread. That goes for both the new and old editors. It is a common problem. I have already replied to all these allegations with admins - here The admins seem to have accepted my refutations to the allegations, so I would request to discuss here on the article rather than on editors. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The above is not true. Among the 4 threads on the topic of FAQ that I listed above, I note that 3 were started by Kmoksha and the most recent one by YN Desai. if folks are not reading an existing thread, you can give links of the existing thread and/or merge the new thread with an existing one on the same topic. DBigXrayᗙ 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray Article Talk page is not for bringing up editor behavior claims. You have started a thread on talk page regarding this issue. I had responded there. If you still have something to say on that issue, kindly continue it there. Here, discussion should focus on the article otherwise it is disruptive for all the editors who might read the sections of this talk page. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 This article is about Citizenship (Amendment) Act and NOT about protest/controversies around it. This article very regularly drift towards becoming article about protest (Purely my opinion). I tried to act as devil's advocate to bring focus on making this article about Amendment. Refer my effort in this direction [Reduce protest section length], which is agreed by Kautilya3. Since the Author of Amendment is Government, sources are likely to be secondary sources which are again referring to government publications and come under scrutiny. Upon re-framing of arguments (and making change in opinion/proposals) I have already made changes in my recommendations in Proposing new wording and Number of paragraphs in protest section discussions. I have already mentioned that I got confused with Archive for being not active (Apologies for that) and created one more link on Release of FAQ. Intention is purely to improve the article by bringing focus that this article is NOT about protest but the Amendment itself. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 05:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

With respect, what's your point? I explained why government statements cannot be used to frame the article. Your post neither agrees nor disagrees, but rambles on about entirely unrelated complaints. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Government statements cannot be used to frame the article. Your elaboration on pitfalls are also well noted. Let me see how much I succeed in walking the tight rope. I have quoted a source to just make a statement that an event occurred. here @Vanamonde Can you evaluate legalserviceindia.com as reliable source. As I find them to be more as expert on legal domain.-- YN Desai ^Discuss 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that their articles have any form of reliable editorial oversight, and in the absense of that I don't see how the source is reliable. In fact the whole website is generally unclear as to the provenance of the content it hosts. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 13:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change last line of second paragraph of lead of article

Proposal

Change

Immediate beneficiaries of the Bill, according to the Intelligence Bureau of India, will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis. telegraphindia

to:

According to the Intelligence Bureau of India, immediate beneficiaries of the Bill will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis and the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit. scrolldeccanherald

Reason

One can download the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on CAB and see what the Bureau of India said to the Committee. Then, please go to page no. 39 and see 2.17 to 2.20 - prsindia Quoting from the same -

2.19 In evidence, the Committee asked whether only 31,313 persons would be benefitted. In reply, the Director, IB deposed: "Yes, because they have claimed; they have applied. There will be many others who might have come and they might have already taken citizenship by various means. They might have obtained passport, ration card. All other documents they might have obtained and they might have already registered themselves in the voters list. So, for all practical purposes, they are already citizens of this country. Tribunals are already there to identify if any of them has obtained it by fraudulent means. That is a different issue altogether. The Bill is for those who have applied and who have claimed that they have been persecuted in their respective country."

The accompanying source links are confirming this "The Intelligence Bureau has itself claimed that the bill’s strict processes mean only a very small number of people will benefit." While the present sentence of the lead talks only partially what the Intelligence Bureau (IB) said to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and is incomplete and misleading.

Kmoksha (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

YN Desai and other editors, please give your opinion. Thanks. -- Kmoksha (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We can't add that because there is no consensus among the ruling establishment as to how many people will benefit. Home minister Amit Shah said (apparently on the floor of the Parliament) that "lakhs and crores" will benefit. Assam minister Hemanta Biswas has said that five lakh people (virtually all of the Bengli Hindus excluded from the Assam NRC) will benefit. And, this, without even going into the campaign speeches of the BJP. There are no "processes" in the Bill, and there is no public information about the "strict processes" that the IB is talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead statement says what the Intelligence Bureau (IB) said to the JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee). It has only the first Q and A but the latter part is missing from there. This is not in any way related with what political parties said. -- Kmoksha (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The so-called "political parties" are the ones that run the government. So you can't ignore them. Most of all, you can't ignore the Home minister, whose Minstry is the one responsible for giving citizenship. The IB doesn't give citizenship. In that connection, you should also read the paragraphs 2.12 through 2.15 of the JPC report.

As for your "incomplete" claim, a source has been cited which omitted the speculative information of the IB. For good reason. Another source [6] did not even bother to mention the IB figures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My point here is that the IB deposed to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and Parliamentary Committee is from all the parties. And the deposition was put in the report which was put in front of the Parliament. Since the Parliament is supreme body of the land, it is a very important document and the matter which is mentioned regarding it must be told properly. IB answered several questions before the JPC but the lead sentence only tells about what was said in the answer to the first question and so is incomplete and misleading.

I do not mind if you put anything regarding what any minister or politician says and the article has those - if needed more can be added. But the present IB statement in the lead is incomplete and misleading. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you have the minor problem that the IB never said anything of that sort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

IB answered several questions before the JPC but the lead sentence only tells about what was said in the answer to first question and so is incomplete and misleading. -- Kmoksha (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)