Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reasons of criticism

This may be self-evident for anyone familiar with the matter, but at present, the article does not make clear on what grounds the CAB is being criticized for. Is it about easing the path to citizenship in general or about the exclusion of Muslim immigrants? Or are there various factions of protesters with different reasoning? It may not be possible to give one simple explanation, but any hint would be helpful. --80.151.251.9 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

From the Citizenship Amendment Act page:

The passage of the Act caused protests in India.[16] Muslim groups and secular groups have protested alleging religious discrimination. The people of Assam and other northeastern states continue to protest fearing that the non-Muslim illegal immigrants in their regions would be allowed to stay.[10]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed IP 80.151.251.9, thanks for bringing this up. I have added the line into the background. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this; it was added to the lede. @Pali Upadhyay: removed the reason with the edit summary "conflation of causes" - if you don't agree, please do not delete it entirely but instead edit the sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The addition in question uses two links to allude to two different causes for protests. The vox citation does make a remark on the protests occurring in Assam but does not definitively stated that the causation of the protests is that of the "implication of religious discrimination due to the NRC and CAA" while the Indian Express citation specifically states that the causes of the protests in Assam are due to "demographic changes". The wording in the addition alludes to them being one and the same which isn't a stance taken by any prominent opposition as of yet. The characterization of the opposition as being Muslim and Secular groups is also absent in either of the citations and what we can derive from all the other citations on the article that all groups, organization and protesters are disparate in nature and can not necessarily be clubbed under the characterization. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The reasons given for the protests by participating Muslim and secular groups include alleged religious discrimination and fears that settlement of non-Muslim illegal immigrants in their regions would change the demographic balance.

References

Onceinawhile added the above version, which created confusion, I have split it to below version. Fyi Kautilya3. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The reasons given for the protests by participating Muslim organisations and secular groups include alleged religious discrimination. While the people of Assam and other northeastern states are opposing this for fear that settlement of non-Muslim illegal immigrants in their regions would change the demographic balance.

Yes, DBig's version is correct.

Please be extremely trepidant in using foreign sources for this subject. The CAA and NRC issues are so complicated and subtle that only a handful of South Asian journalists/commentators understand them. Foreign journalists are just reading Indian papers and writing commentaries on them. They don't have much of a clue what is going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Added to the lead with minor corrections done by Onceinawhile. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Page name

Block evading sock

@DBigXray: What is controversial about "2019 Indian protests"? The name "Citizenship Amendment Act protests" is very ambiguous. Where is it? When is it? A 19th century protests in the US? Or ongoing in India. What do you find controversial about 2019 Indian protests, and even though you're an admin you don't have more rights over other users. You seemed to have picked the current name and have reverted the move back 2 times. DongFen (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC) You are adding multiple unnecessary disambiguations. this is not the only protests that happened in Indian in 2019. Start a wP:RM discussion if you want but your title is not good. the current title clearly disambiguates the topic, there has been no such protests anywhere in the world, the current title is supprted by WP:COMMONNAME see [1] --DBigXrayᗙ 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Its very ambiguous and uncommon. I was searching for India protests today and the article didn't show up on google. Most searching for India protests have no way of finding this article. If you're concerned about there being other protests it can be "December 2019 Indian protests" or "Indian Citizenship Amendment Act protests" at least to show that it's in India. If you oppose this please tell me fast because readers right now have no way of being able to read the protests in India due to title mishap. DongFen (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "December 2019 Indian protests" is not suitable, Please note that because of the protests related to the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape. I dont that "Indian Citizenship Amendment Act protests" will be a better title, because the disambiguation India is unnecessary. the "Citizenship Amendment Act " is specific to India and there is no other article on it. Regarding the ease of searching, you can start the redirects with that. I will start one at "Indian Citizenship Amendment Act protests"--DBigXrayᗙ 13:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC) You're skipping the main issue here. The article is impossible to find via google search. The word india is therefore necessary. 2019 would even make search more easy, so I don't see any reason you should oppose this. DongFen (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Even with the redirects, I have no idea by looking at the title what where and when this bill protest is about. India and 2019 must be included in the title... DongFen (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the article, You are free to start redirects to help the Google Indexing. The article was created recently and the google crawlers take a few days to index recent articles. Wikipedia is not bound to help Google Indexing. Google search is not an acceptable reason for Page renaming. Lets wait what others have to say to your proposal on this page rename thread. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Could possibly add a redirect link for India Protests 2019 to this page for the time being. But for the time being I think we should wait a bit before making any name changes. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, read my objection above. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite agree to that, the other protests in 2019 were either localized (e.g: Kashmir protests) or very case specific (e.g: 2019 India doctors' strike). My main objection would be on the grounds of it being a bit too early for a name change and the fact that 2019 is almost over and this could potentially go on much longer. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is quite difficult to fix a particular article title regarding the protests. Citizenship Amendment Act protests is quite fine and it is better to remain with it. On the other hand this protests related to citizenship issues only happened in India in 2019 so need to mention the country. I initially thought to add the year in consideration but these protests just started in December 2019 and could continue until 2020. So its better to stay with Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Now it has been nominated to ITN, so no need to change the article header. Abishe (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Abishe for joining the discussion. I agree with all your points. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

OVERCITE Problem

User:Pali Upadhyay please do not add too many sources for the same piece of information. see WP:OVERCITE to understand more. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Maps

Can we have map of protests ? Few protests are mapped @ User:Naveenpf/sandbox/CAB. Medias are always using more visualization. ex :- https://twitter.com/rahulkanwal/status/1206567950448242688 -- naveenpf (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

naveenpf it is a good idea, however the map is incomplete. Please refer to the article and add all the locations. How can we add this to the article ? can you share the one with the thumbnail image. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do that- https://twitter.com/Memeghnad/status/1206825553744908288 -- naveenpf (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Anti CAA painting.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, the file which have been selected for deletion, was by mistake put under a wrong copyright tag. Please help me change the copyright. Abhroneel 13:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk • contribs)

Ankur Jyoti Dewri: You have claimed that it is your own work but it clearly indicates that the image you uploaded have copyright issues to fix. Please refer WP:Copyrights for further clarifications. Wikipedia is strictly abide by the copyright policies. If your image would have been in the publuc domain you wouldn't have the need to seek copyright from the holder. But in this case you have to ask the copyright permission from the holder in order to freely use it in Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that the painting is not a work of a particular artist. Rather it was painted by various artists as a demonstration against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. The work is absolutely in public domain, but it was my mistake that I tagged it as my own work. Abhroneel 14:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Please help me fix the copyright issues. Thanks Abhroneel 14:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk • contribs)  

User:Ankur Jyoti Dewri will it be possible for you to contact some of the artists of this painting? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I can but it will take some days, but I think till then the file will be deleted. Abhroneel 14:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk • contribs)

I will try to contact some of the artists and will fix the copyright issue. Thanks for your support guys. Abhroneel 14:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk • contribs)

Dont worry Ankur Jyoti Dewri, A file that gets deleted can easily be recovered from the archives. Admins can do that. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_images and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries on what needs to be done. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Will remain grateful. :) Abhroneel 16:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk • contribs)

Problematic infobox

@Worthfulrebel:: There's numerous issues at present with the infobox and short description: [CONTENT MOVED TO SUB-THREADS BELOW] @DBigXray: @Kautilya3: @El C: Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want me to respond, you will need to create separate sections/threads covering major aspects together instead of making one Khichadi. infobox discussion for example needs separate thread.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay done, this mainly alludes to the infobox anyways which I think needs immediate attention. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Intentionally replying at the most general thread; in an article as contentious as this, and with categories as fluid as they are, I would recommend keeping the infobox absolutely minimal, and keeping contentious descriptors to the body, where they can be explained/qualified. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

1 "Anti-Police Brutality" and "Anti-Immigration"

• It segregates protesters in strict categories of "Anti-Immigration", "Anti-Discrimination" and "Anti-Police Brutality" where there is a confluence of such causes especially in the case of "Anti-Immigration" and "Anti-Police Brutality" which itself is alluded to in the very citations for the various students organisations participating in the protests. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• There is some degree of convergence between the causes of "Anti-Police Brutality" and "Anti-Immigration" as well in certain protests. Therefore making it misleading to strictly segregate the causes of protests in the infobox. The rest of the article can allude to the various nuances present. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this is unsourced WP:OR, I have removed them from the infobox. thanks for pointing. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2 Muslim groups

• The charecterization of protesters of "Anti-Discrimination" as "muslims" is uncited and absent in any citation in the article, citations to the contrary are present. The charecerization as well comes into question due to the issues raised by substantial non-muslim organizations and personalities for which there's citations throughout the article. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have replaced Muslig groups with multiple groups of citizens, hope it helps. If you have a better suggestions please do let me know. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

3. Citations

• The following citations alluding to the aforementioned nature of the protests have been removed. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Normally per MOS:LEADCITE citations should not be added to the infobox, instead they should be in the article, so please feel free to re-add them into the article along with the relevant content, and only reference them in the infobox when really needed and only refer one citation and not too many. see WP:OVERCITE--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I added to citations because it was being edited back to "muslim protesters" concerning the protests on the mainland which isn't referenced as such anywhere in the article or even in any of the citations in the article. I also can't not add back the citations since it is under extended confirmed access. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Pali Upadhyay, yes, it will make sense to add refs for controversial info on infobox, or for entries that are changed regularly. Anything in the infobox must be in the article as well. if it is missing, that needs to be fixed first. you can still edit the article by making WP:EDITREQUEST, I will be glad to add them if you propose the content in new threads with edit request.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

4 political parties

• The inclusion of political parties as support in the infobox is problematic due to the sporadic nature of the support, with no citation of a clear national official statement on it. While a case can be made for some, they remain uncited. There has also been denial of support from political parties in some cases.

@DBigXray: @Kautilya3: @El C: Pali Upadhyay (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Pali Upadhyay. what do you want here, remove all the 4 party names from infobox ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not remove the parties which are mentioned in the infobox who support the protests and favour in repealing the act. Let it remain in the infobox. Only the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party supports the act. Abishe (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Abishe then please add sources and add in the body also--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 16:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Haven't four opposition CM's declared that they will not implement NRC/CAA in their states? That itself is a protest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Five opposition CMs have done so but three of them belong to the INC while there's INC states which haven't done so. But regardlessly I think there is a good case for all of them anyways except perhaps AAP whose support is a bit ambiguous considering they are currently in a verbal spat with the BJP which is accusing it of encouraging vandalism while the AAP is denying its presence in the protests itself while the party leader has however raised the same concerns regarding the NRC and CAA as that of the protesters. The part regarding AAP is however not in the body of the article currently and there is support from various other parties of a similar nature. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Pali Upadhyay makes a good case. What do you think. regardless about the end result of this discussion, it is obvious that AAP does not need to be in this list and I have already removed AAP from the list. We con continue the discussion if we should keep others or not. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I am happy with the three parties whose CM's have protested publicly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool Kautilya3. Abishe FYI based on your feedback, I have added BJP and ABVP in the support section--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Kolkata affected by protests?

I went through the article and it is nicely updated. One thing I noticed one of the sources which mentioned that the 2020 IPL auction would proceed as planned on 19 December in Kolkata despite the reports of violence in West Bengal and it also mentioned Kolkata is safe. I am not convinced by the point which mentioned that Kolkata isn't much affected by the Citizenship Amendment Act because I understand Kolkata is the capital of West Bengal. I am confused after looking at the source. Abishe (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The auction takes place in the ball room of a five star hotel, not on the road or the ground, so it is understandable that they are not affected. General public are not allowed inside. If you think something is lacking WP:BOLD and add it in the West Bengal Section. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I also acknowledge that the auction takes place in a big five star hotel but I was wondering why the source mentioned that Kolkata is not affected by the protests. Hope it is just a minor error. Thanks for the clarification. Abishe (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A child taking part in an anti-CAB NRC protest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of Protests & Protests

Is there a requirement for two seperate sections for timeline of protests and protests? They seem to be repeating the same things. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The protests section has become too big to read for new users and hampers understanding. Consider the timeline as a timewise summary of the Protest section. It will have one liners about the content that goes into the protest section. The timeline will only contain major incidents of violence or news. Other less major incidents and the details about the major incidents will go into the Protests section. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 16:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Caravan

The Caravan articles usually don't show up in Google searches. But they are a goldmine of information. Please cover them here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI User:Pali Upadhyay--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Return National Awards and Honour

Some people decided to return National Awards and Honours. Should it be added?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that should certainly be added, consider adding a new section titled "Return of Awards" after Protest, and include the content along with source. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray I have added one. Please, take a look.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good work, I made some cosmetic copy edits and moved it under protest, since this is also a kind of protest. Pali_Upadhyay do you think this could be added to the infobox as methods ? I am not sure, but I will likely leave it from the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray State honour refuse should be added?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please add. All national or state level awards are notable enough to be added. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if they should be added in the infobox itself since it's not a tactic, common protesters are or can resort to, there's various other forms of localized protests which aren't listed on there. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have similar feelings. Lets skip adding this to infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I am doing. Please correct if I did any wrong as I am relatively new user than you. Thanks.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray Supriyo Sen (see জাতীয় পুরস্কার নয়, অনুষ্ঠান বয়কট করেছি: সুপ্রিয় সেন (lit. trans. I decided not to attend NFA ceremony not NFA), Jahnu Barua (Assam cannot take the burden of the consequences of CAB: Film maker Jahnu Barua (decided to remove his film from state film award), Yaqoob Yawar (decided to return Uttar Pradesh State Urdu Academy Award for translation) see (CAB: Two Urdu Writers to Return Awards in Protest should be added?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please add. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cluttered Infobox

Is it necessary to show the political affiliations of every organisation involved when the wikipage of the organisation has already been linked to it? It seems to be causing unnecessary cluttering so I'd suggest removing all of them with the exclusion of any official position any individual has within the government. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm supportive of keeping the information in the infobox but rearranging it so that it's easier to read for those who complain. I think the information is important to retain. Another option might be to discuss it in terms of "youth wing and student wing of the Communist Party of India" rather than writing out four+ names. Worthfulrebel (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the organisations listed belong to the Communist Party of India and they are also all seperate organisations with substantial individual membership. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest moving the current version of the content that has student parties + affiliations to a new section, calling it "participants". and then in the infobox, only use party name ( no need to say student wing of X in the infobox, that info is there in the main body). I think this strategy may improve. thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate to me, yeah. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Pali Upadhyay, cool, please proceed, whenever you can. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I support this as long as the party names are retained. The article needs to make it clear that, apart from the Assam protesters, the majority of the protesting student groups are allied with the left-wing, whereas most of the right-wing student groups are counter-protesters. Worthfulrebel (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The party names are retained in the article as well as in the infobox. There have not been much counter protests as far as I am aware, ABVP is the only organisation included because it had clashed with the NSUI in the protests. Grouping the various organization under CPI or CPIM is inaccurate, two of the organisations have a relation with the CPIM. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have partially reverted Wortful. Your version is extremely ugly and unnecessarily detailed. You can click the link if you want to know their affiliations. Also this is against the talk page consensus discussed above. You are introducing your own WP:OR that "all are left parties", No they are not. I agree with Pali above. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the party names add a lot of needed information to the article and infobox. Ugliness isn't an excuse for excluding much needed information from the article. And no there isn't an agreement on removing the information yet, so I will put it back. I personally support keeping the party affiliations outright. Worthfulrebel (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The information isn't even accurate as it qualifies organisation which aren't related to the INC or CPIM as being so, the supporting parties are also listed. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Worthfulrebel This is your only warning for violation of WP:1RR. If you want to add what you want to add, produce relable source or drop this and work on improving and adding today's updates. there is a lot to add from yesterday and today into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That warning requires me to revert information so I'll take that as a non-warning. I had also changed the text to reflect that there are a number of communist parties involved. Furthermore, the infobox alludes to the idea that all these protesters want the same thing, despite the fact that the Assam groups (including students) are against Muslim migration and opposed to the views of the INC/CPI and Muslim protesters. There have been riots between the two groups in recent history as well. Worthfulrebel (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Worthfulrebel, One more revert and I will have to report you on WP:ANEWfor blocking--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where I have reverted information? Furthermore you asked me to provide references and repost the information. And finally you alone are not the controller of this article, and there has not been any consensus to remove the party affiliations from the infobox. Worthfulrebel (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added the diffs on WP:ANEW. This is extremely unfortunate that you have resorted to ride a roughshod on WP:1RR. I will not be happy if you are blocked for this, and so I would suggest you to self revert your recent addition of the disputed line from the infobox. I am willing to withdraw the complaint if you self revert and agree to not edit war anymore and continue the talk page discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate that the only method you can find of shoehorning political biases into this article is to ban people. The text in question is valid as the Assam protesters and these student groups do not share the same political goals, and furthermore it's important to know that these student groups are protesting due to their own political leanings rather than because they support the Assam protesters at their core. The only groups that actually care about the consequences of the bill are the Assam protesters and a handful of Muslim groups - every other group is protesting based on political affiiliation. The idea that something should be removed because it's "ugly" is beyond ridiculous - try to come up with a substantive excuse at least. Worthfulrebel (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the above means that you refuse to self revert and face block. Fine suit yourself. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is just assertions and POV insertion at the point, and now allegations. The reasons given by various organisation are well varied and extremely convoluted, let alone the reasons for individual protesters. They are accounted for in the article and if not, they can be accounted. The infobox can't contain all the information. Here is an example of the KMSS which is an Assamese organisation arguing against the act on the basis of both "religious discrimination" and "illegal immigration" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pali Upadhyay (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

That's also not what is generally accepted. The Assam groups that are rioting now were historically involved in the Anti-Muslim tensions in Assam, and you are forgetting the Assam riots in 2012. There's utterly no reason to remove political affiliations either (on both sides) as saying an infobox looks "ugly" is ridiculous considering how messy an infobox on Middle Eastern topics can get. If you want to stop bring in POVs then essentially reinstate the original text with political affiliations (which I don't think is too cluttered) or create your own text that adds said information into the inforbox without making it too cluttered. Or simply write "student groups affiliated with INC and communist parties" without writing their names if you really want to make it less cluttered. I don't see why the student groups should be there when plenty of other groups have been protesting as well. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It is quite obvious based on your comments above that you have intentions to colour this infobox in a BJP vs Left parties. this is wP:OR and WP:TE. I note that you have still not self reverted your last addition. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to do the opposite. I'm stating that the Assam protesters and these "student groups affiliated with political parties" aren't actually fighting for the same thing at their core - these student groups would never riot against Muslim migrants in the same way the Assam groups would. Furthermore the infobox has totally left out the geopolitics in other parts of India - it's not all about Hindus vs Muslims as this article is trying to make out. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only two points raised in this discussion was that it may have been "too cluttered" and that there were no references provided, both of which I resolved before writing new text to cover the lack of information in the infobox (?). I can't imagine how you felt this infobox was too cluttered when the typical infobox on the Middle East is far worse than this one. There's no excuse for randomly removing useful information that adds a lot to the article. Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

infobox is not the place to show complicated geopolitics. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You have provided no references for any of your claims and continue this line of making random assertions. The primary issue here is that you keep instating your version of how you think things should be against any consensus or consideration. It is a very obvious POV insertion. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not provided any references because I'm not addding anything to the wikipedia article - the ones that I did add were ones which I did provide references for. Furthermore, you are accusing me of political bias when in fact you're censoring political topics regardless of the fact that I have treated both BJP and INC equally (as I presume that's all you care about). The Assam riots in 2012 are proof enough that the Assamese groups and the Muslim groups don't see eye-to-eye and that the INC/CPI are allied with the latter.

My edits have fallen within this discussion, which is based on two points - cluttered infobox and references - and despite the fact that I've simplified and provided references to each of my edits, which were not reverts, you are still arguing that I'm going against consensus. Consensus was that the infobox was too cluttered yet you're using this to remove valid information about the protest groups rather then trying to include the information in a more simply manner. Why don't you ask yourself why I haven't reverted the infobox to the original one with the party descriptions beside each group? Worthfulrebel (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting alongside other edits and reverting over multiple edits are still reverts. You have even gone on to stylize it in the manner you desire when it is still obvious that no consensus has been achieved. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've also already demonstrated that segregating the "issue of Assam" from "national issues" is problematic considering there is an overlap and any nuance can be specified in the article itself, they can't all be included in the inforbox, you have even gone on to break previously agreed consensus with just changes in terminology. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There was also no consensus on removing the original text completely. The idea you forwarded was that the text was too cluttered - not that it should be removed entirely for political issues - and hence that's how I progressed with my edits. I did not revert to the original text though I am fine with that. The styling was about making the infobox less cluttered. The only consensus possible would be that the infobox is rewritten in a manner to include some text about political affiliation, or that the student groups are completely removed (which might be better considering the number of groups and parties that have been omitted from the infobox. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox forwards the idea that the protesters are fighting together - which is wrong. My ethnicity's political sphere doesn't have a strong Hindu-Muslim divide, but even I understand that most of the Assamese rioters and Muslim rioters are demanding two different things at their core, and in any other situation would riot against each other (2012 Assam Riots involved much of the same people). My view is that this division of political issues needs to be elaborated on - it's similar one of those Syrian style conflicts where multiple parties have different views, even if something similar or if the odd ones overlap. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

2012 Assam Riots involved Bodo residents and Bengali muslim immigrants in some parts of the bordering region of western Assam. The AASU and KMSS are neither of those and honestly that is irrelevant to this discussion. If you had an issue with that, you could have discussed that under the subsection 1 of the Problematic Infobox section, which you have not utilized, where I even pinged you and gone on to re-instate your version of things (with just replacing the designation of "anti-immigration" with "groups in assam") inspite of whatever anyone else thinks. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have simply removed the student groups from the infobox and directed people to the subsection instead. The reason why I brought it up was because you were stating that I trying to turn the conflict into BJP vs INC, but this is what I see you are doing. The Assamese are different from the Muslims - the latter would want to help the Ronghyia whereas the former hate the Ronghyia mostly. These are two different protest movements that you are overlooking. Worthfulrebel (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is literally just your opinion. I have also not accused you of anything like that. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose that all the student groups are removed from the infobox, and instead replaced with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests&diff=931739343&oldid=931739259 "Various student and youth groups throughout India (see participants)"

This would make the infobox less cluttered but also allow for people to learn more about the participants. The current infobox excluded many parties and groups, but also does not provide enough background to the political leanings and goals of each group (the Assamese groups are working towards a different goal to the Muslim groups, ditto for the political party groups), so by redirecting the reader to the main body, it would allow us to write more about what each participant is there for. Worthfulrebel (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

IF there are parties and groups that are excluded, bring it here on the talk page with sources, So that we can add it to the infobox.

There is no reason for the infobox to have detailed information such as "provide enough background to the political leanings and goals of each group", Each group has its own wikipedia page to discuss that, this article is not the right place for all this.

I do not think the student groups should be removed from the infobox, since they participated in CAA protests and there are reliable source to confirm this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical listing of states

Is it necessary that the listing of states under the 'Protests' subheading be in chronological order? This may have made sense when protests were very localised, but now that they've spread across the country, it's beginning to look a little cluttered. Especially since items on the list are ordered by the first time protests occurred however minor they were, even though more significant protests happened days later. Perhaps changing to an alphabetical listing will simplify things. --Arnavb (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

We use chronological order unless there are good reasons to do something else. Like all states began protests on same day. I don't see why you think this is cluttered or how an alphabetical order will make it any less cluttered. Please explain. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 09:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Currently every political party out there has a view on the protests including random major politcians such as the various member of the Gandhi family - and even state-level outfits like the DMK and AIADMK have either protested or supported one side of the bill. There are numerous NGOs, student groups and the like protesting and supporting one side or another. I refute the idea that every single student group needs to be listed in the infobox, but rather a generic "student and youth groups" is enough, with a like directing readers to the participants subheading.

I would like for the infobox to be changed to something akin to the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests&diff=931739343&oldid=931739259

But I object to the current state of the infobox. Stating that an infobox is too cluttered is not an excuse considering the number of "cluttered" infoboxes on Wikipedia Worthfulrebel (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The infobox as it stands right now, covers all the major student organisations (that have their own page) and we have evidence in the form of refs that they had actually participated and not just talked about it. The list is reasonable, easy to maintain and looks fine. If you have evidence that the list is lacking, then present the new intended additions here On the talk page (and not on the article) and if The consensus agrees to do something else to make it better we will do it. For now just hand waving that "every political party...protested or supported" is not enough justification to push your own preferred version into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

For example, the first page of Google gives me these links:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/parties-that-support-cab-a-threat-to-unity/article30259948.ece

https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/protest-against-caa-where-do-political-parties-stand-1630062-2019-12-20

And I myself can think of the AIADMK and DMK protesting in relation to this bill off the top of my head.

I don't see why it's important for you to list all the student groups anyway when you yourself consider too much information to be "cluttered"...

Worthfulrebel (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me clearly put the criteria for adding names to the infobox, since it appears to me that you failed to understand my last comment.

1. The organisation is a major org, notable on its own and has its own Wikipedia page.
2. There is a reliable source that says they "Actually Participated" in the protest and not just released statements of their opinion.

If you have orgs that meet this criteria then present evidence of the same here on talk page and we can decide what to do about it. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Should I remove all the orgs that don't have a source myself or are you willing to go against your political biases and remove them yourself? As per your own policy? Worthfulrebel (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Guwahati casualties

@Ankur Jyoti Dewri: The sentence you are editing refers to the number of people that have died in Guwahati using a source which is providing the cumulative casualty of Assam. Your reference itself states only 2 names for people who have died in Guwahati.

The sentence being "Officials reported that at least four people died after clashes with police in Guwahati, Assam."

I added a source which states that the cumulative casualties in Assam are 6 as of 15 December after I reverted your edit. Since this is under 1RR can you please self revert your edit, since I think this is a misunderstanding. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, I made a mistake. Sorry for the inconvinience. It does state that two more have died in Guwahati. Ignore this. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

this is another reason why a casualty section can be helpful to track the deaths--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Added the list of casualties

Add the names in the Casualties section as follows:

• Mohammad Bilal, 27, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.
• Shehroz, 22, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.

Masoom Badi 15:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done Thanks for adding the refs. regards. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Karnataka Home Ministers speculations

• Home Minister of Karnataka Basavaraj Bommai claimed that people from Kerala started the violence in Mangalore and that they tried to set a police station on fire.

References

I had removed the above line with an edit summary " rm unconfirmed political speculations, it is commons for politicians to blame others". I see that I have been reverted by User:M4DU7 here [2] with some edit summary that I find is not a reasonable justification for restoring this.

User:M4DU7 Please explain your revert or else it will be removed again from the article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, what is the issue with that sentence? Karnataka Home Minister has "claimed" that people who came from Kerala are responsible for the Mangalore violence and his statement has been widely reported in the news in both states. The aftereffects of his statement is that Karnataka Police are patrolling the Karnataka-Kerala border as if it is an international border to restrict Kerala people without valid identity cards from entering Mangalore. More than 50 Kerala people who were entering the city without identity cards have been arrested. Several Kerala journalists were arrested in Mangalore which led to severe protests in Kerala. The Mangalore killings has resulted in North Kerala being put on high alert. Kerala suspended all bus services to Mangalore and Karnataka buses were blocked in Kerala. Binoy Viswam was detained in Mangalore. This so-called speculation has soured diplomatic relations between two neighboring states and you want to shrug it off like it is a routine "political" statement. Please consider the ground reality before issuing multiple warnings to me for "edit warring" when all I did was revert one edit. I think you should first assume good faith on my part. M4DU7 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment

There it was mentioned that Those voted in favour included BJP allies such as Janata Dal (United), AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal, TDP and YSR-Congress, but all of them are not BJP allies. I think it should be written that included BJP and other parties such as. What do you think?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I edited the point, the information was also wrong as the reference made no mention of either TDP or YSR-Congress. BJD is the only non BJP ally to favor the bill. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Abandoning this page

Folks due to WP:1RR restrictions on this page, I have abandoned editing this page. I have unwatched it and I would prefer not being pinged here. I may return later when 1RR is reviewed and lifted from this page. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Just a note that I am open to views about the usefulness of having applied 1RR (in its enhanced form) to the article. El_C 16:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Decided to return awards

Should there be mentions on decision to return in the article? IMHO, it is newsworthy but not encyclopaedic.

1. We don’t know whether they’re going to return awards or they’re just giving statements to remain in news.
2. We shouldn’t include persons who don’t have Wikipedia page as of now. Because it clearly means they’re not notable at all.
3. Also, people attending event or withdrawing nomination has not much lasting effect in comparison to returning Padma Shri. Only notable award and notable people should be included.

Let discuss the issue first as topic is much controversial. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point, unless they do it, in which case they should be added. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Discirimination against whom

This revert[3] makes religious discrimination, one of the main grievances of the protesters, to be ambiguous. To the best of my knowledge, the protesters are only accusing the government of discrimination against Muslims. Thus it is helpful to specify that.Bless sins (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is specified in the following paragraphs, all the points are kept short in the first one. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If shortness is the criteria then "religious discrimination against Muslims" (4 words) is shorter than "discrimination on the basis of religion" (6 words).Bless sins (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We should not dilute it or say it ambiguously/vaguely such as "discriminates against a particular section of the minority groups" etc. The lead now includes the phrase "discriminates against Muslims". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Just gave a quick overlook...IIMs protest not mentioned; I-League and ISL matches (football) shift; A section should be there to make the article more interesting to show type of protests observed- silent march, slogan, songs, rally, symbolic display, satyagraha which are being observed; Finally, I have seen a lot of original research, try to avoid. Dey subrata (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Source check

@El C: Can you please check this source as support to the inflammatory statement in the lead "Protesters in all regions are concerned that the upcoming compilation of the National Register of Citizens might be used to deprive Muslims of Indian citizenship". I don't see anything supported. Is it okay if I delete such inflammatory misrepresentations/vandalism or are the current 1-revert rules in ARBIPA space interpreted differently? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I went ahead and removed it. El_C 12:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks. Similarly the claim "The Act allows the government to make distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims, and to brand Muslim citizens as illegal immigrants if they lack the necessary documents to prove Indian citizenship" is absurd. The Act says/does no such thing. The cites after that sentence in the lead are broken, but given the sensitivity of this article and ongoing situation, there is greater need for quality sources and thorough checks. We should not spread misinformation. Please check. @Pali Upadhyay: Welcome to wikipedia, given you registered earlier this year. But please note the above. Your cooperation is requested. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please attend to the sourcing and other issues as you see fit, Ms Sarah Welch. Thank you for taking the time to assist here. El_C 12:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Just in case someone wants to verify what the Act allows the government to do, read this and related quality sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

---

@Pali Upadhyay: you need to start doing better, with respect to observing the page restrictions as well as engaging the article talk page. El_C 12:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay:: I have checked the sources. Your revert is not supported by the earlier source or the new source. Please explain how and where the two sources support that inflammatory claim. El_C has given your DS-alert notice. Please self revert and be more careful in future. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: @Ms Sarah Welch: [4] [5] [6]

Please go through the sources. I have provided a third one as well. I don't see how this falls under 1RR considering the reasoning given for the reversions are being amended. Furthermore, it'd is quite false to state otherwise. You can see for yourself. I've gone through them for a third time by now. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Protesters across the country are concerned that the upcoming compilation of the National Register of Citizens might be used to deprive Muslims of Indian citizenship. The Act allows the government to make distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims, and to brand Muslim citizens as illegal immigrants if they lack the necessary documents to prove Indian citizenship." would be the statement in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pali Upadhyay (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd point out that it is not an inflammatory statement considering it is merely the viewpoint of the protesters based on the technicalities of the act in relation to the proposed registry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pali Upadhyay (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Let us take one cite at a time. That "Protestors acrosss the .... citizenship" is neither a quote nor is otherwise supported anywhere in this cite you added. Agreed? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it only illustrates the latter point. The following citation however gives credence to the former. [7] Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the honesty. So reverting, removing the earlier summary while keeping that cite was inappropriate. Continuing on to your next cite. It is a Q&A type opinion piece by Kaushik Deka. There is no way any author sitting somewhere can pretend to know the mind and motivations of all protestors in a large country, and this author does not pretend to. The Kaushik Deka source gives several different reasons for protests and also says their Prime Minister said "his government had never said anything about an NRC except in Assam". Kaushik Deka states some protestors fear CAA allegedly violates the secular identity, while others fear for their linguistic and cultural identity. Nowhere does it say that "Protestors across the country" have one singular concern. Agreed? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It is per se not a opinion piece, but regardlessly Q&A types of insight or story articles are the appropriate material for summarizing the causes of the protests due to the lack of any centralization of the protesters. Individual news articles can only so much as state the reasoning for individuals or concern of a specific demonstration or group of which there are numerous. The description only contains one of the reasoning while other such causes have been illustrated in different paragraphs. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay: Which para states "Protestors across the country" have that one singular concern? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

---

I wish somebody pinged me from here. The text that Ms Sarah Welch labels inflammatory was contributed by me [8], since there was nothing said in the lead about why the Muslim groups are protesting:

Muslims all over India are concerned that the upcoming compilation of National Register of Citizens might deprive them of Indian citizenship. The Citizenship Amendment Act allows the government to make distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims and brand Muslims as illegal immigrants if their paper work is not in order.

I didn't add any sources because this is common knowledge, but since MSW doesn't seem to be aware of them, here are some:

1. Ravi Agrawal, Kathryn Salam, India Is Betraying Its Founding Fathers, Foreign Policy, 17 December 2019.

But with the new citizenship act, Hindus can potentially claim they are immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan and gain a route to citizenship. Muslims, on the other hand, could be at risk of being declared foreigners if they can’t produce documentation.

2. Christophe Jaffrelot, Sharik Laliwala, Citizenship law, proposed nation-wide NRC will revise conception of group rights in India, The Indan Express, 12 December 2019

Hence, after the new citizenship law is passed, these non-Muslims will become refugees (and Indian citizens after six years), whereas an ethno-religious criterion will guide the exclusion of the Muslim migrants from citizenship.

(This is specific to Assam, but there is no reason why the same logic won't apply to the rest of India.)

3. Question & Answer: Citizenship amendment law explained, The Indian Express, 14 December 2019.

On the face of it, the amendment is not to exclude any Indian citizen. However, the NRC in Assam and the latest citizenship law cannot be decoupled. The final NRC left out over 19 lakh people. The new law gives a fresh chance to the Bengali Hindus left out to acquire citizenship, whereas the same benefit will not be available to a Muslim left out, who will have to fight a legal battle.

4. Apporvanand, The new citizenship bill and the Hinduisation of India, Al Jazeera, 12 January 2019.

From the very beginning, the BJP viewed the NRC as way to rid the country of Muslim "foreigners". Using this citizenship bill, the governing party is trying to make sure no Hindus are harmed by the NRC and their quest to expel Muslims from India can continue without complications.

5. India's Government Wants to Block Some Muslims From Citizenship. Here's What to Know About a Controversial New Bill, TIME, 9 December 2019.

Opponents are also concerned that the Citizenship Amendment Bill undermines India’s constitutionally mandated secularism, and could make it easier for Muslims within India to be thrown in prison and even deported if they cannot prove their Indian citizenship.

6. Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj, India Steps Toward Making Naturalization Harder for Muslims, The New York Times, 10 December 2019.

But the legislation would also make it easier to incarcerate and deport Muslim residents, even those whose families have been in India for generations, if they cannot produce proof of citizenship.

7. Citizenship Amendment Act: India top court to hear petitions in January, BBC News, 18 December 2019.

The law offers citizenship to non-Muslims from three nearby countries.... Given that the exercise relies on extensive documentation to prove that their ancestors lived in India, many Muslim citizens fear that they could be made stateless.

And the Muslim view point:

1. Kaushik Deka, Politicising Asylum | Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, India Today, 13 December 2019.

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who tore up a copy of the bill in Parliament and is one of its fiercest critics, says it is aimed at making Muslims stateless. "Look at the CAB through the NRC lens. Of the 1.9 million left out of the Assam NRC, 540,000 are Bengali Hindus. After the CAB is passed, proceedings against them will be discontinued; they will continue only against the remaining Muslims," says Owaisi.

2. It’s Not Just About Muslims, All Indians Will Have to Queue Up to Prove They are Indians: Owaisi, News18, 22 December 2019.

"Why are we protesting? We are protesting because, in the country, in the name of religion, preparation is being made to make us not just second-class citizens but stateless," [Owaisi] claimed, adding it is a loss for everyone.

I can probably dig up more sources if necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: There is a difference between your "Muslims all over India (...)" version that does reflect these sources, and the "Protestors all over India (...)" version which is OR and misrepresents the protests in Assam etc. Doesn't this lead sentence already cover the above (I just moved it from one lead para to another)? Please feel free to wordsmith/revise the current version further, but we do not need to repeat it. The lead is a bit too long. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Protest in Overseas

In Munich, Indian diaspora staged a demonstration infront of the main building of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich at Geschwister-Scholl-Platz on Saturday, the 21st December. Sanu rishi (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

EU reactions needs to included

Dear Wikipedia readers and editors, Look at the French Wikipedia of this article in reaction section:

• [Manifestations de 2019 en Inde]

Aside from same countries and organisation mentioned in French and English version of reaction section, French Wikipedia version mentioned reaction from the European Union about passing of CAA act in India, which doesn't have in English version. It is the link: [[9]]

English article I think must include reaction from the EU. Can someone add links from the source to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.19 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Other wikis are not WP:RS. You are welcome to suggest WP:RS about these protests that are not already covered by this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

to expand: Mangaluru violence pre-planned

• CAA protest: Was Mangaluru violence pre-planned? CCTV footage reveal how events unfolded on Dec 19 | Exclusive --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

According to my edits, I am adding the name of the parties in favour of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) with proper reference. Note: The following parties voted in favour of CAA in Lower House of India (Lok Sabha) and Upper House of India (Rajya Sabha) BIKASH NANDA GOSWAMI (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Scholar and Historian

Just noticed Ram Chandra Guha's ( notable Historian) name is included in the "opposition leader" category in the section protest. Its not appropriate to bring scholars, historians and artists in the "opposition" category. Should be seperately mentioned as artists and scholars. Not only Guha, but there are different artist and scholars who are in protest like that of Zubeen Garg and Papon from Assam. Dey subrata (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: If they are participating in the protests and in authoritative positions then I think it is appropriate regardless of their profession. But a lot of references do need to be checked, since there is a lot of POV pushing on this page currently. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There are multiple instances of the text not matching what is written the source. The whole article needs a thorough check. M4DU7 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Too much small details are being added.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Only major details should be covered which has WP:LASTING but User:Pali Upadhyay is adding each and every small events in this page which makes it as newspaper. I’m leaving topic on other editors now. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I've only added notable protest events, and any associated or relevant information where ever they occur under the protests section. If you have any issues for a particular event or section, you can bring them up. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Well I have checked the user's last three major edits 12, 3. It seems the events are important and worthy enough to be added. Only thing that I feel concerning is the prose. Other than this, such detail of events are important and since its ongoing protest I don't see any harm right now but can be copyedited later on which the article needs for sure as so much of original research and poor prose is added. Dey subrata (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Jakob Lindenthal

Should we add in “Participants” about a German student in protests? Thoughts?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-protests-latest-nazi-sign-german-student-muslims-rallies-a9259471.html

Manabimasu (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes please add.

User:M4DU7 why have you reverted me here [10] it is a Govt of India org and not under Govt. Of Germany. please revert yourself. or else you will be reverted. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

what have I reverted? I just reworded it to say what was in the source. M4DU7 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the office is not under Government of India  ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Where did I even say that? M4DU7 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you remove the reliably sourced content ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

As I have said before, I only changed the wording to say what that reliable source was saying. There was no mention of the government (state or central) deporting anyone in that source. M4DU7 (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Parties in infobox

User:BIKASH NANDA GOSWAMI please explain your edits here [11] --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Muslim refugees

Pali Upadhyay I have removed your passage, which you re-added after it was removed once:

In other parts of India, protesters oppose the exclusion of Muslim refugees in the law, believe it discriminates and seek Indian citizenship be granted to Muslim refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

References

The lead should summarise the CONSENSUS among all reliable sources, not just one paper and one reporter. A version of the report that is accessible to me, says

"People are opposing this law because it discriminates against the Muslims," said Chaudhary Mateen Ahmad, a former Congress party legislator in the Delhi Assembly from Seelampur, the northeastern Delhi area where protest violence broke out Tuesday afternoon. "They are saying the law should treat everyone equally; there should be no discrimination."

Even though this is public opinion filtered through a Congress Party legislator, it makes clear that the concern is discrimination, not concern for the so-called "Muslim refugees". I doubt if any protester even knows what "Muslim refugees" there are. There should be no talk of "Muslim refugees" unless there is solid information about them and covered in multiple reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think, I have added that passage ever. Regardlessly, I agree with what you've stated. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You are right. I misread the diff. Pinging Ms Sarah Welch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Both versions mention the "discrimination" part, and we should too. The current version's "Article 14" etc is odd, is OR, wasn't in the cited vox etc source if I recall right. I doubt any good quality newspaper would allege that all/most/some protesters know what Article 14 is, etc etc. You took out the Krishna Pokharel-written WSJ source with an embedded quote. That is odd. I am fine if you find alternate sources that you deem more reliable. But please do check, remove the OR, and revise it to what is actually supported in the source (would be nice if you can embed a quote in one or two cites, as that will help us maintain this lead in some stable form). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I will check the sources. But you don't seem to realise that you have added an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. At a time when Taslima Nasreen is banished from West Bengal and lives under a 24x7 guard, the idea that Indian Muslims are rooting for the persecuted Muslims of neighbouring countries requires solid evidence. A journalist's sleight hand is not enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: We can't do OR, as you know. We can treat something as exceptional, ask for better sources, given your concerns. But neither of those sources you restored say anything about "protesters know what the new law and Article 14 are, that they are upset about how the new law relates to Article 14". The sources I have seen attribute this argument to politicians in their parliament and some of their lawyers, but not to protesters. This too is an exceptional claim. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh

Alarming stuff:

• CAA: UP Police Shot And Killed Muslims Who Weren't Even Protesting, Says Kavita Krishnan, Huffington Post, 26 December 2019.
• 'Reign of Terror': Fact-Finding Team Returns From UP With Accounts of Targeted Police Violence, The Quint, 26 December 2019.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Casualties

Is it the norm to name all casualties? I think it is unnecessary as the list seems to be growing every day. 2401:4900:2185:4521:7D0A:3399:729A:5CE6 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it may be difficult to maintain already considering we don't know the names of all the casualties. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The list was added by a new user. The no of deaths is 20 at the moment. I think it is manageable unless it crosses 80 or 100. I think the useful information here is the place and state of death along with the age group. To some extent the religion of the killed person (depicted by the name) is also useful info. So I say we continue with it for now. If the toll increases, then we may need to think of a better way to present this information. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone tagged it for prose, but no talk page thread was started stating the problem. I have removed it for now since this is nominated for Mainpage ITNC. I don't see any problem with the section now. The section has a lead in prose and gives info in list. A table can also be proposed, but IMHO list is fine for now. Please discuss the need for the tag. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 00:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Victim lists, I think there should not be listing of people in Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests#Casualties. -Nizil (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nizil what do you propose instead ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Requires copy editing

Not sure what DBigXray has against me. This article has a lot of grammatical problems. I fixed a few myself but still needs a lot of work. That's why I tagged it so that others may help out. But this editor has been inappropriately warning me for pretty much every edit. I have lost interest in improving the article now. M4DU7 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, please refrain from personalizing editorial disputes. El_C 15:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• M4DU7 Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I believe you have good intentions for the article, but I dont see why this tag is merited. In any case my intention is to improve the article. Please point out the specific problems for me to fix. I would like to resolve the concern and remove the tag. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the whole article yourself to know why the tag is merited. Starting from the 'Timeline' section, there is at least one grammatical mistake in every paragraph. I actually wanted to fix some of these myself but at this point I don't feel like reading another absurd warning on my talk page. Goodbye. M4DU7 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed a few issues that I could find. Please review and remove the tag, if you agree. If you find that I missed something point it out here. If no issues are pointed I will remove that tag. The article may not be GA level but it does not have so many issues to merit this tag IMHO --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some more copyediting. Tried reducing numbers of headers among other things. Will wait for Harshil169 to reduce the copyvios; then do a bit more copy editing. DTM (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DiplomatTesterMan, I went ahead with my copy editing and fixed issues in the lead, background and timeline sections. Please help to C/E the remaining article. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nizil Shah please help with the grammar issues. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Pali Upadhyay is adding copyrighted materials and editorial bias

This user is repeatedly violating copyrights of other publications. I just look at their recent contributions and I came on conclusion that user is copy-pasting material here.

1. In this edit, specially on20 December part, user has copied sentence directly from this article and labeled act as 'contentious'. What the holy f**k!
2. Also, see this edit. The sentence is copied directly from here.
3. See this article and this edit. Direct copied from magazine.
4. this edit is direct copy from this.
5. this edit also has copyright problem as it is direct copy of this article.
6. This article's lines are directly copied in this edit.

It will be better for all of us if this user can be put under discretionary sanctions and serious copyright violations for multiple times. User:El_C please take note of this and hide all revision history. These are just edits of today and yesterday. This user's oldest contributions like this edit is also direct copy from this article. This user is doing it since along and no one has even warn them not to do so. If this user violates policy once again then we have enough proofs to block them.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you could manually remove their copyvio additions, that would be a big help. Meanwhile, I had to revdelete two days worth of edits, which is disruptive to the article's stability, but it better than the alternative. Anyway, Pali Upadhyay, is now topic banned from the Citizenship Amendment Act, the artice about the related protests (this one), and any other related articles. El_C 04:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m busy in real life but I was wondering that how can this user add 1500 bites in just one edit and within 2 minutes, another 1500 bites. That was fishy. I’m now removing the details but it’ll take time because user edited from 16 December to till now and no one even noticed. Clearly, she did activism here. Length of page will be reduced drastically. Is it necessary to add details? I can only help in removing because I can’t cover these much details. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:El_C please check recent developments and hide history accordingly. I’ll remove more details after 10 hours. This user really made too difficulties. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

El C: I have cleaned up more. This article may well have been one of the heaviest, systemic copyvio policy violation of numerous sources (well, I rarely intervene in articles related to recent events in South Asia; perhaps, this problem is more widespread than I know). FWIW, the most serious violations are now mostly gone, per Earwig's and Turnitin tool checks. I can't say that this article is 100% clean, per the low-but-bothersome stat scores. It is much cleaner than before. Harshil169: thanks for catching and your efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks for your efforts. I’ll do some more cleanup once get laptop. In 11 days, she had added systematically copy pasting of materials and no one objected. I’ve to check her all contributions on Wikipedia later.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored a large part of the content after some c/e. A lot of content was removed inappropriately stating COPYVIO in edit summary, when it clearly wasn't. So I would suggest the page contributors to be more careful and decide wisely if a removal or minor copy edit is more appropriate in that case. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: Thanks for not reverting any of the Copyvio I removed, with "rm Copyvio" etc edit summaries. Some of the section removals by Harshil169 do seem to have been overdone. But, please do not lecture Harshil169 or any other editor about copyediting Copyvio. Immediately removing Copyvio as soon as it is detected is the right thing to do. If you or someone wishes to restore something, it is your or that editor's responsibility to copyedit/rewrite/address the issue. Copyvio is a serious issue and we have a strict policy related to it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

When I ask to CE, I am implicitly also asking to remove the CV. Removing the CV doesn't always need to be done by deleting content especially in the cases above, which are mostly one liners, and can easily be fixed. The intention should be improve the article, unless of course you have POV based ulterior motives --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: If you do not understand our core policies such as WP:COPYVIO and what wrote above, you should not be editing wikipedia. Please stop your silly accusations and questioning motives of other editors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

or else ? you will start another ANI ? Will point out stupidity wherever I find, go edit another page if you dislike me. I have had enough of your accusations and personal attacks. I tried to avoid taking names above, but it appears to me as though you failed to get the hint or notice the "S" in contributors above. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve already written that user had copy pasted lines. She wrote one line from here, one line from there and made article. I already said that I’m going to do cleanup as I can not do addition due to lack of time. The way DBig is attacking Ms Sarah is worrying. In fact, she’s not alone. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to do as much clean up as you like. No one is stopping you for that. But if I see POV redactions of content that is not COPYVIO, being removed with misleading edit summaries such as COPYVIO again, I will be forced to seek page sanctions. That would be more worrying than the warnings above. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169: WP:Copyvio is a policy with legal considerations for wikipedia. The en-wiki policy strictly discourages contributions that are copyright violations, and if copyright is found, it recommends, "Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find." It is not wikipedia's policy to encourage copyvio or require editors to copyedit the copyvio content if and when discovered. I have recommended/seen dozens of copyvio-related blocks over the years, no ANI case necessary. But, please do carefully check and avoid deleting something that is "not copyvio". We have tools that will do the check for you automatically. For example, one freely available one is: Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Try it. You will see the highlighted overlap (few words overlap or properly attributed quotations or embedded quotes inside a cite are generally not violations); unattributed copy-pasted long sentences and paragraphs are violations. In the Earwig's results section, you will a lot of compare links (try them). You may need to run Earwig's tool several times, as you check and if appropriate, clean up. Delete copyvio freely in this article (and other en-wiki articles). If in doubt or if you need guidance, don't delete. Clarify or confirm by contacting Diannaa, El C, me, etc and get clarifications. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, read WP:INDENT and learn to indent properly. This is the first thing editors are taught here. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@all: Ahh! I think copyvio must be removed but reword is easy and more helpful. Its my way of handling copyvios. If its large paragraphs, remove it. It its a sentence or few, reword it. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

New Sub-section

There need to be a sub-section of foreign nationals protest in India under "Protest" section. Recents cases of German student 1 and Norwegian tourist 2. Dey subrata (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There already added in "Controversies" section but some of that was roughly translated from French version, plus information about Indian national in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.65.38.164 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata Yes, I feel it should be added under protest, with a subheading "Foreign Nationals". IP user, do you have a better suggestion. Controversy is inappropriate, since the whole article is a controversy. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray Indeed absolutely, an article on "protest", which itself means "public diagrement or objection/disapproval of something", could not and should not have a section describing "controversy", period !! Thats utterly bizzare to say, its like saying, "I want to find truth in a truth". Secondly, there is nothing controversial in true sense as its a fact that, both the foreigners were asked to leave the country as they protest against the Act. Dey subrata (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Done, I made the edits as per this discussion. Dey subrata, Please take a look and let me know if you have any more suggestion. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Opinion poll

@DBigXray: Please explain why this opinion poll shouldn’t be added. Also respond to my explanation in that edit summary.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The authenticity of these polls have been exposed on several occasions. The pollster CVOTER is included in this list. These propaganda polls only serve the purpose of influencing public opinion and as such they lack the credibility to be included on Wikipedia. If you still disagree then first clarify why this should be added into the article, what purpose does it serve. 2. How does CVOTER pass as RSN ? (Q2 can also be discussed at WP:RSN if you would like to escalate this.) Hope this helps. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Agree: In such a case, I also wouldn’t trust C-Voter. Thank you for pointing this out.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No Problem. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rupee values need to converted to US dollars

In sub-section "Transport" i found that:

"It was reported that the Indian Railways suffered losses worth ₹ 90 crore in property damage due to the protests, including losses worth over ₹ 72 crore in West Bengal alone."

This is value in Indian rupee, but this value needs to convert to US Dollars to understand other readers from outside India, Here is value in Dollars:

• ₹ 72 crore →: $10 million US dollars.
• ₹ 90 crore →: $12.6 million US dollars. ( 1 USD = 71.42 INR per current exchange rate)

Notice: this is not original research, it is just conversion value from Rupee to dollars. It is English wikipedia that can be accessed by around the world, not just from India aloone. Can someone add this conversion to the article? - Special:Contributions/36.69.48.161

 Done I added Template:INRConvert to fix the concern. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)