Talk:Nupur Sharma

Notability

Fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E ) Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you check the citations and their dates? Or even read the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL and Kautilya3 there is now an article on the controversial remarks (2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy) and further expansion should probably happen there and not here. Expanding this article's section on the controversy risks making it into an article about the event instead of the person, which is bit of a WP:COATRACK.VR _talk 01:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I have redirected here since that article was created just a few hours ago. Zimi09 should always check for existing articles before creating content forks. LearnIndology (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: this article is about the person, while 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is about the event(s). That's not a fork (unless you think that Sharma is only notable for this single event). Lets discuss at that article's talk page.VR _talk 05:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: We can't waste community's time to discuss content forks, and you need to get consensus on this main page as to why we need to fork it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: a community wide consensus is always stronger than a local consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Also, you still haven't addressed the central point in this discussion: is Nupul Sharma notable for something other than this one event? If yes, then these are already two different topics: one is about a person whose larger than a single event, the other is about an event which has since become more important than a single person.VR _talk 05:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: But you need to describe why that POVFORK is so important. It seems that the content was entirely lifted from this article in violation of WP:COPYRIGHTS without proper attribution. The only thing that was original was addition of more reactions which included some quotefarming. It makes no sense to try retaining a POVFORK like that. LearnIndology (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It would be nothing more than a waste of time. The notability issue was already resolved when the significant coverage from reliable sources dating before 2022 was added.[1] If you are thinking of redirecting this article to that content fork then I say that it won't work. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: if you think Nupul Sharma is notable outside this single event, then that is evidence that the 2022 controversy is a different topic than Sharma. Two different topics means two different wikipedia articles.VR _talk 05:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: why do you keep saying its a POV fork? Can you explain how it can be a fork when article is about a person and the other is about an event? If there are attribution issues then they can be resolved without blanking the other article.VR _talk 05:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Created by copy pasting content from this page without any attribution to this page and the only thing that was original was some extra quotefarming. It's a WP:POVFORK and shouldn't be retained. LearnIndology (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Policy is clear on this matter: "An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting."[2] Since at least three users have opposed the blanking[3][4][5], not including the user who created the article and others who have edited the article in the meantime, its quite obvious that the blanking here is "controversial". Please use AfD to get consensus.VR _talk 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That has to do nothing with POVFORK created just hours ago without gaining consensus here as required by policy. LearnIndology (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp and @LearnIndology Please stop edit warring. Naveen Jindal cannot be discussed here. International doplomatic situation cannot be discussed here. The scope of the 2 articles are clearly different. Venkat TL (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Naveen Jindal is not notable for discussion on Wikipedia and 'international reaction' can be written in few words like "Diplomats from xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, reacted to the video", instead of posting long quotations about each. Another article talking about the same subject is not needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I am not being clear enough. Let me try again, THEY ARE NOT SAME SUBJECT. ONE IS A BIO, OTHER IS AN EVENT ARTICLE. "Kanpur Violence: At Least 40 Injured, Police Register 3 FIRs Against 500 People". The Wire. Retrieved 7 June 2022. In addition to my above comment, Kanpur violence and its aftermath cannot be discussed here on Nupur's BIO (Nupur Sharma (politician)). 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is the right place to elaborate the entire event. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition to Venkat's link, many sources have given significant coverage to what this means for India's trade relations with the GCC (BBC News,ALJazeera, [6][7] etc). That is beyond the scope of this article.VR _talk 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: You were already clear enough but this time your message is missing relevance. This article got expanded ONLY because of this recent incident and everything was well added here. There was no need to create a new article by duplicating this article and copy-pasting everything there.

Kanpur violence seems notable on its own. We have article on 2016 Kaliachak riots which happened after remarks by Kamlesh Tiwari on Muhammad. You can create a new article for Kanpur violence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes Eventually Kanpur violence article will be forked off, right now it is 4-5 lines only. It is right now too short. The controversy article is the right place to discuss all the background and aftermath. Doint everything at Nupur's bio will be stretching it too much. Already the bio is unbalanced, with focus on 1Event. Venkat TL (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: So what? You can create it now. Stub creation is allowed. WP:CFORKING requires consensus and you haven't gained one so far. The article on the controversy is plagued with WP:TOOMUCH if anything. LearnIndology (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology of course I understand it can be created now. Both will need same background about the controversy. So once the Violence section has enough content it may be forked. Whether the separate Kanpur violence article exists or not, a section on Kanpur violence will still be needed on the Controversy event article. I respect your opinion and suggestions on the content, "too much" - "too less" etc, but they are subjective and vary from person to person, that is something that needs to be discussed on the talk page for consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Discussion was supposed to be done before the content forking. This does not justify parking same content in two places. If you are taking responsibility of the controversy article then you should stubify the section on Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Comments_on_Prophet_Muhammad and only include no more than 1 paragraph that she made comments which attracted controversy and she got expelled. Yes the main link to the article can be retained. We will review in weeks if a separate article is still needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp I agree with your suggestion about summarizing the controversy section on Nupur Bio, however I will not do it since I am 100% sure, that Kautilya3 will revert me and then they will file some kind of case somewhere against me. You know what happened in past so I dont need to explain why I am not interfering here. Venkat TL (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I reduced the text because two of you have already agreed to a solution and I will be merging some more parts to the main article since some of the content was omitted. LearnIndology (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest people calm down a bit. There is nothing in policy that says an event page cannot exist when it has its own significant coverage. I know that this is a form of legal POV-pushing, but it cannot be helped. When the dust settles, some form of rationalisation can be done, but not now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Sure but 3 editors, including me, CapnJackSp and Venkat TL have agreed to summarize the section here while work on expanding the main controversy article. You should not be reverting it unless you have consensus to do so. LearnIndology (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  LearnIndology, blanking a relevant and cited section from this article isn't acceptable and Kautilya was entitled to restore them. This is clearly an important part of the narrative regarding this individual,covered by multiple news sources worldwide.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) ::: I am confident that whatever content I have written is appropriate for a biography page. I will go through it again today and prune stuff that can be covered in the other page. But your "stubification" is drasitc. It is underweight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, check the above messages where I said "should stubify the section on Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Comments_on_Prophet_Muhammad and only include no more than 1 paragraph that she made comments which attracted controversy and she got expelled. Yes the main link to the article can be retained" and Venkat TL agreed that " I agree with your suggestion about summarizing the controversy section on Nupur Bio." Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: Just because two editors decided to do that doesn't make it acceptable. The issue clearly belongs in this article, and that's independent of whether the forked content is kept. Arguably the issue is not important enough for its own article, but it's clearly relevant to this individual here.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but given that there is a separate article on it, the incident can be kept here in a summarised form. No need to have two separate pages sharing most of the same content. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We generally believe and agree that duplication of content on multiple pages is undesirable (due to problems of maintainance, consistency etc.). But that alone cannot be a reason for removing legitimate content from a page. How much detail is needed is a matter of editorial judgment. You cannot claim to have "consensus" without even receiving input from the largest contributor of the page. "Consensus" is expected to be that of all involved editors. And, when they can't agree, input from uninvolved editors should be sought. Here, despite Amakuru having provided his valuable input, you are only displaying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"You cannot claim to have "consensus" without even receiving input from the largest contributor of the page" reeks of WP:OWN and you restored content that has very less or nothing to do with Nupur such as the declaration by Mufti of Oman. It should be removed. The details about the controversy that are targeting more than just Nupur should be covered in the main controversy article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The article should be about the subject. In this case, the controversy is the main reason for notability of this subject and should be mentioned with brief details and a link to the main page of the controversy. However, duplicating the information in lots of detail is WP:TOOMUCH as has been mentioned by other editors here. My two cents. Webberbrad007 (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Change "Alt News denied any responsibility for the reaction the viewers after watching the video clip." to "Alt News denied any responsibility for the reaction by the viewers after watching the video clip." ("by" has been edited in the corrected sentence) EruOfArda (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you EruOfArda. Added. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please change that mohammed sallahu alaihewasalm marige 9 year girl. It is not currect information .

203.192.243.5 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content is written based on WP:Verifiablity and WP:NPOV. There will be no WP:CENSORing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there will be for this, because now there is just a vague explanation for what this was even about. I guess WP:Verifiablity and WP:NPOV don't matter if the wrong people don't like your facts. 24.182.239.226 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are her remarks being deleted? Is there no verifiable source. People come to Wikipedia for information and there's barely anything here on the actual crux of the controversy. SuhitaSaha1205 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Then, please go and ask Times Now to reinstate the video. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue was brought to international attention by Muhammad Zubair by this tweet. This is also specified in the write up here. The source is still available and the video shows her comments. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad

There are umpteen sources cited in the article, all of which call him "Prophet Muhammad". That includes CNN/Reuers. Can people please refrain from WP:OR and stick to sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am just trying to follow MOS. Even the article on the subject himself (Muhammad) does not put the word Prophet before every mention unlike this article. As such, I think just one mention with the word Prophet to clarify should be enough. Thoughts? Tow (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a rather new phenomenon which I really don't get it. To be fair Jesus isn't repeatedly referred to as being the Son of God or the "prophet Jesus" if you're muslim. Moses isn't referred to as being the "Prophet Moses" and wikipedia doesn't use the name prophet muhammed on his page, so I really don't get the tendency. I mean according to muslims he was a prophet, so on the page it says "In Islamic tradition he is a prophet". But this is never stated in wiki voice. I'm not sure why we'd start here. Also Wiki MOS is against the use of honorifics for Muhammed.[8] Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Provide full name of "S. A. R. Geelani"

Please provide the full name of "S. A. R. Geelani". A contributor suggested that his name is "Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani". Is that correct? Mksword (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No idea. He is always referred to as SAR Geelani in the sources. We should stick to WP:COMMONNAME and avoid WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mksword why do you think it is important to give the full name? cant see a reason. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL: For the same reason this article's name is not "N. Sharma". It's preferable to give a more complete name, in order to reduce ambiguity. Mksword (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mksword No it is unnecessary and unhelpful. In India we follow Common names and not necessarily full names. For example, if you write the full name of M. K. Stalin or B. C. Nagesh on Wikipedia pages, readers will get confused. Same for Geelani, I dont even know what his full name is. Venkat TL (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani, fwiw. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Does 'S.' represents honorific?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No, Syed is part of the name — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Summarizing section on Prophet comment

@LearnIndology This version after your trimming is severely lacking in content. I believe excessive amount of content was removed that left the article lacking. I suggest all participants to discuss here what content can possibly be removed instead of edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post citation

Somebody added this Washington Post citation

• "Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis - The Washington Post". web.archive.org. 2020-01-07. Retrieved 2022-06-07.

What is this supposed to be for? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Ghodbunder, can you explain which source justifies your addition: made in response to the "continuous insult and disregard" towards the Hindu deity Shiva. made here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

this source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-61716241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghodbunder (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Ghodbunder (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)blocked Sock of DavidWood11

Please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

what do you mean? you should have read the entire article firstGhodbunder (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:V, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] I am asking for a quotation that demonstrates that it "directly supports" your content. It is a reasonable request, and I am sure the admins will agree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A few issues

I am not editing any article on current S. Asian politics and do not plan to edit this article to any considerable extent either. But, there exists a few glaring issues which might be taken care of by ECP:

• The text in the controversy section makes for an atrocious reading; it does not flow.
• Zubair was the one who shone the social media spotlight on Sharma - that is the key point, which is skipped in our article.

• We are not a newspaper to cover the cycles of denial, affirmation, and miscellaneous antics.

• We do not need details of each FIR lodged - a single line is enough to cover all.
• We do not need to cover the response by each country either. Condense to a couple of lines, depending on severeness of rebuke.
• No useless phrases like which later developed into a controversy etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Birth

We need better sources for birth verification - place and date/year. OneIndia is hardly an RS and BusinessStandard ref doesn't verify it — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

refer election affidavit Venkat TL (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a public record - a primary source that should not be used WP:BLPPRIMARY ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, that is the most reliable source out there. Not sure what wiki bureaucracy has to do with it. Can you please explain the problem without using Wiki abbreviations. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I will be happy to accept an election affidavit as reliable corroboration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Editor of OpIndia

Opindia website mentions her as the Editor, OpIndia.com since October 2017 as .Want to add this to the lead.She is the Editor has not resigned as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

See Nupur Sharma. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Nupur J. Sharma is a different person the disamg has been fixed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Temporary suspension pending investigation

Please clarify that this is "Temporary suspension pending investigation", basically hogwash till the matter is in news. This is standard modus operandi in BJP with several members getting their membership reinstated and suspension revoked along with getting party ticket for election in a few months. Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add an efn footnote if you can find a good source. Suspension is always assumed to be "temporary" or time limited. I have seen "six years" mentioned in some places, but I don't think it is solid information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in lead

"Described as brash and articulate" possible WP:NPOV violation in the lead?

I know it's cited as being from a BBC article, but I think it needs to be clear such that no one can infer that Wikipedia is taking a position. $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 13:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What part of WP:NPOV is this supposed to be a violation of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS

Kautilya3 you have reverted me twice here and here and made an accusation of "whitewashing" for sourcing content from a more reliable source. Please explain your action. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am astounded by how boldly editors are breaking policies in this article and then clog up talk in such righteous tone. The entire sentence in the edit you restored twice is directly copied from Hindu and you're bringing it to talk as if the revert was wrong? Come on. Hemantha (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It is retaining the wording but isn't exactly the same, though I agree the difference is minor. This is a fair critique and the wording can be updated. However, that wasn't the objection that was raised for the revert. Also, there is a requirement for editors to WP:AGF which seemed strangely missing. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Webberbrad007, please don't gaslight us. I didn't revert a "source". I reverted your free-wheeling rewrite of the existing content with no explanation. Hee is the existing content. Please tell us what part of it needs to be modified and why.

The BJP supporters, including some popular politicians, rallied behind Nupur Sharma and criticised the party and the government for buckling under international pressure. Hashtags such as "#ShameOnBJP" and "#ISupportNupurSharma" trended on Twitter in her support.

References

Even if we take your word that you were "replacing the existing source with RSPSS", there was no explanation of why this was being done. The WP:ONUS is on you to argue for your revised content (and, at the same time, the deletion of the existing content). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, why don't you stick to WP:AGF and stop imputing motives. This isn't a one-off slip by you now.

The change was to reflect the content from a better source. The meaning wasn't materially changed. The hashtag and the support was part of that wording, though it was too similar to the wording from the source, which was a fair critique as I have said before.

Your wording has a WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issue because it implies that "The BJP supporters" rallied, not just "some". In addition, The Hindu wording is in conflict with what you had mentioned. The Hindu states

Twitter hashtags like #ShameOnBJP trended after Ms. Sharma’s suspension with many prominent BJP supporters, though not officially members of the BJP, expressing the sentiment that Ms. Sharma and Mr. Kumar had been abandoned by the party at a time when Ms. Sharma had also received death threats over her remarks.

The less reliable source (compared to The Hindu) you relied on doesn't say "popular politicians" so that is WP:SYNTH violation too. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your rewrite in no way summarises the three quotes included now in the content, or other stuff mentioned in those sources. The Hindu source that you claim to be following, is not even about Nupur Sharma, and is offhand off-topic. Nobody has claimed to have done a survey of tens of thousands of Nupur Sharma supporters and found them to be non-members of the BJP. Plenty of BJP members including prominent politicians have been found to be among her supporters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Tangential.

If a RS says so, we are not at liberty to discard it based on what we believe. Any change in the list of generally reliable sources and Newspaper of record status at WP:RSPSS would need a WP:RFC.

The Hindu says "... many prominent BJP supporters, though not officially members of the BJP, expressing ..." which was what was used.

I note that you haven't addressed the issues I raised with your wording after specifically asking me about them here. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that, since The Telegraph (India) is not listed in RSPSS and The Hindu is listed, The Telegraph is unreliable and it should be replaced by The Hindu? Is that what you are saying?

Moreover, are you also claiming that anything that The Hindu says that strikes your fancy has to be reproduced verbatim. If not it is some violation of some policy that you are imagining? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Tangential again ... by Jove !

If you will not engage on the policy issues that I have raised, I will make the necessary change on the page. Webberbrad007 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop arguing as if something published in Hindu is, by default, eligible for inclusion. Aren't Kapil Mishra, Gautam Gambhir etc members of BJP? How is the line though not officially members of the BJP then true? The text in the article is fine as it is. Hemantha (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the policy issues that I have highlighted above re WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH with the current wording? Webberbrad007 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I note that Kautilya3 has made necessary changes to address the issues I had raised. I will add to that wording the non-contentious parts of The Hindu article and add it to the reference list. If this isn't acceptable, please could you let me know here with rationale? -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The wording you had above is WP:UNDUE and constitutes whitewashing. If a particular reporter didn't know about BJP members supporting Nupur Sharma, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the third time you are engaging in imputing motives. Why is it so difficult for you to WP:AGF? I didn't whitewash, it was just adding from a RS. Take the issue up with the RS if you have an objection. WP:UNDUE is regarding weightage given and given that The Hindu is the Newspaper of record, it is a better RS and should be treated as such.

In any case, given that the wording from the Hindu article isn't included in the latest edit, I don't see any issue. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first time that you are sealioning and if you persist, I will request that an admin topic-ban you for pointy disruption. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I would be quite interested in having an admin intervene here. Please proceed with your threat.

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't WP:AGF. On that page, I had proved your edits to be biased and violative of WP:SYNTH after which you had made necessary changes.

My involvement in that page is as below:

• here where you changed WP:SYNTH claim of "memory" to "claim" after much discussion and challenge from me
• here where I fixed the wording after discussing with you
• here where I was appreciative of your efforts
• here where you had refused to add Maasir-I-Alamgiri to the reference list. Again, I had to prove to you that it is necessary and then again to prove that your wording was inappropriate. Both times, you subsequently made necessary changes.

I shall be reverting your revert of my change now. Please don't revert it without rationale and discussion here. Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam In the interest of discussing the topic, what is your objection to using the wording from The Hindu? The wording makes no claim about whether she has or has not received death threats - it just says that the supporters were unhappy because of it. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Before that, which part of WP:VNOTSUFF you fail to understand?

To pinpoint the cause of their support and then, state it in wiki-voice is poor: that they were supporting Sharma because she was in a precarious position having received death threats might have been a cover for their routine support of anybody and everybody who engages in provocative acts against minority communities. And fwiw, this is not my original research either. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It might have been a cover - sure. But Wiki editors are not the right people to determine that. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have comprehension difficulties? What did I write in the last line (and why)? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You provided link to an opinion piece in The Wire. I don't see how that proves that The Hindu's news article is to be discarded.

Again, why are you engaging in personal attacks - stick to logical arguments. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

a news article in thewire.in says about a BJP MP extending support to Nupur Sharma:

[The BJP MP extending support to Nupur Sharma] said, “These non-believers have always done so. Kamlesh Tiwari said something and he was killed. Someone else [Nupur Sharma] said something and they also received a death threat. They distort our gods and goddess and make films about them. They have been doing this for years… That shows their mentality.”

Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Ghodbunder, Ipdesign1 why do you believe that "Controversial" doesn't apply to these remarks? The remarks have clearly created a controversy. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Denialism is the standard position that seems to be in action here. Venkat TL (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

definition of controversy --- causing disagreement or discussion......... there is no disagreement about her remark to anybody. what she stated is a fact nobody saying that what nupur stated about muhammad is incorrect .neither nobody is discussing about her remark,,,,, its just mindless outrage in muslim world........... hence no controversy in her remark/comment . Ghodbunder (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)blocked Sock of DavidWood11

you need to understand that Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, not whatever @User:Ghodbunder believes. Check WP:TRUTH. Venkat TL (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 imho, there is scope for more nuance; what can be denoted as 'controversy' and/ or 'controversial' can be different things too.

No doubt many times controversial generates controversy, same time, it is not necessary that every thing which is supposed to be controversial will generate a controversy; similarly everything that raises controversy need not be controversial.

What can be considered can be subjective too; perceptions can change per individual, groups, times and places. For example, there were times conducting witchcraft was considered controversial and witch hunting used to take place in to days time witch hunting is considered controversial.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course there can be nuance. However, you would require a reliable source to back it up. Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Due ?

Info on her mother's origin seems coming very abruptly, Idk if that has any relevance as of now ?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Bio info about parents/family is a normality that we put in BLPs early life section. It would be helpful to see if there are sources for her father's origins as well — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC for including death threats as the reason for some BJP members to support as per RS

There is currently an unresolved dispute: Should we include the point about some BJP members supporting Nupur Sharma and objecting to her suspension given that she has received death threats? Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC) This is specified in The Hindu article here which states:

Twitter hashtags like #ShameOnBJP trended after Ms. Sharma’s suspension with many prominent BJP supporters, though not officially members of the BJP, expressing the sentiment that Ms. Sharma and Mr. Kumar had been abandoned by the party at a time when Ms. Sharma had also received death threats over her remarks.

The Hindu is included as the Newspaper of record for India in WP:RSPSS and is generally reliable list.

Please select from Proposal A or Proposal B (or some clear equivalent) below with a brief explanation of why or why not. The current wording is Proposal A and is in the Comments about Muhammad section.

Proposal A

Many BJP supporters, including some BJP politicians, rallied behind Nupur Sharma and criticised the party and the government for abandoning her and buckling under international pressure. Hashtags such as "#ShameOnBJP" and "#ISupportNupurSharma" trended on Twitter.

Proposal B

Many BJP supporters, including some BJP politicians, rallied behind Nupur Sharma and criticised the party and the government for abandoning her at a time when she had received death threats over her remarks. They were also critical of the party and the government for buckling under international pressure. Hashtags such as "#ShameOnBJP" and "#ISupportNupurSharma" trended on Twitter.

Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Comments

• Oppose all: These "Boycott X", "I Support Y", "Shame On Z" etc hashtags are a daily routine on Indian Twitter. So, I don't think this worthless detail should be added to the article. Peter Ormond 💬 22:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Proposal A with all Indian sources and the content sourced to them removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Proposal B or Oppose all. Strongly Oppose Proposal A because it appears to deliberately exclude an important reason for support, as voiced by those supporting her. Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all: per User:Peter Ormond and Hemantha. Strictly oppose Proposal B there are concerns about reliable sources for it. The party will obviously stand by its spokesperson and was unwilling to take any action for 10 days, until their hand was forced by Arabs. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Peter. Strictly oppose Proposal B per Venkat. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment as side note:In brief each of those few supporting Nupur Sharma's specific statement may not necessarily BJP or Hindutva supporters.
  This and the other article 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy are still largely seem to be polarized on Wikipedian's political and religious lines. Wikipedians of both sides and others who do not have complete information at their disposal might want to take note that at least some voices including Muslim ones and atheist ones and science supporting ones, feminist ones, Free speech and anti blasphemy law one's are likely to transcend political and religious border lines. (Also note that what Wikipedian's call RS sources, at least til now, most of them have not given transcript of the contested statements of Nupur Sharma)
  Some Muslims who do not consider abrogations to be effective and understand criticism attracts criticism is written in the scripture and what is written in some religious books itself can not be considered blasphemous. Already few columnists of Egyptian and Pakistani origin have questioned brouhaha, and an atheist former Muslim has been arrested for criticizing child marriage part. So in brief each of those few supporting Nupur Sharma's specific statement may not necessarily BJP or Hindutva supporters. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see WP:RFCBEFORE as having been satisfied. Nowhere in the preceding discussion has the OP argued for his preferred content in any way, except to insist that The Hindu is Newspaper of Record or whatever. Guess what, The Times of India is also listed as a "Newspaper of Record" we don't regard it as a reliable source at WP:RSPSS. The OP seems totally unaware of subtle Wikipedia policies such as WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS etc. This is a premature RfC, and should be closed as invalid. If the OP wants to argue for the superiority of his source, he should take it to WP:RSN. Pinging Newslinger. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed yes, I see the arguments by the OP to be heavily dependent on The Hindu being the newspaper of record — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  The denial by two editors of there having been support for this politician because of death threats received for "blasphemy" is bizzare. One of them has cited an opinion piece as rationale to oppose this.

  I had based my suggestion on The Hindu because it is a better source, but here is what a news article in thewire.in says about a BJP MP:

  [The BJP MP extending support to Nupur Sharma] said, “These non-believers have always done so. Kamlesh Tiwari said something and he was killed. Someone else [Nupur Sharma] said something and they also received a death threat. They distort our gods and goddess and make films about them. They have been doing this for years… That shows their mentality.”

  This ties up with what others have said. I haven't included right leaning media who also have said these things because their validity would be questioned by the two editors opposing this. Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  You do not seem to have read WP:RSPSS. Why not try that instead of "guessing what" it might say?

  • It doesn't ask for The Times of India to be treated as a Newspaper of record even though it might be. Here is what it says instead:

    Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government.

  • For The Hindu, this is what it says:

    There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.

  So I don't see what you are driving at?

  and "... or whatever"? Really? Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Greetings @Webberbrad007 I tried to follow some of your discussion. There seems reasonable amount of back and forth arguments, and as uninvolved user I am ending up in loosing the track about what exactly is the issue?

  • I think uninvolved users would look for more clarity on exactly what part of statement you are trying to include that other editors do not want? (Assuming media publication you are referring to is reliable source at this moment since nobody seem to contest reliability of your source)
  • Any person getting unlawful death threats is any time is despicable hence deserves condemnation and 'whether article has adequately covered condemnations of death threats?', If not then it should.
  • I could understand ".. Many BJP supporters, including some BJP politicians, rallied behind Nupur Sharma and criticised the party and the government .." Though it is there in the source; Supposing if there would not have been any death threats, then these supporters would not have supported her and they are supporting her just because of death threat', is that a case you are trying to make ? I am not getting over reliance on co relation with death threat vis a vis support being extended to Nupur Sharma by some quarters. Can you help us understand.

• Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is to ensure that the context of support is explained per RS. While some supporters would be driven purely by their right wing views, others would be supporting her against the party decision due to the death threats. However, the current wording doesn't state it. Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Two WP:RS are being used for the death threats claim. The Wire doesn't say so, it only quotes the BJP MP. The Hindu's recent turn towards accommodating the BJP government has attracted reliable attention, with Nistula Hebbar playing a significant role by hyping the government's claims. Thus there is enough reason to question The Hindu when they print self-serving claims of BJP unquestioningly. This too was brought up in the discussion preceding this RFC. As mentioned above, the questions of reliability are for WP:RSN. They cannot be resolved by an RFC that glaringly glosses over the issues raised before. Hemantha (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the so-called "BJP MP" defended Nupur Sharma for "telling the truth", not because of "death threats". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed not for talk page commentators to decide and should be handled via WP:RSN. However, The Hindu is a RS as things stand - so I don't see the validity of one article in another publication (caravan) raising some questions about The Hindu. If we could use an article of our choice to discredit any RS, then there wouldn't be any RS left.

In addition, your allegations against the author of the Hindu article seem odd - are you an authority to make those claims or is that your personal view (and that of a couple other editors)? If you wish for it to not be considered an RS, it is for you to have your objections considered in a fresh WP:RSN. Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - A death threat has been carried out in Udaipur. The person who carried it out made a video in which he has threatened NS and others. The claim that The Hindu wording is not reflective of reality appears to be ill-thought at best. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007: I came across one Sadanand Dhume's article in Wall Street Journal seems neutral and much to the point. May be it can be used as reference.

But frankly I feel you are focusing on very narrow aspect through this Rfc, Rather covering threats and condemnations of threats and violence in detail at main controversy article first then bringing synopsis in this article may serve better encyclopedic purpose. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Change Muhammad to Prophet Muhammad

THE SECTION THAT QUOTES AS " COMMENTS ABOUT MUHAMMAD " I WANT TO CHANGE IT TO " COMMENTS ABOUT PROPHET MUHAMMAD" Sahir01 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This would need consensus before change. Venkat TL (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This change would be against the WP:MOS. Please see WP:MUHAMMAD. Tow (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Help to expand Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code

• Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please help to expand the new article.Venkat TL (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

Please add this, "Children in madrasas are taught that punishment for blasphemy is beheading according to Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, speaking on the Udaipur killing.", this, "The Supreme Court said Nupur Sharma's outburst is responsible for the unfortunate murder of a tailor at Udaipur." and this, "The Udaipur court transferred tailor Kanhaiya Lal's murder case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).- Mossad3 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Supreme court comments are undue. Kanhaiya Lal is not relevant here as there is no mention in the article. Khan's comments may perhaps be discussed, I don't know. Hemantha (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

::So please add Khan's comments to the article.-Mossad3 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022 (2)

Please also add: "A shop owner in Amravati was most likely killed for a post supporting Nupur Sharma."- Mossad3 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The same response as above. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

The Aisha article says, "Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;[12] other sources say she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony" and so that sentence should be added to the lead so that our readers know why she said what she said (Nupur Sharma).- Mossad3 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In the "Aisha" subsubsection of the "Muhammad's marriages" subsection of the "Points of contention" section of the Criticism of Muhammad article, it says, "From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was said in traditional Islamic sources[98] to have been six when betrothed to Muhammad,[99][100][101] and nine when she went to live with Muhammad[99][100][101] and the marriage was consummated,[99][101] although according to some scholars it is assumed that the marriage was consummated upon her reaching puberty".-Mossad3 (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about adding what reliable sources say about her statement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposal rejected with no prejudice against future discussion on related topics. Closing early since RFC was started by blocked sock (of user topic-banned from Indian politics) and has attracted no independent support. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the lead of this article mention,

Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was six years of age when she was married to Muhammad, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old., others say she was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7; and she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony.

Mossad3 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Addendum - A Saudi cleric has confirmed what Nupur Sharma said, that Aisha was nine years old when married.-Mossad3 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - In the "Aisha" subsubsection of the "Muhammad's marriages" subsection of the "Points of contention" section of the Criticism of Muhammad article, it says, "From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was said in traditional Islamic sources[98] to have been six when betrothed to Muhammad,[99][100][101] and nine when she went to live with Muhammad[99][100][101] and the marriage was consummated,[99][101] although according to some scholars it is assumed that the marriage was consummated upon her reaching puberty".-Mossad3 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - She did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Please see the sources used in the articles I have linked to right at the top of this rfc.-Mossad3 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - That would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS. We need sources that directly speak to why Nupur Sharma said what she did, and some WP:THIRDPARTY analysis on where all this is coming from. We cannot invent our own history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - As stated above by Kautilya3. Also, you shouldn't vote in your own RfC. Patr2016 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:SYNTHESIS is conclusive on this issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This looks like blatant trolling. We shall include this line in the lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SYNTHESIS. Relevant article are already linked. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Now nom seems to have been blocked and result was obvious to experienced users, I suggest to end RfC vide point no. 2 @ WP:RFCEND

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Bookku has tried to convey what I am trying to say here and I am reproducing it for others to read and understand the point,

Deleted content

Response in Hindu right media

According to a synopsis of 'Hindu right media' by Unnati Sharma in ThePrint; an editorial of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, the erstwhile spokesperson Nupur Sharma and her family are being threatened with rape, death when Sharma had only repeated what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik too had said earlier; where as other Muslim leader threatened of iconoclasm against Shivling.(Sic)

Academic response

According to Ahmet T. Kuru, it is not possible to know Aisha's factual age at the time of marriage, Kuru says Sharma used a single narration, of a hadith record, which says Aisha was 9 years old by the time she got married, and that some Muslims do accept since child marriages were common in premodern times. Kuru says, but Sharma ignored alternative Muslim explanation that Aisha might have been either 18 or 19 years old at the time of marriage.-Mossad3 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam has voted twice. Venkat TL (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ty! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

References

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.

Url issue

Link to SRL Geelalani, point to wrong page… it must be corrected ASAP 103.46.203.235 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

URL to SRL geelamani points at a wrong web page. Please correct it ASAP 103.46.203.235 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved by silent consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Nupur Sharma (politician) → Nupur Sharma – She is only notable person with the name Nupur Sharma so this page should be move to Nupur Sharma. Contributor008 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2022 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

To the lead and "Comments about Muhammad" section (just after where it says, ".....regarding the age of Muhammad's wife Aisha at the time of their marriage and consummation of the marriage."), please add, "However, she was merely quoting from the hadith." - it has been accepted in the 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy article. 2406:7400:98:395:6853:A3AE:E237:482B (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: There was no such source uncovered where Nupur Sharma claimed to have read these things in Hadith; this is only a claim made by one side in the media. DreamRimmer (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

When sources are cited, Wikipedia allows a sentence to be added. You may however add a rebuttal.-2406:7400:98:395:DCC5:A236:DF0A:3CF6 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Neither of those sources looks terribly reliable, as one is essentially a blog platform and the other is self-described "nationalist" news. Please provide better sourcing than a column and coverage of a screenshot of a tweet provided by jihadwatch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)