Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 4 July 2022

Template:BLP noticeboard

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Rajasthan / Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Beheading or murder?

It is unclear that it was a beheading, so as highlighted by Venkat TL here, I think we should stick to calling it murder. WP:RS have called it beheading Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The post mortem of Kanhaiya Lal revealed that he died due to excessive loss of blood. He was attacked 26 times with a sharp weapon, and stabbed eight to 10 times in the neck.

References

1. "Udaipur: Rajasthan on edge after Prophet Muhammad row beheading". BBC News. 2022-06-30. Retrieved 2022-07-02.
2. Sharma, Sunny. "Tailor's gruesome murder sparks communal tension | Tehelka". tehelka.com.

@Webberbrad007 it is based on the initial reports. When we have confirmed post mortem report. Then the PM should be given more weight. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the Tehelka article states that it wasn't a beheading? A beheading is a murder and can be referred to as such by some authors. However, beheading is a more specific type of murder and providing that specific detail, as has been done in such cases elsewhere, is apt if it is backed by WP:RS. The post mortem itself is a technical report which will refer to the cause of death (which won't be loss of head in the case of a beheading). Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

None of the news articles based on the Post Mortem (PM) report call it a beheading, your continual lack of recognition of the more reliable report is strange. Why would you still go with the initial reports that was noted as conflicting by NDTV.? They might have attempted a lot of things but the reports call it stabs in the neck and that is what they ended up inflicting. Misplaced Pages should not be overstretching and exaggerating when there are clear reports. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen a post mortem report of a beheading victim? Post mortem is a technical report and will include the cause of death. Beheading will require the neck to have knife / stab wounds. Having these mentioned in the post mortem report doesn't preclude beheading. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I updated my comment, I meant News articles based on the Post Mortem report. Look, if the beheading was done, the report would have noted it. It is not possible to skip such a major information in the PM report. Unless we have conflicting report on PM, there is nothing to discuss here. Venkat TL (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Post mortem report states the medical cause of death. What would you suggest as the medical cause of death for a beheading? How would you determine that it was not a beheading from that? Check Samuel Paty. The citations stating that it was a beheading do not refer to a post mortem to state that. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We do not do this kind of WP:SYNTHESIS. Please read the link. We only post what reliable sources are saying. FWIW, I have seen the pics of the body and there was no beheading. Venkat TL (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble:Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

When did a post-mortem report become a requirement? WP:RS calls it a beheading and that's what it is. Stop making rules to stonewall. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't establish anything because no beheading is described. It is probably an outdated wording in the title, but the article doesn't use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

yes, and here is a source from today, clarifying that they could not behead. Venkat TL (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata you have been reminded to not edit war and bring those sources on the talk page and get consensus to add this content here. The WP:ONUS to do this is on the person adding content. Venkat TL (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Started a new thread. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Udaipur "beheading" and it's use by reliable sources

Kanhaiya Lal was beheaded as per multiple reliable sources. I know some will try to say these were only "initial" reports. Here are multiple reliable sources published after 30 June (2 days after the attack) after that call it a beheading.

1. Cite error: The named reference BBC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. The Hindu Bureau (2022-06-29). "Udaipur beheading was intended to spread terror and fear: police". The Hindu. Retrieved 2022-07-02.
3. "Knife used to behead Udaipur tailor made by accused themselves: Sources". India Today. 2022-06-30. Retrieved 2022-07-02.
4. "Udaipur murder: CCTV footage shows accused running away after beheading tailor". India Today. 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-07-02.
5. "Udaipur beheading case transferred to NIA after court's order". India Today. 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-07-02.
6. "Udaipur: Rajasthan on edge after Prophet Muhammad row beheading". BBC News. 2022-06-30. Retrieved 2022-07-02.
7. "Placard campaign initiated against beheading of Udaipur tailor". Deccan Herald. 2022-06-30. Retrieved 2022-07-02.

We should call it a beheading because a beheading was what is was if you have watched the video. The attackers also gloat about the beheading in their video. Any attempt to say otherwise is WP:FRINGE. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata, Dont create duplicate threads, I have merged it. here is the pic. See for yourself. This pic is inline with the news articles covering the post mortem report. The initial reports seem to be inaccurate. --Venkat TL (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Damn. Then let's add this - it was an attempted beheading but the assailants were rookies. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata yes This NDTV article I shared in my previous comment, quotes the cop. We dont have source that calls them rookies, so your suggestion cannot be added. Please suggest in your reply, a suitable summary of that line from the linked article and we can discuss how to include it. We cannot say in wikipedia voice what you had written. Since this is a quote from the police, it is attributed and better placed in the aftermath section. I have proposed "The police said that the perpetrators had attempted to behead Kanhaiya during the attack but had failed." Feel free to make suggestions for rephrasing this if you feel the need. Please note that the Trusted reliable source New York Times does not mention beheading in its article. Venkat TL (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hinduphobia?

Why is there Hinduphobia in the infobox? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mohammed Riyaz Akhtar and Mohammed Gosh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Refs

• https://www.ndtv.com/blog/the-udaipur-killing-is-a-tragic-and-watershed-moment-for-india-3117827

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Names of accused

One of the accused individuals is referred to as both Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Riyaz Akhtar in the article. Likewise with the other individual, described as Mohammed Gosh, Mohammed Ghous and Ghouse Mohammad throughout the page.

Looking through the names used by media articles, there seems to be a number of different spellings. Is there a standard form of spelling for these kinds of titles we can use? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble I am not sure about Akhtar vs Attari, may be one of it is middle name. Apart from this all other are acceptable transliterations of a Hindustani language name. One of it may be the official one, and if we are certain about one, we can use it. In the absence of confirmation of an official spelling, the most common spelling should be used. Indian Express and The Hindu generally use the most common spellings so we should probably look at what spellings they are using. The article now uses the spelling Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Ghouse. If a different spelling is to be used, it should be discussed here and changed throughout the article. Venkat TL (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Terror charges

@DockMajestic the infobox already says terror charges, even though a NIA chargesheet has not yet been filed. what we have are accusations of terror. It is too early to conclusively call this Terrorism. The investigation report should say that before it can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I changed it before seeing this section, but I agree that the field should probably be removed. Hemantha (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox field Attack type

What proposed change to infobox would look like

References

1. "Udaipur tailor murder | NIA registers UAPA case, says accused wanted to 'strike terror among masses'". The Hindu. PTI. 29 June 2022. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2 July 2022.
2. "Udaipur tailor murder | NIA registers UAPA case, says accused wanted to 'strike terror among masses'". The Hindu. PTI. 29 June 2022. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2 July 2022.

Infobox field Attack type currently mentions Murder.

@NebulaOblongata is edit warring to change it to "Murder by attempted beheading"

I believe this needs discussion and consensus. Since the beheading did not occur, it would not be appropriate to mention it in infobox. The word Murder accurately covers the type. Venkat TL (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I don't see what is the issue with the threat statement they made against Modi. It is well sourced and is relevant to this murder.

In addition, why is attempted beheading not lede material? See infobox for Lee Rigby. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 Because as of now it is just a quote from a cop, and not an established fact of the matter. Now I have added it with attribution in the aftermath section. But this needs to be established before it can be added into lead. Please note that the Trusted reliable source New York Times does not mention beheading in its article. --Venkat TL (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We are not debating beheading here - that is the section above, so I don't see the relevance of the NYT article here. NebulaOblongata added a sourced comment about this being an attempted beheading where the perpetrators fled the scene before they could fully decapitate the victim. We have example templates for such crimes in Lee Rigby and Samuel Paty which should be used as reference instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

Secondly, I fail to see the objection to the quotebox with the threat issued by the perpetrators to Modi which appears well sourced too.

Thirdly, if we have a statement by Maulana Mahmood Madani of JUeH, I don't see why statements from relevant senior political leaders not relevant? Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You've made this type of argument on multiple talks, and once again I repeat - the existence of a source is not an argument for inclusion.
On the quote about Modi, it is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article, which to remind is "Murder of Lal". On Raje quote, once again, it is very clear that the murder is only tangential to the political point she is making; if you find a quote by her which is directly about and is limited to the topic, feel free to add it (keeping in mind WP:GOSSIP etc). Hemantha (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think its clear that it's not simply murder it's beheading because the itself showing that they two beheaded not murdererd and NYT is not relevant here because it's not Indian Newspaper Het666 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume you refer to this when you say multiple talks. For context, that was to add the bit about the support Nupur Sharma (politician) received for having received death threats, which sadly has been reiterated by those carrying out this murder. I am unsure how we can still claim that the death threats she received for her comments are not relevant even though well sourced.

Anyway, coming to this topic. I believe you missed the example I provided - Lee Rigby. The crime was similar and the cause is mentioned as Attempted Decapitation, Islamic Terrorism. The two perpetrators were caught on camera and carried out the murder in broad day light claiming religious justification. We can't follow different templates for similar situations when the victim is in a different country, of different faith or skin colour.

Regarding the quote about threat to Modi, I again draw your attention to Lee Rigby. The comments and threats made by the murderers on video and as reported by WP:RS have been carried as quotes, including the reference to the then British Prime Minister David Cameron. So I believe the determination of what is relevant has already been made by past editors and we should stick to it. If we want to deviate, we should create WP:CONSENSUS for it. A fresh consensus is not required for following precedence. Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 Stop using WP:OSE. Lee Rigby is a 2013 case, all the facts of that incident are clear BECAUSE it is 2013 incident, and the investigation and convictions are over. None of that is true for this case where the investigation has only begun. Please read WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME which prevents lot of BLP related and unconfirmed information from being added here, that you are proposing to add. If you want to discuss the quote, Please start another thread. Venkat TL (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Please refer Misplaced Pages:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Precedent in usage under which my argument falls. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply because my argument wasn't to assign the crime to the two accused. I don't see what part of WP:CRIME you believe is applicable to the argument here. Please clarify. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 yes all parts of BLP Crime WP:SUSPECT and Misplaced Pages:Notability (events)#Criminal_acts applies, because the infobox explicitly names the suspect and the charges that you are trying to add. So far the only thing that we all can conclusively claim has happened is Murder, rest everything is speculation as of now until a court of law establishes them in its verdict. The phrase you are proposing falls under the category of media speculation, police speculation. They cannot be added. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL The infobox clearly states that they are accused and not convicted. The description is of the crime itself and if WP:RS give more specific details, then they can be included. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The whole article fails BLPCRIME. It there wasn't a video, this would already have been at AfD. But specifically, speculating about mode of attack using WP:NOTNEWS sources like you propose to do, fails BLPCRIME. Hemantha (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if there wasn't video evidence, it wouldn't have gotten all the wide coverage it is getting. If a tree falls in a forest. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 when you proposed to add "Attempted Decapitation, Islamic Terrorism" you failed to give refs for both. Please provide refs that establish they have been charged for Attempted Decapitation and charged for Islamic Terrorism. I dont think these sources exist yet. No chargesheet has been filed. Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I was giving an example template to follow for a similar crime in support of @NebulaOblongata's changes where they had sourced an article stating that this was an attempted beheading.

Regarding charges, there are no separate charges for murder by attempted decapitation or Islamic Terrorism in India just as in the UK. The charges are for murder and terrorism. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are no official and credible refs for the said charges, then they should not be added on the basis of media speculation.--Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A statement from law enforcement (Police) reported by NDTV should be RS. Webberbrad007 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 Unverified controversial allegations about the person stands foul of WP:SUSPECT and Misplaced Pages:Notability (events)#Criminal_acts. While news sites like India today can print it, Misplaced Pages is not a news site WP:NOTNEWS. Hence difference. Venkat TL (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You asked for RS which seems to be available. The attempted decapitation is not speculation on behalf of either NDTV or the editors here. In addition, it is WP:DUE as has been demonstrated in a similar article for Lee Rigby. Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Terror links with this murder

Is their any terrod link with this murder ?? What media is showing on it ?? Het666 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been no definite conclusion yet Kpddg 07:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg is right. So far there is only media speculations and police speculations so far. No evidence of terror has been found yet. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Sources from NYT or BBC should not be used because they don't reflect proper case . Indian news blogs should be used like ABP News, Aaj Tak,News 18, NDTV etc like Het666 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You will need to establish consensus for this, since according to Misplaced Pages, NYT and BBC are considered reliable. Kpddg 11:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Speculations of Rahul Kanwal

This discussion is about the Perpetrators section of this page as well as 2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Udaipur.

I know what Rahul Kanwal has speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. We should not add it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There are some refs (Hindustan Times, India Today, Aaj Tak). It is not Rahul Kanwal speculating, it is being said by the sources. Kpddg 14:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg Aaj Tak is part of India today group, same company. HT is different agree, but HT Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt. We should wait if this holds up in court, it is likely misinformation introduced to deflect political damage. Venkat TL (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Another HT report says The ongoing investigations .... are indicative that Riyaz Attari, was trying to get close to BJP leaders and workers such as those affiliated to Muslim Rashtriya Manch, including Irshad Chainwala, a member of BJP Minority Morcha and Tahir Raza Khan, a BJP worker with a view to target them. It has also been revealed that he had carried out recce of BJP establishments and functionaries of the party for this purpose. Also: During the interrogation, the accused revealed that they were self-radicalised and followers of Karachi-based Dawat-e-Islami leader Illyas Attar Qadri. If the murderer has not said anything about this matter, it cannot be estalished that the information obtained is innaccurate. Kpddg 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

When did India Today become a bad source? When was this established? Can you point me to a consensus on this? NebulaOblongata (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no consensus to classify India Today as unreliable. I can find only two discussions (1, 2), both of them not having any conclusion. Kpddg 15:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And then, one one hand the murderer is said to be a 'dedicated BJP worker', while on the other he kills a man for backing a BJP spokesperson and threatens the PM! Kpddg 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reports from RS there, and after discarding venkat's personal opinion about India Today, there seems to be no grounds to remove this information. It is completely due. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I DON'T LIKE WHAT INDIA TODAY IS REPORTING! IT'S OBVIOUSLY UNRELIABLE! REMOVE IT! SHUT IT DOWN! - Most unbiased Wikipedian. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You have already been warned about WP:AGF. Next will be a report for this. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories of Rohit Kanwal cannot be added into the wikipedia article about a living person. Please dont edit war over this, see Dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't dismiss reliably sourced content as "conspiracy theories" unless you have reliable sources that describe them as such. So far no reason has been given by you to remove this sourced content. If you are going to selectively modify content like this and treat allegations as facts then you are only causing problems. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's being repeated left and right that India Today is a reliable source. Where has this been established? Hemantha (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Where has it been established that it is not one? Not just India Today, but Hindustan Times also says the same, as noted in my previous comment. Kpddg 13:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: DR thread regarding this here Kpddg 13:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This got split because I hadn't noticed this thread when I opened Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy#NPOV wording for infiltration claims. But to repeat what I said there - India Today editors have been known to spread misinformation aligned with government interests and the poor quality of the content on their website has been noted before in RSN. The reliability of a publication should be established by consensus, not the lack of it because majority of the sites are by default unreliable. Since there is no entry for India Today in WP:RSP, I think we can decide whether it is reliable or not, for the purposes of this specific claim, here in the talk. If not, we can take this to RSN. On HT, I think India Today is the original source, which HT is repeating; but I can't say for sure without a link to the HT article Hemantha (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Threats to PM Modi

Why can't these clear threats be mentioned in the lead, and why can't they have a quotebox? No guideline is against it, and above discussions are unclear. This is relevant to the article and can be sufficiently sourced. It is not just something which 'exists' in a source, but has direct relevance. Kpddg 15:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Reference to these threats should be included in the lead while the quotes should be part of the body. Refer Lee Rigby, which is a very similar case. Webberbrad007 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support There is no valid reason to remove them apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg When you start a thread to add something, you are expected to explicitly mention what exactly your are proposing to add. Where is your line that you want to add? which quote? If you are referring to the quote box with quote from the video. I am opposed to adding the quote box and even the quote, you can summarize what he said, but his comments are not worth quoting line by line or highlighting with a quotebox. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Add The assailants also threatened Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the video. to the lead section. And later in the article: In what seems to be a second video (taken after the attack), they boasted about the murder to avenge the insult to islam and also issued threatened India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi that their 'knife would reach him as well'. Kpddg 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Reaction Inclusion

I'm creating a separate section for each issue to facillitate clear discusion. There are reactions of some organisations, but not of prominent opposition members and other such people. See this diff. Stones were pelted, silent protest was staged, etc. has been removed. Kpddg 15:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

To add, the reactions of Geert Wilders and Vasundhara Raje, ex-CM and current opposition leader are valid. They are adequately covered in RS. I guess some editors want their opinions removed because these politicians purportedly belong to the wrong end of the political spectrum. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg When you start a thread to add something, you are expected to explicitly mention what exactly your are proposing to add. Where is your line that you want to add? which reaction? @NebulaOblongata, what did wilders say, and why are you proposing to add it here? Hundreds of people said thousands of things, this page is not a collection of he said she said. See WP:NOTNEWS Venkat TL (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See also section

If we are going to have a "see also" section, it needs to be clear why articles are linked to. See MOS:SEEALSO, which says Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent. The reason for including the links to Kamlesh Tiwari, the Murder of Samuel Paty and the Murder of Lee Rigby is because of how and why they were murdered. This needs to be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for making the See Also wording clear. Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Well stated. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@El C: Kindly revert this misleading revert by Venkat TL per consensus on this section as well as this BLPN thread. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unlikely to pick a side in this content dispute. El_C 03:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I don't think it would seem that you are taking side when you would be implementing a policy based edit opposed by only 1 editor against consensus on at least 2 venues. It is completely uncontroversial for you to make the revert. If you still disagree then you can modify protection to ECP. We can't omit the important information under false garb of WP:BLP. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Both sides are claiming BLP vios against the other. I fully protected one page on one side's version and another on the other's (which happened randomly in the order I encountered these at RfPP). I don't see how ECP would help, you're all extended-confirmed, so you're all likely to just continue edit warring, on either page. So, either you're able to reach consensus, on either page, or reach some sort of resolution at BLPN. I can't really offer you more than that right now, sorry. El_C 04:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C This would just leave this page unchanged, which would effectively freeze it per one editor's views against consensus as pointed out by CapnJackSp. In addition, there are daily updates on this topic which if not included, would make the article inaccurate. Surely there should be a way out of this impasse if one editor refuses to agree on consensus?

There is precedence of how WP:BLP is applied (or not) in such cases. Refer the early days of the articles on Murder of Samuel Paty or Murder of Lee Rigby. These would be prior to the respective courts pronouncing verdicts. My 2 cents. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: That never happened. Only 1 user (Venkat TL) is making "BLP" claims (though false) against the consensus on two venues. Venkat TL first removed the reliably sourced content by falsely claiming India Today to be unreliable and when that failed he focused only on his claim of BLP violation and brought to BLPN where not a single person has agreed with content removal by Venkat TL but everyone disagreed with his claim. "Consensus" unanimously exists on both the talk page and BLPN against this content removal. Multiple editors have supported this (five at the time of writing, including uninvolved editors).

I have thoroughly clarified this for another time, so can you revert this revert now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No. I closed this edit request already, but since you choose to re-open it (which is poor form), you can now have another admin assist you with it. Also, I'm seeing two, not one (not sure why both of you repeat that falsehood), for the one version and three for the other, but this is not a game of numbers. I'm also not sure why you think you can flip wrong version in your favour with an edit request. That's also poor form tbh. But by all means, if you can convince another admin to revert to your version, through an edit request or by any other means, that's fine with me (ditto for the other page, by the other side). I choose to end my role here with stopping the edit warring on the two pages in question. The seeming expectation that I respond to comments while mine remain un-addressed — I don't like that. Anyway, bowing out. See ya. El_C 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reformatting this request for others to understand more easily as follow.

3rd paragraph on Murder of Kanhaiya Lal#Perpetrators is:-

On 1 July 2022, pictures of Mohammad Riyaz Attari emerged which showed him attending BJP events. In a 2020 post on facebook, Attari was described by a local Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader as a "dedicated worker of the BJP".

Change it back to:

On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists, after photos of Attari attending BJP functions surfaced. In a 2020 post on Facebook, Attari had been described by a local Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader as a "dedicated worker of the BJP".

It was unilaterally modified here but the consensus is against it per section above, and also WP:BLPN thread. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not know why you repeat so stridently that there is consensus. There is absolutely not. Your version has severe NPOV problems as well as BLP issues. Consensus is generated by discussing, not by repeatedly reopening edit requests. Hemantha (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The comments by User:El_C are correct. I do not see a blatant BLP violation, so will wait for consensus to emerge from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "As Photos Emerge of Udaipur Killer's Links to BJP Leaders, Party Moves to Damage Control Mode". The Wire (India). 2 July 2022. Retrieved 2 July 2022.
2. "Tailor's murder: Congress alleges one accused is a BJP member". The Telegraph (India). 2 July 2022. Retrieved 2 July 2022.
3. Ojha, Arvind; Hizbullah, Md (1 July 2022). "Udaipur assailants may have plotted to infiltrate Rajasthan BJP Exclusive". India Today. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
4. "Tailor's murder: Congress alleges one accused is a BJP member". The Telegraph (India). 2 July 2022. Retrieved 2 July 2022.
5. Mukhopadhyay, Sounak, ed. (2 July 2022). "Udaipur killer is a BJP karyakarta, claims Congress". Mint (newspaper). Retrieved 2 July 2022.

Protected edit request on 4 July 2022 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following to "Perpetrators" section:

During interrogations, the assailants described themselves as "self-radicalized" and followers of Dawat-e-Islami; both of them had affixed "Attari" to their names to indicate their affiliation to Dawat-e-Islami and its leader Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri. 49.37.247.133 (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "Udaipur killers and Da'wat-e-Islami: the group, its ideology and its growth". The Indian Express. 1 July 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2022.
2. "Kanhaiya Lal's killers tried to infiltrate BJP cadre, reveals probe". Hindustan Times. 2 July 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2022.

 Not done: per WP:SUSPECT. Hemantha (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Hinduism articles
• Low-importance Hinduism articles
• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Rajasthan articles
• Low-importance Rajasthan articles
• C-Class Rajasthan articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Rajasthan articles
• C-Class Indian politics articles
• Mid-importance Indian politics articles
• C-Class Indian politics articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles