Jump to content

Talk:JNU attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article for deletion

Reasons

  • Low quality.
  • Politically sensitive topic while article only includes sources that portray one side of the story while ignoring certain major news outlets. Please include BOTH versions of the event.
  • There are no clear FACTS till date. Both sides claim that the other instigated the violence.

I would suggest (based on the above points) locking the article while deleting the parts of the article that dont meet Wikipedia's stringent rules until a clear narrative emerges.

Some unbiased sources (that donot try to "spin a story" in favor of either side)  :

Kindly try to keep Wikipedia as politically neutral as possible. Wikipedia should deal with FACTS, instead of trying to pass off unconfirmed news reports as the truth.

122.177.126.247 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • no Disagree the reasons you posted above are not acceptable reasons to delete. see WP:N to understand when they are WP:DELETEed. The article is now partially locked. If you want any changes, please propose them on the talk page here so that we can discuss. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
122.177.126.247 You have written - "There are no clear FACTS till date. Both sides claim that the other instigated the violence." If a source or set of sources says this, then even something like this can be put into the article. And actually, the left and right had blamed each other and some source conveyed this. If you can find adequate sources to correct the problems in the article which you perceive, those can be integrated into the article. Give it a try. Create an account or just start the conversation here. Cheers. DTM (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Misinformation: Article carries misinformation as it refers to news source which itself is erroneous.
  • Misinformation 1: Article states, background of this is "Anti-CAA protest" being carried by JNU left student groups. Based on source[1]
  • Actual fact 1: In fact, this is a spill over from the ongoing againt Fee-Hike since October-2019.[2][3][4] From several days before that day, Left student groups in university called to prevent students from registration. When students went ahead, several students were stopped or hit. They barged into server rooms and un-plugged servers, brought down university wi-fi network.
So the source referred in the current Background section itself has blatant misinformation as it links this event to Anti-CAA protest. This becomes evident when reports from different sources are analyzed over time. 23:09, 09 January 2020(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skabo12 (talk • contribs)
Not misinformation. I agree with the fact the chronology is not well enough in the background but that does not mean its misinformation. The fact that "Anti-CAA protest" was carried out is true, not wrong and worth mentioning. The attack was not only for fee hikes protest but also due to CAA-protest. I agree with your fact about fee hike which should be given more weightage than CAA. But nothing is misinformation.Dey subrata (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • no Disagree If you claim there are errors, start threads to discuss it. This is not a valid reason for deleting the article. Article passes our notability criteria for events. Hence IMHO, it cannot be deleted. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bollywood reaction

I think a separate sub-heading in the reaction should be made for Bollywood, as Bollywood artists are showing solidarity with JNU in larger number for first time. Like Deepika Padukone in JNU. 1, 2, 3, 4 and Bollywood actors and Directors, Vishal Bhardwaj, Taapsee Pannu, Zoya Akhtar, Anurag Kashyap, Dia Mirza, Swara Bhaskar, Rahul Bose, Sushant Singh Rajput and many more atleast 20-25, at Carter Road and Gateway of India. 5, 6, 7, 8. Dey subrata (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, go ahead and add it, the heading should be "Film Industry reaction" and may be add 2-3 lines on Deepika for attending JNU event. DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
plus Added Though already the section was created, I have just arranged and added few more things in the Protest section. Dey subrata (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Image concerns

@DBigXray: I have added an image just now of the cctv visual that was all over the news. The picture was taken at the Shaheen Bagh protests. Is such a pic ok from Wiki in terms of legality and copyvio? Spot anything wrong with it? There is an alternative version showing both side of the poster. DTM (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

alt, the image on the right is more visible in the image in the article, the image on the left was the police brutality during jamia violence and a girl standing upto the police
DTM It will be better to post this thread on COMMONS:HELPDESK instead of here. Please feel free to remove this thread frm here. You have my approval to remove my comment. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan This is ok so far to my knowledge. The visual(which is not subject material, here the subject is placard) is in public domain and no one claimed its copyright and has been published in every news paper and news channel in India. Secondly, you are not "copying" anything from that visual. Thats visual is a video, a "still" of that video is taken. Finally, you have done a independent work a photgraph of placard along with a background in which a still from a video is added along with a original work of slogan written on it. This never violates any copyright. Even one can add the still of the video, it does not violate. Good to go mate. Dey subrata (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments DBX and Subrata. I have asked my doubts over at the Commons helpdesk. As for removal of this thread I could just minimize it using a hat-hab template. DTM (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
or let the bot archive it early --DBigXrayᗙ 17:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Request move

Can the editors request rename this article from "2020 JNU Attack" to "2020 Jawaharlal Nehru University attack" because only referred as JNU will be confusing, as there are many universities that also using "JNU" as well such as Jagganath University in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Jodpur National University and Jaipur National University, both are also in India itself. I also want to request renaming JNU sedition row to Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition row which is same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.43.3 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on the talk page, I agree to changing Attack into "attack" but I am not fully convinced with the full form. The name commonly used in the media is JNU attack, so I think this is ok. DBigXrayᗙ 13:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

ABVP

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's a fair bit of material about this in the sources; it's probably worth adding all of these, with in-text attribution, because it's early days yet. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Need to be added, along with ABVP Delhi joint Secretary's acceptance of We were asked to step out with rods, acid.

Dey subrata (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I have added the later portion that I've mentioned, you can add the above mentioned portion by you wherever suitable or you can modify my portion giving a heading ABVP's involvement. Dey subrata (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Street lights

In this video, a student says that the street lights were switched off before the masked goons entered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a line is added. Dey subrata (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspect List by Delhi Police

Does this article involve events before 7:00pm, 5 January 2020 ? The suspect list, which names JNUSU President Aishe Ghosh, was about the afternoon attack(Server room, Periyar hostel) on the same date. But ABVP’s admission of involvement and of carrying acid is about the events of 5 January evening after 7 pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandlerMinh (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about the afternoon scuffle, the "attack" is about "violence by masked goons with rods and stones in the evening" for which it came to media. Scuffle often happens in JNU between the two groups. But the chronology of events to be mentioned. Dey subrata (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Dey subrata, Please note this. ChandlerMinh, has a good point. Although we can mention a few lines in the background section. this article is on the Attack in the evening of 5 January. Care should be taken to not mix up the 2 cases. DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I am saying that only. I am agreeing with the user not disagreeing. That why, I corrected some parts of the materials added by him. We have to rewrite the background. Because the background section is still not clear. Dey subrata (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, cool, I had not seen your reply then. Both of us replied here almost at the same time. DBigXrayᗙ 17:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done I went ahead and merged the investigation of 4 Jan incident to the background. DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Detailed background

Dey subrata, a good source to expand the article. DBigXrayᗙ 21:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I will add few missing materials from this article. But you do one thing, go through the Incident section and add or remove if necessary according to this article as I think you have created that section. I will also go through it and the other citations added in it. Dey subrata (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, I don't think we should remove anything from the well sourced incident section. This Article may not have covered everything. DBigXrayᗙ 00:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree and as I have said, if necessary. I have done a quick check, most citations added are of 5 and 6 Jan(early reports) so may be some details could be wrong (not necessary though). Thats why asked you to check once, with those citations and this one. This will be better for the article I think. Dey subrata (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, Ok. Thanks for the clarification. DBigXrayᗙ 00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Server room vandalism dates

As of now, in background, it is mentioned that 2 FIRs filed by the JNU administration for vandalisaing server room on Jan 1 and 4. But multiple other sources mentions it as Jan 3 and 4.[5][6][7][8] Same also in the press note of JNU administration.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skabo12 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata what do you think ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Server room connection shut down(adminstration reconnect the server) on 3rd and there was vandalism on 4th, I am sure of it as most of the report are suggesting that only. Dey subrata (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspects named by Delhi police

User:Pheeniks has been repeatedly adding them in the investigation section and I have reverted it. these names are from the sever room vandalism case, please do not confuse it with case of attack by masked goons. The content you are trying to add is already added in the background section--DBigXrayᗙ 15:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. I got confused by the title of the page. I wasn't "repeatedly" doing it though. Just once. Anyway, I get it.Pheeniks (Talk) 19:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Pheeniks thanks for the kind reply. May be you did it once, There were other IPs/users also adding similar info, so I might have confused. I stand corrected. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive settings

DBigXray One thing I want to add, I think you better close the Article deletion section here in the talk page with a "Not done" tag. As you can see similar discussion happening in that. Any bot is active to archive here??? Dey subrata (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dey subrata, Added archive, it will start after 24 hours. DBigXrayᗙ 18:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, why do you revert the arciving of citations by Gog the Mild. The citation which are used, like those of The Hindu, The India Today, TOI, Hindustan Times and Business Standard, most of them will soon become dead link, and you will never able to archive them in future. I add sports statistics in wiki and frequestly have to revisit citations for making statistics and records and I know what happen with Indian news citation. Please from my experience I am telling its better they be remain with archived link. Dey subrata (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, please see User talk:SerTanmay#Misc_fixes --DBigXrayᗙ 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Acid attack

Verified facts

Hi. Thank you to the writer behind this article, whoever gathered, compiled and published the information here.

However, one of the facts seem misinformed. It is confirmed about acid being carried inside the JNU campus as a threat and weapon; but no acid attack took place. The cited article per se is misleading and states no guarantee about the same. Further, no other news platform can be found confirming the same. Please recheck through multiple sources before mentioning it down here. And kindly edit the point as soon as possible, considering the trusted reputation of the platform.

Thanks. Gulatishifali (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Gulatishifali Acid was not used, that could be a fact but carrying acid was a fact too as accepted by the students and people who were involved and has been mentioned in different reliable sources. Dey subrata (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, any thoughts in it?? Dey subrata (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, obviously the ABVP goons were not carrying acid for lab testings. here is another source confirming the use of acid in attack. [10] And another link [11] confessing that they were carrying acid.DBigXrayᗙ 20:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Fine then, by the number of reliable sources, reporting they were armed with acids and the confessons of Anima Sonkar we can keep the line "armed with.......acid" in the lead. By the way no where in this article its written "attacked with acid". So according to discussion, the present form seems ok then. No need to remove or change. Dey subrata (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 multiple reliable sources and confessions says otherwise

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JNU_attack/Archive_1&oldid=939074758"