Talk:Jat reservation agitation

untitled

The rape case on the NH1 near Murthal even made major international news. Can somebody please add a proper sentence for this incident, and clean up the mess here? E.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/02/24/rape-haryana-_n_9304156.html --ReiniUrban (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

See this: The 'rape' part is most probably a hoax. People, including women, were beaten up, though. utcursch | talk 00:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: One woman has come forward and filed an FIR, although the police are looking at "family dispute as once of the angles in the case". utcursch | talk 15:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Claims of this picture

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jat_reservation_3.jpg

@Chaser9: Can you verify the identity of these people, and the reason for cooking is to feed public and not themselves? --Captain Spark (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the picture. Chaser9, please note that unverifiable information is always subject to removal (see WP:V). --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Spark: Since there was no media coverage at the time of curfew, so how do you want to to verify this?

I have got another picture which has a little wide angle where you can see it is a scene from the protest and the food is being prepared on the highway while the protest is going on. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jat_helping.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser9 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs proof, blaming media can't help. You have to show some https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources . In Wikipedia there are rules. Captain Spark (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Connection to elections

@Chaser9: This source clearly mentions the connection between political loss and the recent agitation.

None of your references [1][2][3] are about Jat agitation. The absence of any mention about non-Jat vote consolidation in these articles doesn't prove anything -- there are other contemporary articles which clearly mention it as one of the factors (e.g. [4][5]).

Your denial of any connection between elections and Jat agitation is your synthesis. If you can find a source which explicitly says that consolidation of non-Jat voters was not a factor in BJP's win, and has nothing to do with the current agitation, please feel free to add it to the article. But do not remove well-sourced content. utcursch | talk 05:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And what will you say about I'm just saying these may be the opinions of some reporters. How can you justify it when 26 out of 90 people to whom BJP gave tickets were Jats which is almost 30% of the total seats??

Moreover the article you cited itself mentions that Jats supported BJP in 2014 election . User: Chaser

References

I've already mentioned those links in my comment. I don't need to say anything. A source needs to. And I've already provided one.

Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy. None of those links mention the agitation -- trying to connect them to this article is your original research.

Find a source that states something like "Recent Jat agitation had absolutely nothing to do with the assembly election results as suggested by some", and feel free to update the article.

If you want to add "Jats also supported BJP", feel free to add it to the article -- but do not remove the well-sourced content about consolidation of non-Jat voters. utcursch | talk 05:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The article you provided can not be considered reliable source, please mention some reliable source also how can agitation which occurred in 2016 affect elections which took place in 2014 is par the logic boundaries. Please provide a better reason or proof of the statement. Also the reason why I'm arguing to remove the statement is that, as event which occurred in 2016 and which is about reservation and not election is changing the reason why BJP came to power in Haryana in 2014. I mean how can a future event effect past event?? If you will research you will find the reason why BJP won the election in 2014 which were held two years earlier than the agitation and not after. User:Chaser9 —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

——————————————————————

Take it to WP:RSN if you think it is not a reliable source. The rest is your WP:OR. utcursch | talk 12:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@0xSkyy: Please read the above discussion. Also, given the fact that you're a single-purpose account, please see WP:MEAT. utcursch | talk 13:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

——————————————————————

utcursch you are just asking us to do this or this, you are talking about facts or even plain logic if you think what you mentioned is true then produce one reputed source which published that and also this is the main point don't ignore it again "prove that how a current event which took place in 2016 can effect an event which took place in 2014" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser9 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

——————————————————————

I've already provided a source which states explains how the 2014 election is connected to these protests. And since, you asked for it, I'm going to add more sources -- in fact, I'm going to create a new section about this. If you or your single-purpose meatpuppet undo any further edits, I'll call for mediation. utcursch | talk 15:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Referencing news published during a polarizing event ( such as "Jat Reservation Agitation" ) where the news reporting parties themselves are likely to have a vested interest in the outcome of the event, seriously raises credibility doubts on the news reports; as opposed to; news reported during normal times( 2014 - after election ), where the assessment of "cause of BJP Win" is likely to be reported from a neutral perspective. ( Hence BJP won because of PM Modi )

Hence utcursch is requested to please follow Neutrality guidelines, and not use Wikipedia as a medium of propaganda.

0xSkyy (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

( p.s. The lines are to separate who wrote what, I was having difficulty reading what was written by whom, ("use them" | "or not" ) )

0xSkyy (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

—————————————————————

I've already mentioned news stories from October 2014, when the elections were held:

• "By uniting non-Jat votes, BJP ends Cong-INLD bipolar politics in Haryana"
• "How polarisation of non-Jat votes brought BJP to shores in Haryana"
• "Non-Jat consolidation works for the BJP"
• "Haryana: Saffron wave sweeps state, but Jats remain loyal to leaders"
• "How Haryana voted: Jat split, non-Jat consolidation"

Not that this matters, though. All your claims ("vested interest", "raises credibility doubts" etc.) are your opinions. Find a source that supports this opinion, and feel free to add it to the article. utcursch | talk 16:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

---

This article has been politicized by User:Utcursch he doesn't listens to anyone's argument and just keep on ranting whatever he thinks is right and finds some bizarre article supporting his views, although I have also provided sufficient references and basic logic which tends towards making the article neutral. Its as if he is trying to spread some propaganda just like the news reporters whose articles he cites. Chaser9 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)User:Chaser9 17:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've not provided "some bizarre article" -- I've provided third-party published sources. I'll drop a note at WT:IN, and seek formal mediation, if required. utcursch | talk 17:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

—————————————————————

utcursch has inserted modified statements referring much older facts, deriving conclusions from those half-facts and citing News sources during the Period of agitation ( likely to be opinionated and non-neutral, because of writers having vested interest of their own based on the outcome of the event/agitation. ) whereas, the complete facts can be supported by much older news articles.

for example: "BJP won due to consolidation of 'Non-Jat' voters" ( election held in 2014 )

Also repeated use of the term "Non-Jats" is purely propaganda derived division and is deemed offensive. utcursch is continuously inserting such statements, thus repeatedly violating neutrality of article and equality of people.

0xSkyy (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there is no source for your claim that the newer sources are likely to be "opinionated and non-neutral" and that the writers have "vested interest". Like I've stated earlier: find a source for your claim.

Secondly, I've already provided older (2014) sources about the 'non-Jat' votes. Your arguments are nothing more than a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter if you find the term "non-Jats" offensive. See WP:Offensive material. utcursch | talk 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The consolidation of non-Jat votes was a factor in BJP's electoral victory

Please provide reputable authentic reference dating before 10 Feb 2016 ( date near the beginning of Jat Agitation ) to support the statement ( desirably from 2014, when election results were neutrally discussed ). And please refrain from editor derived conclusions. utcursch is repeatedly violating neutrality for the article.

0xSkyy (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@0xSkyy: Do you even bother reading comments? I've provided a list of five links above from 2014. Using them to connect the 2014 elections to these agitations would be synthesis. Therefore, the article lists 2016 references, which is perfectly valid, and more appropriate. utcursch | talk 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Please remove duplicate sentence in the introductory paragraph. Sentence:Delhi faced water crisis due to protests.(Last Line)

The protest started on 12 February, and turned violent on and after 20 February. In Haryana, the protesters blocked national highways, state highways and railway lines. They also blocked water supply to the neighbouring Delhi, resulting in a temporary water crisis in that city. The Government deployed Indian Army and paramilitary forces to control the protest. By 25 February 2016, 28 people had been killed and 200 more had been injured in Haryana; 127 people had been arrested.[1] By 22 February, the protests were estimated to have caused a loss of ₹340 billion (US$5.0 billion) in northern India.[2] The Northern Railways has suffered a loss of ₹2 billion (US$29 million) while more than 10 lakh passengers have been affected.[3] Delhi faced water crisis due to protests.

to

The protest started on 12 February, and turned violent on and after 20 February. In Haryana, the protesters blocked national highways, state highways and railway lines. They also blocked water supply to the neighbouring Delhi, resulting in a temporary water crisis in that city. The Government deployed Indian Army and paramilitary forces to control the protest. By 25 February 2016, 28 people had been killed and 200 more had been injured in Haryana; 127 people had been arrested.[1] By 22 February, the protests were estimated to have caused a loss of ₹340 billion (US$5.0 billion) in northern India.[2] The Northern Railways has suffered a loss of ₹2 billion (US$29 million) while more than 10 lakh passengers have been affected.[3]

0xSkyy (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2016

"The protest started on 12 February, and turned violent on and after 20 February."

implies that the protest/protesters were responsible for the violence, whereas Agitation and Violence were co-incidentally parallel as there was another JNU related issue involving lawyers being accidentally targeted and lawyers retaliating. And there was opportunistic destruction caused by anti-social elements from various communities

So kindly change the language to : "The protest started on 12 February, and violence was observed on and after 20 February."

0xSkyy (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Language seems somewhat unnatural. Perhaps this one needs some discussion from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the intro to better summarize the article. utcursch | talk 20:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Intro seems much better. 0xSkyy (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Please remove : "allegedly"
reasoning : The next statement verifies the allegation

Following this, the police entered the hostels of Neki Ram College and Jat College, and allegedly beat them up. The police suprintendent claimed that the police only used a "mild cane-charge" after stones were pelted at the cops.

to

Following this, the police entered the hostels of Neki Ram College and Jat College, and beat them up. The police superintendent claimed that the police only used a "mild cane-charge" after stones were pelted at the cops.

also : suprintendent to superintendent ( spelling correction ) 0xSkyy (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a case of he-said-she-said. The police claim that they took action against stone pelters. The students say the police brutally beat them up. Allegedly seems appropriate, especially because the source uses it: "...a large number of students joined the Jat reservation agitation in Rohtak after policemen entered the college hostels on Thursday night and allegedly beat up many of them.". utcursch | talk 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 March 2016

Please...
——————————————————
Change:

The Jats do not meet any of these criteria. Nevertheless, like many other castes, they have sought to get themselves included in the OBC category.

to

Jats, like many other castes, have sought to get themselves included in the OBC category

——————————————————

Reasoning:

1. The reference cited doesn't reference any solid research, the reference just includes the statement as a snide remark, thus making statement unverifiable.

2. Also older(neutral) source suggests, Jats indeed lag behind other castes such as Gujjars(that already have gained affirmative action benefits) educationally

• The cited reference (in 2nd point) is NOT for the final Supreme Court Decision but whether the Jats meet criteria.
• Also just in case anyone suggests non-manipulation of news during Massive Agitations et al. here's another reference

0xSkyy (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note Utcursch seems to be doing a good job responding to these requests, so I'll leave this to him to answer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Included the ICSSR report details in the article, with NCBC's counter-arguments. utcursch | talk 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

How road blockage can be considered peaceful manner

As discussed in this article 15 February 2016 Jats continue peaceful protests by blockading Delhi-Rohtak Railway tracks. Chief Minister of Haryana remained in power after independence and there in haryana out of 26% Jats population 98 % government jobs they are having. This article is biased one.Drkyt (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed "peaceful" to "non-violent", which is more clear here. Do you have a source for the claim that the Jats have "98% government jobs"? utcursch | talk 17:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)