Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition row/Archive 1

Archive 1

Split-off

This article was created as a split-off from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi per Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi#Split proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat should be described as terrorists

Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat should be described as terrorists.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:TERRORIST. It says

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

So, even if the word "terrorist" is used, it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. --Gaurav (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Pollock petition

See Talk:Sheldon Pollock#Petition For Ouster Of Sheldon Pollock As Editor Of Murty Classical Library. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be covered by multiple sources. Please add JJ.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Article title misleading

The JNU incident was controversial before any arrest or sedition charge even occurred.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Why was it controversial? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The cheering of Afzal Guru etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The cheering of Afzal Guru is what has been branded "sedition." - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That branding occurred a few days later. It was controversial before.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Victoria, you need to find a better source than youtube...Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we note how sedition charges are rolling up to non-students ?

Rahul Gandhi, Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, and others face sedition charges stemming from the row. The charges appear to be based on questionable grounds, but I think the debatable charges is material to how the row has spread based on some level of political motivation. A hearing on these sedition charges is reportedly set for 4 March. It's notable that the charges appear to have been filed after Rahul Gandhi made statements that were critical of BJP, inviting questions as to whether the sedition complaint against the public officials was politically-motivated. Do we wait to see what happens after the 4 March hearing ? Either way, this should be monitored, because it should be included under wider political fallout from the JNU row. Maslowsneeds (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Won't the politicians love to get arrested on sedition charges? But we need to find more information about the lawyers doing these things. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As Anthony McAuliffe said: "Nuts!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wait 1 week, and see what happens.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ehm... all opposition members being charged on sedition? India becoming the laughing stock of the world? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading the interview, you would think you get better legal representation from the reporter than the lawyer. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This Gandhi was also accused of sedition - by the British... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Rules were not followed re : Parliamentary record

Depending on whether others believe that this rises to the level of notability to be mentioned, that the lower house of Parliament, Lok Sabha, didn't follow its own rules about how some discussions are not supposed to make it into its official record may be indicative of political influences or motivations in how the government viewed the sedition controversy. It's been bothering me for a few days what to do with this. If it doesn't yet apply, then I'll just bookmark this here, so we can circle back, because I think there's something that could be here that is material to the political fallout, particularly given that Parliament's treatment of the sedition controversy appears to have had political overtones (because it didn't follow its own rules). Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of ABVP reference

@VictoriaGrayson: has twice in row made a unilateral deletion of reference to ABVP in the article's introduction. The reference has held thus far after a series of amendments by many editors to the article, and I believe that the reference is material to the controversy. What do other people think ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• DeleteVictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any reason for deleting this. And Victoria also hasn't provided any reason. --Gaurav (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ABVP is undue for lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep That there were protests by ABVP is well-established and are material to the politics of the controversy and to how the controversy snow-balled from within JNU into the political response from other Hindu nationalists across the nation, as well. Maslowsneeds (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Don't know The ABVP saked for the event to be cancelled; that's relevant info. This was not in the body of the article, so Vic does have a point. Calling the removal "vandalism" goes to far; on the other hand, Vic could have added it to the body of the article. Mentioning of the ABVP in the lead is politically charged, of course; on the other hand, politics are central to this issue. Meanwhile, I've added some clarifications to the lead.

Umar Khalid

Is there any interesting among the participants here to develop the Umar Khalid article. It has been created once and deleted because it was quite substandard. Another user is now trying to create it, but he seems quite inexperienced. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Did IB agents shout the slogans ?

New news segment raises questions as to whether Intelligence Bureau agents shouted the anti-India slogans. File this under conspiracy talk for now, but given state efforts to "malign the institution" of JNU, as the news report source indicates, the state's position has been to direct discussion of the controversy to that end. There was another report that raised questions about whether the people shouting the slogans were outsiders. We'll have to see if those people are ever identified. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

edits to the Introduction

Looks like edits to the Introduction were made that are similar to those made to the Introduction of Kanhaiya Kumar. These edits reflect the preliminary findings of an academic probe, and, as such, the findings are not final. Are both of these edits appropriate ? If the outcome of any probe should be reflected in the introduction, shouldn't it be that Kumar was cleared of any wrong-doing by the New Delhi magistrate ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the Indology list

The thread beginning here debates the Jutice Pratibha Rani bail order and what it means. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)