This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
LearnIndology please don't blank the article. If you think its a POVFORK, please take it to AfD. I don't think this is a POV fork. What POV is this forking? This article is about the event and there is currently no other article on this event. Nupur Sharma (politician) article is about the person. VR talk 05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL "spokesperson of India's ruling ..." might be misconstrued to suggest that she represents India as part of the ruling party.
I will update the wording to below which should provide the context:
On 27 May 2022, Nupur Sharma, the then national spokesperson of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), made controversial remarks regarding the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The article needs the cited quotations that are ostensibly the basis for the article. Without them, these are vague, hearsay aspersions. 172.58.102.208 ( talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
First thought came to mind after reading article title was, what is 'BJP Muhammad'? Whether a – sign is needed in between 'BJP–Muhammad' Though I am not good enough in English grammar, IMHO, article title seem to need improvement with better articulation.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Do not add BJP in the title as Entire party is not involved in the whole controversy; few members were involved and made controversial remark on Prophet Muhammad; expelled and got suspended from the ruling party in India. ScriptKKiddie ( talk) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you prove that the entire BJP is involved in this whole controversy? ScriptKKiddie ( talk) 01:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
They were not suspended for more than a week and it was only done to calm to international reaction. So, basically party didn’t distanced itself from that remark until the controversy blew international. O osheikh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
end of the discussion. O osheikh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This write up seems to better explain what happened:
What happened: The controversy began with comments made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokeswoman Nupur Sharma on the TV station Times Now on May 27. Sharma was commenting on the Gyanvapi mosque controversy. The mosque in northeast India was built on the site of an earlier Hindu shrine. Some Islamists have reportedly claimed that there actually was no shrine at the site. During the TV segment, Sharma rhetorically asked if she should "mock" some parts of the Muslim holy book, the Quran. She specifically mentioned "flying horses," a likely reference to the buraq creature. She also brought up the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, describing her as 9 years old at the time the marriage was consummated, according to local media.
Aisha’s exact age at the time of the marriage is unknown. Some scholars believe she was a child. Others have countered that she had reached puberty by time the marriage was consummated. Critics of Islam regularly cite Aisha’s age. After Sharma’s comments, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokesman for the Delhi region Naveen Kumar Jindal accused Muhammad of rape in a tweet. Sharma later apologized, saying she was lashing out in response to insults to Hindus. For his part, Jindal subsequently deleted the tweet. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is India’s governing party and espouses Hindu nationalism, has also suspended both of them.
Both incidents have caused outrage in India and led to communal violence.
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 16:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Should not remove this I guess. Let the people get the right information about what happened on that media debate. O osheikh ( talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hemantha please explain this revert? The material was sourced by India Today, India.com, Jansatta and other local news reporting bodies. If at the citations should be improved because now there are more established media houses writing about it than only the local ones which were the only ones when the story was developing.
All the claims in the wiki text was based line-to-line from the citations used. Xoocit ( talk) 14:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
the peaceful protests lasted for 10-15 minutes after which the crowd started to stone-pelt on the police force guarding the area., you need to read all the Wikipedia policies once again. Do read the ones I linked in the edit summary first. I also note that you've added their sentence with no paraphrasing. Hemantha ( talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL why do you believe that only International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be in the See Also section? This page covers the controversy and the reaction to that controversy, so shouldn't Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy both be included? -- Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Webberbrad007
removed a sentence from the lead, claiming: This isn't the controversy or even the response to the controversy. This is tertiary to the topic and thus not Lede material per MOS:LEAD
. The sentence in question was
The supporters of BJP reacted to these actions with anger, calling them "cowardly". [1]
References
- ^ Hannah Ellis-Petersen (6 June 2022), "Prophet Muhammad remarks embroil India in row with Gulf states", The Guardian
How exactly do you decide what is and what isn't part of the "controversy"? Muslims protesting the remarks are part of the controversy, and the Hindu nationalists supporting the remarks are outside the controversy?
The Guardian wrote:
However, many observers pointed out that the two had faced no action when their comments had first been flagged over a week ago by Muslims and civil rights activists in India. Instead there had been calls by BJP supporters for the arrest of the journalist who had called out the Islamophobic comments on social media.... The decision to expel Sharma and Jindal was met with anger from some BJP supporters, who called the decision “cowardly”.
BBC wrote:
But since her suspension, support has also been growing for the beleaguered former BJP spokesperson - hashtags such as #ISupportNupurSharma and #TakeBackNupurSharma have trended daily on social media, with tens of thousands praising her. [1]
The Washington Post wrote:
Modi’s party also faced anger from some of its own supporters, but it was for a different reason. Many Hindu nationalists posted comments on social media saying the government was buckling under international pressure. [2]
The Siasat Daily documented:
Right-wing masses on Twitter have expressed their disappointment with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for suspending its spokesperson Nupur Sharma by using the hashtag #ShameOnBJP.... “Every BJP supporter hangs his head in shame for supporting such a spineless bunch,” wrote a Twitter user. [3]
IANS:
Many 'supporters' of the BJP were outraged by the decision and called it an appeasement of the kind that used to be practised by the Congress. [4]
The Telegraph:
The Right-wing ecosystem on Monday turned on the BJP for suspending spokesperson Nupur Sharma, with the hashtag “#ShameOnBJP” trending on Twitter, prompting suggestions that the ruling dispensation may have lost control over the troll army it had once unleashed for political gain, unless a time-tested good-cop-bad-cop tactic is being deployed to address conflicting overseas and domestic concerns. Those castigating the party for “throwing to the wolves” a “young Hindu leader” included prominent BJP supporters, while indirect criticism came even from party motormouth Kapil Mishra and the director of The Kashmir Files. [5]
Barkha Dutt:
Sure, for now, media representatives of the BJP will watch their words when they appear on panels. But let’s not kid ourselves. For hundreds of thousands of far-right supporters of the Modi government, Sharma is a cause célèbre. Just look at the flood of “I stand with Nupur Sharma” comments on social media and calls to boycott Qatar Airways. This mass messaging once again appears to be coordinated by a well-oiled, centralized machinery. [6]
If this is supposedly outside the controversy, why are they all writing about it in their articles on the controversy? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 19:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
References
HE the Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Sheikh Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz al-Thani chaired the Cabinet's regular meeting at the Amiri Diwan yesterday, Qatar News Agency (QNA) reported. Following the meeting, HE the Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs Mohamed bin Abdullah al-Sulaiti issued a statement giving the details of the proceedings.
As quoted from the news article above, This is as official as it gets, yet @ CapnJackSp is needlessly arguing to remove this official condemnation. Its removal by @ REDISCOVERBHARAT is basically whitewashing and censorship using a frivolous excuse. Please explain your position below why you think this is a personal opinion and not Qatari official position. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Your addition in the background section appears to be tangential and forced. Some ill thought and rude comments about the Prophet's marriage (and flying horses) in a debate on the Gyanvapi controversy had the background of the Gyanvapi controversy. The Gyanvapi controversy has the history of Gyanvapi mosque as the background. This specific linkage of Hindutva to the background seems WP:SYNTH. We need RS to mention it as the background of the controversy. Webberbrad007 ( talk) 10:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes,Critics say Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal's comments reflect the deep religious polarisation that the country has been witnessing over the past few years. Hate speech and attacks against Muslims have risen sharply since the BJP came to power in 2014.
And, literally every single English daily of eminence has documented the episode vis-a-vis BJP's active patronage of Islamophobic hate speeches since long. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[The strategy of BJP is] Say things with impunity about minorities, show your toughness by baiting Islam. Convert tractable political disputes into a whole-scale ideological attack on Islam or Muslims. If you get away with it, you claim credit for showing the strength of Hindus, for a kind of tough bravado. If, on the other hand, there is a reaction of any kind, a push-back, you turn around and claim victim status. If impunity succeeds, you gain power. If impunity fails, you convert that into fodder for a feigned victimhood on which Hindutva thrives. And that is exactly how the BJP will play this humiliation in the broader poisoning of civil society.
In this instance, the fact that the speech in question was made by an official spokesperson of the party, and widely propagated, unchallenged, by India’s communal and supine television media, made the vile remarks on Prophet Mohammad particularly dangerous.
If you wish to remove the former line, please go ahead. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Thomas Blom Hansen, a scholar of contemporary violence in India, remarks BJP and others to have aided in the rampant proliferation of prejudice and hate against Muslims, portraying them as the ubiquitous enemy of the nation and facilitating unprecedented collective violence upon them.
This is a background section and the purpose of the section is to let the readers come to speed about [relevant] ongoing events in India.- Precisely; thanks. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@ REDISCOVERBHARAT Zee News and TimesNow are not considered reliable sources. Do not edit war to add them into the article. Find better sources. See WP:TOI Venkat TL ( talk) 08:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
While it was not really wise to add TimesNow.com for sourcing a statement on Saudi Arabia section, it can be replaced with another source since the information itself isn't controversial. But to remove additional content, unrelated to the sourcing issue, by providing the reason "unreliable source" is definitely disruptive editing. LearnIndology ( talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
There are other sources available which should be acceptable - like The Hindu Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Replaced unreliable sources with reliable sources 😉. Grabup ( talk) 09:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The Opinion of Dutch politician is WP:UNDUE. @ REDISCOVERBHARAT in the past 10 days, hundreds of politicians have opined on this controversy. The page mentions official diplomatic opinions, as they are relevant. Individual opinions are not being added here. Please make consensus to add it. Dont edit war. Venkat TL ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
As the name of the section is "International reactions" His remarks should be there , other remarks are from Islamic countries or organisations and the section does not say only deplomatic oficial statement should be added.
Bharat0078 ( talk) 09:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Unnecessary content fork. The newly created article adds 0 information, and it is virtually entirely extracted from 2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Ranchi, not even worded differently. -- Mooonswimmer 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It has been very widely reported in news media that the remarks of Naveen Jindal are a major part of this controversy. Yet, most media have self-censored those remarks as they were deeply offensive. (For example, BBC refused to describe Nupur Sharma's remarks saying they were too offensive to print). This is similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - most newspapers described the controversy but refused to print the cartoons, yet our wikipedia article includes the cartoons anyway. Should we include Jindal's remarks in this article? VR talk 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3 please could explain your revert here and here despite counter-examples from established articles and consensus on usage here? Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.Prominent display of a primary source highlighted in a box, while the secondary sources do not describe it in even vaguest terms, and the source itself has been deleted and you had to fetch it from archive.org, shows a high degree of WP:OR. Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable secondary sources. You are trying to turn it into a tabloid. Take it to WP:RSN or do an WP:RFC. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Tweets have been used in multiple Wikipedia pages where they have been relevant. See Social media use by Donald Trump page for example.Webberbrad007 ( talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Jindal's tweet/statement is cited by most RS when they refer to this controversy. Just a few RS:
Clearly his comments are WP:DUE in this article. VR talk 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source discussing the difference in the action on 2 leaders? Expulsion appears to be more stern than temporary suspension. Venkat TL ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The
#Background section says that Tensions surrounding this site
[the
Gyanvapi Mosque] have resulted in raucous debates on Indian TV channels.
I added a POV-inline tag as the word "raucous" seems to be a violation of
MOS:LABEL as it holds a negative connotation. Is there a better wording to use?
Dunutubble (
talk) (
Contributions) 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
LearnIndology please don't blank the article. If you think its a POVFORK, please take it to AfD. I don't think this is a POV fork. What POV is this forking? This article is about the event and there is currently no other article on this event. Nupur Sharma (politician) article is about the person. VR talk 05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL "spokesperson of India's ruling ..." might be misconstrued to suggest that she represents India as part of the ruling party.
I will update the wording to below which should provide the context:
On 27 May 2022, Nupur Sharma, the then national spokesperson of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), made controversial remarks regarding the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The article needs the cited quotations that are ostensibly the basis for the article. Without them, these are vague, hearsay aspersions. 172.58.102.208 ( talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
First thought came to mind after reading article title was, what is 'BJP Muhammad'? Whether a – sign is needed in between 'BJP–Muhammad' Though I am not good enough in English grammar, IMHO, article title seem to need improvement with better articulation.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Do not add BJP in the title as Entire party is not involved in the whole controversy; few members were involved and made controversial remark on Prophet Muhammad; expelled and got suspended from the ruling party in India. ScriptKKiddie ( talk) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you prove that the entire BJP is involved in this whole controversy? ScriptKKiddie ( talk) 01:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
They were not suspended for more than a week and it was only done to calm to international reaction. So, basically party didn’t distanced itself from that remark until the controversy blew international. O osheikh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
end of the discussion. O osheikh ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This write up seems to better explain what happened:
What happened: The controversy began with comments made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokeswoman Nupur Sharma on the TV station Times Now on May 27. Sharma was commenting on the Gyanvapi mosque controversy. The mosque in northeast India was built on the site of an earlier Hindu shrine. Some Islamists have reportedly claimed that there actually was no shrine at the site. During the TV segment, Sharma rhetorically asked if she should "mock" some parts of the Muslim holy book, the Quran. She specifically mentioned "flying horses," a likely reference to the buraq creature. She also brought up the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, describing her as 9 years old at the time the marriage was consummated, according to local media.
Aisha’s exact age at the time of the marriage is unknown. Some scholars believe she was a child. Others have countered that she had reached puberty by time the marriage was consummated. Critics of Islam regularly cite Aisha’s age. After Sharma’s comments, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokesman for the Delhi region Naveen Kumar Jindal accused Muhammad of rape in a tweet. Sharma later apologized, saying she was lashing out in response to insults to Hindus. For his part, Jindal subsequently deleted the tweet. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is India’s governing party and espouses Hindu nationalism, has also suspended both of them.
Both incidents have caused outrage in India and led to communal violence.
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 16:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Should not remove this I guess. Let the people get the right information about what happened on that media debate. O osheikh ( talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hemantha please explain this revert? The material was sourced by India Today, India.com, Jansatta and other local news reporting bodies. If at the citations should be improved because now there are more established media houses writing about it than only the local ones which were the only ones when the story was developing.
All the claims in the wiki text was based line-to-line from the citations used. Xoocit ( talk) 14:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
the peaceful protests lasted for 10-15 minutes after which the crowd started to stone-pelt on the police force guarding the area., you need to read all the Wikipedia policies once again. Do read the ones I linked in the edit summary first. I also note that you've added their sentence with no paraphrasing. Hemantha ( talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL why do you believe that only International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be in the See Also section? This page covers the controversy and the reaction to that controversy, so shouldn't Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy both be included? -- Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Webberbrad007
removed a sentence from the lead, claiming: This isn't the controversy or even the response to the controversy. This is tertiary to the topic and thus not Lede material per MOS:LEAD
. The sentence in question was
The supporters of BJP reacted to these actions with anger, calling them "cowardly". [1]
References
- ^ Hannah Ellis-Petersen (6 June 2022), "Prophet Muhammad remarks embroil India in row with Gulf states", The Guardian
How exactly do you decide what is and what isn't part of the "controversy"? Muslims protesting the remarks are part of the controversy, and the Hindu nationalists supporting the remarks are outside the controversy?
The Guardian wrote:
However, many observers pointed out that the two had faced no action when their comments had first been flagged over a week ago by Muslims and civil rights activists in India. Instead there had been calls by BJP supporters for the arrest of the journalist who had called out the Islamophobic comments on social media.... The decision to expel Sharma and Jindal was met with anger from some BJP supporters, who called the decision “cowardly”.
BBC wrote:
But since her suspension, support has also been growing for the beleaguered former BJP spokesperson - hashtags such as #ISupportNupurSharma and #TakeBackNupurSharma have trended daily on social media, with tens of thousands praising her. [1]
The Washington Post wrote:
Modi’s party also faced anger from some of its own supporters, but it was for a different reason. Many Hindu nationalists posted comments on social media saying the government was buckling under international pressure. [2]
The Siasat Daily documented:
Right-wing masses on Twitter have expressed their disappointment with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for suspending its spokesperson Nupur Sharma by using the hashtag #ShameOnBJP.... “Every BJP supporter hangs his head in shame for supporting such a spineless bunch,” wrote a Twitter user. [3]
IANS:
Many 'supporters' of the BJP were outraged by the decision and called it an appeasement of the kind that used to be practised by the Congress. [4]
The Telegraph:
The Right-wing ecosystem on Monday turned on the BJP for suspending spokesperson Nupur Sharma, with the hashtag “#ShameOnBJP” trending on Twitter, prompting suggestions that the ruling dispensation may have lost control over the troll army it had once unleashed for political gain, unless a time-tested good-cop-bad-cop tactic is being deployed to address conflicting overseas and domestic concerns. Those castigating the party for “throwing to the wolves” a “young Hindu leader” included prominent BJP supporters, while indirect criticism came even from party motormouth Kapil Mishra and the director of The Kashmir Files. [5]
Barkha Dutt:
Sure, for now, media representatives of the BJP will watch their words when they appear on panels. But let’s not kid ourselves. For hundreds of thousands of far-right supporters of the Modi government, Sharma is a cause célèbre. Just look at the flood of “I stand with Nupur Sharma” comments on social media and calls to boycott Qatar Airways. This mass messaging once again appears to be coordinated by a well-oiled, centralized machinery. [6]
If this is supposedly outside the controversy, why are they all writing about it in their articles on the controversy? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Webberbrad007 ( talk) 19:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
References
HE the Prime Minister and Minister of Interior Sheikh Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz al-Thani chaired the Cabinet's regular meeting at the Amiri Diwan yesterday, Qatar News Agency (QNA) reported. Following the meeting, HE the Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs Mohamed bin Abdullah al-Sulaiti issued a statement giving the details of the proceedings.
As quoted from the news article above, This is as official as it gets, yet @ CapnJackSp is needlessly arguing to remove this official condemnation. Its removal by @ REDISCOVERBHARAT is basically whitewashing and censorship using a frivolous excuse. Please explain your position below why you think this is a personal opinion and not Qatari official position. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Your addition in the background section appears to be tangential and forced. Some ill thought and rude comments about the Prophet's marriage (and flying horses) in a debate on the Gyanvapi controversy had the background of the Gyanvapi controversy. The Gyanvapi controversy has the history of Gyanvapi mosque as the background. This specific linkage of Hindutva to the background seems WP:SYNTH. We need RS to mention it as the background of the controversy. Webberbrad007 ( talk) 10:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes,Critics say Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal's comments reflect the deep religious polarisation that the country has been witnessing over the past few years. Hate speech and attacks against Muslims have risen sharply since the BJP came to power in 2014.
And, literally every single English daily of eminence has documented the episode vis-a-vis BJP's active patronage of Islamophobic hate speeches since long. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[The strategy of BJP is] Say things with impunity about minorities, show your toughness by baiting Islam. Convert tractable political disputes into a whole-scale ideological attack on Islam or Muslims. If you get away with it, you claim credit for showing the strength of Hindus, for a kind of tough bravado. If, on the other hand, there is a reaction of any kind, a push-back, you turn around and claim victim status. If impunity succeeds, you gain power. If impunity fails, you convert that into fodder for a feigned victimhood on which Hindutva thrives. And that is exactly how the BJP will play this humiliation in the broader poisoning of civil society.
In this instance, the fact that the speech in question was made by an official spokesperson of the party, and widely propagated, unchallenged, by India’s communal and supine television media, made the vile remarks on Prophet Mohammad particularly dangerous.
If you wish to remove the former line, please go ahead. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Thomas Blom Hansen, a scholar of contemporary violence in India, remarks BJP and others to have aided in the rampant proliferation of prejudice and hate against Muslims, portraying them as the ubiquitous enemy of the nation and facilitating unprecedented collective violence upon them.
This is a background section and the purpose of the section is to let the readers come to speed about [relevant] ongoing events in India.- Precisely; thanks. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@ REDISCOVERBHARAT Zee News and TimesNow are not considered reliable sources. Do not edit war to add them into the article. Find better sources. See WP:TOI Venkat TL ( talk) 08:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
While it was not really wise to add TimesNow.com for sourcing a statement on Saudi Arabia section, it can be replaced with another source since the information itself isn't controversial. But to remove additional content, unrelated to the sourcing issue, by providing the reason "unreliable source" is definitely disruptive editing. LearnIndology ( talk) 09:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
There are other sources available which should be acceptable - like The Hindu Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Replaced unreliable sources with reliable sources 😉. Grabup ( talk) 09:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The Opinion of Dutch politician is WP:UNDUE. @ REDISCOVERBHARAT in the past 10 days, hundreds of politicians have opined on this controversy. The page mentions official diplomatic opinions, as they are relevant. Individual opinions are not being added here. Please make consensus to add it. Dont edit war. Venkat TL ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
As the name of the section is "International reactions" His remarks should be there , other remarks are from Islamic countries or organisations and the section does not say only deplomatic oficial statement should be added.
Bharat0078 ( talk) 09:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Unnecessary content fork. The newly created article adds 0 information, and it is virtually entirely extracted from 2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Ranchi, not even worded differently. -- Mooonswimmer 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It has been very widely reported in news media that the remarks of Naveen Jindal are a major part of this controversy. Yet, most media have self-censored those remarks as they were deeply offensive. (For example, BBC refused to describe Nupur Sharma's remarks saying they were too offensive to print). This is similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - most newspapers described the controversy but refused to print the cartoons, yet our wikipedia article includes the cartoons anyway. Should we include Jindal's remarks in this article? VR talk 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3 please could explain your revert here and here despite counter-examples from established articles and consensus on usage here? Webberbrad007 ( talk) 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.Prominent display of a primary source highlighted in a box, while the secondary sources do not describe it in even vaguest terms, and the source itself has been deleted and you had to fetch it from archive.org, shows a high degree of WP:OR. Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable secondary sources. You are trying to turn it into a tabloid. Take it to WP:RSN or do an WP:RFC. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Tweets have been used in multiple Wikipedia pages where they have been relevant. See Social media use by Donald Trump page for example.Webberbrad007 ( talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Jindal's tweet/statement is cited by most RS when they refer to this controversy. Just a few RS:
Clearly his comments are WP:DUE in this article. VR talk 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source discussing the difference in the action on 2 leaders? Expulsion appears to be more stern than temporary suspension. Venkat TL ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The
#Background section says that Tensions surrounding this site
[the
Gyanvapi Mosque] have resulted in raucous debates on Indian TV channels.
I added a POV-inline tag as the word "raucous" seems to be a violation of
MOS:LABEL as it holds a negative connotation. Is there a better wording to use?
Dunutubble (
talk) (
Contributions) 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)