Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition row

permission was not withdrawn after ABVP protests

The source says:

JNU administration on Wednesday ordered a "discplinary" enquiry into holding of an event on campus against the hanging of Afzal Guru despite cancellation of permission, as protests by members of ABVP rocked the university demanding expulsion of the student organisers.

These are two separate things.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There was also a protest before the event. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thats not what this source says.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It does:

"The student organisers of the event had pasted posters across the campus inviting them to gather for a protest march against "judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt" and in solidarity with "struggle" of Kashmiri migrants, at varsity's Sabarmati dhaba on Tuesday.

Members of the ABVP objected to the event and wrote to the Vice Chancellor that such kind of marches should not be held on campus of an educational institution, prompting the university administration to order cancellation of the march as they "feared" that it might "disrupt" peace on campus.

But the organisers went ahead with the programme despite the cancellation of the permission and held a cultural programme, art and photo exhibition on the issue rather than a protest."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I added DSU with source. The event was to be held/organized by a this student group. --Ekvastra (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hanging

@Highfly scorpion: now, what's your point? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External Links

@Lemongirl942: What is WP:ELNO about this link [1]? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to write WP:EL. I would prefer if that particular link is not present in the external links section. The link presents a single person's point of view and much of the material is taken from a website which contains user submitted content. Additionally, for a contentious event like this, it is best to avoid placing links in a standalone external links section. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, nobody contested the information in the article (derived from a Quora post). The same material is also present in a Huffington Post article that is currently used as a reference (but not in a serious way). I don't see any disagreement about what happened on that day during the controversial event. The controversy is really about whether the event should have happened at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I got to know about this event a couple of days ago while going through some AfDs and I may not have as detailed a view as others have. However, from what it appears, the article in question essentially republished content posted in Quora (which contains user submitted content). The main reason I'm not comfortable with putting this link in the external links section is because it is hard to verify if the content is indeed true. Putting links (whose content has not been verified) in the external links is a rabbit hole which I feel we can avoid. Should this link be present, someone else could argue and add a link to some alternate version of events as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: (replying here in context of discussion above) I see that you removed my link [2]. I'm personally fine with not having any external links (actually I prefer that). The reason I put that link was to replace an earlier link by Kautilya3 (which I had removed), with a neutral alternative. In case of articles of contentious events/BLPs of people involved in contentious events, the best thing to do is to avoid placing links to single articles since they usually have a single point of view. Sometimes, as a compromise, external links to collections of news reports (from an independent and reliable source) are considered OK as well (see Donald Trump#External links). However, as said before I prefer not having any external links. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right that a single article can often have POV issues, but search aggregates are not allowed per the guideline I linked. The solution would be to find a well-balanced single article, but links are not necessary, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I inserted one link which seems to me the original speech which set of this chain of events. If you or anyone objects to it, it can be removed immediately. For adding any further external links, I would suggest we do it by consensus. As for other links, I guess relevant court transcripts which disproved the accusations can be included as well like it is done at Miller v. Davis#External links. Oh, and I don't like Trump either but it's best not to do this [3]. ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The original speech seems entirely appropriate link, in that context. Oh, and the Trump thing was entirely unintentional; I was trying out the famous (infamous?) "drumpfinator", a browser extension. It is supposed to affect only read-only text, and not change stuff in the edit window; so I'm glad it happened in an unimportant context, so that I can remove the extension. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries haha. If it wasn't WP:OR, you could have added it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Umar Khalid

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.

---

This person is not notable outside the event and has no much importance. He has become popular only due due to the controversial acts and thus there was a wide news coverage. Can be merged into the article KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Independent notability as seen by WP:INDAFD results. Continued attempts to remove this article amount to WP:GEOBIAS AusLondonder (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been multiple AFDs for deleting/merging Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Shehla Rashid Shora. All of them concluded with not deleting/merging the individual articles and instead improve them, because of fan bias. No new argument has been presented in this merge proposal which has not been discussed earlier. The reason for merge given here was discussed earlier and the AFD concluded with Keep ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per the recent AfD result of Umar Khalid. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject meets WP:BASIC, and merging all of the information in Umar Khalid into this article would be difficult, given that a lot of it is personal information unrelated to this page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Propose merge with JNU and sibings of that page. This person was unknown before the JNU sedition issue. The Sedition Issue itself was co-created by Umar Khalid. In that way, this is tautology as he created the news that he now seeks a place in the sun (or Wiki) for. Before the issue he was unknown, now that he has been punished by JNU and the punishment has been conditionally stayed by the Delhi High Court, he continues to stay out of the news. His entire existence in the public eye is predicated on his status as a student of JNU and a history of his activities there. The fact that his father S Q R Ilyas, was head of the SIMI--a banned Muslim student organization for having domestic terror ties, , was largely unknown, till the JNU Sedition controversy, and his subsequent disappearance for 14 days, . As with the Shehla Rashid Shora article, this article is authored, edited and protected by the same individuals, who have commented as recently as yesterday "how they want JNU pages protected from goons and vandals" Both articles use POVs such as "leading figure" "powerful interview" among other hyperboles to describe the individuals and their activity. Such words are not supported by the material cited. Moreover in each of these news articles, the descriptions are from the individuals about the whom the page is about. These are not quotes from an independent, or neutral source. Taking into sum that these individual are of low-importance, that the sources are self-referential, and that editors have openly displayed a bias in editing and protecting these pages; these pages should be merged to mere footnotes. In a violation of Facebook policy, Umar Khalid and his family have changed the name on profile of his older sister Sarah Fatima, who lives in Toronto, Canada, with the pictures that belong to his underage sister (11-year old), whose name cannot be used as she is not of legal age. How can a 11-year old have graduated and be working? Such tactics reveal the deceptive practices used by this group to further their agenda. Wiki which is non-partisan, crowd-funded, crowd-sourced, resource should not abet it. Thank you.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:3195:603F:97DF:A749 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet

References

References

The discussion above 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.

Undiscussed page move

@Vanamonde93: It looks like you have moved the page to a new title without discussion. I don't agree with your rationale, because the arrest of the student leaders on sedition charges was the centre of the subject. Moreover, terms like "JNU sedition row" have been used as tags for the topic by plenty of newspapers. "JNU protests" is quite non-descript, and doesn't convey the subject of the article adequately in my opinion. So, opening a discussion... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Kautilya3. "2016 JNU sedition controversy" is more descriptive. JNU held other protests too in 2016 that were covered by media publications, like that about UGC fellowships. "2016 JNU Protests" is tad more generic. After this incident there were open lectures with JNU that revolved around sedition, free speech, limits of democracy etc. Sedition is relevant and IMO the article title must be changed back. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

True enough, I boldly moved the page, and I'm quite wiling to move it back if folks have issues. Aside from the issue I mentioned in the edit summary, though (that of coverage focusing on the subsequent protest) I'm not a fan of the term "controversy," and "sedition controversy" focuses too much, IMO, on the initial event. The international coverage and scholarly coverage, especially, focus on the arrest and its fallout: see the BBC sources, for instance. It is true that the terms "sedition controversy" and "sedition row" have been used in the media, but as I have argued elsewhere at length, we need to be careful about not giving undue weight to in the moment media coverage, especially now that we have sources that are not in-the-moment news coverage. When I try to look at what the sources see as the big picture, it is the protests following the arrest, and the reaction to that. If folks still disagree, I'll move the page back. Vanamonde (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Sedition" is just the legal term for what goes by "anti-national" in the normal parlance. The nationalists were obviously worked up about it whereas the student union was claiming "freedom of speech". So the heart of the matter is still how far freedom of speech can go before it becomes seditious. Assuming the slogans that were shouted were seditious (to be ultimately determined by the court), does organising such an event itself constitute sedition? Does protesting the hanging of Afzal Guru constitute sedition? As far as I can see, these were the issues in the topic from the beginning to the end. I will see what the new sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking off the top of my head, yes, the controversy does seem to center around what should be considered sedition and what should be seen as protected free speech. The sources, though, seem less bothered with analyzing the ideological issues, and more with narrating a blow-by-blow account of the events. The handful of sources that do dig into the ideology are the scholarly sources that mention this: and they go even further, simply characterizing the event as an attempt by the Modi government to silence dissent and/or propagate its Hindu-nationalist agenda; and there are not (yet) enough sources saying this for the page to focus on that. Take a look at the recent media coverage, especially internationally, where the numbers are lower (and so it's easier to get a sense of the larger picture). Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything particularly "Hindu" about the affair, but the fact is that the Hindu nationalists are the only nationalists left. It was more a Left vs Right issue.

But if the allegedly seditious slogans had not been shouted, I don't think any of this could have happened, no matter ho hard the nationalists tried. It was also the case that they had a weak HRD minister who couldn't get things done quietly. So things got out of hand very quickly. But we should say that the nationalists won in the end because the students got rusticated and no pro-Afzal demonstrations can happen inside JNU. So the border between free speech and sedition has been laid, at least locally. Another student has been suspended recently at AMU for supporting the Uri attacks on Facebook. The so-called "Indian spring" has evaporated. So, in the end, this was indeed an issue of delineating sedition. Nothing more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that this has been described as a left-versus-right issue, although I'd rather not get into the details of what "left" and "right" mean. However, the contrasting positions of "this was sedition! No it wasn't!" Can also be rephrased as "this is legitimate free speech! No it isn't!" depending on which POV we use to frame the issue. Now I'm sure that most editors would agree that "free speech controversy" would be a nonsensical title: but for similar reasons, we need to be careful about calling it a sedition controversy. Additionally, I'm not particularly interested in who "won" as such, because there have been a number of minor victories on both sides, the rustication issue is still not completely resolved, and the protests have petered out.

However, the fact remains that there were several incidents here that garnered attention, and our title needs to reflect that. If I may make an analogy: the 2002 Gujarat riots followed the Godhra Train Burning, but scholarly consensus has moved away from "post-Godhra riots" as a term; why? because it has generally been recognized that there was more going on that just a reaction to Godhra. It's much the same here: the initial event clearly had a large impact, but there is more to this string of events than a reaction to those slogans. For instance, the JNU election results (which you added!) have clearly much more to do with the anti-ABVP reaction, than the original slogans: they are certainly not seen as support for Afzal Guru. Hence my newer and admittedly blander title. Vanamonde (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good arguments. I will re-read the sources with your eyes and see what they say :-)

ChunnuBhai, what say you? Joshua Jonathan, do you have an opinion here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I also think that "sedition controversy", or "sedition protests" or "sedition rows" is more descriptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I agree with you about that part: my concerns are in a slightly different direction. What do you think about the discussion between Kautilya and myself above? Vanamonde (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I read it 'diagonally'; I'll have to read it better to be able to give a qualified response to it (is that correct English?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I read it better. You may be right that there are broader issues at stake here, and that in time this will become clearer, when 'the bigger picture' crystallizes. But, precisely for that reason, I'd still prefer to stick tot he term "sedition," since that's what these protests initially were about, and because that's what still sticks in my memory. The page can still be moved to a more general name later on. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I don't agree, but I can see where the argument is coming from. @Kautilya3: what are your thoughts at this point? This discussion does not seem to be getting much response outside the three of us. Vanamonde (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I was questioning why this article is named "JNU protests" and just found this discussion. I agree that JNU sedition row is better, and even now "JNU sedition" has more results on Google than "JNU protests". I have moved the page. Orientls (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)