Talk:Akbaruddin Owaisi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Introduction Edited

I removed a repeated paragraph within introduction section, I removed this- In his speech, Owaisi said that the 250 million Indian Muslims needed only 15 minutes without the police to show one billion Hindus who is more powerful. --Onegoal91 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Akber.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Akber.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreasonable twisting of facts.

The reference(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-29/hyderabad/36050247_1_akbaruddin-owaisi-bhagyalakshmi-temple-hindus) mentioned clearly state what Owaisi originally said. It states "Muslims would need just 15 minutes without the police to show 100 crore Hindus who is more powerful" and not "Muslims of India needed only 15 minutes without the police to finish off one billion Hindus of India." which I duly corrected. If anyone has a problem discuss it on talk page.

Although there are other sources which interpret this as "finishing off" (Karan Thapar's tweet, Gujarati source), it is fine to have "who is more powerful" in the lead and attribute the "finish off" interpretations. However, let's keep one billion as most readers on English Wikipedia outside India would have no idea what 100 crore is. We are paraphrasing, not quoting in the lead. 222.167.246.150 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013

"We are 25 crores, you are 100 crores. Remove the police for 15 minutes and we will show you who has more courage and strength … Today, I have this mike in front of me. If tomorrow I hold something else, then there will be so much of bloodshed in this country which this country has not seen in the last 1000 years." 117.195.212.188 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The quoted material you're providing is largely already integrated into the text of the article, so it's not clear what you want done. Rivertorch (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The "not-seen-in-1000 years bloodshed" is not in the article. It may be added if there is a reliable secondary source to back it - not the Youtube video (which is the primary source). Gmcssb (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement against India

After referin the citations found, removed text which is not available in any of the attached citation. Regards :)- --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is cited in the Hindi news report (citation 8). "ऐ हिन्दोस्तान तेरी तबाही और बर्बादी तेरा मुस्तकबिल बन जाएगा" (O India, destruction and ruin will be your fate). The report is [here http://visfot.com/index.php/news/8114-akbaruddin-owaisi-hate-speech.html]. I will add it back if you do not have any objections. Gmcssb (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Exact sentence - पूरे हिन्दोस्तान को धमकी देते हुए अकबरूद्दीन ओवैसी ने कहा कि अगर उनकी बात नहीं सुनी गई तो तबाही और बर्बादी पूरे हिन्दुस्तान का मुस्तकबिल (भाग्य) बन जाएगी। (Threatening all of India, Akbaruddin Owaisi said that if his words are not listened to, then destruction and ruin will become the fate of entire India. Gmcssb (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been added back assuming you do not have objections. If you do, please discuss here before removing. Gmcssb (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had enquire about the reliablity and neutrality of visfot.com here, any way the sentence you added is not from the speech of Owaisi, The words पूरे हिन्दोस्तान को धमकी देते हुए अकबरूद्दीन ओवैसी ने कहा are of reporter who is narrating the senario, as well this ऐ हिन्दोस्तान तेरी तबाही और बर्बादी तेरा मुस्तकबिल बन जाएगा (O India, destruction and ruin will be your fate) is the article heading, and no were in that article the reporter says that those are the words of Owaisi. This also proves that the source visfot.com is not even biased but also not a reliable source. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There are more sources which mention threats to India. E.g. BBC News source - He said that Muslims could "teach the rest of the country a lesson" is a comment against rest of country (i.e. India). Regarding visfot.com, as per WP:RS, reliability of any source depends on what it is cited for. An editorial or op-ed or opinion in any source (even BBC or TOI) may be biased, while factual reporting or quoting for most sources may be seen as unbaised. तबाही और बर्बादी comment is being quoted as having been said by Owaisi and are not the reporters words. Visfot.com is a notable site with people like Sitaram Yechuri writing on it. If you like, please attribute the source (e.g. The website visfot.com reported ....). Gmcssb (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please mention about the person as for which the WP article is for, you are moving from the topic and we cant keep on reporting here on the article about his daily activities and speeches. Though his speeches are condemned (including me) but generalizng it to common people is not correct. Regards )--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned, if you think the speeches are too detailed, please start a new article for the speeches. As long as the text pertains to Owaisi and is attributed, there is no problem of moving away from topic. Gmcssb (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you condemn his speeches or support him. Please point out instances of what you call "generalization" and what is "not correct". Gmcssb (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Omer123hussain, why are you removing India again and again? BBC News is clear on it, that is a reliable source. Gmcssb (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

Please Remove On December 24 2012, Owaisi addressed a rally of twenty to twenty-five thousand Muslims in the Nirmal town of Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh. In his two-hour long speech, Owaisi made several inflammatory, disparaging and derogatory comments against Hindus, Hindu deities, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Bharatiya Janata Party, Narendra Modi and United States of America.[6][7][8][9][10]

Owaisi made the statement that "the population of your Hindustan (India) is 1 billion, while we Muslims are 250 million." He added that Muslims of India would need only 15 minutes without the police to show the Hindus of India who is more powerful - the Hindustan of 1 billion or the 250 million Muslims".[6][7][17] The crowd responded to this statement by shouting slogans of "Allahu Akbar" and the leaders present at the meeting supported Owaisi.[8] Owaisi called the Hindus as "impotent" and the Indian police as the "impotent army". He said that not even one crore impotent men can together father one child. He said that these people (Hindus) cannot face the Muslims, and whenever the Muslims start dominating the Hindus, the impotent army (police) intervenes.[18][19][20] Owaisi said that "we (Muslims) will not let you (India or Hindus) live peacefully."[21]

Owaisi repeatedly called Ajmal Amir Kasab, one of the Pakistani militants of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, a "child", and compared him to Narendra Modi. He asked if Kasab was hanged then why is Modi not hanged, and said that the reason was only because Kasab was a Pakistani and Modi is Indian. He said that if the Muslims of India united like the Muslims of Andhra Pradesh, Narendra Modi would soon be hanged.[8][9] Owaisi threatened that if his words were not heard, "O India, destruction and ruin will be your fate".[8] He also dared Narendra Modi to come to Hyderabad, threatening by saying "we will show him then".[8] Owaisi justified the Mumbai bombings of 1993 by saying they were a reaction to the demotion of Babri Masjid.[8] He also questioned the punishment handed out to the accused of the bombings, naming Tiger Memon as one of those punished even though Tiger Memon is still at large.[8]

Owaisi made derogatory comments against Hindu god Rama and his mother Kaushalya.[8] Questioning the birth and the birthplace of Rama, Owaisi asked "where all did Kaushalya go to give birth to Rama and where all did Rama take birth".[8] Owaisi mocked Hindu panentheism saying Hindus have many gods and goddesses, and every eight days, new gods keep coming up.[6][22] In a reference to the Bhagyalakshmi temple in Hyderabad, he said, "We knew about Lakshmi, but who is Bhagyalakshmi, we are not aware."[6] Owaisi mocked Hindu cremation by saying "when you (Hindus) die, you become air after burning and go astray."[3] Owaisi talked in derogatory terms about heritage places of India including Ayodhya, Ajanta caves and Ellora caves.[3]

Owaisi compared the state of Muslims of India to the state of Muslims of the world and blamed India and America for the same.[8] Owaisi said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Vishva Hindu Parishad, and the Bharatiya Janata Party were poisonous snakes, and to "crush their heads" a stick is enough.[8]

After the speech, Owaisi left for London citing "medical treatment" as the reason.[8] NDTV reported on January 3 that Owaisi was getting treated for intestinal injuries he sustained when he was attacked over a land dispute in 2009.[23] Owaisi returned to Hyderabad on January 7.[13]

India1234567 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not inclined to remove that much cited text without a good reason. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013

The article contains incomplete quotes and out of context inferences.

AS the matter is too sensitive and may provoke violence and the case is subjudice in India, the article either may refer to the said provocative speeches without selective quotes from the speeches.

This article is about personality, the event may have a separate Wikipedia page.

Unbiased editor must review and edit it as soon as possible.

195.229.115.202 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please discuss your concerns on this page and gain consensus. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

collection of speeches.

I shall be c/e all the collection of owaisi speeches, as this article is not the collection or biography of his speeches or any case book. Any way I recommend to discuss the latest provcative speech of his which had created issues in AP. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Most quotes in speeches are notable and have been reported in media. Given the seriousness of the charges he is facing (IPC sections under which he is charged pertain to sedition and waging war against India) and given the media coverage of the speeches in multiple languages, it is important to have them on Wikipedia. If you like, you may want to create a new article which detail his past speeches or a new article on the Adilabad speech, like the article on Regensburg lecture. Once we have moved the detailed quotes to the new article, the speeches may be summarized here. Till then, please do not remove any relevant quotes as they are notable and relevant. Gmcssb (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear you are citing most of the unreliable sources, which do not refer the source of News, as well I had seen you are generalizing his speech with common Indians/Hindustan, Please stop that and work progressively which we all will support for. As i told earlier WP is not a case book, journal to keep record of all of his speeches. Please stop that also. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not address me as "Dear". Please read WP:RS - reliability of a source depends on what it is cited for. I am not generalizing his speech, but showing just how BBC News, TOI, and other sources have reported it. Most quotes are cited with inline citations. If you want, please attribute sources in the article. If other sources have reported the speech differently, you are free to add them. Gmcssb (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Dear" its my style to discuss, Any way not intrested to mention so..., As I told you earlier WP is not at all a collection of speeches and news updates, you are misusing the WP platform to express and update your personal views by misusing the sources. Please write with neutral view which will be encouraged from every one. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My personal views? All statements are sourced. If at all, it is as reported in the sources. Please give examples where I have given my personal view instead of accusing. Gmcssb (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging different situations and sourcing them to represent as a single instance proves biased views of the editors which is practiced extensively on the article. The example is the entire section it self. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claims are not correct. Firstly what do you mean by "a situation"? What are the "situations that are merged" in the article? Which editor are you referring to when you say "biased view"? Where is there "a view" in the "entire article"? We are reporting events and quotes as reported in secondary sources. If you have secondary sources to cite something in addition or secondary sources which say that the subject did not say this, you may cite them. But if I add content that is sourced, and you remove it without citing any sources but only because you perceive the article to be biased, that is not as per Wikipedia policies. If you comment out content sourced from BBC News and mainstream newspapers of India, that in my view is biasing the article. Gmcssb (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Which way you are reading or refering the citation: As you are advocating BBC it clearly says Police have charged him with threatening the security of India, but does not says Owaisi had spoke it out, Can you present any one reliable source which says Owaisi had said against India, You could not.... and I am talking about your biased view of presenting the speech. And dont cite from visfot, and may be you are reporting not me?? and your words of reporting proves that you are mi-understanding WP as a porta/forum or news-reporting platform. We are here to cite and build encyclopedia but not report events, as WP is not a newspaper to report the events. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

BBC says He said that Muslims could "teach the rest of the country a lesson". That is a clear comment against India. Gmcssb (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Added Punjab Kesari article as citation - a reliable source with quote. Punjab Kesari is an established newspaper in India. The article is by its CEO Vijay Kumar Chopra, a veteran journalist, Padma Shri awardee and former Chairman of the Press Trust of India. This is a reliable source for the quotes by any standard. Gmcssb (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deccan Herald's article today also quotes the anti-India statement. See here. Gmcssb (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removal of sourced content

In these two edits, several referenced quotes by the subject were removed, 10 references were removed, 5 additional references were orphaned, some unsourced content was added, and some content backed by a primary source (Youtube) was added. Removal of large amounts of sourced content is better discussed on the talk page first. Please refrain from adding Youtube citations - see WP:PS as well as Are IRC, MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources? The editor "claimed" the section is POV - if they still think so, they may point out which sentences in the section are POV, and reword/qualify/edit those sentences rather than deleting sourced content and adding unsourced content or content from primary sources. Quotes cited from secondary sources are not POV, so IMHO quotes should stay - they may be attributed though (e.g. Times of India or Punjab Kesari reported him as saying ....). 192.193.132.13 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, if I am not mistaken, you are User:Gmcssb in the logged out state. The entire text of the section you've now is written from only one angle: Owaisi spoke against Hindus, BJP, etc - all negative shade.

Why? I dont support him, nor did I remove the main controversial arguments supposed to be raised by him, but I only added the underlying info. So I dont see why you reverted to the earlier text unless you want only the information that Owaisi said something against Hindus, BJP, etc.

I also did not find any ref that Owaisi called Hindus impotent in the video. Besides, Saddam called Bush impotent on a number of times but do we have that in our article on him? Why's the impotent reference so desperately needed here only?

If Bhagyalakshmi Mandir is mentioned derogatorily by Owaisi, then he also voiced Charminar as original a mosque, a place where there's still a chilla/dargah, so these pictures should also be reflected in the BLP article.

IMHO What has a temple, dargah, chhilla, mosque got to do with BLP if it is just the case of a remark?

If quoting youtube is the source of contention, then sources in addition to or apart from youtube can also be quoted to support the edited text. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

You say The entire text of the section ... all negative shade - I am sorry but the text is supported from numerous reliable secondary sources like The Times of India, The Hindu, Deccan Herald, BBC, Punjab Kesari, Navbharat Times, Vijay Vani, Kannada Prabha, rediff, etc. If you have to add other things which he said, I have no problems but the text must be supported by reliable seconary references. You say nor did I remove the main controversial arguments supposed to be raised by him - that is a lie, the diff clearly proves you removed the most controversial statements which were supported by reliable secondary references. You also added unsourced text or text supported by citation from a Youtube video (an unreliable source) which is not acceptable as per Wikipedia policies. You say I also did not find any ref that Owaisi called Hindus impotent in the video - you are wrong again, please see the Hindi article in Punjab Kesari (an established newspaper with large circulation in Punjab and Haryana) by Vijay Kumar Chopra, a Padma Shri and former Chairman of Press Trust of India, which reads - ’’हिन्दुओं को ‘नपुंसक’ व भारतीय पुलिस को ‘नपुंसक सेना’ करार देते हुए उसने कहा,‘‘एक करोड़ नपुंसक मिल कर भी एक बच्चा पैदा नहीं कर सकते। ये मुसलमानों का सामना नहीं कर सकते। जब कभी मुसलमान हिन्दुओं पर हावी होने लगते हैं तो नपुंसक सेना (पुलिस) हस्तक्षेप कर देती है।’’. You talk about Saddam and Bush but a better comparison is with articles on Anjem Chaudhury and Pope Benedict XVI where comments which were perceived as controversial are produced in entirety. sources in addition to or apart from youtube can also be quoted to support the edited text - only for adding content, not for removing content as you did in your edits earlier. Gmcssb (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"The United States is, both thankfully and regrettably, different. Thankfully, it has no Janjaweed, no Milosevic, no Pol Pot. And America takes pride in its adherence to the rule of law – but regrettably, not so much as to obey it." (Gabor Rona, former legal advisor in the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross, "Legal Issues in the "War on Terror", German Law Journal Vol 9, No.5 p.711)- Regrettably Wikipedia goes by secondary sources with exaggerated facts - they are not lies - merely statements with additional spice and support communal fire in one country.

Before I implement your IP suggestion or logged in account suggestion, let me first discuss a key issue I raised earlier - if Bhagyalakshmi Mandir is mentioned derogatorily by Owaisi, then he also voiced Charminar as original a mosque, a place where there's still a chilla/dargah, so these pictures should also be reflected in the BLP article.

IMHO What has a picture of a temple, dargah, chhilla, mosque, church, whatever got to do with BLP if it is just the case of a remark? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Sorry to say but you need to read Wikipedia policies. Please start with WP:VNT, and pay special attention to "But I know the truth!". Wikipedia is not a place for you to develop your fringe theory of all secondary sources having exaggerated facts to support communal fire in a country". This discussion has nothing to do with US, German Law, War on Terror - please do not bring up irrelevant issues. The image helps identify one of the Hindu goddesses against whom the subject made allegedly derogatory comments - it was one of the free images relevant to this article. The subject, like Anjem Chaudhury, is known for controversial speeches and the image gives the reader an idea of this by showing one of the deities the subject has made controversial remarks against. If you want to add better, more relevant images, feel free to but they must satisfy WP:IUP. Gmcssb (talk)

Don't stray from the main point. There were two issues I highlighted:

1. Original resource (youtube video) does not endorse the view that Owaisi spoke against Hindus to the extent of calling them impotent. Yes, he said the same about the men in uniform.
2. There's no need for the temple here. The case is similar to The temple is not part of Charminar it is an illegal structure as per ASI so don't mess the page with unnessary articles please edit summary of Charminar article.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Youtube video is an unreliable source and is irrelevant to the discussion here - again request you to see WP:VNT and Are IRC, MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. A secondary source reported thus and is now cited fully (Punjab Kesari reported that ....) so there should be no problems. No issue with the temple image removed. :) Gmcssb (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to Marathi version of this article is only there to highlight the hate speech and nothing else.

अकबरउद्दीन ओवेसी हे हैदराबादचे ऑल इंडिया मजलिस इतेहाद - उल मुसलमीन (एमआयएम) पक्षाचे आमदार आहेत. यांनी २०१२ च्या डिसेंबर महिन्यात एका सार्वजनिक सभेत हिंदू-मुस्लिम धर्मियांमध्ये परस्परांविरोधात व्देषाचं विष कालवण्याचा प्रकार केला होता. कोर्टाने त्यांची भारतीय दंड विधान कलम १५३ अ (धार्मिक तेढ निर्माण करणे) , २९५ अ (मुद्दाम धार्मिक भावना दुखावणे) आणि १२१ (देशाविरुद्ध युद्ध पुकारण्याचा प्रयत्न) अंतर्गत ९ जानेवारी २०१३ रोजी न्यायालयीन कोठडीत रवानगी केली. [१]

Gmcssb, the Marathi version which you linked is only there to highlight the hate speech and nothing else. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Sorry but you do not seem to know how Wikipedia works. As can be seen from the history page, the Marathi article was written by User:Sachinvenga who is senior editor with reviewer and rollback rights on English Wiki. User:Sachinvenga linked the English version on the Marathi article. The Marathi version on English article was linked by a bot (a non-human user) in this change. It is very common on Wikipedia that bots cross-link articles across multiple language Wikipedias. As I had to revert your changes but keep the Marathi version link (done by bot), I made changes in two edits. Please work on improving Marathi article rather than making accusations which lead nowhere. Gmcssb (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Deliberate attempt to hurt Hindu sentiments

In the previous sections, I've cited the example of how Saddam called Bush impotent and the same is not reflected in the Wikipedia. Similarly, White House also called Osama Bin Laden impotent as can be seen here but this not reflected anywhere on Wikipedia. When quote these examples I am reminded of Anjem Chaudhary and his statements. But even he, despite "all good remarks of infidels", never used or was reported on Wikipedia as saying infidels are impotent. We either have a fascination for impotency or committed spirit of Hindu-bashing on the whole of Wikipedia or only on this article. Why? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

There is no such attempt. If Hindu sentiments are hurt, it is by the subject's comments and not by Wikipedia or newspapers mentioning the comment. The comment is one amongst several controversial things the subject said on Hindus, and I see no reason why only this single comment should be removed from the article and everything else (comments on Hindu gods and godesses, cremation, etc) retained. Gmcssb (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How does one explain non-inclusion of Saddam's or White House comments with the word impotent on the Wikipedia?

Please ask this question on the talk page of the Saddam Hussein or White House or Osama Bin Laden article. As long as something is relevant to article and supported by citations from secondary sources, it can be added on Wikipedia. Gmcssb (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013

Akberuddin Owaisi studied in Rao's Tutorials, Bank Street Hyderabad and appeared S.S.C. Exam in the year 1986. 94.96.127.109 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This needs a citation from a reliable secondary source. Gmcssb (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

www.niticentral.com is a biased source

www.niticentral.com seems to be more of a Hindutva mouth piece where the "secular" Indians aka Congress leaning people are bashed forever. Hence removing the citations and its content. If anyone has an objection discuss it over here. A source has to be neutral and authentic and not a mouth piece of Hindutva ideology.Air Warrior (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of words - "seems to be" (to whom?), "Hindutva mouthpiece", "bashed forever", "Hindutva ideology" - suggests it is your personal opinion. Please read WP:RS - reliability of a source depends on what it is cited for. Niti Central has Kanchan Gupta as managing editor. It may be right-leaning as The Hindu may be left-leaning, but the cited article is not opinions but facts. Most of the cited comments are reported by many other sources like India TV, Punjab Kesari, rediff, CNN IBN, et cetera. I have added supporting references to most cited statements from Niti Central. Anyway please do not remove cited content. If you want please raise this in the reliable source forum. Gmcssb (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't my personal opinion but a widely accepted fact and has been agreed by many and I can cite them if there is a need of doing that. I have gone through WP:RS and I would advise you to go through WP:SOURCES. "May be" -- This shows that you are not sure but I am quite sure that Niti Central is Pro-Hindutva site and as told earlier I can support it with evidences. Comparing Niti Central with The Hindu is simply absurd. The Hindu as reliable source cannot be challenged but Niti Central's reliability is questionable. I am not questioning other sources like India TV, Punjab Kesari, rediff, CNN IBN, et cetera but just Niti Central because it definitely doesn't have NPOV. Hence I would request you to remove content and references of that site.Air Warrior (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Widely accepted fact? That is a tall claim. Whether you or I are sure about a thing or not is not relevant here (a person may be sure, but about the wrong thing :)). WP:RS and WP:SOURCES both talk of reliability of a source in a particular context and for a particular statement. An editorial or op-ed in any newspaper may be baised (WP:POV) if it has strong views but report of an incident may be reliable in most news sources. Niti Central has Kanchan Gupta as the Editorial Director a known journalist having served at The Telegraph, The Stateman and The Pioneer - and calling it a "Hindutva mouthpiece" is like shouting "Nazi" in a debate - see Godwin's law. The Niti Central article is cited 15 times, and I have added added other sources which confirm the same statements for around 10 of the 15 citations. The fact that multiple sources report the statements itself speaks of the reliability of the cited article for the quoted material. Anyway if you have think the Niti Central article is not reliable for quoting in the remaining 5-6 instances, please raise it here. Meanwhile I will try to find other sources which report the same. Thank you for trying to improve the article. Gmcssb (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some more additions of citations. Now only three citations (out of 15) from Niti Central are without a second cited source. I will try to find other sources for these three. Meanwhile if you are unhappy, please raise the issue under Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Gmcssb (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not just making empty claims and as I told earlier I can support my argument with needed proof. (WP:POV) does say "in most news sources" but not all. So that doesn't mean a site like Niti central could be reliable as we are dealing with a contentious subject and would need NPOV. Kanchan Gupta is also known for his Pro-Hindutva ideology, so how does calling his editorial a "Hindutva mouthpiece" become offensive unless you want to say that Hindutva equals to Nazism. But since your able to find alternate sources for the statements mentioned in the article I don't think I would have any issues now.Air Warrior (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your possession of so-called proof does not matter at all. There is a Reliable sources noticeboard where issues of a reliable source are raised and settled. I am not saying "Hindutva mouthpiece" is offensive - all I am saying is using POV phrases like "Hindutva mouthpiece" for Pioneer or Niti Central, or "Congi mouhtpiece" for The Tehelka, or "The Chindu/Chennai-Based Chinese National Newspaper" for The Hindu do not help any argument, just like using words like "Nazi" does not. Many editors and news sources have ideological and political leanings like Pioneer/Niti Central are right leaning, Hindu/Frontline are left leaning, Tehelka is Congress leaning, and so on. That does not make a specific report in these sources unreliable. So let us come together to improve the article and not use strong words. Anyway alternate sources have been cited, so this should be settled. Gmcssb (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akbaruddin Owaisi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130912225411/http://partyanalyst.com/constituencyPageAction.action?constituencyId=43 to http://www.partyanalyst.com/constituencyPageAction.action?constituencyId=43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Akbaruddin Owaisi,AIMIM.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2018 (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:

• Akbarbaba.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Character assasination

The page clearly assassinates Akbaruddin's Character and portrays a totally one sided biased image of his which is far from reality. The matters mentioned in the page are subjudice and therefore calls for an immediate review. Without the content being removed immediately, it would simply call for legal action promoting hatred against a member of the minority community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedhussaini786 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Those sections are properly sourced, and the subject is quite notable for those events. If you want you can expand (with reliable sources) the section on his 'Political career'. Also do not make legal threats, that will get you blocked. Perhaps you have seen this warning message by now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Just looking at this page there seems to be a lot of wp:citation overkill which makes the article appear cluttered.

The policy says; "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations."

I think that's pertinent here and the controversial statements should have two or three citations but in some cases there are strings of up to eight citations which diminishes the reading experience and makes it a lot harder to navigate in markup mode.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Privacy of names

WP:BLPNAME says "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

Now look at this sentence,

"he has a daughter, Kaneez Fatima Owaisi and a son, Nooruddin Owaisi. His daughter, Kaneez Fatima Owaisi is studying law at City, University of London."

and look at the sources used to support it. This archived link just mentions first names and doesn't seem to be relevant to giving readers a complete understanding of the subject. This link is off-topic. This one is broken. This one seems to be a YouTube video posted on a blog doesn't mention any names and has verification issues due to the language barrier. And finally, we have a link to an essay by his daughter which might be a good source if you're writing about religious symbols and human rights but seems a bit off-topic in this context. If no one objects, I'm going to remove the names of his son and daughter per WP:BLPNAME.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 18:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Akbaruddin Owaisi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of section

I want to change the name of the section Controversial speeches to Hate speeches. I feel this captures the nature of the speech better than the term controversial. Thoughts? Pug of the day (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change description from Indian politician to Indian populist politician

I want to change Akbaruddin Owaisi (born 14 June 1970) is an Indian politician to Akbaruddin Owaisi (born 14 June 1970) is a populist Indian politician. I feel this acurately reflects the article's content with more clarity. Thoughts? Pug of the day (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Akbar Owaisi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)