Talk:2019 Jamia Millia Islamia attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

A suggestion

I am not a Seahorse, DiplomatTesterMan..I am not sure but is there any possibilities of adding the two firing incidents on the Jamia protesters or Jamia protest took place. If agreed before adding please discuss what should be the section so that it should not look mis-match between the main incident and the firing. Dey subrata (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, within the "Aftermath" heading, a sub-heading can be placed - "Further violence" as the "Protests" sub-heading. DTM (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan That would be better, but I oppose your suggestion of moving the page, Police brutality has been condemned by UN and other Human rights organisation and all reliable website calls it a attck. I think you withdraw the move following the procedure. I am not sure check it. Dey subrata (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This line of reporting needs to be added, to the lead as well

TOI - Delhi Police release photos of 70 people involved in anti-CAA protests near Jamia (29 Jan 2020) DTM (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Separate page about Jamia Millia protests

Since, 15 December incident is a specific event that occured in the premises of Jamia Millia Islamia, I suggest that it should be limited to the incident only, and investigations thereof. A separate page should be made about the ongoing protests outside Jamia Millia Islamia, Gate No. 7. Otherwise, this page be made a sub-part of the new page, suggested to be Jamia Millia protests. It suits better as the 15 December incident is a part and parcel of Jamia protests. Awaiting further discussion. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, your proposal looks good. But remember this article must have a background section that talks about the protests by students. Once that is added. Do you think we have enough content with major events that a separate page is merited. FYI, I have extensively contributed on CAA Protests. DBigXrayᗙ 10:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I think that we have enough content to make a separate page named Jamia Millia protests, I've created one on Urdu Wikipedia. And as far as 15 December incident is concerned, though it can't be regarded as the background of Jamia Millia protests, but it is a part and parcel of Jamia Millia protests. The Jamia Millia protests started on 11 December 2019 in my presence. We have enough on 15 December incident as well as the Jamia Millia protests. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I am not saying that 15 December is regarded as the background of Jamia protest. I am saying that we already have this existing article on "Jamia attack". This article needs to give a complete picture of the events that led to the attacks. So It needs to have sections that talk about the protests that had happened before the attack and after the attack. Whether we create a seperate article on Jamia protest does not affect this point that this attack article needs to have a complete summary of the protest article. If you say you have enough content on 15 December, then I would suggest you to start adding them in this article first. (in Background and Aftermath sections) Once it has expanded a lot, it can be WP:CFORKed to a new article by you. I am just trying to suggest the best and the safest path to do that. Please understand that creating too many seperate articles on essentially the same main topic (CAA Protest) may lead to someone starting a merge discussion and deleting them. I am saying this from my experience. DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I get it. Cheers Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus has been found in this discussion for a move — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2019 Jamia Milia Islamia attack → 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia violence – The prior usage of the word "attack" in the title is too heavy and misleading. The police entered the campus during a confrontation with protesters that started outside the campus. Violence followed. That the violence was committed by the police is clearly mentioned in the article and not disputed. Violence would be a better word. DTM (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The definition of "attack" is "take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force"; the definition of "violence" is "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". The former definition is much more apt for this instance. The fact that police attacked a library (where no protesters were present) and washrooms shows that this was not a "confrontation", as you say, but instead an attack on the university.--I am not a Seahorse (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  thats your opinion. I think the protestors thought (past participle of think) that libraries and washrooms would be a good place to hide, and police will not think to look into there. But their thinking was not useful. I think our wikipedia editing should not be driven by our thinking only. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose : Not a violence but a brutal attack, all reliable sources calls it an attack and also has been condemned by various countries in the world and also by UN and Human Rights Organisations. Dey subrata (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata. Violence can signify much more force and brutality than attack. I don't think that should be the means of comparison. What about an attack being pre-planned as compared to violence being pre-planned... doesn't help. DTM (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No violence consists a lot of forms, attack is one of them, and it makes more specific. Dey subrata (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• support per nomination. It is already explained in the lead of article. The police did not "attack" the students, police took action against the protestors; which took a violent turn. Lots of things get condemned by various countries in the world and also by UN and Human Rights Organisations, not all of them are attacks. Regarding what reliable sources are saying, see wp:sensational. Indian media spice-up anything, and everything. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The reliable sources cited in the article are noting it was a violence and not really an attack as the name of the article seems to say, as seen in here and here. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a violence rather an intended attack The wire Could be called violence if using physical clashes from both side be observed, but here its an attack when police were aggressively beaten up people so much so, vandalised and beaten up students inside library and toilet who are defendless and unarmed, firing bullets and tear gas. It was a brutal attack when excessive force being used by an group on defendless people. Here The Times of India, NDTV, The National Herald, The Business Standard. Court has also asked ATR on "attack". The India Today International media The Gaurdian, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post.

• Support: There was no "attack" or "military action". In the evening, without any police action, a mob from inside University did stone pelting at the police. It was recorded by many TV channels, here is one report India TV(from time 24:13). From outside campus, at first police did asked politely over loud speaker to stop stone pelting New Indian Express, Hindustan Times. When it did not stop, police went inside campus, the mob which was pelting stones went further into buildings in University. VC of the University said to the press that fake ID cards were confiscated. Inside campus, police has fired only tear gas and not bullets. Stone pelting in the past has taken lives in other parts of country The Hindu. Reports of bullet injuries are not from campus but from other places. On the same afternoon, protest march from Jamia which turned violent lead to stone pelting and buses were burnt. Doctors mentioned foreign objects(not bullets) in report while discharging those injured and sent those objects to forensic lab NDTV. This incident is not from campus.XGammaRay (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Only military action is not defined as "attack". Secondly you are talking about initial report, which was faulty and POV commentary. Jamia University submitted a fresh report to the HRD Ministry after varsity authority investigated into the matter, requesting high level judicial inquiry into the entry of police on the university 1. The report said "lobbed tear gas inside the university reading room and then forcefully entered inside and beat all the students studying inside the library brutally". It also said, "cops continued beating the students while they were taking them out." Described Delhi Police's action as "unprovoked targeting of innocent students." "Use of force and infliction of brutal and grievous physical injuries on the students who were peacefully studying inside the reading room of the library." "Vandalising and damaging the properties of the library/university and also damaging two-wheelers parked in the vicinity of the library." 2 Videos 3, 4 also suggest the same. Violence always occur in several parts of country, but not such thing, attacking universities like this by the authority itself. Brutal force on innocent and unarmed students inside a library who were reading without taking permission to enter into campus along with damaging property is not called violence, is called "attack", period. Dey subrata (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• oppose this was an attack by the police on the students. Reliable media also uses "Jamia crackdown" as the title. SInce a foral move thread has been started for now, I would suggest to retain the word attack and then move it to "Jamia attack" similar to the discussion at "talk:JNU attackDBigXrayᗙ 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, there are enough sources which also use the word violence; India Today for one uses it in multiple reports.ex 1 , ex 2. Also this was very different from what happened in JNU and shouldn't be a comparison. DTM (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sure there are sources, but you are sharing 2 articles by a media house that is known to generally tow the government line. Dey and others have shared multiple links from international media houses all of which use attack, considering the prevalence I would suggest followign what the majority of the RS are using, and that is "attack". DBigXrayᗙ 12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, ok, take The Hindu then.... 1, 2, The Indian Express 3.... is quantity of source really the best way to figure this out? I don't think so, not for this case. DTM (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Speaking as an objective viewer, violence seems to be a better title that attack, as "attack" implies that the Delhi police/government from the beginning wanted to harm the school. --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Attack need not to be pre-planned, can be instantaneous. Secondly, it does not imply that from attack and that too be a point of view, we don't know what Govt. was thinking. Dey subrata (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Maryam.Rosie, That is exactly the government tried to do in their efforts to crush the anti CAA protests, by attacking the muslim universities and to polarize. DBigXrayᗙ 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I have noticed that newly registered users adding comments, the latest case of user Maryam.Rosie is very interesting, the user's first contribution in wiki is the support comment here. Well no problem, but let me make something clear, if anyone thinks that you will bring newly registered users after making accounts and put your comment here to vote, then it does not work like that, consensus does not work like that, per WP:CONS consensus does not mean unanimity, neither result of a vote rather by incorporate legitimate concerns, respecting Wiki's policies and guidelines. Dey subrata (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support The peaceful anti-CAA protests by Jamia Milia Islamia students took a violent turn which involved stone pelting, damaging pubic properties, arson, etc. It has also been confirmed by the college authorities that fake ID cards were confiscated, who were may be outsiders pretending to be college students but we don't know and what they were up to. Due to such activities police had to take action against these people which had run inside the campus to take shelter. So things were more like a fallout of aforementioned events rather than a purported attack on students by the police. "Violence" and "Attack" are two different words with related meanings but for the purpose of this page "violence" word sounds more appropriate according to the events. SamanyaGyan (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

SamanyaGyan, Due to such activities police had to take action against these people which had run inside the campus to take shelter. What a police action should be according to you ?? That action was not "police action", by law police cannot enter into a college without permission and cannot beat students inside library, destroying properties of the library and ransack the place and destroying CCTVs with a intension to destroy evidence, so simply that was not a Police action but a pre-planned brutal attack. Secondly you said, more like a fallout of aforementioned events rather than a purported attack so what does paramilitary and police personnel entering inside library and beating up students indiscriminately and vandalising and ransack chairs, table and destroying CCTVs shows?, their intentions and motives, and you've used word "fallout" well that it self means adverse result, ain't it? And for your last line you did not give any reason and violence involves both side, but I don't see any involvement of the students inside the library, videos even showing how students hiding and pleading with the police, but everything in vain. Thats a preplanned attack as police exactly know where they are going, first destroyed CCTVs, then beating students, vandalised and ransacked reading rooms, property damage, not even listening to pleading students, atlast again destroying CCTVs with intentions to destroy evidence of what they are doing. The whole thing you've written seems you should go through WP:NPOV. Dey subrata (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata I supported that the page should be moved and gave reasons why the page should be moved. I have read WP:NPOV multiple times and wrote keeping it in mind.

Determining what a police action should be is not my job neither of any Wikipedia user. Let's leave that task to the democratically elected lawmakers of the country. However no citizen of India is allowed to take law in their hand nor do any kind of violence. I previously mentioned that the students or outsiders involved in the violence at the protests have taken shelter inside the college, I thought that there are enough sources mentioned above but still here are few more which says that the students used library as a "safe haven" and they were indulged in stone pelting.. And if students resorts to violence then police have that authority to take action against them. I have nowhere supported the violence by either the students or the police. And you have presented no source for your claim that police exactly know where they are going. If you don't see any involvement of the students inside the library or see the police action as a preplanned attack then it's you personal opinion and the way you are trying to force your opinion that students were innocent and the attacks by police were brutality please go through WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBJECTIVE SamanyaGyan (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

SamanyaGyan No one asking whose job it is, you said police action, so you should define it, because as per Police Act 1 police have no right to enter into library and beat students, period. Your basic understanding of wikipedia policies seems poor, we have all right to determine when there are facts for determination. Secondly, no one saying here, it is right to take law on hand, but that does not mean police will enter into library and vandalise and brutalise, they have all right to arrest if they had evidence. Give proof of pelters using library as safe haven, not any of your citation could give any proof of those people entering are stone peters and the balcony video does not give any evidence if they were throwing stones, if stones where and on what/whom. Again violation of WP:NPOV. if students resorts to violence then police have that authority to take action against them where is it written that they have right to enter into campus and vandalise and brutalise, no police does not have that authority. Another NPOV violation. Lastly, I need not to address everyone here, who are commenting, with sources as I have already added citations above in the discussion and also in the article, the onus is onto you to go through not me to address every single person (again asking you to go through the video links in the article), and there is nothing WP:IMPARTIAL about anything I have written, because there is not a single proof of the students whom police beaten inside the library were involved in stone pelting on police, if you have then talk and go through the policies again as you are clearly WP:INCOMPETENT to understand NPOV and IMPARTIAL. Dey subrata (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata I said "police had to take action" to imply that police had to take an action to stop the violence but not to determine what police action should be! I agree that police have no right to enter into library and beat students but citizens have to abide by the fundamental duties of citizens. One of such duties says "to safeguard public property and to abjure violence". I have given reference from proper sources for the stone pelters using library as a safe haven and the presence of those students seen pelting stones in the library. A reference marks students who were seen pelting stones and present in the library. If you wish to deny references which doesn't suits your purpose then it's your personal choice. Even after proofs you say there is not a single proof then it's your personal opinion.

Finally I want to say that there is a discussion going on on moving the page. I supported this move and neutrally gave my reason keeping WP:NPOV in mind. Everyone have given their opinion either supporting or opposing the move with sources. Please have some tolerance to hear other side too. And I'm not here to argue with you someone. SamanyaGyan (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats why said, you have limited knowledge on wikipedia policies, when you comment in a page move discussion, other user can counter your comments if they find your comment is illogical and NPOV, page move are done by taking into conisderation of concerns and following wiki guidelines not by support or oppose vote. I find your comment full of POV. So I have countered, and still you are making your opinion of "safe haven" and all that. Just because a news channel said that, it does not becoem one. Neither Times Now video or India Today video establishes, 1. Stone pelters (that can be seen in videos) entering into library, precisely in the PG or MA-Mphill section where police brutalise students (so called "police taken action"/police action) 2. The balcony video does not show if they are pelting and if pelting on whom and where, 3.The students who are pelting from Jamia gates, are they present inside library or any identification. So calling "safe haven" is a big claim and I don't see any of your reference prove that. "to safeguard public property and to abjure violence" Why are you bringing this thing, saying that does not prove anything of your opinions, I made it clear already "no one" should take law in hand, neither students not even police, period. Finally, this is a discussion, and if you don't want to discuss its your choice, but if you write anything wrong or your self made opinion, it will be taken seriously. Because bogus logic should be point out for the administrators who will take final call on the page move. Dey subrata (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: You wrote "by law police cannot enter into a college without permission". Which law? Whose permission? Really? In all cases? Even when there is a terrorist attack? DTM (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan Are we talking about terrorist attack, don't bring hypothetical situation here, you are talking about extra-ordinary situation, just like during "emergency", "fundamental rights" are ceased to exist, but that does not mean people of the country can't exercise their rights in normal situation because a govt don't want. Please don't derail conversation, are you labelling the situation as terrorism act?? I was not expecting this coming from your side. I was just pointing out the POV concerns of the user's comment. Let stick to topic not derail somewhere else. And for your question, law- Police Act, permission- University administration, in all cases except those situation metioned above, as this is an academic institute. Dey subrata (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Police Act? Which act? Which section? Which line? I didn't see any of this in the news? I just heard political statements which you are repeating as law. Give solid cited facts and laws. DTM (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You must read 1861 Police Act and CrPC of India, I have given you solid reference, I am not here to educate you line by line, its huge law, go through and find out what police can and cannot, Police have right to arrest but not to beat students inside a library and vandalise. Are you kidding me, that you are thinking law will allow police to beat student in library. I am not repeating anyone's statement. My statement is "Police has no right to enter into library to beat students and vandalise" Its against law. And secondly, those were not my words, its the same Delhi Police's statement during JNU incident that they waited for permission from University to enter into campus. So same police cannot have different morals and standard. Dey subrata (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And leave aside Police Act and CrPC, what police did was direct violation of Constitution (fundamental rights), library is the space where students and any academic excercise the right to free thoughts and expression. Whatever written in CrPC or Police Act is null and void, as fundamental rights is supreme. Dey subrata (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• ALT MOVE SUGGESTION - To 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia police brutality - @Dey subrata: @SamanyaGyan: DTM (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion was previously made by DBigXray for consistency, as 2019 Jamia attack, the above suggestion seems ok if written as 2019 Jamia police brutality, DBX and Kautilya3, your suggestions??? Dey subrata (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DiplomatTesterMan, Dey subrata, Brutality is a notch higher in POV against the police. while Violence is whitewashing. I would oppose both in favour of continuing with the "Jamia attack" title. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the "feelings" that these words evoke are being weighed against each other. "Police brutality" feels too much, xyz feels wrong, abc feels correct. But I guess that is all we have to go by. As for Police brutality being a notch higher, the article has examples that match the videos that circulated of Jamia. Violence is whitewashing.... domestic violence can be brutal, fatal. All these words, brutality, violence, attack are relative with each being able to be less or more than the other. DTM (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protesters or rioters with stones entering library

In this edit, "protesters with stones" was edited to just "protesters" while CCTV footage in the referred link clearly shows rioters with stones in the hand entering library. "Stones" in the sentence is very much relevant as stone pelting happened in the area and they are pretty big enough to cause significant damage. Also the same person is seen in another CCTV footage from corridor of first floor where they pelt stones towards police on ground below. Here is a report which highlights that person IndiaToday. This is neither an isolated person nor an isolated event. Multiple such stone pelting instances from different locations of the University has been captured in several videos from different angles.

1. Stone pelting from Jamia Islamia gate [1] and another report just before Police entered campus IndiaTV (from time 24:13)
2. Stone pelters moving inside campus at 5:10PM, from CCTV inside campus TimesNow
3. Mob with stones in corridor and pelting at Police from first floor and then entering library or reading room, blocking doors at 6:05PM.India Today, AajTak
4. Mob with masked people entering library. TimesNow

XGammaRay (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

XGammaRay What is your point ??? 1 & 2-Stone pelting already added. 3-4 from corridor throwing at whom and where, not on footage, masked only few-possibilities- tear gas, even police were masked and entering into library, so what is your point, and blocking door becasue of the consequences-police breaking doors, beating, and even vandalised and destroyed CCTV. I did not get your point, what is the issue as everything is added. Dey subrata (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is added. "Protesting mob or rioters with stones entering library from outside" before blocking its doors is missing and few more points which I will list later. First, why the word "stones" in the sentence "protesters with stones" was removed through this edit from the India Today video link when multiple CCTV footage in #3 shows same person carrying stone inside library from different angles. Regarding #3-corridor CCTV footage, at whom stone pelters attempted or did pelt stones by hanging from the gallery of first floor?, IndiaToday reporter mentions clearly in this report(time 1:55) that Police were standing below that gallery at that time and mob with stones attempted to pelt at Police. The same stone pelting mob moving into library with stones in hand clearly identified in 3. For whatsover reason this mob with stones entering reading rooms is clipped-off from the video link shared by you, giving just half of the information. Mentioning "Students studying inside reading rooms" is totally different than "protesters and stone pelters from outside taking refuge inside library and blocking its doors". Without 3-4 it appears Police lathi charged students studying inside library but 3-4 clearly shows stone pelting mob and other protesters taking refugee inside library and reading rooms before lathi charge. 4th video shows big mob of protesters entering library from outside. Thats why 3-4 needs to be considered to arrive at WP:NPOV.XGammaRay (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

XGammaRay Protesters with stones removed because its POV, only one person can be seen carrying a stone. I rather see frightened students with bags entering to save themselves and than blocking door. Secondly, even if any protesters entered inside the library after stone pelting, police absolute have no authority to execute such brutality. So be clear on that. And from the balcony video, I don't see anyone throwing, they surely keeping stones but that does not make any sense of pelter until and unless any video evidence of those people throwing stones. Now coming again to police role, they were surely not any protesters, here another video by Quint shows that the student are gathering gossiping and police and para millitary entered, beaten brutaly and again destroyed CCTV. There is video to justify your view that "stone pelting mob taking refuge". Everything is considered, we cannot write on perception, what can be seen in vidoe we can write that only, not what I think or you think. Dey subrata (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The narrative of the India Today video is found out to be wrong and fake, Alt news fact check, the object the student holding was a wallet not stone.Dey subrata (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done will be NPOV violation and fake narratives by main stream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey subrata (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)